British blasphemy laws

I learned today that Britain actually has a blasphemy law. It is a law that is mainly based on court cases. In 1977, a judge said that blasphemous libel was committed if a publication about God, Christ, the Christian religion or the Bible used words which were scurrilous, abusive or offensive, which vilified Christianity and might lead to a breach of the peace. But it is a bit of an anachronism, in that it only covers the Church of England. You would, for instance, be allowed to compare the pope to a donkey, but not Jesus, unless you were talking about him in his capacity as a prophet in the muslim faith, I guess. Then again, the House of Lords, in 2001, said that any prosecution under the laws would fail, because they clash with the, overriding, rights to free speech as enshrined in the European laws on Human Rights.
And now the government want to introduce a new law - incitement to religious hatred. Problem is that the definition is so sweeping, that it could cover anything. Not to fear, said the government, it won't be used that way. Say what? Time and again it amazes me how British politicians mix up the distinction between the legislative, the executive and the judiciary. When anti-terror laws were proposed, the home secretary, without giving it a second thought, said that he should say who should be confined, and that the only failsafe in the system was that a panel of judges could review the case in secret. Then when the judges overruled his decision, he said that he didn't agree with them and appealed!
So we are meant to feel safe that the full power of the legislation won't be used. What are we, stupid? Name me one law in history that was not (mis)used to its full potential sooner or later. A law should only be as powerful as it needs to be. That curtails the possibility of it being misused. If the legislative proposes a sledgehammer to crack a nut (as Rowan Atkinson said today), you have to ask yourself, and the legislative branch, why they are proposing a sledgehammer. "It will do the job" is not a sufficient answer. It's like peeling potatoes with a shotgun. No wait, if I aim very carefully, I can peel off the skin, and the heat from the blast will give them a nice crisp taste to boot.
So what's next? Oh yes, of course... ID cards, of course not compulsory. Look, a non-compulsory ID card is like a guide dog without a blind person: utterly pointless. Then again, I don't know what the point of ID cards is supposed to be, as no one has ever told us. Or at least given us any reason that rang true. Oh, I know what they're really for, don't get me wrong. And then there's limitations to trial by a jury of peers. Citizen classes in school are already in place, of course.
So tell me honestly... Am I being paranoid? Or it just that the docile masses are so drugged by television and supermarket food that anyone who takes a blind bit of notice appears that way? Hello... HELLO?!