UK is considering new 'Islamophobia' definition: Why Hindu and Sikh groups are raising red flags | Explained

Representational Image

British Hindu, Sikh, and secular groups object to a leaked UK draft definition of “anti-Muslim hostility,” warning it could threaten free speech and minority rights by blurring criticism of Islam with hostility toward Muslims. The government is reviewing feedback.

Did our AI summary help?

British Hindu and Sikh organisations have raised strong objections after a draft definition of “anti-Muslim hostility” being considered by the UK government was leaked to the media, warning that it could undermine free speech and have unintended consequences for minority communities.

Hindu Council UK has written to Communities Secretary Steve Reed, describing the draft as “deeply flawed.” The council said the proposed definition risks blurring the line between hostility towards Muslims as people and legitimate criticism of Islam as a belief system.

The concerns surfaced after the BBC reported last month that the government’s Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred, set up in February last year, had submitted a draft that avoids using 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,” the Hindu Council UK said in its letter.

It warned that such definitions are often enforced not through courts but through internal policies of universities, councils, the NHS, employers and regulators. “For minority communities such as Hindus and other Dharmic traditions, this presents a serious risk,” the letter added.

What the draft proposes

According to the leaked proposal, the working group defines 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,” directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslims.

It also includes “prejudicial stereotyping and racialisation of Muslims” as a collective group and “engaging in prohibited discrimination” intended to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life.

While stressing that it “unequivocally condemns hatred, violence, intimidation, harassment, and unlawful discrimination against Muslims,” Hindu Council UK said the language used was dangerously ambiguous.

“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,” the letter said. “Freedom of expression includes the right to offend, to challenge, and to criticise ideas; indeed, Hinduism encourages intellectual debates that have made it robust.”

Sikh and secular voices echo concerns

Similar warnings were issued by Sikh groups. Network of Sikh Organisations spokesperson Hardeep Singh called the definition “extremely vague.”

“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,” Singh said, warning it could influence decisions on hate crimes or non-crime hate incidents.

“Another problem is the sneaky introduction of the term ‘racialisation’ into the mix,” he added.

The National Secular Society has also objected to what it called a “definition-led approach” to tackling religious hatred. It has written to Reed seeking assurances that any definition would undergo a “full, open, and transparent public consultation” before adoption.

Government response

Baroness Shaista Gohir, a member of the working group, told the BBC that the draft struck “the right balance” by “safeguarding individuals while avoiding overreach.” ”.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government declined to comment directly on the leaked draft. A spokesperson said the government is “tackling hatred and extremism wherever it may occur” and added, “We will always defend freedom of speech; this remains at the front of our minds as we carefully consider the recommendations.”

The debate now appears set to intensify, with multiple community groups warning that a poorly defined framework could chill legitimate debate while failing to achieve its stated goal of protecting individuals from hatred.