Res Publica

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 41–53 | Cite as

Religious Hatred Laws: Protecting Groups or Belief?

Article

Abstract

This article examines the issues raised by recent legislation proscribing incitement to religious hatred. In particular, it examines how far arguments for prohibiting racist hate speech apply also to the prohibition of religious hate speech. It identifies a number of significant differences between race and religion. It also examines several questions raised by the prohibition of religious hate speech, including the meaning and scope of religious identity, why that identity should receive special protection, and whether protection should be directed to religious groups as groups or to their individual members. The central argument of the article is that the distinction between protecting religious groups from vilification and protecting their beliefs and practices from criticism—a distinction on which the British Government placed great emphasis in defending its legislation—is unsustainable. That conclusion is supported by the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights in cases in which it has upheld the curtailing of freedom of expression for the sake of protecting religion.

Keywords

Incitement to religious hatred Hate speech Freedom of expression Religious groups Religious beliefs Religious identity 

References

  1. Appignanesi, Lisa (ed.). 2005. Freedom of expression is no offence. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  2. Barendt, Eric. 2007. Free speech and religion: secular and religious perspectives on truth. In Censorial sensitivities: free speech and religion in a fundamentalist world, ed. Andras Sajo, 23–40. Utrecht: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Dworkin, Ronald. 2009. Foreword. In Extreme speech, democracy, ed. Ivan Hare, and James Weinstein, v–ix. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Goodall, Kay. 2007. Incitement to religious hatred: all talk and no substance? Modern Law Review 70(1): 89–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hare, Ivan. 2006. Crosses, crescents and sacred cows. Public Law 2006(3): 521–538.Google Scholar
  6. Hare, Ivan. 2009. Blasphemy and incitement to religious hatred: free speech dogma and doctrine. In Extreme speech and democracy, ed. Ivan Hare, and James Weinstein, 289–310. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Heinze, Eric. 2006. Viewpoint absolutism and hate speech. Modern Law Review 69(4): 543–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ignatieff, Michael. 2005. Respect and the rules of the road. In Freedom of expression is no offence, ed. Lisa Appignanesi, 127–135. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  9. Lester, Anthony. 2007. Free speech and religion: the eternal conflict in the age of selective modernization. In Censorial sensitivities: free speech and religion in a fundamentalist world, ed. Andras Sajo, 151–164. Utrecht: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Modood, Tariq. 2003. Muslims and the politics of difference. The Political Quarterly 74(1): 100–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Post, Robert. 1991. Racist speech, democracy, and the First Amendment. William and Mary Law Review 32(2): 267–327.Google Scholar
  12. Post, Robert. 2007. Religion and freedom of speech: portraits of Muhammad. In Censorial sensitivities: free speech and religion in a fundamentalist world, ed. A. Sajo, 329–351. Utrecht: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Pullman, Philip. 2005. Against Identity. In Freedom of expression is no offence, ed. Lisa Appignanesi, 105–115. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  14. Unsworth, Clive. 1995. Blasphemy, cultural divergence, and legal relativism. Modern Law Review 58(5): 658–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawsUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations