Written submission from Civitas: the Institute for the Study of Civil Society (HCL0043)

About Civitas: The Institute for the Study of Civil Society

1. Civitas is an independent social policy think tank that strives to benefit public debate through research, reasoned argument, lucid explanation and open discussion. Emma Webb is the director of Civitas’ new centre researching Islamist extremism and counter-extremism policy, approaching the subject within the broader context of issues such as integration, social cohesion, democracy, the integrity of institutions, freedom of expression and identity politics.

2. Before joining Civitas, Emma was a research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society and has written widely on issues relating to Islamist exploitation of the charitable sector and broadcast media, counter-extremism policy and radicalisation in the education sector and free speech. She has an MA in Theological and Religious Studies from Trinity College, University of Cambridge, and an MA in Jewish Studies from King’s College London.

Executive Summary

3. Tackling anti-Muslim hatred, abuse and discrimination, as with all crime against individuals on the basis of their religion, is vital in a healthy socially cohesive society. Efforts to prevent this must be supported.

4. However, no convincing case has been made that the current provisions of the law are insufficient to deal with this problem (Crime and Disorder Act 1998; Public Order Act 1986).[1] The APPG definition is explicit in its desire to expand the definition into hitherto uncovered areas, but did not make a convincing case for the necessity of a specific definition of Islamophobia.

5. The APPG’s proposed definition stands in contradiction to the Waddington Amendment (Public Order Act 1986, section 29J) that protects “discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.” The definition would have a chilling effect on free expression, criticism of Islam and related ideologies, such as Islamism.

6. Additional concerns about the APPG’s definition of Islamophobia and its implications are as follows:

7. The vague, expansive and jargonistic nature of the definition and its confusing conflation of religion and race in employing the term ‘cultural racism’;

8. The lack of parity between the concepts of antisemitism and the APPG’s understanding of Islamophobia do not justify the transposition of the IHRA definition in the case of anti-Muslim hatred, which is more limited in scope. A proactive approach that is compatible with a free society, encouraging integration and good community relations, would be more acceptable in countering broader anti-Muslim sentiments that are not appropriate subjects of legislation;

9. A lack of due diligence and partiality in the collection and treatment of written and oral evidence by the APPG;

10. Negative implications of the definition for freedom of expression and its impact on journalists, researchers and the public;

11. Negative ramifications for the efficacy of the integration and counter-extremism policy, and its potential effect on different sectors, such as education.

Current Legal Provision is Sufficient and Appropriate

12. In agreement with Baroness Falkner (House of Lords debate, 20 December 2018), “much of the response must come from existing criminal and civil law and guidance, rather than the creation of new criminal definitions and categories”. The APPG report repeatedly insists that the adoption of its definition would be impactful but does not convincingly evidence this claim.

13. The APPG states that the threshold under current legislation is too low (p. 21) and define Islamophobia in a way which goes beyond “what can be captured as criminal acts”, including so-called ‘micro-aggressions’ (p. 32). Is encompassing so many complex problems in single hold-all, expansive term appropriate in a free society?

14. “Anti-Muslim hatred” is more narrowly defined and its application limited and safer. Anti-Muslim hatred ought to be treated as equal to anti-Christian, anti-Sikh, or anti-Hindu (et cetera) hatred, abuse and discrimination. Setting off down the path of defining “-phobias” for each group in society could represent a counter-productive “creep towards communal identity politics”.[2]  To quote Swiss-Yemeni academic Elham Manea, “once the state starts to situate rights within the frame of a group rather than within the individual, the likely outcome will be segregation, inequality and discrimination”.[3]

