Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper examines why there are different thresholds for the offences of stirring up racial hatred and stirring up religious hatred in the UK’s Public Order Act 1986. Concepts of genealogy, intertextuality and problematisation are used to structure a critical discourse analysis that traces different understandings of race, religion, and racial and religious hatred across legal texts. The analysis reveals a rift between assertions within parliament that race is an immutable characteristic, and much more flexible and inclusive judicial understandings of race. This finding challenges justifications for the legislative discrepancy and points to more progressive possibilities.