the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 contains wide exemptions for freedom of speech, specifically saying that nothing in the Act shall prohibit or restrict 'discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions'.
Crown Prosecution Service
Open season then!
I believe the Act's intended to put religion on a par with "race", and its primary intent is to prohibit and sanction attacks, including verbal/oral attacks, on an individual or group *on the basis of their religion*. Certainly the motive was to bar incitement to hatred on the grounds of religion.
ReplyDeleteRace is not properly subject to "expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse". Any such expressions would rightly be unlawful. Incitement to hatred of individuals or groups is not the same as attacking an ideology or philosophy. The law protects catholic and moslem people, but catholicism and islam are fair game.
ReplyDelete"but catholicism and islam are 'fair game'. "
ReplyDeleteThis statement tells a lot about who you are, a 'gamer' who is not fair!
If you insult my religion I will fart into a goldfish bowl and put it over your head.
ReplyDelete"Incitement to hatred of individuals or groups is not the same as attacking an ideology or philosophy"
ReplyDeleteThat's what I said when I said
"and its primary intent is to prohibit and sanction attacks, including verbal/oral attacks, on an individual or group *on the basis of their religion*"
you say
"The law protects catholic and moslem people, but catholicism and islam are fair game"
yes, that's what I said.
Whether the law was actually needed at all given the provisions of the Public Order Acts is a good question. But before the Act Muslims (e.g.) were not covered explicitly, as "racial" categories were.
(sorry to comment anonymously, I'm having problems with Open ID)
Welcome back ZI, it's been kinda tame without you.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't stay away?