A new definition of Islamophobia proposed by the All-Party
Parliamentary Group on British Muslims would “make life harder”
for Muslims in the UK and reduce them to “the status of perpetual
victims,” warns Trevor Phillips, former chair of the Runnymede
Trust and newly appointed Senior Fellow at Policy Exchange.
In the Foreword to a new Policy Exchange Research Note – released
on the day of a debate about Islamophobia in the House of Lords –
he says it would be a “grave mistake” for the Government to adopt
the definition, which was recently proposed by MPs in their APPG
report Islamophobia Defined, as it would “serve the
interests of sectarians and those hostile to integration between
Britain’s communities, especially the Far Right and Islamists”.
Phillips, who helped to introduce the term “Islamophobia” to the
British political lexicon in 1997 as chair of the Runnymede
Trust, says the APPG’s definition of Islamophobia would turn
British Muslims into “pawns in some wider battle”.
The Policy Exchange Research Note itself is by Sir John Jenkins –
a former British Ambassador who co-authored a Government review
into the Muslim Brotherhood in 2015. Sir John writes:
- · “There
is no doubt that the MPs involved had – and have – the best of
intentions. Anti-Muslim hatred and bigotry is a problem that
needs to be addressed both politically, societally and
individually. But the proposed definition of Islamophobia is not
only inadequate but divisive and potentially damaging to social
cohesion.”
-
· “Should
the Government accept this highly partial definition, which
reflects an agenda that is unrepresentative of the expressed
concerns of many, if not most, British Muslims, they would risk
endangering free speech, press freedom and open the door to an
assault on current counter-extremism policy.”
- · “Many
questions need to be asked about how the report was
compiled; whether due diligence was carried out on its authors
and their sources; and what the definition of Islamophobia could
mean in practice.”
- · There
is clear evidence that the APPG’s report was decisively
influenced by MEND, a group identified by Sir Mark Rowley, former
Assistant Commissioner for Specialist Operations at the
Metropolitan police, as “seeking to undermine the state’s
considerable efforts to tackle all hate crime”.
In his Foreword, Trevor Phillips OBE, Senior Fellow at Policy
Exchange and a former chair of the Runnymede Trust and former
chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, says:
“The spectacular misreading of both Muslim needs and non-Muslim
attitudes to which the APPG’s report has fallen prey may well
serve the interests of sectarians and those hostile to
integration between Britain’s communities, especially the Far
Right and Islamists; but it will do little to advance the
prospects of those who follow the faith, and who want their
sincerely held beliefs to find a respected home in British life,
just as other faith groups have done over the centuries.”
Sir John Jenkins KCMG LVO, who co-authored a Government review
into the Muslim Brotherhood in 2015, and was until his departure
from the FCO the government’s senior diplomatic Arabist, says:
“It should be beyond question that anti-Muslim hatred must be
tackled with the same determination as any other form of
prejudice, bigotry or racism in Britain. The question that
matters, however, is whether this initiative will help or hinder
that broader effort. There are important questions about the
report itself – and how it was compiled – that need to be asked,
especially by those in Government who are being urged to adopt
the definition it proposes.”
