Government Introduces New Definition

The UK government has adopted a new definition of anti-Muslim hate, with ministers insisting it will not restrict free speech while helping authorities tackle rising levels of hostility toward Muslim communities.

Speaking in the House of Commons, communities secretary Steve Reed said the government had a responsibility to respond to record levels of hate crime targeting Muslims.

Reed told MPs that defining anti-Muslim hostility was essential to addressing the issue effectively.

“You can’t tackle a problem if you can’t describe it,” he said.

Get the latest headlines in your email

The government has introduced a three-paragraph non-statutory definition outlining unacceptable prejudice, discrimination and hatred directed at Muslims. Officials say the definition is intended to guide institutions and public bodies but will not become law.

Reed said the wording had been carefully designed to ensure people could still freely discuss religion.

“The definition safeguards our fundamental right to freedom of speech about religion in general or any religion in particular,” he said.

Part of Broader Social Cohesion Strategy

The new definition was published alongside a wider Social Cohesion Strategy aimed at strengthening integration and reducing division within British society.

In an accompanying foreword, Keir Starmer said the country faced increasing pressures from forces seeking to exploit social tensions.

“In a world where so many people – digital grifters, hostile states and politicians of grievance – have a vested interest in division, we need to be much more active in asserting British values and the responsibilities of integration,” the prime minister wrote.

The strategy includes a range of measures designed to address extremism and improve community relations.

Among them are plans to introduce a whistleblowing route for university staff to report concerns about extremism and expanded powers for the Charity Commission to shut down organisations suspected of promoting extremist views.

Focus on English Language and Integration

Another key element of the strategy is a renewed focus on English language skills as a tool for integration.

Officials said the government will review existing English language provision to identify best practices and improve access to lessons.

The review will consider how technology and digital teaching could expand opportunities for people to learn English, with findings expected to be published in autumn 2026.

Government sources said the move aims to address what they described as a fragmented system currently delivered by organisations including the Department for Work and Pensions and local authorities.

The strategy also proposes introducing citizenship education in schools, strengthening digital literacy teaching and increasing understanding of faith communities across public institutions.

Mixed Reactions from Experts and Politicians

Some experts welcomed the new definition as an important step toward addressing discrimination against Muslims.

Javed Khan, managing director of the thinktank Equi and a member of the working group advising the government, described the move as a “watershed moment”.

However, he said it should only be considered a starting point.

Khan also warned that the strategy needed to place greater emphasis on tackling the rise of far-right extremism and the factors driving it.

Criticism also came from opposition politicians.

Paul Holmes, the shadow communities secretary, argued the strategy lacked concrete action and raised concerns about the potential implications for free speech.

Holmes referenced earlier advice from Jonathan Hall, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who suggested that any definition should clearly outline examples of speech that would not qualify as anti-Muslim hatred.

Without such clarity, Holmes warned, the definition could risk limiting legitimate criticism of extremist ideologies.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

  Adapted by ASEAN Now · Source · 09.03 2026

View full article

The crucial factor regarding free speech is whether the definition of anti-Muslim hate allows for criticism or ridicule of the Prophet Muhammad. Does the definition make illegal graphic depictions like the Danish Muhammad cartoons or text like that found in Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses?

The government seems to be saying "No." Hopefully, that is the case.

Another government waste of time.

The UK has free speech and anyone who disagrees will be jailed.

Groups like the Hindu Council UK and Christian Daily International have warned that singling out one group is "counterproductive and divisive." They argue the law should be "even-handed" and apply to all religions equally rather than creating "special" definitions for one.

Good point why just single out one group, why not include every religion in the definition?

Maybe it would be better if they tackled the problem from the opposite direction and found out why there is a problem and if the Muslims could solve it by changing something that causes the problem in the first place.

I agree that everyone should speak English. Everything else is sorted by the language (culture etc.). I never understood why libraries had to had to have shelves filled with books in Urdu for Pakistani grandmothers who had lived in the country for 20 years and never learned the language.

6 hours ago, technoronin said:

The UK has free speech and anyone who disagrees will be jailed.

This is the new democracy. You are free to say what you like as long as we like what you're saying.

7 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

The crucial factor regarding free speech is whether the definition of anti-Muslim hate allows for criticism or ridicule of the Prophet Muhammad. Does the definition make illegal graphic depictions like the Danish Muhammad cartoons or text like that found in Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses?

The government seems to be saying "No." Hopefully, that is the case.

I agree with you, but I also believe that criticism, ridicule, and offensive cartoons or text should also be allowed for all ideas, religions, political ideologies, and people.

Lots of comments by semi educated people. Although I'm not muslim, I agree that muslims should have specific anti hate laws in their favor. I grew up in the UK in the 1970's. Back then black people were the "boogeyman". Every 3 pages was a negative story about black people. Media recycle the same stories. The only things that change are the date, location and time. Take ANY anti black story from the 1970's and you will the same story in modern media, almost word for word. Just replace the word "black" with "muslim".

This sounds Orwellian.

