Category Archives: Religious hatred law

Public ‘split over new hate laws’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Public opinion is divided over controversial plans to ban incitement to religious hatred, according to an ICM poll for the BBC News website. The poll, taken in the days following the London bombings, found 51% in favour of such a move but 44% against….

“In January an ICM poll for The Guardian newspaper suggested stronger public support for incitement to religious hatred laws. The poll found 57% agreeing a ban was ‘needed to stop those who want to stir up hatred against people who want to stir up hatred against people of particular religious faiths’. It found 36% said the new law was ‘wrong because people should be allowed to express their opinions freely, however hateful’.”

BBC News, 17 July 2005

The reason for this change, however, is that BBC got ICM to ask a different question. Respondents were asked: “Which comes close to your view? 1. I support laws preventing abuse or inciting hatred on faith grounds 2. Banning criticism of of those with different religious beliefs is a curb on free speech.”

The issue of religious hatred is thus expanded to include the more general category of “abuse” (which the current bill does not deal with) and it is suggested that the new law would amount to “banning criticism of of those with different religious beliefs” – which of course it doesn’t propose to do.

Robert Spencer warns against concessions to British Muslims

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Does Robert Spencer fear a racist backlash against British Muslims? Not at all. Rather, he expresses anxiety that the dhimmis of the UK will demonstrate excessive concern for Muslim sensibilities, “making it altogether possible that the London bombings will end up winning more concessions for Muslims in the UK than they would have won otherwise. The idea that they are lashing out in frustration because their legitimate grievance is not being redressed, combined with utter ignorance of the jihad ideology, could make 7/7 the end of resistance to the proposed religious hatred law, and the beginning of more accommodations.”

Dhimmi Watch, 8 July 2005

More nonsense about the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

Posted on by Bob Pitt

behzti“Picture this scenario. A new play opens in London that centres around taboo issues relating to religion. For argument’s sake, a rape in a Sikh Gurdwara. Protests follow, ‘community leaders’ demand it be shut down and some threaten legal action. Six months ago, when the Behzti play controversy blew up, those threats of legal action amounted to hot air.

“However if the government’s bill to outlaw religious hatred passes through its third reading next week, those empty threats would suddenly become very real. In essence Labour aims to reward the MCB (Muslim Council of Britain) with a piece of legislation in return for the Muslim vote during the election.”

So Sunny Hundal claims: Asians in Media, 4 July 2005

The level of ignorance displayed by opponents of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill never ceases to amaze. It seems to have escaped Sunny’s attention that Sikhs, as members of a mono-ethnic faith, are already covered by the ban on incitement to racial hatred in the 1986 Public Order Act. If it could be reasonably argued that “Behzti” incited hatred against Sikhs, then a prosecution could have been brought under Section 20(1) of that Act, which states:

“If a public performance of a play is given which involves the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, any person who presents or directs the performance is guilty of an offence if –
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances (and, in particular, taking the performance as a whole) racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.”

The Racial and Religious Hatred Bill merely seeks to amend that section of the 1986 Act by substituting “racial or religious hatred” for “racial hatred”. This would have the effect of extending its provisions to cover members of multi-ethnic faiths, such as Muslims or Hindus. If the Bill becomes law, the opportunities for Sikhs to persuade the Attorney-General to prosecute a play like “Behzti” will be … precisely the same as they are at present.

Hamza and hatred

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri has appeared in court at the start of his trial on terrorism charges. The 47-year-old, who denies any involvement in terrorism, has been held at Belmarsh prison since May 2004…. He faces 10 charges alleging he solicited people at meetings to murder non-Muslims, including Jews. A further four charges allege he used ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up racial hatred’.”

BBC News, 5 July 2005

Though the question of Abu Hamza’s guilt remains open, of course, it might be noted that the latter four charges are under Section 18(1) of the 1986 Public Order Act, which states:

“A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if –
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred by thereby.”

The current Racial and Religious Hatred Bill proposes to amend this so that “racial hatred” becomes “racial or religious hatred”. At the risk of repetition, the purpose is to extend to Muslims and Hindus the right to protection from hatred presently enjoyed by Jews and Sikhs under the Act.

If, as its critics allege, the Bill represents a terrible attack on the right to free speech, it is difficult to see how they can in all consistency refuse to condemn the suppression of free speech under the existing racial hatred sections of the 1986 Act.

