The Racial and Religious Hatred Bill is intended to close a
loophole in the law that protects Sikh and Jewish communities from
racial hatred, but does not give the same protection to Christians
and Muslims.
But the wording of the Bill, which would make it a criminal
offence to intentionally or recklessly use words or actions that
threaten, insult or abuse religious groups, has been seen by some
as too great a restriction on free speech.
Civil rights groups, religious groups, Opposition MPs and even
comedians protested the proposals, fearing they would make it
illegal to ridicule or debate religious issues.
In a letter to the Daily Telegraph on 31st January, protestors,
including representatives from the National Secular Society, the
Muslim Parliament and the British Humanist Society, warned:
"We recognise that a free society must have
the scope to debate, criticise, proselytise, insult and even to
ridicule belief and religious practices in order to ensure that
there is full scope – short of violence, or inciting violence, or
other criminal offences – to tackle these issues".
Acting on these concerns, the House of Lords amended the Bill at
an earlier stage of the Parliamentary process, limiting the offence
to those individuals who used threatening words or behaviour only.
Words and behaviour that insulted or abused religious groups were
no longer caught under the Act.
The Lords also removed the ‘reckless’ element of the offence,
restricting it to intentional offences.
However, the Government did not approve and sought to delete
those amendments in a Commons debate on the legislation last
night.
With a Commons majority of 65 the Government was expected to be
able to push its wording through, but found itself defeated on two
votes, ensuring that the Lords amendments remain in place.
It seems clear that the defeats were caused by miscalculations
on the part of Government whips, who had not called in sufficient
MPs to take account of the rebels. It is thought that some 20 MPs
were in Scotland, where a by-election is due next week.
The position is even more embarrassing for the Government with
regard to the second motion, which it lost by only one vote. That
vote could have been provided by the Prime Minister – who had left
the Chamber after the first defeat. His vote would have ensured a
tie and put the onus of the Speaker of the House to cast a deciding
vote. By convention the Speaker always votes in favour of the
Government.
The amended Bill will now go on to become law.
"The Government accepts the decision of the House this evening.
We are delighted the Bill is going to its Royal Assent and
delighted we have a Bill which deals with incitement against
religious hatred,” said Home Secretary Charles Clarke.
