On the brink of the second reading of the controversial Religious Hatred Bill in the British Parliament on Tuesday 21st June, evangelicals have stepped up their protest against the re-introduction of the Government’s forceful proposal.

The proposed Racial and Religious Hatred Bill will extend current offences on incitement to racial hatred under the 1986 Public Order Act. The aim of the bill claims to ban incitement of religious hatred so as to protect people from being victimised for their "beliefs". The law applies to comments made in books, plays and jokes or in the media, as well as through written materials.

The major criticism against the Bill is that it may undermine freedom of speech with its vague definition of "inciting religious hatred" which can be misused by radical religious groups to ban opinions that they find offensive.

Executive Secretary of the Free Churches Group, the Revd Mark Fisher, said to the Baptist Times, while he was encouraged by the Government’s motivation to "foster good relationships in our increasingly multi-faith society", there were some ‘serious flaws’ in the bill.

"Perhaps the most worrying aspect is that there is no requirement to prove an intention to incite hatred, meaning that one could fall foul of the law without knowing about it," Fisher said.

"I also wonder how one defines ‘hatred’ and, indeed, how one can legislate against feelings. It is understandable that there is nervousness that legitimate critique of other faiths and open debate will be stifled."

In addition, the Government has appeared to be very strong-willed in forcing through the Religious Hatred legislation. The strong opposition from a number of MPs, media workers and evangelicals have fallen on dead ears.

The Public Affairs Department of the Evangelical Alliance UK (EAUK) commented in its magazine June Edition, "This will now be the third time in four years it has tried to force this controversial measure through a reluctant Parliament. The difference this time is that it has threatened to use the Parliamentary Act to force the Bill onto the statute books... a popular mandate to bypass Parliamentary democratic processes with just 22% of the vote is difficult to justify."

It added, "Many observers regard the lack of promised consultation with faith groups before the urgent reintroduction of exactly the same piece of legislation."

Earlier this month, Dr Don Horrocks, Head of Public Affairs at the EAUK 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."

Evangelicals have pledged to continue to oppose the Bill as "a matter of principle and continue its commitment to defending religious liberty and freedom to preach the gospel." They called for participation of UK Christians to lobby the Government by writing an email or phoning to the Home Secretary Charles Clarke, local MPs or members of the Houses of Commons.

The Public Affairs Department of the EAUK further warned of the growing threat of religious freedom in the UK. It cited the example of the forthcoming Equality Bill where it would appear that public funding of voluntary work associated with religious groups may be withdrawn if any hint of "proselytism" is involved.

Today, a diverse coalition including MPs from all three main parties, civil rights activists, the comic actor Rowan Atkinson, the novelist Ian McEwan and the director of the National Theatre, Nicholas Hytner, will meet in the House of Commons to plead with MPs to kill the Bill.

According to the Independent newspaper, McEwan will be speaking publicly on this issue for the first time, describing it as "fundamentally illiberal, and likely to promote, rather than diminish, tensions between religious groups, and to exacerbate racial hatred".