London, Jan 2 :British Hindu and Sikh groups have sounded a note of caution as a proposed draft definition of anti-Muslim hostility being considered by the UK government was leaked to sections of the media recently.
Hindu Council UK has written to Communities Secretary Steve Reed this week to claim that the draft is not only “deeply flawed” but risks serious unintended consequences if it were to be formally adopted.
The BBC last month reported that the Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia, set up by the government in February last year, had submitted a draft for adoption that excluded the term “Islamophobia”.
“A central concern shared by Hindu, Sikh, Christian, secular, and free-speech organisations is that the definition fails to clearly distinguish between hostility towards Muslims as people and criticism of Islam as a belief system,” reads the Hindu Council UK letter to the Secretary of State in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).
“The Hindu Council and many organisations have highlighted that definitions of this nature tend to be enforced not through courts but through institutional policies in universities, local councils, NHS, employers, and regulators where the threshold for sanction is often far lower than the law requires.
“For minority communities such as Hindus and other Dharmic traditions, this presents a serious risk,” it states.
According to the draft proposal, the Working Group wants to define “anti-Muslim hostility” as engaging in or encouraging “criminal acts, including acts of violence, vandalism of property, and harassment and intimidation whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated, which is directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslims because of their religion, ethnicity or appearance.”
The draft adds: “It is also the prejudicial stereotyping and racialisation 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.
“It is engaging in prohibited 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.”
Hindu Council UK said it had carefully considered the wordings and while it “unequivocally condemns hatred, violence, intimidation, harassment, and unlawful discrimination against Muslims”, there is a “dangerous” ambiguity in the use of certain terminology in the proposed definition.
“By referring to ‘racialisation’ and ‘collective characteristics’, the definition risks treating a religion and its associated ideas, doctrines, and practices as if they were immune from critique… freedom of expression includes the right to offend, to challenge, and to criticise ideas, indeed Hinduism encourages intellectual debates that has made it robust,” it notes.
Hardeep Singh from the Network of Sikh Organisations (NSO) also cautioned against the “extremely vague” nature of the definition.
“Although any new definition will be non-statutory, it will still be used as a yardstick by councils, universities, employers and more significantly the police, in deciding whether you are guilty of committing a hate crime, or a non-crime hate incident,” said Singh.
“Another problem is the sneaky introduction of the term ‘racialisation’ into the mix…,” he said.
The UK’s National Secular Society (NSS) is among the groups voicing concerns over such a “definition-led approach” to tackling religiously motivated hate crimes. It has also written to minister Steve Reed to guarantee that any proposed definition will be subject to a “full, open, and transparent public consultation before being adopted or implemented in any form.”
Baroness Shaista Gohir, who is part of the government’s Working Group, told the BBC that their submission achieves “the right balance” by “safeguarding individuals while avoiding overreach.”
The MHCLG has declined to comment on the recently leaked draft, stressing only that it is “tackling hatred and extremism wherever it may occur.”
“We will always defend freedom of speech, this remains at the front of our minds as we carefully consider the recommendations,” a ministry spokesperson said.
