Humanitarian Lord David Alton of Liverpool criticized a move to create an “Islamaphobia board” as a potential ploy leading to laws against blaspheming Islam in the United Kingdom.
Such laws in other countries violate free speech rights and are used to persecute members of other faiths, rights advocates say.
Deputy British Prime Minister Angela Rayner and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government confirmed in a Feb. 28 press statement that a new working group was formed to provide the government with a “working definition of Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia” within the next six months.
Alton, Independent Crossbench Member of the House of Lords and Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights, expressed a stern warning against the country veering towards any semblance of blasphemy laws.
“The U.K. should tread very carefully before incorporating anything which resembles a blasphemy law into British Statute,” Alton told Christian Daily International. “In jurisdictions which have such laws, I have personally seen how they can be misused against people of other beliefs or no belief – including death sentences and long-term imprisonment.”
Blasphemy laws can also have a detrimental effect on free speech, he said.
“All of us should learn to be respectful of deeply held alternative views and never use hate speech – how we do that needs incredibly careful consideration and reflection,” Alton said.
The working group was formed as “incidents of anti-Muslim hatred reached the highest number on record in 2024,” according to Rayner. A website recording such incidents called Tell MAMA reportedly recorded 51,000 British Muslims using its services between 2012-2024 with a reported 2,253 percent increase in “street based anti-Muslim hate cases.”
“Cases of anti-Muslim hatred are becoming more threatening towards victims, higher in volume and much more prone to significant peaks because of a higher frequency of national and international events,” stated the Tell MAMA update.
The government working group will provide not only guidance to authorities but also “support further action on tackling religiously motivated hate, delivering on the Plan for Change safer streets mission [a government initiative to reduce violence].”
“The rise in anti-Muslim hate crime is unacceptable and has no place in our society,” said Rayner, who led plans to create the group. “That’s why we’ve committed to defining Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia, as a crucial steps forward in tackling it and creating a society where everyone feels safe and welcome.”
Former Conservative MP Dominic Grieve, now in the House of Commons as an Independent, will chair the group, apparently “bringing his years of legal and government expertise to the role,” according to Rayner.
“We know Islamophobia is as challenging to define as its existence is undoubted,” said Grieve. “We need to balance addressing the lived experience of those who are victims of it and the right of British Muslims to feel heard and protected as equal citizens of our country, with the unwavering requirement to maintain freedom of thought and expression under law for all.”
Members of the working group are charged with ensuring that the “variety of backgrounds and experiences of Muslim communities” in the country are reflected in the definition of Islamophobia. Critics are alarmed, however, that the group appears also to have been tasked with authority to determine what behavior is deemed acceptable or not for Muslim communities.
“The group’s proposed definition will be non-statutory and will provide the government and other relevant bodies with an understanding of unacceptable treatment and prejudice against Muslim communities,” stated the government’s press release. “The group’s proposed definition must be compatible with the unchanging right of British citizens to exercise freedom of speech and expression – which includes the right to criticize, express dislike of, or insult religions and/or the beliefs and practices of adherents.”
Danny Webster, director of advocacy for the U.K. Evangelical Alliance, said the notion of Islamophobia needed to be set within the wider, legal understanding of the freedom to disagree with those of other faiths.
“Any definition of anti-Muslim hatred, or Islamophobia, has to safeguard the freedom of others to criticize religious belief and support the freedom for people to change their beliefs,” Webster said.
If a definition of Islamophobia is formed in which views and opinions about perceived identity can be subjectively classed as “hatred,” then this would be a major impediment to freedom of expression and religious belief, he said.
“It is vital that we encourage good relationships between people of different faiths, and this is fostered by accepting deep differences and allowing free expression, rather than either criminalizing disagreement or pretending it doesn't exist,” Webster said.
