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

MP, did not vote.

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 |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con183 (+1 tell) 0093.9%
DUP9 00100.0%
Independent1 0050.0%
Lab21 281 (+2 tell)086.1%
LDem59 (+1 tell) 0096.8%
PC3 00100.0%
Respect0 10100.0%
SDLP1 0033.3%
SNP5 0083.3%
UUP1 00100.0%
Total:283 282089.5%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

Joe BentonBootleLabno
Ronnie CampbellBlyth ValleyLabno
Colin ChallenMorley and RothwellLabno
Frank CookStockton NorthLabno
Jeremy CorbynIslington NorthLabno
Bill EtheringtonSunderland NorthLabno
Mark FisherStoke-on-Trent CentralLabno
Paul FlynnNewport WestLabno
Ian GibsonNorwich NorthLabno
John GroganSelbyLabno
Kate HoeyVauxhallLabno
Kelvin HopkinsLuton NorthLabno
Andrew MacKinlayThurrockLabno
Robert Marshall-AndrewsMedwayLabno
John Martin McDonnellHayes and HarlingtonLabno
Gordon PrenticePendleLabno
Geraldine SmithMorecambe and LunesdaleLabno
David TaylorNorth West LeicestershireLabno
Rudi VisFinchley and Golders GreenLabno
Robert WareingLiverpool, West Derbywhilst Labno
Tony WrightCannock ChaseLabno

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive