Religious hatred law starts to bite

A number of people have already posted about Father John Hayes, the priest who was interviewed by police on suspicion of inciting racial hatred, after he expressed views about religious dress and radical Muslims in his parish newsletter. Esmerelda wondered whether, given that Father Hayes's comments were made over a year ago, someone was taking advantage of the new Religious Hatred Act to make their complaint.

This may give a clue to the response of the police. Usually, the police would look at the evidence in a complaint and then decide whether they thought a crime might have been committed before taking any further action. The problem is, you can't do that with the Religious Hatred Act.

Read Section 29B. It says:

A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.

And you can't work out what someone's intention was without talking to them.

To establish whether Father Hayes had broken the law, the police had to judge whether he was a rabid Muslim-hater, hell bent on stirring up a religious war, or a harmless parish priest engaging in theological debate. Presumably, the senior officer who picked up this case decided that the only way this could be done was by sending two coppers to interview Father Hayes.

As I said last year, this is one of the most worrying aspects of the new law. It is up to the authorities to decide what they think you meant. They can, if they choose, infer meanings from your words that had never occurred to you when you wrote or said them.

In the case of Father Hayes, the police told him at the end of the interview that there would be no further action. However, because of the way the law is written, they may have to follow up many similar complaints with interviews, if they are to determine the intent of the accused.   

It appears, also, that you don't need to say anything especially inflammatory to be deemed worthy of further investigation. Here is a copy of Father John Hayes's newsletter, which is still on his church website.

Sunday 22nd October 2006

TWENTY NINTH SUNDAY OF THE YEAR

From Fr. John

John Humphreys interviewed a young Muslim girl last week who believed that wearing the veil is an essential part of her religion. When John Humphreys pointed out that objectively it was not part of Muslim teaching, she said she believed that for her it was. I could understand the interviewer’s frustration because, in saying what she did, she just slammed the door on any kind of rational debate.

Few people, if any, are convinced by argument. That means it will be difficult, if not impossible, to have dialogue with radical Muslims among whom I would include this young girl. But good honest folk who have been going about their business, wearing jewellery that has been the custom in our country for centuries, have been sucked into a debate which has come about by extremist immigrants who think the whole world should revolve around them and seemingly are hell bent on destroying everything that is sacred in our Christian country. And powerful people are so afraid of being counted succumb to the every whim of this very small but vociferous minority.

It seems odd to me that Muslims can go around in burkas and demand that they wear veils in school but it is still against the law for a catholic priest to wear his cassock in pubic or a catholic to marry the heir to the throne. Perhaps the next step will be the removal of the crosses on the Union Flag?

But worse is to come if secularists get their way in compelling faith schools to take 25% non-Christians. It could mean that the 25% could try and gain control of a school’s governing body, thereby eliminating religion from the catholic school altogether. It is time to wake up to what is going on and do something about it.

Comments

[G. Tingey]

So, would the factual statement that has GOT ME BANNED from the Grauniad's so-called "Comment is free" discussion board, result in the plod talking to me?

Here it is, in case you were wondering:
"Freedom and tolerance extend both ways.

So, the islamofascists are free to promulgate their misogynistic, mediaeval, murderous and intolerant religion.
I am equally free to publicly state that, since there isn't a god at all, Mahmud made it all up."

[JuliaM]

"They can, if they choose, infer meanings from your words that had never occurred to you when you wrote or said them."

Perfect '1984' thought crime...

[Richard]

And the EU wants another 20 million immigrants!!

[Les Bean]

"And the EU wants another 20 million immigrants!!"

Yes, exactly. More immigration means more trouble, more excuse for Eurocrats to pass and use repressive laws, and less resistance from the demoralized and Balkanized natives. The Soviet Union is dead, long live the EU.

[Alison]

The EU isnt soviet - its corporate. And this has nothing to do with it or the 'blue' card workers. Moot points.

If the Eurocrats are so damn powerful then why are other European countries sticking up for free speech and various EU bodies insisting this sort of legislation is watered down not ramped up.

Steve - its an example of why we need to keep saying whatever we want. This is another layer of easy money for greedy lawyers, looking for a meal ticket. Lets make it and them regret it

[Alison]

Looks like the Equality legislation regards adoption and fostering is beginning to bite also. When we need foster carers and adoptive parents more than ever

http://atangledweb.squarespace.com/display/ShowJournal?moduleId=795152&categoryId=80082

[Les Bean]

"The EU isnt soviet - its corporate."

I don't see why they contradict.

"If the Eurocrats are so damn powerful then why are other European countries sticking up for free speech"

Which ones?

"and various EU bodies insisting this sort of legislation is watered down not ramped up."

Please name them.

[Monty]

I can not understand why the man was interviewed at all, in light of the fact that his comments were made prior to the legislation.
So we have a man who did something legal at the time he did it, being interviewed by police retrospectively, and it turns out his conduct is still legal now. Priceless!

[chachi]

the priest was right, the veil is not included in islamic teachings, most probably the arab way of protecting the face from flying sand during sand storms, but if the girl want's to wear it then thats her business.

"wear his cassock in PUBIC"... what a typo.

[chachi]

she's hot, never did like fake boobs, you need more practice on your editing skill though.

[Steve]

So does Father Hayes judging by his newsletter.