Labour Accused of Lobbying EHRC to Force Through an “Unworkable” Islamophobia Definition
The Labour government in the United Kingdom has come under increasing criticism over allegations that it attempted to persuade the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to adopt a controversial definition of Islamophobia, despite concerns within the watchdog that the definition could create legal confusion and threaten freedom of expression. The controversy has raised wider questions about the relationship between government policy, political interests, minority protection and the fundamental democratic principle of free speech.
The dispute centres on the government’s decision in March 2026 to introduce a non-statutory definition of “anti-Muslim hostility”. The measure was presented as an attempt to address discrimination, prejudice and hostility directed towards Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. Unlike the earlier and more controversial term “Islamophobia”, the new wording was intended to focus on hostility towards people rather than criticism of Islam as a religion. The government has stressed that the definition is non-statutory and does not prohibit lawful criticism, debate or even ridicule of religious ideas.
However, the policy has generated significant controversy. According to information obtained through a Freedom of Information request, the EHRC will not adopt the government’s definition. The watchdog has said that the issue was discussed informally with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, including the question of whether the commission itself would adopt the definition. The revelation has prompted accusations that the government attempted to pressure an independent regulator into supporting a policy about which it had serious reservations.
Former EHRC chair Baroness Kishwer Falkner has been particularly critical. She has described the government’s definition as “unworkable” and argued that ministers were aware of the potential consequences for freedom of expression. According to Falkner, the government had repeatedly been warned that the definition could restrict legitimate criticism of religion and culture. She has also suggested that political considerations, including Labour’s desire to maintain support among Muslim voters, may have played a role in the policy.
These accusations are politically sensitive because Labour has historically depended on substantial support from Muslim communities in many parts of Britain. At the same time, the party has faced political challenges over its approach to issues affecting Muslim voters, particularly in relation to the Middle East and domestic debates about identity and discrimination. Critics therefore argue that the government’s decision to introduce a formal definition of anti-Muslim hostility may have been motivated not only by concerns about discrimination but also by electoral calculations. Lord Young of Acton, director of the Free Speech Union, has similarly argued that the policy may represent political point-scoring rather than a purely principled attempt to protect Muslims.
Nevertheless, it would be too simplistic to conclude that the entire policy is merely an electoral strategy. Anti-Muslim prejudice is a genuine social problem in Britain, and there is evidence that Muslims experience discrimination and hate crime. Government figures cited during the debate showed that recorded anti-Muslim hate crime in England and Wales rose from 2,690 offences to 3,199 in the year ending March 2025. Such figures demonstrate why policymakers may believe that stronger and clearer mechanisms are necessary to identify and combat anti-Muslim hostility.
The central difficulty, therefore, is how to protect Muslim citizens without creating restrictions on legitimate criticism of Islam. This distinction is essential in a liberal democracy. A person’s right to practise a religion and to be protected from discrimination should not automatically mean that the religion itself is protected from criticism. Religious ideas, institutions and practices must remain open to debate, just as political ideologies and other belief systems are.
This issue has been at the heart of Britain’s debate over Islamophobia for several years. In 2019, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims proposed a definition describing Islamophobia as a form of racism targeting expressions of “Muslimness” or perceived Muslimness. The definition was adopted by a number of political parties and organisations, including the Labour Party. However, successive governments resisted adopting it as a national definition, partly because of concerns about its compatibility with existing equality law and freedom of expression.
The 2026 definition represents an attempt to move away from some of those difficulties. The government deliberately uses the phrase “anti-Muslim hostility”, arguing that it focuses on Muslims as individuals rather than treating criticism of Islam as inherently discriminatory. Parliament has been told that the definition does not restrict lawful criticism, debate or ridicule of religious ideas, including Islam. It also states that people should be able to raise concerns in the public interest.
Yet the fact that the definition is non-statutory creates another important question: what practical purpose does it serve? The government says that individual organisations can decide whether and how to use it. This means it is not equivalent to a new criminal law or a formal amendment to the Equality Act 2010. The government has therefore argued that fears about a new “blasphemy law” are exaggerated.
