With recent race-related riots in Birmingham, Sydney, and Paris, it should be heartening to see a coalition of Muslims, evangelical Christians, and secular humanists all demonstrating for a common cause.  Except that the common cause that has drawn these disparate groups together threatens the very fabric of public debate.  

The British government is currently teasing out the details of the proposed Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, which would confer upon religious groups the same legal protection against hate crimes as racial groups. Since British courts already regard Sikhs and Jews as races, this new bill would apply, for example, to Muslims and Christians. Individuals guilty of inciting racial hatred would be subject to a maximum of seven years in prison.
  
Protection against hate crimes is all well and good, except that the House of Commons has signaled its intentions to reserve crucial changes made to the bill in the House of Lords.

In short, the House of Lords amended the bill so that in order to protect free speech, the hate crimes bill would include threatening words and behavior. Insults and abuse would not be considered hate crimes. Furthermore, the hate crime would need to be intentional. Excluded from the definition of hate crimes are proselytizing, discussion, criticism, and insult.  Abusing or ridiculing religious beliefs or practices would not be considered hate crimes. And this is how the bill should stand.  The House of Commons, which will be voting shortly on the bill, wants to reverse these amendments made by the House of Lords.  

Rowan Atkinson, the British comedian (known precisely for his acerbic wit), concisely stated his reservations about the bill, which opponents say would smother free speech and unduly threaten artists: “No one deserves a right to freedom from criticism.”

Mimi Hanaoka