Talk:Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006

Status of the Bill
I can find no evidence in Google News or in Hansard that the Lords have rejected the Bill, though most spoke against it. Can you cite a source?

Many thanks for your work on this article, BTW - I created it partly because I want to know more about the Bill myself and hoped that others would come along and improve it, as you have! &mdash; ciphergoth 10:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No, you are quite right - the bill has not been rejected. I was informed that it had been, but later discovered that my source was in error. It has been put to a "committee of the whole house", meaning that the bill will be studied clause by clause at a later date. This is summarised at the very bottom of the minutes for the session. From this I learn that I should check my sources more carefully! :D Thanks for spotting my mistake. &mdash; Giddie 15:18, 15th October 2005 (UTC)

Atkinson
The British really know how to turn a phrase. Listen to the following from Rowan Atkinson, which cuts like a knife:


 * "There was a very good free speech clause in there, which came from the Lords - but now, sadly, it has been neutered with a conditional clause in the middle of it, which starts with the word 'unless'.


 * "So you are not guilty of the offence, you can criticise, ridicule and abuse or insult religion or religious belief or religious practice, unless you intend thereby to stir up religious hatred or were reckless as to whether religious hatred would be stirred up." (source: BBC).

Hilarious! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Notable Amendments?
The introduction section of the article states: "The Act is notable because two amendments made in the House of Lords failed to be overturned by the Government in the House of Commons."

Why does this make the act notable? Isn't that exactly how the British two house system is meant to work and a frequant occurance for controversial/unpopular acts?

Who would actually expect a House of Lords recommendation to be rejected by the House of Commons unless the bill had universal support (which it obviously did not). Canderra 03:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Generally, the government forces through its Bills in the Commons form; certainly, this has been the case over the past decade or so.
 * James F. (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To expand on what James F. says, the article perhaps speaks in reverse a little. The Commons voted in favour of the Lords' amendments, and defeated the Government in so doing — the Government's own MPs voted against it in sufficient numbers that they were defeated on a 'flagship' piece of legislation. These two defeats were only the Labour Government's (and, more specifically, Tony Blair's) second (and third) Commons defeats in the entire 9 years they have been in office; the other was on a related Bill in 2005. Additionally, although the article appears not to mention it, the Government lost one of the two Commons divisions by a single vote: Tony Blair's; he voted in the first division and not the second. As you observe, the Lords disagreeing with the Commons is not, at present, an unusual occurence: but the Commons then acquiescing to the Lords' amendment when it is other than what the Government would have is extremely rare (in the last few decades at least). -Splash talk 13:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

history at 17th feb '06
on this page, history at 17th feb says that it got the royal assent. but it is still not clear whether it is an act of the parliament or not. please clear this doubt in the article too. nids 16:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have now amended that section.
 * To answer your question, once a bill receives Royal Assent it becomes an Act of Parliament. However, under the terms of this Act, it will not come into force until the publication of a relevant Statutory Instrument. Therefore, at the moment in time I am writing this, the Act has no power in law. Road Wizard 17:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for ur kind reply. can i further ask u, if u have any idea, when it is likely to come into force. does it have any legar barriers left or is it just the normal wait.

and will it ban the current versions of quran and bible in UK. (i mean i support that. the references in Quran and Bible, especially moses, where they are communal and racist, should be banned. )

can u also tell me that are the fears of satires and comedians real after the enactment of law. what will be the fate of books like Satanic verses. (i feel it is a good book and should not be banned) thanx. and if possible, leave a note on my talk page too, if u reply to these enquiries.

nids 18:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Before I try to answer your questions, I should point out that I have only a limited knowledge of this particular Act, so my answer will be more of an opinion than verified fact.
 * First of all, the Act will in no way ban any religious texts. The aim of the act is to reduce intolerance and give a measure of protection to the various religions. Actually banning or forcibly amending either the Bible or the Quran would almost certainly set off a series of riots, which would be a result in direct opposition to the intent of the Act.
 * The banning of books like the Satanic Verses or plays and films like the Life of Brian is less clear. The Act gives some protection to writers and performers in their criticism of religious ideas, yet its whole purpose is to restrict the actions of anyone intending to stir up religious hatred through either publication or performance. Until the law comes into force and a few test cases go through the courts, I think there is no way to determine how judges will interpret the law. Personally, I think that very few authors, playwrights or comedians will ever be prosecuted for inciting religious hatred, but the Act may cause some artists to tone down their work for fear of prosecution.
 * As to when the Act will come into force, that is a decision entirely in the hands of the appropriate Secretary of State (probably the Home Secretary). The only process that needs to be followed now is the publication of the Statutory Instrument that I mentioned above, which is a process that can be completed in a matter of weeks after it is decided to go ahead. The publication of the Instrument could occur at any time, or possibly never (if it is decided that the Act is no longer necessary). Road Wizard 23:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * thanks for these replies. well i dont think that britain being such a civilized country, would break into riots for anything. and specially if something is done for a good cause. they are just going to tell that there are things that Moses said that are not applicable today. similarly, some of the teachings of Muhammad cannot be followed in a civilized world. (for example, killing for apostasy or amputation of limbs as a punishment). well anyway, i support blair for this act but i know that it may never come into force.
 * nids 10:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Language
I note the use of the (albeit unhyphenated) phrase, 'stirring up' in the preamble to the act: the 'inciting' would be a more appropriate substitute for the said-phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.217.30 (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It is believed by some...
keeps adding the following passage. I've moved it here in order to discuss it: {{Quotation|It is believed by some that the legislation was specifically put in place by the government after Nick Griffin Chairman of the British National Party was found not guilty in relations to a speech made in Keighley in 2004. After the trial the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown stated "of course, the courts make their judgements on these things. But if there is something that needs to be done to look at the law then I think we will have to do that."