Civic space in the UK is narrowing, and not only through legislation, policing powers, or restrictions on protest. Increasingly, it is being shaped by something far less visible but equally corrosive: the systematic delegitimisation of racialised communities, driven by media narratives, political rhetoric, and selective scrutiny.
Hostile actors are not always trying to ban voices outright. Instead, they work upstream, influencing the environment so that certain individuals and organisations are treated as inherently suspect before they have even entered the conversation.
As a network representing British Muslim charities, the Muslim Charities Forum sees these patterns across organisations of every size, from local grassroots groups to international NGOs.
This process does not silence communities by force. It does so by framing them as extreme, untrustworthy, or foreign, making their perspectives easier to dismiss, their credibility easier to undermine, and their participation easier to marginalise. It works by implying that their values are incompatible with the norms of public life, positioning them as outside the mainstream and therefore undeserving of equal civic legitimacy.
Delegitimisation
For migrant, refugee, and British Muslim communities, this delegitimisation is often racialised and securitised. Their civic engagement is rarely assessed on merit. Instead, the labels applied to them are pre established.
If a Muslim runs for office, they may be labelled an Islamist. If a charity delivers humanitarian assistance, it may be accused, without evidence, of supporting terrorism.
If organisations mobilise communities, they can be portrayed as politically subversive. If they highlight the need to address anti-Muslim hatred, they are framed as advocating for blasphemy laws.
These labels are not descriptive. They are exclusionary. They function as tools to narrow who is considered a legitimate civic actor.
Material impacts
The consequences reach far beyond public discourse. A hostile digital footprint follows organisations into funding decisions, compliance assessments, banking relationships, regulatory interactions, and partnerships. The result is material as well as reputational:
- Funding is lost.
- Bank accounts are closed.
- Fundraising platforms shut organisations out.
- Organisations are categorised as “high risk”.
- Communities are excluded from shaping the policies that directly affect their lives.
This is how disinformation and delegitimisation translate into economic harm and political exclusion.
Unbalanced coverage
These dynamics have been felt first-hand by many Muslim-led organisations. In recent years, numerous groups have been targeted by misleading and unbalanced media coverage that relies on insinuation, selective sourcing, and guilt by association.
Rather than engaging with their work or contributions to the sector, such reporting tends to serve a different purpose: it signals to regulators, funders, and partners that Muslim-led organisations should be subject to increased scrutiny.
The harm extends beyond the immediate target. It sends a message to the wider civil society sector: engaging with Muslim-led organisations carries reputational risk.
This is not random. And it is not the work of a few bad actors. It is a coordinated movement. Far right networks have mastered this playbook, moving claims from report to headline to parliamentary soundbite until suspicion hardens into policy and practice.
There is an identifiable pattern. Some actors generate claims, often through “think tanks” producing reports built on weak or unverifiable evidence. Others disseminate these narratives through media platforms without adequate scrutiny.
Political figures then deploy parliamentary privilege or public statements to legitimise these claims.
Threats to the wider sector
The strategy remains consistent even as the targets evolve. While Muslim civil society has long borne the brunt of this process, it increasingly extends to climate organisations, racial justice groups, and others advocating for systemic change.
The challenges faced by Muslim civil society serve as an early warning for the charity sector. Tactics that undermine Muslim organisations are often later used against other groups seen as inconvenient. Recognising these patterns is vital not just for defending Muslim civil society, but for protecting the voluntary sector’s independence and future.
Delegitimisation curtails civic participation without overt restrictions, affecting the entire sector. Civic space depends not just on the right to protest, but on which voices are recognised as credible in public life.
When legitimacy is selective, civic space becomes inherently unequal, deepening power imbalances and silencing underrepresented groups.
Civil society faces a dual challenge: defending groups facing discrimination and safeguarding the inclusiveness of the civic sphere. This is fundamental to the UK’s democracy. Systematic exclusion weakens civic engagement and decision making legitimacy for all.
To truly protect civic space, society must recognise every community, including those most often delegitimised, as a valued and legitimate contributor to our future.
Related articles
