Racial and Religious Hatred Bill [Passes UK Parliament, blocked in House of Lords]

Parliament's Official Website ^ | July 12, 2005 | UK Parliament - Session 2005-06

[John Filson]

House of Commons

Session 2005 - 06 Internet Publications Other Bills before Parliament

Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

---

Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

EXPLANATORY NOTES

Explanatory notes to the Bill, prepared by the Home Office, are published separately

as Bill 11—EN.

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr Secretary Clarke has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the

Human Rights Act 1998:

In my view the provisions of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill are compatible with

the Convention rights.

Bill 11

54/1

---

Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

Bill 11

54/1

---

Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

1

A

Bill

To

Make provision about offences involving stirring up hatred against persons on

racial or religious grounds. 

Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and

consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present

Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1	Hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds

Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64) is amended in accordance with the

Schedule to this Act, which—

(a)	creates offences involving stirring up hatred against persons on

religious grounds, and

5

(b)	amends provisions relating to offences involving stirring up hatred

against persons on racial grounds.

2	Short title, commencement and extent

(1)	This Act may be cited as the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2005.

(2)	This Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by

10

order made by statutory instrument.

(3)	An order under subsection (2) may make—

(a)	such supplementary, incidental or consequential provision, or

(b)	such transitory, transitional or saving provision,

as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with the coming

15

into force of this Act.

(4)	This Act extends to England and Wales only.

Bill 11

54/1

---

2	Racial and Religious Hatred Bill Schedule — Hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds

Schedule

Section 1

Hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds

1	Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64) (racial hatred offences) has effect

subject to the following amendments.

2	For the heading for Part 3 substitute “Hatred against persons on racial

5

or religious grounds”.

3	After section 17 insert—

“Meaning of “religious hatred”

17A	Meaning of “religious hatred”

In this Part “religious hatred” means hatred against a group of

10

persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious

belief.”

4	In the cross-heading before section 18, for “racial hatred” substitute “racial or

religious hatred”.

5     (1)

Section 18 (use of words or behaviour or display of written material) is

15

amended as follows.

(2)	In subsections (1)(a) and (5) for “racial hatred” substitute “racial or religious

hatred”.

(3)	For subsection (1)(b) substitute—

“(b)	having regard to all the circumstances the words, behaviour

20

or material are (or is) likely to be heard or seen by any person

in whom they are (or it is) likely to stir up racial or religious

hatred.”

6     (1)

Section 19 (publishing or distributing written material) is amended as

follows.

25

(2)	In subsections (1)(a) and (2) for “racial hatred” substitute “racial or religious

hatred”.

(3)	For subsection (1)(b) substitute—

“(b)	having regard to all the circumstances the material is likely to

be seen by any person in whom it is likely to stir up racial or

30

religious hatred.”

7     (1)

Section 20 (public performance of play) is amended as follows.

(2)	In subsections (1)(a) and (2) (in both places) for “racial hatred” substitute

“racial or religious hatred”.

---

Racial and Religious Hatred Bill Schedule — Hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds

3

(3)	For subsection (1)(b) substitute—

“(b)	having regard to all the circumstances the performance is

likely to be attended by any person in whom the performance

(taken as a whole) is likely to stir up racial or religious

hatred.”

5

8     (1)

Section 21 (distributing, showing or playing a recording) is amended as

follows.

(2)	In subsections (1)(a) and (3) for “racial hatred” substitute “racial or religious

hatred”.

(3)	For subsection (1)(b) substitute—

10

“(b)	having regard to all the circumstances, the recording is likely

to be seen or heard by any person in whom it is likely to stir

up racial or religious hatred.”

9     (1)

Section 22 (broadcasting or including programme in programme service) is

amended as follows.

15

(2)	In subsections (1)(a), (3), (4) (in both places), (5) (in both places) and (6) for

“racial hatred” substitute “racial or religious hatred”.

(3)	For subsection (1)(b) substitute—

“(b)	having regard to all the circumstances, the programme is

likely to be seen or heard by any person in whom it is likely

20

to stir up racial or religious hatred.”

10	For the cross-heading before section 23 substitute “Inflammatory material”.

11    (1)

Section 23 (possession of racially inflammatory material) is amended as

follows.

(2)	In subsection (1) for the words from “if he intends” onwards substitute “if he

25

intends racial or religious hatred to be stirred up thereby or subsection (1A)

applies.”

(3)	After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A)

This subsection applies if, having regard to all the circumstances, the

material or recording is likely to be seen or heard by any person in

30

whom it is likely to stir up racial or religious hatred.”

(4)	In subsection (3) for “racial hatred” substitute “racial or religious hatred”.

(5)	In the sidenote, for “racially inflammatory” substitute “inflammatory”.

12	In section 29 (interpretation) after the definition of “recording” insert—

““religious hatred” has the meaning given by section 17A;”.

35

---

© Parliamentary copyright 2005	Revised 9 June 2005

[John Filson]

Religious hate bill clears Commons (from Science Daily)

LONDON, July 12 (UPI) -- The British government's controversial incitement to religious hatred bill has cleared Parliament's lower chamber, the House of Commons.

