𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

Labour risks “fanning the flames of division” in a “cynical bid for votes” in its support for an official definition of “Islamophobia”, leading Conservatives have warned.

Tories fear a working group launched to provide a definition will have been pushed by hard line groups to adopt wording which could “introduce a back door blasphemy law” and chill freedom of speech. They are alarmed any individual or organisation could submit evidence to the group.

The body, led by former Conservative Attorney General Dominic Grieve was launched to provide “a working definition of anti-Muslim hatred/Islamophobia which is reflective of a wide range of perspectives and priorities of British Muslims”. Its call for evidence received more than 27,000 responses.

The Government has condemned the Conservative intervention as “completely false and deeply irresponsible” and launched a full-throttle defence of its work to tackle such anti-Muslim hatred. But there is strong concern in Conservative circles about the unintended consequences of introducing a formal definition.

Conservatives were concerned by Labour communities minister Miatta Fahnbulleh’s statement that any proposed definition should “comprehensively reflect multiple perspectives and implications for different communities” and that “any individual or organisation was welcome to submit evidence”.

Claire Coutinho, the shadow minister for women and equalities, said: “Labour’s so-called Islamophobia definition threatens to suppress lawful criticism of Islamism and introduce a backdoor blasphemy law.”

Warning against “fundamental restrictions on British liberties,” she said: “Of course we need to tackle anti-Muslim hatred. But we will not achieve that by undermining free speech.”

Former Home Secretary Sir James Cleverly, the Shadow Communities Secretary, warned against giving “legitimacy to those who reject our values of freedom and democracy just as Britain faces rising political and religious violence and intimidation”.

He said: “This is a cynical bid for votes from polarised communities by Labour, and doing so is fanning the flames of division by recognising extremists”.

Sir James said it would be “indefensible” for the police to be “used to suppress free speech”. and criticism of Islamist extremism. That is not just weak – it is dangerous.”

The Government has forcefully rejected any suggestion extremists could have influenced the working group.

A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: “This is a completely false and deeply irresponsible – no extremist groups have had any influence over the definition or been involved in any part of the work. This work has always been about protecting people, not religions, and we’ve been clear from the beginning that the government would never consider a definition that would stifle free speech. This will remain at the forefront of our minds as we review the definition.”

The Government insists the working group has not met with proscribed or extremist groups and that no responses from organisations of extremist concern influenced the drafting of the definition. The working group’s terms of reference state that any definition must be compatible with the right of British citizens to “criticise, express dislike of, or insult religions and/or the beliefs and practices of adherents”.