Ok, well first of all, what is this? This is a proposed bill in the United Kingdom, that if passed, would criminalise anyone deemed to be inciting religious hatred. This is certainly something that would effect many British Metalheads. But exactly what is considered, to be inciting religious hatred?

The Home Office website explains what the government plans to do. I'm not going to be evaluating the WHOLE page, the link for the Home Office FAQ will be provided at the end of this article, for your more in-depth perusal.

So you can be prosecuted if what you are saying, is merely deemed to be incitement to religious hatred?

1. What is the Government doing?

• The Government is extending protection to prevent hatred being stirred up against people targeted because of their religious beliefs, or lack of religious beliefs, as well as people targeted because of their race.
• This is being done through the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Bill, by expanding the existing criminal offences of incitement to racial hatred contained in the Public Order Act 1986.
  
• The provisions make it an offence for a person to knowingly use threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour with the intention or likelihood that they will stir up hatred against a group of people based on their religious beliefs.
  
• It is about protecting people who might be the object of someone else’s hatred because of their religion; not about protecting religion itself.

Ok, so the government wishes to protect religious groups from hatred because of their beliefs, fair enough. But note the 3rd point, how on earth do you define what is abusive or insulting? How would a judge decide whether the use of such offensive words, was intentional or not. Also note this part "with the intention or likelihood that they will stir up hatred", so you can be prosecuted if what you are saying, is merely deemed to be incitement to religious hatred, before it has actually happened. Sounds very scary indeed.

Ok, swiftly moving on:

Who defines what is right & wrong to say about certain religions?

2. Why is new legislation necessary?

• It is widely accepted that individuals in our society are stirring up hatred against particular religious groups. This may take the form of publications distributed by extremist groups which equate a particular religion with mass murder or rape, or speeches at public meetings that use inflammatory language and exhort people to make life unbearable for those of a certain religion.
  
• Although, the Government does not believe that incitement to religious hatred is commonplace, it does exist and where it exists it has a disproportionate and corrosive effect on communities, creating barriers between different groups and encouraging mistrust and suspicion. At an individual level this can lead to fear and intimidation and a sense of isolation.
  
• It can also indirectly lead to discrimination, abuse, harassment and ultimately crimes of violence against members of our communities. It is legitimate for the criminal law to protect citizens from such behaviour.
  
• These provisions are needed to close an unacceptable loophole where some religions (Jews and Sikhs) are protected and others such as Muslims and Christians are not. Jews and Sikhs are covered by existing incitement to racial hatred laws as a result of decisions made by the courts (Mandla vs Dowell Lee 1993). This is on the basis of those groups also having a distinct ethnic origin. The existing law does not protect other religions that do not have distinct ethnic origins (e.g. Christians or Muslims) as it is currently interpreted. This measure will end that anomaly. Since the introduction of the incitement to racial hatred offence, some extremists have exploited this loophole, using religious terms to identify victims whom they would have previously identified using racial terms.

Point 1, fair enough about people persuading others, to make life difficult for members of a certain religion, but what about the comment about extremist groups? Who defines what is right & wrong to say about certain religions? This is an infringement on people's freedom of speech, who on earth has the right to dictate what we should think & say about other religions! Maybe a poorly worded point 4 here, because later in this article it says that the new law would protect people from discrimination because of their beliefs, not protect religion, yet here it says that the law WILL protect other religions. Make up your mind, for crying out loud, or re-word it to accurately reflect the actual nature of this proposed law.

Would Black Metal be Outlawed?

4. What would be caught by the new incitement offence?

• Individuals and members of extremist and racist organisations and parties who stir up hatred of groups defined by their religious beliefs. Also, religious extremists who stir up hatred against members of other religions.
  Both of these groups of extremists are very small in number and wholly unrepresentative of the communities they claim to speak for. The vast majority of British people, including British Muslims, are peaceful and law abiding and would not advocate hatred against people of other religions or races.
  
• The need to take into account all the circumstances of a case means that it is very difficult to give a yes/no answer to whether particular statements will be caught by the new offence. For example the context and audience of what is said are as critically important as the words themselves. The same series of critical statements might be more likely to stir up hatred in the backroom of a pub full of drunken men in area of deprivation and tension than said an in academic debate in a university.
  
