This article was first published on the website of the National Secular Society (NSS) on 10 March 2026, and it is republished here with permission.
The Government has published its long-awaited social cohesion strategy.
Refreshingly, it does not shy away from the role religion can play in undermining cohesion. The document identifies Islamist extremism as a predominant threat, highlights rising tensions between and within faith groups, and acknowledges that extremists are targeting national and local institutions – from schools to charities – in order to advance ideological agendas.
It also recognises that migration and demographic change, alongside a rising tide of extremism and malign foreign influence, are putting social cohesion in the UK under strain.
Importantly, the strategy admits that the country has “taken our eye off the ball” when it comes to being clear not only about the rights that underpin cohesion, but also the responsibilities.
In many ways, the strategy represents a welcome recommitment to core liberal principles: tolerance, protection for minorities, the rule of law, and the freedom to live and let live.
Yet when it comes to religion, the Government’s thinking is sometimes naïve.
The Prime Minister has said the strategy is about “how we bring the country together”.
That aim is laudable. And in some important respects, ministers appear to have listened to concerns raised by the NSS during the drafting process.
‘Islamophobia’
The good news is that the language of “Islamophobia” has finally been jettisoned.
The NSS has long argued that the term is deeply flawed and carries clear potential to chill freedom of expression relating to Islam. In meetings with the Working Group and the responsible minister, we strongly urged that it be dropped. In practice, it has often been weaponised to silence legitimate debate. The concept of “Islamophobia” conflates two very different things: prejudice against Muslims as people, and criticism of Islam or Islamism as systems of belief and practice.
That distinction is vital.
People must be protected from hatred and discrimination. But they must also remain free to criticise, challenge, ridicule or reject ideas – including religious ideas.
Any public authority, political party or organisation that adopted the earlier Islamophobia definition should now swiftly drop it.
However, the strategy replaces “Islamophobia” with a new definition of “anti-Muslim hostility”.
This is both unnecessary and unhelpful. The NSS advised against it.
Some activists, including Shaista Gohir, have argued that such a definition is needed because Muslims are not adequately protected by the current legal framework. This simply isn’t true.
Existing laws already protect individuals from discrimination, harassment and violence, and they apply equally to Muslims. Any criminal offence motivated by hostility based on religion or belief is already treated as a hate crime. Much of the new definition merely restates protections that already exist.
Some Muslim community activists had demanded a new law defining “Islamophobia” as a form of racism. What the Government has delivered instead is a non-statutory definition — effectively official guidance on what ministers consider unacceptable treatment of Muslims. Islamists will be disappointed but may be comforted by the line that the definition “may need to evolve over time”. Ongoing vigilance will be necessary.
But the whole approach of creating standalone definitions for particular groups risks undermining cohesion by encouraging a culture of competitive grievance. The former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission has called this approach “the enemy of equality and of community cohesion”. And despite the caveats around free speech, such definitions can too easily be used to chill legitimate debate about Islam and leave people fearful of expressing their views.
Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has also expressed scepticism about the usefulness of such definitions. As he has pointed out, the adoption of a widely accepted definition of antisemitism has not prevented a rise in attacks against Jews. There is little reason to believe a similar definition for anti-Muslim hostility would be any more effective.
More encouraging is the accompanying clarification that the definition must be read alongside the “fundamental right of every person in the United Kingdom to exercise freedom of speech and expression”.
The strategy explicitly states that criticism of Islam, critical analysis of its historical development, and ridicule or insult directed at religion are protected forms of expression.
That is an important and welcome reaffirmation of free speech.
Communities Secretary Steve Reed has said the Government’s approach strikes the right balance and will “in no way” restrict people’s freedom to criticise Islam. Whether that proves true will depend largely on how the definition is applied – or misapplied – by those seeking to revive the discredited concept of “Islamophobia” to shut down debate they find inconvenient.
‘Blasphemy’
Elsewhere, the Government has taken a clear stance against blasphemy laws – another welcome development.
