someone charged with an offence would have to be shown to have used "threatening" language - rather than "threatening, insulting and abusive" the test in race cases. It will also mean that the prosecution will have to show "intention" to foment such hatred by the accused rather than intention or "recklessness"
Which, I think, means that my concerns and those of people like Rowan Atkinson, the Evangelical Alliance, the National Secular Society and so on [interesting 'coalition', eh?] seem to have been met by the prime minister not turning up to vote. Basically the governmen whips seem to have miscalculated and the rebels plus opposition carried the amendments. Who'd 'a' thunk it?
Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | Government suffers chaotic double defeat over bill to combat religious hatred:
Filed in: legislation, UK, religion, hatred
No comments:
Post a Comment