LABOUR TEARS UP ISLAMOPHOBIA DEFINITION

New ‘anti-Muslim hate’ wording aims to balance free speech and protection from hostility

Labour has scrapped its contentious 2019 definition of Islamophobia and will now use the phrase anti-Muslim hate in official policy, removing the contested word “Muslimness” and the term “Islamophobia” altogether. The decision, revealed by The Telegraph, marks a significant shift in Labour’s approach to faith relations and free expression—reflecting a growing unease across British politics with the weaponisation of “hate” terminology to police language and opinion.¹

The rewording was produced by a party working group chaired by former Attorney General Dominic Grieve KC, following years of criticism that the earlier definition blurred the line between race and religion, turning disagreement or scrutiny into a potential hate offence. Communities Secretary Steve Reed is now reviewing the proposal, pledging that “no definition adopted by this Government will bring in blasphemy laws by the back door.”²

For Labour, the change is both tactical and symbolic. It distances the party from the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims’ 2018 formula—long criticised for being overly expansive—and signals a desire to reassert Labour’s secular, civic language of equality rather than the identitarian rhetoric of the Corbyn years.

From ‘Muslimness’ to mutual respect
In opposition, Labour incorporated the APPG’s wording into its code of conduct:

“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”³

The inclusion of “expressions of Muslimness” provoked unease among civil libertarians, academics, and faith leaders. The phrase seemed to encompass not only ethnic prejudice but also commentary on religious belief and cultural practice. The National Secular Society and Free Speech Union both warned that it could be used to suppress open discussion of Islamism, sharia, or social issues such as forced marriage and honour-based violence.⁴ ⁵ The result, critics said, was the revival of a de facto blasphemy law.

Former Equalities Commission chair Trevor Phillips called the APPG definition “an instrument of censorship masquerading as anti-racism,” arguing that it conflated faith with race in a way that would have made honest debate “impossible.”⁶ Even the Government under both Conservative and Labour leaderships refused to adopt it, stating that it “is not in line with the Equality Act 2010.”⁷

Freedom of speech and the rule of law
The replacement wording—focused narrowly on hatred toward Muslims as individuals—is intended to correct that overreach. Yet the shift has reignited tensions within Labour’s own ranks. Shadow Equalities Minister Claire Coutinho MP welcomed the emphasis on free speech, warning that the previous definition “had a chilling effect” and could silence legitimate commentary on issues such as grooming gangs or Islamist extremism.⁸

The Times reported that Home Office officials had privately raised similar concerns, fearing that the APPG wording would inhibit counter-extremism efforts by creating a “climate of accusation” around law enforcement.⁹ Earlier leaks showed that some Labour training materials even discouraged use of the phrase “grooming gang,” a policy now regarded as an emblem of institutional cowardice.¹⁰

The deeper question, however, is philosophical. Can a democracy safeguard religious minorities from hostility without criminalising the criticism of their religion? British law already prohibits incitement to religious hatred and protects individuals from discrimination. But the concept of “Islamophobia” imported an ambiguity: it pathologised fear or dislike of ideas rather than people. The new wording—if adopted—will attempt to restore the traditional distinction between the two.

Faith, politics, and perception
The revision comes at a time of heightened tension between communities. Official figures record a 19 per cent rise in anti-Muslim hate crimes, many following the summer riots and incidents linked to Islamist extremism.¹¹ Yet public opinion remains ambivalent: polling shows that only three per cent of Britons list “tackling Islamophobia” as a national priority, while a majority cite healthcare and immigration as their chief concerns.¹²

Reform UK’s Richard Tice accused Prime Minister Starmer of “placating the smallest of fringe views while the public screams out for real change,” warning that the original definition risked repeating the “systemic failure” of police forces to address grooming gangs “for fear of being called racist.”¹³ His comments echo a widespread frustration that moral posturing on identity issues has replaced tangible governance.

