If the headlines and coverage of the New Statesman is to be believed, Britain, and the world, is locked in the grip of a virulent wave of Islamophobia. Should we believe these claims? Are Muslims around the world being persecuted, are they, as is often heard, on the cusp of a 1939-esque impending racial backlash? 

It is true that there are high-profile and very real cases of racism directed toward Muslims, the most high profile of which being the marches and campaign of the English Defence League in Britain and the fall-out from the Ground Zero mosque debate in New York, both of which have brought to the surface underlying tensions from the middle part of the last decade surrounding terrorism and the response to it from western governments.

The premise of my argument is that Islamophobia is not as great a threat as many commentators would have the public believe, so it would seem pointing out examples of the phenomenon would undermine my argument. This is not so. My argument is that the threat posed by Islamophobia is not an existential one, and that there are very real, if not draconian, defences against it becoming an existential threat. In the period after 9/11 the Labour government fell over itself to introduce legislation which shielded Muslims (part of the Labour core vote) from so-called ‘Hate Speech’, introducing the Religious and Racial Hatred Act (the detrimental effect this Act had has been covered elsewhere, most notably in Kenan Malik’s sublime ‘From Fatwa to Jihad’).

So if action has been taken by government, what is it that stirs the belief that Islamophobia is an existential threat? Firstly, it is only natural that people of a faith, or a race are protective of people they have an affinity with. Secondly, there has been an exponential increase in the number of organisations dedicated to recording incidences of hate crimes. The creation of such groups has led to forensic surveillance of public life for any incident or event which could be labelled a ‘hate crime’. There is now an entire industry dedicated to the pursuit, as well as countless central and local government reports, investigations and tribunals. Such fine-combing has led to an incendiary, uncomfortable atmosphere of political and public debate, one which has created fear. An atmosphere in which words are monitored and dissected for hidden meanings, in which any views which stray from the orthodoxy are compared to those held by demagogues and controversial figures. It’s death by semantic association. The consequence of which has been the reduction in the parameters of democratic debate. 

The claims that Islamophobia is on the rise, rests on the idea that nothing is be doing done to counteract the threat. As stated, this is not only untrue of the government, it is also untrue of the population as a whole. A vigorous trend of self-censorship has arisen. This is partly due to the violent reaction in response to the publishing of the Satanic Verses affair and the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in Jyllands-Posten, as well as being a result of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act. The causing of offence has not only been stopped by statute (at a protest in London a young man was arrested for wearing a T-Shirt emblazoned with one of the Danish cartoons), it has been self-imposed. 

A demonstration of self-censorship has manifested itself in the commonly heard remark: ‘You couldn’t say that about Islam’. I myself, heard these words uttered last year, after being informed of an offensive version of the Lord’s Prayer by a group of Catholics. The lack of willingness and ability to criticise Islam or the Prophet Muhammed has meant that it is now the norm to expect the causing of offence to be levelled down. It is seen as unacceptable to mock Christianity because you couldn’t make the same accusation or joke about the Islamic faith. Not only is this worrying for those who care about freedom of expression, it should also be worrying for those who want to effectively tackle racism. If Muslims are treated with kid gloves, a special case, this will only lead to resentment, which may manifest itself in unpleasant forms. It will feed the fire of those who preach separation, and say that there is an innate inability of those from different cultures to live side-by-side. If this language is adopted by the more liberal amongst us, as it has in the past through the previous government’s ‘multiculturalism’ policies, the fight against racism is already lost. People of all faiths should be treated equally, the law cannot have exceptions. The most damning example that this path has already been trodden, is that Nick Griffin can speak of the ‘indigenous white majority’ and not be met with howls of laughter. The idea that cultures are separate has become a firm part of our lexicon.

Another interesting example of self-censorship is present within the actions of the feminist movement. Very rarely will you see a feminist organisation leading a campaign for the betterment of women’s rights in a predominately Islamic country. Undoubtedly, the view that criticism of Islam is Islamophobic has played a part in stifling activism. So entrenched is this view in liberal orthodoxy that the opinion ‘women have few rights under Islam’, is deemed an ignorant one. This in itself is a shocking indictment of many over-zealous ‘anti-racist’ campaigns. A feminist movement so happy to blame ‘Lads Mags’ for inspiring a culture of sexism, is unwilling to criticise Islam for doing the same. This is well represented by the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, instead of being viewed as a hero by the Left, she is considered a pariah.

When commentators and anti-racist organisations over-exaggerate the existential threat that Islamophobia poses it has a damaging effect on public life. The freedom to ask important questions is curtailed, ancient and modern orthodoxies are left unchallenged. Those on the far-right are given extra credence as they are the only ones voicing the questions many others wish to ask, self-censorship having silenced them. Most importantly those most vulnerable are left without a champion, as issues of women’s rights are sidelined by the next debate over the ‘threat of Islamophobia’.