header-logo header-logo

15 November 2007 / Steve Gallagher
Issue: 7297 / Categories: Features , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Trouble brewing

Will the new religious hate law help or hinder the cause of freedom? Steve Gallagher wonders

Despite the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (RRHA 2006) receiving Royal Assent on 16 February 2006, it was hoped by many commentators that no commencement order would ever be made for this potentially troublesome Act.

Unfortunately for them, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (Commencement No1) Order (SI 2490/2007) has implemented most of RRHA 2006 into the law of England and Wales from 1 October 2007.
After long debate over the original Bill the House of Lords watered down the government’s proposals, significantly affecting their impact:
- Unlike racial offences the offences must be “threatening” not just “abusive” or “insulting”.
- The words, actions, materials, recordings etc must also be “intended” to stir up religious hatred.
- Section 29B—the offence may be committed in a public or private place, but there is no offence if “the words or behaviour are used, or the written material displayed”, inside a dwelling and only heard or seen by other persons inside that or another

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll