At the Telegraph, Michael Burleigh says the British Home Office’s “religious hatred” bill is a cynical ploy to buy Muslim votes.

In reality, evidence for “Islamophobia” - as distinct from a justified fear of radical Islamist terrorism or a desire to protect our freedoms, institutions and values from those who hold them in contempt - is anecdotal and slight. I have met one “Islamophobe” - the gay gentleman who cuts my hair, which is hardly a firm basis to jettison centuries of hard-won religious give and take.

The Home Office airily explains that the proposed legislation “will not interfere with legitimate debate or religious activities”. The proposals “carry a high threshold in order to protect freedom of speech”, whatever that means. Offensive words or actions “must be threatening, abusive or insulting and must either be intended or likely to stir up hatred”. “Hatred”, we are informed, “is a strong term going beyond simply causing offence or hostility”, and aimed at “groups” rather than “ideologies”. The ultimate arbiter of whether to bring a prosecution will be the Attorney General.

Rarely can legislation touching on so many historic freedoms and rights have been botched up and inserted in such an inappropriate context, allegedly at the behest of “key leaders in all the major faith communities”, none mentioned by name.

Leaving aside the prospect that Britain’s secular liberal comedians will become even less funny, there are the serious objections from those who feel the proposed law will inhibit religious debate, or stifle legitimate criticism of religious groups.

The Barnabas Fund, which campaigns for Christians in Islamic societies, rightly points to how such a law will make it harder for them to protect people whose choice renders them second-class citizens, or who are denied any opportunity to worship publicly. Expressions of support for an apostate like Hirsi Ali - who has pointed out that she would have been executed in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia or Syria - will potentially attract the unwanted attentions of the Attorney General, police and courts. So might anyone who feels moved to expose paedophile shenanigans in the Roman Catholic Church. And then there are cults. I happen to think that Satanists and Scientologists are mad; am I going to be prosecuted for saying so in print?

Instead of following the American government in making all foreign aid contingent on how societies treat religious minorities, notably Christians, the Government is cravenly allowing so-called leaders of the British Muslim minority to alter our fundamental laws.