• An example of what might be caught under a new incitement to religious hatred offence is an extreme racist organisation widely distributing material setting out a range of insulting and highly inflammatory reasons for hating Islam. Such reasons have included suggesting that Muslims are a threat to British people and liable to molest women and that they should be urgently driven out of Britain.
  
• The Muslim cleric el-Faisal gave lectures around the UK over a period of four years used threatening, abusive and insulting language against ‘unbelievers’, these lectures being recorded and subsequently put on sale. The inflammatory language was therefore deliberately designed to reach a wider audience. He said it is permissible to use chemical weapons to kill unbelievers and sanctioned the use of nuclear weapons “in that country which is 100% unbelievers”. The jury found el-Faisal guilty of three counts of soliciting to murder and three of incitement to racial hatred for similar utterances against Jews. On 7 March 2003 he was sentenced to a total of nine years’ imprisonment, seven years for the soliciting offences and two years for the incitement to racial hatred offences. Although el-Faisal was also sentenced for soliciting to murder, had the comments made about Jews been directed at another religious group (i.e. Christians), prosecution for incitement to racial hatred would not have been possible and he would not have been sentenced for this offence.

First of all, I have nothing to comment about the first point, sounds like a fair point. But point 2, however, pretty much states that the classification of what is and isn't covered by this new law, is pretty much indeterminate. They emphasise the need to take into account all the cirumstances of a case. So I guess the final decision on what is and isn't covered by this law, would be down to the judges themselves and their own particular views. Yet again, sounds very scary indeed. Point 3, ok fair enough to an extent, about the urging people to drive out muslims bit, however once again, who would decide what is inflammatory & insulting? So if a paricular religious group urged it's members to complain about an article that you had published, would you then be liable under this new law and prosecuted? What about certain Metal music that is anti-religion, eg. Black Metal? Would that become outlawed? Would Black Metal artists face prison sentences, merely for airing their views on religion and would shops be forced to remove, not just Black Metal cd's, but any Metal CD's that would be considered Satanic & thus aiming to incite hatred against Christians? Or would this new law, also protect Satanists? Very confusing indeed and way too many grey areas for any of us to ever be comfortable with it.

Now let's move on to the part of the FAQ which aims to show what ISN'T targeted by this proposed new law.

If you dare say it, you'll be prosecuted for it.

5. What will the new offence not cover?

Of themselves, the following would not be caught by the offence:

• Criticising the beliefs, teachings or practices of a religion or its followers; for example by claiming that they are false or harmful;
  
• Proselytising one’s own religion or urging followers of a different religion to cease practising theirs; for example Christians claiming that Jesus Christ is the way the truth, the life and the only way to God, Muslims exhorting people to submit to the will of Allah, or Atheists claiming that there is no God;
  
• Telling jokes about religions;
  
• Publishing or reading from religious texts such as the Bible or the Qur’an.
  Of themselves these activities do not meet the criteria of the offences. However if a person were to use threatening, abusive or insulting words/actions with the intent or likely effect that hatred would be stirred up whilst undertaking the actions listed above, then by definition, they could rightly fall into the scope of the offence.
  In a presentation at the Houses of Parliament, Trevor Philips reminded us that Bernard Manning, Lenny Henry, Jim Davidson and Roy Chubby Brown had not been prosecuted for any racial jokes under the existing offences. In particular there have been no prosecutions for jokes directed at the Jewish community, who are protected by the incitement to racial hatred provisions, regardless of whether jokes are racially or religiously motivated. If this protection of the Jewish community didn’t penalise rabbi jokes, there are no grounds to believe that extending the protection to other faith communities will prevent jokes about them.

Ok, a seemingly contradictory point 1 here, it says that to claim a religion is false or harmful, would not be covered by this incitement to religious hatred law. However, earlier we have seen that this law objects to people regarding a religious group as a group that goes around causing mass murder or rape. Surely this falls under the "calling a religion harmful" category and yet if you dare say it, you'll be prosecuted for it. About Point 2, what if you publish an article telling people to drop their religion for x reasons, and members of that religious group take offense to your article, would you then be prosecuted for having an opinion?

The last part of this FAQ that I am going to cover in this article, is the question about freedom of speech, since I've brought it up, earlier in the article.

What if a particular religious group took offense, to a certain Metal band or CD?

10. What measures have been put in place to ensure that provisions for freedom of speech and/or freedom of religion will not be abused?

