The Left Pivots Away From ‘Islamophobia’ With New Euphemism for People Who Notice Islamic Violence

The Left, both in America and globally, has spent the last 25 years bending the knee to radical Islam. In the wake of the September 11 terror attacks, many politicians — including George W. Bush — tried to appease Islam and separate the terrorists from the broader ideology. We even engaged in a global war on terror on the grounds of “fight them over there, not over here.”

Only to turn around and start importing Islamists from Afghanistan and elsewhere. Now that it’s not working well for Western nations, people are starting to speak up about the problems Islam brings, because it’s an ideology wholly incompatible with Western values. In Paris, Christmas and New Year’s celebrations were canceled thanks to threats. German Christmas markets have been closed, and authorities recently arrested five Islamists who were going to target another Christmas market.

And on Sunday, Islamists inspired by ISIS opened fire on a Hanukkah celebration in Bondi Beach, Sydney, killing at least 15 and injuring 40 more, including children and Holocaust survivors.

When the average citizen dared speak out about radical Islam, politicians accused them of “Islamophobia,” because these pols believe “racism” is a worse offense than shooting Jews or plowing cars into Christmas revelers. But people aren’t reacting to accusations of “Islamophobia” with capitulation and apologies anymore, so a new euphemism is being rolled out: “anti-Muslim hostility.”

The Government has finally produced its official “Islamophobia” definition – rebranded as “anti-Muslim hostility”.

It’s even worse than feared. 🧵 https://t.co/f8WzDiiVMI pic.twitter.com/djR0U0EXBm

— Nick Timothy MP (@NJ_Timothy) December 15, 2025

Here’s more:

The government is considering a draft definition of anti-Muslim hatred which does not include the term “Islamophobia”.

The BBC has seen the form of words from the Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim hatred working group, which the government has taken to stakeholders for consultation.

Free speech campaigners have expressed concerns that protections for “Islamophobia” would mean it would not be possible to criticise the religion itself.

Members of the working group argue the definition protects individuals while avoiding overreach.

A working group was established in February to provide the government with a working definition of anti-Muslim hatred/Islamophobia.

They submitted their proposal to the government in October.

The definition will be non-statutory, meaning it is not set in law or legally binding, but will provide a form of words public bodies can adopt.

It provides guidance to the government and other bodies on what constitutes unacceptable treatment of Muslims, aiming to help them better understand and quantify prejudice and hate crimes against this group.

This is the literal definition of insanity. Guns aren’t the problem. Christmas markets aren’t the problem. New Year’s celebrations aren’t the problem.

Islam is the problem.

As with the last definition endorsed by Labour, this dangerously elides concepts:

– The protection of people from harm v the protection of ideas from scrutiny

– Racial identity v religious belief

– Actions that are already illegal v behaviour that a free society should permit

— Nick Timothy MP (@NJ_Timothy) December 15, 2025

The inclusion of this language is especially problematic:

“The prejudicial stereotyping and racialisation of Muslims … to stir up hatred against them.”

First, “racialisation” is a nonsense term used to in this instance to make something not about race – beliefs – about race.

— Nick Timothy MP (@NJ_Timothy) December 15, 2025

Of course Muslims cannot be a race.

It is morally wrong to hate somebody for what they inescapably are – black, white, whatever.

Being a Muslim is about choosing to follow particular ideas.

And in a free society we must be free to scrutinise and challenge ideas.

— Nick Timothy MP (@NJ_Timothy) December 15, 2025

Activists want to elide race and religion in this way because they want to shut down scrutiny and criticism of what they believe by calling other people racist.

If the Government signs up to this definition ministers will be encouraging and facilitating exactly this.

— Nick Timothy MP (@NJ_Timothy) December 15, 2025

Activists want to elide race and religion in this way because they want to shut down scrutiny and criticism of what they believe by calling other people racist.

If the Government signs up to this definition ministers will be encouraging and facilitating exactly this.

— Nick Timothy MP (@NJ_Timothy) December 15, 2025

And who decides what stereotyping is?

Nobody believes all Muslims are terrorists or abusers.

But are we allowed to say that Islamist terrorists carry out their atrocities in the name of Islam?

Are we allowed to discuss religiously aggravated rape?

Or is that stereotyping?

— Nick Timothy MP (@NJ_Timothy) December 15, 2025

This is what governments that are failing to protect their citizens in the name of tolerance do — they stifle dissent and criminalize those who question or object to the importing of Islamists to their countries.

Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at Townhall, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve.

Help us continue to tell the truth about the Trump administration and its successes. Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.