Ethics

Arguments/comments made from those for the law:

1. Law is needed because of the particular vulnerability of religious minorities and is only aimed at really serious cases (e.g. attacks on mosques after September 11th).
2. The new law addresses a gap whereby existing race law protects Jews and Sikhs, because they are mono-ethnic religions, but doesn't protect multi-ethnic religions (e.g. Christians/ Muslims).
3. There are many safeguards – no prosecutions will take place without the consent of the Attorney General, and he will do so only when high thresholds have been crossed.
4. Bill is not concerned with hatred of religion, but with hatred of people and is meant to protect people not protect religion itself.
5. There is a conflict of freedoms: the freedom of speech, and the freedom of religion, freedom to live your life without the violence that flows from what a person says about the colour of your skin. We need to balance these freedoms. 'I find it hard to understand the logic of those who say that freedom of speech will be under threat if we extend the provisions already in place for race to religion'. (Lord Alli – House of Lords debate, March 2005).
6. The former Home Secretary sought to assure us that this new law will not affect people's right and ability to debate matters of religion or to proselytise.[1]

Responses to the above:

1. a) We believe the existing law is adequate (Public Order Act 1986). Firebombing a mosque, or anywhere else, is already illegal. It's already illegal to incite someone to commit criminal damage or violence, or to the threat of violence to a person or to commit a terrorist offence. It's already illegal to harass someone, shouting at them in the street or pestering them with nasty phone calls or poison pen letters. The threshold for the operation of some of the laws under the Public Order Acts already appears to be disturbingly low.[2]
   
   b) We must also ask the question whether the creation of such an offence is justifiable when we consider the unavoidable infringement of the rights of others that it will represent.
2. The law is not protecting them from religious incitement. It is protecting them from racial incitement. Their religion just happens to be co-extensive with their race. It is not protecting their religion as their religion, but as a symbol of their race.
   
   Race and religion are two very different things. Race is unchangeable. However people change religion all the time. Race has no moral component. Religion, by definition, determines a person's morals. Race is about a person's origin and biology. Religion is about ideas. All men are created equal. All ideas are not.
3. There are several issues with this:
   
   a) Although this is a judicial office and traditionally non-political, this will place an enormous amount of pressure on one man in a climate where the faith communities have high expectations that the Act will cover incidents that it was not intended to include.
   
   b) Although this may mean that not many people actually get prosecuted each year, it will not stop suspects having to go through the very stressful process of being arrested, questioned, and taken to court in lengthy police investigations even before a decision to prosecute is made. 'The very thought of being subjected to such initial stages of police investigation is likely to inhibit freedom of expression' (Baroness Cox, House of Lords Debate, March 2005)
   
   c) We do not believe that the thresholds are particularly high.[3]
4. It is very difficult to draw the line between a person and a belief that they hold dearly. Any attack on the belief is very often taken as a personal insult and offence.
5. Whilst we would agree that freedoms in conflict need to be balanced, and agree that those who are under real threat should be protected, we do not believe that this Bill does what it sets out to do. It neither affords true protection for the needy, nor puts real and substantial safeguards in for freedom of speech. In fact, more than that, we believe that, due to the clumsiness of the Bill, the proposed legislation will significantly hinder freedom of speech, do more to increase tension and conflict as groups take each other to court for petty offences, and will in practice help those who are extremist.
   
   a. Freedom of speech:
   The danger of a law that is not needed is that prosecutors will find a use for it. Once this offence becomes law no amount of government assurances will matter. It is then in the hands of the courts and it will take on a life of its own. Rowan Atkinson commented that the clause would lead to a 'chilling of the climate of free expression'. [4] (Briefing in the Jubilee Room at the House of Commons on 6 December 2004)
   
   A year ago the Bishop of Chester was investigated by the police for saying that homosexuals could be cured by therapy. Even though he had committed no offence the threat of police investigation can have a disproportionate effect on normally law abiding citizens and discourage them from coming any where near to crossing the line. (See also response 3b).
   
