Angela Rayner’s Islamophobia Definition Could Extend to Non-Muslims

[Social Media]

 

Under a new definition proposed by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, individuals from various faith groups—including Sikhs, Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and even atheists—could be recognized as victims of Islamophobia if they are perceived as Muslim. Rayner’s initiative aims to broaden the scope of protections against anti-Muslim hatred by ensuring that those mistakenly identified as Muslim are also covered.  

 

As part of this effort, Rayner has established a working group to provide recommendations on defining and addressing Islamophobia. The five-member advisory panel, chaired by former Conservative Attorney General Dominic Grieve, will guide ministers on the appropriate language to describe and combat discrimination targeting Muslims or those assumed to be Muslim. The group's terms of reference, published on Monday,

emphasize that their work will also consider the merits of adopting a formal, non-statutory definition of Islamophobia.  

 

The document states: “This should include advice regarding the merits of government adopting a non-statutory definition of unacceptable treatment of Muslims and anyone perceived to be Muslim, including what a proposed definition should be.”  

 

 

Rayner’s proposal follows previous controversies surrounding attempts to define Islamophobia. Critics have argued that past definitions were overly broad, risking constraints on free speech, effectively creating a de facto blasphemy law that could suppress legitimate criticism of Islam. However, Rayner maintains that the new definition will balance protections against discrimination while upholding the right to free speech.  

 

She underscored the necessity of such measures, noting that “too many British Muslims have faced discrimination and hatred due to their religion.” The terms of reference further recognize that individuals from other religious or non-religious backgrounds often face hostility due to mistaken identity. “There are often cultural markers which are adopted by wider faith communities like Sikh, Hindu, Jain, and Buddhists which are used to attack communities that are mistakenly identified as Muslim. This is also true of people of no faith,” the document states.  

 

Anticipating concerns over free expression, the terms explicitly reaffirm the right of British citizens to critique religious beliefs and practices. “Any proposed definition must be compatible with the unchanging right of British citizens to exercise freedom of speech and expression – which includes the right to criticise, express dislike of, or insult religions and/or the beliefs and practices of adherents,” the document clarifies.  

 

The working group will operate behind closed doors, with its advice remaining confidential. According to the terms of reference, the group will meet monthly, providing private updates to ministers without making its deliberations public. Alongside Grieve, the panel includes Professor Javed Khan, managing director of the think tank EQUI and former head of Barnardo’s; Baroness Shaista Gohir, chief executive of the Muslim Women’s Network UK; Akeela Ahmed, co-chair of the British Muslim Network; and Asha Affi, an independent consultant.  

 

Grieve has previously engaged in discussions on Islamophobia, having written the foreword to a 2018 report by an all-party parliamentary group, co-chaired by Wes Streeting. The report, adopted by the Labour Party, defined Islamophobia as “rooted in racism” and described it as “a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” At the time, Grieve praised the report for its thorough research and contribution to the debate on tackling Islamophobia.  

 

Grieve’s political history also includes a notable clash with former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who stripped him of the Tory whip in 2019 after he rebelled against Brexit legislation. He later ran as an independent candidate in the general election that year.  

 

With Rayner’s working group now moving forward, the debate over the definition of Islamophobia—and its implications for free speech—continues to be a contentious issue in British politics.

 

Based on a report by The Telegraph  2025-03-26

Labour’s Islamophobia Policy

 

 

[proton]

5 minutes ago, Social Media said:

Under a new definition proposed by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, individuals from various faith groups—including Sikhs, Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and even atheists—could be recognized as victims of Islamophobia if they are perceived as Muslim.

 

The insanity of the left, how on earth can a Buddhist be perceived as a muslim? Islamophobia is just a made up word by muslims to stop any critics, or even discussion of the faith, and the disgraceful life of it's founder. It will probably be illegal to state the prophet married 6 year old Aisha and then raped her when she was 9 and other uncomfortable facts stated in their own scriptures-

[Bday Prang]

madness, pure madness.  

