Racial/Religious hatred bill get Lords' Amendment

Quote:

---

Blair defeated on racial hatred Bill
By PA and Times Online

Tony Blair suffered a humiliating blow to his authority tonight as the Government slumped to a shock double defeat over its plans to combat religious hatred.

And, in further embarrassment for the Prime Minister, it emerged later that he did not vote in the second division - which the Government lost by just one vote.

The results, after a sizeable Labour backbench revolt, were greeted by loud cheers from the Tory benches and cries of “resign!”.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke quickly announced the Government was bowing to the Commons’ will and the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill would go for Royal Assent to become law as it stood.

“The Government accepts the decision of the House this evening. We are
delighted the Bill is going to its Royal Assent and delighted we have a Bill which deals with incitement against religious hatred,” he said, to Tory jeers.

Mr Blair suffered his first ever Commons defeat only two months ago when MPs voted down plans for a 90-day detention period under the Terrorism Bill and opted for 28 days instead.

Peers inflicted a series of defeats on the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill in a bid to safeguard freedom of speech with an amendment restricting the new offence of inciting religious hatred
to threatening words and behaviour rather than a wider definition also covering insults and abuse.

They also required the offence to be intentional and specified that criticism,
insult, abuse and ridicule of religion, belief or religious practice would not be an offence.

Ministers urged the Commons today to reject the Lords’ amendments and back instead a Government compromise. Home Office Minister Paul Goggins insisted only those intending to “stir up hatred” would be caught under the Government’s plans.

But in the first test of strength, MPs voted by 288 to 278, majority 10, to back the Lords. Mr Blair was recorded as voting with the Government line in this division, while 27 Labour backbenchers rebelled and at least two dozen others did not vote.

In the second vote, MPs voted by 283 votes to 282, majority one, to back the Lords. In this vote, Mr Blair was not recorded as having voted.

Further analysis of the first division showed more than 40 Labour MPs did not vote.

Of these at least 15 were Scottish MPs and it was believed they may have been campaigning for next week’s Dunfermline and Fife West by-election.

---

Hurrah, I say. Although it's probably just the backbench MPs trying to make themselves acknowledged by Blair I'm still cheering for the Brits here, even though I'm probably in a minority. Now, practically nobody will be prosecuted under it, as I think that showing somebody had the intention to incite hatred would be rather difficult.

"Humiliating blow"?

Fatalilty!

Since tony blair's been Involved with that Bush character.
Hes been slowly attempting to take away civil rights designed to protect civilians from Ruthless goverments.

I dont like that The little Git is in charge of Great britain.
and is now Seemingly trying to turn it in to a mini america.

I believe that Tony blair is The ONLY person in britain who actually Respects the american way and thinks its the right way to do things.

Out of all the people i know only the youngest teenagers who still think buying knifes makes them cool.
would say that america has it right.

I believe tony blair is an Idiot.
Any 1 who saw the program called,
Tony blair a rock and roll star Could easily see what A total Prat he really is,

The idea for 90 day detention without trial Is a compleat moccery of justice.
One which he was inspired to sudgest thanx to being so close to bush.

Then he goes at far as to say Even Saying the wrong thing should lead to your prosecution..
Another Mockery of justice.

Although.
if the law had been passed, Perhaps he would be the 1st in jail for using a profanity when referring to the welsh.

Any way.
The guys an idiot.

Im glad things turned out like they did.
I just hope the idiot has some kind of stroke or something from the stress of having the bill turned down,
And thus has to retire where in 2 years he recovers fully from his stroke never to return to politics

You cant make federal anti-hate laws that ban certain types of speech and displays, as tacky as they may be. Otherwise you end up with books being censored and legitimate facts being left out all in the name of not hurting someones feelings.

Unnacceptable displays have a way of working themselves out, and offensive views will be treated as such so the proprietors are shamed. But making it illegal on a national level is ridiculous. There are also local ways to discourage it by proxy (like a no mask ordinance for public displays) that will keep people like the KKK off the streets. And if its something that is outright slander against a person you can always sue for damages

Doesn't France have some sort of law like this, that keeps certain things from being published? I seem to recall something about Islam and the book being edited or the author charged or something, lot of good that did eh?

