Incitement to
Religious Hatred Frequently Asked Questions
- What is the Government proposing?
- Why is new legislation necessary?
- Why is this measure in the Serious
Organised Crime and Police Bill?
- What would be caught by the new incitement
offence?
- What will the new offence not cover?
- Would the play “Behzti”
by Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, which was being shown in
Birmingham or “Jerry Springer the Opera”
which was broadcast by the BBC, be covered by the
new offence of incitement to religious hatred?
- Will the new legislation only protect
Muslims? What about individuals with no religious
beliefs? Are they protected?
- Will religion be defined? Will the
definition include cults?
- What about protection for other at
risk groups such as those with disabilities or those
who suffer because of their sexual orientation? Why
isn’t the incitement to racial hatred provisions
being extended to protect those groups?
- What measures have been put in place
to ensure that provisions for freedom of speech and/or
freedom of religion will not be abused?
- What does the Government think about
the case of two Australian pastors who have been found
guilty of vilifying Islam?
- Has the Government carried out a
consultation on this issue?
- Will the government repeal/extend
existing blasphemy laws?
- Will the government be doing anything
to address the general issue of discrimination on
religious grounds?
- Are the incitement to religious hatred
proposals the same as the religious discrimination
proposals?
- How will the new provisions be enforced?
Will there be a high number of convictions obtained?
Back
to Religious Hate Crime and Discrimination homepage
1. What is the Government proposing?
As the Home Secretary promised in his speech to the
Institute of Public Policy Research on 7 July, the Government
is extending protection to prevent hatred being stirred
up against people targeted because of their religious
beliefs or lack of religious beliefs, as well people
targeted because of their race. This is being done through
the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Bill, by
expanding the existing criminal offences of incitement
to racial hatred contained in the Public Order Act 1986.
The proposals will make it an offence to knowingly use
words, behaviour or material that is threatening, abusive
or insulting with the intention or likely effect that
hatred will be stirred up against a group of people
targeted because of their religious beliefs or lack
of religious beliefs, as well as those targeted on racial
grounds.
Back to top
2. Why is new legislation necessary?
The new protection is needed to combat activities of
extremists who stir up hatred against people because
of their religious beliefs. In evidence to the House
of Lords Select Committee on Religious Offences, many
organisations, including the Association of Chief Police
Officers, gave examples of problems where they faced
difficulties responding under existing legislation alone
and where the extension of the provision on stirring
up racial hatred would help them combat extremism.
These proposals will close the unacceptable loophole
that exists under the current incitement to racial hatred
laws, whereby mono-ethnic faith groups such as Jews
or Sikhs are protected from those who stir up hatred
against them, but multi-ethnic faith groups are not.
Since the introduction of the incitement to racial hatred
offence, some extremists have exploited this loophole,
using religious terms to identify victims whom they
would have previously identified using racial terms.
Back to top
3. Why is this measure in the
Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill?
The proposed offence of incitement to religious hatred
is included alongside other offences, all of which the
Home Secretary has said the Government will legislate
for as soon as possible. The provision is within the
scope of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill
which provides this opportunity during this Parliamentary
session.
Back to top
4. What would be caught by
the new incitement offence?
Below are two examples of situations where, taking into
account all the circumstances, the prosecuting authorities
would consider taking action under the new offence:
- In response to an extreme racist organisation widely
distributing material setting out a range of insulting
and highly inflammatory reasons for hating Islam.
Such reasons have included suggesting that Muslims
are a threat to British people and liable to molest
women and that they should be urgently driven out
of Britain.
and
- In response to extremists within a faith community
making repeated threatening statements stirring up
followers to look for ways to make trouble for unbelievers
saying that God would never ever allow unbelievers
to be pleased with them and created them to be enemies.
The proposed offences will be applied with equity,
protecting people of varied religious beliefs and
of none. They will provide a powerful response and
a strong deterrent to extreme political and racist
individuals and organisations who target people because
of their religious beliefs and also to religious extremists
who stir up hatred of others because they do not share
their religious beliefs.
Both of these groups of extremists are very small in
number and wholly unrepresentative of the communities
they claim to speak for. The vast majority of British
people, including British Muslims, are peaceful and
law abiding and would not advocate hatred against people
of other religions or races.
Back to top
5. What will the new offence
not cover?
Of themselves, the following would not be caught by
the offence:
- criticising the beliefs, teachings or practices
of a religion or its followers; for example by claiming
that they are false or harmful;
- proselytising one’s own religion or urging
followers of a different religion to cease practising
theirs; for example Christians claiming that Jesus
Christ is the way the truth, the life and the only
way to God, Muslims exhorting people to submit to
the will of Allah, or Atheists claiming that there
is no God;
- telling jokes about religions;
- expressing antipathy or dislike of particular religions
or their adherents.
