By: Dominic Grieve, former Conservative MP and former Attorney General of England and Wales / The Independent
Translation: Telegrafi.com
I am pleased that the [UK] government has decided to implement my recommendations to provide a definition of anti-Muslim hostility.
In taking evidence, the working group tasked with developing a new illegal definition of this hostility was left in no doubt that the abuse and casual harassment of fully law-abiding Muslims, who seek to live their lives in harmony with their neighbors and contribute to the life of our country, has increased and continues to increase.
Anyone who watches social media will also notice that this has developed into a generalized and disgusting slander on the internet. The divisions and damage this risks causing in our society are not something that can be ignored.
Opponents of the definition argue that it risks restricting legitimate freedom of expression, including the right to criticize and mock the Islamic religion, as well as raising concerns about cultural practices. They express concern that it will be used as a weapon by Islamist extremists.
But anyone who bothers to read the definition will see that this should not be the case. The working group and the government have been committed to ensuring that this does not happen.
The definition itself is not a new law. It is intended as a tool to help identify a problem, and the explanatory notes make it clear that the robust debate on issues of religion and culture, which underpins a free society, will not be hindered.
It is worth noting that some organizations and institutions are currently using other definitions that are controversial in this regard. I see the possibility of replacing them with this one as an improvement.
Recently, hostility towards Muslims has often been described as “Islamophobia.” This is a term that may have some validity in an academic discussion, and, for many Muslims, it means the same thing as hostility towards Muslims. But, given its common meaning, the term “Islamophobia” refers to an irrational fear of a religion, and this is not something that any religion has the right to defend itself from, any more than a political belief should be protected from criticism. What is rational or irrational should itself be subject to debate.
Its use has raised concerns that the aim is to prevent criticism of Islam and has been seen as a threat to a new blasphemy law. As a supporter - when I was an MP - of repealing our previous blasphemy law, this is something that I and the working group had no intention of resurrecting for any religion.
Another issue has been whether hostility toward Muslims is a form of racism. Islam is a universal belief system with followers from many races and nations. While hostility toward Muslims can often have an element of racism based on ethnic and cultural factors, and those who vilify Muslims often treat them as if they were a racial group in order to marginalize them, this is not an accurate description of hostility toward a religion, and we have not used it.
A definition alone does not, in itself, solve the problem it is identifying. But it does provide a focus on the issues that need to be addressed.
The evidence we received showed that the existing definition of anti-Semitism is fulfilling this purpose. It too was a pragmatic response to a visible and growing problem. I am pleased that the government has also announced other measures to improve social cohesion, which will be important to implement.
I am convinced that, taken together, they can contribute to the advancement of the common good in our country. /Telegraph/