Members of Parliament passed the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill 301-229. However, it faces a tough time in the House of Lords, where the government has no majority.

The government moved to reassure opponents faith groups would not be able to place critics under citizen's arrest. It tabled an amendment to prevent "malicious" attempts by religious organizations to stop criticism if the police declined to step in.

But hundreds of Christians demonstrated outside Parliament as the bill was debated, arguing the law would prevent them criticizing other religions.

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were defeated when they proposed an amendment banning reference to religion as a pretext for racial hatred. However it is likely it will be raised again in the Lords.

Supporters of the bill say it closes a loophole in the current racial hatred law, which protects Sikhs and Jews because of their distinct ethnicity, but not Muslims, Christians or Hindus.

Copyright 2005 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved.

[AbeKrieger]

Now, can people who practice hatred IN THE NAME of religion be prosecuted under such law? Such as islamists?

[John Filson]

See also LGF's thoughts on this thought crime bill.

Big Brother is the current G8's solution because they're afraid to round up and intern/deport people based on 'religious' association.

[Question Liberal Authority]

I'll admit I haven't been following this at all, but I'm guessing "racial hatred" doesn't mean hatred against whites and "religious hatred" doesn't mean hatred against Christians.

[John Filson]

Should say: [Passes in UK Commons, blocked in House of Lords]

[Alouette]

"religious hatred" doesn't mean hatred against Christians.

Or against Jews.

[John Filson]

Shouldn't Jews prefer general legislation and direct prosecution for crimes committed against them, such as assault and libel/slander rather than obstructing speech?

[usurper]

My prediction is that if this law is enacted it will achieve exactly the opposite effect of what is intended. Like all liberal legislation, programs and initiatives it is based on feelings, false assumptions and perceived emotions.

[John Filson]

It doesn't look like it'll pass. The sentiments expressed, and the unanimity of the lower house's approval is startling, though.

[Brad’s Gramma]

Support Free Republic - Become a Monthly Donor

Remember... only you can prevent fundraisers.

[John Filson]

Some good reads on this subject:

1. Racial and Religious Hatred Bill: Second Reading - MP Boris Johnson, critic of the bill (but apologist for Muslim immigration)
2. Do we need a Racial and Religious Hatred Bill? -- timesonline.co.uk reader comments.
3. Controversial UK Religious Hatred Bill Introduced --christianpost.com editorial.
4. Chart: Who voted and How --publicwhip.org.uk
5. Full Debate from Tuesday, 21 June 2005 --theyworkforyou.com (don't you wish...)

By the way, this bill was promised by Tony Blair. They're not afraid? They're petrified.

[John Filson]

ping to my list of readings for this bill

[Dark Skies]

Thx JF...just finished reading MP Boris Johnson's possible speech regarding this matter. From reading his blog, it seems I was wrong...that the intent of the bill was to stem the tide of Islamophobia. Rats, I was hoping it was aimed at shutting the yaps of idiot imam's.

Is there not some leader in the free world that will speak the truth about Islam and lead us in this battle against Satan's spawn?

[John Filson]

I think the commentary on FR indicates that the average Brit, Canadia, Aussie, and Newzealander understands what we're facing.

[okie01]

I think the commentary on FR indicates that the average Brit, Canadia, Aussie, and Newzealander understands what we're facing.

That may be so. But it does not necessarily follow that the British, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand governments understand what we're facing.

[John Filson]

It's far from clear that the American government understands it. Quite disturbing, I'd say.

[tjwmason]

Or against Jews.

English law considers Jews to be a distinct racial group (along with Sikhs) and therefore they currently enjoy the same legal 'protection' which this bill would extend to all religious groups.

[Dark Skies]

It does seem that it is in the nature of Islam to manipulate weak, isolated, or popularity-hungry politicians. As a lowly seaman on the ship of state, I would hope our captain would recognize an iceberg when one is dead ahead.

[USF]

I think the commentary on FR indicates that the average Brit, Canadia, Aussie, and Newzealander understands what we're facing.

But... but... but this is the forum where only the Bushbots and evil neocons get to have a say (so say some of our critics and clueless fellow citizens from the "hug-a-muslim" crowd of dhimmis at DU).

Hey, I guess it means we're either smarter, more informed... or both. ;o)

[BigRonW]

"Shouldn't Jews prefer general legislation and direct prosecution for crimes committed against them, such as assault and libel/slander rather than obstructing speech?"

There's an interesting ongoing irony taking place, largely ignored by the press. At the end of WW2, the Russians largely handed the "denazification" program in Poland over to Jews. The treatement of (alledged) Nazis was little different to that meted out by Nazis to Jews: many of them died, in terrible conditions. One of the perpetrators of this atrocity has now ben identified... and fled from Poland to Israel - which flatly refuses to extradite him or even consider the possibility of his guilt. Given Israel's historical position, this is a worrying stance: mass murder BY Jews is OK, but mass murder OF Jews isn't? Such partisanship is a disgrace - and worse: a racist disgrace to boot.