From The Times November 26, 2007 Attorney-General set to scupper plans to make gay hate a crime Richard Ford and Frances Gibb
Government plans to criminalise the stirring up of hatred against gays and lesbians are in disarray because of a Cabinet split over the need for such a law. The split between Baroness Scotland of Asthal, the Attorney-General, and Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary are likely to scupper plans for a new offence. Baroness Scotland has privately expressed concern about the controversial legislation proposed by Mr Straw, The Times has learnt. Mr Straw announced the plans last month with the backing of Harriet Harman, the Equalities Secretary. He had said that he would bring forward an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill this month to extend the law that already protects religious and racial groups, carrying up to seven years in jail. He had also said that he would listen to views about whether the incitement offence should be extended further to cover hatred against disabled and transgendered people. But Baroness Scotland, who is also determined to crack down on the problem of homophobic behaviour, believes that there are sufficient laws on the statute book to deal with the issue. She also has concerns about the difficulities of getting the proposal through the House of Lords, which gave a rough ride to measures on incitement to religious hatred and substantially watered them down. She is understood to have told colleagues that she wants to see more successful prosecutions in this area, but is unconvinced that a new law is the way to do it and would prefer to focus on existing procedures. It is the second time in recent weeks that ministers plans have failed to win the support of Baroness Scotland, the countrys senior law officer. Last week The Times reported that she believed the case had not been made for extending the time that terror suspects can be held before charge. Mr Straws plan was to mirror the offence of incitement to religious hatred. The amendment would cover hatred and invective directed at people on the basis of their sexuality. Ministers insist that it would not prohibit criticism of gay and bisexual people but protect them from incitement to hatred because of their sexual orientation. But, despite strong backing from bodies such as Stonewall, the campaigning group for gay rights, the proposals have caused controversy and been condemned as a threat to freedom of speech, including from some prominent homosexuals. Matthew Parris, the Times columnist, wrote that some groups may be so weak and fragile as to need the laws protection from hateful speech. Id like to think that we gays are no longer among them. In a letter to The Times this month, Rowan Atkinson, the actor, criticised the plans, saying that society was working things out without the need for any legislative interference. He was concerned about the extendable nature of the legislation not just to the disabled and transsexuals but to anyone else who could claim that they could not help the way they are. Men, for example. Or women. Or people with big ears. There were warnings that the move could mean that vicars would face a threat of jail for preaching from the Bible; others said that gay rights were being given priority over Christian values and would be used to silence those with strong Christian beliefs. Most police forces now record hate crimes and the Crown Prosecution Service already deals with hate crime by scrutinising cases for a racial, religious, homophobic or transphobic element. Special hate crime panels are to be introduced after the success of a hate crime scrutiny panel in West Yorkshire, which two weeks ago won an award for its work. The panel, which includes members of the hate crime partnerships in the area such as Stop Hate UK and Bradford Hate Crime Alliance, has seen a rise in the prosecution of hate crimes in the area and a fall in the failure rate. Courts in England and Wales already have the power to impose tougher sentences for offences that are motivated or aggravated by a victims sexual orientation. Freedom of speech v hate crime One cant help thinking, with legislation of this nature, that the point at which it becomes politically possible for it to be enacted, is precisely the point when it becomes unnecessary. The ease which some people move from finding something offensive to wishing to declare it criminal and are then able to find factions within government to aid their ambitions is truly depressing Rowan Atkinson Some groups may be so weak and fragile as to need the laws protection from hateful speech. Id like to think we gays are no longer among them Matthew Parris We will soon be in the bizarre position whereby two recent pieces of legislation designed to prevent hate crimes taking place actually contradict one another. A Muslim who espouses one of its fundamental tenets that homosexuality is wicked and a sin might find himself banged up by the Old Bill for inciting homophobic hatred. And if I were then to say what I believe that, partly because of its attitude towards gay people, Islam is a vindictive, bigoted and repressive ideology then I might be banged up, too. This is surely ludicrous Rod Liddle If someone is reading the Bible and calls homosexuality an abomination is that going to be incitement? Massoud Shadjareh of the Islamic Human Rights Commission In a democratic society people must be free to express their beliefs without fear of censure from the state. A homophobic hatred law would be used by those with an axe to grind against Christians to silence them. Colin Hart of The Christian Institute --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.