RACE, RELIGION AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION HATE SPEECH RACE, RELIGION AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION

RACE RELATIONS Law contained in Public Order Act 1986 (as amended at various times) Prosecutions infrequent – must be brought with consent of Att-Gen. We must ask: What does ‘racial hatred’ mean? Who is covered by the word ‘race’?

THE RELEVANT SECTIONS S.18 POA 1986 – ‘It is an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intent of stirring up racial hatred or in circumstances where racial hatred is likely to be stirred up’ S.19 – ‘It is an offence to publish threatening abusive or insulting material either with the intention to provoke racial hatred or in circumstances where such hatred is likely to be stirred up’

RACE AND RACIAL HATRED Racial Hatred = Hatred against a group defined by colour, race or national origin so includes Jews, Sikhs and Romany gypsies NOT Zionists or Rastafarians or Travellers Hatred means more than offence, ridicule or harassment Race is not defined by religion

BROADCASTING S.164 Broadcasting Act 1990 makes it an offence to transmit a TV or radio programme with a view to inciting racial hatred Does this make it more difficult to make programmes about racial hatred? Jersild v Denmark (1995) 19 EHRR 1

THEATRE Productions could be caught by this law but rarely used - what about Merchant of Venice/Othello? Recent productions have been withdrawn due to pressure NOT the law e.g. Bezhti/Perdition Possession of material

SOME IMPORTANT POINTS No need to show racial hatred WAS stirred up ONLY that it might have been Ironic that some of the early prosecutions were against people from the very sections of society it was intended to protect e.g. Michael X Views of Stokely Carmichael re institutional racism

R v SHEPPARD Case decided in 2010 on appeal. Sheppard & Whittle found guilty of inciting racial hatred over internet and with leaflets here sent through post. Website – heretical.com – hosted in USA. Both defendants sent to prison

‘He’s not the messiah……’ ‘To criticise a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous but to criticise their religion, that is a right. This is a freedom. The freedom to criticise ideas, any ideas - even if they are sincerely held beliefs – is one of the fundamental freedoms of society & a law which attempts to say you can criticise & ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious is a very peculiar law indeed’

BLASPHEMY AND RELIGIOUS HATRED Blasphemy now abolished – only ever applied to Anglican Christianity R v Lemon Life of Brian Jerry Springer Opera

Racial & Religious Hatred Act 2006 Amends Public Order Act 1986 Offence committed where person intends to stir up hatred on the grounds of religious belief. Can be against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief OR lack of religious belief

Acts intended to stir up religious hatred Use of words or behaviour or display of written material Publishing or distributing written material Public performance of a play Distributing showing or playing a recording Broadcasting or including programme in programme service Possession of inflammatory material

WHAT IS THE REAL PURPOSE OF THE ACT? Certainly to prevent speech that incites hatred that may lead to violence NOT to prevent hurt feelings or mere offence - some disappointment expressed at this when legislation finally passed into law.

DPP V JAMES MCCONNELL A case decided in Northern Ireland in January 2016 Prosecuted under the Communications Act 2003 NOT any of the hate speech legislation Acquitted

Stirring up hatred on grounds of sexual orientation Offence created by s.74 & schedule 16 of Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008 (amends Public Order Act 1986) Provision entered law in March 2010 Deals with conduct (words, behaviour or material) which is threatening in nature and likely to stir up hatred against a group of people who are defined by sexual orientation (any) Does not apply to orientation based on e.g. preference for particular sexual practices/acts – see s.29B POA

THE OFFENCE Limited to material/conduct that is threatening & which is intended to stir up hatred Contrast Racial Hatred offences - these cover a wider range of conduct or material which is threatening, abusive or insulting and which is likely to stir up hatred

NO JOKES, THEN? Human Rights & freedom of expression aspect – should NOT prevent jokes or religious opinion or preaching against certain behaviour BUT how far will this work? Is there a conflict between Art 9 v Art 10? See R v Ahmed & others 2011 – ‘Death Penalty?’ pamphlets handed out and posted through private letter boxes. All 4 defendants given prison sentences.

DPP V JAMES MCCONNELL A case decided in Northern Ireland in January 2016 Prosecuted under the Communications Act 2003 NOT any of the hate speech legislation Acquitted