The idea
We already have ample and adequate laws on the statute books to protect racial and religious minorities from harassment or persecution. This law, drafted and introduced by the previous government is wholly and completely unnecessary and serves only to undermine freedom of expression and in particular, freedom to criticise religion.
Why is it important?
I'll give three examples:
In 1989, when Salman Rushdie produced his Satanic Verses he was threatened, hounded and intimidated into hiding by Muslim fanatics. It became necessary for the government to protect him – and rightly so. A Japanese translator of the novel was murdered. Others involved in the publishing of the book in other countries were likewise assaulted. To date, nobody has been brought to justice for these offences. Bookshops were intimidated and threatened into not stocking the work.
Likewise with the Sikh playwright, Gupreet Keaur Bhatti. Her play Behzti was intimidated off the stage by Sikh radicals. She was physically threatened and damage was done to the theatre where the play was performed.
Again, with Jerry Springer – The Opera vilified by Christian fundamentalists who published, on a website, the names and addresses of people involved in the TV broadcasts who subsequently suffered an almost intolerable pressure not to air the show.
The author, comedian and satirist Stewart Lee received, and receives to this day, death threats while the head of the fundamentalist Christian Voice, Stephen Green appeared on Question Time, bible in hand, saying that Muslims and Christians should join together in hounding anyone and everyone to do with the show. Thankfully the courts saw sense and declared it not to be blasphemous but Christian Voice pledged to fight the bad fight and take their case to the House of Lords. The way I read this 2006 Act, Christian Voice would have a far better chance of success.
Three points I should make here. First, it will not be a defence that the content of the speech, writing or performance alleged to incite or inflame hatred be fair comment or criticism. It will be enough just for someone to be offended in order to bring a prosecution. It is almost unique in the annals of legal history in that the truth will be entirely irrelevant and furthermore, it will in effect reverse the burden of proof in that the accused will be guilty until he proves himself innocent. Also, unlike laws of defamation, falling foul of the law is not a civil matter, but a criminal one – with criminal sanctions.
Secondly, had Salman Rushdie published his novel, Gupreet Bhatti staged her play or Stewart Lee put on his opera and this law was on the statute books, they would have been prosecuted, not protected, and if that was the case it would be something that we should, as both a society, and as a democracy, hang our heads in shame. It matters not whether we agree or disagree with these writers and performers, what matters is our freedom to criticise and to be criticised ourselves in turn.
Thirdly and finally, for those who think that this law is a necessary part of legislative evolution to combat prejudice in print and performance – it already exists. It is covered under section 20 of the Public Order Act and always has been. The big difference is, the Public Order Act provides a statutory defence, the 2006 Act doesn’t. From what can be seen of the few prosecutions brought under the act so far, those prosecutions have been largely unsuccessful which if nothing else shows that ordinary members of the public which make up our juries are not to be easily fooled.
This is not a law which enhances freedom of speech or artistic expression, it is a law which represses it. It is the criminalisation of freedom of expression.
And that is not just undemocratic, it is antidemocratic.