Draft letter to lobby your MP:

Dear MP,

I am writing to you as a (concerned Christian / member of my local community / member of profession X etc etc).

I am extremely concerned that despite widespread criticism and opposition, Labour continues to push the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill and, according to the latest reports, will not accept any significant amendments despite the overwhelming vote for changes made in the House of Lords in October. I of course support the idea of deterring and criminalising those who maliciously stir up hatred against people in other religious groups, but I’m worried that the Bill will have consequences which the Government doesn’t intend.

As a Christian I follow the teaching of the Bible. The Christian faith teaches that to some the words of Jesus Christ are light, but that others will find them offensive and insulting. This means that as Christians preach and spread the Good News within the community, and do all the good works which Christian groups and charities do, some will object to the message which they bring. Some would even say the message is ‘insulting or abusive’ and could stir up, or ‘is likely to stir up’, religious hatred. This would be caught and criminalised by the new law.

Even if a Christian had no intention to cause hatred and was speaking with a good motive, if people from other religions took offence at their words, this would be criminal behaviour under the new law. The fact that an innocent person who did not intend to stir up hatred could be punished is very worrying. It is hard to understand why the government refuse to amend the law in such a way as to require intention to stir up hatred. Even if the government puts in a requirement that the accused must have been ‘reckless’ as to whether hatred would be stirred up, this offers no protection to someone when they did not in any way intend to cause hatred, but saw that there was a risk it would in fact be caused.

The need for the Attorney General’s agreement before a trial could take place does not really help because it would not prevent arrests and investigations, both of which would cause distress, negative media attention and inevitable division between faith communities. The danger of ‘tit-for-tat’ accusations by Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and other religions has become a reality under the similar law (Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001) in Australia. Even though that law is not identical, it highlights the issues that could threaten the traditional good relations between faith groups in Britain.

Of course, I am against incitement to religious hatred, but many senior lawyers have said the existing laws are entirely adequate to protect religious groups and individuals. The government have completely failed to give any every-day examples of behaviour which this new law will criminalize which are not already covered by existing laws. Also, the government themselves said that they hardly expect the new law to be used if it does come into force. Recent figures (Nov 2005) show that there were only 34 religiously aggravated crimes last year (compared to almost 5000 racially aggravated crimes) – thankfully religious intolerance is not a widespread problem in this country. The good intentions behind the Bill which might have the benefit of a handful of prosecutions a year are clearly overshadowed by the negative impact it will have on thousands of believers of all faiths across the country if it becomes law in its current form. If it becomes law, many people will no longer be free to speak about and debate their religious views – even if they would in theory be safe from prosecution, in reality they will be more likely to stay silent and avoid controversial issues for fear of allegations being made against them. This seriously undermines freedom of speech.

The possibility of clergymen hauled in front of a court because of complaints by a religious extremist is not one the government here ever intended. But the government in Australia didn’t intend for a witch to take the Salvation Army to court in an embarrassing recent case (August 2005) which the judge eventually threw out. It happened there. Our fear is that the same could happen here.

I would ask that you speak out in any debates on this issue to explain the concerns which many of your constituents (such as myself) have with the Bill. Please also push for the flaws with the whole concept of the Bill to be recognised and for the Bill therefore to be abandoned. Please instead press for greater government support and finance for multi-faith cooperation in communities across the country. At the very least please hold firm to the full amendments made in the House of Lords in October and vote accordingly when it comes to the House of Commons. It is only the Lords’ amendments which really offer any safeguards to those who honestly and legitimately seek to profess and explain their faith.


 http://www.religioushatredlaw.info/