---

Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

No, I will not. The first point had to do with what the prosecution would have to prove. Every Opposition Member who spoke raised that point, but I do not think that any of them had a full grasp of the effects of the proposals. To prove incitement, a person has to be shown to have used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour and that, having regard to all the circumstances, the words, behaviour or material are likely to be seen by any person in whom they are likely to stir up religious hatred. All the Opposition Members who spoke mentioned that, but section 18(5) of the Public Order Act 1986 states that the defendant must have intended his words or behaviour to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or was aware that his words or behaviour might be threatening, abusive or insulting. That is a very important point. It shows that intention must be proved, as must the use of words and behaviour to that end. The mental element must therefore be present in both limbs of the offence. It was also argued that the Bill will place an unfair restriction on free speech, that it will stop comedians telling jokes and prevent people with strong views about religion from expressing their opinions. I promise the House that I will not tell any jokes tonight, but I emphasise that there is nothing in the humour of Rowan Atkinson, Stephen Fry or any of those who lampoon religion that would be caught by the Bill. Hatred is a high test, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) knows. It involves intense dislike, but it also involves hostility and enmity. The lower test of alarm or offence does not apply.