Don't Vote Labour (Part 7)

Islamophobia Definition

The Islamophobia definition

In 2018, after much controversy and pressure on Corbyn, the Labour Party introduced a definition of anti-Semitism in order to restrain the behaviour of its members. It was written by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and fully adopted by Labour. If members are found to have been anti-Semitic within its terms, be they a lowly leaflet deliverer or (ironically) Jeremy from Islington, they can be removed. The definition is overzealously enforced by Starmer’s faction and has a few problems in my opinion, but is pretty fair. It makes clear that criticism of Israel or Israeli policy is not necessarily anti-Semitic, and should be allowed. There is no mention of criticism of the Jewish faith and its tenets, and nor should there be. The British government and many other institutions have also accepted the definition.

For the sake of appearing even-handed, a definition of so-called Islamophobia was also introduced by Labour. The All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims drafted one and Labour adopted it, along with the Lib Dems and Plaid Cymru (and shockingly the Scottish Conservatives). The British government and the wider Conservative Party did not. They believe it contradicts the 2010 Equality Act by infringing on freedom of expression - and they are correct.

It should first be pointed out that Labour's statement on its website ('Labour’s Islamophobia Policy') is different from the APPG report itself. It says a lot of extra things, and tones down the more ridiculous elements of the report. However, Labour have said they have fully adopted the definition, so they agree with all of it, even if they've made a tactical choice to omit or rephrase certain parts.  

Several times the APPG definition conflates prejudice towards Islam - a religion - with racism. Right out the gate it defines Islamophobia as "rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness". At the end, that's the sole definition it concludes with. Ugly phrasing aside, it is basically saying that attacking Muslim customs or typical Islamic opinions is a form of racism. That's absurd. To pre-empt the obvious point that Muslims can be of any race, it states 'Muslim' is often a code (or 'dog whistle') for discussing someone's race. So you can be condemned for what you don't say, which is the hallmark of a banana republic. Even more bizarre is the report citing academics who theorise that racists have created the 'race' of Muslim, thus it is now a race and should be treated as such.

Attacking someone for their religious belief is still discrimination and prejudice (and indeed is prohibited by law) but it is not racism, and it is wrong to make the two interchangeable. Of course, prejudice towards Christianity and Christians is pretty much de rigueur in left wing circles. It is unlikely someone demonstrating this will be sanctioned to the same degree as someone showing prejudice towards Islam or Muslims.

Labour's definition includes saying "Muslims or their contemporary religious practices are cruel or violent". Should it really be prohibited to, for example, criticise Halal slaughter as cruel? That is a religious practice supported by all meat-eating Muslims. 'Contemporary religious practices' is a very broad term. Iran brutally punishing women for not wearing headscarves is a contemporary practice. Homosexuality is punishable by death in some Islamic countries, while rape can be punished by fatally stoning the victim. The numerous awful things the Taliban do are contemporary religious practices in Afghanistan. Up until recently, ISIS were up to similar activities. Hamas is in charge of Palestine, and it sanctioned what we saw on 7/10, citing scripture to justify it. Even in the UK, Islamic traditions practiced underground such as FGM are 'contemporary'. They may not be mainstream within Islam, and may even be regarded as dated or extreme by other Muslims, but they are happening today.

The full APPG report is even worse in this area. It states it is Islamophobic to make "claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups". This is simply a historical fact - just as it's true to say Christians sometimes did violence and coercion in the name of their religion. Islam did a lot more of this, being spread during campaigns of conquest by a warrior founder. Its scripture justifies violence, sex slaves and killing apostates. Minority groups are certainly repressed by current Islamic states. Gay people, other religions and certain Islamic sects are subjugated. Sunnis and Shias also discriminate against each other depending on which group is in charge in any given country. It should not be forbidden to state facts.

Labour's definition includes saying individual Muslims are 'necessarily' illiberal, anti-Semitic, misogynistic, homophobic, support terrorism or are incapable of living peacefully in a democracy. This is fair enough, but surely a general observation about Muslims, informed from knowledge of Islamic societies and polling of that community in Britain, should be allowed. Surely it should be acceptable so long as you caveat it doesn't apply to every single Muslim. It is no more Islamophobic to say this than it is racist to say there are proportionally more black people involved in crime than white people, or that French people like to eat snails. One of the academics cited by the APPG report even suggests that such observations about Muslim tendencies are invented - not just stereotypes, but 'socially constructed' fantasy.

To compare this with the anti-Semitism report, the latter has similar clauses. However, these are mostly unfair stereotypes: "the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy...Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions... Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel...than to the interests of their own nations... claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel". Labour adds to this with "references to wealth or avarice and – in the political arena – equating Jews with capitalists or the ruling class".

Now, I would worry about putting these criteria into law. I believe it should be legitimate to discuss general tendencies of Jews having high-status jobs or being adept at the media, law or financial matters. Similarly many Jews are liberals, not least because the Jews have suffered so from authoritarianism on the right and left. I don't believe of course that there is a conspiracy ensuring this, and feel it speaks more about the industrious abilities of the Jewish people. One could speculate individual Jews are more loyal to Israel to Britain, so long as there is evidence pointing to this.

