Here is Mel P writing on her blog in 2005 about why it is right to have incitement to racial hatred laws but not incitement to religious hatred laws:
“Attacking people on account of their race is to attack what they are. Attacking people on account of their religion is to attack what they think. The former is an uncivilised attack on our common humanity. The latter is an integral part of debate in a liberal democracy.”
Here is Mel P in 2011:
“…the moral depravity of the Arabs is finding a grotesque echo in the moral bankruptcy and worse of the British and American ‘liberal’ media…To the New York Times, it’s not the Arab massacre of a Jewish family which has jeopardised ‘peace prospects’ — because the Israelis will quite rightly never trust any agreement with such savages — but instead Israeli policy on building more homes, on land to which it is legally and morally entitled, which is responsible instead for making peace elusive. Twisted, and sick.”
An “uncivilised attack on our common humanity”…I couldn’t have worded it better myself.
Update: Here is Mel P writing in 2006 in support of the imprisonment of David Irving:
“For the issue raised by the Irving case is not one of freedom of speech. It is incitement of racial hatred…Context is everything. Irving’s statements are not a simple matter of gross historical error. They are not even merely an expression of prejudice. They are an active incitement to hatred of the Jews.”