"Experience shows that criminal laws prohibiting hate speech and expression will encourage intolerance, divisiveness and unreasonable interference with freedom The House of Lords has voted by a majority 260 votes to 1l1 to reject the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill which is currently before Parliament. The Government will now have to decide whether to carry out its threat to use the Parliament Act to force it through compromise with the Lords.
The Bill - which covers England and Wales - is a serious threat to free speech and civil liberties and is an integral part of the wider
civil rights launched by new Labour as part of its "war on terrorism".
Effectively it expands the arcane blasphemy laws and will promote intolerance and bigotry, further divide religious communities, and raise the spectre of censorship.
This is a serious problem for Respect, since George Galloway voted for the Bill at its third reading in the Commons as a Respect MP. Moreover, though Respect itself has not taken a position on the Bill the bulk of those who spoke in a debate on the Bill at the Respect National Council September supported it.
The Bill extends part 3of the Public Order Act 1986 to create a new ottence of incitement religious hatred.
If it goes through anyone who publishes or says anything "likely to be heard or seen by any person in whom it is likely to stir up racial or religious hatred" will be committing criminal offence liable to seven years in prison. Language used only has to be considered as "insulting" to be actionable.
Already a protestant evangelical Dressure group, Christian Voice, has warned that it will seek to use it to prosecute bookshops selling the Qur'an for inciting religious hatred. Its director Stephen Green told The Guardian: "if the Qur'an is Disorder not a hate speech, I don't know what is".
New Labour claims that the Bill will defend the Muslim community from islamaphobic attacks - most of which are generated by its own demonisation of the Muslim community in the wake of its invasion of Iraq of course.
Yet similar legislation in Australia promoted in the same way, has been used against Muslims by Christian fundamentalists.
Shami Chakrabarty, director Liberty, which strongly opposes the Bill, said: "There may be good intentions behind this Bill, but the road to censorship is paved that way".
In fact the Bill is a cynical ploy by new Labour lo redress the damage done to its Muslim vote by its war in
During the general elecSecretary DON Charles Clarke wrole lo every mosque in the country pointing to the proposed Bill and highlighting Tory and Liberal Democrat opposition to it.
Liberty, in a well argued briefing paper on the Bill, quotes Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui of the Muslim Parliament on this. He says
"The Muslim concern for protection, equality, and social inclusion is real and genuine. However, this piece of legislation is driven by political motives to stem the haemorrhaging of Labour support amongst the Muslim community."
Moreover the Bill adds nothing to current law since incitement religious hatred - in its various forms - is actionable under existing legislation - in particular under an amendment to the 1998 Crime and
Act, which extends the offence of causing alarm or distress to include cases that are racially or religiously aggravated.
Liberty cites BNP members who are currently facing prosecution for comments about Muslims filmed and shown on TV on the BBC programme Secret Agent. Islamaphobia racial hatred under a religious guise.
Liberty's briefing paper goes on:
"Criminalising even the most unpalatable, illiberal and offensive speech should be approached with grave caution in a democracy. Free speech is far more precious than protection from being offended.
"The criminalisation of expressed opinions is often turned on the vulnerable of expression." - Soli Sorabgee, former Indian Attorney General communities was designed to protect."
The Bill turns the focus trom the necessary protection of the individual to the protection of belief systems themselves, i.e. a blasphemy law. It would allow people to claim that is it they, and not their ideas, which are under attack - thus generating arguments as to whether strongly expressed views on other people's religious beliefs are actionable.
In the Lords Liberal Democrat peer (and respected civil rights lawyer) Lord Lester puts it this way:
"In seeking to criminalise the stirring up of religious hatred the Bill links vulnerable groups to religion or belief. It 1S that link, between protecting groups of people and protecting their beliefs and practices which gives the impression to those seeking to protect their religion against insult
that the offences are akin to a blasphemy laws WIll large". He points out, as an example, that Sir Iqbal Sacranic, the leader of the Muslim Council of Britain is convinced that the new offence would enable Salman Rushdie to be prosecuted for publishing The Satanic Verses. Soli Sorabgee, former Indian Attorney General, who gave evidence at the Lords committee stage drew the same point from the Indian example: "Experience shows that criminal laws prohibiting hate speech and expression will encourage intolerance, divisiveness and unreasonable interference with freedom of expression. Fundamentalist Christians, religious Muslims and devout Hindus would then seek to invoke criminal practices. That is increasingly what is happening in protected. India today". wide scope for this: Respect Conference Fringe Meeting Assess the day's events and discuss the way forward for Respect
SATURDAY Nov I9th
The Dolphin (Saloon Bar) Opposite conference entrance 5.30 (or at close of conference)
are sweepingly broad.. Unlike most other serious offences they require no criminal intent. They apply not only to words spoken in pubic but in private. They cover the electronic media, plays, films, works of ficpolitical argument, preaching by priests and clerics, comedians and politicians". This is why comedians and entertainers such as Rowan Atkinson and Stephen Fry arc quite rightly campaigning against the Bill. The Government argues that the new law is necessary because Jews and Sikhs are protected by existing law. It is spurious argument. Jews and Sikhs are protected as ethnic groups, i.e. because of their ethnicity not because of their religious belief. Stirring up hatred against Muslims machinery against each because of their ethnicity -other's religion, tenets or as Asian or Pakistani for
example - would equally be The Government also Lord Lester pointed to the argues that there is ar
important safeguard against "The new speech crimes the illegitimate use of the
page 13 of the scan
Respect Conference special 2005