text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Racial and Religious Hatred Bill
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  <p>Those voting No agreed that the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/120/06120.1-6.html"> "Lords amendment No. 4"</a> should remain in the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/031/06031.i-i.html"> Racial and Religious Hatred Bill</a>.  This had been a replacement of most of its contents. </p>
  
  <p>The <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/011/2006011.htm"> the original version of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill</a> passed by the Commons on <a href="http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2005-07-11&number=35"> 11 July 2005</a> changed <i>"racial hatred"</i> to <i>"racial and religious hatred"</i> in several places in the Public Order Act 1986, and defined the offence with regard:
  
  <p class="indent">"to all... words, behaviour or material[s]... that are likely to be heard or seen by any person in whom... they are likely to stir up racial or religious hatred."</p>
  
  <p>In place of this, the Lords <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds05/text/51025-21.htm"> applied</a> "Lords amendment No. 4", resulting in a  version that said: 
  
  <p class="indent"> A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends... to stir up religious hatred.</p> 
  
  <p>It went on to be very specific about the rules in relation to performances, witnesses making accurate statements in court, and the right of free expression.</p>  
  
  <p>Had the MPs voted against this Lords amendment, the Government would have substituted <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/120/amend/60131m01.htm"> a  new compromise version</a> which was a combination of the two versions, but added the extra provision: 
  
  <p class="indent">[A person] is guilty of an offence if... he intends... to stir up religious hatred, or... <b>is reckless as to whether religious hatred would be stirred up [by his actions]</b>.</p>
  
  <p>It appears that the fundamental dispute is that the Lords require there to be an <i>intent</i> to stir up hatred, rather than the intention to, say, crack a funny joke which the police happen to believe could be likely to stir up hatred.</p>
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  
  <p><b>In summary</b>, it would appear that this Bill's "Schedule" primarily inserts a huge section of material into the Public Order Act 1986, which is not online.  <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/011/06011.i-i.html"> Version 1</a> was passed by the House of Commons on <a href="http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2005-07-11&number=35"> 2005-07-11</a>.  Then on <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds05/index/51025-x.htm#contents">2005-10-25</a> the House of Lords changed it to <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/031/06031.1-7.html#j610a"> Version 2</a>.  And this current, very seriously contested vote in the House of Commons, which this page is about, decided to stick by this version.  Had they voted against it (voting "Aye" to the motion "This House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment"), as the Government wanted them to, they would have replaced it with a <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/120/amend/60131m01.htm"> 
  Version 3</a>.</p>  
  
  