Christian Concern’s head of policy, Tim Dieppe, is warning authorities to turn away from banning “Islamophobia.”

Any such legislation, he argued, would burn free speech, and be a boon for Islamic extremism.

Dieppe’s 2024 report – endorsed by Richard Dawkins – counters 2018 proposals supported by the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims.

APPGs are the equivalent of an informal lobby group.

They cross party lines and include members of parliament.

Though they “have no official status within Parliament” they do have power and influence.

This particular APPG exists to “inform, and harness support for the aspirations, and challenges” of Britain’s Islamic community.

They also “investigate prejudice, discrimination, and hatred against Muslims in the U.K.”

Both Conservative and Labour are represented.

A key characteristic of APPG on British Muslims is their view that criticism of Islam is racist.

The group falsely asserts that “Islamophobia” is rooted in racism.

This gives Dieppe’s concerns serious weight.

All charges of “anti-Muslim racism” are false: Islam is not a race.

For all intents and purposes defining “Islamophobia” as racism, deters criticism away from Islam’s current, and historic militantism.

“Islamophobia” is a weapon of mass distraction.

For example, in his forward to Dieppe’s report, Dawkins explained, “fear can be rational.

“A Muslim woman in Iran might reasonably fear being arrested by the Morality Police.”

(Recall the very personal plight of Aasia Bibi, Remy Kamel, and the story of Shagufta and Shafqat Emmanuel.)

In Pakistan or Britain, she might fear being killed by her own family for consorting with a non-Muslim, Dawkins continued.

This isn’t a phobia, it’s “justifiable fear.”

If, he added, Islam is a race, then “leaving Islam is impossible.

“The statement that Islamophobia is a form of racism is more than just incorrect. It contradicts a fundamental, and incidentally obnoxious [apostasy-is-punishable-by-death] tenet of Islam.”

Applauding Dieppe’s deep discussion on how this deception burns free speech and bolsters Islamist extremism, Dawkins asserted,

“If ‘Islamophobia’ is punishable by law, will I be arrested for stating the undenied fact that apostasy carries the death penalty?”

“If so, bring it on. I look forward to defending myself in court.”

The crux of Tim Dieppe’s argument is that “any attempt to define “Islamophobia” poses a threat to freedom of speech.

“People in a free society must be free to criticise, question, and even ridicule any belief of practice, including religious beliefs.”

Legislating “Islamophobia” as racism or cultural racism, risks “silencing or censoring criticisms of one religion above others,” he cautioned.

Criticising Islam’s militant expansionism in Africa, or historically into the West, would be punishable by court of law.

Condemning Islamic hate crimes against Nigerian Christians, would – bizarrely – be itself ruled a “hate crime.”

Accusing “Muslim majority states of exaggerating a genocide, questioning HAMAS,” would all be wig and gavelled as unlawful.

Importantly, there’s a distinction between criticising Islam, and criticising Muslims, Dieppe adds.

“Striking a believer is a crime; debating her beliefs isn’t.”

Offering an alternative, Dieppe advised authorities to ditch the arbitrary, and weaponised term “Islamophobia,” and use “anti-Muslim hatred” instead.

Legislate against neither them, he added.

Adopting a formal definition of “Islamophobia” is a back door to Islamic blasphemy laws, which prevent open criticism of Islam’s beliefs and practices.

Legislating on the definition of “Muslimness” (whatever that is) or “Islamophobia” as racism, would be to legislate lies.

Laws built around “perception-based definitions” are dangerously arbitrary, and ripe for abuse.

As Dieppe wrote,

A “Muslim woman who decides not to wear a hijab, converts to Christianity, or Atheism,” would all, by way of “rooting definitions in perception, constitute as ‘Islamophobic’ and be punishable under U.K. law.

“Legitimate debate is being shut down by allegations of ‘Islamophobia.'”

Adopting the APPG on British Muslims’ push to merge criticism of Islam with racism should be abandoned, Dieppe concluded.

Those conclusions mesh with David Horowitz’s critique of left’s post-modern mindset in the Enemy Within (2021).

“I’ve been warning for years that it would sooner or later become ‘Islamophobic’ to offer even the mildest opposition to jihad violence.”

The “Islamophobia” mongers would become increasingly open about their support for jihad terrorists, and here we are,” Horowitz chided.

He’d agree with Tim Dieppe’s assessment.

The APPG on British Muslim’s definition of “Islamophobia,” turns defending America, and the West against “convert, pay your tax, or die,” into a criminal offense.

If Tim Dieppe and David Horowitz weren’t pointing out the dangers, it’d be the perfect crime.

Legislating another form of forced speak, will bring down free speech.

“Islamophobia” is another pretext for legislating lies.

To quote Horowitz, “Islamophobia” as racism, is part of the “intellectual incoherence of Intersectionality Theory.”

“Islam is simultaneously both a religion and a race of peace, bigots!”

It doesn’t have to make sense, it just has to sound, and feel right.

What’s so concerning about this is the prospect that politicians are happy to convert this lawfare into legislation.

Feel-good laws often fail the good laws test.

As Alain Besançon, in his forward to Jacques Ellul’s, Islam & Judeo-Christianity, warned:

‘Muslim states, according to strict adherence to law, cannot authorise the reciprocal tolerance asked of them by Christian states. In calling for this, Christians show their ignorance of Islam.’