[JonnyF]

Like the 2 tier sentencing guidelines, I'm sure this will cover just about everyone except the indigenous British.

 

Second class citizens in our own country. 

[mikeymike100]

Why are they, the Government, going out of their way to protect only 'muslims' surely this reverse discrimination.

 

" The report, adopted by the Labour Party, defined Islamophobia as “rooted in racism” and described it as “a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness."

 

Totally ludicrous, Islam or Muslimness is not a 'race', how can it be racism????

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

36 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Like the 2 tier sentencing guidelines, I'm sure this will cover just about everyone except the indigenous British.

 

Second class citizens in our own country. 

 

They will keep pushing us until there is no option but violence.

 

They need the Muslim vote in England to remain in power. Bringing in thousands of low-skilled legals and facilitating illegals to enter unto whom they intend to house and give amnesty.

 

Even Reform, sorry to say, is not extreme enough to deal with the problem that has been allowed to fester since Blair.

 

Make no mistake the UK is headed down a dark path here and low-IQ individuals like Rayner and Rachel from accounts are fully enabling the white ethnic British replacement. They are not clever enough to know any better.
 

As Enoch Powell warned, once they have the whip hand over us, it will be the end for us in our own country. 

 

Islam is the biggest danger facing the UK today. We must do everything in our power to stop its spread and influence.

 

 

[PomPolo]

1 hour ago, Social Media said:

by ensuring that those mistakenly identified as Muslim are also covered

How is that Islamophobic then?  She needs a good sh4g that lady (I'm definitely not volunteering)

[BangkokReady]

I wonder how they would feel about taking this principle and applying it more widely to stop anyone from being mislabelled and discriminated against?

 

There seems to be a lot of labelling anyone who disagrees with the left-wing narrative as "far-right" or "Nazi", even when they are in no way a member of that group.

[bendejo]

What if she thinks someone walks like an Egyptian?  

 

I worked with a Sikh guy at the time of 9/11.  I told him to be cautious, that Yanks don't know what a Sikh is, they'll think you're a Muslim.  He kind of brushed me off.  A few days later he told me of reports coming in about Sikhs getting beat up, mistakenly assumed to be members of the faithful. 

 

[jippytum]

Another blatent example of the preferential treatment of Muslims by woke politicians. 

[Jeff the Chef]

I suppose this is going to join the https://labour.org.uk/resources/labours-antisemitism-policy/

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Jeff the Chef said:

I suppose this is going to join the https://labour.org.uk/resources/labours-antisemitism-policy/

Same link that's in the OP so yea it probably will........lol

[quake]

The ginger growler strikes again.

What a crazy place the uk is now.

[GarryP]

1 hour ago, mikeymike100 said:

Why are they, the Government, going out of their way to protect only 'muslims' surely this reverse discrimination.

 

" The report, adopted by the Labour Party, defined Islamophobia as “rooted in racism” and described it as “a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness."

 

Totally ludicrous, Islam or Muslimness is not a 'race', how can it be racism????

 

To protect an important part of their voter base. This will, however, come back to bite them in the arse when the number of muslims is enough to establish their own party, at which point Labour will lose the muslim vote anyway.

[Jeff the Chef]

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Same link that's in the OP so yea it probably will........lol

 

Not to me it wasn't, https://labour.org.uk/resources/labours-islamophobia-policy/

[spidermike007]

I think quite the opposite should happen and the criteria for immigration on the part of Muslims should be raised significantly. 

 

Something must be done to keep out the extremist super freaks. Their religion may work for them in Saudi, Kuwait, Yemen, Sudan or Somalia. That same ultra conservative fanatislcism, is not wanted, needed, nor desirable in Western nations. Only moderates need apply should be the policy. And there should be a standard of willingness to assimilate, and the burden should be on the family to prove the burden is met.

 

I believe immigration policy should be reformed to the point where it should be staged, and all Muslim families should show a willingness to assimilate. I also believe that families with Muslim daughters who are teenagers can start by proving that they have  participated in a 2 piece bikini contest by the time they are 18, and for teenage boys they must show a burden of proof that they're not affiliated with any of the local madrasas. 

