Authors attack new Islamophobia definition

Freedom of speech and ability to expose extremism curtailed by ‘sweeping’ new interpretation, say writers

PEOPLE’S ability to criticise the “hateful ideology of theocratic Islam” would be restricted by a new definition of Islamophobia, say two of Britain’s leading atheists. Richard Dawkins and Peter Tatchell and other authors, including a former member of the extremist group Hizb ut-tahrir, say in a new book of essays that attempts to define Islamophobia risk curtailing freedom of speech and work to expose extremism.

Mr Tatchell said he would have fallen foul of the new definition, which has been proposed by the All-party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims and backed by the Labour Party, when he attacked Hizb ut-tahrir over its anti-gay, anti-women comments.

“I was denounced as Islamophobic. But I was merely confronting the hateful ideology of theocratic Islamism, not Muslim people, the vast majority of whom do not subscribe to such murderous injunctions,” he said.

“My protest in 1994 could fall within the sweeping definition of Islamophobia proposed by the APPG since it talks about Muslimness.

“No one should be discriminated against because of who they are, yet the term Islamophobia downgrades protecting Muslim people and mistakenly puts the focus on protecting ideas. This has to be challenged. We are, it seems drifting towards a de facto threat to free speech and liberal values.”

Prof Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, said: “Islamophobia is an otiose

‘This is a “vague catch-all term” that poses a “danger to free speech and legitimate discussion” ’

word which doesn’t deserve definition. Hatred of Muslims is unequivocally reprehensible, as is hatred of any group of people such as gay people or members of a race. Hatred of Islam, on the other hand, is easily justified, as is hatred of any other religion or obnoxious ideology.”

Ed Husain, who writes on extremist groups after being a teenage member of Hizb ut-tahrir, said: “One impact of adopting any definition of ‘Islamophobia’ is that we encourage victimhood rather than responsibility. We burn the bridges of liberty and freedom of expression on which millions of Muslims travelled to the West.”

Lord Singh of Wimbledon, the crossbench peer and regular presenter of Thought for the Day on BBC Radio 4, described Islamophobia as a “vague catch-all term” that poses a “danger to free speech and legitimate discussion”:

Lord Singh added: “Hatred arises out of ignorance in which small differences can assume frightening and threatening proportions. It can only be removed through greater emphasis on religious and cultural literacy.”

The APPG definition is: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”