The new law creates an offence of using threatening words
or behaviour to stir up religious hatred. Offences can be written,
spoken, broadcast or published words or actions. Religious hatred
includes hatred against a group defined by their religious belief
or lack of religious belief.
The Act, not to be confused with existing legislation on racial
and religious discrimination, amends the Public Order Act of 1986
and comes into force on 1st October 2007.
The Public Order Act introduced the offence of incitement to
racial hatred. The Racial and Religious Hatred Act introduces the
offence of religious hatred. (Despite the Act's name, it does not
address racial hatred.)
The new Act was passed to close a loophole: only Jews and Sikhs
are protected by the provisions of incitement to racial hatred.
According to the Government, some extremists exploited this
loophole, using religious terms to identify victims whom they would
have previously identified using racial terms. From next month, the
law will extend protection to followers of all religions.
However, the Act is a diluted version of the bill that was first
introduced by the Government to Parliament after a high-profile
campaign by free speech advocates including comic actor Rowan
Atkinson.
The bill originally outlawed words and behaviour that insulted
or abused religious groups. The House of Lords removed those
provisions and limited the offence to those who used threatening
words or behaviour only. They also removed the 'reckless' element
of the offence, restricting it to intentional offences. The
Government's failure to overturn these amendments was blamed on
miscalculations by Government whips who had not called in
sufficient MPs to win the vote.
The new offence can be committed by broadcasting, writing in a
blog or on a website, recording sounds which are threatening, or in
the performance of a play if there is an intent to stir up
religious hatred.
Offences can be punished by a prison term of up to seven years
and an unlimited fine.
Where a company is found guilty of an offence and it is shown
that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of a
director or manager, that person as well as the company itself can
be punished.
There is a wide exemption for freedom of speech. The Act
states:
"Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way
which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions
of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular
religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any
other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents,
or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or
belief system to cease practising their religion or belief
system."
David Woods, a litigation specialist with Pinsent Masons, the
law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, said this is so wide that prosecutors
may be deterred from bringing all but the clearest-cut cases of
criminal behaviour.
"Some accused will argue that their anti-religious behaviour was
an expression of abuse or an effort to change someone's beliefs,
and that behaviour is lawful," he said. "The defence lawyer only
needs to give grounds for a reasonable doubt to keep a client out
of prison."
"When the Government proposed this law it said it was protecting
the believer, not the belief. But that’s a distinction that defence
teams will endeavour to exploit," said Woods.
A separate Order, also in force from 1st October, protects
information society services like ISPs and search engines. While it
makes clear that a UK-based ISP can commit an offence under the Act
anywhere in Europe, it also protects these businesses when they are
acting as mere conduits or offering caching or hosting services.
The Order also explains the circumstances in which a service
provider established in another European state can be prosecuted in
the UK.
