THIS week saw the start of Ramadan — a time when Muslims focus on their faith and their identity. Until now many Muslims have felt that they haven’t received the legal protection they need. However two new pieces of legislation being prepared by the Government could change all that.
Traditionally, religious debate in Britain has been relatively unfettered. People have had the right, within reason, to say unpleasant things about each other’s religions or to shun people who don’t share their faith. Now the law looks set to intervene in an attempt to ensure fair play.
At the Labour Party Conference Tony Blair promised to bring in laws to put an end to religious discrimination. According to the Home Office, the new laws will include the provision of goods, facilities, services and premises. David Blunkett, Home Secretary, has also said he wants to bring in legislation against incitement to religious hatred. He suggests that this twin-pronged attack — against incitement and discrimination — will create a stronger and more harmonious society. However critics suggest that it will merely stir up a hornet’s nest and destabilise the current religious balance.
Although the law will affect all religions, it is widely seen as an attempt by the Government to win friends in the Muslim community. Certainly many leading Muslims have welcomed the initiative. Samar Mashadi is the director of the Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism, which has the backing of many major Islamic and interfaith groups. She believes new laws are needed to protect religious groups, particularly Muslims who have felt particularly vulnerable since September 11, 2001. “The majority of Muslims don’t feel protected by the law. We get attacked physically and verbally and are singled out in the newspapers.” She cites recent attacks on Muslim graveyards and mosques as an example of “a real rise in Islamophobia”.
Her views are echoed by Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain. “There is currently a hierarchy of rights. This new legislation should encourage Muslims to play a full part in helping to create a cohesive society.”
Existing laws offer limited protection to religious groups. Race relations legislation protects only racial groups. This means that Sikhs and Jews get some protection, because they are seen as racial groups but Muslims, Hindus and Christians are not protected in the same way. One major exception to this is in employment law where recent changes to European legislation have outlawed discrimination in employment on the ground of religion.
The proposed new laws have won the support of the Commission for Racial Equality. “We need an urgent drive to get equality and integration to minority religious groups in general and to British Muslims in particular,” says CRE chair Trevor Phillips. However not everyone agrees that new laws are needed. Labour peer Lord Desai says that this legislation will “open a can of worms”. “Religion is not a defined thing. How can you decide what counts as a religion? Should we extend protection to scientology? If one Muslim insults another from a different sect, we would have a lot of problems. And how do you protect freedom of speech? How do you decide when criticism is reasonable and when it becomes incitement to hatred?” He accuses the Government of taking a “hard cop/soft cop” approach. “They want to appear to be tough on Islamic extremists, but say ‘there there, we love you!’ to the wider Islamic community.”
Even the supporters of the new law on racial incitement envisage that it will limit freedom of speech. Samar Mashadi says: “People won’t be allowed to say that someone of a different faith is going to hell. They will have to articulate themselves in a more pleasant manner.” The Home Office admits there will have to be a careful balancing act, but says there is “a clear difference between criticising a religion and inciting hatred against its members”.
Lord Desai says the law is unnecessary. Although Muslims and Hindus may not be directly protected, overt discrimination against a religious minority (for example, a notice saying that Muslims were not welcome in a restaurant) would probably be seen as discriminatory against a racial group, such as South Asians, Arabs or Africans, and would be covered by existing laws. “I don’t feel that we need an additional level of protection,” he says.
The Home Office admits that there are problems in drafting a usable definition of what constitutes a religious group. Some supporters of the new legislation would like the definition to be left for judges to decide. However the Home Office said this week that it would be drafting its own guidelines. A spokesperson said: “There will be details in the proposals that we produce.”
Nor is there any certainty about who would supervise the running of the legislation, although the CRE has indicated that it would be willing to take on the additional burden if the Home Office approves.
The Home Office expects the anti-discrimination legislation to be introduced to Parliament next year. There is no timetable for the proposed laws against incitement to religious hatred.
Attempts to bring in legislation against incitement to religious hatred were previously defeated. Similar proposals in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill 2001 were thrown out, primarily because it was felt religious rights should not be lumped together with anti-terrorist initiatives.
Many senior officials have doubts about the new laws. Earlier this year the director of Public Prosecutions, Ken MacDonald, warned that communities might be disappointed with the new laws. “Communities think that the legislation stops people from insulting them. It does not.” He also pointed out that of 84 cases of incitement to racial hatred brought by the police over the past three years, only four led to a prosecution. Cases brought under any new laws on religious hatred, he suggested, might be even more problematic.
Another problem is that the law could as easily be used against Muslims as by them. Iqbal Sacranie is not worried about this. “It is a possibility. We are part and parcel of the community. If we incite religious hatred, we should be prosecuted.”
Despite these potential problems, the Government remains determined to push the proposals into law. “Faith plays a vital role in people’s lives — even for those who are not overtly religious,” David Blunkett says. “It is a strength of our society that people of many faiths respect each other. We have to protect that strength against discrimination and intolerance.”
