The controversial Religious Hatred Bill in Britain is one step closer to entering the statute book as it has passed over another hurdle - the second reading in Parliament - on Tuesday 21st June. The result of the vote was 303 to 246, which has probably caused deep concern from Christian evangelicals, civil rights activists, media workers, writers, as well as MPs from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties.

The proposed bill claims to ban incitement of religious hatred so as to protect people from being victimised for their "beliefs", in light of a growing multi-faith community in the UK.

However, opponents of the bill criticised that it may hamper freedom of speech with its vague definition of "inciting religious hatred" which many have said could be misused by radical religious groups to ban opinions that they find offensive.

The Public Affairs Department of the Evangelical Alliance UK (EAUK) complained that the government has been trying to push forward the forceful bill despite strong opposition from many different groups.

In its magazine's June Edition, it reported, "This will now be the third time in four years the government has tried to force this controversial measure through a reluctant Parliament."

Dr Don Horrocks, Head of Public Affairs at the EAUK questioned if the law was necessary. He said, "People should be very concerned about this unnecessary new law. It will have the effect of stifling robust religious debate at a time when people of all faiths need to be able to discuss ideas and concepts freely without fear of prosecution."

He continued, "There are major problems in legislating to make hatred against people on account of their religion and belief equivalent to race hatred. The two are not equivalent. If this legislation goes through we fear it could exacerbate religious tension and community division where none currently exists."

Amid the fear over the threat to freedom of speech, Home Secretary Charles Clarke defended the bill. He insisted that the bill is about "hatred and incitement to hatred", but it is not about "stopping anybody telling jokes about religion, stopping anybody ridiculing religions or engaging in robust debate about religion".

"It won’t stop people from proselytising and it will not curb artistic freedom. Neither the purpose nor the effect of this Bill is to limit freedom of expression," he emphasised.