A renowned Sikh group is preparing legal action against the Government over the potential new definition of Islamophobia.
The Network of Sikh Organisations (NSO) is planning a judicial review if Communities Secretary Steve Reed pushes ahead with plans for an official definition.
Mr Reed has been handed the responsibility of providing a definition following the resignation of Angela Rayner, as he plans to overrule independent advisers if they suggest it is letting “blasphemy laws [in] by the back door”.
It has raised concerns that a definition could damage freedom of speech and criticism of Islam, as well as hindering efforts to tackle grooming gangs.
The NSO suggested that it is discriminatory and puts other faiths in harm’s way.
It added the definition would interfere with the rights of Sikhs and other religious groups to freedom of thought and religion.
The NSO sent a pre-action letter to the Government on September 19, laying out its concerns and explaining that it has been preparing a judicial review.
Mr Reed stated that protecting freedom of speech was very important and that he would not adopt a definition at any cost.
Sikhs fear that a definition of Islamophobia could put them at a disadvantage
|
PA
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood warned that a definition could result in “special treatment” that “increases hatred rather than deals with it”.
The NSO said the right protections for hate crimes are already in law and that a definition raises “serious concerns”.
They fear that a broad definition of Islamophobia will interfere with the ability of Sikhs to manifest their religion and beliefs freely.
It argued that any definition would place not only Sikhs but also any religious groups at a discriminatory disadvantage.
NSO director, Lord Singh of Wimbledon, wrote: “There are countless examples of Sikh beliefs and practices which would offend people of the Islamic faith, and would fall afoul of any definition of ‘Islamophobia’, but which are important and sometimes even central to the manifestation of the supposedly offending faith.”
The NSO warned that a definition could risk censoring Sikh history, given that central points of its historical narrative refer to oppressive Muslim rulers.
As an example, Sikhism has a strict prohibition on the consumption of ritually slaughtered meat, such as halal.
The NSO warned that if a definition described racism as targeting “an expression of Muslimness”, this would now be viewed as Islamophobic.
Mr Singh noted that “it is not logical or rational to interfere with the religious freedom of one group to defend the sensibilities of another group from subjective forms of offence.”
A spokesman for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “No decisions on a definition have been made, and we will not accept any definition which damages freedom of speech or discriminates against religious communities.”
Mr Reed said in September: “We haven’t got a definition to introduce yet.
“There’s a group working on it, and we’ll have to look at what they propose. But at the front of my mind in taking that decision will be that I will defend free speech.”