Incitement to Religious Hatred

As you all should know by now (I only found out yesterday), the Public Order Act 1986 is being extended to make it an offence to incite Religious Hatred (I already see trouble brewing). But what does this really mean? The Home Office website attempts to explain the Act (the word to focus on is 'attempts') but still I remain somewhat mystified as to what this really means, because from what I've gathered this new law seems to be a load of horse's testicles (in the kindest possible way to the horse), which is providing our police with uncessesary powers.

Is the Order implying that if I make a religion in which the meaning of life is cannibalistic: to eat 300 humans, and then if someone begins to swear at me on the street and calling my religion names and begins to urinate on me as I try to walk away, then those people shall be inciting religious hatred against me and can be arrested? How odd and a shame on the people that have to spend 7 years in prison because I as a follower of religion should be protected from such people (sarcasm).

The Order claims that the following people could be arrested:

Individuals and members of extremist and racist organisations and parties who stir up hatred of groups defined by their religious beliefs. Also, religious extremists who stir up hatred against members of other religions.

What I would like to know is what is the difference between an extremist and a person who likes to fully use their powers of freedom of speech? I say this because the Home Office claims that the following situations are not covered by the new legislation:

Criticising the beliefs, teachings or practices of a religion or its followers; for example by claiming that they are false or harmful;

Consider this situation. I am a person who wishes to find a flaw in a so called "religion" and so I find that Christianity, Islam and all other faiths are not only untrue, they are also going to be the cause of the end of human existence. I am the only person which knows this and in order to tell the world of my findings, I am forced to preach what I consider to be the Truth by only using my freedom of speech. However, the rest of the world (because everyone believes in the same lie and perceives that lie as truth) is against me and accuses me of religious incitement. Now what would the law do in this situation?

If the law arrests me then they have not done justice because they are then guilty of stopping me from saving the world and have also took away my birth right to the freedom of speech. Also, they have arrested me on false grounds because as far as I am concerned, I was only using the full extent of freedom of speech which the people grossly misinterpreted as incitement. If however the law does not arrest me then what reflection is this on that law? I'll tell you! It tells us that this law is about as useful as a rat on ASBOs.

The following questions are raised and remain unanswered by this law:

• If everyone believes in a fallacy, does it make it the Truth? Surely the Act is based on individual judgment of what can be considered to be extreme and the law could be guilty of defending a set of beliefs over another set of beliefs, which is not the purpose of justice
• Why should anyone get to decide how extremism differs from freedom of speech?
• The law has been made in the attempt to patch a loophole in the system whereby Sikh and Jews are protected from religious incitement but Christianity and Islam are not. However, is this law not creating a whole new loophole of its own by creating a conflict between freedom of speech and by attempting to define an extremist?
• Why should a government intervene in regulating so called "religious incitement" when the very cause of this incitement is the freedom of speech?
• I can predict that the introduction of this law is going to create more problems than it will solve. If this is so then what is the point of introducing this law in the first place?
• Religion is really only a set of beliefs. In the same way I could believe that the world is flat but it does not make it so. The truth is that some so called "religions" deserve to be eradicated from this Earth because they cause only war, destroy innocent people, are only concerned with profit margins and destroy our basics freedoms of life which so many have died to protect

However, I can see that the law was introduced in good faith but it still remains one of those "grey" legislations that needs to be torn apart and recycled. Also, I cannot answer these questions, partly because I cannot be bothered to, but at least the issue is out in the open and I hope that our government shall clarify it, which they currently do not have a track record of doing (like...at all) and I hope that the government shall do justice, if to no one else, then at least the horse that has been disgraced at the beginning of this article. Good day my fellow feathery ferrets.