Today is the day that MPs debate the much maligned Religious and Racial Hatred Bill which, following a defeat in the House of Lords, the government has amended - seperating it from existing race hate laws but introducing a worrying clause about “recklessness” regarding religious hatred.

Monsters and Critics reports that a coalition of Muslims, Christians, secularists and humanists are calling for the Lords’ amendments to be accepted.

The Lords want to restrict the definition of religious hatred to ‘threatening’ rather than ‘insulting and abusive’ language, and insert a clause specifically outlining the right to freedom of speech.

The coalition said: ‘As people with strong views on religion, we know how easy it is to offend those with whom you disagree and how easy it is to resent what others say, and see insult in it.

‘But we also 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.

‘The amendments that we hope will be supported will deliver the government its election pledge of a new law, but one that would cover only threatening words or behaviour, would be restricted to intentional offences only and would have a clear statement in law that protects legitimate free expression.’

However, according to The Times, government ministers have tabled a series of amendments deleting the changes. Under the law, as it is currently proposed, anyone convicted of being reckless about religion can face up to seven years in prison.

They also note that thousands of protesters have converged on Paliament (The Guardian puts this figure at 200) to oppose the bill and quote Rowan Atkinson who said yesterday that artists should be free to insult, abue and ridicule religion if they want to because religious belief is essentially irrational (he does go on to assert that the most important and most sustaining things in life are essentially irrational - you can read the full speech here).

Asked whether he would be prepared to go to prison over the bill, he said: “Freedom of expression is established by its assertion. If the Lords amendments are thrown out, there would have to be a process in which comedians, performers, playwrights and authors embarked on a period of assertion.”

Mr Atkinson said: “I am deeply concerned for all performers and entertainers, because the climate in which we work will be very different if the Government gets its way in the House of Commons on Tuesday.”

He predicted that the Government’s attempt to distinguish between attacks on beliefs, which will be allowed, and attacks on believers, which will not, was doomed to failure.

Mr Atkinson said: “From a comedian’s point of view, you cannot make a joke about a belief or a practice without characterising it in human form. Every joke has a victim and with a religious joke it is bound to be a practitioner, even if the target is the practice.”

But, as the BBC reports, the government seems to be determined to overturn the changes despite the rising tide of opposition which has seen groups including the National Secular Society, the Christian Institute, the Muslim Parliament and the Muslim Forum asking for a compromise that would only ban threatening words or behaviour.

Of course, threatening words and behaviour are already banned under the Public Order Act.

These groups have signed a letter to the Daily Telegraph, in which they state:

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.

The Tories and Lib Dems are opposing this law. We are now waiting to see how many Labour MPs are honourable enough to stand up for fundamental freedoms in the UK.

Trackback this Post | Feed on comments to this Post