For a precious few decades, we in the west enjoyed a liberal consensus. The overwhelming majority of us had accepted that we should be free to speak and act as we wish so long as we adhere to the rule of law and not violate the rights of others. But since the early 2010s, culture warriors have successfully managed to destabilise this consensus. This has been achieved not through a process of persuasion, but largely through linguistic chicanery.
The term ‘Islamophobia’ is a case in point. Few of us would tolerate the abuse of citizens for their belief in Islam, the vandalism of mosques, or physical attacks on those who are identifiably Muslim. We are right to condemn all such behaviour, and to support freedom of belief and worship. This is the essence of a secular democracy.
And yet those of us who maintain that the belief system of Islam is essentially wrong, that the veiling of women is rooted in misogyny, and that no religious icon should be ring-fenced from ridicule, are often dismissed as ‘Islamophobic’. This is to conflate the actions of bigots and criminals with those who are simply exercising their right to criticise ideas. It is linguistic sleight-of-hand. And it works.
The U.K. Government is currently considering how to tackle so-called ‘Islamophobia’, which should come as no surprise given that the Labour Party seems to be waging an open war against free speech. Having already jettisoned the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act – a bill that had been thoroughly debated in parliament and had received cross-party support – Labour has moved on to targeting online speech. Meanwhile, judges are openly imposing draconian prison terms for speech-crimes in order to “set an example”. These are dark times for liberty.
So what will the criminalisation of ‘Islamophobia’ mean? If it is to tackle vandalism, assault, or harassment of Muslims, then its proponents should rest assured that such actions are already illegal. To understand what the Labour party is considering, we need to examine the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG)’s definition of ‘Islamophobia’, a variation of which is likely to be adopted by the current government in future legislation. A report by the APPG in November 2018 put it this way:
Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.
The definition is factually wrong. Islam is a belief-system, not a race. There are over two billion Muslims in the world, and they belong to multiple ethnicities. To criticise Islam is to criticise an idea, not a racial demographic. If we wish to live in a free society, that means we must retain the right to reject or embrace ideologies as we see fit. We don’t criminalise ‘Christianophobia’ or ‘Marxistophobia’ or ‘Freemarketcapitalismophobia’, so why should we do so when it comes to Islam?
The conflation of race and belief is, of course, a strategic means to silence dissent. Most of us in the west have reached the consensus that racism is an intolerable evil. And so by making criticism of Islam akin to racial hatred, we implicitly render such criticism an act of bigotry. This is why so many intersectional campaigners are silent on the treatment of women in Islamic theocracies. While western activists are claiming that the veil is empowering, courageous women in Iran are throwing off these oppressive garments and dancing in the streets. This is in spite of the risks of imprisonment and violence by the ‘morality police’.
The term ‘Islamophobia’, like many other ‘phobias’, is an attempt to pathologise perfectly legitimate points of view. It is similar to the claim that anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is “homophobic” or that anyone who believes that women are entitled to single-sex spaces is ‘transphobic’. As a tactic, it’s about as sophisticated as saying: “Oh, don’t pay any attention to him. He’s a nutcase”.
The term ‘Islamophobia’ apparently dates back as early as 1910, when it appeared in the French form islamophobie in an essay by Alain Quellien. It was popularised in the 1970s by Iranian Islamic fundamentalists. Like all ideologues, they understood that cultural revolutions are best achieved through the control of language and definitions.
Those who struggle to convince others to join their cause often take this alternative approach. They simply redefine words so that people end up supporting their side without realising it. This is precisely the method that had led so many liberal-minded people to promote ‘woke’ causes, even though they represent the precise opposite of liberal values. It’s also why people who fully understand that human beings cannot change sex are nonetheless parroting the slogan: “trans women are women.”
The propagation of the term ‘Islamophobia’ works in much the same way. It prevents open discussion about Islamic beliefs by stigmatising those who participate. We saw this explicitly when the European Court of Human Rights agreed with a court in Austria that criticism of the Prophet Mohammed was “beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate”. As Qanta Ahmed pointed out in the Spectator, this was offensive to Muslims because it infantilised them. It implied that they should be treated like children who are prone to violent tantrums when insulted.
In criminalising criticism and ridicule of Islam, the U.K. Government would effectively be asserting that Muslims are second-class citizens who need to be protected from the realities of life in a pluralistic society. Would this not be a violation of their own law? Could the implementation of a law against ‘Islamophobia’ itself be an act of Islamophobia? These are dizzying possibilities that remind us that the state should never attempt to control the speech or thoughts of its citizens.
Enough of the word games. Islam is not a race. Its disciples are not entitled to a life free from offence. Anti-Muslim hatred and prejudice exists and ought to be criticised, but it is not the same as the mockery or the denunciation of a religious creed. Any legislation against ‘Islamophobia’ would be tantamount to a new form of blasphemy law. In a supposedly free society, this cannot be tolerated.
Andrew Doyle is a writer, comedian and broadcaster who hosts the GB News show Free Speech Nation. He is the author of Free Speech and Why It Matters and The New Puritans. He created satirical Left-wing activist Titania McGrath, whose two books are Woke: A Guide to Social Justice and My First Little Book of Intersectional Activism. This article was first published on his Substack. You can subscribe here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.