The strategy states plainly: “We do not recognise blasphemy law in the UK,” (conveniently forgetting that blasphemy laws are still on the books in NI – albeit hopefully not for long). It promises to stand against those who “intimidate, threaten, and harass others because they are offended by so-called ‘blasphemy’.
This comes after the NSS called for a much more robust response from the Government following several alarming incidents, not least in Batley, where a teacher was forced into hiding after sharing a cartoon of Muhammad during a lesson on free expression.
The strategy promises that police will be equipped to respond more effectively to such incidents.
But concerningly, it also commits to working with the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure existing public order and hate crime laws are used “robustly”. This rings alarm bells in the context of the CPS last year outrageously charging a man who burned a Quran with intent to cause harassment to “the religious institution of Islam” – a bogus blasphemy charge that had to be amended after the NSS intervened. The case was nevertheless pursued by the CPS all the way to the High Court, where it lost, with judges reaffirming the importance of free expression.
It also proposes appointing a “special representative on anti-Muslim hatred” – a concession to activist pressure that risks reinforcing sectarian grievance rather than promoting cohesion across society as a whole. Creating a government role dedicated to one religious group sends precisely the wrong signal if the aim is equal treatment under the law.
Charities and education
There are, however, some genuinely positive measures in the strategy.
The charity regulator will be given stronger powers to tackle extremist abuse, including the ability to shut down charities and disqualify trustees who promote terrorism, violence or hatred.
Much of the extremist activity in the charitable sector has been exposed by the NSS. Whether these new powers prove effective remains to be seen – particularly while the “advancement of religion” continues to qualify as a charitable purpose under outdated legislation that clearly needs review.
Other proposals include tougher regulation of home education to protect vulnerable young people, new measures to tackle unregistered schools, and a renewed commitment to citizenship education – something the NSS has long argued is essential for building a shared civic culture.
But elsewhere, the strategy acknowledges that Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education (SACREs) have been targeted by extremists seeking to serve their ideological ends. Yet rather than seeking to abolish them, the Government bizarrely proposes expanding their role in promoting cohesion.
This is misguided. Committees dominated by religious interests are poorly suited to this role – or indeed delivering balanced education in a modern society. SACREs should be abolished, not empowered. If the Government is serious about bringing the country together, it should focus on strengthening shared civic values – not embedding religion more deeply into education policy.
The strategy has absolutely nothing to say about faith schools that divide children along lines of difference.
In the end, the strategy is a mixed bag.
The Government is right to emphasise free expression, the rule of law, and universal rights.
But genuine social cohesion will not be achieved by carving out special protections for particular religious groups or giving religion an ever greater role in public life.
A cohesive society is built not on religious identity, but on shared citizenship.
And that means one simple principle must guide policy: equal rights for everyone, special privileges for no one.
Related reading
Hamit Coskun: The modern-day blasphemy case that should never have been brought, by Stephen Evans
A victory for free speech: the Hamit Coskun ruling, by Stephen Evans
Convicted for blasphemy in modern Britain: an interview with Hamit Coskun, by Daniel James Sharp
Blasphemy Laws 2.0: The conviction of Hamit Coskun, by Noel Yaxley
Image of the week: Hamit Coskun, victim of a new form of blasphemy law?, by Daniel James Sharp
Coskun’s conviction is a surrender to Islamic blasphemy codes, by Stephen Evans
The burning question: are blasphemy laws back? by Stephen Evans
Image of the week: 20 years since the Jyllands-Posten cartoons controversy, by Daniel James Sharp
Islam and free speech, 20 years on from Jyllands-Posten: interview with Jacob Mchangama, by Daniel James Sharp
Three years on, the lessons of Batley are yet to be learned, by Jack Rivington
The preacherman-o-sphere: the religious misogynists exploiting our charity sector, by Megan Manson
The problem with ‘Islamophobia’, by Mark Lilly
Your email address will not be published. Comments are subject to our Community Guidelines. Required fields are marked *
Donate