Before legislating on the basis of sexual orientation perhaps we should look at sex. Should we criminalise the stirring up of hatred against women? Why not, since there is a well-documented history of violence against women by men that is not matched by violence against men by women? Surely it is culturally developed hatred at its root? And if we did outlaw the incitement of hatred towards women, what proportion of art, literature, comedy and conversation would survive?

Dale, London,

If we go on like this, the only people we'll be allowed to hate will be white, middle-class heterosexual males.

Martin Evans, Newmarket, Suffolk

The problem is surely not that existing laws are available but that the police and CPS have long ignored using them to afford GLBT people the same rights the heterosexual, Christian majority take for granted for themselves. The solution is to include these groups in existing legislation and oblige the police to submit annual returns recording reports made and those proceeded with. Also if the police & CPS cannot or will not use existing laws to protect gays (such as criminal defamation laws against clergy who suggest that all gays are paedophiles or against Muslim preachers who demand gays are murdered) I suggest we see if the private sector can do better! Using the private sector to deliver where the police cannot is a preferable solution to further curtailing free speech.

Steve, London, UK

Steve Moxon brings up the poisonous Political Correctness that infects all walks of life in Britain today. May I recommend an excellent little book by Anthony Browne: "The Retreat of Reason: Political Correctness and the Corruption of Public Debate in Modern Britain"

Mike Mitchell, Spalding, England

We should have the right to give offence, and also the right to take it.

Mike Mitchell, Spalding, England

I hate this minority Labour Government. There, I'll say it whilst I still can !!

Miranda , Milton Keynes ,

Which bit of a "hate crime" is illegal? Is it the hate or is it the crime?

I would assume that it is the crime which is illegal and the crime which can be prosecuted under existing law.

All cases of ABH should be investigated and prosecuted and I don't see that a gay / christian / muslim (fill in the blank) victim is either more or less deserving thatn a victim who does not tick any of the boxes.

By making crimes agaist specific groups more important than the regular crime, the government marginalises the majority in return for greater access to justice for the minority.

Sounds to me like I am being discriminated against on the basis of being statistically uninteresting.

Bob, Reading,

Being neither religious nor gay, I don't have a vested interest concerning this issue. However, I am puzzled: if the religious leaders are so concerned about protecting freedom of speech, why are they not campaigning for the abolition of the blasphemy and "inciting religious hatred" laws as well?

Simon Hill, Exmouth,

In other news today, in the Sudan a British teacher is accused of 'inciting hatred'. It seems that 'inciting hate' is the new code word for political or religious censorship.

An ever-growing constituency of claimants is queuing up for 'protection' -- i.e. the right to stifle disagreement and the right to harass and threaten their special enemies. All these groups today seem and sound incredibly intolerant.

How does this ever-lengthening set of special privileges accord with the principle of equality before the law, and toleration of others?

Roger Pearse, Ipswich,

How many more idiot laws about upsetting other people are we going to have? I know this bunch of hoods masquerading as a government get their rocks off on creating a new crime every day but this is just a joke. There are already laws in place to deal with this stupid proposal, just as there were for stirring up religious hate.

One also notes that - and this is NOT a jab at Muslims, whom I believe in the very large main contribute greatly to our society - but what is the point of a law banning inciting religious hatred when it is NOT used when applied to Muslims? I refer you to the police being brought in on this basis when C4 broadcast a program demonstrating that there are mosques and Muslims in this country who do preach religious hatred.

A shambles. Indeed, "Political Correctness" is simply an excuse for wishy-washy thinking and a refusal to grasp nettles.

Jeremy Poynton, Fromeville, 51st State

Having had a think about this and being gay myself, I've come to the view that the existing offences of incitment to violence, murder etc when read with the previously passed measures which classify offences as aggravated by reason of homophobic or racist motivation, should be enough to protect us without getting into the arena of limiting free speech. I fund it deplorable that religions teach hate but as long as they do not teach violence then we can work to counter them through argument.

Jonathan M Smith, Edinburgh, UK

We live in insane times where truth is fully inverted.
PC shibboleth has it that certain sub-groups are dsadvantaged and in need of protection, but the main sub-group that is disadvantaged is that of lower status (the majority) of men.
This universal truth -- it is true of every society, however it is based -- in time will blow apart PC idiocy and make the times in which we currently live an historical laughing stock.

steve moxon, sheffield,

Apparently we can claim protection by law if we are "different." But
so are criminials and the legally insane. Should it not be a hate
crime to go against those people as well? Anything opposed to
what's good for us should be blessed by these new laws.

Hermann Burchard, Stillwater , Oklahoma

Soon we will be facing criminal charges for calling someone 'stupid', or 'ugly' or whatever you might think of calling someone. Sometimes i do feel that we no longer live in a democracy, because in a true democracy, one must be able to uphold their views without being hampered by the government... Legislation this, legislation that and down the drain, goes democracy!!! I do actually wonder, what future legislations will prohibit us from doing.

Jason, london, united kingdom

How very strange. Normally where there's a Incitement To Something offence, that something is itself illegal, such as incitement to violence. Do existing and proposed Incitement To Hatred offences mean that it is or will be illegal for me to hate homosexuals, the French, Christians or Muslims? Here I sense either an inconsistency in law, or an attack on freedom of thought.

What's wrong with simple banning incitement to violence? Hate/distaste/disagreement itself is not a problem and should not be illegal, it's only extending those feelings or inciting others to violence that are.

R Thrippleton, Cambridge,

Skylar may think it is "ludicrous" but similar legislation in certain Scandianvian countries has already led to criminal convictions of preachers for stating that they agree with the bible that homosexuality is sinful.