The hate crime laws that came under Clinton or so poorly written and one-sided that they have yet to be used against anyone other than white on black crime, or crimes against gays, even though there are certainly other races targeted for their ethnicity, or people targeted for religion. It's showboating, to appease some people who got their feelings hurt

Quote:

---

I dont like that The little Git is in charge of Great britain.
and is now Seemingly trying to turn it in to a mini america.

---

This seems a bit unfair in the context of a religous hatred bill. This sort of law could never be passed in America because of the 1st ammendment. I agree that Blair's relationship with Bush is too cosy. We do, also, seem to be importing some undisirable aspects of American culture, although I am sure this would be happening whoever was Prime Minister. However a more sensible approach to freedom of speech is something we could learn from the Americans.

Australia has had an anti-racial vilification laws for awhile now.

Quote:

---

In the end the Racial Hatred Act 1995 set up a civil rights-based complaints driven system, making unlawful, "otherwise than in private", acts "reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult or intimidate another person or group of people", if done "because of" their "race, colour or national or ethnic origin" — with exemptions for actions done "reasonably and in good faith", artistic, scientific, etc. works, "fair comment" on matters of public interest.
Complaints under the RDA are handled by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), through a process involving confidential conciliation, adjudication, and as a last resort the court system. ...

New South Wales passed the first anti-vilification legislation in Australia, in the form of the 1989 Racial Vilification Amendment Act (RVAA), modifying the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. Section 20C declares:

"It is unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the race of the person or members of the group."

This sets a higher harm threshold than the Commonwealth law, with a requirement for "incitement". Again, there are a series of defenses; the trigger is a complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Board....

The West Australian legislation came in response to a racist campaign by the Australian Nationalist Movement. It is unique in criminalising racial vilification generally, not just a narrower "aggravated" category. There have as yet been no cases — and comparison with a similar Canadian law suggests the barrier to criminal prosecution is too high.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just A Girl

Since tony blair's been Involved with that Bush character.
Hes been slowly attempting to take away civil rights designed to protect civilians from Ruthless goverments.

I dont like that The little Git is in charge of Great britain.
and is now Seemingly trying to turn it in to a mini america.
...
Then he goes at far as to say Even Saying the wrong thing should lead to your prosecution..
Another Mockery of justice.

---

Hear, Hear. 'Mon the Lords!

Quote:

---

.Out of all the people i know only the youngest teenagers who still think buying knifes makes them cool.
would say that america has it right.

---

But the problem is that these teenagers will one day be adults in the positions of influence...

Our illustrious First Lord of the Treasury got a bit of a spanking in Parliament yesterday with his attempt to stifle free speech in the UK.

A great day for democracy and common sense. (and about bloody time)

here

Quote:

---

In a blow to Tony Blair's authority MPs voted by 288 votes to 278 to back a key Lords amendment to the bill.

Analysis of the division list showed the prime minister voted in the first division but not in the second, which was lost by one vote.

---

I fell about laughing at this. Had Tony stayed in the chamber he would have got the bill through Parliament on his own personal vote. What a tool. :laugh4: :oops: :wall: :laugh4:

Sorry to wee on your parade, InsaneApache, but there is a thread about this already. Maybe Mods can merge these. BTW I agree with your take, it was about bloody time. We have a similar fight ahead in The Neds, methinks.

Flippin' heck :oops:

woo :2thumbsup:

I was confused for a second when the link led me to my own thread.:laugh4:

I haven't been here long enough to say, but is this bill supported by most people, or was it just the government using the power it had? Either way, I wish I would have been there to see it~:(

Just a Girl,

I don't think you understand how much greater civil liverties are in the U.S. than in the U.K.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff

Just a Girl,

I don't think you understand how much greater civil liverties are in the U.S. than in the U.K.

---

In some ways. In other ways it's more free here.

Although it was VERY close to being far more free with you. What sort of idiot passes laws banning people from talking about religion to protect freedom?

