Some might say that trying to define ‘Islamophobia’ is a foolish enterprise, given that words these days are so wantonly manipulated. Yet this hasn’t stopped Labour from trying. In 2018, the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims called for the following definition to be adopted by the government: ‘Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness’. Now it has been reported that ministers are finalising a new wording which defines it more simply as ‘anti-Muslim hostility’.

In our hypersensitive times, ‘hostility’ is likely to mean anything offence-seekers want it to be

It could be argued that this definition is an improvement, given the wide scope of the previous definition and its implicit conflation of Islam the religion with Muslims as people. It’s that muddled overlap that led many to fear ‘Islamophobia’ was set to be deployed surreptitiously in order to reintroduce blasphemy laws into this country. The conviction (since appealed) earlier this year of Hamit Coskun – who had been found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence after burning a copy of the Koran – did nothing to assuage these fears.

Some might also welcome the fact that the racial component of the previous definition also looks set to go. Islam, like Christianity, is a faith welcome to all people irrespective of ethnicity and race.

Although this is technically true, the problem is that in Britain, as opposed to, say, Bosnia or Kosovo, most Muslims are of Asian heritage. And this inescapable fact has been used to justify special protection – or as some might argue, special treatment – for Islam or the mainly Asian adherents to this faith.

Both far-left activists and radical preachers have taken advantage of our society’s grievous taboo on racism, and the fear of being labelled racist, to browbeat well-meaning liberals into accepting that a hatred of Islam and Muslims is rampant and requires harsh disciplinary measures. And our establishment has duly been persuaded. As one spokesman from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government told the Times this morning: ‘With all hate crime on the rise and anti-Muslim hate incidents at a record high, we are tackling hatred and extremism wherever it may occur.’ As one government spokesman also told the Daily Telegraph: ‘This work has always been about stamping out hatred.’

The progressive left have spread a fear of ‘Islamophobia’ to further their own agenda and in order to better tarnish their opponents as ‘racist’. Radical preachers have been scaremongering in order to silence critics of Islam by branding their crude irreverence as ‘offensive’. And it’s this fear of ‘offence’ that’s at the heart of the matter. This taboo has been marshalled by those who want to shut people up. This abhorrence of hurt feelings has now passed into law, so that individuals are collared or put in prison for using nasty words.

Taking offence is so easy these days because of an associated problem: the reign of sentiments, subjectivity and personal interpretation. In a society governed by feelings, in which people talk of ‘my truth’, few dare to question the beliefs of others, especially those who present themselves as vulnerable or victims. Ambiguity and confusion are already present in our current laws: since 2007 a hate crime in Britain has been defined as, ‘any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice or prejudice’.

Redefining Islamophobia as ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ will only perpetuate and aggravate matters. Under the umbrella of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’, this new definition is set to include ‘the prejudicial stereotyping and racialisation of Muslims, as part of a collective group with set characteristics.’ In our hypersensitive times, ‘hostility’ is likely to mean anything offence-seekers want it to be.

Should we see this wording put in place, expect to see it warped and weaponised by those with malign intent. Remarking that Pakistanis are more likely to be involved in grooming gangs will be reinterpreted as ‘hostile’. The same will go for those who dare to link the faith of Islam with terrorists raised and immersed in that faith. Questioning the very concept of Islamophobia is already deemed by many to be proof of it.

We don’t need any definition of ‘Islamophobia’, because nothing will appease the bad actors who exploit our fear of offence for their own divisive ends. Laws already exist to punish racial hatred. The last thing we need is another, third tier of justice giving special treatment to a de facto ethnic minority. What we need is to jettison altogether a culture of offence-taking and hurt feelings.