The government were embarrassingly defeated on their Religious Hatred bill on February 1, wiel amend ments trom the House of Lords were carried against a Labour three-line whip.
The defeat nas serious implications as far as the ability of the government to get its legislation though
ULL issues such as ID cards and even on eancanon.
The amendments that were carried were a major blow to the Bill in that they will make successful prosecution under the Act more difficult. But the Act remains a dangerous piece of legislation.
The unacceptable principle behind this legisla- The Act puts jumble, tion, that the criticism of religious religious ideas, under certain ideas into a of doubt, a person is conditions, can be a
protected criminal offence carrying a seven year category as prison sentence, against, for remains in force.
Its capacity example, divide religious com- political munities who are far
ideas more likely to use the act against can olner than against secular commentators remains in full force as well.
The Act puts religious ideas into a protected category as against, for example, political ideas, where the right to insult and cause offence rightly remains unchanged.
The Government Bill made criminal "a person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or penaiour". A Lords amendment -accepted by the Commons by a majority of one against the Labour whips (with Blair himself absent) - took out "abusive and insulting" to make hatred of religious views a crime only if it was part of a threat which ironically is already an offence under the Public Order Act.
The other amendment accepted by the Commons means that people cannot be prosecuted for recklessly inciting religious hatred as in the Government Bill. Instead they Will have have intended to do so.
As Mark Steel pointed out in his excellent article in the Independent the day after the vote, this clause of muchamended law is now a confused and confusing which now reads: "For the avoidance not guilty of offence under inis part of being reckless as to religious hatred would be stirred up if he is reckless whether hatred would stirred up religion, religious belief or religious practice but is not also reckless as to whether hatred would be stirred up against a group ot people defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief." [sic!]
George Galloway of course voted with the government which he was entitled to do given that the Respect conference voted to support the Bill in its original and more dangerous form.