Category Archives: Religious hatred law

Good for Dobbo

Posted on by Bob Pitt

DobboMPs supportive of the government during the Commons debate on the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill included Frank Dobson who said:

“I do not believe that anyone – Rowan Atkinson or anyone else – needs the right to incite hatred against someone because of their religion. He has apparently said that we should look at things from the point of view of the comedian. Other people in the world are just as important as comedians. Muslim women who have been assaulted, abused and spat on for wearing the hijab are as important to me as Rowan Atkinson, for all his sense of humour.”

Not so sure I agree with you about Rowan Atkinson’s sense of humour, Frank, but otherwise – spot on.

Religious hatred law perpetuates inequality after Commons vote

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Unfortunately, the misinformation and mischief making from popular comedians and some influential sections of the media, supported by certain political groups, has led Parliament to continue to sanction a wholly unjustifiable hierarchy of rights among British citizens. Freedom of expression and speech was never threatened under the incitement to racial hatred laws nor was it to be threatened under the proposed law. This situation is now not only unjust but makes the work of all those engaged in promoting a cohesive and harmonious society in Britain all the more difficult.”

MCB news release, 1 February 2006

Government defeated on religious hatred bill

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The government has suffered two shock defeats over attempts to overturn Lords changes to the controversial Racial and Religious Hatred Bill.

In a blow to Tony Blair’s authority MPs voted by 288 votes to 278 to back a key Lords amendment to the bill. Analysis of the division list showed the prime minister voted in the first division but not in the second, which was lost by one vote.

Shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve said the defeats were “a victory for Parliament”. He branded the bill a “foolish manifesto commitment” introduced to “appease” some minority groups [read: “Muslims”], and which had “threatened freedom of speech”.

Mr Grieve said in multicultural Britain people had to accept that freedom of speech may mean people could be offensive to them, as well as vice versa. He said: “This (bill) was completely contrary to our national tradition of free speech.”

BBC News, 31 January 2006

No doubt the fascists will be cheering. The acceptance of the Lords amendment means that it will be virtually impossible to mount a successful prosecution for inciting religious hatred. All the BNP needs is an acquittal at Leeds Crown Court, and it will be able to celebrate a double triumph.

‘What’s at stake is the right to insult and cause offence’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Polly ToynbeeSo Polly Toynbee claims in a Guardian article attacking the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. In fact, what’s actually at stake is the right to incite hatred.

Toynbee criticises the “free speech” clauses in the government’s amendment (which as we have already pointed out make dangerous concessions to the opposition). She asserts that these legal guarantees “would not protect Rowan Atkinson’s sketch showing men bowed down praying in a mosque with the voiceover intoning: ‘And the search goes on for the Ayatollah Khomeini’s contact lens.’ Many were insulted. It would not protect Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, let alone Christ in nappies on the cross in Jerry Springer – the Opera. Nor would it stop Behzti being closed down by angry Sikh mobs.”

There is nothing in the Bill that would prevent Rowan Atkinson from taking the piss out of the Ayatollah Khomeini, or Salman Rushdie from publishing The Satanic Verses or any theatre from staging Jerry Springer – the Opera. What the proposed legislation criminalises is not ridicule or insult but incitement to hatred. As for Bezhti, Sikhs are defined as a mono-ethnic faith group and are therefore already covered by the law against racial hatred. The new legislation won’t make the slightest difference to the legal position in relation to the incitement of hatred against Sikhs.

Continue reading →

Religious hate bill changes urged

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A coalition of politicians, writers and artists is trying to persuade ministers to accept changes made by peers to the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. The bill will return to the Commons on Tuesday after being substantially amended in the House of Lords.

BBC News, 30 January 2006

See also “Atkinson in last-gasp bid to bury religious hate bill”, Observer, 29 January 2006

Needless to say, these democrats are not worried about the clause in the government’s amendment that recognises the right to incite hatred against religion, which could strengthen the hand of the BNP. Rather, they support the Lords amendment that would restrict the offence of inciting religious hatred to “threatening” words and behaviour and would moreover require the prosecution to prove intent – which would, of course, destroy the possibility of ever securing a conviction.

New religious hate plans unveiled

Posted on by Bob Pitt

bnp-islam-posterCompromise plans to create a new offence of incitement to religious hatred while protecting free speech have been unveiled by ministers.

The government’s original plans for the new offence were heavily defeated in the House of Lords last year. Critics said the proposed legislation was drawn too widely and could outlaw criticisms of beliefs.

Ministers have now published their revised plans, which have been welcomed by some opposition peers.

They have bowed to the critics’ demand that incitement to religious hatred be covered by separate legislation rather than be joined to race hate laws.

Somebody could only be convicted of the new offence if they intended or were reckless about inciting hatred. And there is a new clause in the legislation declaring that a person is not guilty of an offence if they debate issues, insult or ridicule a religion – unless they intend to stir up religious hatred.

The Home Office says the original plans would not have stopped comedians telling religious jokes but the new plans give an “absolute guarantee”.

Home Office Minister Paul Goggins said the amendments would mean it would be an offence to incite hatred against Muslims, Hindus and Christians. It is already an offence to stir up hatred against Sikhs and Jews through race hate laws.

Lib Dem peer Lord Lester, a leading critic of the original plans, said the new amendments had sprung from talks with the government. “They are a great step forward for free speech,” he said.

