Azara Blog: Ministers shoot their mouths off over religious hatred laws

Blog home page | Blog archive

Google   Bookmark and Share

Date published: 2006/11/11

The BBC says:

Ministers are considering whether race hate laws should be revised after BNP leader Nick Griffin was cleared of charges relating to speeches he made.

A jury decided speeches by Mr Griffin and party activist Mark Collett in 2004 had not incited racial hatred.

Home Secretary John Reid said he would consult ministers after Gordon Brown said current laws may need reviewing.

Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer said Muslims were offended and must be sure that the law would protect them.
Legislation banning the use of threatening words to incite religious hatred were passed by Parliament earlier this week and are expected to come into force next year.
Lord Falconer later told BBC Radio 4's Any Questions? that the government had to show young Muslims that Britain was not anti-Islamic.

"We should look at them in the light of what's happened here because what is being said to young Muslim people in this country is that we as a country are anti-Islam, and we have got to demonstrate without compromising freedom that we are not," he said.

He said there should be "consequences" from saying Islam is "wicked and evil".

It is pathetic that ministers feel obliged to introduce even more, unnecessary, laws just because of one court case. The new "religious hatred" law is already a step too far (why should one not be allowed to take the piss out of religions, they are one of the worst influences in the world). But Griffin would probably have been convicted under that, if it had been in force at the time. So why yet another draconian law? And Falconer is not the brightest of chaps at the best of times, it is unbelievable he is the Lord Chancellor. By "consequences" is he now suggesting that someone should go out and take a pot shot at Griffin? And (some) Christians were offended by the "Life of Brian" (since it was a bit too accurate a portrayal of religion), does that mean it should have been banned? Of course the Christian establishment said yes, but fortunately they were ignored. Griffin might be loathsome but his own words are the most effective weapon against him. And these particular words were spoken in private (at a meeting the BBC infiltrated). We don't need yet more censorship laws by the control freaks that run Britain.

All material not included from other sources is copyright For further information or questions email: info [at] cambridge2000 [dot] com (replace "[at]" with "@" and "[dot]" with ".").