15 January 2019
Written by: Dr. Mozammel Haque
I am fortunate enough on Monday, the 14th of January
2019 that I attended the Lords’ Chamber as guest of Lord Nazir Ahmed of
Rotherham and listened to the two issues, one question was asked by Lord Ahmed
on Humanitarian Situation in Yemen and another question was asked by Baroness Finn
on Islamophobia. Followings are the question and reply on Islamophobia at the
House of Lords chamber on 14 January, 2019.
Potential Consequences of Adopting
an Official Definition of
Islamophobia
Baroness Finn (Con) asked Her
Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential
consequences of adopting an official definition of Islamophobia.
Lord Bourne
of Aberystwyth, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing,
Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Conservative Party) replied,
“My Lords, we remain deeply concerned at hatred directed against British
Muslims and others because of their faith or heritage. This is utterly
unacceptable and does not reflect the values of our country. We know
that some have suggested that establishing a definition of Islamophobia could
strengthen efforts to confront bigotry and division. Any such approach would
need to be considered carefully to ensure that this would have the positive
effect intended.”
Formal definition of Islamophobia drawn to avoid
Creating a wider threat to
free speech?
Baroness Finn (Con) said, “The formal definition of anti-Semitism is carefully but narrowly drawn
and has helped to focus minds and resources on this pernicious hatred. How will
my noble friend ensure that a formal definition of Islamophobia, if introduced,
has a similar impact but is narrowly and carefully drawn so as to avoid
creating a wider threat to free speech?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth replied: “My
Lords, it would be useful for my noble friend to look at the debate we had
before Christmas, on 20 December, on this issue. I will certainly provide her
with the link. It illustrated some of the difficulties that exist. It took some
time to establish the definition for anti-Semitism. As I said, we would need to
proceed with great care. In the interim, there is clearly an issue of hatred
and bigotry directed against Muslims that we must confront.”
Twice Members of the House of Lords tried to join in the discussion.
Ensure all faiths and beliefs are equally protected?
Then Lord Singh of Wimbledon (Cross Benches)
joined in this debate and said: “My Lords, there is no common statistical basis
whatsoever suggesting that members of any one faith suffer more discrimination
than others. Emotive words like Islamophobia are simply unhelpful pleas for
special consideration. Does the Minister agree that the Government have a basic
responsibility to ignore all special pleading and ensure that all faiths and
beliefs are equally protected?”
Hate crimes against Muslims
Have risen dramatically
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth replied to the
above question: “My Lords, I would first say to the noble Lord—who contributed
to the debate on this issue on 20 December—that of course all faiths, heritages
and races should be protected, and indeed are protected. I would also gently
say to him that the statistics show numerically that there are far more attacks
and bigotry in relation to the Muslim community than any other.”
Consider the
definition from and the work
Done by APPG on
British Muslims
Baroness Hussein-Ece (Liberal Democrats)
joined in this debate and said, “My Lords, the Minister has acknowledged that
hate crimes against Muslims have risen dramatically. The Government’s own
figures show a rise of 40%, almost equal to that of anti-Semitism. Will the
Government accept that it is becoming increasingly normalised? We have commentators
and columnists who think it is perfectly proper to argue that racism and hate
speech against Muslims is acceptable and, in fact, should be normalised. Will
the Government carefully consider the definition from and work done by the APPG
on British Muslims, after consulting 800 community organisations, 80 academics
and more than 60 parliamentarians, on offering that protection, and send out a
strong signal that they intend to offer some protection? It is not
special pleading; it is about reducing hate crime in the same way done for
British Jews as well.”
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth replied: “My
Lords, I share the ambition to ensure that the incidence of hate crime comes
down. There is evidence of better reporting; that is one reason, although not
the only reason, why the statistics show an increase. It is worth mentioning
that. It is important to confront this wherever we look. The noble Baroness
will be aware that we recently renewed the hate crime action plan, which is now
going forward to 2020. I very much value the work done by the APPG and by others
on this issue. Of course the Government will look at this in the round, as we
will the other evidence and the very valuable debate we had just before
Christmas.”
Will he commit to working inside the government?
To get a definition adopted without delay
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
joined in the debate and said, “My Lords, will the noble Lord go further and
join me in congratulating the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims
on producing this report and its definition of Islamophobia? It makes clear
that Islamophobia is rooted in racism—racism that targets Muslimness or
perceived Muslimness. Its report and definition have been endorsed by British
Muslims for Secular Democracy, the Muslim Women’s Network UK, the Muslim
Council of Great Britain and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, said, by
more than 800 other organisations. Will he commit to working inside government
to get a definition adopted without delay?”
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth replied: “My
Lords, I say to the noble Lord, who I do not think was present at the debate in
question, that there are split views on this issue. It is not quite as
straightforward as he suggests. Of course we want to work with the APPG and
others, and we are certainly committed to any way of confronting and bringing
down bigotry and hatred. But I want to make sure that we get this right, and
that means not rushing it. I appreciate that the noble Lord will be part of
that endeavour and look forward to his support in that.”
Shared endeavour to bring down anti-Muslim hatred
And Islamophobia and confront them both
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) joined in this
debate and said, “My Lords, I say to the Minister, with due respect, that there
was not such division as he suggests. However, as he may be aware, those of us
who have spoken in the debate since the Islamophobia debate on 20 December have
received some unsavoury intimidation. Does he agree that any definition that
seeks to protect a community must be rooted in that community? Does he
therefore agree that any attempts to undermine the community’s agency is in
itself a part of that problem? To the House, I say that those of us who have
worked tremendously hard over years and decades will not tolerate any division
between us while we fight Islamophobia, other prejudices and anti-Semitism.”
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth replied: “My
Lords, first, if the noble Baroness goes back to that debate, she will find
that there were certainly Muslim contributors who had different views. I am not
saying that they did not want to confront Muslim hatred and
Islamophobia—they did—but there are certainly different approaches that we
would have to look at. I share her view about making sure that, in a shared
endeavour, we bring down anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia and confront them
both.”
Is it not better to
learn from what the
Stephen Lawrence inquiry
did?
The Archbishop of York joined in the
debate and said; “My Lords, on the overall question of definitions, sometimes
it is much easier to do things when we handle them as concepts. In the Stephen
Lawrence inquiry, we struggled with the question of racism, particularly when
it is found in institutions, so we ended up saying: “The concept that we apply
to this case of institutional racism is this”. That is much easier than a
definition because a definition can restrict what you want to say. Is it not
better to learn from what the Stephen Lawrence inquiry did? We in that inquiry
also struggled with the question of homophobic incidents in many other places.
In the end, we adopted the word “concept” as opposed to a definition, because a
definition is always contingent on who speaks and who does what. May I advise
that it might be worth while visiting the way in which the Stephen Lawrence
inquiry handled the question of institutional racism?”
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth replied: “My
Lords, the most reverend Primate is right and I take his advice on this very
seriously. There is obviously major work to be done here and I will certainly
revisit issues relating to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry and how we learned from
what came forward there. It is vital that we get this right; I am sure we all
share in that ambition. It is about making sure that we do it, not about
rushing to judgment and coming to a set conclusion without looking at the
evidence. I am keen to see the evidence and to act on it.”