15. In addition, due to the complex and ambiguous nature of recording hateful motivations behind criminal or discriminatory incidents, the statistics are not straightforward. For example, a 2017 investigation by Hardeep Singh shows that the 1,227 recorded Islamophobic incidents in 2016 included Christians (39), Hindus (19), Atheists (11), Sikhs (4), Greek Orthodox (2), Jews (2) and Catholics (2). Although concerningly high, only 912 of those recorded were actually Muslim. In 86 cases the victim’s religion was not known, and 57 had never been contacted.[4] Concerns have also been raised in relation to an apparent increase in crime against Christians[5] and the lack of attention paid to non-Abrahamic faith communities.[6] As argued by the Network of Sikh Organisations (NSO) these can be dealt with within the current provisions of the law and do not require any special individual definitions.[7]

Vague and Expansive Definition

16. The definition proposed by the APPG is vague, expansive and unworkable. It attempts to encompass too many problems, ranging from micro-aggressions to subtle hard-to-identify (or sufficiently evidence) structural biases.

17. The use of the term ‘Muslimness’ begs the question: who will be the arbiter of this? What about those Muslims who, to echo Baroness Falkner and Counter Extremism Commissioner Sara Khan, are thought by other Muslims to be insufficiently Muslim?[8] ‘Cultural racism’ - the concept on which the definition draws -  is not convincing. The phrase is a conflation, gerrymanders plain meaning, and is unsuitable as a definition.

18. The use of this questionable concept allows the APPG to draw false parity with antisemitism and therefore emulate the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Antisemitism is a very specific racial concept and is directly equivalent to anti-Jewish hatred, abuse or violence. The need for a separate term is based on the fact that, uniquely among religions, the Jewish community has historically (and as a result of doctrine) been ascribed a dimension of ‘peoplehood’ or ethnicity. Islam explicitly does not have such an element. The concept of antisemitism does not extend to include criticisms of Judaism (even if they are instrumentalised with malign intent) or of Jewishness. Whereas the proposed Islamophobia definition has been explicitly broadened beyond the plain meaning of ‘anti-Muslim hatred’.

Lack of Due Diligence and Partiality in the Treatment of Evidence

19. Concerns have rightly been publicly raised over the strong influence of certain organisations over the conclusions of the APPG report[9] and that the report heavily draws on, but does not engage critically with, evidence submitted by academics of a similar stripe. We agree with these observations but will not rehearse them in detail.[10]

20. Some of these points were already raised by Policy Exchange’s research note. For example, that Dr Antonio Perra is cited in the acknowledgements as having had considerable influence on the preparation of the report, but no mention is made to his role as senior policy analyst at Mend until July 2018.[11] The Islamophobia Research Unit (IRU) cited in the APPG report’s legal section alongside the Crown Prosecution Service and Law Commission, is a project openly run by Mend but is cited without reference to this connection (p. 34).[12] Similarly, another contributing organisation, AVOW, is a recently launched Muslim women’s organisation involving a number of women who formerly worked for Mend.[13] 

21. Mend has been described in the past as “Islamists masquerading as civil libertarians”. They have provided a platform for illiberal and extremist speakers, and senior figures in the organisation have themselves promoted antisemitism.[14] Evidence supporting concerns about Mend are widely available. They have also consistently sought to undermine the government’s counter-terrorism and counter-extremism policies.[15] In 2018 a senior figure in Mend equated the position of Muslims in the UK to Jews in Nazi Germany prior to the Holocaust.[16]

22. Other examples include: Professor Salman Sayyid, described as one of the most influential contributors, with whom the wording of the definition originated, has on more than one occasion held events with the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC).[17] As highlighted by Policy Exchange, IHRC host the annual Islamophobia awards, which in the past they awarded to Charlie Hebdo following the attack on their staff in January 2015, which left 12 dead.[18] Their divisive message has been accused of damaging interfaith relations rather than building bridges and spreading ‘poisonous nonsense about Jews’.[19]

23. The Secretariat of the APPG, Muhbeen Hussain, organised a boycott of the police by a local Muslim community accusing them of Islamophobia following the child-sex grooming scandal.[20] Described as a “conspiracy theorist” by Policy Exchange, Professor David Miller’s evidence was also engaged with uncritically.[21] Miller’s comments defending Ken Livingstone’s controversial statements about Hitler and Zionism and his description of Israel as a “racist endeavour” arguably, and ironically, fall foul of the IHRA definition the APPG seek to imitate.[22] 

