Remember a bit of a stramash in the media in 2006 about a proposed law on "Religious Hatred"? Well, it finally hit the Statute Book on the 1st October 2007.

You can find the Act by typing in "Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006" at www.statutelaw.gov.uk or contacting The Stationery Office, PO Box 29, Norwich, NR3 1GN; 0870 600 5522.

Actually, the Act is misnamed because nowhere does it refer to "race". "Religious hatred" is defined as "hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief."

The Act goes on to state that a person is guilty of an offence who "uses threatening words or behaviour" or "displays any written material which is threatening" or "publishes or distributes written material which is threatening" or engages in the "public performance of a play…which involves the use of threatening words or behaviour" or "presents or directs the performance" or "distributes, or shows or plays, a recording of visual images or sounds which are threatening" or if "a programme involving threatening visual images or sounds is included in a programme service" if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.

Clearly, cases will turn on what is considered "threatening", and whether there was an "intention" to "stir up religious hatred." Requiring an intention to do something is a more stringent requirement than requiring only that something is "likely" to produce "hatred" -- which is the requirement under the race laws (see editorial, July 06).

In this sense, it was thought that when some people were talking about "Muslims" and their Islamic religion they were really having a go against "Asians" or "Pakistanis" and thereby escaping prosecution under the race laws, for their sins.

Furthermore, those of us who are Christians, Hindus, or "people of no faith" were not "protected", at all -- shock, horror!

Yes, indeed, people who don't believe in religion at all, are now also protected against religious hatred?

So for example, next time you see a march-past of the Socialist Workers Party and you shout out, "Get a job you bunch of malingering, unwashed, low-down, atheistic Commies!" then you may be guilty of directing "hatred" against them on the grounds of their "lack of religious belief".

Seriously though, Sovereignty believes that all laws regarding "inciting hatred" of anybody, or anything, should be wiped from the Statute Book for the simple reason that "hatred" is not a crime. It is an emotion.

What's the difference? Say for example, someone carries a banner saying "Behead the Infidels", or "We hate Christians so let's go and burn down their Churches": That person is inciting crimes -- the crimes of murder and arson. Therefore, it's reasonable that such incitement to crime should itself be a crime.

However, if he carries a banner saying, "Christians are lower than dogs and should be despised" then he is being particularly unpleasant, provocative and offensive, and could even be said to be "inciting hatred" of Christians. But he is not inciting any criminal behaviour. He is inciting an emotion perhaps, but an emotion is not a crime. So the person should not be convicted of anything -- and should not suffer anything other than the general opprobrium from society which would normally ensue in the court of public opinion.

However, those who believe in these "hate crime laws" and who say that hatred is a crime, will say that hatred is a "crime" that is likely to lead to the other crimes of murder, rape, arson and assault being committed.

Perhaps they have a point about the emotion of hatred potentially leading to other nasty things, but they are 100% wrong to say that hatred, itself, is a crime.

It is an emotion, and making an emotion a crime, and a criminal offence to express, has no place in our Statute Book!

Let's leave the last word with Dr Denis Cooper who put it clearly in a letter published in The Times of 2nd February 2006:

The Rev Dr Nigel Scotland rightly questions whether all hatred is wrong (letter, Jan 30). Despite the careless language used in some sections of the popular media, the fact remains that hatred itself is not a criminal offence under existing or proposed legislation. Nor should it be, because it is simply not the business of the state to tell its citizens what they can and cannot think or feel.

Whether one form of hatred is more justifiable than another is entirely besides the point. As it is not a crime to inwardly entertain a thought or feel an emotion, it should not be a crime to outwardly express that thought or emotion to others.

There are well-tested laws relating to threatening behaviour, and the incitement of violence and other crimes, which can be used to protect individuals and ensure public order without suppressing free speech and flirting with the Orwellian concept of "thought crime".