(Flickr Commons)
In New York, the UN General Assembly adopted a landmark resolution by consensus among its 197 members to proclaim March 15 as International Day to Combat Islamophobia.
In London, the Conservative Government of Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, continued to drag its feet over the semantics after refusing to accept a working definition put forward by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims in May 2019, despite being accepted by other parties. The Labour Muslim Network has found little confidence in the leadership of the main opposition party to tackle Islamophobia with its supposed zero-tolerance policy.
It has become like any other day at the office for British Muslims being shabbily treated, with even Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, preventing Johnson from being questioned about his history of Islamophobic remarks.
Despite the watershed decision at the UN, the Tories remain in denial about the extent of the discrimination and hatred towards Muslims when the Prime Minister promotes his own Chief Whip, Mark Spencer, to be in charge of Parliamentary business in the House of Commons while being put under investigation for alleged Islamophobia himself. The offence had been kept under wraps for two years after it led to the only Muslim woman minister in the government being sacked as Transport Minister.
Not only did the Government reject the APPG’s definition of Islamophobia, but it also led the police to follow suit. According to a Freedom of Information request, the Met referred to specific concerns relating to “the potential to cause confusion to police colleagues and the public, particularly in its use of the terms ‘racism’ and ‘Muslimness’,” quoted in the brief definition. “Officers need to understand how race and religious hate crimes intersect,” a letter from the National Police Chiefs Council quoted, as well as the word Islamophobia itself being picked upon, claiming it could further add to possible confusion and challenge free speech.
It may appear rather odd to quibble about the term “Islamophobia” derived from two words “which are perhaps misleading in the context of hate crime” when there was seemingly no similar scrutiny when the police were willing to define and give full guidance about anti-Semitism despite its wide and different connotations.
Not only does it include a “certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews,” but even “manifestations that could also target the state of Israel,” the guidance suggests. It further goes on to the extent of giving “contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context.”
The painstaking police guidance is supplemented by the Government publication of a ‘British Best Practice Guide to tackling anti-Semitism.’ This is in addition to the Foreign Office’s work with international partners to stamp out evil. And yet, there is also the absence of an agreed international definition.
The latest attempt to widen a non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism was formally adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016 by consensus among its 31 member countries. Despite free speech concerns regarding being able to criticise Israel and its human rights record or even be able to describe it as an apartheid state, the definition has largely been about political parties and many local authorities across the UK, as well as some educational establishments.
Does the preferential treatment to protect Jews suggest that Muslims are, again, being short-changed? Regularly, the community is an easy target because of the way Muslims are so often presented in many newspapers. Insisting that political parties have zero-tolerance for hate crimes is one thing; actually implementing such a policy has proved to be another, unfortunately.
The Government is remaining in denial when it not only accepts that there is such a huge problem in the experience of Muslims facing such discrimination. It is no answer to even bother to identify the issue by way of a definition. It becomes even worse when even the speaker can also interpret it in his own way and limit any discussion about the crass phenomenon in the House of Commons. If Islamophobia cannot be questioned in Parliament, where can it be?
Speaker prevents Johnson being asked about his anti-Muslim remarks