24. Other sources treated uncritically include FOSIS, Islamic Relief, and the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). The MCB is widely known for its alignment with the South Asian Jamaat-e-Islami movement,[23] and from 2009 until recently the government suspended links with the group due to concerns.[24] The group also criticised the appointment of moderate Muslim Sara Khan as counter-extremism commissioner.[25] FOSIS, similarly, was founded by Muslim Brotherhood activists[26] and Islamic Relief,[27] is one of number of UK-registered charities who were banned in the US for being part of the Union of Good, a fundraising group accused of having ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and believed to fund Hamas.[28]

25. This is compounded by the dismissive and incomplete treatment of dissenting sources. Evidence submitted by the National Secular Society, Dr Rumy Hasan, Southall Black Sisters and Lord Singh of Wimbledon, were selectively cited only as a means to rebuff them (e.g. pp. 37-38).[29] The impartiality of the APPG is brought into question when following Lord Singh’s Oral Evidence,  Baroness Warsi stated “I disagree with everything you’ve said Lord Singh”.[30]

26. The Southall Black Sisters’ evidence was treated exceptionally critically: “The argument” the report says “appears highly misguided” (p.  42, cf. 43). Dr Rumy Hasan’s evidence was either misunderstood or misread in such a way that it was undermined. When Dr Hasan stated that “Islam...is an ideology like any other religious or non-religious ideology”, the report comments that this “sits awkwardly within the debate” because Dr Hasan “defines Islam (a religion) as an ideology...while describing Christianity and Judaism, appropriately, as religions”. The plain meaning of Dr Hasan’s evidence is that he defines all religions as ideologies, and he is not, as the APPG seem to suggest, making an exception of Islam.

27. Additionally, positive news stories about Muslims in Britain were overlooked and a long list of unsubstantiated statements go without critical engagement, creating a potentially distorted but bleak picture of Muslim life in the UK.[31] Despite claims to have widely consulted the Muslim community, no Ahmadiyya groups appear to have contributed - a Muslim community much maligned by Islamists.

Negative Impact on Freedom of Speech

28. We agree with the National Secular Society that the APPG definition risks undermining free speech by conflating criticism of Islam with anti-Muslim bigotry and that, as the Society stated, the government "must not treat the civil liberties of British citizens as an afterthought in its efforts to tackle anti-Muslim prejudice"

29. The report (e.g. p. 11) and subsequent comments by Baroness Warsi (Debate, House of Lords, 20 December 2018) insist that free speech is respected by the definition. However, the content undermines these assurances, giving the impression of gaslighting.

30. The way in which the Baroness employs the term in that debate may be taken as illustrative of how it could be used to ill effect. The Baroness stated that “It only serves to demonstrate the necessity of the definition itself—to call out those anti-Semites or Islamophobes who poison our politics and society. In the case of one such critic, for example, Sunday Times journalist Andrew ​Gilligan.” Andrew Gilligan’s work legitimately investigates and exposes Islamist activity. The Baroness suggests that Gilligan’s reasonable objections are nothing but “self-preservation”. Does this imply that should the definition be made statutory, he would be unable to continue his work as before? It is worth highlighting that in the past Gilligan has exposed the Baroness’ own associations with Islamists.[32] This is valuable work that should not be restricted.

31. We are extremely concerned by the APPG’s notion of “reasonable” (p. 30) or “legitimate” (p. 35) and their lack of serious engagement with relevant free speech concerns (e.g. “Giving up the term islamophobia - and with it the possibility of creating legal instruments to tackle it - simply because of the perceived risk that it may limit free speech would be highly misguided”, p. 35).

32. The circular logic of dismissing free speech concerns by attributing to them ‘islamophobic’ motives is problematic. The report states “the recourse to the notion of free speech and a supposed right to criticise islam results in nothing more than another subtle form of anti-Muslim racism, whereby criticism humiliates, marginalises, and stigmatises Muslims”, and gives the example of grooming gangs. The report states that calling Mohammed a paedophile does not have the victim as the subject of the statement, but that its intention is to harm and it is “not rooted in any meaningful theological debate”. (p. 35).

