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 the entire Schedule of the Bill (being most of its content), which itself made changes to the Public Order Act 1986.  </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> change "racial hatred" to "racial and religious hatred" in several places, and defined the offence in regard:
  
  <p class="indent">"to all... words, behaviour or material[s]... 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, on <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds05/text/51025-21.htm"> 25th October 2005</a>), the Lords applied their "Lords amendment No. 4" and made a more detailed (and readable) version that said: 
  
  <p class="indent"> 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.</p> 
  
  <p>and went on to be very specific about the rules in relations to performances, witnesses making accurate statements in court, and the right of free expression.</p>  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   should stand (it's already present in that version, here's <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/011/2006011.htm">the pre-Lords version</a>).  This was against the wishes of the Government who had their <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/120/amend/60131m01.htm">own amendments</a> prepared.</p>
  
  <p><b>What is "Lords amendment No. 4"?</b></p>
  
  <p>Lords amendment No. 4 can be found on <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/120/06120.1-6.html">this page on parliament.uk</a>. It was debated and passed in the Lords on <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds05/text/51025-21.htm"> 25th October 2005</a>. It replaced the entire Schedule in the original Bill (which edited Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986), replacing it with one that added a separate Part 3A instead. This had the main effect of making the law only criminalise "threatening" behaviour.</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>  
  
  <p>After working out what happened, someone else can volunteer to work out what all these different versions mean, and whether their differences were important or not, as some commentators are arguing.</p>
  
  