I can’t say I think that’s a sensible way to draft laws: what if someone decides to start waging holy war against ice cream vendors? Where is the law to protect them?

No, blood libel is not an issue here. I can only think of three reasons why Blunkett came up with this nonsensical bill:

a) He’s using it as a means of diverting from other pieces of legislation that, while not as sexy to the media, are actually far more important to him (conspiracy theory)

b) He wants to ‘do something for Muslims’ in the run up to the general election, and thinks that this will cancel out any ill-feeling built up over the past few years (election theory)

c) He genuinely believes that this law is necessary because there are constant attempts by extremists to incite religious hatred against minorities and the police are currently powerless to intervene because the law doesn’t address this sort of scenario (gullible theory)

If (c) is to stand up, then we need solid evidence that there is a real and present problem that needs to be dealt with through legislative means. Otherwise this bill should be consigned to the wastepaper bin. So far Blunkett has provided no evidence.

Yes, but the race relations act has (IIRC) a single test of "intended to incite" whereas the new bill has a double test of "intended or likely to incite", plus "abusive, insulting or threatening". The inclusion of "likely to" was meant to deprive fascists of the "honest guv, I never intended that" defence, which meant that the second part of the test was needed to make the law (at least broadly, kinda-sorta) consistent with the Convention on Human Rights’ free speech provisions. Lady Birdwood was only copped under the RRA after repeated warnings because of the difficulty of proving intent.

I’m not inclined to defend this bill as a piece of legislation, no more than John is. But the drafting is actually pretty tight, and the language that’s in this particular clause is there for a reason.

I’ve no real knowledge of how common the distribution of blood libels is in the UK. But from general historical knowledge, I am aware that they tend to be distributed as fads; quite rare but extraordinarily virulent when they catch on. So it’s not an obviously loony thing to do to have a law on the books just in case, if you’ve decided that’s the sort of thing you want to do.

"I am genuinely confused by the way you characterise the law. As far as I understand, it’s not illegal to say "Kill all BMW drivers", but it is illegal either to attempt to do so, or to say "Kill David Smith of 124 Acacia Avenue"."

It seems the Home Secretary is equally confused about this issue. Listen to minutes 9-12 of Today in Parliament (up until next Tuesday). If you don’t have RealPlayer, here is the relevant passage from Hansard:

——–
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): I am still perplexed because there is no definition of religion. On the 2001 census form, 5,015 people in Sheffield gave Jedi knight as their religion. I hate "Star Wars", so should I be worried?

Mr. Blunkett: If someone incited people because of their love of "Star Wars", or against people with a love of "Star Wars", they would be caught under existing law, but not in terms of religion. That is the whole point—

Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con): That is the point!

Mr. Blunkett: No, that is the point of having to bring in the new measure to provide equity of treatment in relation to faith.
———

WHAT is Blunkett saying here? That while you would currently be prosecuted for inciting hatred against Jedis (who according to Blunkett’s ad hoc definition aren’t a religion) you wouldn’t be prosecuted for inciting hatred against a religious community, and therefore we need a new law? This just doesn’t add up.

I get the impression that that’s how British courts view it (the prosecution and conviction of the late and unlamented Dowager Lady Birdwood being a case in point). Surely the essential ingredients of "blood libel" are comfortably covered by the Race Relations Act?

As I understand it from casually following the drafting of the bill, the main touchstone used by the drafting lawyers was that they wanted to prevent the distribution of blood libels, which are not currently intrinsically illegal in the UK.

There is the potential there for the system to appear racist/religionist. Example: Only one out of every 1,000 Muslim complaints leads to a court case but 1 out of every 10 Buddhist complaints leads to prosecution…

"I am genuinely confused by the way you characterise the law. As far as I understand, it’s not illegal to say "Kill all BMW drivers", but it is illegal either to attempt to do so, or to say "Kill David Smith of 124 Acacia Avenue""

As far as I understand you face charges of varying severity depending on what you do and in what context. Standing in a comedy club saying ‘kill all BMW drivers’ is unlikely to get you prosecuted. Standing on Brick Lane and saying ‘kill all BMW drivers’ will probably get you carted off for obstructing traffic, but could conceivably be regarded as a more serious public order offence: after all, there are a lot of BMWs on Brick Lane, and actively calling for their owner’s murder could be regarded as a serious threat (see animal rights activists threatening scientists). As I said, this always depends on the situation. But so far nobody has been able to give me a convincing scenario in which the ‘incitement to religious hatred law’ would really be necessary in order to avert a serious crime.

The funny thing is, the first time I heard about this law I thought: Great! So they are going to start prosecuting all those people who call for the murder/persecution/discrimination of unbelievers/sinners/infidels in the name of God/Allah/Satan. Trust New Labour to come up with a law that actually protects religious extremists from criticism.

I am genuinely confused by the way you characterise the law. As far as I understand, it’s not illegal to say "Kill all BMW drivers", but it is illegal either to attempt to do so, or to say "Kill David Smith of 124 Acacia Avenue". The ‘racially and religiously motivated attacks’ rule ensures longer jail time for Paki-bashers, but doesn’t affect people who say "Kill all Pakis" – they can only be prosecuted under racial hatred legislation.

I might well be wrong, in which case I’d appreciate a correction (which I’ll also make in the main post).