These measures accord with, and will operate in the light of, the guarantees afforded by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. In fact in its latest report, published on 2 March, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has stated that it considers that the measures on incitement proposed in the SOCAP Bill are unlikely to give rise to any violation of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR.

The Government is determined to protect both the rights of free speech, which have been long respected in this country, and the right to lead a life in which one can peacefully practise one’s own religion without fear. The Government is confident that this can be reconciled with protecting people against incited hatred. The new legislation will provide protection from the activities of extremists who stir up hatred against people because of their religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs, whilst also safeguarding the right to engage in free and vigorous debate about religion, including the right to criticise religious beliefs and practices.

The proposed and existing offences both carry a high threshold in order to protect freedom of speech. Words, behaviour or material used must be threatening, abusive or insulting and must either be intended to or likely to stir up hatred. The hatred must be aimed at people who are members of that group, not ideologies. Hatred is a strong term; which goes beyond ridicule, prejudice, dislike, contempt, anger or offence. A further safeguard in the legislation is that a person who does not intend to stir up hatred is not guilty of an offence if they did not know that their words, behaviour, written material, recording or programmes were threatening, abusive or insulting. Furthermore the offences do not apply to anything that takes place in one’s own home. All prosecutions require the consent of the Attorney General, which will prevent the offences being misused through private prosecutions. We believe the wording of the offences, the public interest test applied by the CPS, and the veto of the Attorney General are sufficient to safeguard freedom of speech.

This provision will protect people’s freedom to practise their religion without fear, not restrict it. Proselytism is recognised as an integral activity for many faith communities. The new provision would make it an offence to stir up hatred, not to practise one’s religion or proselytise.

Jews and Sikhs are protected by the existing offences regardless of whether threats, abuse or insults made against them are religiously or racially motivated. This hasn’t stopped people criticising Judaism or discussing alleged human rights abuses perpetrated by the Jewish community in Israel because this offence does not prohibit criticism of religious beliefs.

Article 9 of the European Convention states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and that this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. It also states that freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject to limitations prescribed by law and necessary in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order and the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 10 of the European Convention states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression and that this includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas. Similarly it also states that the exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to restrictions prescribed by law that are necessary in the interests of public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime and the protection of the reputation or rights of others.

These offences are justifiable, necessary and proportionate measures for the prevention of disorder or crime and the protection of the rights of others; the need for which is reflected in these articles. Indeed because these provisions protect groups from hatred directed against them because of religious belief, they safeguard the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion enshrined in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Writers are rightly concerned about freedom of expression. The government’s prime concern is the safety and security of our communities. The aim of this legislation is to protect people from the hatred stirred up against them on the basis of their religious beliefs that prepares the ground for dangerous violence.

Our proposal puts boundaries on free speech that permits artists to offend, criticise or ridicule but which will protect people from the sort of hatred that has a very real and corrosive effect on our communities. We are confident that this offence places boundaries in the right place.

An interesting read, particularly the part that I've underlined, a potential loophole out of this law, by claiming that you didn't intend to offend anybody with your words... but, what if infact, you didn't intend to offend anybody, but were instead found guilty of that intent, you'd be totally stuffed. Also, you can be convicted if it is deemed that your words were likely to stir up hatred. So you have to be afraid of what you write, incase somebody takes it differently and sets about killing a bunch of people because of their religion? What if you comment about certain people of a religious group, would that also put you in breach of this proposed law?

Like I said earlier, this proposed new law would certainly effect Metalheads' freedom of expression. What if a particular religious group took offense to a certain Metal band or CD, because, for example, they considered it satanic and to be persuading it's listeners to commit "evil" acts against religion. Like I also mentioned earlier, what about a lot of Black Metal, that is outright anti-Christian or anti-Jewish, for example, would this stuff be made illegal? Highly likely if this law passes, as it would be seen to be inciting religious hatred and despite the supposed "safeguards", you can be sure that this law would be abused by relgious groups.

As you can probably guess from the tone of this article, I am vehemenently opposed to this new law & can honestly say that I hope it never passes, it's an abomination of dodgy grey areas and contradictive & distorted logic.

Copyright © by Raging Metal - Celebrating 40 Years of Metal! All Right Reserved.

Published on: 2007-02-11 (3507 reads)