by Nick Timothy, The Critic
Labour’s controversial definition is shrouded in unanswered questions about who shaped it and why
There is an emerging cover-up regarding Labour’s “Islamophobia” definition. This deeply controversial new framework, now relabelled as “anti-Muslim hostility”, seeks to establish a definition of actions or behaviour towards Muslims specifically which is not allowed. It has been criticised severely by free speech groups, the Conservatives and the former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission as a fundamental threat to freedom of expression.
But who created it, who influenced it, and why?
Last year Angela Rayner launched a Call for Evidence and established a Working Group on “Anti-Muslim Hated / Islamophobia Definition.” This has long been a Labour talking point, seeking to create a definitional parity between criticism of Islam and anti-Semitism. Of course these two things are not the same, since Jews are a people, subject for centuries to racist intolerance and persecution, while Islam is a system of religious belief. One is a group of human beings, defined by ancestry and history; the other represents a set of theological and moral claims about the world.
But Labour have not disclosed who submitted evidence to the consultation. In July, I wrote to Rayner asking for a list of respondents to be published, and for her to confirm whether any organisations with which the Government operates a no-contact policy took part. Astonishingly, her department said that all the evidence had been deleted, despite a general policy that such documents should be kept for a minimum of two years. And ministers refused to answer a parliamentary question by my colleague, James Cleverly, asking for the list of respondents to be disclosed.