Britain’s former anti-extremism tsar has reportedly broken cover to attack the government’s newly minted definition of anti-Muslim hostility warning it hands extremists a ready-made tool to dodge accountability and silence dissenting voices within Muslim communities.

The Express undertands Lord Walney said he was “deeply concerned” about the definition, which landed on Monday alongside a wider social cohesion strategy. His fear is that bad actors will seize on it to “deflect scrutiny from their quest to undermine our values and intimidate fellow Muslims.”

Under the new definition, anti-Muslim hostility covers “intentionally engaging in, assisting or encouraging criminal acts — including acts of violence, vandalism, harassment, or intimidation, whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated — that are directed at Muslims because of their religion or at those who are perceived to be Muslim.”

A dedicated government tsar will guide its rollout across schools, universities and public services, states the Times, which interviews Lord Walney.

Free speech warning

The definition drew immediate fire from the Opposition. Shadow communities minister Paul Holmes put the government on notice that enshrining the definition without ring-fencing the right to criticise religious ideology put free speech at risk.

Communities Secretary Steve Reed stood his ground. He told MPs the government had a “duty to act” and was categorical that the move did not amount to “blasphemy laws by the back door.”

Turning on the Conservatives, he said: “We will not do what they did and stand by and simply watch while Muslim communities face targeted abuse in ways that any decent country would consider to be absolutely intolerable.”

A national emergency

The definition arrived as part of a sweeping social cohesion agenda that Sir Keir Starmer has framed in stark terms, describing the state of community relations in Britain as a national “emergency.”

Speaking on Monday, the Prime Minister said the political class had “taken our eye off the ball” by allowing a culture to develop in which rights were emphasised while responsibilities went largely unchecked. He argued that Britain could no longer bank on communities staying naturally cohesive as economic pressure, rising migration and global instability continued to bear down.

The strategy was candid about the role of immigration in fraying community bonds, with ministers acknowledging that the speed of demographic change in some parts of the country had been “too much, too quickly.” The document set out an expectation that future arrivals would adopt English as their working language, engage with civic life and demonstrate a commitment to British values — among them tolerance and the rule of law.

While the government stressed that integration demanded effort on both sides, it was unambiguous that the burden of engagement fell first on those arriving in the country.