The spectre of Islamophobia

A House of Commons report confirms Islamophobia as the most common form of religious hate crime in the UK. Specifically, 42% of all religious hate crimes reported to the police were attacks against Muslims. But genuine efforts to punish Islamophobia and Islamophobic attacks are so weak that statistics on prosecutions and convictions are entirely absent.

We know nothing about how police deal with complaints of Islamophobia or whether there is a uniform process across all forces. Meanwhile, Islamophobia goes unpunished and grows. This must change.

The debate about how to punish it has been bogged down by the task of finding a definition. This may be important, but British Muslims cannot wait while scholars debate how to define what has long been an obvious and cruel daily reality. Community-based definitions of Islamophobia based on harsh experience are ignored by a legal landscape that approaches prosecution and conviction through outdated methods and systems.

What is the solution? How do we properly punish Islamophobes? As a lecturer in cultural geography at Oxford University, I have used my research skills to draw up an index of Islamophobia to help police, prosecutors, victims and analysts work out when to take legal action and how to map out the routes towards such action. Importantly, this is the first time an index to measure a hate crime has been proposed and it remains an open project. It is inspired by the way crimes such as domestic violence are processed, placing victim testimony and experience at the heart.

Published last week, this index of Islamophobia is accompanied by a pathways-to-prosecution form, which helps identify the laws breached and scores each hate crime on the basis of intensity, intention, impact and recklessness.

How might it work? Let’s look at some flagrant examples of Islamophobia, including Boris Johnson’s infamous comments on burqa-wearing Muslim women as “letterboxes”, the distribution of violence-inducing “Punish a Muslim Day” letters, a headscarf being torn from a Muslim woman, and being called Shamima Begum in the workplace.

With reference to Johnson’s comments, his then position as foreign secretary contributed to a score of 10 in the recklessness category. A score of 10 was also applied in the impact category, as the comments reportedly orchestrated a 375% rise in Islamophobic attacks against Muslim women in the UK. Intensity and intention were scored at a seven and eight respectively, resulting in a total index score of 35. As a legal case before a judge, the high index score would place squarely at the heart of the prosecution process the human impact of Johnson’s comments, compelling an appropriate sentence.

If we consider being called Shamima Begum in the workplace – an experience several Muslim women have shared with me – a score of seven was applied across the four sub-categories. An index score of 28 would enable a judge to situate the incident on the scale of severity, thus handing down a lesser but appropriate sentence to, for example, the Johnson case.

The “Punish a Muslim Day” letters received a higher index score due to the severity of intended physical harm incited, which included “throwing acid in the face of a Muslim”, to “torture a Muslim using electrocution and skinning”, or “butcher a Muslim” and “burn or bomb a mosque”.

Without hesitation, a score of 10 was applied across the four categories, producing an index score of 40. The pathways-to-prosecution form identified that the Malicious Communications Act, Public Order Act 1986 and Crime and Disorder Act 1998 had been breached. Together with a full capacity index score, police and legal professionals would be guided to prosecute and sentence this case accordingly, and under the aforementioned legal routes.

The Guardian