Legal dispute
This project aims to raise funds to resolve a claim, or other type of dispute.
Freedom of religion for Sikhs is under threat
London, Greater London, United Kingdom
Crowdfunder is secure
Your payment details are protected
Aim
Freedom of religion and belief for British Sikhs is under threat with the government backed ‘anti-Muslim hostility' definition
Freedom of religion and belief for British Sikhs is under threat with the government backed ‘anti-Muslim hostility' definition
We are compelled to pursue judicial review due to the government's actions and their expected effect on British Sikhs and other faith groups' ability to practice their beliefs
Last month, the government published their new definition of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’, which we believe is demonstrating a clear two-tier public policy in how they deal with Britain’s mosaic of faith groups.[i] Alongside the definition, was an announcement that they would also appoint an ‘Islamophobia’ tsar. The definition comes with guidance which expands the definition’s capture, wrongly conflating race with religion. Despite admitting (not least in the definition itself) that other groups like Sikhs, Hindus and ‘those who have left Islam’, who are 'perceived to be Muslim’ face ‘anti-Muslim hostility’,[ii] not one member of any other faith group was appointed onto the group, (with the exception of the group’s Chair, Dominic Grieve KC). This despite requests in writing from the Network of Sikh Organisations (NSO) to be included.
We believe there should be one law for all. As we previously stated, if there is a special government backed definition for one group, why not for others – a ‘tsar’ for one, why then the exclusivity?[iii] Setting out the rationale for a definition for ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ the government argue, ‘If you are unable to define an issue, you are far less able to tackle it.’[iv] If that’s the case, then what about Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Atheists, apostates and a panoply of other philosophical beliefs? Why is hatred against them not treated equally? Steve Reed the communities minister, is encouraging the public, private and charities sectors to all adopt this government definition. So, the definition will likely permeate extensively and have a wide influence across British society, in schools, universities and councils, but also in the workplace and online. Allegations of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ will act like non-crime-hate-incidents – that is they don’t meet the criminal threshold, but are investigated, nevertheless, and this will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and religious freedom. The process then becomes the punishment.
The definition poses problems that threaten free speech and will directly affect how British Sikhs (and other faiths) are able to express and manifest their faith, and moreover openly discuss their history. We believe that it interferes with our protected Article 9, 10 and 14 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and nothing has changed since our original pre-action letter to the government back in September 2025, as reported in the Times.[v]
The new definition uses vague terms, ‘hostility’, ‘prejudicial stereotyping’ and ‘negative characteristics’ (none of which are defined in law) – leaving the definition open to interpretation and sanction. This is not dissimilar to the vague word, ‘Islamophobia’, in the now defunct APPG definition. The following examples are where we believe issues are likely to arise for British Sikhs:
- Consider a Sikh employee protesting about halal meat and objecting to non-stun animal slaughter in his or her workplace, by simply explaining why they require an alternative option, in accordance with their beliefs and the Sikh Rehat Maryada (Sikh Code of Conduct). If a complaint is made by another employee, then the Human Resources (HR) department would have to scrutinise the complaint in line with the new ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ definition and accompanying guidance. Could that be classified as ‘prejudicial stereotyping’ of consumers of halal, given Sikhs protest on grounds of animal rights? Might this result in someone losing their job or being put on a disciplinary?
- Take a religious education teacher who discusses Sikhism and chooses to focus on the martyrdom of the ninth Sikh Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadur, who was executed under the then Muslim rulers for standing up for the freedom of religion of Hindus. Would the teacher risk being reported to school authorities and face disciplinary procedure? In the event they suspect there will be a complaint, would they self-censor and chose not to ‘offend’ in the first place, as it risks being captured under ‘prejudicial stereotyping’? This is not mere conjecture. In 2019, the BBC attempted to shut down our director’s recounting of this very historical truth on BBC Radio 4. The BBC’s thought police acted, following the publication of the all-party-parliamentary group (APPG) on British Muslims published their now defunct definition of ‘Islamophobia’. This stated an example of ‘Islamophobia’ being: ‘claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule.’[vi] Moreover, the APPG definition, like the new repackaged definition, wrongly and dangerously frame the issue of religious prejudice as a form of racism.
- Verses in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib (the Sikh scriptures), not least Babur Vani – Guru Nanak’s account of the consequences of Babur’s (the first Mughal) invasion and the brutalities he witnessed firsthand, could well be brought into question for the reasons outlined in (ii) above.
This is a critical juncture for British Sikhs. We have serious concerns that our Article 9 rights under the ECHR, which protects the right to freedom of thought, belief and religion will be interfered with by the government’s new ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ definition. We also believe it will interfere with our article 10 Rights on freedom of expression, as well as our Article 14 rights under the convention, resulting in discrimination against not only Sikhs, but of people of other faiths and philosophical beliefs too. To this end, we have set up a fundraiser for judicial review purposes. We are joining the Free Speech Union and other allied organisations (including a women’s rights group, and representatives of other faiths and beliefs) to challenge the government’s decision to adopt this ill-conceived definition and we need your support.
Donations to this appeal will be received by the NSO and contribute towards our legal fund for the judicial review.
[ENDS]
[i] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/a-definition-of-anti-muslim-hostility
[ii] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/a-definition-of-anti-muslim-hostility#:~:text=It%20is%20engaging%20in%20unlawful,to%20protect%20Muslims%20from%20hostility.
[iii] https://nsouk.co.uk/the-government-definition-of-anti-muslim-hostility/
[iv] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/a-definition-of-anti-muslim-hostility
[v] https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/sikh-group-threatens-legal-action-over-islamophobia-definition-f7r30kpk2?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqfdGR-088Loo0A7wNpg6_RMfxmvCkEYy8Mgs6G7oMofFKF-TyD73-5V4Oj9iKA%3D&gaa_ts=69b80db3&gaa_sig=z0h1pBm8pE_99BkxcSZ1QywuP220unA48tcDXf76l43tlaGrHQ-3KXNiFG4O5KLpe7-1lDTP1vndtThCDz_pdA%3D%3D
[vi] https://www.camden.gov.uk/documents/20142/4794543/APPG+Definition+of+Islamophobia.pdf/f747d5e0-b4e2-5ba6-b4c7-499bd102d5aa
Funding method
Keep what you raise – this project will receive all pledges made by 5th July 2026 at 11:47am