The IT asked the Department of Justice what the aims of the bill are. Lovely. The Department drafted the bill, of course they will say it only has the highest aims.
I wonder if the bill makes it an offence to rage against lazy and stupid journalism.
Section 7 says:
a person shall be guilty of an offence under this section if—
- (a) the person—
(i) communicates material to the public or a section of the public, or
(ii) behaves in a public place in a manner,
that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of their protected characteristics or any of those characteristics, and
(my emphasis). Well incitement to violence seems straightforward enough. I see no problem in criminalising that.
But what on earth is incitement to hatred ?
These things seem only to be offences against persons on account of their protected characteristics.
So 'lets all hate michaelm' is not a crime, whereas 'lets all hate Purple' is. Colour is one of the protected characteristics.
Section 9 says:
A person may be found guilty of an offence under section 7 or 8 irrespective of whether the communication of material or behaviour the subject of the offence was 20 successful in inciting another person to violence or hatred
and goes on to say
(the person) made the material available on a platform that is or may be accessible by the public or a section of the public,
Comments on AAM included it seems.
In my opinion incitement to hatred is too open to interpretation and creeping interpretation, and the idea of protected characteristics offends me. If it is wrong to incite to hatred, and despite my misgivings about the definition of hatred I think it is, it should be wrong to incite hatred against anyone, not just those who fall into one of the protected categories.
Here is the bill in full.