Evidence leans toward the view that such definitions could create uneven protections across faiths, potentially fostering division rather than unity in multicultural societies like Australia and the UK.

It seems likely that Australia’s recent efforts to address Islamophobia through reports and envoys share parallels with UK initiatives, highlighting the need for careful balancing of free speech and anti-discrimination measures.

The UK’s Policy Exchange Report

The Policy Exchange’s “Islamophobia Definition Observatory,” released in October 2025, provides a detailed timeline of the UK government’s working group on defining anti-Muslim hatred. It critiques the process as potentially biased and warns that an official definition might restrict criticism of certain policies or ideologies, while acknowledging rising hate incidents against Muslims.

Parallels in Australia

In September 2025, Australia’s Special Envoy on Islamophobia released a report with 54 recommendations, noting a sharp increase in incidents since October 2023. This echoes UK concerns, where definitions are seen by some as tools that could be misused to silence debate on topics like counter-terrorism or integration.

Balancing Rights and Freedoms

While addressing prejudice is essential, the evidence suggests prioritising existing laws over new definitions to avoid unintended consequences on free expression. Policymakers should consider diverse viewpoints to ensure empathy for all communities without creating hierarchies of protection.

Lessons from the UK: Why Australia Should Beware of Defining Islamophobia

Here in Australia, we’ve recently seen the release of a major report by the Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia, Aftab Malik, which documents a troubling rise in anti-Muslim incidents and proposes 54 recommendations to address them.

While no one can deny the need to confront hatred and discrimination—Islamophobia has no place in our society—the way we approach this matters profoundly. A new report from the UK’s Policy Exchange think tank, titled The Islamophobia Definition Observatory, shines a critical light on similar efforts across the pond, offering valuable lessons for Australia. In this piece, I’ll explore the report’s findings, draw parallels to our own context, and argue why rushing into official definitions could do more harm than good, potentially stifling free speech and creating unintended divisions.

The UK’s Push for a Definition: A Timeline of Concern

The UK’s journey began in earnest on February 28, 2025, when Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner announced the formation of an independent working group chaired by Dominic Grieve KC to develop a non-statutory definition of “anti-Muslim hatred” or “Islamophobia.” The group’s terms of reference emphasised compatibility with free speech, including the right to criticise religion itself. By March 24, membership was revealed, including figures like Baroness Shaista Gohir and Akeela Ahmed, with a call for evidence running from June 16 to July 20, 2025.

Policy Exchange’s observatory report meticulously documents this process, compiling parliamentary questions, submissions, media reports, and statements into a comprehensive timeline. Key highlights include:

Submissions and Activism: Organisations like Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND) argued that “Islamophobia” should encompass structural issues, such as counter-terrorism laws (e.g., the Prevent programme), immigration policies, and media portrayals of Muslims. MEND’s submission noted: “unlike anti-Muslim hatred, Islamophobia equips policymakers with a sociological lens through which to carry out structural analyses of discriminatory policies.”

Islamophobia Awareness Month (IAM): Run annually in November by groups like MEND, IAM has been criticised for promoting expansive interpretations. Examples include labelling the lack of halal food options or criticism of certain foreign policies (e.g., on Israel-Palestine) as Islamophobic. The report notes IAM’s platforming of hardline speakers and spreading of claims, such as Muslims being the most targeted by hate crimes—despite data showing Jews are disproportionately affected in recent years.

Group’s Proposals: Submitted in early October 2025, the working group reportedly shifted away from “Islamophobia” toward “anti-Muslim hate,” removing references to “Muslimness” to address free speech concerns. Baroness Gohir commented: “the public – including those who criticised earlier definitions of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred – will be pleasantly surprised by the wording we’ve chosen.”

The report also appendices a list of IAM supporters, including 26 local councils, 6 police forces, 14 universities, and 43 politicians, underscoring the broad institutional buy-in.

Criticisms and Risks: Free Speech Under Threat?

Policy Exchange, a respected liberal think tank, takes a compelling stance against such definitions, arguing they risk creating “two-tier protections” exclusively for Muslims, potentially leading to a slippery slope toward restricting legitimate debate.