Many people were imprisoned, exiled or even executed during the English Reformation for holding views that were considered by the state to be "too Catholic" or "too Protestant", while to disapprove of the King's divorce was deemed high treason.

It seems that we are rapidly regressing towards such a state once again here in the UK, as the present government seems to determined to police our thoughts rather than the streets, and to punish those who dare to disagree.

Alan Marsh, Ely,

Baker-jordan. I agree with your comments regarding common sense, but as we've seen in the past, the PC brigade and our senile judges don't always use common sense.

Hamad Lone, London, England

Presumably Christians will be prosecuted for expressing their beliefs and for quoting the bible. Vicars and priests will be sent to prison.

Anyone prosecuted under this proposed legislation, when in court will be asked to swear an oath on that very same bible. This is absolutely insane.

Parliament has a duty not pass laws which bring the law into disrepute.

John, Liverpool,

One suspects the government is using such tactics simply to suppress debate on key issues.

We have a race-hate "crime" which makes it almost impossible to discussion immigration. At the very least, you're instantly labelled a racist.

I wonder whether this gay-hate "crime" is to dissuade people from debating the issue of single-sex partners adopting children. Personally, I think this should be avoided. All those who speak in favour of it are the partners, thinking of themselves, not thinking of the children.

Might be simpler if the government simply made it a "crime" to be in disagreement with whatever today's government policies are.

CB, Epsom, England

Just now we will be compelled to have at least one son or daghter "gay" It is PCism gone mad!!

Brian O Cinneide, eThekwini, Africa Borwa

While freedom of speech - for the most part - is important, why should LGBT people NOT have the protection of the law the way that other stigmatised groups do? And we are still stigmatised, no matter how out and proud we may be in our everyday lives.

This would simply mean that when there a clear hate attack occurs - and they do occur - the individual will have some solid support under the law to claim justice. It might also clamp down on some of the hatred incited by rap and reggae stars (see the article on Beenie Man's lyrics about killing gays and hanging lesbians), which is disgusting to hear.

No one deserves to have that kind of abuse flung at them, and a minority group that still provokes that kind of reaction amongst the ignorant should at least be able to feel safe in the knowledge that the law won't tolerate it.

Ellie, Derbyshire,

Our politicians should stay out of this. Why can't the ordinary man in the street say courtously what he believes about any issue?

Remember what your Mum said: "Sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never hurt you". She was right.

David, Poole,

I suddenly feel that freedom of individuals are being set aside in the name of 'protecting inviduals' from other individuals. The real problem in any occasion is balancing the rights of an individual to express himself against the right not to be harmed.

However, for us, harming our natural freedom of one will restrict the freedom of all because that freedom is given by the state and at different points it is also be taken away.

Liberalism should promote freedom of expression and this would allow the development of new ideas which maybe positive and negative on many occasions. At least this would allow the views of wider community to be heard rather than preventing thaughts and consiounce to flourish.

Ripon Ray, London, UK

I think all these laws should be scrapped - all of them. Then we can call people or things by the name that belongs to them

Phil, Preston,

Alan Marsh asks how long before it becomes a hate crime to criticise the government. There are those in Brussels who wish to see such proscriptions enshrined in law on our freedom of speech to criticise the EU institutions. From there to criminality of criticism of governmental incompetance is but a small step.

Stuart Buchanan, London, UK

To Skylar-
You can say that but how about your uncouth neighbor.....? He will claim you 'hate' him for his ignorance (as you see it )... and have brought 'distress' to him.. ...Damages awarded!

Joe, Boston, USA

It probably wont be long before we have legislation to deal with hate crimes against people that hate other people . Then presumably the whole thing will implode and we can all live our lives normally again!

Rod Munch, Northampton, UK

Gordon Brown has apparently at least one sensible cabinet minister. who proposes using the laws already on the statute book rather than wasting time, focus and money on creating redundant legislation.

This should be the message to all ministers - use the laws already available to you and do not waste public resources on the spin of new legislation

Stuart, Taunton,

How long before it becomes a "hate crime" to express the view that the government is incompetent?

Alan Marsh, Ely,

I can say that my (hypothetical, in this case) neighbour is a loud, ignorant man with an excruciatingly repugnant odour and no morality or social worth whatsoever without inciting hatred towards him or encouraging anybody to do any harm - bodily or otherwise - to him.

The argument that a law protecting homosexuals from hatred would hinder religious arguments against homosexuality is ludicrous. Anybody with common sense could note the difference between moral objection and blind hatred. A vicar saying that homosexuality is irreconcilable with Biblical principles is a world away from the hate-fueled rhetoric that calls for the mass extermination of LGBT people, or even people who simply call for harm. That vicar isn't calling for violence towards lesbian and gay people but expressing his views. The difference is obvious to anybody with a functioning brain. The right-wing Christian and Muslim groups should have nothing to worry about, and I suggest they find better arguments.

Skylar Baker-Jordan, Basingstoke,

Surely Britain is getting to a 1984 state where people are not being allowed to make their own decisions, only brainwashed by those who could easily be the very people we wish to avoid after centuries of fighting to win personal and reasonable freedoms? For example, I accept that homosexuality is a fact of life and even have homosexual friends, but I do not accept that they have to have public demonstrations celebrating the fact they are. I could express pity for these people because of their (in my opinion) un-natural condition, which any intelligent person would accept as being anatomically correct, who could then interpret this as a a "hate" crime, and even if it fails in Court, it would cost me (and those like me - in the majority it would appear,the expense of employing a lawyer, etc.

We are in great danger of suppressing freedom of speech in the UK and this must be avoided like the plague, for then we are in great danger of being ruled by evil people.

B J Deller, Marbella, Spain