Has the Islamophobia ‘Working Group' of MPs already made up its mind?
Sir John Jenkins was invited by the Government-appointed 'Working Group' to offer his views on a proposed definition of 'Islamophobia'. Here is his response to Dominic Grieve, the Group's chair:
Dear Dominic Grieve,
It is kind of you to seek my views on 'whether a definition [of Islamophobia] would be helpful'. I have some fundamental reservations about both the process you are overseeing and its likely trajectory. I owe you the courtesy of explaining what these are. I remain unconvinced that anything I might say would make a difference to the Working Group on Anti Muslim Hatred/ Islamophobia Definition's deliberations. But I am always open to being persuaded otherwise.
The charge of special treatment may in fact increase hostility towards Muslims, not reduce it
First, with regard to process: the creation of the Working Group was announced by the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner on 28 February and given a six-month timeframe in which to deliver a report. We are now over half-way through that period and very little information about the work of the Group has entered the public domain. I note that the Terms of Reference (TORs) specify that all discussions will be strictly confidential. On a matter of such public policy significance, this is highly unusual. As matters stand, the absence of transparency is bound to raise serious questions about accountability. This must surely damage the credibility of its conclusions.
Second, the precise nature of the Working Group is unclear to me. The TORs talk about 'technical experts'. But the question of 'Islamophobia' is both heavily contested and subjective. In every definition I have seen – including that of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims, to whose 2019 report you contributed an introduction – it is treated as a matter of 'lived experience'. You described it as such yourself in February. I do not understand how anyone can be a 'technical expert' on such experiential matters. What is needed instead is surely expertise in European law and jurisprudence (which must be the operational framework for such issues), Islamic jurisprudence (which is highly complex and varied but provides a context for some of the more extravagant claims in this area), the philosophy of liberty and the history of both western and Islamic political thought – plus a healthily sceptical attitude to critical theory and an intellectually rigorous approach to both social constructivism and what Marxists used to call 'reification'.
I should also have thought that the membership of such a group would need to be diverse, representing different viewpoints, normative commitments and experiences. After all, if the government were to adopt a definition of Islamophobia, it would affect everyone in the country, of whatever ethnicity, faith or political persuasion. The Group's TORs go some way to recognising this – as indeed did the APPG Report. Yet every single member – apart from you – appears to be Muslim. Muslims, of course, have an entirely understandable interest in the matter: but so does everyone else.
Against that background, I am concerned that the Working Group may have begun its work with its conclusions pre-determined. The TORs make clear that its objective is 'to develop a working definition' not to decide whether to have one or not. As you will know from my own publicly stated position on this issue, I believe that the case for accepting this – as a first principle – is far from proven. This is, of course, a commonly held view not just in this country but across Europe and across political divides. Yet it seems that the Working Group has, without argument, decided otherwise.
That it has done so would seem to be in keeping with what I understand to be your own public position. The 2019 APPG Report claimed a definition of Islamophobia was needed to prevent 'negative attitudes that would not be classed as crimes by police' and to set 'appropriate limits to free speech' when talking about Muslims. Throughout the report there are frequent suggestions that this would need to be 'legally-binding'. Akeela Ahmed, a member of the current Working Group, is actually quoted as saying that 'a definition with legal power is required, one that could be implemented by the government and the police.' Even if the definition were not legally binding, it would still probably operate in much the same way. In the supportive foreword which you wrote, you 'greatly welcome[d]' the report and added, 'that action is needed I have no doubt.'
Then there is the question of how you believe my own views would help shape the current debate. As you will remember, when I and my colleagues at Policy Exchange contested the conclusions of the APPG at the time, you publicly described our report as in large part 'total, unadulterated rubbish.' I have not changed my views on this matter. I daresay the same is true of you.
Against that backdrop, it is hard not to wonder whether the real purpose of the Group's approach to me is not so much because they welcome challenge but instead to help legitimise a pre-ordained conclusion, by claiming that they consulted those on all sides of the debate – before proposing a definition which they then seek to present as a compromise.
As I have said, my position is a matter of public record, but I am happy to restate it here. Hatred of and discrimination against Muslims are emphatically wrong – but are already illegal. It therefore remains unclear to me exactly what the definitional, policy or legal problem might be that a new, government sponsored definition of Islamophobia is trying to address. What then is its purpose?