We look forward to Nick Cohen, Melanie Phillips, the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, Harry’s Place et al publishing indignant articles defending Abu Hamza’s democratic right to incite hatred against Jews without action being taken against him under the Public Order Act.

Most people back religious hatred law – and they’re right

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Most people back religious hatred law – and they’re right

By Ken Livingstone

Tribune, 1 July 2005

Anyone would think from the media coverage of the government’s proposed legislation to ban incitement to religious hatred that the combination of some comedians and celebrities, along with the Tories and the Liberal Democrats, represented the views of the great majority of the population.

In London, they definitely do not. The Government’s new Bill, which will significantly build on existing legislative measures aimed at combating hate crime, has overwhelming backing from Londoners. Seventy-two per cent of London residents support the new anti-incitement law, according to our opinion polls. Just 15 per cent are against. The media has ignored this impressive show of popular support for the Bill, preferring to give publicity to the unrepresentative views of a few high-profile celebrities, who have falsely portrayed it as a new blasphemy law.

Some faith groups such as Jews and Sikhs are currently protected from incitement to hatred on the basis that these religions are held to be mono-ethnic, and therefore come under the 1986 Public Order Act which bans incitement to racial hatred. Members of faiths which are defined as multi-ethnic, such as Hindus and Muslims, are not so protected. This is clearly unacceptable, and has left a loophole for the far Right.

Opponents of the Bill claim that existing laws are sufficient to deal with the racists. They cite the case of Mark Norwood, a BNP member in Shropshire who was successfully prosecuted in 2002 after he placed a poster in his window carrying the slogan “Islam Out of Britain”. They omit to mention the case of another BNP member, Dick Warrington, who was prosecuted for displaying a poster with the same slogan but was acquitted by magistrates in Leeds in 2002.

The BNP had this to say about Warrington’s prosecution: “The snag for the police, however, is that Islam is not covered by the anti-free speech race law… it’s legal to say anything you want about Islam, even far more extreme things…”

Nick Griffin’s secretly-filmed tirade against Muslims, clearly desgined to whip up the most unpleasant hatred against Asians, indicates what we are up against.

The comedian Rowan Atkinson has accused the government of “using a sledgehammer to crack a nut”, which could be taken to imply that the rise in anti-Muslim hatred is a matter of little significance.

The same argument was employed during the Commons debate on the Bill by Tory MP Boris Johnson, who stated that “the problem of Islamophobia is in danger of being exaggerated”. As the editor of a magazine – The Spectator – that has brazenly contributed some of the worst examples of Islamophobia in the media, this is hardly surprising.

Continue reading →

Will religious hatred laws deal with bigotry?

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Socialist Worker asks the question, Ghayasuddin Siddiqui and Inayat Bunglawala offer opposing answers. Looks like the SWP is hedging its bets. The fact that these two writers are given equal billing is itself a bit of a cop-out. Inayat Bunglawala is media secretary for the Muslim Council of Britain, to which over 300 British Muslim organisations are affiliated, whereas the Muslim Parliament is, how shall we put this, somewhat less of a mass movement.

Socialist Worker, 2 July 2005

Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The transcript of the first sitting of the House of Commons standing committee on the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill is now online. Leyton & Wanstead MP Harry Cohen states:

“Islamophobia is deep and serious. It is of great concern to many of my Muslim constituents. I suspect that Members with Muslim constituents know that very well. Where it is overt, the law must stand up against it and declare it illegal and unacceptable.”

Report of proceedings, 28 June 2005

‘Please don’t jail me for seven years’, terrified theatre director pleads

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“The extremist end of Islam – the fanatics who wanted Salman Rushdie killed, and who … want their beliefs to be immune from criticism of any sort – will not be appeased by it. They will simply see it as a staging post for a more extreme law: one which will extend blasphemy legislation to cover all religions.”

Another silly article on the religious hatred bill, this time by theatre director Nicholas Hytner.

Sunday Telegraph, 26 June 2005

Nazis and the religious hatred bill

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“British people are also aware of the mayhem caused in parts of the world by Islam and the use of violence by Muslims to spread their cause – 9/11 being a particularly horrific example. If law abiding people are concerned about the increasing spread of Islam in Britain, should not a decent government take their worries on board by at least conducting a true, open and honest debate on all sides of the argument? Yes. But ‘our’ government does no such thing and instead seeks to criminalise such sensible debate on the matter and call it ‘hate’ and ‘incitement to religious hatred’.”

A fascist assesses the Commons debate on the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill.

BNP website, 27 June 2005