Officially defining Islamophobia endangers freedom of speech

Times

5 hours ago

Professor Steven Greer worked at Bristol University for 36 years as an expert in human rights law before his career was ruined. The 68-year-old faced a false accusation in 2020 from the university's Islamic Society alleging he had made Islamophobic remarks. The complainant had not attended Mr Greer's teaching module, yet alleged he had made discriminatory remarks. In reality the ­lecturer had merely spoken of the Islamist attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine.
The complaint against Mr Greer went nowhere, until Bristol's Islamic Society launched a social media campaign against the lecturer. It falsely claimed he had mocked Islam and the Quran. A pile-on ensued with a petition calling for his ­sacking garnering 4,000 signatures. Mr Greer ­felt so intimidated by the online anger that he went ­into hiding, venturing out only in disguise. He ­sincerely believed his life was in danger.
• Islamophobia row academic: I wore a disguise. Better ridiculous than dead
Bristol University initiated an inquiry and, five months later, he was exonerated after an independent assessor from another department concluded it was a storm over nothing. The lecturer went on sick leave and has since retired but, rightly, he is not letting the matter rest. In an interview with this newspaper today, he accuses his former employer of failing to protect him. By scrapping Mr Greer's module on 'Islam, China and the Far East' following its inquiry, Bristol University has demonstrated institutional cowardice, as well as humiliating Mr Greer.
Alas, there is a precedent here. Kathleen Stock, a professor of philosophy at Sussex University, was driven out for her views on sex and gender. Eventually an investigation by the Office for Students led to Sussex being fined £585,000 for its failure to protect freedom of speech. If the OfS is to fulfil its duties as a protector of freedom of speech on campuses, it must urgently investigate whether or not Bristol offered Mr Greer appropriate protection.
Mr Greer's case is instructive as the government considers a formal definition of Islamophobia. Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, instigated a working group earlier this year following a rise in reports of anti-Muslim hatred. The working group claimed that any definition 'must be compatible with the unchanging right of British citizens to exercise freedom of speech and expression'. Yet the mere instance of a definition creates a bar for free speech to be measured by, especially if a commissar is created to adjudicate on it.
Although the group has pledged to engage 'widely', there are concerns about its findings ­becoming a foregone conclusion. According to the Policy Exchange think tank, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, which promotes its own definition of Islamophobia, has claimed that stating that those involved in grooming gangs were predominantly of Pakistani origin is Islamophobic. Yet that is exactly what Baroness Casey of Blackstock concluded in her recent ­report into such gangs. Equally troubling is the fact that the working group, led by Dominic Grieve, a former attorney general, has endorsed the parliamentary group's work.
Given the ongoing debate on grooming gangs, with a national inquiry due, the government would be wise to halt its work on an Islamophobia definition. The danger to free speech is too great, as is the danger of more cases arising like that of Mr Greer. Strong laws against racial hatred already exist. There is no need for more.