The government has periodically insisted that it will be 'non-statutory' and will maintain freedom of speech. The current TORs for your Working Group make the same claim. But they also explicitly talk about determining the 'appropriate and sensitive language' for discussing issues in this space. And the aim of many of the activists who seek such a definition is clearly to achieve legal enforceability.
Whether a definition is legally binding or not, of course, the impact is clear. You will recall that Sir Trevor Phillips (whom I note you have also invited to speak to the Working Group) was suspended from the Labour Party in 2020 for 'Islamophobia'. The suspension was both absurd and later lifted. But it illustrates the problem.
I do not understand how anyone can be a 'technical expert' on such experiential matters
Whatever form of words is chosen, and whatever legal status it has to start with, any definition will have serious consequences. It will almost certainly turbocharge 'cancel culture'. Indeed, I have heard it described as potentially the most retrograde step in this country since Sir Robert Walpole's government in 1737 granted the Lord Chamberlain's office powers to licence theatrical scripts. And it will inevitably reduce social trust and heighten social tensions. In this regard, the debate over whether a definition would be legally binding is something of a red herring. Its effect would inevitably be to shrink even further the space for open debate.
Moreover, this initiative comes at a time when the government is at pains to rebut the charge – not just in this country but from the Trump administration – that it operates a 'two-tier' policy in various areas. But unless it literally restates the existing legal protections covering all faiths, any official Islamophobia definition will be an undeniable act of two-tier policy, creating special status and protection for members of one faith alone.
The charge of special treatment may in fact increase hostility towards Muslims, not reduce it. It will certainly strengthen divisive extremism on all sides – not just from the populist right, but also the growing Islamist challenge to mainstream parties. That, too, is likely to harm both community cohesion and Muslims more generally.
It is unlikely to alleviate Islamist discontent – it will stoke it, creating new opportunities for grievance politics, challenge and attack in every institution and workplace. Even without the force of an official definition, claims of Islamophobia are already used to close down legitimate debate and deter investigation of alleged wrongdoing, as in Rotherham or Batley, with disastrous results all round, including for the wider Muslim community itself.
I have little confidence that the Working Group will approach these questions with an open mind. As I said at the beginning of this letter, I should be happy to be proved wrong on both points.
Yours sincerely,
Sir John Jenkins
Senior Fellow, Policy Exchange
How Not to Tackle Grooming Gangs: The National Grooming Gang Inquiry and a Definition of Islamophobia is published today
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Telegraph
Rayner's secret Islamophobia talks ‘risk new grooming gang cover-up'
Angela Rayner is accused of wanting to secretly drive through a definition of Islamophobia that could make it harder to discuss grooming gangs. The Deputy Prime Minister has appointed a working group to come up with a definition to be used across government. It is chaired by Dominic Grieve, the former Tory Cabinet minister, who has praised a 2019 study that called the discussion of 'grooming gangs' an example of 'anti-Muslim racism'. However, Claire Coutinho, a Conservative frontbencher, told The Telegraph she was concerned the process could be influenced by 'activists who have promoted extreme definitions of Islamophobia'. She has written to Ms Rayner accusing her of having the work carried out in secret, without the public being able to offer their views during a consultation period. And she pointed out that a ' culture of secrecy around matters relating to race and religion ' was a key factor enabling 'gangs of men to groom, rape, and torture young girls with impunity'. Critics have warned that some proposed definitions of Islamophobia would make it impossible for people to raise concerns about Asian grooming gangs. It comes after a report by Baroness Louise Casey found that hundreds of girls had suffered unimaginable sexual abuse, in part because some in authority had not tackled the issue out of fear of appearing racist. Ms Coutinho, the shadow minister for equalities, said was concerned the process would 'stifle free speech', and 'almost certainly would have prevented people from speaking out about the shocking abuse of young girls, disproportionately perpetrated by Pakistani Muslim men '. She told The Telegraph: 'The Casey report was crystal clear. For years, people were too scared to tell the truth about the rape and torture of children because they were scared of being called racist. 