Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made
towards the adoption of a formal definition of Islamophobia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing,
Communities and Local Government () (Con)
My Lords, the Government remain committed to stamping out
anti-Muslim hatred and all forms of hate crime. It is
unacceptable for anyone to feel unsafe while practising their
religion. We continue to take a zero-tolerance approach to
Islamophobia. The definition proposed by the APPG is not in line
with the Equality Act 2010 and could have consequences for
freedom of speech. We recognise the importance of this matter and
will interrogate it in further detail.
(Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Islamophobia is
of great concern to the Muslim community. I have raised this
subject before in your Lordships’ House. Can the Minister assure
the House that the process to be undertaken will not involve any
preconditions such as recognising Islamophobia as a form of
racism? Does he agree that any definition proposed by the
Government must have the support of the Muslim community and
Muslim representative groups, without which it will have little
value? If so, can he confirm that this will be done?
I agree with my noble friend that Islamophobia, while a hate a
crime, is not a form of racism as defined by the Equality Act
2010. Section 9 of the Act defines race as comprising “colour,
nationality” and “ethnic or national origins”, none of which
would encompass a Muslim or an Islamic practice, so conflating
race and religion in conflict with any definition could cause
confusion.
On the second question, it is important for the Government to
listen to and engage with Muslim groups and communities, which we
will continue to do.
(CB)
My Lords, emotive definitions such as Islamophobia are simply
constraints on freedom of speech. A phobia is a fear, and the
best way to combat irrational fear or prejudice suffered by all
religions and beliefs is through healthy, open discussion. Will
the Minister endorse the commitment given last week by , Under-Secretary of State
for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, to protect all religions
and beliefs without fear or favour?
The noble Lord is right. As I said, it is unacceptable for anyone
to feel unsafe while practising their religion and the Government
will never allow prejudice and discrimination of any kind against
the Muslim or any other community. We take a zero-tolerance
approach and recognise the importance of this matter.
(Con)
My Lords, the definition of Islamophobia proposed by the APPG,
like the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, is not a legally
binding working definition, so there is no conflict with the
Equality Act. My noble friend will recognise that the Government
and the Conservative Party rightly criticised the party opposite
when it felt that it could make the definition better and amend
it, despite the Jewish community saying, “This is our
definition”; that party was wrong for doing so. Does he further
recognise the irony and hypocrisy of the Government’s position on
Islamophobia, as opposed to the position that we took on
anti-Semitism?
There are a couple of points there. The IHRA definition is widely
accepted internationally and, by adopting this non-binding
definition, we underline the UK Government’s determination to
tackle anti-Semitism wherever it occurs. On my noble friend’s
other point, as she will know, Islamophobia is a complex matter
and there are different views in this House on the issue. There
has been strong opposition to the adoption of the all-party
definition from a wide range of organisations, including Civitas,
Policy Exchange, the Barnabas Fund and the Henry Jackson Society.
It is an ongoing issue and discussions are continuing.
(Lab Co-op)
My Lords, there are some appalling examples of the Muslim
community being harassed and suffering racial abuse. Why will the
Government not adopt this definition when it has been adopted by
hundreds of organisations, including many local authorities and
police forces and, I think I am right in saying—perhaps the
Minister can confirm it—by the Conservative Party in Scotland? We
need to hear much more from the noble Lord and his party about
how they will deal with this appalling abuse.
The noble Lord has picked up on what I just said: it is a
challenging issue. I can reassure him that we intend to move as
quickly as possible to come to a definition. As I said, it is
important to discuss this fully and make sure that we get it
right.
My Lords, we on these Benches deplore all attacks on any
religious groups and we note particularly the huge rise in the
deeply concerning issue of attacks on Muslims. The Minister will
be aware of the media reports on Imam Asim of Makkah mosque in
Leeds and his comments on free speech. Does the Minister agree
with me and the most reverend Primate the that Muslims
and all religious groups deserve better media? Does he further
agree that, alongside law, we need to seriously address this
through education?
The right reverend Prelate is right. I had brief sight of the
abhorrent hate crime addressed to Qari Asim and I condemn it
utterly. He is also right that we need to work harder on the
schools and education policy to be sure that young people are not
ingrained in any of this despicable stuff.
(LD)
My Lords, at a time when anti-Muslim and Islamophobic hate crime
has spiked by over 500%, and given that the APPG definition was
arrived at after widespread consultation with hundreds of
academic organisations and now has the support of most mainstream
political parties, chief police officers, councils, trade unions
and the Scottish Conservatives, why have the Government decided
to appoint two advisers to come up with a different definition?
Can the Minister not see that doing that, and delaying coming to
a non-binding position on this, leads to the community losing
confidence in the Government even further because they appear to
be kicking something as important as this into the long grass and
not taking it seriously?
Not at all—we take it very seriously. The question asked by the
noble Baroness is very similar to that from the noble Lord, Lord
Kennedy. I say again that the definition goes against not only
the Equality Act 2010 but international human rights law, which
treats race and religion separately. Criticising somebody because
of their race is regarded in international law as unacceptable,
but criticising religions or beliefs is permitted. This remains a
challenging issue, and we want to move quickly to resolve it.