9 hours ago, WDSmart said:

I agree with you, but I also believe that criticism, ridicule, and offensive cartoons or text should also be allowed for all ideas, religions, political ideologies, and people.

I totally agree that freedom of speech and expression should allow criticism and/or ridicule of all religions, idea, people, institutions, etc. From what I understand, that has been the case in the U.K. for many years, but Muslim groups have sought exceptions to freedom of speech to "protect" Muhammad, the Quran and Islam from criticism or ridicule.

English literature has many negative portrayals of Jews. "The Prioress's Tale" from The Canterbury Tales is basically a retelling of a medieval antisemitic trope about Jews murdering a Christian child, The moneylender Shylock in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice has been called the world's best-known Jewish villain. Fagin in Dickens' Oliver Twist is another famous Jewish villain.

No Jewish groups have ever attempted to censure these literary works or more recent examples of anti-Jewish expression.. Compare that to the Muslim outcry over The Satanic Verses and Danish cartoons.

If they have laws for the Jewish community, then i see no problem why not have laws for the muslim community.

An easier way would be to crack down on social media - as this is where the masses are getting their mis information from.

10 minutes ago, DonniePeverley said:

If they have laws for the Jewish community, then i see no problem why not have laws for the muslim community.

An easier way would be to crack down on social media - as this is where the masses are getting their mis information from.

Yeah, a government crackdown on social media, what a grand idea.

4 minutes ago, TedG said:

Yeah, a government crackdown on social media, what a grand idea.

No. It's just taking curbs on speech we have in the country, and putting that to social media.

At the moment you can have children and everyone in the UK, exposed to anti semtisim or islamaphobia from someone posting in a country like India. This is where you need the crackdown on social media companies.

Asking for a friend....what if someone finds all religion to be beyond stupid and archaic?

My god is better than your god. Smh.

2 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

I totally agree that freedom of speech and expression should allow criticism and/or ridicule of all religions, idea, people, institutions, etc. From what I understand, that has been the case in the U.K. for many years, but Muslim groups have sought exceptions to freedom of speech to "protect" Muhammad, the Quran and Islam from criticism or ridicule.

English literature has many negative portrayals of Jews. "The Prioress's Tale" from The Canterbury Tales is basically a retelling of a medieval antisemitic trope about Jews murdering a Christian child, The moneylender Shylock in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice has been called the world's best-known Jewish villain. Fagin in Dickens' Oliver Twist is another famous Jewish villain.

No Jewish groups have ever attempted to censure these literary works or more recent examples of anti-Jewish expression.. Compare that to the Muslim outcry over The Satanic Verses and Danish cartoons.

Not the same comparison; you are better off comparing Dicken's Fagin to Bresslaw's Bungda Din.

The film Life of Brian caused outrage. It was only made because George Harrison funded it because EMI pulled out at the last moment. Mary Whitehouse lead protests, calling in filth. 11 English Councils actually banned screenings. 28 councils gave it an X rating. Italy, Norway, South Africa, Chile, and Singapore completely banned it. Torbay council maintained the ban for 30 years.

Other films, like The Last Temptation of Christ, Noah and the Da Vinci Code, earned themselve various bans.

There are many other works that many people, including non-Muslims, would want banned because of the perceived outrage. In the US, there have been mass book burnings of Harry Potter, perceived as demonic.

One step closer to blasphemy laws

The uk is being colonized they desperately need a trump like figure to save them

11 minutes ago, EastBayRay said:

One step closer to blasphemy laws

The uk is being colonized they desperately need a trump like figure to save them

You have been misinformed. There is no colonisation of the UK

One Trump is more than enough for the world to have to cope with.

Religious hate is nonsense because religion is nonsense.

Evolution tells us creation in religion is nonsense.

Common sense tells us that if there were a creator, he would behave in a certain way. He would treat all his/her subjects as equal (there goes Christianity with belief being a prerequisite for heaven, there goes Judaism with one group of people only being chosen, there goes Islam with it's believers better than non-believers and men better than women).

Would a benevolent creator want to be worshipped? the whole idea is preposterous. Would he be violent? Jealous? again completely preposterous.

But we have this hate because "My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend".

2 hours ago, RayC said:

You have been misinformed. There is no colonisation of the UK

Leftist gaslighting

2 hours ago, RayC said:

One Trump is more than enough for the world to have to cope with.

Leftist affliction

1 hour ago, EastBayRay said:

Leftist gaslighting

Leftist affliction

You have nothing to offer but division.

On 3/10/2026 at 1:44 PM, Hatari fan said:

Maybe it would be better if they tackled the problem from the opposite direction and found out why there is a problem and if the Muslims could solve it by changing something that causes the problem in the first place.

Muslims could change it by moving to another country.

On 3/11/2026 at 3:28 AM, DonniePeverley said:

If they have laws for the Jewish community, then i see no problem why not have laws for the muslim community.

An easier way would be to crack down on social media - as this is where the masses are getting their mis information from.

How about some laws for the Christian community?

1 hour ago, RayC said:

You have nothing to offer but division.

Your denials of the truth are boring

Your country is being colonized and all you do is pretend it’s not happening it’s so lame