   Furthermore, the fundamental differences (see response 2) between race and religion make it inappropriate to compare the effects on freedom of speech with regards to laws on incitement to hatred on these separate grounds. All men are created equal, all ideas are not – freedom of speech does not apply in the same way to people (race) as it does to ideas (religion).
   
   b. Increased tensions:
   We believe that this law will be used by opposing groups as a stick to beat opponents with as has been demonstrated in the Daniel Scot case, in the Mysticism and Occult Federation case5 2001, and in the fact that, in Australia (in response to the Daniel Scot case), it is now reported that Muslims are having their meetings infiltrated by Christians.
   
   We can see how this could quickly turn into a tit-for tat exercise with the Attorney General being caught in the middle and being censured for whatever action he takes.
   
   c. Extremists:
   One former prominent supporter of the similar law in Australia, Amir Butler, executive director of the Australian Muslim Public Affairs Committee, now states that: 'All these anti-vilification laws have achieved is to provide a legalistic weapon by which religious groups can silence their ideological opponents'.[6]
   
   It is clear that those who are intolerant of other views themselves may use the proposed offence to silence those views. It is likely to be used by extreme groups against moderate groups. Those who are inherently tolerant, including Christians, will suffer because they are less likely to press for prosecutions.
   
   d. Human rights abuses
   There is also the danger that the proposed offence would prevent people from reporting human rights abuses with a religious dimension that are taking place in other countries for fear of being prosecuted for inciting religious hatred in the UK. The Barnabas Fund, a UK charity working with Christians in Islamic societies, has raised concerns that the proposed offence could be used against modernist Muslims calling for reform of Islam, to hinder work for greater protection of rights for Muslim women and to silence those who campaign against injustices endured by non-Muslims living under Islam7.
6. 'The government say that that this legislation will not affect legitimate criticism, missionary activity, or jokes about religion but nothing is written in the Bill to guarantee that' (Lord Chan, House of Lords debate March 2005). It is not always possible to separate vilification of a certain belief or practice from vilification of the person who holds that particular belief or who observes that particular practice. A passionate attack on the morality of shari'ah law, for example, would be interpreted by some Muslims who agree with shari'ah law as incitement to hatred of them, either personally or as a group. It is inevitable that criticism of others' religious beliefs will be taken to be insulting, especially if the adherents to that religion are particularly sensitive. But this must not be allowed to stop people from challenging the correctness of those beliefs.
   
   Churches in areas with large Islamic populations have already been asked to take down posters and not hand our tracts because they are offensive. The posters had Bible verses on them such as “Jesus is the way, the truth and the life”. (See also: Daniel Scot case, Mysticism and Occult Federation case 2001).

In summary:

It seems that some basic tenets are not really under debate – we all generally agree that hatred against individuals as a result of their religion is bad and should be fought against. What is under debate is the manner in which to do that. Should the government come up with a Bill that manages to protect minorities without the serious negative consequences that have been discussed in the preceding pages, there would be little opposition to it being passed. Right now, however, we are faced with a very badly worded Bill that appears neither to achieve that which it has set out to, nor safeguard freedoms that we are not willing to give up.

Lord Dholakia: 'In essence I believe that the Government's proposal is flawed but not of bad intent. We want to support what the Government are doing but we want to find a way that will achieve that intent and not the opposite' (House of Lords debate, March 2005).

What happens next?

The Racial and Religious Hatred Bill had its third reading in the House of Commons on the Monday 11th July and was passed by 301 votes to 229, a majority of 72. The Bill is now making its way through the House of Lords.

Tuesday 11th October – Bill had its second reading in the House of Lords, and went in to committee stage.

Tuesday 26th October – Extensive amendments to the Bill were discussed and voted through in the Lords with a massive majority of 149 (260 for, 111 against). This means that the Bill, once it has made its way through the Lords, will have to be passed back to the Commons. Please see the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship update dated 26-10-05 for details of the amendments and for actions points going forward.