I do not agree with the position of those who support the government's proposals to outlaw incitement to religious hatred.

They have dismissed the concerns raised by Rowan Atkinson (who fears that satirical or offensive comedians could be censored). We are reassured that the legislation is to be drafted only to include actual incitement to hatred and prejudice, not the mere lampooning or satirising of religions.


However, the ability to distinguish what is supposedly incitement from speech that ought to be protected is an impossible and ultimately pointless task.


Hatred is resultant on complex social constructs; usually developing in tandem with information or experiences gathered from many sources. It is unrealistic to identify a particular source of polarised speech as being responsible. Words supposedly inciting hatred can be subtle, posed as historical fact or scientific research, for example. Incitement is a dubious crime in any context, for it ironically undermines the notion of human agency, which is the crux of mens rea. A more mature standpoint would be to affirm that we know the distinction between words and their consequences.


In the US, freedom of expression is taken seriously; what has evolved there is the clear and present danger test.


An example of this is where words directly cause consequences in specific situations, for example, shouting in a crowded theatre. In terms of hate speech, there is no such causal relationship. Blaming violent acts or anti-social views on mere incitement by another effectively degrades the status of adult responsibility to the level of an attack-dog.


Darryl Bickler, Leeds