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.
