Yet again on insult and religion

One of those whom Terry Eagleton credits as fitting the model of the classic intellectual is Polly Toynbee, often the target of mocking comment in the blogosphere, but who talks more than her share of good sense. So she does today in this piece on the proposed legislation against incitement to religious hatred. She rightly says:

The natural allies of the rationalists have decamped. The left embraces Islam for its anti-Americanism. Liberals and progressives have had a collective softening of the brain and weakening of the knees. While they have a sympathetic instinct to defend harassed minorities, they prefer to abandon some fundamental principles and prevaricate over some basic freedoms than to face up to the damage religions do...

Of course, religions are far fom being the only belief systems which do damage, but for the rest Toynbee's comment is to the point. I posted my view about this issue just over a week ago, and nothing of the considerable amount I've read on it since has persuaded me against what I argued then. Polly Toynbee reports that:

He [Iqbal Sacranie of the mainstream Muslim Council of Britain] expects the new law to protect "cherished beliefs", while David Blunkett in the Commons assured his critics it would do no such thing. Dead prophets and holy books would be as open to criticism and ridicule as ever. The law will protect the believers, not their beliefs.

... Ministers keep reassuring critics that "only four or five people a year" are likely to be prosecuted in rare cases.

As I said in my original post, I'm not an expert on the law; but I'll take my chances against most people when it comes to care of formulation. To conjoin 'insulting' with 'likely to stir up racial hatred' (my italics), in reference to religion, religious identity and religious feeling, is not a very constraining use of words. Against this, reassurances that the words will always be wisely interpreted aren't too... well, reassuring.