Christian and Hindu leaders in the UK have expressed concern about the government’s proposed definition of anti-Muslim hatred, warning that religious freedom and freedom of speech will be threatened.
The debate centers on a 2018 definition by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Muslims in Britain (APPG) that classifies Islamophobia as a form of racism. The Labor government is currently seeking to replace the word “Islamophobia” with “anti-Muslim hatred or hostility” in the official legal definition.
Supporters of the APPG definition argue that the government’s measures only address physical violence, but critics see the new plan as a repackaging of previous flawed versions of the APPG.
Alicia Edmund, head of public policy at the English Evangelical Alliance (EA), says the government must respect Christian services.
“Christians sharing with other ethnic and religious minorities the transformative hope of Jesus and his teachings is not hate speech and should not be treated as a crime,” Edmund told Christian Daily International. “Any definition must distinguish between fair criticism of belief systems and addressing hostility or violence against individuals, without compromising freedom of expression.”
The EA has worked with government working groups on a number of occasions to urge caution.
The British Hindu Council echoed these concerns. Dipen Rajaguru, the council’s director of equalities and inclusion, wrote to Communities Minister Steve Reid on 29 December. Mr Reid is finalizing a new definition of non-statutory based on an October draft by a consultative working group led by former Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve. Its definition is to guide public bodies, parliaments, and businesses in combating prejudice, discrimination, and hostility against Muslims.
In his letter, Mr. Rajaguru acknowledged the need to protect Muslims from harm, but said the current proposal was “deeply flawed.” He warned that this definition “risks serious unintended consequences.”
Mr. Rajaguru pointed out that the existing Criminal Code and Equality Act already protect citizens from discrimination.
“While the first part of the definition refers to criminal acts and prohibited discrimination that are already clearly covered by existing criminal law and equality law, the definition then expands to vague and undefined concepts,” Mr. Rajaguru said.
He cited concepts such as prejudiced stereotypes and the racialization of Muslims as problems.
“Like the APPG definition, these terms do not have clear legal meanings,” Rajaguru explained. “From a Hindu perspective, this ambiguity is dangerous; it leaves interpretation open to subjective perceptions rather than objective legal standards, making the definition vulnerable to inconsistent application and politicization.”
Mr. Rajaguru said this uncertainty undermines public trust. He noted that Christian, Hindu, Sikh, and secular organizations are all concerned that the definition fails to distinguish between hostility toward people and criticism of religion.
“By referring to ‘racialization’ and ‘group characteristics,’ this definition risks treating religion and its associated ideas, doctrines, and practices as if they are immune from criticism,” Rajaguru said. “This reflects one of the most controversial aspects of the APPG definition, and has been widely criticized for blurring this essential distinction.”
Hindu leaders expressed concern that the proposal would jeopardize theological and historical debates.
“Under the proposed definition, there is a real risk that such arguments, especially if robust and critical, could be characterized as ‘prejudicial stereotyping’ or ‘hate-mongering’, regardless of their factual basis or intent,” Rajyaguru warned.
He said the breadth of the definition had a “serious chilling effect on free speech.”
Mr. Rajaguru reminded the government that democratic principles include the right to challenge ideas.
“Any definition that prevents legitimate speech for fear of reputational or professional repercussions not only stifles free thought, but undermines this fundamental democratic principle,” he added.
He also warned that the proposal would create a “de facto blasphemy framework” by shielding religious beliefs from scrutiny. He criticized the government for failing to consult with other religious groups.
“A pluralistic and democratic society must protect people from harm, but not ideas from criticism,” Rajaguru said.
The British Hindu Council warned that activists could weaponize these definitions to suppress legitimate speech or force ideological training. Mr. Rajaguru called on the government to strictly focus on violence and harassment against individuals.
“We must stand firm against hatred against Muslims, but this must not come at the expense of free speech, equality before the law, or the legitimate voices of other minority communities,” he concluded.
