« Tourism revisited | Main | After the Dutch 'Nee' »
June 01, 2005
Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill
Stuart Dickson on the Independence blog has caught up with the anomalous status of the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill, omitted from Scottish Labour’s manifesto yet within the competence of Holyrood rather than Westminster, which Labour reportedly intend to force through by use of the Parliament Act.
If it is eventually passed it would be a bad piece of law acting against freedom of speech. It is one thing to protect people in terms of their race, age or sex, quite another to put certain kinds of belief beyond criticism.
Punishment for this new offence could be as severe as seven years imprisonment, so it is not a minor issue. I am sure we will be hearing a lot more about it.
scottish-independence.blogspot.com/2005/05/scottish-labour-versus-parliament-act.html
UPDATE 9 June 2005
More information about the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill has been released by the government.
David Davis noted that the legislation would be “massively counter-productive” pointing out that “this new law would technically prevent what many people may regard as reasonable criticism of devil worshippers and religious cults.”
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4075442.stm
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/011/06011.i-i.html
Posted by Simon Holledge at June 1, 2005 01:46 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.skakagrall.com/cgi-bin/MT/mt-tb.cgi/449
Comments
Do 'Muslims need protecting' is the real question here which people seem to be avoiding. The fact that the religious hatred bill will not be effective is not the main point and we should not wasting our time debating it. If in the one hand you feel there has been much anti Muslim sentiments in the media and society than the question is what can we do to protect Muslims. Yes, we can try the religious bill if it is not affective like what some people are saying then we will have to find another bill that is. On the other hand if you feel that Muslims are not in need of protection than why are we talking about the bill not being effective enough? Maybe the reason is that if they (the right wingers) say that Muslims are not in need of protection than they will find a considerable amount of evidence against them so they are left to say 'the bill will not be effective' and thereby cause some problems/ barriers for thoes that are working hard for it.
Ironically most of those that are opposed to the new bill are those that are already protected by laws similar to it. Ask Michael Howard, leader of the opposition whether a similar bill protects the Jews or not, and if so how does the equality law come into this. You will find much double standard
Posted by: Peter Marlow at June 20, 2005 06:12 PM
Peter,
I am not sure if you are for or against the bill but it is worth noting that the Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris proposed an amendment to ban “reference to a religion as a pretext for stirring up racial hatred”. This would have protect Muslims, in my view quite adequately, but the government rejected it.
Posted by: Simon Holledge at June 20, 2005 07:10 PM
Why are we playing these tit-for-tat little games with those that need protecting like Muslims, treating them like they know nothing. When one MP/ PARTY makes a proposition the other goes and rejects it and when the other makes a proposition the former goes and rejects it. In between this nothing happens/ nothing is law and the media is having a field day dividing the society in terms of religious beliefs. If MP Evan Harris believes that Muslims need protecting then she should back this bill as Home Sectary made it clear that the Bill is intended to "protect the believer not the belief"
Posted by: Peter Marlow at June 22, 2005 11:18 AM
The 'intention' of the bill is not the problem. The problem is the law itself.
Posted by: Simon Holledge at June 22, 2005 01:56 PM