Labour’s plan to define Islamophobia threatens free speech and risks creating a two-tier society where one religion becomes untouchable, Sarah Vine has warned on the Alas Vine & Hitchens podcast.
Speaking to fellow Daily Mail columnist Peter Hitchens, Vine said the introduction of the term ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ was a cynical, political move to shore up Labour’s dwindling support among Muslim voters.
On Monday, Communities Secretary Steve Reed announced the government would drop ‘Islamophobia’ in favour of a new official term, ‘anti-Muslim hostility,’ saying the switch would help the government better clamp down on religious hatred.
Labour’s plan to define Islamophobia threatens free speech and risks creating a two-tier society where one religion becomes untouchable , Sarah Vine has warned
On Monday, Communities Secretary Steve Reed announced the government would drop ‘Islamophobia’ in favour of a new official term, ‘anti-Muslim hostility,’ saying the switch would help the government better clamp down on religious hatred
Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s own counter-terrorism reviewer, warned the broader definition could inhibit free speech by stopping people from freely criticising Islam.
Vine claimed the decision was pandering to a hardline minority of British Muslims and was ‘patronising’ to the majority, who are perfectly capable of debating and joking about their own faith.
‘We could get to a stage in this country where it’s fine to take the mickey out of a Christian, or a Buddhist, but not a Muslim’, she said.
‘I do not want that. For me, it’s weird and quite patronising: I am sure there are plenty of Muslims who have good senses of humour who would not get upset or offended.
‘One should respect somebody else’s beliefs, but not necessarily have to tread on eggshells the entire time.’
Vine added that by singling out Muslims in this way, Labour risks further eroding public trust in government.
She also argued that any blasphemy law of this kind is impossible to enforce in the modern world.
‘Those who want this represent quite a narrow, extreme faction of people’, Vine said.
‘The government should be for everybody. I do not think you should make laws for minorities just because they cause trouble.
Hitchens agreed with his co-host that the definition represented yet another example of Labour overreach, arguing that any law banning criticism of religion would be ‘plain wrong’
‘There’s too much legality in the world anyway and making more laws does not make things better. If this law becomes enshrined, you might feel you cannot have open conversations with your friends.’
While critical of those who mock other faiths, Hitchens agreed with his co-host that the definition represented yet another example of Labour overreach, arguing that any law banning criticism of religion would be ‘plain wrong.’
He said: ‘The government has absolutely no friendship for freedom. Identity cards, the abolition of jury trials and now this.
‘They are revolutionaries who do not believe in freedom of speech for the people they disagree with. If left to their own devices, they will squash all of it.
‘People should be aware of this when you’re making a choice at the next general election… the Labour party is a menace to freedom of speech and thought.’
Hear the debate in full by searching for Alas Vine & Hitchens wherever you get your podcasts.
