London (CNSNews.com) - Campaigners against a part of Britain's anti-terror bill that would make religious incitement a criminal offense declared a victory Wednesday after the House of Lords overturned the provision.
The religious incitement section was voted down 240-141, part of a string of defeats for the governing Labour Party. Some Labour lords refused to support their own party, while the provision was overwhelmingly opposed by Conservatives and "cross-benchers," or non-aligned Lords.
The bill now bounces back to the House of Commons, where Home Secretary David Blunkett has said he will attempt to reinsert several contentious measures.
Iain Bainbridge, a spokesman for the Christian Institute, said his group was glad that the Lords refused the incitement legislation, but promised to keep up the pressure on the government to drop the proposal altogether.
"We're pleased that it was voted down and that opposition stretched across party lines," Bainbridge said. "However, we are concerned that the government is going to try to reinsert this particular provision. We hope the House of Lords maintains its resolve."
The anti-terror bill will "ping-pong" back and forth between the Commons and the Lords this week until the full text of the legislation is agreed upon. In eight days of debate, the Lords struck down parts of the bill that would have allowed for the indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects without trial. Also defeated was a proposal to expand police powers to investigate terrorism.
Despite the setbacks for the government, Blunkett has promised that the bill will become law before Christmas. The strict deadline has raised the possibility of an all-night parliamentary session Thursday as Blunkett and his supporters try to wear down opposition in the Lords.
"We don't want to see a delay in the bill as a whole, but the religious incitement provision is very damaging indeed and should be blocked again," Bainbridge said.
The proposal attracted ire from a motley mix of conservative, civil liberties, gay and religious groups. Critics said the bill would curtail freedoms of speech and religion.
"Blunkett should realize that it's not only Christian groups he has to contend with," Bainbridge said. "This issue has united people who have been poles apart on other subjects."
John Wadham, director of Liberty, supported the stiff criticism of the anti-terror proposals by the Lords.
"We welcome the fact that Parliament is limiting the powers the government has sought to create for itself in this unnecessary and draconian measure," Wadham said. "We're not convinced of the need for any more anti-terrorism measures, given that the UK already has some of the most extensive anti-terrorism laws in the Western world.
"There's certainly no justification for smuggling in measures that don't relate to terrorism at all and seeking to rush them through Parliament before Christmas," Wadham said.
The Christian Institute continued its opposition even after the Labour government inserted an amendment that spelled out how the new incitement law would work in practice.
"We said from the outset that we didn't want politicians making decisions on religious practices," Bainbridge said. "The amendment proposed by the government would place enforcement of the law in the hands of the Attorney General. This is a very controversial area."
There were some signs of compromise on anti-terror legislation Wednesday. The home affairs spokesmen of both major opposition parties, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, expressed optimism that a pact could be reached by the weekend. The Christian Institute and other groups vowed to continue their opposition to the incitement provision, however.