The Racial and Religious Hatred Bill is about creating a new criminal offence (with a maximum penalty of 7 years in jail) of 'stirring up hatred against people on religious grounds'. It does this by adding new parts to an older law: the Public Order Act 1986.

a. The lowest threshold for an offence is that words are "insulting". The courts have already held that relating certain sexual behaviour to immorality would be insulting to some groups. Christianity contains strong moral teaching which will be considered insulting under this definition. Additionally both Christianity and Islam are proselytising religions and teach things which contradict each other, most importantly about the identity of Jesus Christ. The teaching of one religion has great potential, inevitably but unintentionally, to be considered insulting by members of the other;

b. The second limb (b) of the offence requires no intention on the part of the maker of a statement to stir up religious hatred, but only that the words are "likely" to do so. As is made quite clear in the explanatory notes to the Bill, paragraph (b) is stated as an alternative to paragraph (a). That is shown by the use of the word "or";

c. There is nothing in the text of the offence to prevent "Religious hatred" from being interpreted as hatred against the beliefs held by members of a particular religion, or the practices of the members;

d. There is no defence that the words are true;

e. There is no definition of religion. When Fiona MacTaggart was Home Office Minister she indicated on Law in Action in November 2004 that even Satanists would be protected;

f. Hatred is not defined. The dictionary definition of intense dislike or detestation will be used which is a highly subjective test and very difficult to define or predict.

6. Summarise your concerns about the unintended consequences of the Bill:

a. A chilling of the climate of free speech in the religious arena:

• It will become difficult to expose groups who persecute others in the name of religion;


• Socially unacceptable practices carried out in the name of religion, such as child abuse, will become more difficult to expose. The effect of this would be to deprive people of information about dangerous cults which would otherwise safeguard them from exploitation;


• Some public teaching of religion and reading of passages from Holy books will become illegal.

SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO ARGUMENTS THAT MAY BE PUT TO YOU

1. The Attorney General's permission will be needed for a prosecution to take place

This does not represent an adequate safeguard. Before the Attorney General has been consulted there will have been an intrusive police investigation including police station interviews and house searches. It will be several weeks before the A-G's decision will be known which will add to an already highly stressful situation for people. The Attorney-General is likely to come under enormous pressure to bring prosecutions especially as elections draw near which could threaten his impartiality.

2. There is currently a loop-hole in the law which means that Jews and Sikhs have special protection which is not extended to Muslims and Christians

Jews and Sikhs are covered by the legislation outlawing incitement to racial hatred because they are members of a distinct race. If they change religion they will still be members of that racial group. Muslims and Christians are not members of a distinct racial group and therefore do not need the protection afforded to members of a race that these provisions provide. There are already sufficient laws to cover all aspects of religious hatred. In 2001 Mr Norwood, a BNP regional organiser, was convicted of religiously aggravated harassment for displaying a sign saying: "Islam out of Britain"