Once again the lawyers and politicians are going around in circles.

For in the United Kingdom a cross party group of MPs have had a go at defining Islamaphobia ( a word not contained in my Word spell check!)

Before looking at this definition it is worth thinking back a year or so when we were treated to the spectacle of Teresa May and advisers thinking up a definition of Anti-Semitism. This at a time when hatred of Muslims was a far more important problem.

Perhaps the group of MP’s missed a trick. A school child might think that to define Islamaphobia you substitute the word ‘Islam’ for ‘Hebrew’ in the Anti-Semitism definition.

Not a moment too late has the spot light now moved onto our Muslim brothers and sisters who are suffering hatred in the UK and other countries, in a way that the Jews were targeted in Nazi Germany.

It is good someone has the intelligence to write a definition of what is the problem. This is the first step to the review of existing laws and any supplementary or new UK legislation.

Here is what the cross-party group came up with;

‘Islamaphobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.’

Here is the first test of the statement. Let’s change the religion in question.

‘Christianaphobia is rooted in racism and is the type of racism that targets expressions of Christianness or perceived Christianness.’

So the attack on the congregation in Christ Church New Zealand was racist? I think not.

Consider for a moment what racism is, since it is being included in the definition in question.

It appears that there are numerous definitions; made more confusing the ‘ethnicity’ being considered the same as ‘race’.

My contribution to this word play would be to suggest that there is only one race, the human race. This is split by ethnic difference based on environmental, genetic, cultural, linguistic and other fundamental factors.

So here is what the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination said;

The term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

If this definition were adopted into UK law then the signs at airports instructing EU Members to queue here and all the rest to queue there – would be illegal.

Fortunately gender and race are universal constants and in my view, nothing to do with prejudice based on ethnicity or religion.

Taking a step back from what we are discussing here is the unpleasant aspect of being ‘human’ – hatred of ‘the other’.

As members of the human race to our shame we have a long history of dividing ourselves up into tribes or villages or clans or nationalities or supporters of a football team and seen this as reason enough to wage war on ‘the others’.

All the prejudice in the world is an expression of intolerance towards other humans.

It’s expression ranges on a scale from minor to major. Football hooligans are at the pathetic end of the scale and fascist government leaders at the other. In between is all the prejudice – hidden and open – that we carry within ourselves.

Hatred based on religion is therefore simply another expression of intolerance ranging between sour looks to beheading.

My definition of Islamaphobia would be;

Hatred of Muslims

Now can we get down to the real problem? Because until a child steps forward to take over the role of Prime Minister, no single person appears to see the problem with any clarity.

The head of the National Police Chiefs Council, Martin Hewitt, is dismayed at the vagueness of the definition. He believes it will cause confusion and hamper the effectiveness of the police against minor and serious crimes motivated by religious hatred.

In law, precise definitions produce laws which are executable.

If I had any advice for the devout of any religion, it would be to remove all cultural affectations in dress and any other public signification of your personal beliefs. Put these items on in the place of worship if it makes you feel more comfortable.

Hitler had to identify Jews by ordering the placing of a yellow star of David on their dress. To preserve your dignity and safety – I would advise not to make it easy for the biggots.

When the time and place is right – in a tolerant society – freedom of religious expression will be protected.

To base new laws on eliminating hatred is in my view to start at the wrong end of the stick. I believe the best way to introduce tolerance is to introduce love, as well as eliminate hatred. One cannot exist without the other but we can at least set the balance straight. So this debate is not just for the law makers, it is for all the humans.

Raise a hand if you are a human!