So they went and did it. After much wrangling and in the face of a good deal of resistance, the Government has unveiled an official definition of “anti-Muslim hostility”.
The definition – which runs to three paragraphs and has been introduced as part of a broader social cohesion plan – is designed to arrest what ministers say is a rising tide of hatred towards Muslims.
The text lays out what type of actions or behaviour will be deemed to cross the line. This can be, for example, “prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims, or people perceived to be Muslim, including because of their ethnic or racial backgrounds or their appearance, and treating them as a collective group defined by fixed and negative characteristics, with the intention of encouraging hatred against them…”
Where to begin with that word salad?
Critics have raised the alarm over the implications for free speech, arguing that there is potential for the definition to stifle legitimate scrutiny of both the religion of Islam itself and some of its more controversial customs and practices.
They also point to the fact that words such as “prejudicial” and “negative”, as they appear in the above passage, are highly subjective, meaning that application of the definition may be wildly inconsistent.
These concerns are well-founded. There are a few good reasons to support the introduction of this definition and plenty to oppose it.
It has all the makings of a back-door blasphemy law and will persuade people that it is safer to just button their lip rather than express their genuinely-held beliefs in any discussion about Islam or Muslims.
Ministers have sought to allay fears by stressing that the definition is non-statutory and will serve merely as a “guidance tool” for organisations across the public and private sectors.
But hold on. We know only too well – don’t we? – how public bodies and corporations have in recent years been utterly captured by woke ideology, spewing out DEI-inspired propaganda at every opportunity and constantly impressing on everyone the need to be “tolerant” and “inclusive”.
We also know that many of the people who run these institutions subscribe to the sort of metropolitan liberal worldview that sees any criticism of multiculturalism as the ultimate sin.
In which case, they will most likely treat the “guidance tool” with as much reverence as they would if it had been passed into law – and will doubtless apply it in the most uncompromising manner, with any criticism of Islam or its followers being regarded as an unjustified assault on a vulnerable minority.
Labour only went and did it. This has all the makings of a backdoor blasphemy law - Paul Embery | Getty Images
This will mean, in turn, that anyone they deem to have breached the new code is liable to face the type of sanction that has become all too commonplace in our society – if not prosecution, then very possibly cancellation, dismissal from employment, banishment from polite society, and suchlike.
The Government also argues that the definition should be read alongside some accompanying text which stresses the need to safeguard free speech. But this text seems to constitute little more than an afterthought – and it is questionable that anyone will pay as much attention to the small print as they will the definition itself.
None of this is to argue, by the way, that individual Muslims should be considered fair game for persecution. Neither is it to deny the right of Muslims to follow the religion of their choice. On the contrary, anyone who truly believes in liberty should defend freedom of religion with every fibre.
But, like all faith groups, Muslims already enjoy protections in law, such as against religiously aggravated crimes and discrimination by employers and service providers.
So why this unnecessary bolt-on? It surely couldn’t be that the Government is driven by a desire to shore up an increasingly flaky Muslim vote. Could it?
Whatever the motivation, the introduction of the definition is a regressive measure that, far from improving social cohesion, is likely to undermine it by creating a perception that Muslims have been afforded preferential treatment.
The law is there to shield individuals from harassment and discrimination. And we are – or should be – all equal under that law. Beyond that, there is no need whatsoever for speech and behaviour codes providing special protections to groups of religionists.
And it isn’t only militant secularists who take that view. The Equality and Human Rights Commission warned last year that a new definition might have a “chilling effect” on free speech, while the Government’s own counter-terrorism tsar, Jonathan Hall KC, expressed concern over the ambiguity of the definition.
“The worry,” says Hall, “will be with loose language, people will feel inhibited about talking about things that they do think are genuinely important today”. He goes on to ask, “How far are people going to be allowed to push the definition effectively in their own political interests?”
We have already seen with the grooming gang scandal what can happen when people in authority shy away from challenging ethnic and religious minorities through a fear of inflaming community tensions.
We have also seen, not least during the recent Gorton and Denton by-election, how undue indulgence of minorities can lead to community division and fragmentation.
The last thing Britain needs right now is measures from the Government which risk perpetuating the culture of silence and intensifying the growing disharmony in our land.
Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter
More From GB News