“Hindu community leaders have warned Sir Keir Starmer that Labour’s new Islamophobia definition will have a “significant chilling effect” on freedom of speech.
They say it conflates hostility towards Muslims with criticism of the religion of Islam, which would mean Hindus speaking about their historical persecution under Islamic empires in South Asia would fall foul of the definition.
Last week, the Hindu Council UK wrote a letter to Steve Reed, the Communities Secretary, saying there was a “serious” risk that the definition could suppress legitimate criticism of contemporary Islamist ideology out of fear of breaching a “poorly defined standard of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’”.
It also claimed that it could also lead to the backdoor reintroduction of a blasphemy law that would protect Islam without according the same rights to other religions.
“By granting heightened protection to a religion-linked identity through concepts such as ‘racialisation’ and ‘collective stereotyping’, the proposed definition continues to risk shielding Islamic beliefs and practices from scrutiny in practice, if not in law,” the council said.
“This is especially troubling given that the UK deliberately abolished blasphemy laws to ensure that no belief system is beyond challenge.”
StGuthlac2025 on
Question for any Muslims out there. How do you feel about the definition and bringing it into law?
djpolofish on
I’m sure the Telegraph will cover this story with balanced journalism… … … considering they’re one of the hubs of spreading Islamophobia
pubemaster_uno on
It is entirely rational to be fearful of Islam. The idea of making it illegal to express this fear is insane.
Electricbell20 on
The last one full definition I saw.
>Anti-Muslim hostility is 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.
I can understand why some Hindu groups would have issues.
Goosepond01 on
I don’t see why poltical and ideological groups need laws against people being critical of them.
shall we bring in a law that forbids people making fun of the EDL or Reform?
LifeMasterpiece6475 on
There should be no laws criticising religion whatsoever.
Deathstroke_16 on
Keir Starmer next week: Hindus are far-right hooligans.
Cersei-Lannisterr on
I thought punishing people for criticising aspects of a religion was something we got rid of?
Pandita666 on
What a joke that we even have to consider a law for this – it should be ok to ridicule, criticise and make fun of any religion – full stop. There’s no Islamic race and its purely an ancient ideology along with all the rest. Shit show in the making this is.
GreenSpectr3 on
Haven’t really looked into it. Is it likely that this new definition will go ahead? Is it equivalent to the IHRA definition of antisemitism?
Horror_Extension4355 on
I think this is all wild in the context of what happened to the Batley school teacher and the immediate reaction at that time of the local politicians.
ExpertSausageHandler on
Stop placating the worst major world religion thanks.
Draenix on
Jews murdered at a synagogue in Manchester? Police thwarted plans for a second, bigger attack last week?
Better curb Islamophobia lol
SaltEOnyxxu on
This is an objectively terrible idea as the Hindus have outlined. Why aren’t the other religious groups so heavily protected? We don’t like two tier policing and one religious group shouldn’t be protected above the rest.
Islamaphobia doesn’t exist, criticism of Islam, and racism exist.
AMoonMonkey on
No religion or ideology should be immune from criticism, nor should people be expected to simply “co-exist” with a religion that in recent times has historically been known to have members blow themselves up, behead and immolate people and so on.
It’s ridiculous.
evolveandprosper on
Would that be the same kind of Hindus as those who attack and persecute Christians?
RandomUsernameYute on
Do these Hindus really think they’re saving the West by attacking Islam, it’s funny how often I see them get used as a diversity quota for EDL types only for them to realise they’re not liked either
18 Comments
“Hindu community leaders have warned Sir Keir Starmer that Labour’s new Islamophobia definition will have a “significant chilling effect” on freedom of speech.
They say it conflates hostility towards Muslims with criticism of the religion of Islam, which would mean Hindus speaking about their historical persecution under Islamic empires in South Asia would fall foul of the definition.
Last week, the Hindu Council UK wrote a letter to Steve Reed, the Communities Secretary, saying there was a “serious” risk that the definition could suppress legitimate criticism of contemporary Islamist ideology out of fear of breaching a “poorly defined standard of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’”.
It also claimed that it could also lead to the backdoor reintroduction of a blasphemy law that would protect Islam without according the same rights to other religions.
“By granting heightened protection to a religion-linked identity through concepts such as ‘racialisation’ and ‘collective stereotyping’, the proposed definition continues to risk shielding Islamic beliefs and practices from scrutiny in practice, if not in law,” the council said.
“This is especially troubling given that the UK deliberately abolished blasphemy laws to ensure that no belief system is beyond challenge.”
Question for any Muslims out there. How do you feel about the definition and bringing it into law?
I’m sure the Telegraph will cover this story with balanced journalism… … … considering they’re one of the hubs of spreading Islamophobia
It is entirely rational to be fearful of Islam. The idea of making it illegal to express this fear is insane.
The last one full definition I saw.
>Anti-Muslim hostility is 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.
I can understand why some Hindu groups would have issues.
I don’t see why poltical and ideological groups need laws against people being critical of them.
shall we bring in a law that forbids people making fun of the EDL or Reform?
There should be no laws criticising religion whatsoever.
Keir Starmer next week: Hindus are far-right hooligans.
I thought punishing people for criticising aspects of a religion was something we got rid of?
What a joke that we even have to consider a law for this – it should be ok to ridicule, criticise and make fun of any religion – full stop. There’s no Islamic race and its purely an ancient ideology along with all the rest. Shit show in the making this is.
Haven’t really looked into it. Is it likely that this new definition will go ahead? Is it equivalent to the IHRA definition of antisemitism?
I think this is all wild in the context of what happened to the Batley school teacher and the immediate reaction at that time of the local politicians.
Stop placating the worst major world religion thanks.
Jews murdered at a synagogue in Manchester? Police thwarted plans for a second, bigger attack last week?
Better curb Islamophobia lol
This is an objectively terrible idea as the Hindus have outlined. Why aren’t the other religious groups so heavily protected? We don’t like two tier policing and one religious group shouldn’t be protected above the rest.
Islamaphobia doesn’t exist, criticism of Islam, and racism exist.
No religion or ideology should be immune from criticism, nor should people be expected to simply “co-exist” with a religion that in recent times has historically been known to have members blow themselves up, behead and immolate people and so on.
It’s ridiculous.
Would that be the same kind of Hindus as those who attack and persecute Christians?
Do these Hindus really think they’re saving the West by attacking Islam, it’s funny how often I see them get used as a diversity quota for EDL types only for them to realise they’re not liked either