BBC News, 26 January 2006

The deal the government has done with the opposition is mainly unobjectionable. They have conceded Lord Lester’s demand that a separate Part 3A should be added to the Public Order Act which will deal exclusively with religious hatred, but that’s not a problem in itself. Where Lord Lester’s amendment, adopted by the Lords last October, restricted the offence of inciting religious hatred to words and actions that were “threatening”, the compromise deal changes this back to “threatening, abusive or insulting”. And where the Lester amendment required proof of intent, the new version criminalises the incitement of hatred by means of “reckless” behaviour.

So far, not so bad. But here’s the spoonful of tar. The new version includes a passage which states that “a person is not guilty of an offence … of intending to stir up religious hatred if he intends to stir up hatred against a religion, religious belief or religious practice but does not also intend to stir up hatred against a group of persons”. This looks to me like a major loophole in the legislation which will work to the advantage of the far Right.

The BNP’s anti-Muslim hate propaganda is always carefully crafted so it is formally directed against Islam as a religion rather than against Muslims as people. The defence that BNP führer Nick Griffin used at Leeds Crown Court this week was that, while he stood by the speech in which he denounced Islam as a “vicious, wicked faith”, he denied that his views were an attack on the adherents of that faith. “There’s a huge difference”, he stated piously, “between criticising a religion and saying this is an attack on the people who follow it. When I criticise Islam, I criticise that religion and the culture it sets up, certainly not Muslims as a group and most definitely not Asians.” (Guardian, 26 January 2006.)

The argument that you can incite hatred against a particular faith without also inciting hatred against the people who practise it is of course entirely bogus (see for example Osama Saeed’s comments), but the government is proposing to insert a clause into the Bill that gives credibility to Griffin’s position. Someone needs to get onto this quick. The Commons debate is scheduled for next Tuesday.

‘The hypocrisy of the Muslim Council is beyond belief’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Joan SmithThus the title to an article by Joan Smith in yesterday’s Independent on Sunday.

She condemns a letter from Muslim leaders in Saturday’s Times supporting the view of homosexuality expressed by Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain. She goes on to point out that the MCB “has supported Section 28, opposed lowering the age of consent for gay sex and has worked with evangelical Christians to oppose gay adoption”. She quotes Peter Tatchell’s statement: “How can the MCB expect to secure respect for Muslims when it shows such obvious disrespect to other people because of their sexual orientation?”

As we have already pointed out (see here) the views of Iqbal Sacranie and the MCB on homosexuality are not easily distinguishable from those of the Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, and the Orthodox Jewish community. Indeed, a statement issued by Dr Sacks’ office – “There is no prospect of the mainstream Orthodox community permitting same-sex commitment or marriage ceremonies. Orthodox Jews are bound by biblical and rabbinic law, which only condones sexual relationships between a man and a woman who are married” – is identical to the position taken by the Muslim signatories to the Times letter.

Would Tatchell think it appropriate, then, to issue a statement such as: “How can the Chief Rabbi’s office expect to secure respect for Jews when it shows such obvious disrespect to other people because of their sexual orientation?” And would Joan Smith feel happy about publishing an article headlined “The hypocrisy of Orthodox Jewry is beyond belief”?

Smith argues that the MCB is guilty of hypocrisy because it wants to criticise homosexuality while at the same time supporting the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, which she claims “would open critics of religion to the threat of a prison sentence”. This is of course a complete misrepresentation of the proposed legislation (see, for example, here). What the new law would do is illegalise incitement to hatred. Liberal secularist bigots like Smith could continue to express their prejudices against Muslims without hindrance.

More confusion on the religious hatred bill

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Mike Marqusee“No one should underestimate the hatred, violence and injustice poured on Muslims in the UK. They are subject to verbal and physical assaults. Their mosques are defaced. They are harassed by police. Members of their community are arbitrarily searched, arrested and detained. Their religion is distorted and vilified, not only in the right-wing anti-immigrant press, but also in more liberal organs. Routinely, the entire Muslim population is placed on trial and considered guilty until it proves itself innocent; Muslims are asked again and again to demonstrate their willingness to ‘integrate’ and their commitment to ‘British values’.

“It’s not surprising therefore that many within the Muslim community have welcomed the government’s religious hatred bill. Sadly, however, it will do nothing to relieve their distress. It will not curb the most powerful fomenters of Islamophobia – the state and the mainstream media. It will not increase anyone’s security from assault by bigots. There is already sufficient legislation on the books to enable police to act against anyone threatening or harassing people because they are Muslims or attacking Muslims as a group. What’s missing in most cases is the will to take action under the law.”

Mike Marqusee offers some insights into the position of Muslims in Britain but gets it wrong on the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill.

Counterpunch, 19 December 2005

‘Muslim bigots impose blasphemy laws on Victoria’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“At the behest of Muslim bigots and multiculturalist fanatics the Bracks Government suspended free speech in Victoria by imposing a blasphemy law dressed up as an anti-vilification law. This has given Islamo-fascists a freehand to attack critics of Islam…. The provoked riots in Sydney are revealing what happens when Australians get sick of a minority trying to impose, with the tacit agreement of cowardly politicians and half-witted multiculturalists, its reactionary Muslim beliefs on them.”

Gerard Jackson takes issue with the prosecution of rightwing Christian pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot for inciting hatred against Muslims.

Brookes News, 19 December 2005