If news reports are to be relied upon, the Government is about to publish its long-awaited definition of 'Islamophobia' - or, rather, 'anti-Muslim hostility'.
The Government seems to think this new, watered-down definition should be welcomed by free speech campaigners like me because it won't have a chilling effect on free speech, but that's naive. If it's rolled out across public bodies, which is the plan, people who work in those organisations will still be inhibited about criticising Islam or drawing attention to bad things Muslims have done for fear of being accused of whipping up anti-Muslim hostility.
For instance, would a registered nurse dare to link Islamic radicalism and the recent terrorist attack on Jews in Australia if the Nursing and Midwifery Council had officially taken up the new definition?
I know from the Free Speech Union's case files that the regulator has investigated several nurses for social media posts fulminating against illegal immigration. They won't need much of an excuse to come after people for comments about Islamist terrorism.
If the new definition doesn't make people think twice before criticising Muslims, what's the point of it? It's designed to fetter free speech - that's a feature, not a bug.
I worry that, among other things, it will make councillors and local government employees wary of drawing attention to Muslim grooming gangs operating in their areas, not to mention female genital mutilation and forced marriages.
That was one of the consequences of the Labour Party adopting the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims' definition of Islamophobia in 2019. It said that anyone using the phrases “Muslim grooming gangs” and “Asian grooming gangs” was an “Islamophobe”.
According to Baroness Casey’s 2025 report on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse, it was “fear of appearing racist” that made some people reluctant to speak out about the rape gangs.
Grooming gangs will find plenty to love in Labour's watered-down definition of 'Islamophobia' - Toby Young
|Getty Images
Defenders of the new definition might reluctantly accept that it will have a chilling effect, but argue that's a price worth paying to reduce hostility towards Muslims. But will it?
I suspect that if the Government gives this definition the seal of approval and rolls it out across the public sector, it will contribute to the perception that Muslims enjoy a 'protected' status not granted to followers of other religions. In other words, it will cause more resentment of Muslims, not reduce it.
Recent polling by JL Partners found that only 20 per cent of the public are in favour of an official definition, with 31 per cent thinking it is a wholly or somewhat “bad” thing.
“Whether framed as anti-Muslim hatred or Islamophobia, semantics are not going to save the prospect of a new definition from sinking badly with the British public,” said pollster James Johnson.
Apart from everything else, Muslims don't need any additional protections. It's already a criminal offence to stir up religious hatred - it has been since 1986 - and the Equality Act makes it unlawful for employers or service providers to discriminate against anyone on the basis of their religion or belief.
I hope the Government abandons this misbegotten project. If it wants to promote community cohesion, it should encourage us to treat everyone the same, not force us to walk on eggshells when talking about people of one particular faith.
Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter