A proposal to introduce new laws to protect Muslims from hate in the UK has resulted in a behind-the-scenes move to quash an official definition of Islamophobia being adopted, The National can reveal.
Speaking to people inside the room during high-level meetings, our investigation has found that ministers now believe introducing Islamophobia legislation risks reintroducing long-abolished laws on religious beliefs.
There has been vigorous debate within senior government ranks about bringing in new laws but the influential Morgan McSweeney, chief of staff to Prime Minister Keir Starmer, is one of those who has come out in opposition.
As the frequency of attacks on Muslims living in Britain rose to exceed 3,000 hate crimes last year, the Labour government had promised new legislation to protect the community.
Yet it has emerged that Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Steve Reed, who replaced Angela Rayner when she resigned as deputy prime minister over a mortgage row last month, is firmly against such a move. And he has the backing of Downing Street.
A key consideration in the government’s U-turn is a fear that language under consideration would escalate anti-Muslim hatred from the hard right. An insider on the working group told The National that a report, on Mr Reed’s orders, has reversed the official position.
Senior figures no longer want a definition of Islamophobia that leads to legislation and hence "blasphemy laws by the back door".
“It's not that it's been watered down,” the source said. “It's just that they're completely changing it. The approach has been toughened up because we're not going to create a blasphemy law, which they [the UK government] believe is fundamentally wrong.”
That view has been backed by the government's former adviser on political violence, Lord Walney. “Defining a law within government as Islamophobia is a big mistake and it will not be effective in tackling the very real issue of anti-Muslim hatred that exists in the country,” he said.
It would exacerbate "problems that already exist" in relation to prosecutors and police interpreting laws. he added.
Parliamentary pressure
A former Conservative attorney general, who had the full backing of Ms Rayner, was last year asked to compile a report on Islamophobia that would tee up future legislation.
Dominic Grieve, a high-flying lawyer, was asked to lead the five-person panel charged with finding an official working definition of "anti-Muslim hatred/Islamophobia". This terminology was required to be "reflective of a wide range of perspectives and priorities of British Muslims".
The first overt signal that Labour was back-tracking came at its party conference two weeks ago, when Mr Reed indicated that people must retain the right to “criticise or even mock” religion.
“Paramount in my mind would be the need to protect free speech,” he said. “That must come first. We won’t allow the introduction of blasphemy laws by the back door.”
The government already has a Code of Conduct on Islamophobia, which defines it as “a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness” and by “inciting hatred or violence against Muslims”.
Shockat Adam, an independent Muslim MP, said there was now “an existential crisis for the Muslim community” in Britain that urgently needs protective legislation.
“There’s a state of real anxiety with Muslims in this country,” he said. “Without exaggeration, people ask me if it is now time that we look at alternative countries to live in.”
Mr Adam is working with former Conservative minister Baroness Warsi to address the “extremely concerning news” that the definition is being “watered down” or abandoned altogether.
There is still “no news when an Islamophobia definition will be presented”, Mr Adam said, after a meeting with Ms Warsi on Tuesday. But he added that two new hate crime units were being launched, one by the government and the other by the Muslim Women Network, which is led by one of the panel members, Baroness Gohir.
Andrew Murray, who was an adviser to former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, argued that legislation was needed because Muslims were being attacked “because of who they are”.
Listening exercise
A key turning point came at a meeting in summer during consultations carried out for the review. Talks took place between Ms Rayner, Mr Grieve, the government’s faith minister at the time, Lord Khan, and the Secretary General of the Muslim World League (MWL), Dr Mohammed bin Abdulkarim Al Issa.
Muath Alamri, MWL chief executive, told The National that while his organisation campaigns to prevent prejudice, hatred and discrimination against Muslims, it was not in favour of an Islamophobia law along the lines discussed by the UK government.
He said the working group’s previous position on Islamophobia had not been accepted entirely. “Most of the Muslim majorities were not happy with that and we will watch carefully the upcoming actions,” he said.
“This [initiative] is to combat any kind of hatred against Muslims,” Mr Alamri said. “That was our advice to them. I'm not sure what the upcoming report is going to talk about, but we're looking forward to working with them to combat the anti-Muslim hatred."
Mr Alamri also responded “yes” to The National on whether the MWL would be opposed to new Islamophobia legislation.
Undue influence
The MWL said the working group reviewing the definition under Mr Grieve was influenced in part by Islamist extremist group, the Muslim Brotherhood. “There's quite a strong Muslim Brotherhood line influencing certain parts of the Labour Party,” a party insider said.
The rehabilitation of Labour's relationship with Muslim Brotherhood-aligned groups has been sought by segments of the party. Advocates suggest Labour might regain some of the Muslim vote it lost at the last general election over its pro-Israeli stance in the Gaza conflict, by introducing Islamophobia legislation.
But an insider admitted not only was this the “wrong thing to do” but the party also now accepted that no matter what it did it was unlikely “to claw back many of those voters”.
Community anxiety
“Islamophobia would benefit from a clear definition because it is probably the single most prevalent expression of racism in Britain today,” said Mr Murray.
By pivoting in the other direction, he also said the government was attempting to appease Labour voters who had defected to the hard-right anti-immigration Reform party. “It is far more driven by that than fears of creating a blasphemy law.”
He added it was also possible to create an Islamophobia law while allowing “the legitimate criticism of religion”.
A spokesman for Mr Reed said the working group report was still being considered and its advice had been “crucial to tackling hatred and extremism”.
But he indicated that the government was now clear that it was unlikely to seek Islamophobia legislation, as it was “about protecting people, not religions”. The government would “fiercely protect the right to criticise, express dislike of, or insult religions”.
He added: “This will remain at the front of our minds when we review the definition.”
Mr Grieve’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
