The Racial and Religious Hatred Bill is intended to close a loophole in the law that protects Sikh and Jewish communities from racial hatred, but does not give the same protection to Christians and Muslims.
But the wording of the Bill, which would make it a criminal offence to intentionally or recklessly use words or actions that threaten, insult or abuse religious groups, has been seen by some as too great a restriction on free speech.
Civil rights groups, religious groups, Opposition MPs and even comedians protested the proposals, fearing they would make it illegal to ridicule or debate religious issues.
In a letter to the Daily Telegraph on 31st January, protestors, including representatives from the National Secular Society, the Muslim Parliament and the British Humanist Society, warned:
"We recognise that a free society must have the scope to debate, criticise, proselytise, insult and even to ridicule belief and religious practices in order to ensure that there is full scope – short of violence, or inciting violence, or other criminal offences – to tackle these issues".
Acting on these concerns, the House of Lords amended the Bill at an earlier stage of the Parliamentary process, limiting the offence to those individuals who used threatening words or behaviour only. Words and behaviour that insulted or abused religious groups were no longer caught under the Act.
The Lords also removed the ‘reckless’ element of the offence, restricting it to intentional offences.
However, the Government did not approve and sought to delete those amendments in a Commons debate on the legislation last night.
With a Commons majority of 65 the Government was expected to be able to push its wording through, but found itself defeated on two votes, ensuring that the Lords amendments remain in place.
It seems clear that the defeats were caused by miscalculations on the part of Government whips, who had not called in sufficient MPs to take account of the rebels. It is thought that some 20 MPs were in Scotland, where a by-election is due next week.
The position is even more embarrassing for the Government with regard to the second motion, which it lost by only one vote. That vote could have been provided by the Prime Minister – who had left the Chamber after the first defeat. His vote would have ensured a tie and put the onus of the Speaker of the House to cast a deciding vote. By convention the Speaker always votes in favour of the Government.
The amended Bill will now go on to become law.
"The Government accepts the decision of the House this evening. We are delighted the Bill is going to its Royal Assent and delighted we have a Bill which deals with incitement against religious hatred,” said Home Secretary Charles Clarke.
