If the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, gets his way, a new law will make it a criminal offence to 'incite religious hatred', ostensibly to protect people from being victimised for their beliefs. Does this mean that Ian Paisley will soon be dragged before the courts for preaching that the Pope is the Antichrist? Will the residents of Lewes in Sussex be rounded up for burning an effigy of John Paul II on Bonfire Night. Can imams reading passage 8:12 from the Koran expect to be arrested for saying: "[Allah] will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." The answer to all three is likely to be: No. Far from targeting those who use religion to whip up hatred of others, Blunkett's law actually gives added credence to those with exaggerated sensitivities who believe their faith is under attack.

If this law were implemented, the new president of the British Humanist Association, Linda Smith, would likely come in for attention from the Director of Public Prosecutions for her comment in this issue that she would like to "have a go at the Blairs. Him with his God bothering and her with her crystals." Criticism of the Prime Minister is legitimate and can be found in newspapers every day of the week, but criticising him on the basis of his supernatural beliefs would be verboten. If found guilty of incitement, the BHA's president could face a maximum of seven years imprisonment.

Oddly, many otherwise reasonable people have welcomed this law with open arms. Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, has argued that only people who wanted to be offensive to believers could object to such a law. This grossly misses the point: atheists are by definition offensive to believers, whether they want to be or not. In the same way, expressions of religious belief strike many atheists as offensive and even threatening. Does that mean such religious offensiveness should be banned, worse, subject to state–sponsored persecution?

However well–meaning this legislation may be, it is taking us into troubling territory: the concept that any ideology is sacred and its adherents beyond criticism undermines the culture of free and open debate which has attracted so many people to this country, from Karl Marx to Abu Hamza al–Masri.

As Nick Cohen argues in these pages, Blunkett's proposed law is unworkable and unnecessary. Existing laws more than adequately protect people from harassment and abuse.