This file can be printed for personal use and study. © Reachout Trust - www.reachouttrust.org

News

Incitement to Religious Hatred

The spotlight has been firmly placed on the proposed law for Incitement for Religious Hatred, which is part of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. However, there have been several different reactions and even some MPs are very concerned as to, not only that there will be such a bill, but how it is being brought in. One said in the Parliamentary debate on 7 December 2004.

"This is an important and sensitive issue that we need to consider carefully. We cannot divorce it from existing legislation on religiously aggravated crimes in terms of blasphemy. We ought to consider such legislation separately rather than as an add-on to an important Bill, so that we could have proper and full debate- not just on the Floor of the House but in Committee -on how to give proper protection both to religion and to freedom of expression."

Clause 119 of this bill is the key issue as it will amend existing legislation to include incitement to religious hatred. Basically it will say that any literature, spoken word, public performance etc, that…

"is likely to be heard or seen by any person in whom it is likely to stir up racial or religious hatred."

The definition of religious hatred will be,

"…hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief."

For those interested I would encourage you to read the Hansard debate on this part of the bill but I will underline a couple of issues here.

Former Home Secretary, David Blunkett said,

"It is absolutely not our intention to engage in preventing people from exercising free speech."

Not all MPs felt that this would be the case and one challenged him that,

"…is there not a question of ensuring that we do not infringe legitimate freedom of speech? Can he confirm what appears to be the case from the notes on clauses, which is that this offence may be committed not just with intent, but without?"

Mr Blunkett explained that the notes were to give members in the Committee stages the opportunity of discussing it in details. Adding that,

"We are trying to stop groups of people who are prepared verbally, communicating through writing or the internet, to incite others to hate because of someone's faith. That does not relate to the argument about their faith. For instance, we will not stop anyone proselytising-I emphasise that point…"

Rev. Ian Paisley was concerned on who would interpret the statements and pointed out that some Catholics would find statements in the Book of Common Prayer, "absolutely anathema" and wondered if they would be incitement?

Another MP raised the fact that the Bill, as drafted, "will cover devil worshippers' sects and satanists."

Mr. Blunkett did not deal with the issue of what could or could not be said but simply reiterated that he did not want to incite people to do something themselves against them.

Once again therefore this comes down to a matter of interpretation. Could someone simply say - "I am incited to hate because of what is said" and take someone to law or will there be safeguards?

He finished that answer by saying,

"It is probably best that we deal with the detail in Committee. [Hon. Members: "The devil is in the detail."] The devil is in the detail."

There are a number of issues that I think need to be considered carefully.

First, can we ensure that the new legislation will not be interpreted by the courts in such a way as to forbid people making positive criticism? For instance, in our work, we know of people who have been adversely affected by involvement in various forms of occult and have indeed been 'demon possessed'. We say these things on our website, albeit as positively as possible; but if I say this, however nicely, can that not be interpreted as incitement to hate someone?

Second, with such a law on the statute books could not anyone say under the terms of the bill that what they saw or heard did cause them to have a feeling of religious hatred and we end up with giving the courts much extra work, not to mention the need to defend such a case, when it is simply people seeking to make a point and no law has been broken? Will this also not just produce a 'religious tit-for-tat' and incite people to take others to court rather than build bridges?

Third, surely the definition being suggested, "persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief" is not sufficient for a bill of this complexity?

SECOND READING

The proposed Bill was given a second reading by the House and has now gone to the committee stage, before coming back to the House for its third reading. The proposed timetable shows that the Committee stage should end on Thursday 20th January.

If you are concerned then now is the time to write to your MP. If you are not sure who he/she is, use the Parliament locater and this will link you to any website and email address your MP may have.

AUSTRALIAN CASE

This issue has been brought to the forefront too by the Australian case where a Muslim accused two Elim Pastors of inciting religious hatred in a seminar they took.

It is easy to react against the decision of the judge against the Christian ministers but we need to take note of what he said and why he came to his decision.

A spokesman in the Australian Embassy in Washington gave some helpful background material to the case:

Matt Francis clarified that the case was a civil one, being heard in a state tribunal rather than a court, and that the respondents do not face the possibility of a prison term.

This case was the first to be heard under a new Victoria State not Federal law and confusion arose because the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act provided for two types of offence: "religious vilification" and "serious religious vilification."

The complaint faced by the Catch the Fire Elim pastors was of "religious vilification" and if proved, the judge could order that the respondent apologise, pay compensation or take other steps.

