---

Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman wholly fails to grasp the point that, as the Home Secretary stated this afternoon, if there is a necessity for clarification in the drafting process—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman can restrain himself and keep calm, he will be able to make a speech in a few more minutes and deprive his colleagues of yet more time. Let me return to another expression of faith that the hon. Member for North Antrim might wish to restate:"““There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.””" I am sure that some Catholics would understandably find that deeply offensive, but it would not be caught by the Bill. If I thought for a single instant that it could, I would be unable to support it. I am glad that the Home Secretary made that clear this afternoon, but it may be necessary to clarify it further in Committee. Not only would the 39 articles and the Westminster confession not be caught by the Bill, but neither would ““The Satanic Verses””. Several Opposition Members, although they spoke genuinely, called not only for freedom of speech—which, as the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) said, is not absolute, as several laws, not least in relation to intellectual property and libel, have made clear—but, in effect, for freedom for hateful theology. It is right that there should be a very high threshold for the Attorney-General before he agrees to go forward with a prosecution, partly because of the question of intention. One of the aspects that we will need to tease out in Committee is precisely how intention is measured. Strict liability as it has historically been applied—certainly, since 1979, to the blasphemy laws—would be inappropriate were we to try to assert it in this context. Similarly, it is important to tease out in Committee the likelihood of somebody being incited to racial hatred by the words that were said. None of my examples from the Westminster confession or the 39 articles would, on any common-sense basis, be assumed to be likely to lead to incitement to racial hatred. Further, we should consider whether the language in which somebody advances an argument is temperate or intemperate, and whether people are using contumelious abuse, as they all too often are. In those cases, yes, I believe that there should be prosecutions. I would say to the hon. Member for North Antrim—it is a great shame that he is not in the Chamber—that when he talks of how he would like to be able to use robust language, he should remember the Letter to James, which issued very precise injunctions on how careful one should be about the use of language. Let us consider whether we choose our religion. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) let the cat out of the bag when he said that he was the first Member of Parliament for Henley who was the grandson of a woman born a Muslim. Many people in the world never choose their religion. To all intents and purposes, it is chosen for them by their family and parents.