Such measures don’t belong in an anti-terrorism bill.Furthermore, race and religion are wrongly linked together as if they were interchangeable. The bill takes the Public Order Act 1986 and simply inserts the words “or religious” wherever the phrase “racial hatred” appears This is inept even if technically effective. Moreover, by treating race and religion together, Parliament is in danger of entering areas from which it rightly withdrew over 100 years ago – the policing of what people believe and the vetting of how vigorously they press their religious opinions on others. We do not expect Parliament to be concerned with “standardising opinion or entrenching orthodoxy” as one MP put it. The courts should not become arbiters of what is acceptable in religious controversy.

Yet that is exactly what the religious clauses in the anti-terrorism bill would bring about.At least, that is what I think. Nobody can argue that I am definitely wrong because the likely consequences are unknowable, which itself is a reason for not proceeding. Let us start with the oft-quoted example of The Rev Ian Paisley MP. For as long as anybody can remember, he has been saying that the Pope, the revered head of the Roman Catholic Church, is the Anti-Christ It is hard to think of anything more offensive to Catholics. But if taken to court, I suppose Mr Paisley would say that, his words do not seem to have incited any additional hatred of Catholics. But we don’t know.As it happens, Northern Ireland provides a better example than this.

Would the enactment of the religious hate clauses in the anti-terrorism bill have been any use to the parents and girls at the Holy Cross School in the Ardoyne? Haven’t they experienced weeks of religious hatred as they have walked to their classes? The Attorney General could hardly brush a complaint aside in this case.Then the other day at the Tottenham Hotspur ground in London, hundreds of supporters held up posters carrying the single word “Judas” and directed them towards a former member of the club now playing for a rival team, Sol Campbell Were those actions designed to stir up hatred? Probably yes Were the sentiments religiously motivated? Probably not. But suppose that a complaint were made by Mr Campbell himself. Wouldn’t the police have to investigate?Would the author Salmon Rushdie, upon whose protection the state spent hundreds of thousands of pounds, now find himself prosecuted for writing a book with the same impact as Satanic Verses? And because religion isn’t defined in the bill, would cults get protection which they would otherwise not deserve? And so on.The Home Secretary cannot wish to be haunted by unintended consequences of his bill That is why he should withdraw the religious hate clauses. He doesn’t need them.aws globalnet.co.uk
More from Andreas Whittam Smith. My wife and son and I went to see the Harry Potter film on Friday, and we trooped out of the cinema after two hours hardly daring to look at each other It was one of the feeblest, thinnest films we had ever seen. The acting was either wooden or cosy, or both, and the famous names involved restricted themselves almost entirely to their trademark gestures – the Maggie Smith pursed lips, the Alan Rickman stare, the Robbie Coltrane hearty laugh (someone has to have a word with Coltrane before he turns into Brian Blessed). The special effects were sometimes impressive, in a sub-Gormenghast sort of way, the quidditch game was very well done (my wife said that she could never quite understand the rules in the book, but the film made it clear), but all in all it was about as stirring as a plate of cold porridge.

Not being a Potter convert, I was disappointed for different reasons. I simply felt it was a poor film without any real characterisation – all the characters are presented as goodies or baddies, with no reason given – and about as much storyline as a half-understood video game. They were additionally crestfallen because the film gave no real idea of JK Rowling’s world. All the niceties had been dropped, all the little significances of plot, all the things looking forward to the next episode, and all that was left were the stage trappings.”Also, Professor Dumbledore is meant to be a fearsome character,” said my wife “He is the one person of whom the villain is afraid. Yet he was played by Richard Harris as a nice old cleaning lady.”"When I get home,” said my son, “I’m going to get out the JK Rowling book and read it again to make sure that it is as good as I remember it to be, because if the film is right, I have made a terrible mistake.”I thought I would choose a different path out of depression.