“Doesn't France have some sort of law like this, that keeps certain things from being published?” well, yes and no. The French laws forbid any speeches spreading hate and all to kill other people. It was aimed to the extreme-rights and the “negationists” (of the Holocaust).

The British law was to protect the critics against religions, and offences. This law gave too much power to the religious in allowing them to impose their view on what was an offence or not.

If I say that I think that all religions are just superstition that could offend a believer and I could be suit in the UK for that if an imam, priest or other cleric decides to be offended.

With the French law, it is just an opinion and I am entitled to express it.

Quote:

---

I haven't been here long enough to say, but is this bill supported by most people, or was it just the government using the power it had?

---

I assure you, the vast majority of people in the UK support the Lord's ammendment to the bill.

Although I think the upper house does need some reorganisation, the peers have certainly earned their pay on this occassion. Well done to all of the Labour MPs who voted against the government, too.

The fact that Tony might have altered the result if he'd voted is almost too sweet for words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

Although I think the upper house does need some reorganisation, the peers have certainly earned their pay on this occassion.

---

I find it very disconcerting how nowadays I prefer the unelected house's decisions to the elected house's. We really do need a more representative system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcellus

I find it very disconcerting how nowadays I prefer the unelected house's decisions to the elected house's. We really do need a more representative system.

---

Yes, we need at least one house to by proportionally elected.

Just look at the percentages of the population who voted in the last election for the Tories compared to Labour, there isn't much in it. Yet Labour won dozens more seats.

The link with constituency needs to be retained though. Perhaps a main PR house with an upper house with a more traditional MP to amend. Both fully elected.

Failing that just appoint important people to the Lords. It'll be much harder for minority groups to moan about discrimination if their leader or whoever sits in the Lords.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

Yes, we need at least one house to by proportionally elected.

Just look at the percentages of the population who voted in the last election for the Tories compared to Labour, there isn't much in it. Yet Labour won dozens more seats.

The link with constituency needs to be retained though. Perhaps a main PR house with an upper house with a more traditional MP to amend. Both fully elected.

Failing that just appoint important people to the Lords. It'll be much harder for minority groups to moan about discrimination if their leader or whoever sits in the Lords.

---

I think the membership of the House of Lords should be PR. The number of party Lords permitted to sit in the House should be the same as their proportion of the vote in a General Election. The Parliamentary Parties of MPs should elect which Lords sit to represent the particular party in the House of Lords. An independent commission should be appointed or elected by Parliament to appoint a number of Cross-bench peers to stir things up and prevent any party from having an overall majority without a considerably portion of the vote of the electorate.

I never understood what Blairs problem with an elected second chamber is. As long as it is set up properly, with it's parameters defined.

Having said that, Mr. 'control freak' Bliar might not like a chamber that could rival him and his government. Mind you, would he notice as he's hardly in Parliament these days ...hahahaha :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Having said that, Mr. 'control freak' Bliar might not like a chamber that could rival him and his government. Mind you, would he notice as he's hardly in Parliament these days ...hahahaha :laugh4:

---

Yep. At the moment Blair uses the 'it was passed in the elected house argument' to try to force laws through the upper house if the Lords are hostile to them. With a proportionally elected upper house, this argument would no longer work and Blair might have to actually compromise on something.

I would like to see the members of the lower house elected with the single transferable vote system, representing constituencies like they do now. Proportional representation could be used in the upper house.

Isn't it ironic how the House of Lords does a better job than the evelcted house of commons when it comes to filtering out the latest fevered "I can't believe it's a law!". Even when Blair riggs it as far as possible without barefacedly picking all his mates from the golf course he still gets blocked - bravo to them!

And I think that I am right in that the house of Lords members get a bery small amount of money per year, nothing compared to the amount that the commons vote themselves.

I like the idea of a second chamber based on the percentages in the country. Having them as the first house would be a recepic for nothing getting anywhere, but as a second it would be very useful - and as was mentioned the commons' ability to push through laws could then be abolished.

~:smoking: