Act. This is that the Attorney General will have
over Droseculous before they take Exactly why we should trust present future Attorney Generals on this is not explained.
Liberal democrat MP Evan Harris, a prominent opponent of the Bill, also challenged this point:
"The Attorney General is no consolation for those who have been arrested or questioned by the police? Let me give an example for arguments sake.
"If a group of fundamentalist Christians are spreading vilification and humiliation against people - I notice that they do not have the protection which the Home Secretary is extending to those who follow a religion - and I were to say outside the House that those Christian bigots should be despised and indeed hated for their views, can he guarantee that I would not be visited by the police?"
Muslim opinion divided on the Bill. The Muslim Council of Britain campaigns in favour of it, whilst MAB appears to have taken no position. At least one of its leading figures, Anas Altikriti - who stood as a Respect candidate in last years Euro elections is opposed to it. In the Commons the Bill has been opposed at various stages by the Labour left (and not so left) including: Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, Alan Simpson, Paul Flynn, Kate Hoey, Bob Marshall-Andrews and Dennis Skinner. The Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru opposed it as did the Tories - with their own agenda of course
The National Union of Journalists National Executive has opposed the law as an attack on free speech, and called for the repeal of the existing blasphemy laws.
The Lords amendment is designed to tighten up the definition of language needed to bring a prosecution which would then be restricted to "threatening" rather than "insulting" or "abusive" language. They argue that this would make prosecutions more difficult is some cases - we would not know until it was tested in the courts.
What we do know is that the principle of the Bill would be the same. It would still threaten free speech and would be just as divisive as the original wording. It would still be a blasphemy law even if it were more difficult to use.
The Muslim Council of Britain reject the amendment and argue in support of the original wording.
The Bill is therefore unsupportable whichever wording on offer is finally accepted. We don't need more repressive laws but more tree speech to combat bigotry and promote tolerance.
Respect needs to think again about this important Issue Ken Loach Respect has come a long way in a short time. The high ambition to create a party that will articulate a left position is still alive.
Inevitably, development has been uneven. We're familiar with the electoral successes, good solid achievements by all concerned. Those in the leadership have worked with great energy and commitment.
The question now is: can we move on politically and organisationally? Here are a number of points that I hope we might consider.
We need political weight. We need to develop our programme in all areas, based on research and analysis.
We need to tease out the different issues and relate them to a coherent view of economic and social struc tures and conflicting class interests. Traditional stuff of course, but essential.
If we are to aspire to political leadership, that's what it entails; connecting the valous struggles, both domestic and international.
For example, we should make the link between defending public services against privatisers and opposing the occupation of
Understanding and articulating our analysis of this is a prime duty of a left party.
Respect is full of talented and knowledgeable people with a lot to offer in many areas. We should draw on their experiences in a coordinated way to generate discussion papers as a foundation for informed debate. Out of that we can form programmes that are grounded and will command respect.
If we don't develop politically it is difficult to see how we can move forward at all. There is a perception that we are a single issue antiwar group.
We can only counter that by having something important to say on the whole range of political issues. Conference resolutions reflect this concern.
We need a structure within Respect to deal with this. Whether it is a policy unit, a research office or co-ordinator or whatever, the organisation must serve the political need. Whoever takes on this role, an individual or group, should realise the fundamental
Tower Hamlets tenants fighting council house sell-offs at
meeting addressed by Galloway importance of the task.
It is not enough to have someone nominally designated to fulfil that post. The task is nothing less than to be the political engine room of the party.
I write "party" with some misgivings. Is it a party or is it an electoral coalition which also campaigns on particular issues?
Some are reluctant to use the word "party" because it implies that members are loyal to a core programme and that might test the unity of the constituent parts of the coalition.
I think that it is a development we have to make, for the reasons already outlined.
Linking the membership and the branches to the National Council is also an issue to consider. Does the slate system, carefully balanced as it is, leave some members feeling disconnected?
Can we devise a structure in which there is an elected core to the Council but which also allows each branch or group of branches to send a delegate?
The Council might not have to be either entirely elected entirely delegated. One thing is clear; the need for good connections between all parts of Respect should be reflected in its structure.
The question of a newsletter or paper will not go away. I was out of the country working for several months earlier this year. With no regular bulletin it was difficult to know how Respect was progressing.
It is obvious that we need a dialogue between members and branches, news of activities and a forum for discussion. That way we strengthen each other and become a coherent movement.
Finally - though I'm sure others will add to this shopping list - we should try to establish a press office. Individual candidates in the election seem to have had their own press officers. Their loyalty may well be primarily to the candidate rather than Respect as a whole. That way disaster lies.
Beyond that, if Respect is to develop a public presence, a functioning Press Officer is essential. This is