33. This is possible because one of the “5 tests” found to be useful by the APPG in discriminating between legitimate and illegitimate criticism of Islam is whether or not the comment was made for sincere or ulterior motives (p.36). Who would be the arbiter in such cases? In a free society, there can be no arbitration of which criticisms of any given religion or ideology are legitimate, regardless of perceived motive, level of education or quality of debate.

34. The broadening of the definition of Islamophobia to ambiguously include ‘illegitimate’ criticisms of Islam is highly worrying (cf. pp., 9, 23, 24, 27, 30). Not only does the APPG fail to give any examples of what would constitute legitimate criticism, the illustrations it does provide of islamophobic speech should be permitted in free society. These include: accusing Muslims of entryism into politics, government or other societal institutions; accusing muslims of being more loyal to the ‘Ummah’ than their nation of residence; saying Muhammad is a paedophile; and claiming Muslims spread Islam by the sword or subjugate minority groups. Of course, if such claims are libellous all should have recourse to justice through normal routes.

35. The definition would have a chilling effect on necessary discussion around the Islamist threat to the UK.

Negative Impact on Integration and Counter-Extremism Work

36. One might ask: what of - feminist or LGBT thinkers/activists who criticise Islamic attitudes to gender and sexuality? - Secular or moderate Muslims who criticise the wearing of the burqa, niqab or hijab? - Journalists or researchers who investigate and expose Islamist entryism, such as in the case of Lutfur Rahman in Tower Hamlets?

37. Two examples serve to show potential negative effects of the definition:

38. First: Ofsted have expressed concerns relating to community pressure, particularly from conservative religious groups, being exerted on schools. This was made clear in Amanda Spielman’s letter to the Public Accounts Committee on 30 November 2018.

39. As was seen with the case of segregation and gender discrimination at one school in Birmingham, “religious group identity and authority”, Spielman said in July 2018, “are being systematically built up and used to limit individual liberties, such as the right of a girl to enjoy the same freedoms and opportunities as a boy”.[33]

40. Another example is the case of St Stephen’s School in Newham, East London. In September 2017, the school instituted a ban on children under the age of 8 years old from wearing the hijab, not normally worn until after puberty.[34] The headteacher consequently suffered abuse and pressure and eventually reversed the ban. According to an investigation by the Daily Mail hundreds of identical emails sent to the headteacher originated with a template authored Mend, who claimed that the reversal was an “‘important step towards resolving concerns about structural Islamophobia”.[35] Ofsted were subsequently accused of ‘Islamophobia’.[36]

41. Others accused of the same include Dominic Kennedy, for his journalistic reporting on Islamism, as are Muslims working in counter-extremism,[37] such as Sara Khan and Maajid Nawaz.[38]

42. Second: there is ample evidence of the problems of Islamist abuse of the charitable sector.[39] Baroness Warsi has herself claimed that Muslim charities are unfairly vilified (23 February 2017), while giving a speech at the inaugural Muslim Charities Forum (MCF) Humanitarian Awards.[40] A number of the organisations now under the MCF umbrella were formerly part of the aforementioned Union of Good.[41]  MCF was stripped of government funding in 2015 due to alleged funding links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.[42]

43. Would attempts to expose and deal with Islamist abuse of charities be hampered by the accusation of Islamophobia employing the APPG definition, and if so, where would this leave the Charity Commission’s policies and its objectives, as well as public trust in the sector?

Conclusion

44. We ask the Committee to consider the weight of concern expressed in many quarters about the harmful implications of this definition, particularly on freedom of expression and the consequences for those carrying out research, journalistic or academic, into Islamism.
45. We also call on the Committee to question the method for collecting and assessing the evidence submitted to the APPG, the lack of due diligence and potential bias, and its consequences for their conclusions.

January 2019