Proceeding contribution from Lord Plant of Highfield (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 25 October 2005. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Racial and Religious Hatred Bill.
Racial and Religious Hatred Bill
Because the point that I was making as my noble friend stood up arises. In the case of religious hatred there is a great deal more ambiguity about what is being said, what is being understood by what is being said and what is being read into what is being said. There is therefore an incentive for the person who claims to be disadvantaged or threatened by what has been said to over-exaggerate. I do not think that that degree of ambiguity is present in the case of racial hatred. It is important that in our amendments we have stuck with the idea of threatening language because that is much more objective than insulting language. Finally, we have a provision for—
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 674 c1092-3
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Incitement Racially aggravated offences Religion 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 20:19:53 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_269830
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_269830
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_269830