Labour is braced free of charge speech row as ministers finalise particulars to axe Islamophobia definition in favour of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’

Labour is considering a draft definition of anti-Muslim hatred that refers to ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ instead of ‘Islamophobia’. 

Ministers are circulating a draft form of words that has been put forward by a working group for consultation. 

Free speech activists had warned that using the term Islamophobia risks outlawing criticism of the religion itself. 

However, Lord Young of Acton, head of the Free Speech Union, believes an official definition of anti-Muslim hostility could still infringe on free speech. 

‘The danger of any definition, however carefully drawn, is that it will make people think twice before referring to Muslims doing anything wrong, prioritising them above all other faiths,’ he said. 

‘Labour’s watered-down ”Islamophobia” definition will still undermine free speech. The UK already has laws to protect British Muslims – and every other religious group. 

‘Inevitably, by rolling out a non-statutory definition of Islamophobia, the police will feel obliged to investigate reports of anti-Muslim hatred that clearly aren’t criminal offences.’

Debate over what constitutes legitimate criticism of Islam has been raging since the conviction of a man who shouted ‘f*** Islam’ while burning the Koran in London.  Hamit Coskun (left) later had his conviction overturned

Lord Young believes the new definition could have a similar effect to so-called Non-Crime Hate Incidents, which sees the police record allegations of hate even when a criminal offence has not been committed. 

He added: ‘This, like NCHIs, will lead to overzealous policing of comments that may offend Muslims or of objective facts – such as stating, as Baroness Casey’s report on grooming gangs does, that there was a disproportionate representation of Pakistani men involved.’

The definition will not be legally binding, but will provide a form of words to inform public bodies on what constitutes unacceptable treatment of Muslims.

The draft definition states: ‘Anti-Muslim hostility is engaging in or encouraging criminal acts, including acts of violence, vandalism of property, and harassment and intimidation whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated, which is directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslims because of their religion, ethnicity or appearance.

‘It is also the prejudicial stereotyping and racialisation of Muslims, as part of a collective group with set characteristics, to stir up hatred against them, irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as individuals.

‘It is engaging in prohibited discrimination where the relevant conduct, including the creation or use of practices and biases within institutions, is intended to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life.’

Former Tory Attorney General Dominic Grieve, who chairs the working group that produced the draft definition, insists it would not restrict free speech. 

He told the BBC: ‘The review done by the working group is within a framework that makes it clear that no definition of anti-Muslim hatred should have an adverse impact on freedom of expression under law including the right to criticise Islam and its practices.

‘The working group has been mindful of this at all times in the advice it is giving to government.’

Former Tory Attorney General Dominic Grieve, who chairs the working group that produced the draft definition, insists it would not restrict free speech 

A spokesman for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said they do not comment on leaks.

‘With all hate crime on the rise and anti-Muslim hate incidents at a record high, we are tackling hatred and extremism wherever it may occur,’ the spokesperson said.

‘We will always defend freedom of speech, this remains at the front of our minds as we carefully consider the recommendations.’

Debate over what constitutes legitimate criticism of Islam has been raging since the conviction of a man who shouted ‘f*** Islam’ while burning the Koran in London.

Hamit Coskun was initially found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence after he held the flaming religious text aloft outside the Turkish consulate.

The 51-year-old was backed by free speech campaigners over the February incident and had his conviction overturned at Southwark Crown Court in September. 

But today, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is appealing against the decision. 

In a statement, the CPS said: ‘There is no law to prosecute people for ‘blasphemy’ and burning a religious text on its own is not a criminal act – our case remains that Hamit Coskun’s words, choice of location and burning of the (Koran) amounted to disorderly behaviour, and that at the time he demonstrated hostility towards a religious or racial group, which is a crime.

‘We have appealed the decision, and the judge has agreed to state a case for the High Court to consider.’

In his ruling last month, Mr Justice Bennathan said while burning a book of such religious importance might be something ‘many Muslims find desperately upsetting and offensive’, the right to freedom of expression ‘must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb’.