Three Muslims who attended last year's seminar took offence and complained to the Islamic Council of Victoria, which took the case to a state "equal opportunities" commission.

Catch the Fire then denied the vilification claims, of three Muslims who attended the seminar, saying that they had merely informed Christians about Islam and its teachings as set out in the Quran and other religious texts.

Attempts to resolve the dispute through conciliation failed, and it was then referred to the VCAT, where the two sides and their legal representatives made their cases.

In its written rebuttal to the Muslims' complaints, Catch the Fire has denied that the information provided during the seminar incited hatred.

"It cannot be regarded as controversial that there are passages in the Quran...[and other key religious texts] which could and do incite believers in Islam to violence and hatred of non-Muslims. These passages are well known and widely cited by terrorist groups," it said.

"Exposing the roots of this problem within Islam is not the same thing as inciting hatred. Since Christians are one of the named targets of jihad fighting in the Quran, they have a right and a duty to be well informed about this aspect of Islam."

Higgins on Wednesday told the hearing that when he first read the transcript of the seminar, he thought parts of it might have violated the Racial and Religious Vilification Act. But as he read on and viewed the seminar in its totality, that view began to wane, he said.

The report of the proceedings on The Age website stated:

"Judge Michael Higgins ruled that Catch the Fire Ministries, Pastor Danny Nalliah and speaker Daniel Scot vilified Muslims at a seminar in 2002, in a newsletter and an article on a website.

He said that in the seminar, Mr Scot made fun of Muslim beliefs and conduct in a way that was 'hostile, demeaning and derogatory of all Muslim people, their god, Allah, the prophet Muhammad and in general Muslim religious beliefs and practices'."

I have not been able to find a transcript of actually seminar but obviously the judge felt that what was said and the way it was said was at fault. Of course we don't know exactly what will happen from here but it has not seemed that it has caused a rush of other cases and as far as we are aware it has not stopped people saying things that are true in a way that does not incite hatred.

My lasting memory of this report however, was the picture of Muslim hugging Christian. The report adds:

"Yasser Soliman, the president of the Islamic Council of Victoria, which brought the complaint, hugged both Christian defendants after the case.

'I said to Danny (Nalliah), it's time to move forward and I hope we can talk to each other directly and try to develop understanding. He smiled and said he had nothing against me personally. Daniel Scot said he had to be free to say what he needed to say. I've given them my card,' he said."

The Guardian takes the issue further and relates it to the British Law

The proposed law here is narrower in definition that the Australian version although as we have seen the same criticism that it would stifle attempts to criticise or parody religious beliefs have been voiced.

The Guardian reported that

"Abdul Aziz, a consultant adviser to the Muslim Council of Britain, said the legislation in Australia was far closer to a blasphemy law and included injunctions against revulsion and ridicule, whereas the British law would concern itself with stirring up hatred. ' Hatred towards people is very different than ridicule of a religion,' Mr Aziz said. 'We've specifically said ridicule would not be included.'"

However what is also interesting in the Guardian report is that not all Muslims, let alone Christians are happy with the law.

"Muslim opinion on the Victoria law was divided within Australia. Amir Butler, director of the Australian Muslim public affairs committee, argued that the law undermined the religious freedom it was intended to protect. He once supported the law, he said, but found that 'at every major Islamic lecture I have attended since litigation began against Catch the Fire Ministries, there have been small groups of evangelical Christians - armed with notepads and pens - jotting down any comment that might later be used as evidence in the present case or presumably future cases.'

"'If we believe our religion is the only way to heaven, then we must also affirm that all other paths lead to hell,' he added in an article for Australia's The Age. ' Yet, this is exactly what this law serves to outlaw and curtail: the right of believers of one faith to passionately argue against or warn against the beliefs of another.'"

Time will tell as to what happens both in Australia and Britain. However many believe that it will not work. Polly Toynbee has written another article on the Guardian site entitled, I may be in bad company, but this law will not work. One paragraph sums up the diversity with which the bill itself seems to be an incitement to hate the law:

"So it is unsettling when a campaign mounted by the anti-religious finds itself confusingly swamped with company from the enemy camp. Ian Paisley, Melanie Phillips, Charles Moore, Simon Heffer, Peter Hitchens, Anne Atkins, David Davis and many more strange bedfellows are all now opposing the government's law against incitement to religious hatred - but for rather different reasons."

Back to the headlines