Laws on harassment and incitement

Similar protections exist in Scottish hate crime laws, but explicit free speech protections do not exist in Northern Ireland. Further, we are concerned that people in England and Wales have been charged for behaviour that causes religious offence under laws that are not covered by the free speech protections of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act. We campaign to close these loopholes as part of our blasphemy campaign.

We also campaign to make sure that hate crime legislation across the UK is fit for purpose, providing protection for all victims of religion- or belief-based crimes. The crime of ‘religious hatred’ includes hatred against humanists and atheists in England and Wales, and humanists and atheists are at least somewhat protected by reference to a ‘lack of religious belief’ in Northern Ireland and Scotland. Crimes against apostates (those who have left high-control religions) because of their beliefs are also covered by hate crime laws. However, none of this is widely known, with even the Home Office expressing confusion, and crimes committed against apostates because of their apostasy are under-reported.

In depth

Protecting the right to criticise religion

We support the protection of vulnerable people and minority religious groups, as long as legitimate criticism of religions and religious practices is fully protected in law. In England and Wales, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 to include provisions about offences involving stirring up hatred against persons on religious grounds. Inciting violence against people was already illegal – what is now also illegal is to incite others to hate people based on their religious beliefs – or their lack of religious beliefs.

However, there is a very important section in the Act, which Humanists UK helped secure, which states:

‘Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.’

Similarly, Section 9(b) of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 provides that:
‘behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes discussion or criticism relating to, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult towards –
i) religion, whether religions generally or a particular religion,
ii) religious beliefs or practices, whether religious beliefs or practices generally or a particular religious belief or practice
iii) the position of not holding religious beliefs, whether religious beliefs generally or a particular religious belief.’

These protections make it clear that the law prohibiting religious hatred is not intended to protect the religion or belief itself, but to protect people. However, there are no such legal protections in Northern Ireland. Stirring up hatred offences under the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) (No 2) Order 2004 and the Public Order (Northern Ireland) 1987 do not sufficiently differentiate between prejudiced and discriminatory actions against people who identify as or are perceived to be a member of a particular religious group, and criticism of the beliefs, ideas, and practices that might fall under the umbrella of that religious belief.

Protecting the non-religious from hatred

The definition of religious hatred protects victims who could be targeted because of the absence of religion including humanists and atheists. However, this is far from obvious from a crime called ‘religious hatred’.

In England and Wales, the Explanatory Notes of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act state:

‘The offences also cover hatred directed against a group of persons defined by reference to a lack of religious belief, such as Atheists and Humanists.’

In Scotland, there isn’t the same reference to humanists being protected by the law. However, being an atheist or apostate is protected as Section 11(5)(a) of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 states that:

‘A group defined by reference to religion is a group of persons defined by reference to—

1) religious belief or lack of religious belief […]’

Similarly in Northern Ireland, for the purpose to aggravated hostility against a victim based on their membership or presumed membership of a religious group, Article 2(5) of The Criminal Justice (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, defines a religious group as ‘a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief;’

Humanists are defined by their positively held non-religious beliefs. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, a hate crime against a humanist may seem them protected still if it was because of their non-religious identity. But if it was because of their positive humanist beliefs then they may not be. The law is insufficiently clear in this area.

Further, there is widespread public confusion about this and even the UK Home Office gets it wrong. In 2018, when it reported hate crime statistics, as the BBC reported, ‘Police recorded 237 incidents where the perceived target religion was “no religion” at all. The Home Office told the BBC that it didn’t’’ know why some religious hate crimes had been recorded as “no religion” and that the figures were “experimental”.’ If even the Home Office doesn’t understand that the non-religious are protected, how are the public meant to know? How are the police?

This is symptomatic of the types of exclusion and misconception that occur when exclusive language is used: the fact that the law is called ‘religious hatred’ gives the impression that the non-religious are not considered or conceived of as being affected by hate crime. We contacted the BBC to correct the article to show that non-religious people could be the victims of religiously motivated hate crimes. We also contacted the Home Office. But we think the law needs to be changed to make it fully explicit that the non-religious are equally protected.

Hate crimes perpetrated against apostates because of their apostasy particularly go under-reported. In a survey published in 2019, Ellen Johnson at Sheffield Hallam University examined the experiences of hate crime among apostates in England and Wales. Of the 77 respondents, 81% indicated at least one experience of hate crime, with over 50% experiencing two or more types of hate crime. However, only 12% of incidents were reported to the police, and a further 4% reported to a third party. By comparison, the 2017 to 2018 Crime Survey for England and Wales reported 53% of hate crimes came to the attention of the police, and the 2012 to 2014 Leicester Hate Crime study found that 24% of victims reported their most recent experience to the police. Johnson concluded that even after considering the different criteria for data collection that the reporting rates of crimes committed against apostates are extremely low. Further, her survey revealed that 45% of those who had experienced a hate crime but had not reported it to police stated that they did not do so because they were ‘not aware that this may be considered a hate crime.’

These problems are compounded by the fact that the UK Government doesn’t collect data on crimes motivated by anti-apostasy.

What we’re doing

We campaign for crimes of ‘religious hatred’ to be renamed ‘religion or belief hatred’ or similar inclusive phrasing so that it is clear to all that hate crime laws cover the non-religious and apostates. Short of this, we believe that the UK governments and police should make it clear in all their work around religious hate crimes that the non-religious and apostates are included.

