No to violence and threats” “

A draft law against the instigation of religious and racial violence (Racial and Religious Hatred Bill), introduced by the Labour government in the UK, is now in its third reading in the House of Lords (upper chamber of the British Parliament). It is a debate that has taken on added relevance after the terror attacks in London on 7 July. The bill adds the crime of “instigation to religious hatred” – alongside that of racial hatred – to the Public Order Act of 1986. The incitement to racial hatred became illegal with the Race Relations Act of 1965 and was subsequently incorporated in the Public Order Act of 1986, currently in force. Making sole reference to “racial hatred”, that law protects individuals belonging to specific ethnic communities, such as Jews and Sikhs, but excludes those who belong to other religious communities, also minorities who are often subject to violence or abuse, such as Muslims or Catholics. That explains why some think it necessary to amend the Public Order Act of 1986. By adding the crime of religious hatred, it would be prohibited to use offensive words, threats, insults, or forms of behaviour or distribution of material aimed at, or susceptible to, arousing racial and religious hatred. A CONTROVERSIAL LAW. The House of Lords is not convinced: it fears that the law would curb freedom of thought, religion and expression. And in fact it has twice rejected the bill against incitement to religious hatred, which had been presented during the last legislature. If after this reading the House of Lords decides not to approve the bill, the text will return to the Commons. Home Minister Charles Clarke has said he is willing to accept possible amendments, but if after amendment the bill were to be rejected again, the government could vote it into law by invoking a drastic measure, the Parliament Act. Through the Home Ministry, the government has given assurances that the planned measures “are in conformity with, and will operate in the light of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act”. Home Office Minister Paul Goggins, who is Catholic, has said that the Religious Hatred Bill intends to punish those who arouse “hatred against individuals”, or groups of persons, “due to the fact that they belong to a particular religion”. Goggins emphasises that the new law is “necessary” to prevent the action of “extremist groups” or intolerant persons. THE VIEW OF CHRISTIANS AND CATHOLICS. Most people in the Moslem, Hindu and Sikh associations seem to be favourable to the bill. But Christians – both Catholics and Anglicans – remain divided on the issue, although those in favour predominate. The ecumenical network Churches Together in Britain and Ireland has given its “support to this bill”. “We believe that the protection of freedom of word given by the European Convention on Human Rights is sufficient to safeguard the law”, the network’s member churches declared in a joint statement in January. “As members of the religious communities of the United Kingdom, we remain firmly of the view that the proposed amendment is a desirable addition to the sum of existing legal measures aimed at ensuring that our society be able to peacefully contain a wide range of strong credos and opinions”. The Catholic Association for Racial Justice (CARJ) has also reacted positively to the bill. According to the CARJ, the Human Rights Act guarantees the right to practice one’s own religion, but peace and security are under threat in contemporary society and “some religious communities are more vulnerable than others. They are the object of widespread prejudices and the explicit target of hatred by extremist groups”. So the new law is claimed to be a suitable means to protect them. More “cautious” is the Department for Christian Responsibility & Citizenship of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, which writes: “from a moral point of view, the actions that incite people to hatred are mistaken, and the objective of this law is praiseworthy”. Nonetheless, the “difficult question” remains about “how” if should be “formulated to be effective and not curb a legitimate and even robust freedom of expression”. Without adopting any clear position, the bishops urge Parliament and Government to “listen to all the objections to the bill, evaluate the arguments and the concerns expressed and not to have any hasty recourse to the Parliament Act”.