 

Are we serious about keeping our nation's safe from extremists, or not? 

 

This will probably be interpreted as a racist statement but for a long time I've been saying that immigration criteria for Saudis should be unique and singular and far strictly then normal immigration for other people from other parts of the world

It must never be forgotten that but Saudi's practice the most extreme form of islam, a hateful and horrific interpretation that is completely intolerant of other religions and is the exact opposite of what most of us would regard as any kind of positive faith. 

 

Huge and very strict restrictions should be put on their ability to immigrate, essentially they are not wanted and they are not needed, and for the most part they are not of any benefit to a society that let them in, as it is very unlikely they will ever integrate. 

 

Why am I anti Wahhabi? Why do I think all Saudis should be barred worldwide from immigrating to any nation? Why do I consider the Saudis so dangerous to mankind? 

 

But it is an ideology that divides the world into the realm of Islam and the realm of the infidel, or the realm of war. So it trains the readers that they live behind enemy lines – they must be passing through, they cannot take abode here. You only have two reasons for being in the land of the infidel. One is to convert people to Islam. The second is to acquire either money or skill which you can bring back with you to help you and others engage in jihad, and in this context, it is quite clear that they mean that in a military sense, because they go on to talk about tanks and bullets, and things of this kind. One of the things you certainly cannot do is become an American citizen, because no Muslim can be ruled an infidel.

 

That is the particular ideology which is being taught. You must not have any good contacts, warm relations with anybody – not only with unbelievers, but with any Muslim who is not of the Wahhabi type; they are also often denounced as apostates. That is the major theme of concern in that report.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2005/05/03/the-global-spread-of-wahhabi-islam-how-great-a-threat/

 

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Jeff the Chef said:

 

Not to me it wasn't, https://labour.org.uk/resources/labours-islamophobia-policy/

Yes it is, click it.............

 

[Jeff the Chef]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes it is, click it.............

 

 

As I said from the bottom of the OP the link went to https://labour.org.uk/resources/labours-islamophobia-policy/

 

I then Goggled labour Party Antisemitism Policy and found this: https://labour.org.uk/resources/labours-antisemitism-policy/

 

2 different documents.

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, Jeff the Chef said:

 

As I said from the bottom of the OP the link went to https://labour.org.uk/resources/labours-islamophobia-policy/

 

I then Goggled labour Party Antisemitism Policy and found this: https://labour.org.uk/resources/labours-antisemitism-policy/

 

2 different documents.

Yes correct, your link is about Antisemitism nothing to do with this topic 

[Jeff the Chef]

9 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes correct, your link is their Antisemitism Policy nothing to do with this topic 

 

I could see that coming, lol

 

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, Jeff the Chef said:

 

I could see that coming, lol

 

 

I could see that coming, lol

 

well obviously because its not part of this topic 

[Bkk Brian]

The ‘Islamophobia’ working group is unbalanced and opaque

It remains to be seen if Rayner’s new group will place a robust emphasis on free speech, not least the ability to freely criticise religion, but also openly discuss subjects such as grooming gangs. Of course, defining ‘anti-Muslim’ hatred makes more sense than the vague catch-all term (and unsolicited mental health diagnosis) ‘Islamophobia’. But for now the government are opting to interchangeably use both terms, and this, we are told, will be a non-statutory definition.

https://archive.ph/L9IYH

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-islamophobia-working-group-is-unbalanced-and-opaque/

[Chomper Higgot]

It doesn’t take a lot of thought to work out why this is correct.

 

Bigots are usually dullards, plenty of examples demonstrate that to be so.

 

If a bigot who hates Muslims violently attacks a Jew in the mistaken belief they are a Muslim then the motivation for the attack is Islamophobia.

 

Bigots aren’t the brightest of folk, they are almost always blinded to reality by their own hatred.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[proton]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It doesn’t take a lot of thought to work out why this is correct.

 

Bigots are usually dullards, plenty of examples demonstrate that to be so.