'Yet Labour is doubling down – pushing a secretive process including the voices of activists who have promoted extreme definitions of Islamophobia that would prevent people discussing genuine concerns around extremism and integration. 'Freedom of speech is not an optional extra in Britain. Angela Rayner must allow the general public to have their say on the definition of Islamophobia and make sure that no religions, belief systems, or people who hold a certain faith are beyond criticism.' The 2019 all-party parliamentary study on Islamophobia praised by Mr Grieve said: '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 the criticism humiliates, marginalises, and stigmatises Muslims. One real-life example of this concerns the issue of 'grooming gangs'.' Mr Grieve described the report at the time as 'well-researched' and 'an important contribution to the debate'. However, it was condemned by Kemi Badenoch, the equalities minister at the time, although the Labour Party adopted the definition and the examples referenced in the report. The working group includes Baroness Shaista Gohir, who in 2013 wrote a report arguing that the 'media coverage being given to British Pakistani offenders' was 'disproportionate', and that this was helping to 'fuel racism and Islamophobia'. She wrote: 'Right-wing populist groups have used this issue to fuel racism and Islamophobia, ignoring evidence that sexual exploitation occurs in every community and that the majority of offenders are white.' Another member, Akeela Ahmed, has called for the government to engage with the Muslim Council of Britain, despite alleged links to extremism. The new working group recently announced that although certain groups would be invited to respond to a consultation on any definition, the public would not be asked to do so. In her letter, Ms Coutinho said: 'This is unacceptable given the wide-ranging and serious implications that the definition will have on freedom of speech.' When the group comes up with its decision, it will be sent to Ms Rayner to sign off. The terms of reference state that the recommendations of the working group will not be published. Ms Coutinho continued: 'Surely in this, of all policy areas, the public deserve full transparency. 'A culture of secrecy around matters relating to race and religion – and self-censorship for fear of causing offence – was a key factor in what enabled gangs of men to groom, rape, and torture young girls with impunity. 'The Casey report has said, in no uncertain terms, that many examples were found of organisations avoiding the discussion of grooming gangs altogether 'for fear of appearing racist, raising community tensions or causing community cohesion problems'. 'For you to continue this work in secrecy, and without inviting views from the general public or wider society, would demonstrate that the Government has clearly not learnt the necessary lessons of the Casey report and the importance of transparency in maintaining public trust.' Those invited to take part in the consultation are asked for views on: what terminology to use, the need for a definition, whether racism should be a component of any new definition, what should be included within a definition, and examples of anti-Muslim hatred/Islamophobia. The warnings were backed by the Policy Exchange think tank, which claimed an official definition of Islamophobia could shut down vital debate on grooming gangs. The report urged the Government to suspend Mr Grieve's working group with immediate effect, pending the conclusion of the national inquiry into grooming gangs in three years' time. Sir John Jenkins, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and co-author of the report, said any official definition of Islamophobia would 'almost certainly turbocharge ' cancel culture '' and would 'be an undeniable act of two-tier policy, creating special status and protection for members of one faith alone'. A spokesman for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: 'We are absolutely committed to defending freedom of speech, and any proposed definition must be compatible with the right to freedom of speech and expression.
