Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Lord Goldsmith backs Brown in feud with Reid

Francis Elliott,Whitehall Editor
Saturday 25 November 2006 20:00 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

A bitter Cabinet row over the new religious hatred laws has been laid bare in private correspondence between the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, and the Home Secretary, John Reid, passed to The Independent on Sunday.

The acquittal of Nick Griffin, the BNP leader who called Islam "a wicked, vicious faith", exposed a loophole in British race hate laws earlier this month.

But the Cabinet is divided over whether, with the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act, the Government has done enough to close the gap.

Now a letter from Lord Goldsmith makes clear that the Attorney General agrees with senior ministers such as Gordon Brown who want the Government to admit that the new Act is practically useless.

The Attorney General's letter - dated 15 November - informs Mr Reid that the Crown Prosecution Service believes Mr Griffin would have walked free, even he had been if prosecuted under the new Act.

"Our judgment is that the new religious hatred law would not have assisted the prosecution here. This is because the law was so diluted in its passage through Parliament."

He points out that Mr Griffin had not used "threatening" words, as required by the 2006 Act, which insists on "proof of intent to stir up religious hatred" and includes wide "freedom of expression" provisions.

Lord Goldsmith tells Mr Reid bluntly that "the 2006 Act will have a very limited impact on this when it comes into force".

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in