This ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ definition is truly sinister

The government’s new official definition of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ is 144 words long. But in a sign that even ministers now realise what a mess they have made, it is followed by a further tortuously pleading 1,400 words which ‘must be read together’ with it. You will be relieved to hear, according to this ‘accompanying text,’ that the definition is no threat at all to ‘the fundamental right of every person in the UK to exercise freedom of speech,’ or to ‘academic and political discussion,’ or to ‘criticisms of religion or belief,’ or to ‘debates in the public interest.’

If this were not a threat to free speech, the government would not need to say so To which I reply: qui s’excuse, s’accuse (he who excuses himself, accuses himself) . If this were not a threat to free speech, the government would not need to say so. And to which I also reply: for the state to publish a list of examples of permitted speech sets a deeply sinister precedent, and on subjects far wider than Muslims. Is only speech ‘in the public interest’ now to be allowed?

Who decides what the public interest is? Doesn’t freedom mean the right to say something that’s not in the public interest, too? Because of the war, and because it was wrapped in with a ‘community cohesion’ strategy that has some potentially good bits, the publication of this definition hasn’t caused as much of an immediate outcry as it normally would have done. But make no mistake: it will do. Because freedom of speech is not the only problem.

The government is acutely sensitive to charges of ‘two-tier’ policy – rejecting, for instance, the Sentencing Council’s scandalous demand that ethnic minority criminals be treated better. Most popular Yet here is an obvious and open act of two-tier policy. Hatred and discrimination against Muslims are emphatically wrong – but are already illegal. The only purpose of an additional definition must be to create special protections for one faith which do not apply to those of other faiths or none.

It will not alleviate Muslim discontent – it will stoke it, creating new opportunities for grievance politics, challenge and attack in every institution and workplace. It will strengthen divisive extremists on all sides – not just the populist right, but also the growing Muslim populist challenge to mainstream parties. That, too, will be harmful to community cohesion. In short, it risks making Muslims less safe, not more. True, the May government did adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism.

But that text explicitly uses language akin to that of Britain’s existing hate crime laws, which apply equally to all faiths. It was agreed in international discussions over many years, rather than cooked up by a private working group after Labour panicked about losing Muslim votes. And, of course, it has done nothing to stem the rise in anti-Semitism. Finally, as if the definition itself were not bad enough, there will also be – as The Spectator revealed and Policy Exchange analysed on Friday – a ‘special representative for anti-Muslim hostility,’ a post likely to go to an activist who will constantly press for even more restrictions, and even more expansionary wording of the definition.

The Islamist groups who campaigned for the definition – with an explicit agenda of suppressing criticism of themselves – haven’t got all they wanted yet. But they are the winners here. The announcement explicitly says that the definition ‘may need to evolve over time.’ Their demand that Islam be treated as a race, and that any attack on it be treated as racism, isn’t in the definition itself, but is reflected in the supporting text. Their demand to use the word ‘Islamophobia’ hasn’t been granted, but the term ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ amounts to the same thing.

As so often with this government, ministers think they’re crafting a compromise, but they have actually created a dog’s breakfast. Andrew Gilligan is an award-winning journalist and former No.10 advisor.