Hate speech in the Lords

In December, no Government spokesman in the House of Lords would confirm that a Christian would be free from arrest if they proclaimed the uniqueness of Jesus.

In reply to a question by Lord Pearson, Baroness Williams of Trafford, the Minister of State for countering extremism, replied:‘The definition [of a hate crime] is: any criminal offence which is perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s actual or perceived disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity. When flagged as a hate crime, the police will be satisfied that an offence has been committed and will then investigate evidence in support of the appropriate charge, as well as the aggravated element of hostility. It would not be appropriate for me, as I have just said, to confirm whether this [proclaiming the uniqueness of Jesus] is an example which would constitute a hate crime. That would be an operational decision both of the police and the CPS based on the specific circumstances.’

Baroness Williams continued, saying there is ‘no criminal offence in the UK of hate speech’. (November en showed that Police Scotland questioned this with their poster campaign.) Lord Rosser then questioned the wording of Section 29J: ‘In the light of those references to ‘insult or abuse’, does the Government intend to reconsider the appropriateness of those two words in Section 29J in the current climate, which seem to conflict to some degree with the objective of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and its protection for individuals from hatred and the fear of violence and harassment?’

The Minister replied by attempting to differentiate between ‘hate’ and ‘insult’ or ‘abuse’. However, ‘hate’ is also subjective. In her own reply she defined a ‘hate crime’ as, ‘any criminal offence which is perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice …’ Therefore ‘insult’, ‘abuse’ and ‘hatred’ are all in the same boat – defined by perception only.