by Tim Dieppe, Free Speech Union
Summary
Tim Dieppe, the Head of Public Policy at Christian Concern, believes that any attempt to define ‘Islamophobia’ and punish those responsible for it, whether by cancelling them or changing the law to make ‘Islamophobia’ a ‘hate crime’, would have a chilling effect on free speech. That is particularly true of the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslim’s definition, which, among other things, means anyone who disputes Hamas’s description of Israel’s military operation in Gaza as a ‘genocide’ is guilty of ‘Islamophobia’ and, by extension, of ‘racism’. It is not ‘racist’ to dispute that claim, any more than it is ‘racist’ to criticise the religion of Islam or to acknowledge that the history of Islam involves spreading the religion by the sword and subjugating non-Muslims. We should continue to be vigilant against anti-Muslim hatred, but consign the word ‘Islamophobia’ to the dustbin of history.
See the Free Speech Union Head, Lord Young of Acton, in the House of Lords raising critical concerns about the government’s proposed definition of ‘Islamophobia’! In his question, Lord Young seeks assurance that the definition will NOT be incorporated into any advice given by the College of Policing, the CPS, or the Courts and Tribunals Service. The Labour benches didn’t like the question. Yet as Toby points out, the risk that this definition will not only inhibit vital public discussion on some of the most pressing issues of our time, but also further entrench a two-tier justice system, is undeniable. Read the full debate here.