---

Equality Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 110:"Page 25, line 42, after ““or”” insert ““similar””" The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 110, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 168. They make identical amendments to Clauses 45 and 78 by giving a closer definition of ““belief””. As drafted, the Bill says:"““‘belief’ means any religious or philosophical belief””." The word ““or”” indicates that two separate things are being protected—a religious belief and a philosophical belief. The amendment makes it clear that the philosophical belief must be similar to a religious one and not be any old concept, even though ““concept”” is part of the heading of the group of clauses. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a philosophy as:"““a theory or attitude that guides one’s behaviour””." As can be seen, while all religions are based on a philosophy, not all philosophies are religious in nature. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, was reported in the Times as speaking about religious philosophies, clearly indicating that there are also non-religious ones. A diligent search through my reference library enabled me to find over 30 different philosophies before I gave up looking. Interestingly enough, most of them had the suffix ““ism””. Platonism, stoicism, hedonism, Hegelianism, existentialism, to name but a few, are the slightly more pronounceable ones. I looked up Epicureanism, and it sounds quite interesting. Marxism is a philosophy—so I dare say is Thatcherism, although I know which of the two I prefer. So is—very sinisterly—Nazism, which is based on the philosophy clearly set out in Hitler’s book Mein Kampf. Hitler’s henchman, Joseph Goebbels, gave the game away in 1933 when he said:"““What matters is not so much what we believe; only that we believe””." For the purposes of the Bill, which imposes restrictions to a certain extent on freedom of thought and speech, and the perfectly proper protection of people against harassment on the grounds of their religion, what we believe does matter. Why should anyone not be allowed to refuse to employ someone who is a neo-Nazi or refuse to let a lecture hall to those who want to use it to preach another ““ism””—racism? There is another aspect where protection of the right to oppose a particular philosophy is essential. I refer to the mind-bending cults such as the Moonies and Scientology, whose gullible recruits sometimes need rescuing from their own folly. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, mentioned to the Committee that he is a,"““passionate, disbelieving Jewish agnostic””.—[Official Report, 13/7/05; col. 1109.]" His agnosticism—another ““ism””—is similar to a religious philosophy and is fully protected by the Bill, except perhaps if he decides on a career change and wishes to become a Rabbi. In the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, the Government defined ““religion or belief”” as:"““Any religion, religious belief, or other similar philosophical belief””." The Government had no difficulty in confining the philosophical belief to one that is similar to religion and not including any other type of theory. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, tried to draw a difference between the definition in the regulations and that proposed in the Bill. It is with some hesitancy that I disagree with a distinguished lawyer such as the noble Baroness, but with absolutely no disrespect, I feel that she was seeking to find a distinction without a difference. She told your Lordships that in drafting the Bill:"““It was felt that the word ‘similar’ added nothing and was, therefore, redundant””.—[Official Report, 13/7/05; col. 1109.]" The fact is that one little word of just seven letters does add something. It ensures that bona fide religious beliefs are protected, not some weird, wonderful and often thoroughly objectionable philosophy. Equally, the agnosticism of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is a sufficiently similar philosophy to definitely be protected by the two sections, as is the ““ism”” mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, when she described humanism. I am certain that there is no shortage of ink or paper, and even though the Government think that ““similar”” is redundant, its presence in the Bill will avoid all possible doubt. I ask the Government to reconsider. I beg to move.