Scottish Sun
7 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Iranians BURN US & Israel flags and chant ‘we want to DIE for Ayatollah' as thousands join ‘death to the West' protests
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) SEETHING Iranians burned US and Israeli flags and swore their allegiance to the regime in mass protests across the country. Thousands flooded the capital's streets after weekly prayers, chanting for the death of the west and pledging their lives to the Supreme Leader. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 9 Protesters gathered in Tehran's main square to express their fury with Israel Credit: Getty 9 US and Israeli flags are burned Credit: AP 9 Strong support for the Supreme Leader was evident among the crowds Credit: Getty Israel has urged the people of Iran to rise up against the regime, but there are still pockets of support for the Islamic government. But alongside their loyalty to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the crowds aimed vitriolic hate at Israel and the West. Photos show Israeli and US flag deliberately set on fire and trampled on. A sea of Iranian and Hezbollah flags and photos of Khamenei were paraded through the roads. Footage also shows demonstrators brandishing pictures of commanders killed over the past week by Israel's missiles. One banner read: "I will sacrifice my life for my leader." Iranian state TV said: "This is the Friday of the Iranian nation's solidarity and resistance across the country." The broadcaster said that protests also took place in other cities - particularly Tabriz in northwestern Iran and Shiraz in the south. And there are reports of smaller scale gatherings in towns around the country. While these crowds back the regime, there are plenty in Iran who want to see it toppled and the people finally freed from its tyranny. Moment Israel DOWNS Iranian drone over Syria Thousands have drained from Tehran and even left the country. Friday's protests were by far the largest since Israel and Iran began trading missiles. People took to the streets despite the ongoing threat of Israeli bombs. In Isfahan, home to one of the nuclear facilities Israel has hit, thousands joined in the funeral of an Iranian killed in an Israeli attack. Several men were seen carrying a coffin draped with Iranian flags and with a photo of a uniformed soldier. Behind them, men, women and children followed, chanting: 'Death to Israel, death to America." 9 Crowds took to the streets following Friday prayers Credit: Getty 9 People turned out despite the threat posed by Israel's ongoing bombardment of Iran Credit: AP 9 Protesters believe that the US and Israel want to exploit the conflict to gain power over the Middle East Credit: EPA Protester Abu Hussein, a 54-year-old taxi driver, told Arab News: 'It is an unjust war… Israel has no right. 'Israel is not in it for the (Iranian) nuclear (program). "What Israel and the Americans want is to dominate the Middle East." The protests came on a day that efforts to find a diplomatic solution got gathered momentum. Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi travelled to Geneva to meet European foreign minsters - including those from the UK, Germany and France. Earlier in the day, he attended a special meeting of the UN's Human Rights Council. Meanwhile, the UN's Security Council met in New York upon Iran's request. 9 The protests broke out at cities around the country Credit: EPA 9 They were attended by men, women and children Credit: AP
Spectator
11 hours ago
- Spectator
Has the Islamophobia ‘Working Group' of MPs already made up its mind?
Sir John Jenkins was invited by the Government-appointed 'Working Group' to offer his views on a proposed definition of 'Islamophobia'. Here is his response to Dominic Grieve, the Group's chair: Dear Dominic Grieve, It is kind of you to seek my views on 'whether a definition [of Islamophobia] would be helpful'. I have some fundamental reservations about both the process you are overseeing and its likely trajectory. I owe you the courtesy of explaining what these are. I remain unconvinced that anything I might say would make a difference to the Working Group on Anti Muslim Hatred/ Islamophobia Definition's deliberations. But I am always open to being persuaded otherwise. The charge of special treatment may in fact increase hostility towards Muslims, not reduce it First, with regard to process: the creation of the Working Group was announced by the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner on 28 February and given a six-month timeframe in which to deliver a report. We are now over half-way through that period and very little information about the work of the Group has entered the public domain. I note that the Terms of Reference (TORs) specify that all discussions will be strictly confidential. On a matter of such public policy significance, this is highly unusual. As matters stand, the absence of transparency is bound to raise serious questions about accountability. This must surely damage the credibility of its conclusions. Second, the precise nature of the Working Group is unclear to me. The TORs talk about 'technical experts'. But the question of 'Islamophobia' is both heavily contested and subjective. In every definition I have seen – including that of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims, to whose 2019 report you contributed an introduction – it is treated as a matter of 'lived experience'. You described it as such yourself in February. I do not understand how anyone can be a 'technical expert' on such experiential matters. What is needed instead is surely expertise in European law and jurisprudence (which must be the operational framework for such issues), Islamic jurisprudence (which is highly complex and varied but provides a context for some of the more extravagant claims in this area), the philosophy of liberty and the history of both western and Islamic political thought – plus a healthily sceptical attitude to critical theory and an intellectually rigorous approach to both social constructivism and what Marxists used to call 'reification'. I should also have thought that the membership