In the same way I oppose gross generalisations about individual Muslims. However, when discussing Islam, the 'stereotypes' are more justified. A history of the religion and the countries ruled by it show that - as do its religious texts. Some Islamists proudly say they are loyal to Islam over whichever country they live in. It must not be illegal to say these things. Similarly it must not be illegal - distasteful and inaccurate though it is - to "equate Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" (a clause in the IHRA definition). The same goes for Holocaust denial - it is baseless and disgraceful, but people should be free to say it. Public opinion will judge any ridiculous or unfair statements, but they should not be banned.    

To recap, the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is more explicitly protective of allowing criticism of the religion of Judaism and country of Israel. It also outlines generalisations about Jews which have less justification than those about Muslims or Islam outlined by the APPG. Nevertheless, they are both troubling from a freedom of expression point of view.

Another thing we should mention is that Jews are widely considered to be a race, whereas Muslims are not (despite the APPG's efforts). Semites, from which 'anti-Semitism' is derived, are Middle Eastern Arabs, which can include non-Jewish people. Ashkenazi Jews (Central/Northern European) carry the Semitic genes, as do Sephardic Jews (Southern European/North African). Thus a fear about racism is more pertinent to anti-Semitism than so-called Islamophobia. The definitions for both 'phobias' are being put in place for political reasons, and the stifling feeling around debate of two major religions and cultures is not beneficial to society.  Indeed, it breeds mistrust and tension, and will not make things better.

Labour's Islamophobia document also cites 'denying or minimising the extent' of discrimination against Muslims. As with the ‘minimising’ of anti-Semitism, this is entering into the realm of opinion. It's not expressing hatred to doubt whether there is a significant  level of discrimination against a group. Some might find it difficult to accept, but that does not make it hate-speech.

In fairness to Labour's definition, it does point out that 'objection to the presence of Mosques or Koranic scripture' should not be considered Islamophobic by itself and is 'very likely' protected by the rights of freedom of expression and conscience. That's something, but the phrasing is quite loose. It says such objection is 'very likely' protected, not that it definitely is. It also tries to assert the objection needs to be 'on the basis of secularism or atheism'. Why not on religious, intellectual or moral grounds? Is it speaking up for secularism or atheism simply because a lot of Labour members have those views? If the objection is not made on that basis, is it to be deemed Islamophobia?

Similarly the APPG report states "our definition is not to interfere with the right of individuals to criticise Islam or engage Muslims in critical discussions about their religion". Several times it tries to emphasise this point. This is despite the main thrust of the document, which contradicts it. Hilariously at one point the report says the definition is about setting "the boundaries within which the criticism can be moved without racialising Muslims". It is the authors of the report who are making out Muslims are a race, not the people criticising Islam! The report discusses many previous attempts to define Islamophobia, most of which are along the same lines as its own findings. Only a few opinions are included which go against the authors' viewpoint, and these are quickly dismissed. It is clear what the agenda of the authors is.

As private organisations, Labour and other political parties are within their rights to put terms on membership (so long as these terms are lawful). Organisations do need to protect themselves from potential disrepute. If people don't want to abide by such terms, they don't have to join. As for society in general, though, people have no such choice, and making such guidelines law would be highly problematic. Hate speech laws are already veering into subjectivity of interpretation by the police, CPS and judges. Fairly innocuous remarks already run the risk of prosecution. If we were to add criticism of religion - and worse only one religion - to the statute books, that would be disastrous. As many have said, it would be a de facto blasphemy law. It would be as if the Enlightenment had never happened. 

Many believe that Labour will indeed put the definition into law. The APPG certainly want this: "We hope our working definition will be adopted by Government, statutory agencies, civil society organisations...". A line towards the end states the definition will "provide us with the right legal tools to eradicate it [Islamophobia] from society". One in seven English and Welsh councils have adopted it, so that councillors will be bound by its terms and disciplined if they break them. Labour controlled councils have done this at the instruction of head office. In Boston council, an independent councillor was not allowed to become mayor after he criticised the Islamic world's record on women, gay people and war. The Mayor of London's office (surprise surprise) has also absorbed the definition.

Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has said (quoted in the APPG report): “defining Islamophobia will help to demonstrate to our diverse communities that we as lawmakers recognise Islamophobia exists and that it will be challenged”. The invocation of 'lawmakers' clearly suggests legislative intent.

Naz Shah MP and others have suggested Labour will bring the definition into law as part of their proposed Race Equality Bill. This bill, controversial in itself, would certainly be the logical home for such an outrage. It is certainly, then, a likelihood that Labour will enshrine the definition with legislation. The fuss about Lee Anderson's comments concerning Sadiq Khan and Islamists, and the blanket condemnation of Conservatives for supposedly having the prejudice, shows how big an issue it is to Labour. If Labour get the chance to legally muzzle their political opponents, they will.

But of course it's a double-edged sword. Labour is routinely accused of Islamophobia itself, and could be hoisted by its own petard. The definition becoming law will tie all of our hands and fasten duct tape over our mouths, and the only people that will benefit will be Islamists and individuals looking to play the system for personal gain. The very existence of our liberal democracy would be compromised. Perhaps this is the biggest single risk of voting for a Labour government.