Racial and Religious Hatred Bill — 31 Jan 2006 at 19:49

Those voting No agreed that the "Lords amendment No. 4" should remain in the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. This had been a replacement of most of its contents.

The the original version of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill passed by the Commons on 11 July 2005 changed "racial hatred" to "racial and religious hatred" in several places in the Public Order Act 1986, and defined the offence with regard:

"to all... words, behaviour or material[s]... that are likely to be heard or seen by any person in whom... they are likely to stir up racial or religious hatred."

In place of this, the Lords applied "Lords amendment No. 4", resulting in a version that said:

A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends... to stir up religious hatred.

It went on to be very specific about the rules in relation to performances, witnesses making accurate statements in court, and the right of free expression.

Had the MPs voted against this Lords amendment, the Government would have substituted a new compromise version which was a combination of the two versions, but added the extra provision:

[A person] is guilty of an offence if... he intends... to stir up religious hatred, or... is reckless as to whether religious hatred would be stirred up [by his actions].

It appears that the fundamental dispute is that the Lords require there to be an intent to stir up hatred, rather than the intention to, say, crack a funny joke which the police happen to believe could be likely to stir up hatred.

Debate in Parliament | Source |