7 July 2004 By Dominic Casciani

Government proposals for a law on religious hatred are complicated - and will face a tough time in Parliament.
What is the government proposing?

Home Secretary David Blunkett is planning to make the incitement of religious hatred a crime. He first tried this three years ago - but was defeated in the House of Lords. Although the full details of how the law would work are yet to be set out, Mr Blunkett says the reform aims to "fill a gap" in the nation's raft of anti-discriminatory legislation to create a society where "diversity without fear" is possible.

So no one currently has protection from incitement to religious hatred?

Not quite. Both Jews and Sikhs are protected by race relations legislation after test cases established they were sufficiently distinct to be classed as ethnic as well as religious groups. But in the case of Christianity and Islam, the law has so far not offered protection against individuals from religious discrimination. About half of British Asians are not Muslim - and a third of Muslims in Britain are not Asian. Trevor Phillips, chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, says this means there are a lot of people who don't necessarily have the full protection of anti-discrimination laws.

Is there other legislation?

The 2001 Anti-Terror Crime and Security Act introduced a protection by making religious hatred an "aggravating factor" to be taken into account in violent crimes. More recently, the government banned workplace discrimination against people because of their religious beliefs. But critics - principally from Muslim organisations who have campaigned hard on this issue - say neither law provides anywhere near the same protection as race hate legislation.

So what happened with the 2001 attempt at a religious hatred law?

Following the September 11 attacks, there was a rise in attacks against Muslims. David Blunkett sought to bring religious hatred into line with racial hatred in his emergency anti-terrorism measures of that autumn. But the House of Lords said religious discrimination was too complicated to be rushed into law and refused to back it. Mr Blunkett withdrew the proposals to ensure his key anti-terrorism measures passed. The only measure to get through was the "aggravating factor" concept already mentioned. Since then, the government has said it did not have time to introduce a specific religious hatred law - but it appears the debate within Whitehall has been won by those who support it.

So who would be targeted by this law?

The Home Secretary says this is about protecting ordinary people who want to get on with following their faith. He says it would "sideline" extremists who claim to speak for them.

"I am very clear that some of the noisiest and most high profile political and religious extremists in this country have no mandate to speak for the communities they claim to represent and evoke a reaction which plays into the hands of racists," he says. "There is a responsibility on all of us to challenge the myths and stereotypes they use which turn fear and insecurity into resentment and prejudice." While the media focus is on Islamist radicals, Mr Blunkett has stressed the law "will apply equally to far right Christian evangelicals" where words can lead to acts of violence. So, if someone is denounced because he is Christian or Muslim, that would not in itself be a criminal act - unless it included an incitement to others to do something about it.

So what are the arguments against a religious hatred law?

Critics say commenting on religion is more about personal opinion and free speech than anything else.

While it may be absurd (and illegal) to make generalisations about an entire ethnic group's behaviour, where do you draw the line on commenting about someone's religion? At what point does criticism become hate? And at one point does hate become part of a systematic attack on a faith capable of inciting others to commit acts of violence? For example, take Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses. The novel was a turning point for Muslim political organisation in the UK as it caused uproar among devout communities who say it grossly maligned their faith and led to a gross misunderstanding of Islam.

But was the supposed damage to Muslims so serious that Mr Rushdie's freedom of speech should have been curtailed? This will be the key argument to be wrestled with in Parliament. But Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, said the only people likely to be offended by the law were those who wanted to be offensive to believers in other faiths.

"This is about protecting the believer, not the belief," he said. "It's about saying you hate someone because of their beliefs and you want everyone else to do something about it. That's incitement and we see this kind of harassment week in and week out."

What about blasphemy?

The ancient law of blasphemy, regarded as redundant, says challenging the word of Christianity is so serious it shakes the very foundations of society. The last successful case was in 1977 when Mary Whitehouse successfully brought a private prosecution against the editor of the Gay News over a poem depicting a centurion's love for Christ. The last case before that had been in 1921.