UK Comes Closer to Passing Controversial 'Anti-Hate' Law

A controversial anti-hate speech legislation moved closer to becoming law in Great Britain on Monday, while groups from across the religious and political spectrum remain divided over its potential effects.

By Kenneth Chan, Tuesday, February 08, 2005

A controversial anti-hate speech legislation moved closer to becoming law in Great Britain on Monday, as groups from across the religious and political spectrums remain divided over its potential effects.

While the government argues that the proposed law to ban speech inciting religious hatred is needed to prevent far-right groups and extremists of all religions stirring up hatred against the followers of other faiths, opponents from secular and religious groups claim that it will have a chilling effect on free speech.

According to CNSNews International, opponents argue that the legislation would outlaw "words, behavior or material [that] are... likely to be heard or seen by any person in whom they are... likely to stir up racial or religious hatred."

Some British opponents of the bill have pointed to a situation in Australia's state of Victoria, where similar legislation in place there has resulted in two Christian pastors being found guilty of vilifying Islam.

The controversial case arose from a post-9/11 seminar at which Muslim beliefs, scriptures and strategies were examined for a Christian audience.

The Australian judgment has been widely criticized, with calls to rescind the legislation that allowed the case to be brought before a legal tribunal.

The case was the first to be brought under Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, which critics at the time of its drafting warned could be abused to deny Christians the freedom to question the claims or validity of other religions.

After passed by UK's House of Commons on Monday agencies such as the Barnabas Fund are “calling on the House of Lords to be firm in the face of government pressure and reject laws banning incitement to religious hatred which pose a serious danger to free speech.”