Proceeding contribution from John Bercow (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 11 July 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on Racial and Religious Hatred Bill.
Racial and Religious Hatred Bill
I recognise that my hon. Friend is trying to improve rather than retard the Bill. However, I put it to him, without wishing to nit-pick, that the unspoken premise of new clause 2 appears to be that there should be no requirement to prove intention because people must simply be assumed to intend the natural consequences of their actions. That is a dangerous working premise. In matters of argument, whether political or religious, the assumption of rationality is rather dangerous.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 436 c606
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Arrests Incitement Exemptions Freedom of expression Protection Powers Publications Racially aggravated offences Muslims Religion Religious practice Religious hatred Religious freedom Religiously aggravated offences Racial hatred
- Legislation
- Racial and Religious Hatred Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 11:23:41 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_257270
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_257270
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_257270