Proposed British Legislation Would Make Criticism Against Islam a Hate Crime. How Far Should the Curtailment of Free Speech Go?

DPP Cools Expectations on Race Relations

At last a voice of reason is being heard in the wilderness.

“Should anyone who stirs up hatred against Muslims face seven years in prison? And should it become a crime for Muslims to stir up hatred against members of other religious groups?"

It is already an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 to use words of behavior that are likely to stir up hatred against a group defined by their colour or race, or by their ethnic or national origins. And the courts have held that this wording is wide enough to cover religious groups such as Sikhs and Jews.

But that is little use to Muslims, whose adherents come from a variety of racial backgrounds. Nor does it protect Rastafarians, who share ethnic origins with other Afro-Caribbeans. That is why Mr. Blunkett intends to extend the offence of inciting racial hatred to include religious hatred.

Under the proposals put forward in 2001, “religious hatred” was defined as hatred of a group defined by reference to religious belief or lack of belief. “Religious belief” was not further defined.

The problem is that even the existing "racial hatred" law has a very low strike rate. Sitting in his red-painted office in the CPS headquarters, Mr Macdonald reels off the figures: during the past three years, 84 cases of incitement to racial hatred were sent in by the police. Of these, 80 were rejected by the CPS.

The problem is that the ‘the communities that are under threat think that the incitement legislation stops people from insulting them,” he [Mr. Macdonald] says. “It does not.” These groups want more from legislation, they want to curtail free speech and silence any and all that have a diverging opinion or view.

Macdonald continues:

"The legislation does not criminalise offensive language or offensive ideas. No doubt because it is seen as an interference with free speech, it is interpreted by the courts in a very strict way." Parliament could, of course, make it much easier to achieve a conviction by simply making it an offence to use insulting words. And there are other offences under the Public Order Act that may be appropriate in certain cases, such as using insulting words with intent to cause alarm or distress.

Until now, “To be found guilty, a defendant must incite hatred that is likely to lead to disorder.

"If you're going to criminalise a state of mind - which is what this legislation does - there has to be a pretty high hurdle to cross. But that makes life difficult for the prosecutors. When we don't prosecute these cases, we are accused of being racist or incompetent or a combination of the two. So these expectation gaps are dangerous for us."

In order to dispel any and illusions, Macdonald has held meetings with several community groups to explain what the law can and cannot do. He adds:

"I see the force of the argument that if you're protecting racial groups, there are other groups who deserve equal protection. What I'm anxious to avoid is an expectation gap that could be even more heated in this area than it is in the racial area. And I don't want anyone to be under the illusion that, if this legislation is passed, it will protect Muslims from being offended or insulted. In a free and democratic society, we are all entitled to be rude about each other.

How will the law be used?

The DPP says that the new law could be used either to protect or prosecute Muslims. ‘With all legislation, it is not always entirely predictable how it will be used."

My question is what does “incitement to violence mean?” Could it mean stirring up hatred toward non-Muslims or even causing mob violence if angered Muslims, or any other group, decides to avenge a verbal insult, a jibe, a joke, or television event, stand-up comedy routine, or film such as routinely happen in Muslim countries that view such speech as “blasphemy.”

And we can’t forget the murder of Theo Van Gogh for producing a film that criticizes Islam. Could the law be used to censor producers that create works of legitimate criticism that groups might find to be offensive? Surely Mr. Blunkett and the Home Office need to carefully think through the ramifications and applications of this and any further legislation, and how it could be used to squelch silence criticism, thus crushing free speech.

And in this day of international precedents, one needs to think of how in this case a precedent could be set, as offended communities worldwide could point to this legislation as a benchmark against which racial incitement laws of their countries could be measured.

Think and act carefully: Something could be gained by a few individuals in Britain, but much more could be lost.