Anti-hatred bill 'would protect minority faiths'

I find myself conflicted about this bill they're pushing through parliament. On the one hand I approve of making sure that people who actively incite violence and persectution of others for their faith should not be able to do so with impunity, on the other hand I fear that the bill is a very blunt instrument which would make it like that it could be used to stifle legitimate debate and criticism. I tend to think that Rowan Atkinson has a point: he " ... warned that it would leave comedians open to prosecution for satirising religious beliefs." and it seems to me that he is right to be concerned

In the university I left a year or so back, there was a debate going on about religious tolerance. A piece of draft policy was that it would be actinable if someone were to distribute literature which offended people of other faiths. I was very concerned about this: it seemed to me that someone having a quiet bookstall which happened to have a leaflet claiming their own faith was better then another in certain respects, no matter how reasonable and pacific it was, could find themselves facing disciplinary action if a member of another faith objected.

The bill parliament are looking at seems to be of the same ilk. It is interesting to note this: "the government had promised full consultation on the legislation but now appeared set on pushing it through parliament following promises made to Muslim leaders before the election." Because it has been Muslim groups in British Universities that have been most vociferous in trying to implement this kind of policy and now legislation. Why? I suspect that for at least some Muslims it is about their own faith traditions where criticism of Muhammed, the Qur'an and changing faith from Islam are traditionally prohibited. It may be more about not understanding properly what freedom to criticise may be and how it can be different from incitement to hatred. They are used in Muslim majority countries and cultures to not hearing criticism and even satire of Islam. The problem legislativeely is whether it can be done in a fine-enough way. Perhaps we shall have to see things tested in the courts, but I worry about the freedom of speech. There have been instances in some British Universities where the kind of policy I mentioned above has been implemented and it has resulted in what I regard as legitimate debate being stifled. At the least it may create a climate of precaution some of which may be to inhibit lawful criticism.

The test is; if I come to believe that Muhammed was not a true prophet and that I think therefore that Muslims are wrong to follow his teachings and even that I believe Islam to be a barrier to true knowledge of God; how easy would it be for a Muslim activist to persuade the relevant authorities that there is a case to answer for my indictment?

Or, to put it another way: How easy would it be for me to persuade the relevant authroites to prosecute a Muslim for robustly denying the deity of Christ and accusing Christians of blasphemy [a position perfectly consonant with te Qur'an and sunnah], the implication of which is that Christian 'religion' should be encouraged to 'be retired'? Personally I think that it is perfectly reasonable for him/her to say those things. I would say however that if it became inciting violence against Christians then that would be too far, but we have legislation to deal with that already. The same as universities have anti-harrassment policies that potentially cover religious persecution or harrasment.

Or to put it yet another way: what would have happened to Salman Rushdie under this legislation? He would certainly have been prosecuted, would he have been put away for it? Would it have made him safe from death threats?

The fact that I can raise the question seems to tell me that there is potential in this to raise far more negative religious passion than to quell it. I suspect that we already have the means to deal with this, and I'm not sure what this proposed bill adds or enables us to do positively. I may be wrong, but I remain troubled by it.

Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | Anti-hatred bill 'would protect minority faiths':