Labour’s new Islamophobia definition risks 'reviving non-crime hate incidents' as Keir Starmer told to pull ANOTHER U-turn

Baroness Falkner, chair until last month of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) welcomed the report, adding the proposed definition is "dangerous and divisive" and “even worse than anticipated."

She said "it will become a free speech and thought control problem is immediately evident. If there is one policy that cries out for another Government U-turn, it is this."

The report, False Compromise, by Sir John Jenkins and Andrew Gilligan, says the dictionary definition of "hostility" includes "not agreeing" with something or being "opposed" to it.

In the report, the group suggested that under the definition it would theoretically be accurate to describe the National Secular Society as hostile to the growth of Muslim (and other religious) schools.

It read: "No hatred is present here, merely opposition. But if the idea that 'hostility' is prohibited takes hold, these and many other legitimate points of view risk being caught."

In addition to this, the report suggested police will stop recording "non-crime hate incidents," an official definition of "anti-Muslim hostility" risks, in effect, giving this enormously controversial practice a new lease of life.

Sir John and Mr Gilligan say: "It is easy to see how a definition could become 'non-crime hate incidents Mark Two,' at least for non-crimes involving Muslims, used to pressure police forces, local authorities, employers or other bodies to record or sanction incidents of 'anti-Muslim hostility."

The proposed text of the definition was leaked to the BBC last month.

One member of the working group which drew it up, Baroness Gohir, said it would “resolve"opponents’ concerns.

In fact, the report finds that like "Islamophobia" the term "hostility" has often been used by activists, including Baroness Gohir herself, to attack fair and legitimate scrutiny of Muslims.

The authors also contend that the concept is being used to push political goals indirectly, such as weakening counter-terrorism and immigration policies.

They said: "Giving Muslims special protections not available to others will be disastrous for them, and for everyone else.

"It will fuel, not diminish, hostility towards Muslims.

"It will empower divisive extremes, both in Muslim communities, by creating new opportunities for challenge, grievance and attack in every institution and workplace; and on the nativist right."

In December, the Prime Minister made the assurance the UK will not introduce a new blasphemy law.

He was responding to a question from Graham Stringer, the Labour MP for Blackley and Middleton South, who said: "This country can be proud of its history of religious tolerance and religious freedom, the quid pro quo of that is the right to criticise religion.

"Can the Prime Minister assure this House that there will be no introduction or reintroduction of a blasphemy law, either by statute, by judicial overreach, or by a non-statutory definition of Islamophobia?"

Mr Stringer’s question was met with a cheer from the Conservative benches in the Commons.

Sir Keir responded: "Yes, I can give him that assurance, and it’s important that I do so."