Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Labour has torn up its definition of Islamophobia, replacing it with the term anti-Muslim hate due to concerns it might threaten free speech. true r false
Executive Summary
Labour has moved away from the specific 2019 All-Party Parliamentary Group wording described as a definition of “Islamophobia” and internal reporting in October 2025 describes party documents adopting alternative phrasing such as “anti‑Muslim hate” or “anti‑Muslim hostility” while citing concerns the earlier wording could impinge on free speech [1] [2]. Coverage in October 2025 and related reporting in late 2024 and 2025 shows a sequence of internal debate and rhetoric change rather than a single legally binding reversal, with some commentators and political actors urging the government to adopt replacement language to tackle hate crimes against British Muslims [3] [4].
1. What the October 2025 reports say and why this matters
October 18–19, 2025 press reports state that Labour “scrapped” or “tore up” the prior wording and replaced references to “Islamophobia” with phrases like “anti‑Muslim hate”, explicitly citing concerns that the original definition might threaten free speech or resemble a blasphemy-like constraint on expression [1] [2] [5]. These items portray internal party decisions by a working group to remove language such as “Muslimness” from the formulation and to stress clear protection against hatred of Muslims while safeguarding legitimate debate. The shift is framed in those reports as both semantic and political: semantics because wording changes how incidents are categorized and recorded, and political because opponents and some within Labour argued the 2019 definition risked chilling lawful expression [2] [5].
2. Contrasting timeline: earlier concerns and government critique
Reporting from late 2024 shows similar concerns were already in the public domain: the government and commentators had previously said Labour’s backing of the 2019 definition risked conflicting with equality law and raised free‑speech questions, but those earlier accounts did not uniformly describe a formal replacement term such as “anti‑Muslim hate” [4] [6]. That prior coverage documents a pathway of scrutiny and debate leading into 2025, establishing that the October 2025 move fits into a longer trajectory of review and pushback. The continuity between 2024 critiques and the 2025 wording change indicates the party’s action was responsive to criticism over legal compatibility and public concern rather than an isolated, sudden reversal.
3. Divergent phrases in reporting: “anti‑Muslim hate” vs “anti‑Muslim hostility”
Different outlets and actors use slightly different replacement phrases—“anti‑Muslim hate”, “anti‑Muslim hostility”—when describing the new wording being developed or adopted [1] [3]. This variation matters because choice of term affects scope and enforcement: “hate” can align with criminal and policy frameworks targeting hostility against a protected characteristic, while “hostility” may be framed in policy documents as broader or more normative language. Reports in October 2025 reference party working groups drafting new wording that deliberately avoids terminology like “Muslimness,” reflecting an intent to craft a definition less likely to be litigated as an infringement on free expression [2].
4. Who is pushing for adoption and how opponents framed the issue
Several pieces note that political figures, including former ministers and advocates, urged formal adoption or revision of definitions to ensure clarity in tackling anti‑Muslim incidents, with at least one former faith minister publicly pressing the government to accept new wording [3]. Conversely, media accounts and critics framed the original APPG-derived definition as potentially restrictive of legitimate debate and free speech—an argument used to justify replacement wording. These opposing narratives carry identifiable agendas: advocates stress enforceable protections for Muslim communities, while critics emphasize civil liberties and legal coherence. The October 2025 reporting captures both pressures shaping Labour’s decision to alter its public wording [1] [2].
5. Bottom line: true, with nuance — what the claim gets right and what it omits
The concise claim—“Labour has torn up its definition of Islamophobia, replacing it with the term anti‑Muslim hate due to concerns it might threaten free speech”—is substantially true in reported practice: October 2025 coverage documents Labour abandoning the earlier APPG phrasing and substituting alternative wording framed as protecting free speech while defining hostility toward Muslims [1] [2]. The claim omits nuance: reporting shows a process of drafting and differing term usage (“anti‑Muslim hate” vs “anti‑Muslim hostility”), a longer timeline of debate dating to 2024, and active calls from some figures to adopt definitions as a means to tackle hate crimes—so the change is political and procedural rather than a simple one‑line legislative repeal [4] [3].