They point to historical context: Islamist terrorism has accounted for 94% of terrorist deaths in Great Britain over the last 25 years, yet expansive definitions could undermine counter-terrorism efforts, immigration controls, or foreign policy without proper democratic scrutiny.

Parliamentarians like Nick Timothy MP echoed these worries, warning that the process was “rigged” with selective consultations and could revive de facto blasphemy laws. The report cites the Public Order Act 1986’s protections for “discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy” toward religions as a necessary safeguard. Critics, including former counter-terrorism experts, fear weaponisation against discussions on issues like grooming gangs—where Policy Exchange’s earlier report How Not to Tackle Grooming Gangs showed accusations of Islamophobia being used to deflect scrutiny.

A table summarising key concerns from the report:

| Concern | Description | Example from Report |

| Free Speech Restriction | Definitions may conflate criticism of Islam with hatred of Muslims, chilling debate. | Labelling Prevent programme or Enlightenment philosophers as Islamophobic during IAM events. |

| Two-Tier Policy | Special protections for one faith could divide society. | Existing laws already cover hatred; new definitions risk favouritism. |

| Process Bias | Working group seen as non-transparent and Muslim-majority. | Selective call for evidence excluded groups like MCB due to non-engagement policies. |

| Misinformation | Exaggerated claims in activism. | IAM’s assertion that Muslims face the most hate crimes, contradicted by data showing Jews 12 times more likely. |

Legal challenges emerged, such as from the Network of Sikh Organisations, citing potential breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Echoes in Australia: Our Own Rising Debate

Australia isn’t immune to these dynamics. The Albanese government’s appointment of Aftab Malik as Special Envoy in July 2025 led to his September report, A National Response to Islamophobia, which found a 530% surge in reported incidents since October 7, 2023, via the Islamophobia Register Australia. The report describes Islamophobia as “pervasive,” impacting mental health with anxiety and depression among Muslims, and recommends making it a specific hate crime category, enhancing education, and improving data collection.

Yet, like in the UK, there’s controversy. Muslim groups have rejected pushes for new definitions at universities, fearing they could be too narrow or divisive. Academic definitions vary: The Runnymede Trust’s 1997 report called it “dread or hatred of Islam,” while Australian sources like the Human Rights Commission view it as prejudice without a formal legal definition. Prime Minister Albanese noted a 150% increase in verified in-person incidents by November 2024, emphasising accountability.

Muslim organisations in Australia, like the Australian Muslim Advocacy Network, see Islamophobia as a form of racism, amalgamating cultural and religious elements. However, as in my earlier reflections on the “Great Awokening,” the proliferation of such terms since 2014—doubling mentions of “Islamophobia” alongside “white supremacy” and “transphobia”—signals a cultural shift that demands scrutiny.

Why Definitions Could Backfire: A Call for Caution

The core issue is balance. Hatred and discrimination against Muslims—or any group—are already illegal under existing Australian laws, like the Racial Discrimination Act. Introducing specific definitions risks conflating valid policy critiques (e.g., on integration or security) with bigotry, echoing UK fears of a “chilling effect” on journalism and public discourse. As Policy Exchange warns: “Once the principle of special treatment... is accepted, that opens the door for... a more explicitly expansionist, and legally binding, definition.”

In Australia, where multiculturalism is a strength, we must empathise with Muslim communities facing real prejudice—reports of psychological strain are heartbreaking. But solutions should unite, not divide. Education, better policing of hate crimes, and community dialogues are preferable to potentially weaponisable definitions. As former UK counter-terrorism voices note, this could hinder efforts against extremism without gaining consensus.

Conclusion: Toward a United Approach

The Policy Exchange report is a wake-up call: Good intentions can lead to bad outcomes if not tempered by robust debate. For Australia, as we digest the Envoy’s findings, let’s prioritise empathy for all sides—Muslims enduring hatred, but also those concerned about free expression. Rejecting rushed definitions doesn’t mean ignoring the problem; it means addressing it wisely. As always, I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments. Let’s keep the conversation open.