Of themselves these activities do not meet the criteria
of the offences. However if a person were to use threatening,
abusive or insulting words, actions or material with
the intent or likely effect that hatred would be stirred
up whilst undertaking the actions listed above, then
by definition, they could rightly fall into the scope
of the offence.
Back to top
6. Would the play “Behzti”
by Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, which was being shown in Birmingham
or “Jerry Springer the Opera” which was
broadcast by the BBC, be covered by the new offence
of incitement to religious hatred?
Neither “Behzti” nor “Jerry Springer
the Opera” would fall foul of the proposed or
existing incitement to hatred offences. It is already
an offence to stir up hatred against Sikhs, under the
current incitement to racial hatred offences, whether
because of their race or religion. The police have decided
that there are no grounds for action against the play
Behzti, which offended some members of the Sikh community.
The proposed offence of stirring up religious hatred,
which will extend the same legal protection to other
faith communities, is not a blasphemy law and will not
penalise criticising articles or symbols of faith or
causing offence. It will not interfere with freedom
of expression any more than the existing offence on
inciting racial hatred has done.
Back to top
7. Will the new legislation
only protect Muslims? What about individuals with no
religious beliefs? Are they protected?
The new legislation will protect people of all religious
beliefs, applying equally to incited hatred against
Muslims, or Christians, or any other religious group.
It will also protect people targeted because of their
lack of religious beliefs or because they do not share
the religious beliefs of the perpetrator.
Back to top
8. Will religion be defined?
Will the definition include cults?
In keeping with similar legislation, the proposals do
not define the meaning of religion. “Religious
hatred” is defined as “hatred against a
group of people defined by their religious beliefs or
lack of religious belief”. Explanatory notes have
been published which provide a non-exhaustive list of
widely practised religions and clearly explain that
the protection also covers people identified with a
particular branch of a religion. They also stress that
the protection of the offence covers Atheists, Humanists
and Agnostics. When the circumstances are unclear, the
courts will decide whether a particular group of people
is protected, in the wider context of the criminal behaviour
being considered. If the courts ruled that a new religious
movement qualified as a religion for the purposes of
the new offence, that would not prevent criticism of
the practices of that movement.
Back to top
9. What about protection for
other at risk groups such as those with disabilities
or those who suffer because of their sexual orientation?
Why isn’t the incitement to racial
hatred provisions being extended to protect those groups?
The extension of the incitement provisions to cover
people identified by their religion as well as race,
is the closing of an unacceptable loop-hole that mono-ethnic
religious groups (such as Jews and Sikhs) are covered
by the existing offence whereas multi-ethnic religious
groups (such as Muslims and Hindus) are not. The Government
keeps provisions under constant review and is open to
considering whether further extensions are needed.
Back to top
10. What measures have been
put in place to ensure that provisions for freedom of
speech and/or freedom of religion will not be abused?
The Government is determined to protect both the rights
of free speech, which have been long respected in this
country, and the right to lead a life in which one can
peacefully practise one’s own religion without
fear. The new legislation will provide protection from
the activities of extremists who stir up hatred against
people because of their religious beliefs or lack of
religious beliefs, whilst also safeguarding the right
to engage in free and vigorous debate about religion,
including the right to criticise religious beliefs and
practices.
The proposed and existing offences both carry a high
threshold in order to protect freedom of speech. Words,
behaviour or material used must be threatening, abusive
or insulting and must either be intended to or likely
to stir up hatred. The hatred must be aimed at people
who are members of that group, not ideologies. Hatred
is a strong term; which goes beyond ridicule, prejudice,
dislike, contempt, anger or offence. A further safeguard
in the legislation is that a person who does not intend
to stir up hatred is not guilty of an offence if they
did not know that their words, behaviour, written material,
recording or programmes were threatening, abusive or
insulting. Furthermore the offences do not apply to
anything that takes place in one’s own home. All
prosecutions require the consent of the Attorney General,
which will prevent the offences being misused through
private prosecutions.
This provision will protect people’s freedom to
practise their religion without fear, not restrict it.
Proselytism is recognised as an integral activity for
many faith communities. The new provision would make
it an offence to stir up hatred, not to practise one’s
religion or proselytise.
These measures accord with, and will operate in the
light of, the guarantees afforded by the European Convention
on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act.
