‘Protected Status’ for Muslims — UK’s Lesson U.S. Can’t Ignore; The Dangerous Cost of Government-Appointed “tsars”; In the Push to be Nicer to Muslims, Britain is Walking Into a Trap; Revealed: Britain to Get Islamophobia Tsar

‘Protected Status’ for Muslims — UK’s Lesson U.S. Can’t Ignore

The dangerous cost of government-appointed “tsars”.

In a development raising red flags across the Atlantic, Britain’s Labour government has appointed the UK’s first “anti-Muslim hostility tsar” and adopted a new definition of anti-Muslim hostility — reframed from “Islamophobia” — as part of its £4 million social cohesion strategy.

The definition describes such hostility as “a type of racism” targeting “expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness,” including prejudicial stereotyping that could incite hatred.

Officials claim it addresses record-high anti-Muslim hate crimes while protecting free speech. Critics, however, see it as a potential censorship tool that could limit scrutiny of Islamic extremism, grooming gangs, or integration challenges.

This UK approach serves as a stark warning for the United States, where parallel efforts to institutionalize protections against “Islamophobia” risk granting one religious group an expanding form of special status — potentially undermining equal treatment under the law, free speech, and focus on national security threats.

The Combating International Islamophobia Act, reintroduced in the 119th Congress as H.R. 959 and S. 805, would establish a State Department office to monitor and combat Islamophobia globally, mandating annual reports and strategies.

Backed by Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., it frames supposed rising anti-Muslim bigotry as requiring U.S. leadership.

Opponents warn it could pave the way for domestic mechanisms that equate criticism of radical ideologies with prohibited hate, chilling legitimate debate.

State-level developments add to these concerns.

New Jersey’s A1146 (2026-2027) proposes the nation’s first state-level definition of Islamophobia for use in civil and criminal cases.

Connecticut has advanced bills to create school working groups on Islamophobia, and California’s MENA Inclusion Act (AB 91) expands ethnic recognition, raising concerns about potential speech restrictions.

These initiatives contrast with existing defensive measures.

Since 2010, over 230 anti-Sharia or anti-foreign law bills have been introduced in 43 states, with about 20 enacted to protect constitutional principles, prevent foreign legal doctrines from influencing U.S. courts, and ensure American laws remain paramount. --->READ MORE HERE

Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

In the push to be nicer to Muslims, Britain is walking into a trap:

The Government’s definition of what constitutes hostility to Islam’s adherents is so vague it could stymie all discussion of the religion

I genuinely feel quite sorry for those tasked by the Government with defining “anti-Muslim hostility” (AMH). The Working Group’s definition and its surrounding explanations appeared this week.

It has an agonising history. Muslim activists (am I already exhibiting AMH just by using that phrase?) have long been furious that their faith and its adherents are not protected, as Jews are protected by a semi-official definition of anti-Semitism.

The activists therefore dreamt up the word “Islamophobia” and tried to insert it into British law and public policy. It was for this reason that the present Government set up the Working Group in the first place.

There was a backlash, however. The word “phobia” suggests an irrational fear, even hatred, and therefore mischaracterises those who simply wish to criticise – or mock or even insult – a religion’s beliefs, believers, history or practices. If you make Islamophobia an offence, why not Hinduphobia? Why not lock up Richard Dawkins for Christianophobia?

Many Muslim activists (including the renegade Tory peer, Lady Warsi) also try to argue that anti-Muslim feeling is racist and must be punished for that reason. But that claim is obviously untrue. Like Christianity (but unlike Judaism), Islam is a proselytising religion and so Muslims can be and, in practice, are, of any ethnicity.

So the Working Group tiptoed away from “Islamophobia” and instead invented AMH. And when it published its 146-word definition this week, it surrounded it with stuff about the importance of freedom of speech (a freedom which, it admitted, included “ridiculing or insulting a religion or belief”). --->READ MORE HERE

Follow link below to a relevant story:

+++++Revealed: Britain to get Islamophobia tsar+++++

If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK here, GETTR here, and TWITTER here.