 

If a bigot who hates Muslims violently attacks a Jew in the mistaken belief they are a Muslim then the motivation for the attack is Islamophobia.

 

Bigots aren’t the brightest of folk, they are almost always blinded to reality by their own hatred.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not muslims who people are against, it's Islam, it's disgusting founder, and the results in the world of his hateful preaching. Pulling out the old bigot line to demonise critics of this evil ideology convinces nobody.

[connda]

3 hours ago, proton said:

 

The insanity of the left, how on earth can a Buddhist be perceived as a muslim? Islamophobia is just a made up word by muslims to stop any critics, or even discussion of the faith, and the disgraceful life of it's founder. It will probably be illegal to state the prophet married 6 year old Aisha and then raped her when she was 9 and other uncomfortable facts stated in their own scriptures-

I don't know, but but but - Brits have mistaken me for a Muslim too many times.  I want the UK government to compensate me for my mental stress and angst.  A few million quid should cover my mental anguish.   Allah Akbar, errrr, Namo Tassa...

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, proton said:

 

It's not muslims who people are against, it's Islam, it's disgusting founder, and the results in the world of his hateful preaching. Pulling out the old bigot line to demonise critics of this evil ideology convinces nobody.

I’m interested in what basis you speak for all the world’s Islamophobes?

 

 

[connda]

12 minutes ago, proton said:

 

It's not muslims who people are against, it's Islam, it's disgusting founder, and the results in the world of his hateful preaching. Pulling out the old bigot line to demonise critics of this evil ideology convinces nobody.

"it's disgusting founder, and the results in the world of his hateful preaching."

Speaking of an Islamaphobe. 👆

The difference between Brit Elites and myself is that Brit Elites want to shut the commoner's mouths forcefully using any means that they can concoct. Myself as an American and a 1st Amendment Absolutist support your right to verbally spew your hate of anyone you'd like, at least in the US where it is constitutionally protected speech. 

So you hate Islam?  Ok.  Do I agree with you. No.  But do I support your right to say what you said. Yep.
But if you say this in the UK, they'll want to throw you in prison.  To me that's just overkill.
 

[brewsterbudgen]

Islamophobia, anti-semitism, racism...  Seriously depressing that so many seem to admit to it.  

[proton]

34 minutes ago, connda said:

"it's disgusting founder, and the results in the world of his hateful preaching."

Speaking of an Islamaphobe. 👆

The difference between Brit Elites and myself is that Brit Elites want to shut the commoner's mouths forcefully using any means that they can concoct. Myself as an American and a 1st Amendment Absolutist support your right to verbally spew your hate of anyone you'd like, at least in the US where it is constitutionally protected speech. 

So you hate Islam?  Ok.  Do I agree with you. No.  But do I support your right to say what you said. Yep.
But if you say this in the UK, they'll want to throw you in prison.  To me that's just overkill.
 

 

Do I hate Islam, well it's hard to be a fan when even in modern times it has caused over 66k terror attacks since 1979 killing over 249k people. It's divisive, supremacist, hates gays and apostates, with the death penalty for these, at least in theory. It's anti women, tolerates wife beating and polygamy as condoned in the Quran as well as marriage to pre pubescent girls. It's mostly responsible for fgm, marriage to cousins and killing people for so called blasphemy. It's founder was a slave owning thief, killer, Jew hater (beheaded 900 over 2 days) who married a 6 year old and confessed to being victorious by terror. Hating evil is not a bad thing.

Anyone who defends the prophet is either ignorant or a liar.

[Mr Meeseeks]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It doesn’t take a lot of thought to work out why this is correct.

 

Bigots are usually dullards, plenty of examples demonstrate that to be so.

 

If a bigot who hates Muslims violently attacks a Jew in the mistaken belief they are a Muslim then the motivation for the attack is Islamophobia.

 

Bigots aren’t the brightest of folk, they are almost always blinded to reality by their own hatred.

 

 

The only thick people are those that cannot recognise the danger Islam poses to the West, and in particular the UK.