united-kingdom england-and-wales freedom-of-speech
What are the differences between the respective legal standings of anti Semitic and anti Jewish expressions?
<p>I have heard people be accused in the past of &quot;promoting/spreading religious hatred&quot; before, as though these are legal terms. Are these phrases legally defined?</p>
<p>Onto the titular part of the question, is any distinction made between critiquing Judaism as a sin on an ideological basis, rather than the Jewish race of sinners on an ethnic one if you will?</p>
<p>Is there anything legally wrong with shouting in front of some Jews that &quot;Judaism is bad for your health&quot; in a hope to benefit them by turning them away from what one views as the toxic harm of Judaism?</p>
<p>If one believes that Judaism as a system of thought and belief is evil, surely it must be legally protected to express that viewpoint as one is talking about a set of ideas rather than a set of people?</p>
<p>The fuzzier aspect of the question then comes in from why it isn't okay to criticise a set of people that is defined by the adherents of a particular set of objectionable ideas, but really I would hope that it isn't legally questionable either but completely protected. Because if one can't oppose sets of ideas along with their real world adherents like fascists as agents of fascism, that is a very dangerous road for society.</p>

<p>It is not an offence in itself to critique or criticise a religion - one can search the Crown Prosecution Service's website and UK media outlets to find out what kind of behaviour has been prosecuted and convicted.</p>
<p>Refer to <a href="https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance#a16" rel="noreferrer">&quot;Annex A - Legislation used to prosecute Racist and Religious Crime&quot;</a> in <a href="https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance" rel="noreferrer">Racist and Religious Hate Crime - Prosecution Guidance</a> for a summary table of offences with legislation and sentencing.</p>
<p>In the context of your question(s) the most relevant legislation seems to be the Public Order Act 1986 (as amended). This defines racial hatred and religious hatred and related offences:</p>
<ul>
<li>the use of threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour with intent to stir up racial hatred or likely to stir up racial hatred</li>
<li>the use of threatening words or behaviour with intent to stir up religious hatred</li>
</ul>
<p>The Act provides for a statutory defence of freedom of expression in relation to religious hatred but not racial hatred.</p>
<p>The relevant position of the prosecuting authority of England and Wales, the Crown Prosection Service, is (with my hyperlinks to the legislation):</p>
<blockquote>
<ol start="2">
<li>Stirring up hatred on the grounds of race and religion</li>
</ol>
<p>Parts <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III" rel="noreferrer">3</a> and <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/3A" rel="noreferrer">3A</a> <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/contents" rel="noreferrer">Public Order Act 1986</a> cover stirring up hatred on the
grounds of race and religion. As with all hate crime, any initial
report to the police will be assessed by applying the police/CPS
definition of what constitutes a hate incident/crime before more
detailed consideration of the evidence and charging options.</p>
<p>We acknowledge that people have a right to freedom of speech. It is
essential in a free, democratic and tolerant society that people are
able to exchange views, even when these may cause offence. However, we
will balance the rights of an individual to freedom of speech and
expression against the duty of the state to act proportionately in the
interests of public safety, to prevent disorder and crime, and to
protect the rights of others.</p>
<p>Stirring up racial hatred, defined by reference to colour, race,
nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins is
committed when someone says or does something which is threatening,
abusive or insulting, and the person either intends to stir up racial
hatred, or make it likely that racial hatred will be stirred up. It
covers behaviour such as making a speech, posting material online,
displaying a poster, performing a play or broadcasting on the media.</p>
<p>Stirring up religious hatred is committed if a person uses threatening
words or behaviour, or displays any threatening written material, and
intends to stir up religious hatred against a group of persons defined
by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief. It
covers the same behaviour applicable to stirring up racial hatred.</p>
<p>Stirring up religious hatred is limited to threatening words or
behaviour and we have to prove intent. Additionally, there is a
freedom of expression defence contained in Section 29J, but no
corresponding statutory defence for the racial offence.</p>
<p>Any prosecution for the offence of stirring up hatred on the grounds
of race or religion requires the consent of the Attorney General. For
more information see the section on stirring up hatred in the
prosecution guidance: <a href="https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance" rel="noreferrer">Racist and Religious Hate Crime</a>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>From Wikipedia, a great explanation:</p>
<p>The Act amends the Public Order Act 1986 as follows:</p>
<p>Section 29A
Meaning of &quot;religious hatred&quot;
In this Part &quot;religious hatred&quot; means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.
Section 29B:
(1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
The Government's plan was simply to add 'or religious' after 'racial' in the existing law, which would then have penalised use of 'threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour'. Critics of the Bill (before the removal of the words 'abusive or insulting ' and the addition of a requirement for the intention of stirring up religious hatred) asserted that the Act would make major religious works such as the Bible and the Quran illegal in their current form in the UK. Comedians and satirists also feared prosecution for their work. While sympathising with those who promoted the legislation, actor and comedian Rowan Atkinson said: &quot;I appreciate that this measure is an attempt to provide comfort and protection to them but unfortunately it is a wholly inappropriate response far more likely to promote tension between communities than tolerance.&quot;[5] Leaders of major religions and race groups spoke out against the Bill, as did non-religious groups such as the National Secular Society, English PEN and Humanists UK (who had since 2001 been pointing to the vital differences between ethnicity and religion when the context was restricting freedom of speech).</p>
<p>Supporters of the Bill responded that all UK legislation has to be interpreted in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998, which guarantees freedom of religion and expression, and so denied that an Act of Parliament is capable of making any religious text illegal.</p>
<p>The House of Lords passed amendments[6][7] to the Bill on 25 October 2005 which have the effect of limiting the legislation to &quot;A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening... if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred&quot;. This removed the abusive and insulting concept, and required the intention – not just the possibility – of stirring up religious hatred.</p>
<p>The Government attempted to overturn these changes, but lost the House of Commons votes on 31 January 2006.</p>
