Labour has been accused of attempting to persuade the equality watchdog to adopt a controversial definition of Islamophobia that it had declined to endorse, raising fresh questions over the Government’s handling of free speech and religious discrimination.
A Freedom of Information request has revealed that the Equality and Human Rights Commission does not intend to adopt the Government’s new definition of anti-Muslim hostility, despite the policy being designed to combat rising Islamophobia.
The revelation has fuelled criticism from senior figures at the watchdog and free-speech campaigners, who argue that the definition risks blurring the distinction between hostility towards Muslims and criticism of religion or culture.
The Government has denied attempting to lobby the EHRC.
The dispute centres on a revised definition introduced earlier this year, which includes “discrimination on the basis of being Muslim or perceived to be Muslim”, alongside negative characterisations of Muslims as a collective group where there is an intention to incite hatred.
The EHRC confirmed that the question of whether it would adopt the definition arose during an “informal discussion with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government”.
The revelation has prompted Baroness Falkner of Margravine, who led the EHRC from 2020 until November last year, to accuse ministers of pursuing the policy through improper channels.
“The reports that the government has secretly tried to get the EHRC -– the regulator for freedom of expression — to sign up to its entirely unworkable ‘definition’ shows how ideological they are,” she told The Times.
“They have been warned again and again that this definition will restrict speech and legitimate criticism of a religion or culture.
“They didn’t consult EHRC, which has responsibility for protecting our hard won freedoms and which repeatedly warned them of the implications of this definition.
“If they really want to restrict our freedom of expression, they should come up with a proper legal definition and see if they can get that through parliament, instead of adopting underhand tactics, presumably in pursuit of a Muslim vote which they have, for far too long, taken for granted.”
The controversy is complicated by the Government’s decision not to formally invite the EHRC to contribute to the call for evidence conducted by an MHCLG working group responsible for developing the definition last year.
Instead, selected organisations were invited to submit evidence, although ministers have refused to disclose which groups were approached.
MHCLG has subsequently confirmed that it deleted the submissions.
The EHRC had previously warned that the Government’s approach risked entering unlawful territory because it had bypassed the commission’s statutory role in advising on religious discrimination.
Lord Young of Acton, director of the Free Speech Union, said the episode appeared to form part of a wider political strategy.
“Reading between the lines, it looks as though the government’s adoption of a definition of anti-Muslim hostility was just the latest move in Labour’s long-standing effort to get the EHRC to investigate the Conservative Party for ‘Islamophobia’.
“So nothing to do with protecting Muslims and all about political point-scoring.”
The Government rejected that interpretation.
A spokesman for MHCLG said it was “completely misleading”.
“The definition is not mandatory and there was no attempt to lobby the EHRC to adopt it,” he said.
“It is for individual organisations to decide whether and how the definition may be useful in their particular context to help tackle rising anti-Muslim hostility.”
The EHRC also stressed its independence while confirming that discussions had taken place.
“This topic raised complex issues relevant to equality and human rights, and as the independent regulator we provided advice to the Chair of the Working Group and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government,” a spokesman said.
“When the UK government launched its non-statutory definition of anti-Muslim hostility it encouraged adoption across the public, private and third sectors. The question of whether the EHRC would adopt the definition was raised during an informal discussion with the department.
“We welcome the government’s commitment to keep the definition under regular review and have offered our support in the development of any detailed, sector-specific guidance”.
The dispute highlights the difficult line ministers are attempting to navigate between tackling anti-Muslim hostility and protecting legitimate political and religious debate.
The definition is non-statutory and does not legally bind organisations. But the Government’s decision to encourage its adoption across public and private institutions has ensured that questions about its scope have become a wider free-speech issue.
For the EHRC, the episode also raises a question about the boundary between providing independent advice to ministers and adopting a Government-backed framework itself.
The commission has chosen not to cross that line. The Government insists it never sought to force it to do so.
Leave a Comment