Check your content against UK speech law frameworks

Home / Blog / Religious Hatred vs Racial Hatred: Why the Law Treats Them Differently

← Back to Blog

Religious Hatred vs Racial Hatred: Why the Law Treats Them Differently

Published 9 July 2026

In 2006, Parliament created a new offence of inciting religious hatred — but deliberately made it harder to prove than the existing offence of inciting racial hatred. Under the Public Order Act 1986, you can be prosecuted for stirring up racial hatred using words that are "threatening, abusive or insulting." Under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, you can only be prosecuted for religious hatred using words that are "threatening" — abusive and insulting are not enough. That gap was the result of a House of Lords rebellion, a free-speech campaign led by Rowan Atkinson, and a fundamental question: should religious beliefs receive the same protection as racial identity?

Disclaimer: General information, not legal advice.

Racial Hatred vs Religious Hatred: The Threshold Gap RACIAL HATRED (POA 1986 Part III) Threatening, abusive OR insulting Intent OR likelihood. DPP consent. 7 years. RELIGIOUS HATRED (RRHA 2006) Threatening ONLY — abusive and insulting excluded Intent always. AG consent. 7 years. s.29J free-expression proviso: "discussion, criticism, antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse" of religions is protected No equivalent provision exists for racial hatred. Same model applies to sexual orientation hatred (CJIA 2008). Sources: POA 1986 Part III; RRHA 2006; CJIA 2008
The deliberate asymmetry: racial hatred has the lower bar. Religious hatred has the free-speech proviso.

The Lords Rebellion

The Labour government wanted religious hatred to match racial hatred — "threatening, abusive or insulting." The Lords, led by Lord Mackay of Clashfern and backed by Rowan Atkinson, argued religious beliefs are chosen and must be open to robust criticism. They amended the Bill to "threatening" only and added s.29J, which explicitly protects "discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse" of religions. The government fought it. The Lords insisted. The Lords won. The compromise created the asymmetry that persists: you can mock, satirise, and insult religious beliefs. You cannot threaten people because of them.

Sexual Orientation Hatred

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 followed the same model: threatening only, intent required, free-expression proviso. DPP consent. 7 years.

Practical Takeaways

  1. The threshold for religious hatred is higher by design.
  2. s.29J explicitly protects criticism, ridicule, satire, and insult.
  3. All hatred offences carry 7 years and require DPP or AG consent.
  4. A single message can engage multiple laws — the CPS chooses.

Sources