Jonathan Hall, KC said Sir Keir Starmer’s proposed definition, to be unveiled on Monday, could stop people from freely criticising Islam or issues affecting its followers.
Hall, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, told the BBC: “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 also warned that it could fail to stop anti-Muslim attacks. He said a similar definition for antisemitism had failed to prevent a rise in attacks on Jews and that he was sceptical a similar new definition for anti-Muslim hatred would be any different.
Ministers have already watered down the definition by avoiding the use of the term ‘Islamophobia’, after concerns that it could limit free speech and lead to the creation of a blasphemy law by the backdoor.
The non-statutory definition is aimed at providing guidance for behaviour codes that public bodies, councils and businesses could adopt to combat prejudice, discrimination and hostility towards Muslims.
An advisory working group – which Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, headed – produced the initial draft and submitted it to the Government in October.
It is understood that ministers have struck out references to the “racialisation” of Muslims amid concern it is a vague term that could be weaponised to silence critics of the religion.
However, it still states that anti-Muslim hatred will include “the prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims, as part of a collective group with set characteristics, to stir up hatred against them, irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as individuals”.
Hall questioned the entire premise of a definition. “The IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition, which is the antisemitism definition – which has been adopted since 2016 – has not, in practice, reduced antisemitism or indeed terrorist attacks,” he said.
“And you could say, what is the upside of an anti-Muslim hate definition? It hasn’t worked for Jews. I do wonder whether it will work for Muslims. There is no doubt about it, Muslims are targets of terrorist attacks and attack planning.”
Hall said it was important that the definition should include examples of free speech that were not anti-Muslim hatred as people would otherwise be worried about discussing “uncomfortable” topics around Muslim culture, migration and Islamism.
He said his second concern was that it could lead to the same problems as had been experienced over non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) where offensive language online had resulted in police investigations such as the arrest of Graham Linehan, the comedy writer, over trans comments.
“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 said.
“We’ve already gone through this rather foolish cycle about non-crime hate incidents, the arrest of Graham Linehan, and where people don’t intend to be hostile to me, but I perceive what you’re saying as hostile.
“So will the definition look at the intention of the speaker, or will these allegations of hatred be allowed to be made whether the person actually was hating or not?”...<<<Read More>>>...
