Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Unpalatable in word or deed: hostility, differe...
View graph of relations

Unpalatable in word or deed: hostility, difference and free expression.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Unpalatable in word or deed: hostility, difference and free expression. / Bryan, Ian.
In: Crimes and Misdemeanours: Deviance and the Law in Historical Perspective, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2007, p. 126-153.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Bryan, I 2007, 'Unpalatable in word or deed: hostility, difference and free expression.', Crimes and Misdemeanours: Deviance and the Law in Historical Perspective, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 126-153. <http://www.research.plymouth.ac.uk/solon/journal/issue1.2/Bryan%20final.pdf>

APA

Vancouver

Bryan I. Unpalatable in word or deed: hostility, difference and free expression. Crimes and Misdemeanours: Deviance and the Law in Historical Perspective. 2007;1(2):126-153.

Author

Bryan, Ian. / Unpalatable in word or deed: hostility, difference and free expression. In: Crimes and Misdemeanours: Deviance and the Law in Historical Perspective. 2007 ; Vol. 1, No. 2. pp. 126-153.

Bibtex

@article{406a5c42bb62465c963d5cb552ce9201,
title = "Unpalatable in word or deed: hostility, difference and free expression.",
abstract = "This article conducts a review of the principal tools used in English criminal law, from the early modern period to the present, to impose limits on free expression, particularly the freedom to exhibit {\^a}��hate{\^a}��, in pursuit of social order and to police the boundaries at which the acceptable is segregated from the unacceptable. Against this historical backdrop, the article assesses the controversial Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, pointing to (dis)similarities with the preceding Bill and with the incitement to racial hatred measures on which the 2006 Act is modelled. The discussion also explores whether, in light of European and domestic human rights law, the English law of blasphemy should be abolished. It continues with an evaluation of how far existing public order legislation, regarding {\^a}��racially or religiously aggravated{\^a}�� offences, are adequate to cover the ground addressed not only by the newly enacted incitement to religious hatred offences but also both the older incitement to racial hatred legislation and the common law as to blasphemy. It is argued that conflict over the mobilisation of criminal law to promote public civility is intrinsic not only to criminal law past and present but also to any pluralist polity committed to addressing social inequality.",
keywords = "blasphemy, incitement to racial hatred, public order law, Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006",
author = "Ian Bryan",
year = "2007",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
pages = "126--153",
journal = "Crimes and Misdemeanours: Deviance and the Law in Historical Perspective",
publisher = "SOLON",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Unpalatable in word or deed: hostility, difference and free expression.

AU - Bryan, Ian

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - This article conducts a review of the principal tools used in English criminal law, from the early modern period to the present, to impose limits on free expression, particularly the freedom to exhibit �hate�, in pursuit of social order and to police the boundaries at which the acceptable is segregated from the unacceptable. Against this historical backdrop, the article assesses the controversial Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, pointing to (dis)similarities with the preceding Bill and with the incitement to racial hatred measures on which the 2006 Act is modelled. The discussion also explores whether, in light of European and domestic human rights law, the English law of blasphemy should be abolished. It continues with an evaluation of how far existing public order legislation, regarding �racially or religiously aggravated� offences, are adequate to cover the ground addressed not only by the newly enacted incitement to religious hatred offences but also both the older incitement to racial hatred legislation and the common law as to blasphemy. It is argued that conflict over the mobilisation of criminal law to promote public civility is intrinsic not only to criminal law past and present but also to any pluralist polity committed to addressing social inequality.

AB - This article conducts a review of the principal tools used in English criminal law, from the early modern period to the present, to impose limits on free expression, particularly the freedom to exhibit �hate�, in pursuit of social order and to police the boundaries at which the acceptable is segregated from the unacceptable. Against this historical backdrop, the article assesses the controversial Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, pointing to (dis)similarities with the preceding Bill and with the incitement to racial hatred measures on which the 2006 Act is modelled. The discussion also explores whether, in light of European and domestic human rights law, the English law of blasphemy should be abolished. It continues with an evaluation of how far existing public order legislation, regarding �racially or religiously aggravated� offences, are adequate to cover the ground addressed not only by the newly enacted incitement to religious hatred offences but also both the older incitement to racial hatred legislation and the common law as to blasphemy. It is argued that conflict over the mobilisation of criminal law to promote public civility is intrinsic not only to criminal law past and present but also to any pluralist polity committed to addressing social inequality.

KW - blasphemy

KW - incitement to racial hatred

KW - public order law

KW - Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006

M3 - Journal article

VL - 1

SP - 126

EP - 153

JO - Crimes and Misdemeanours: Deviance and the Law in Historical Perspective

JF - Crimes and Misdemeanours: Deviance and the Law in Historical Perspective

IS - 2

ER -