In 2019, Humanists UK and Faith to Faithless submitted evidence to the Commission for Countering Extremism on experiences faced by apostates in the UK in the context of tackling extremism. Lead Commissioner Sara Khan’s report, Challenging Hateful Extremism, echoed several concerns raised by Faith to Faithless. In a section scrutinising credible threats of serious violence, it noted Faith to Faithless’ evidence of extremists threatening apostates – including calls for them to be killed or punished – because they have left Islam. In another section on active or persistent hatred, harassment or intimidation of individual members of other groups, it recognised the abuse directed towards people for choosing to leave Islam. The report states: ‘Faith to Faithless described how their “workers, speakers, and advocates are attacked on social media on a daily basis” and stressed the negative effects it can have on their mental health and wellbeing.’

We welcome MHCLG’s definition on anti-Muslim hostility which strikes the appropriate balance of restricting speech that is harmful to people – whether they are Muslims or perceived to be Muslims – while rightly protecting speech that is critical of Islam as a religion. We believe this definition recognises the rights of former Muslims who may wish to talk about why they chose to leave Islam. Ex-Muslims are also frequently affected by anti-Muslim hatred themselves, as they may be perceived as Muslim because of their ethnicity, background, or name – and this definition recognises this experience as well. We had briefed the Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia Definition on these concerns, as well as the principles of equal treatment. For this reason, we would have preferred to see a definition that treated all forms of hostility based on religion or belief-based identities in the same way. Nonetheless, we welcome confirmation in the definition’s guidance that it does not grant special privilege or give preferential treatment to a particular community, nor is it about ‘protecting the religion of Islam’. It does not change what is lawful or unlawful in criminal law and equality law – and must not be used in this way. We also highlight that a policy definition alone will not end communal tensions and urge the Government and all public bodies to work meaningfully with diverse communities in order to enable a more cohesive society.

As part of our blasphemy campaign, we work to expand explicit free speech protections to other provisions in criminal law so that people accused of blasphemous expression cannot be charged when their behaviour is not a constituent part of a hate crime.

We condemn far-right violence directed towards Muslims and asylum seekers. This reflects both a failure by social media platforms and the state to tackle misinformation and incitement online, and a failure by the state to effectively counter the growth of far-right networks. Urgent action is needed on both fronts.

Campaigning in Scotland is led by our sister organisation Humanist Society Scotland (HSS)

Appendix: Past work on this issue

• In 2024, we gave evidence to the UN Human Rights Committee as part of its review into the UK’s human rights record. We called for any hate crime awareness-raising campaigns to be inclusive of the non-religious. In its concluding observations, the Human Rights Committee found that the UK needed to take steps ‘to establish a clear and comprehensive legal framework to ensure that the prohibition of hate crimes applies to ‘all protected groups’ and to ‘encourage the reporting of hate crimes’.
• In 2024, we welcomed Labour’s promise to strengthen hate crime laws ‘so every category of hate crime is treated as an aggravated offence’.
• In 2022, Northern Ireland Humanists responded to the Department of Justice’s consultation on hate crime legislation in Northern Ireland. As well as calling for the repeal of blasphemy laws, it also called for the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland to amend its guidance on hate crime to include specific references to the treatment of apostates and converts, and start recording incidents of apostate-based hate crime alongside other types of religiously-motivated hate. Neither issue was directly addressed in the Department of Justice’s Phase One report. It did however abandon the suggestion to include additional attitudes of ‘bias, prejudice, bigotry and contempt’ as indicators of hate amid ‘concerns about the need to protect freedom of expression and not criminalise disagreement’ in line with Northern Ireland Humanists’ response.
• In 2020, we welcomed the Scottish Government’s announcement that it would abolish the common law offence of blasphemy in Scotland as part of a modernisation of its hate crime laws. We supported HSS in its call to include humanists in protections against hate crime and for the Bill to protect the right to freedom of expression with regards to discussions of religious beliefs. We helped them bring together over 20 leading individuals and organisations from the world of arts, journalism, literature, comedy, politics and human rights to publish a joint letter to the Scottish Government calling for changes to the draft Bill, to ensure that protections against hate crime do not limit the right to artistic expression or freedom of expression with regards to discussions of religious beliefs. In 2021, we celebrated the passage of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill through its final stage of debate, which repealed blasphemy laws in Scotland when it came into force in 2024.
• In 2019, we wrote to the Law Commission pointing out the issues with the current name and definition of ‘religious hatred’ and in 2021, we responded to its consultation on hate crime laws. The Law Commission however rejected the idea that humanists were protected because of their positively held beliefs, but acknowledged that someone who ‘rejects all religious belief (for example, because they are an apostate’) could be the victim of a religiously aggravated offence. This seemingly was in ignorance of the explanatory notes of the 2006 Act making clear that humanists are in fact protected.
• In 2016, we called for action on hate crime and racism at the UN Human Rights Council, alongside British Muslims for Secular Democracy and Arab Humanists, following the rise in hate crime after the EU referendum.
• We lobbied for a number of years on the various stages of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill to help secure vital free speech protections which meant that the crime of stirring up religious hatred is correctly understood to mean stirring up hatred against people and not criticising, or being offensive to a religion or belief. From the time the Religious Offences Bill was introduced in 2002, until it finally became the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, we gave written and oral evidence to Parliament on incitement to religious hatred, and briefed parliamentarians.