At the same time, Muslim organisations argue that changing terminology to anti-Muslim hate risks downplaying a distinctive form of prejudice. Baroness Shaista Gohir OBE, one of the four experts involved in the revision, defended the final draft as a “balanced resolution” that protects both victims and liberty of speech.¹⁴ She noted that “clarity in definition must not mean indifference to suffering,” pointing to a rise in targeted abuse and hate crimes against Muslims, particularly women.

Political symbolism and identity fatigue
Editorial voices across the press reveal Britain’s fatigue with the politics of identity. The Jewish Chronicle praised the Labour retreat as “a victory for reason,” warning that earlier definitions “had done more to stoke fear than to build trust.”¹⁵ The Sun quoted Trevor Phillips describing Labour’s previous stance as “moral cowardice dressed up as compassion.”¹⁶ The Telegraph went further, arguing that “Britain’s existing hate-crime laws already protect faith communities; further definitions risk transforming legitimate criticism into a crime of opinion.”¹⁷

By contrast, Hyphen Online and the Muslim Council of Britain fear that removing the word Islamophobia symbolically erases the specific experience of Muslims in Britain and may signal retreat from the government’s commitment to address anti-Muslim discrimination.¹⁸ Yet, as one senior Home Office official told The Times, “the law protects people, not ideas — and that distinction must remain inviolable.”

A test of Britain’s civic identity
The issue has become emblematic of Britain’s cultural struggle between post-liberal sensibilities and classical liberal principles. For some, the word Islamophobia has become a moral shibboleth: to oppose it is to invite suspicion; to endorse it is to risk complicity in censorship. But at its core lies a moral question older than any government — whether truth and tolerance can coexist without coercion.

The new Labour government’s approach, if implemented with prudence, could signal a return to the older British ideal of fair play under free speech — the notion that civic peace depends not upon enforced consensus but upon mutual respect and the liberty to disagree. In this sense, the rewriting of one word in a party code is a small act of linguistic restoration: a re-drawing of the line between protecting citizens and policing thought.

A spokesman for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities reaffirmed that the Government “will always defend freedom of speech, including fiercely protecting the right to criticise, express dislike of, or insult religions and the beliefs and practices of those who follow them.”¹⁹ Whether that conviction will hold when tested by future controversies remains to be seen.

The true measure of this reform will not be in the words it omits but in the courage it restores — the courage of a nation once proud to speak freely and to live peaceably, without fear of either persecution or proscription.

Footnotes
¹ The Telegraph, “Labour tears up Islamophobia definition,” 18 Oct 2025.
² Ibid.
³ APPG on British Muslims, Islamophobia Defined, 2018.
⁴ National Secular Society, Religion-phobia definitions must be avoided, Aug 2024.
⁵ Free Speech Union, Labour warned over attempt to define Islamophobia, 2024.
⁶ The Sun, “Labour’s plans for ‘Islamophobia’ definition aimed at shutting down free speech, warns Trevor Phillips,” May 2025.
⁷ The Times, “Government set to soften definition of Islamophobia,” Jun 2024.
⁸ The Telegraph, 18 Oct 2025.
⁹ The Times, “Labour’s Islamophobia definition ‘would be used to hinder police’,” Oct 2024.
¹⁰ The Times, “Labour policy suggested ‘grooming gang’ phrase was racist,” 2024.
¹¹ UK Home Office, Hate Crime, England and Wales 2024/25 (Statistical Release).
¹² JL Partners Poll, Oct 2025.
¹³ Richard Tice, “Starmer is placating fringe views while the public screams out for real change,” The Telegraph, 18 Oct 2025.
¹⁴ The Telegraph, 18 Oct 2025.
¹⁵ The Jewish Chronicle, “Labour’s planned Islamophobia definition threatens free speech and security,” Oct 2025.
¹⁶ The Sun, May 2025.
¹⁷ The Telegraph, “Government does not need a definition of anti-Muslim hate,” 19 Oct 2025.
¹⁸ Hyphen Online, “UK Government quietly backs away from Islamophobia definition,” Sep 2024; Muslim Council of Britain Statement, Oct 2025.
¹⁹ Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities statement, 18 Oct 2025.