of such a group would need to be diverse, representing different viewpoints, normative commitments and experiences. After all, if the government were to adopt a definition of Islamophobia, it would affect everyone in the country, of whatever ethnicity, faith or political persuasion. The Group's TORs go some way to recognising this – as indeed did the APPG Report. Yet every single member – apart from you – appears to be Muslim. Muslims, of course, have an entirely understandable interest in the matter: but so does everyone else. Against that background, I am concerned that the Working Group may have begun its work with its conclusions pre-determined. The TORs make clear that its objective is 'to develop a working definition' not to decide whether to have one or not. As you will know from my own publicly stated position on this issue, I believe that the case for accepting this – as a first principle – is far from proven. This is, of course, a commonly held view not just in this country but across Europe and across political divides. Yet it seems that the Working Group has, without argument, decided otherwise. That it has done so would seem to be in keeping with what I understand to be your own public position. The 2019 APPG Report claimed a definition of Islamophobia was needed to prevent 'negative attitudes that would not be classed as crimes by police' and to set 'appropriate limits to free speech' when talking about Muslims. Throughout the report there are frequent suggestions that this would need to be 'legally-binding'. Akeela Ahmed, a member of the current Working Group, is actually quoted as saying that 'a definition with legal power is required, one that could be implemented by the government and the police.' Even if the definition were not legally binding, it would still probably operate in much the same way. In the supportive foreword which you wrote, you 'greatly welcome[d]' the report and added, 'that action is needed I have no doubt.' Then there is the question of how you believe my own views would help shape the current debate. As you will remember, when I and my colleagues at Policy Exchange contested the conclusions of the APPG at the time, you publicly described our report as in large part 'total, unadulterated rubbish.' I have not changed my views on this matter. I daresay the same is true of you. Against that backdrop, it is hard not to wonder whether the real purpose of the Group's approach to me is not so much because they welcome challenge but instead to help legitimise a pre-ordained conclusion, by claiming that they consulted those on all sides of the debate – before proposing a definition which they then seek to present as a compromise. As I have said, my position is a matter of public record, but I am happy to restate it here. Hatred of and discrimination against Muslims are emphatically wrong – but are already illegal. It therefore remains unclear to me exactly what the definitional, policy or legal problem might be that a new, government sponsored definition of Islamophobia is trying to address. What then is its purpose? The government has periodically insisted that it will be 'non-statutory' and will maintain freedom of speech. The current TORs for your Working Group make the same claim. But they also explicitly talk about determining the 'appropriate and sensitive language' for discussing issues in this space. And the aim of many of the activists who seek such a definition is clearly to achieve legal enforceability. Whether a definition is legally binding or not, of course, the impact is clear. You will recall that Sir Trevor Phillips (whom I note you have also invited to speak to the Working Group) was suspended from the Labour Party in 2020 for 'Islamophobia'. The suspension was both absurd and later lifted. But it illustrates the problem. I do not understand how anyone can be a 'technical expert' on such experiential matters Whatever form of words is chosen, and whatever legal status it has to start with, any definition will have serious consequences. It will almost certainly turbocharge 'cancel culture'. Indeed, I have heard it described as potentially the most retrograde step in this country since Sir Robert Walpole's government in 1737 granted the Lord Chamberlain's office powers to licence theatrical scripts. And it will inevitably reduce social trust and heighten social tensions. In this regard, the debate over whether a definition would be legally binding is something of a red herring. Its effect would inevitably be to shrink even further the space for open debate. Moreover, this initiative comes at a time when the government is at pains to rebut the charge – not just in this country but from the Trump administration – that it operates a 'two-tier' policy in various areas. But unless it literally restates the existing legal protections covering all faiths, any official Islamophobia definition will be an undeniable act of two-tier policy, creating special status and protection for members of one faith alone. The charge of special treatment may in fact increase hostility towards Muslims, not reduce it. It will certainly strengthen divisive extremism on all sides – not just from the populist right, but also the growing Islamist challenge to mainstream parties. That, too, is likely to harm both community cohesion and Muslims more generally. It is unlikely to alleviate Islamist discontent – it will stoke it, creating new opportunities for grievance politics, challenge and attack in every institution and workplace. Even without the force of an official definition, claims of Islamophobia are already used to close down legitimate debate and deter investigation of alleged wrongdoing, as in Rotherham or Batley, with disastrous results all round, including for the wider Muslim community itself. I have little confidence that the Working Group will approach these questions with an open mind. As I said at the beginning of this letter, I should be happy to be proved wrong on both points. Yours sincerely, Sir John Jenkins Senior Fellow, Policy Exchange How Not to Tackle Grooming Gangs: The National Grooming Gang Inquiry and a Definition of Islamophobia is published today