The EHRC, however, has previously expressed concerns about the need for such a definition. It has argued that existing laws already protect people against religious discrimination and hate crime. According to the commission, introducing a separate non-statutory definition could conflict with existing legal terminology and create inconsistency or confusion for courts, public bodies and individuals.
This concern is particularly important because the EHRC is supposed to be an independent regulator. Its role is not simply to endorse government policy but to scrutinise equality and human-rights issues independently. Any suggestion that ministers attempted to persuade the organisation to adopt a definition against its better judgment could therefore damage public confidence in the independence of the regulator.
At the same time, the government’s position should not be ignored. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has rejected the accusation that it attempted to “lobby” the EHRC. A government spokesperson described that interpretation as “completely misleading” and emphasised that the definition is voluntary. According to the government, the purpose is to provide organisations with a useful framework for tackling rising anti-Muslim hostility rather than to impose new legal restrictions.
The EHRC itself has also adopted a relatively cautious position. It says that the subject raises complex questions involving equality and human rights and that it provided advice to the chair of the government’s working group and the relevant secretary of state. The commission has offered to assist in developing detailed guidance tailored to different sectors. This suggests that the relationship between the government and the EHRC may be more complicated than the accusation of straightforward political pressure implies.
Another controversy concerns the transparency of the process used to develop the definition. The government established an independent working group and opened a call for evidence in July 2025. Parliamentary answers stated that the process was intended to reflect different perspectives and that any eventual definition would have to be compatible with free speech and the right to criticise religions and religious practices.
However, critics have questioned how evidence was selected and handled. The government has faced scrutiny after information emerged that submissions to the working group were deleted. This has intensified suspicion among opponents who believe the process was insufficiently transparent. Supporters of the definition, on the other hand, argue that these concerns should not obscure the central problem of anti-Muslim prejudice and the need for effective protection.
Ultimately, the controversy exposes a difficult tension at the heart of modern democratic politics. Governments have a responsibility to protect minorities from discrimination, intimidation and violence. Muslims should be able to live, work and participate in British society without being targeted because of their faith or perceived identity. At the same time, governments must be extremely careful when defining concepts related to prejudice because vague definitions can have consequences beyond their original purpose.
A successful policy must therefore achieve two objectives simultaneously: it must provide meaningful protection for Muslims while maintaining the right of everyone to criticise religions, beliefs, political movements and cultural practices. These principles are not necessarily contradictory. Indeed, they can reinforce each other. A society that protects individuals from hatred while allowing open debate is stronger than one that attempts to protect people by limiting legitimate discussion.
The Labour government consequently faces an important challenge. If it wants the definition of anti-Muslim hostility to command public confidence, it must demonstrate that the policy is based on clear evidence, transparent consultation and consistent legal principles rather than short-term political considerations. It must also explain precisely how the definition will be used and ensure that it cannot be interpreted as a prohibition on legitimate criticism of Islam.
The EHRC’s refusal to adopt the definition is therefore significant. It does not necessarily mean that the government’s policy is illegitimate, nor does it mean that concerns about Islamophobia are unimportant. Rather, it highlights the need for independent scrutiny when governments introduce policies that touch upon both equality and freedom of expression.
The controversy should ultimately be viewed as a debate about how Britain can protect vulnerable communities without weakening democratic freedoms. Combating anti-Muslim hatred is a legitimate and necessary objective. But achieving that objective requires precise definitions, transparent procedures and respect for independent institutions. If Labour can demonstrate those principles, it may strengthen confidence in its policy. If it fails to do so, accusations that the definition was driven by political calculation rather than careful policymaking are likely to continue.
In a democratic society, the strongest protection against hatred is not necessarily the broadest definition, but a clear and carefully balanced one. Britain needs laws and policies that protect Muslims from discrimination and hostility while preserving the freedom to question, criticise and debate religious ideas. Maintaining that balance will be essential if the government is to resolve the controversy surrounding its anti-Muslim hostility definition and restore confidence in both the policy and the institutions involved.