Labour’s New “Anti-Muslim Hostility” Definition Is a Dangerous Mistake

Another assault on our free speech has arrived

Matt Goodwin’s newsletter goes to 94,000 subscribers from 183 countries. Inner Circle and Paid subscribers get access to all posts, the entire archive, events, comments, and help us spread our message. You can join us on YouTube, Insta, TikTok, X and Facebook. We will always tell you the truth.

---

---

The Labour government has just introduced a new official definition of what it calls “anti-Muslim hostility.”

A definition that will now be imposed from above on taxpayer-funded institutions, including our schools, universities, local government, health service, and more.

And in a telling sign that ministers already realise how controversial this move is, the definition is accompanied by another 1,400 words of explanation which, we are told, “must be read together” with it.

Those additional pages repeatedly reassure readers that the policy - a policy we have long warned about - will not threaten freedom of speech.

It will not, Labour assures us, restrict criticism of religion. It will not interfere with debate. It will not limit discussion.

But whenever a government feels compelled to repeat these assurances, it usually means something deeper is going on. And the warning signs are flashing.

Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, warns the definition could “inhibit” free speech and lead to widespread self-censorship, where people self-censor their views and stay silent because they fear being punished or ostracised if they say what they really think.

If institutions across Britain — our universities, councils, libraries, charities, museums and businesses — are encouraged to adopt this vague definition without clear guidance, warns Hall, then “nothing good will come of it.”

Why? Because when organisations are left navigating unclear political rules about what can and cannot be said, they tend to respond in one predictable way.

They censor themselves. Events get cancelled. Speakers are quietly disinvited. Research becomes more cautious. Genuine free debate disappears. The public square narrows. And our freedoms, slowly but steadily, are removed.

Not because the law demands it — but because nobody wants to risk crossing an undefined line.

Jonathan Hall captures the danger perfectly when he asks whether taxpayer-funded public institutions will now have the “strength and inclination” to resist becoming “organs of self-censorship.”

Nor are these voices alone in raising concerns. Yesterday, Lord Walney, the government’s former anti-extremism adviser, warned the definition could actually empower Islamist activists by allowing them to “deflect scrutiny from their quest to undermine our values”.

In other words, rather than confronting extremism, the policy risks giving extremists a new political tool.

Put it this way, if fears about being called a “racist” were enough to warn people off looking at the grooming gangs for decades then it’s not hard to see how similar fears about being branded “hostile to Muslims” could warn people off looking into Islamist networks, gangs, practices, and more.

And that matters because the government’s own social cohesion strategy — Protecting What Matters — acknowledges a difficult truth.

Islamist extremism remains the dominant terrorism threat facing Britain; it is responsible for two-thirds of all terrorist casework and 94 per cent of all deaths that have been caused by terrorism in the UK over the last twenty-five years.

There is simply no equivalence between the “far-right” and Islamism - it is the latter that poses the primary if not overwhelming threat to our way of life and we would do very well to remember it.

Yet by imposing this definition of anti-Muslim hostility, and entrenching it by also appointing a new “tsar” for anti-Muslim hostility, somebody whose sole job will now be to hunt out anything they perceive to be “hostile” to Muslims, the Labour Party and the British state have lost all perspective.

Britain, it should be remembered, already has strong laws against hate crimes and religious discrimination.

It is already illegal to threaten or harass somebody because of their religion.

So what is this new definition supposed to achieve, aside from creating a entirely new layer of special protections for Muslims that are not available to other groups?

Or perhaps that is indeed the point, accepted by a Labour Party that is haemorrhaging its traditional Muslim votes to the Greens and pro-Gaza Muslim ‘independents’.

The end result is that public debate about Islam and Muslims in Britain, irrespective of what Keir Starmer and Labour MPs are currently claiming, will be tightly regulated, edited, controlled, and curtailed.

Even some of those working to combat anti-Muslim hatred have warned about the potential consequences. Fiyaz Mughal, founder of the anti-hate organisation Tell MAMA, warns that the new policy could produce “the worst of both worlds.”

Extremists, he warns, like Lord Walney, could weaponise the definition to silence debate. Meanwhile, victims of genuine hatred might feel unsupported.

He offers a revealing example.

If somebody raised concerns about the role of Pakistani Muslim men in grooming gang scandals, Mughal warns, the definition - which states that ‘prejudicial stereotyping’ is a form of anti-Muslim hostility - could potentially be used against them on the basis that somebody might claim they are ‘stereotyping’ Muslims.

In other words, a policy that was designed to combat prejudice could end up discouraging honest discussion about serious social problems.

And there is another serious problem, too.

By introducing a special definition that protects one religious group over others — and despite existing laws already covering religious hatred — the government risks fuelling accusations of two-tier policymaking.

Hatred against Muslims is wrong. But so too is hatred against Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, atheists or anybody else.

The law already treats them equally. Introducing special definitions for one group risks strengthening grievance politics rather than reducing tensions.

All this definition will do, I suspect, is put an existing grievance politics and feelings of victimisation within Muslim communities on steroids.

Every criticism, every challenge, every uncomfortable observation about what might be going on within Muslim communities will now be met with the cry: “Anti-Muslim hostility!”

And that matters because Britain is already struggling with fragile community relations. Prime Minister Keir Starmer himself admits that social cohesion is facing what he calls an “emergency” (though he still cannot bring himself to explore why).

But social cohesion cannot be rebuilt through vague speech codes, expanding definitions and government-appointed “tsars”.

It requires something much simpler — and much harder - including many of the things we champion right here, in this newsletter.

Honest debate. Open discussion about extremism. Clear expectations around integration. And the confidence to talk openly about the challenges Britain faces.

If Labour’s new strategy encourages that conversation, it could do some good.

But if the new definition of anti-Muslim hostility becomes another tool used to police speech, silence critics and shut down uncomfortable discussions, then it will achieve the opposite.

It will deepen the divisions that are already tearing our country apart.

And that would be a very dangerous mistake indeed.

---

---