Critics Warn ‘Islamophobia’ Bill Threatens Free Speech 

A New Jersey bill that would hand government officials a new definition of “Islamophobia” is waiting in committee while critics say the measure could be aimed at anyone criticizing Islamic doctrine or politics.

Assembly Bill A1146 was introduced on January 13, 2026. It is waiting in the Assembly State and Local Government Committee, and, according to its sponsors, would make New Jersey the first state to adopt an official definition of Islamophobia for civil and criminal purposes.

It doesn’t invent a brand-new crime for saying the wrong thing. Instead, it requires police and other public officials to “take into consideration” its definition when deciding whether an alleged act of discrimination or hate was motivated by anti-Muslim bias.

The definition is where critics focus. It calls Islamophobia “a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness,” then lists examples that include “severe disparagement” of Muslim culture; “hostility and fear of Islam” that results in “fear of and aversion to all Muslims or the majority of Muslims”; and “mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations,” including “claims of a demographic threat posed by Muslims or of a Muslim takeover.”

The bill includes some limits. It says the definition does not cover criticism of any Muslim-majority country “similar to that leveled against any other country,” and it says nothing in it may infringe on free-speech rights under the U.S. or New Jersey constitutions. Critics have said that a savings clause doesn’t fix vague wording that officials are told to apply.

The bill is partly modeled after a British parliamentary group’s definition, but there are some key differences. Where the British text emphasized that listed examples “could” constitute Islamophobia depending on the context, the New Jersey language incorporates the examples more directly into its definition. It also adds language about fear of the religion and disparagement of culture that the British text didn’t emphasize the same way.

Critics argue that citing classical Islamic teachings on the supremacy of the faith or on “loyalty and disavowal” could be treated as evidence of hateful motive. They raise similar concerns about documenting Islamist groups’ strategies for gaining influence, and about a journalist calling honor killings barbaric or an activist condemning forced marriage.

Critics also object that one example puts “defaming” someone “simply for practicing Islam or exhibiting a Muslim identity or heritage” in the same list as calling for their killing or harm. Under constitutional and criminal law, defamation and violence are treated very differently.

Opponents argue the definition is loose enough to turn legitimate argument or personal testimony into evidence of bias.

Other versions of the bill have been introduced over the past five years. As of mid-November, the latest “Islamophobia” bill still hasn’t moved out of committee.

More from this network:
Domains for Sale · GOTPeople.org · TheDSAPlatform · The Truth About Socialism

Donate to GOTPeople.org