---

Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

The United Kingdom has a long tradition of freedom of speech, and I believe that the Bill will curb that freedom. Such concerns are shared not only in the House but outside it by people of all faiths and of none. A spokesman for the Central London mosque said that he was"““more worried than comforted by these proposals””." Muslim journalists and writers are worried that the Bill will inhibit their ability to publish critiques of other religions and those who claim no belief or religion. Christian groups are concerned about the Bill’s impact on faith schools and the freedom to continue to preach their claims of the exclusivity of Christianity. However, concerns about the Bill are not confined to faith groups. The National Secular Society argues that the Bill"““will have the effect of restricting the expression of thought and opinion””." Some hon. Members have expressed the same view today. The society goes on to say that the measure will be"““an invitation to religious extremists to use the courts to silence critics of their activities””." I believe that the Bill is in danger of creating a cordon sanitaire around centuries of free speech and religious debate. I fear that it will diminish personal freedoms, restrict academic scrutiny and hinder the helpful probing of social commentators. It will be an unnecessary straitjacket on democracy and, at a stroke of a pen, end centuries of enlightening discourse about the rights and wrongs of religion and the need or, indeed, the lack of need for religion in our society. [Interruption.] I hear some murmurings on the Government Front Bench and I recognise an old adversary and, indeed, honourable friend, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality. I shall give an example. Both Islam and Christianity are missionary religions. They require people of their faith to share their faith, proselytise, evangelise and engage in debate with those of other religions and of no religion, sharing the attractions, necessity, virtues and compelling nature of their belief. Part of that mission includes ““differentiation””—highlighting key differences between them and other beliefs. The Bill runs the serious risk of preventing the presentation of such differentiation and thereby threatens a key freedom of both faiths. On the question of exclusivity, I want to ask the Minister whether, as a result of the proposals in the Bill, religions will still be able to claim that they are exclusive, and the only way to God. What would happen if such a claim by a particular religion offended someone in my local community? Would the police have to act? Would the Attorney-General of the day be forced into a political position in which he or she felt that they no choice but to act, however subjective the charge might be? Would atheists be able to continue to claim that Muslims or Christians were deluded because to believe in the existence of a transcendental being is folly and foolishness? Would those who sought to challenge faiths that question homosexual lifestyles be able to continue to do so? I note that Gay Times suggests that the proposals"““would make it illegal to take issue with orthodox religious views of homosexuality””." All people have the right to hold robust views on religion. I look forward to the Minister’s response to these questions. The trouble with the Bill is that it will seamlessly allow the offended against to determine how offended they have been, rather than allowing the evidence of the offence itself unquestionably to show the offence. Thus, the giving of offence changes into an offence itself. Indeed, the lack of a definition in the Bill of terms such as ““hatred””, ““religion”” and ““beliefs”” could raise the issue of subjectivity by the courts—and, perhaps more worryingly, the Attorney-General—to dangerous new heights, and relegate objectivity to playing second fiddle in a lesser place. At present, the law has to prove that it is likely that hatred will be stirred up. The Bill states that the offence is now committed if the words, behaviour, material, play, recording, broadcast or programme service is"““likely to be seen or heard by any person in whom it is likely to stir up religious . . . hatred.””" The Government also claim that it is individuals who will be protected, not religions themselves. However, that rebuttal is contrary to the spirit of other legislation on racial hatred, which protects both the person and their race. Might there not be undue pressure on the Attorney-General, when seeking to protect people from religious hatred, to protect the religions themselves, thereby hindering free speech? Of course, Muslims, Christians and those of other faiths and beliefs—and those who have none—should be protected against violence and intimidation, but public order legislation already exists to deal with those issues, despite the denial of that fact by those on the Government Front Bench, and indeed by some Members on the other Opposition Benches. We have seen the extension of provisions dealing with ““racially aggravated”” crimes to cover ““racially or religiously aggravated”” offences. In short, there are enough laws and provisions dealing with this issue already. I would also like to ask the Secretary of State what thought has been given to the possibility of malicious litigation between religions, in which a religion might seek to put down an early marker or to test the boundaries of any new Act? Does he not fear that the courts could be used as a public platform for theological point scoring, allowing competing religions, and even sects within religions, the opportunity to flex their theological muscles? As I have said, I am opposed to anyone or any organisation seeking to stir up religious hatred, but I question whether the Government are going about this in the right way. Where religious hatred exists, it is usually the result of a lack of education, and a lack of understanding and awareness of the beliefs, traditions and world view of a religion. Interestingly, the Islamic Human Rights Commission has said of the Bill that"““such legislation could very well be used against Muslim communities, rather than protecting them””." Surely, in this post-11 September period, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the discussion of religious ideals and concepts, both oral and written, need to exist without fear of prosecution? The Government’s aim of seeking to create equal rights is a noble one, but they need to tread carefully to ensure that they do not create special rights. In adopting the worthy goal of promoting inclusivity, they should avoid promoting a new, narrow type of exclusivity. The Bill will mute individuals, and will give the courts an air of inquisition. Moreover, I have never known an Act of Parliament to create love, and perhaps that is the only antidote to the hatred of which we have heard today. For centuries this country has had a proud tradition of religious tolerance, which has co-existed quite happily alongside robust scrutiny of all religions and beliefs. I mentioned that in my maiden speech, as did the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik). I believe that, despite the Government’s best intentions, this law may well increase intolerance and misunderstanding rather than creating harmony. The World Association of Writers was right to suggest that at this time religious"““sensitivities need to be calmed, not heightened””." I oppose religious hatred, but I also oppose the Bill, because I do not think that the latter will serve to reduce the former. I hope that the Government will reconsider its position, thus safeguarding Britain’s long-held traditions of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.