Article 9 of the European Convention states that everyone
has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion and that this right includes freedom to change
his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or
in community with others and in public or private, to
manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching,
practice and observance. It also states that freedom
to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject
to limitations prescribed by law and necessary in the
interests of public safety, for the protection of public
order and the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 10 of the European Convention states that everyone
has the right to freedom of expression and that this
includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive
and impart information and ideas. Similarly it also
states that the exercise of these freedoms, since it
carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be
subject to restrictions prescribed by law that are necessary
in the interests of public safety, the prevention of
disorder or crime and the protection of the reputation
or rights of others.
These offences are justifiable, necessary and proportionate
measures for the prevention of disorder or crime and
the protection of the rights of others; the need for
which is reflected in these articles. Indeed because
these provisions protect groups from hatred directed
against them because of religious belief, they safeguard
the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
enshrined in Article 9 of the European Convention on
Human Rights.
Back to top
11. What does the Government
think about the case of two Australian pastors who have
been found guilty of vilifying Islam?
There are a number of differences between section 8
of the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act
2001, under which the defendants have been found guilty,
and the incitement to religious hatred offence we propose.
Section 8 of the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance
Act makes it an offence for a person to engage in conduct
which incites not only hatred against, but also serious
contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, another
person or class of persons on the ground of the religious
belief or activity. The threshold for the incitement
to religious hatred offence we propose is substantially
higher and will only capture those who knowingly use
words or behaviour or to publish or distribute material
that is threatening, abusive or insulting with the intention
or likelihood that religious hatred would be stirred
up.
Another difference is that, under our existing and proposed
offences, prosecutions require the consent of the Attorney
General, which prevents the legislation being misused
by feuding religious groups.
There is a distinction between criticising a religion
and the inciting hatred against its followers. The Government
is confident that the new legislation prohibits the
latter without interfering with the former.
Back to top
12. Has the
Government carried out a consultation on this issue?
The issue has been explored in depth by the House of
Lords Select Committee on Religious Offences in 2003
and has also been considered as part of the Strength
in Diversity consultation in 2004. Following the Home
Secretary’s announcement on this issue on 7 July,
the Home Office undertook a further targeted consultation
with a variety of organisations representing different
religions and beliefs, civil liberties groups, trade
unions, enforcement agencies and others.
Back to top
13. Will the government repeal/extend
existing blasphemy laws?
The Government has no immediate plans to amend the current
law on blasphemy. We acknowledge that there are a wide
variety of views on whether the blasphemy laws should
be retained, repealed, or extended. We will keep this
matter under review, particularly as the benefits of
the new provision against incitement to religious hatred
are realised.
Back to top
14. Will the government be
doing anything to address the general issue of discrimination
on religious grounds?
Yes. As the Home Secretary outlined in his speech to
the Institute of Public Policy Research on 7 July 2004,
the Government knows that people can be and are discriminated
against because of their religion, and that people of
faith cannot have full access to jobs, careers and services
if their religious needs are ignored or overridden.
In December 2003, the Government implemented the EU
regulations against religious discrimination in employment
and training. We have funded ACAS and community organisations
like the Muslim Council of Britain to help employees
as well as employers understand their rights and obligations.
At the Labour Party Conference the Prime Minister also
announced new proposals to afford protection against
religious discrimination in the provision of goods,
facilities and services. This will be taken forward
in this session, complementing the work being undertaken
to establish the Commission for Equality and Human Rights.
15. Are the incitement to religious
hatred proposals the same as the religious discrimination
proposals?
No. Stirring up hatred against people because of their
religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs is a
criminal matter whereas religious discrimination comes
under civil law. The Government’s religious discrimination
proposals are being taken forward as part of the Single
Equality Commission Bill. They will afford protection
from discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities,
services or premises for followers of all religions.
The new provisions on religious discrimination are intended
to close a loophole where case-law has extended the
protections of the Race Relations Act to followers of
some religions, namely Jews and Sikhs, as they are recognised
as mono-ethnic groups, but followers of other multi-ethnic
religions are not equally protected.
16. How will the new provisions
be enforced? Will there be a high number of convictions
obtained?
The Government is working with the Police, the CPS and
other key agencies, to ensure that the new provisions
make a full and effective contribution to our work against
hate crime.
We do not expect a large number of prosecutions, just
as there have not been a large number of prosecutions
under incitement to racial hatred. There have been 5
prosecutions from cases referred to the CPS since 2001.
Of these 5 cases 2 have resulted in convictions, 1 case
has been dropped by the prosecution, and 2 cases are
still ongoing. However, the offence has provided a powerful
response and a strong deterrent to the conduct of racist
and other extremist organisations and individuals.
Back
to Religious Hate Crime and Discrimination homepage |
