On 9 March 2026, the UK government quietly introduced a new non-statutory definition of "anti-Muslim hostility." While presented as a tool to tackle rising hate crimes against Muslims, the definition has sparked serious alarm among Britain's Sikh community — and for good reason.
As Deputy Director of the Network of Sikh Organisations, Hardeep Singh has made clear: this definition risks interfering with Sikh religious freedom, free speech, and the ability to openly discuss Sikh history and ethical concerns. The NSO has joined the Free Speech Union in preparing a judicial review, arguing that the process lacked proper consultation and that the vague wording could be weaponised against other faith groups.
What the Definition Actually Says
The government defines anti-Muslim hostility as:
"Intentionally engaging in, assisting or encouraging criminal acts… directed at Muslims because of their religion or at those who are perceived to be Muslim… It is also the prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims, or people perceived to be Muslim… and treating them as a collective group defined by fixed and negative characteristics, with the intention of encouraging hatred against them."
Crucially, it explicitly includes people "perceived to be Muslim" — which the guidance acknowledges can mean Sikhs, Hindus, or ex-Muslims, often based on appearance, ethnicity, or race.
On the surface, this sounds protective. After all, Sikhs have faced mistaken-identity attacks, especially after 9/11 (the first post-9/11 hate murder in the US was of a Sikh, Balbir Singh Sodhi). Sikh gurdwaras have also been targeted by both far-right extremists and, at times, Islamic extremists.
But here's the problem: the definition is vague on key terms like "hostility," "prejudicial stereotyping," and "negative characteristics." It covers not just criminal acts but also "non-criminal conduct or behaviour" that "extends beyond the bounds of protected free speech." This opens the door to overreach in workplaces, schools, public bodies, and even religious education.
Sikhs find themselves in an awkward position — sometimes victims of anti-Muslim hostility due to mistaken identity, yet potentially accused of it when expressing their own faith or history.
1.Teaching Sikh History. Sikhism has painful historical memories of persecution under Mughal rule. The martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur in 1675 — beheaded for defending Hindus in Kashmir against forced conversion — is central to Sikh identity. Guru Arjan Dev's martyrdom is another key event. Under the new definition, could a teacher or speaker describing these events as "Muslims spreading Islam by the sword" or subjugating minorities be accused of "prejudicial stereotyping"? The old APPG "Islamophobia" definition once flagged exactly this kind of historical claim as problematic. The BBC even tried to censor a Thought for the Day script by Lord Singh on this topic. Self-censorship in classrooms becomes the easy option.
2.Ethical Objections to Halal Slaughter. Sikh teachings (Rehat Maryada) prohibit consumption of halal meat, which involves non-stun slaughter. A Sikh employee politely requesting a non-halal alternative in the workplace — citing animal welfare and religious conviction — could be reframed as "prejudicial stereotyping" of halal consumers or creating a hostile environment. HR departments, eager to avoid complaints, might treat this as anti-Muslim hostility rather than legitimate religious accommodation or animal rights advocacy.
3.Lack of Fair Consultation. The government set up a Working Group on anti-Muslim hatred but initially excluded Sikh (and Hindu) representatives. When the NSO finally got a narrow chance to submit evidence, the questions were limited and presumptive. Sikhs were told they could be victims of the very hostility being defined, yet given little real voice in shaping it. This creates the perception of two-tier treatment: special protections and a dedicated "Islamophobia tsar" for one faith, while others rely on the existing Equality Act 2010.
Existing Laws Already Protect Everyone
Sikhs benefit from dual protection under race and religion provisions in the Equality Act. Criminal law already allows sentence uplifts for religiously or racially aggravated offences. The new definition doesn't add new criminal offences — it risks creating a parallel system of guidance that chills legitimate debate and religious expression for non-Muslims.
Critics argue it revives the spirit of non-crime hate incidents and comes close to a de facto blasphemy law — something Britain abolished in 2008. Vague language makes it ripe for activist weaponisation, where complaints (even unfounded ones) force institutions to investigate.
All faiths deserve protection from genuine violence, harassment, and discrimination. But privileging one religious community with a bespoke definition while sidelining others risks breeding resentment rather than harmony in Britain's multi-faith society.
Sikhs have long championed religious freedom and equality. They don't want special treatment — they want consistent, even-handed rules that protect everyone without stifling honest discussion of history, ethics, or doctrine.
The government insists the definition doesn't limit criticism of Islam or religious ideas. But as Hardeep Singh and the NSO point out, the vague wording and institutional incentives suggest otherwise. Judicial review will test whether this holds up under Article 9 (freedom of religion) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
For Britain's Sikh community — proud of its distinct identity, history of resilience, and commitment to equality — this definition feels less like protection and more like a new constraint on telling their own story.
https://dailysceptic.org/2026/03/28/the-governments-anti-muslim-hostility-definition-is-bad-news-for-sikhs/