Religious hatred Bill is ripe for ridicule

[datestamp]

They've just brought out a new law - they can hold you without charge or trial for upto 300 days for smoking withing 2000 miles of a nuclear missile. Not knowing where the missiles are is not an excuse.

Ok I'm lying. But with Tony in charge, who knows what is possible?

[PerlOfWisdom]

Tony Blair and his New Labour colleagues are incapable of understanding detail and thinking things through. It is simply a lack of intelligence. No end of this kind of sh1te is already on the statute books because the government have railroaded it through the Lords.

I think it's done on purpose - it makes for bigger and more expensive court cases to iron out the details, and what is the original profession of most MPs?

[ratewhore]

Unfortunately it is difficult to have a reasonable debate with the religious extremists. For some reason they don't want to listen to rational, albeit, different, points of view...

...bit like NL really!!

[Lucifer Box]

While i am totally against the bill i cannot fail to note that those against it do not address this "gap" in current legislation, free speech is all good and well but on flip side do we really want religious fanatics or racists to continue to be able to sprout their crap from the rooftops and incite others to commit violence?

Yes. In a free society you defeat this sort of thing with debate and argument, not by banning it. A free society should not be so afraid and should be confident in its ability to win the argument rather than resort to a crude ban to prevent its detractors from orally attacking it.

[TwoWolves]

Legislation already exists for combating incitement to violence. We don't need anymore laws.

Religion and politics never make good bedfellows, unless you don't mind being a total hypocrite (which is very common) that is.

[xoggoth]

So would my hamster

[Not So Wise]

Lord Lester accused the Government of trying to introduce sweeping new speech crimes to deal with what ministers admitted was a minute gap in existing public order powers

While i am totally against the bill i cannot fail to note that those against it do not address this "gap" in current legislation, free speech is all good and well but on flip side do we really want religious fanatics or racists to continue to be able to sprout their crap from the rooftops and incite others to commit violence?

A solution is needed, hopefully someone will come up with one.

[wendigo100]

The Bill is also defective because it lacks “legal certainty”. There is no adequate definition of “hatred”, or what would amount to “insulting or abusive behaviour”.

This should not surprise anybody, least of all those on here who have dealt with IR35.

Tony Blair and his New Labour colleagues are incapable of understanding detail and thinking things through. It is simply a lack of intelligence. No end of this kind of sh1te is already on the statute books because the government have railroaded it through the Lords.

I'm not being blase or boastful when I say that if I were at the Home Office, I would have spotted every flaw in that bill.

[stackpole]

It has since been heavily defeated in the Lords, but here is a summary of The Times' take on it:

The drafting of the Bill has produced not just a mess, but a proposed law that would severely threaten free speech. No one can choose their race, but they can, and do, choose their religious or political beliefs. Criticism of these beliefs is the very essence of a healthy democracy.

The Bill is also defective because it lacks “legal certainty”. There is no adequate definition of “hatred”, or what would amount to “insulting or abusive behaviour”. The Bill would therefore attempt to outlaw something it cannot define.

Lord Lester accused the Government of trying to introduce sweeping new speech crimes to deal with what ministers admitted was a minute gap in existing public order powers. He claimed ministers were “playing politics with religion” and using the Bill to try to persuade Muslims to vote Labour.

Does anyone still doubt that this government is the least competent we have ever had?