Incitement to religious hatred

I must admit that I have been wondering whether there is anything to worry about or not in this proposed bill which gets its third reading shortly. On th eone hand I am all for closing down organisations that espouse and promote hatred based on religion, in line with other kinds of hate promotion activities. On the other hand I'm concerned that some relisious groups take themselves as fallible human organisations way too seriously and try to hide from legitimate questioning and criticism. So I think I was mollified by this:
"A Home Office spokeswoman defended the bill, insisting it would not interfere with the right to free speech. 'There is a clear difference between criticism of a religion and the act of inciting hatred against members of a religious group,' she said. 'The incitement offences have a high criminal threshold and prosecutions require the consent of the attorney general. There has not been a widespread sense that the existing offence has interfered with free speech and we are confident that an offence of incitement to religious hatred will not do so either.'"

At stake is the issue'; may I, as a Christian, make a legitimate criticism of, -for example- Muhammed based on my reading of evidence to say that I do not beleive that he was given revelations by God to behead his enemies or to marry Aisha when she was 9 years old and he already had wives ... or that the Qur'an is clearly not the word of God in the way that some Muslims apprently believe because it contains factual errors.

I am incidently quite happy for other to make similar kinds of remarks about Christian faith because I beleive that it is best to have this stuff out in the open and for Christians to try to take up the challenges to faith and meet them not to surpress them.

The issue is can we do this under this new proposed legislation?
Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | Tories not amused by Blunkett's bill: