Peers warn proposed definition could become a de facto blasphemy law on UK campuses and beyond.
As the Labour government reviews legal definitions of anti-Muslim hatred, traditional Catholics and civil libertarians alike should resist the ideological drift that falsely equates religious criticism with racism. At stake is not merely a terminological preference but the future boundary between lawful dissent and criminalised speech. The question is urgent: will criticism of Islam become functionally equivalent to racism in law and public life?
A Shifting Landscape of Definitions
In early 2025, the newly elected Labour government under Prime Minister Keir Starmer inherited a policy initiative launched under the Conservative government to define the parameters of anti-Muslim hatred. The initiative took the form of a Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia, chaired by Dominic Grieve KC, with the goal of producing a non-statutory definition that could inform hate crime enforcement, education policy, and civic guidance.
Despite assurances that any forthcoming definition would not be legally binding, Mr Grieve has expressed the hope that it would be “embedded in university speech codes” to curb so-called “micro-aggressions”¹. More than thirty peers from across the political spectrum have now written to Mr Grieve, warning that such a move would have a “chilling effect” on free speech and effectively reintroduce a blasphemy law in secular guise².
The APPG’s 2018 Definition: Ambiguity as Ideology
The most widely circulated definition of Islamophobia remains that of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims, issued in 2018:
“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”³
This definition, which has been adopted by the Labour Party in opposition and by many local authorities, has drawn criticism for its vagueness and ideological presuppositions. “Muslimness” is undefined and unbounded. It could refer to theological beliefs, cultural customs, political behaviours, or dress—leaving citizens unsure of what speech is permitted. Civil liberties groups, ex-Muslim reformers, and Christian leaders alike have warned that this framing protects not just persons from hate, but ideas from scrutiny, inverting the very principles of a pluralistic society.
Islam Is Not a Race
The most dangerous presumption in the APPG definition is its claim that Islamophobia is a form of racism. This is conceptually incoherent. Islam is not a race—it is a global religion with adherents from every ethnic background. To label criticism of Islamic belief, law, or history as racism is to commit a category error—one that has already been used to stigmatise theological dissent.
From a Catholic perspective, the danger is acute. The Gospel proclaims Christ crucified and risen, the only Son of the Father, and Saviour of mankind. Islam explicitly denies these doctrines. If the critique or rejection of Islamic teaching is redefined as racism, then evangelisation itself becomes hate speech.
A Definition Drafted in Secret?
Despite the gravity of its task, the Working Group has operated with a remarkable lack of transparency. Its terms of reference state that its proceedings are confidential, its advice to government private, and that the group “does not speak on behalf of HMG”⁴. No public list of members has been released, no minutes published, and no evidence of consultation with Christian, Hindu, Sikh, or secular groups—despite the fact that some of these communities are frequently misidentified in so-called “Islamophobic” incidents⁵.
This lack of oversight has been criticised in Parliament by Baroness Fox of Buckley⁶ and flagged by civil liberties groups including the Free Speech Union, the National Secular Society, and researchers at Policy Exchange⁷. Some working group members have known affiliations with Islamist-linked advocacy networks, raising serious questions about the group’s ideological balance and institutional objectivity⁸.
Peers Speak Out
In a letter dated 14 July 2025, more than thirty peers—including Lord Moylan, Baroness Fox, Lord Frost, and Baroness Deech—raised additional red flags. They warned that the definition, if endorsed by government, will likely be embedded across the public sector: in universities, schools, NHS trusts, councils, regulatory bodies, and the courts⁹. They cite the case of Sir Trevor Phillips, suspended by Labour in 2020 under a non-statutory Islamophobia code, and warn that future disciplinary processes could follow the same path.
The letter also warns of a false sense of effectiveness. They note that the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism has not curbed antisemitic hate incidents—especially in the wake of the Hamas attacks of October 2023—and that there is no evidence that defining Islamophobia would reduce hate crime against Muslims¹⁰.
The Grooming Gang Scandal
One of the strongest arguments raised is that vague and ideologically slanted definitions have historically suppressed whistleblowing. Baroness Casey’s National Audit found that police officers, councillors, and journalists failed to raise concerns about grooming gangs in towns like Rotherham and Telford because of fear they would be labelled “Islamophobic”¹¹. Indeed, public figures who did speak out—such as Sarah Champion MP and feminist campaigner Julie Bindel—were denounced by advocacy groups and nominated for “Islamophobe of the Year” awards.
Conflating Faith and Hatred
The peers urge Mr Grieve to drop the word “Islamophobia” altogether. They argue that the term blurs the crucial distinction between hatred of Muslims (a moral and legal evil) and criticism of Islam (a fundamental right in a free society). The term anti-Muslim hatred better names the wrong—targeting persons, not ideas. As they point out, this approach aligns with the Public Order Act 1986 and the Equality Act 2010, both of which protect individuals from religiously aggravated offences without prohibiting theological debate.
Proposed Solutions
The peers make four key recommendations:
- Broaden the Working Group to include non-Muslim religious voices and free speech advocates;
- Postpone any formal recommendations until the national inquiry into grooming gangs concludes;
- Drop the word Islamophobia from any proposed terminology;
- Submit any definition to full parliamentary scrutiny before government adoption¹².
Why the Words Matter
Catholics have a vital interest in this debate. Our fidelity to revealed truth requires us to proclaim the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the unique claims of the Gospel—claims which Islam explicitly denies. This must never be pathologised as hate. The terms anti-Muslim hatred and anti-Muslim prejudice are morally precise and legally sufficient. The term Islamophobia, by contrast, is a political invention used to place one religious worldview beyond critique.
Let the government name the evil clearly: hatred of persons, not scrutiny of religion. And let Catholics, with clarity and charity, defend both truth and freedom.
- Letter to Dominic Grieve KC, 14 July 2025, p. 3.
- Ibid., p. 2.
- All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, Islamophobia Defined (2018).
- UK Government, Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia: Terms of Reference (March 2025).
- The Spectator, “The Islamophobia Working Group is Unbalanced and Opaque,” April 2025.
- Baroness Claire Fox, Parliamentary debate, Hansard, 20 March 2024.
- PoliticsHome, “Concerns Raised Over Lack of Diversity in Islamophobia Working Group,” May 2025.
- Policy Exchange / FWI Report, “Renewed Effort to Stifle Free Speech in the UK,” June 2025.
- Letter to Dominic Grieve KC, 14 July 2025, p. 3.
- Ibid., p. 4.
- Ibid., p. 7.
- Ibid., p. 10.
Discover more from ✠SELEISI
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am most concerned with the statement…’They argue that the term blurs the crucial distinction between hatred of Muslims ( a moral and legal evil).’ From a Catholic perspective, or any other religion – discuss – it can be agreed that one should not ‘hate’ thy neighbour. Given that those making judgements are able to look into those ‘haters’ hearts, mind and souls. Can it be illegal to hate if that only manifests itself in abstract or with like minded others but not use to ferment intimidation or violence? Thought-Crime comes to mind.