The UK Racial and Religious Hatred Bill: A Violation of the Freedom of Speech

Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of any given democratic society. The proposed UK Racial and Religious Hatred Bill has been heavily criticised for undermining this fundamental right.

Despite a statement by Home Secretary Clarke saying that he believes the Bill is compatible with the British Human Rights Act of 1998 as well as the European Convention on Human Rights, demonstrations have been held by over 1,000 Christian churches alleging that the Bill infringes on freedom of speech and will worsen the relations between religious communities.

Organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain, the Commission for Racial Equality, the Law Society, the rights group Justice, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Director of Public Prosecutions are in support of the Bill as it will also ensure equal protection for all believers as well as those with no religious belief.

There has been a surge in the attacks against Muslims and mosques since the London blasts of July 2005. In a disturbing report the BBC said that there were 269 religious hate crimes in the UK during the three weeks after 7 July, compared to 40 in the same period in 2004. The Bill aims at making acts and instigation of hatred against persons on religious grounds a criminal offence punishable by up to 7 years of imprisonment. Critics fear that people may start taking offence at every day comments made at places of worship, thereby turning communities against each other. “Religious hatred” is defined as hatred against a group of persons sharing a religious belief or lack of one; but the term “religion” is not very clearly defined. Giving the courts broad leeway to determine what this means in practice, the Bill’s proponents nevertheless believe that the law comports with Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion as guaranteed by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

Propnents argue that an offence under the proposed law are words, behaviour, written material, recording, or programme which are threatening, abusive or insulting and intended or likely to cause racial or religious hatred. Merely causing ridicule or prejudice will not be an offence. Finally, it must involve stirring up hatred against a group defined by its religious beliefs, and not hatred of the religion itself. Proponents of the law believe that it will not be easily misused because of the clause that the Attorney General, an independent authority, must agree to prosecute, thereby giving the law accountability and a semblance of independence.

Critics of the Bill remain unconvinced, fearing a crippling effect on free speech and freedom of religion. Concerns have been voiced that a simple quote from the Koran and Bible might lead to prosecutions. Lord Anthony Lester recently published a book challenging the Bill, saying he feared that basic mediums of communication would now come under unrestricted scrutiny. People may censor themselves out of fear that they might be held criminally responsible for unintended effects of their words. It is argued that this could happen since the speech need only be likely to cause religious hatred, as opposed to be intended to cause it. This contradicts international standards, which requires that a State must show that the accused spoke with the intention to incite discrimination or violence.

Considering that the Bill is being promoted during a time of heightened terrorism in the UK, it might be viewed as a tool the Government aims to use in addressing national security challenges. If this is the case, the Bill should be scrutinised with reference to the Johannesburg Principles that have become widely accepted in customary international law.

There is a thin line between free and hate speech. In its current state the Bill in the UK is vague in its definition and constitution. It runs the risk of restricting the freedom of expression and religion and creating more problems than solutions.