HFB calls on authorities to not adopt APPG 'Islamophobia' definition

Tuesday 16th July 2019 11:51 EDT
 

Multi-faith organisations led by Hindu Forum of Britain are urging local authorities, community leaders and MPs across the UK, not to adopt the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims’ definition of Islamophobia, before Home Affairs Select Committee has formally approved it. 

This came after HFB recently received an extensively researched letter, asking pertaining questions about the definition. It said, “We are concerned that this definition, which can be used to accuse a person of being criminally racist, is being accepted and passed, often without debate and even prior to Parliamentary scrutiny. We are concerned that “MuslimPhobia” which is clearly unacceptable and already dealt with within the scope of existing protected characteristics of Equality legislation, is being conflated with Islamophobia, fear of an ideology…”

Giving examples, it also raised topics such as the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pundits and asked if they could be labelled as racists if they lobbied against their own 'troubles' in the hands of ‘Islamists’.

“Perhaps a query regarding the Palestinian disbursement of publicly donated funds could also be deemed Islamophobic since Palestine and Kashmir are specifically named in the proposed definition,” it further added.

Signed letter to Home Secretary Sajid Javid

The first meeting of the APPG Hindu Group took place on 19 March 2019, and collectively with other faiths they signed an open letter that was sent to the Home Secretary condemning hate crimes against Muslims. However, the same letter that came right after the horrific New Zealand mosque attack, criticised the vagueness of the definition, and raised alarms about its negative consequences on the freedom of expression and threats to civil liberties.

The letter, signed by almost 40 cross community and religion members said, “This vague and expansive definition is being taken on without an adequate scrutiny or proper consideration of its negative consequences for freedom of expression, and academic and journalistic freedom. The definition will also undermine social cohesion – fuelling the very bigotry against Muslims which it is designed to prevent. 

“We are concerned that allegations of Islamophobia will be, indeed already are being, used to effectively shield Islamic beliefs and even extremists from criticism, and that formalising this definition will result in it being employed effectively as something of a backdoor blasphemy law.”

The letter further said that accusation of Islamophobia has already been allegedly used against people, including journalists, opposing religious and gender segregation in education, halal slaughter on the grounds of animal welfare, LGBT campaigners opposing Muslim views on homosexuality, ex-Muslims and feminists opposing Islamic views and practices relating to women, as well as those concerned about the issue of grooming gangs. 

“We are concerned that the definition will be used to shut down legitimate criticism and investigation. While the APPG authors have assured that it does not wish to infringe free speech, the entire content of the report, the definition itself, and early signs of how it would be used, suggest that it certainly would. Civil liberties should not be treated as an afterthought in the effort to tackle anti-Muslim prejudice. The conflation of race and religion employed under the confused concept of ‘cultural racism’ expands the definition beyond anti-Muslim hatred to include ‘illegitimate’ criticism of the Islamic religion,” it added.

According to the signatories, no religion should technically be given any special protection against criticism in a democratic country. They therefore emphasised that current legislative provisions are sufficient, as the law already protects individuals against attacks and unlawful discrimination on the basis of their religion. Rather than helping, this new definition is likely to create a climate of self-censorship and therefore effectively shut down open discussions about matters of public interest, aggravating community tensions further, without solutions.


comments powered by Disqus



to the free, weekly Asian Voice email newsletter