Senior leaders from the Hindu community in the United Kingdom have issued a stark warning. They state that the Labour Party's proposed official definition of Islamophobia poses a significant threat to freedom of expression. They fear it could silence lawful debate, especially for minority communities that engage in critical discussions about religion, history, and ideology.
Core Concerns: Blurring Criticism and Hatred
In a comprehensive letter addressed to the UK's Communities Secretary, Steve Reed, the Hindu Council UK outlined its primary objections. The council argues that the draft definition of "anti-Muslim hostility" dangerously mixes two separate concepts. It conflates hatred directed at Muslims as individuals with criticism aimed at Islam as a system of beliefs.
This conflation, the Hindu body contends, establishes a dangerous precedent. It could lead to situations where questioning religious ideas or examining historical facts is wrongly labelled as prejudice. The warning comes as the Labour Party, led by Keir Starmer, considers adopting this definition as non-statutory guidance for public institutions nationwide.
Although the guidance would not be law, it is expected to be integrated into the policies of public bodies, local councils, universities, and employers. This integration would influence disciplinary actions, staff training, and complaints procedures, having real-world impacts on speech and employment.
Vague Language and Risk of Misuse
The Hindu Council UK highlighted that the proposal depends on poorly defined terms like "racialisation," "collective characteristics," and "prejudicial stereotyping." None of these concepts, the council notes, have a clear foundation in existing UK law. This lack of precision opens the door to subjective interpretation and inconsistent application.
While the definition claims to target hostility and not debate, enforcement would occur through institutional policies, not courts. In settings like universities, local authorities, the NHS, and workplaces, sanctions could be applied based on a much lower threshold than what the legal system requires.
For Hindu and other Dharmic communities, this environment fosters a climate of fear. The council warns that legitimate speech may be self-censored to avoid professional repercussions, reputational harm, or facing malicious complaints.
Stealth Blasphemy Laws and Unequal Treatment
A major concern raised is that the definition could effectively reintroduce blasphemy-style protections through the backdoor. By offering heightened protection to a religion-linked identity, the guidance might shield Islamic beliefs and practices from critical examination. This would contradict the UK's longstanding principle that no belief system is above challenge.
Hindu leaders find this particularly alarming given their community's tradition of open intellectual debate and critical engagement with theology and history. They warn that discussions about historical events, such as persecution under Islamic empires, or criticism of modern Islamist ideology, could be unfairly branded as hostility, regardless of factual basis or intent.
The council also expressed disappointment over a lack of meaningful consultation with other faith groups during the drafting process. The definition was prepared by an advisory group chaired by former attorney general Dominic Grieve and submitted to the government in October. Creating a special definition for one religion without comparable frameworks for others risks creating a two-tier system for religious criticism and sowing resentment among minorities.
Call for a Precise, Legally-Grounded Definition
The Hindu Council UK clarified that it unequivocally condemns all hatred, violence, and unlawful discrimination against Muslims as individuals. However, it urged the government to adopt a definition that is narrow, precise, and firmly rooted in current law.
Such an approach must clearly separate hatred of people from criticism of ideas, explicitly protect freedom of expression, and ensure equal treatment for all religions and belief systems. In response to the letter, a government spokesperson reaffirmed the commitment to tackling hatred and discrimination, noting record levels of anti-Muslim hate incidents, while also insisting that freedom of speech remains a key priority.
