The three-paragraph definition, released by the government alongside a longer document, states that “Anti-Muslim hostility is intentionally engaging in, assisting or encouraging criminal acts – including acts of violence, vandalism, harassment, or intimidation, whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated – that are directed at Muslims because of their religion or at those who are perceived to be Muslim, including where that perception is based on assumptions about ethnicity, race or appearance.
“It is also the prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims, or people perceived to be Muslim including because of their ethnic or racial backgrounds or their appearance, and treating them as a collective group defined by fixed and negative characteristics, with the intention of encouraging hatred against them, irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as individuals.
“It is engaging in unlawful 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.”
Reed did not say whether the definition would be incorporated into the Nolan Principles – the standards that apply to public office-holders – telling MPs that “it is for the House authorities to determine what happens with Members of this House.”
The communities secretary agreed with Mohamed’s wider point about anti-Muslim hostility, saying the pro-Gaza MP was “right to point to the huge concern that we should all share about the unacceptable level of hostility and abuse directed at Muslims. It is under-reported, in all likelihood”.
Claire Coutinho, the shadow equalities minister, criticised Mohamed’s comments and warned the definition could kerb free speech.
“It’s DAY ONE and the government’s Islamophobia definition is already being weaponised by those who want to police ‘public discourse’, including putting sanctions on Parliamentarians. The government minister doesn’t shut it down.
“As I’ve been saying, this definition does nothing to protect Muslims from violence, but it will have a chilling impact on free speech,” she wrote on X.
Similar concerns have been raised by Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who warned that an official definition could limit open discussion about Islam.
“The worry will be with loose language, people will feel inhibited about talking about things that they do think which are genuinely important today,” he said.
“Will the definition look at the intention of the person who’s speaking, or will someone be able to say, I perceive what you’re saying as hatred,” he told the Telegraph.
“Will these allegations of hatred be allowed to be made whether the person actually was hating or not?”
Former Conservative minister Baroness Warsi, who co-chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, supported the introduction of the definition ahead of its release – and suggested that criticism of the definition could be equated to criticism of the widely accepted International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.
When asked on the BBC about Hall’s concerns, she said “concerns about definitions have always been there.”
Referring to the IHRA definition of antisemitism adopted by the government in 2016, Warsi claimed, “Concerns about the definition of antisemitism, which the government has now adopted for over a decade nearly, continue to remain. In fact, the original people who drafted the antisemitism definition now say it is definition which does not work.”
Announcing the measure in the Commons, Reed said a definition of anti-Muslim hatred was necessary because “you can’t tackle a problem if you can’t describe it.”
LONDON, ENGLAND - FEBRUARY 24: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Steve Reed (Getty Images)Getty Images
He said the new definition “gives a clear explanation of unacceptable prejudice, discrimination and hatred targeting Muslims, so we can take action to stop it.”
Paul Holmes, the shadow communities secretary, pointed to Hall’s recommendation that any definition should clearly outline examples of speech that would not constitute anti-Muslim hatred.
“It risks hindering free speech under the law and legitimate criticism of Islamism,” he said.
