By Sam Tabahriti LONDON, March 10 (Reuters) - Britain has set out a new advisory definition of what it calls anti-Muslim hostility, a long-anticipated step in its plan to clarify how authorities
Britain Sets Official Definition of Anti-Muslim Hostility Amid Record Abuse
By Sam Tabahriti
Britain's New Advisory Definition of Anti-Muslim Hostility
LONDON, March 10 (Reuters) - Britain has set out a new advisory definition of what it calls anti-Muslim hostility, a long-anticipated step in its plan to clarify how authorities should identify and address abuse targeting Muslims, which is at record levels.
Background and Political Context
The move follows years of political deadlock over how to define anti-Muslim hatred in a way that helps consistent application of the law, but does not shut down or criminalise open debate about Islamist extremism.
Hate Crime Statistics
There were almost 4,500 hate crimes targeting Muslims in the year ending March 2025, accounting for nearly half of all religiously motivated offences in England and Wales. This data also includes people wrongly assumed to be Muslim.
Key Elements of the New Definition
Scope of the Definition
The new definition, which is not legally binding, includes criminal acts such as violence, vandalism, harassment, intimidation and prejudicial stereotyping that is directed at Muslims or people perceived to be Muslim.
Government's Position
The government said the definition was needed to protect people from "unacceptable hostile behaviour that seeks to intimidate and divide," and that rights to free expression were unchanged.
Protection of Free Expression
Lawful criticism of religious beliefs, including Islam, remained protected, it added.
Reactions to the Definition
Political and Community Responses
Opposition lawmakers said the definition risked creating a "blasphemy law" and blurred the line between legitimate criticism of religious beliefs and unlawful hate speech.
Muslim, Jewish and humanist groups said the definition was a constructive step that would help institutions respond more consistently to abuse, provided it was implemented carefully and without curbing free expression.
(Reporting by Sam Tabahriti; editing by William James)
