1-20 of 25 results for house:"House of Lords"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.37 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.004 seconds
- Search query
- house:"House of Lords"
- We searched for
- legislature_ses:25277
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask His Majesty’s Government what actions they are taking in response to incidents of hate speech and Islamophobia at the Unite the Kingdom march held in London on 16 May.
To ask His Majesty’s Government what actions they are taking in response to incidents of hate speech and Islamophobia at the Unite the Kingdom march held in London on 16 May.
No one should ever be a victim of hatred or live in fear because of their religion, beliefs or the way in which they choose to live their lives. In preparation for the 16 May marches, the Metropolitan Police Service publicly outlined the robust approach it would take to criminality, including hate speech. The protesters do not speak for the vast majority of the British people.
No one should ever be a victim of hatred or live in fear because of their religion, beliefs or the way in which they choose to live their lives. In preparation for the 16 May marches, the Metropolitan Police Service publicly outlined the robust approach it would take to criminality, including hate speech. The protesters do not speak for the vast majority of the British people.
No one should ever be a victim of hatred or live in fear because of their religion, beliefs or the way in which they choose to live their lives. In preparation for the 16 May marches, the Metropolitan Police Service publicly outlined the robust approach it would take to criminality, including hate speech. The protesters do not speak for the vast majority of the British people.
To ask His Majesty’s Government what actions they are taking in response to incidents of hate speech and Islamophobia at the Unite the Kingdom march held in London on 16 May.
No, of course it does not, and I will defend and support the right of people to enjoy and cherish their religion. That is what freedom of speech allows us to do. The noble Lord will also know that, on the day in question, there were 13 arrests for hate crime-related offences; 10 of those arrested were affiliated to Unite the Kingdom and they included arrests for offences motivated by race, religion, sexuality and disability. As I said at the outset, this is a fight for the soul of this country. It is not acceptable to have that type of hatred, and I will stand up with him to support the rights of people to enjoy their religion freely.
No, of course it does not, and I will defend and support the right of people to enjoy and cherish their religion. That is what freedom of speech allows us to do. The noble Lord will also know that, on the day in question, there were 13 arrests for hate crime-related offences; 10 of those arrested were affiliated to Unite the Kingdom and they included arrests for offences motivated by race, religion, sexuality and disability. As I said at the outset, this is a fight for the soul of this country. It is not acceptable to have that type of hatred, and I will stand up with him to support the rights of people to enjoy their religion freely.
My Lords, I welcome the statement from the Minister, but I have to share with your Lordships’ House the profound anger and hurt that some of the speeches from the stage just outside here caused, not just in London but across the country. I will share my experiences from my own immediate family. One of my sons works for the railway industry, the other for the NHS, and they have said to me, “Dad, are people questioning our existence in this society, given your long service in public services?” One of the speakers at the march pointed at this building and said we need to remove Islam from this building. Does that mean people like me do not have a place in this society anymore?
The one thing that struck me about the demonstration on Saturday was the completely offensive demonstration involving three people wearing burkas and purporting to be Muslim women. I support the noble Baroness’s wish. I will look at what she has said. She knows—and I will not repeat it now—that there is significant resource going
into protecting the Muslim community. We have also a new definition of anti-Muslim hostility which was put in place only in April this year. She has my support to ensure that she and other women like her who have the Muslim religion are allowed to lead their lives freely and openly.
The one thing that struck me about the demonstration on Saturday was the completely offensive demonstration involving three people wearing burkas and purporting to be Muslim women. I support the noble Baroness’s wish. I will look at what she has said. She knows—and I will not repeat it now—that there is significant resource going
into protecting the Muslim community. We have also a new definition of anti-Muslim hostility which was put in place only in April this year. She has my support to ensure that she and other women like her who have the Muslim religion are allowed to lead their lives freely and openly.
My Lords, Muslim women’s safety matters too. When will the Government announce funding for the safety and security of Muslim women? I know about the funding for mosque security and the helpline, so I am not asking about that. What about Muslim women? We feel invisible. By the way, I support Arsenal—yay!
The law does not discriminate against individuals who are Jewish or Muslim. The law says that people who bring forward hate crime or encourage discrimination on the basis of a religion, or indeed a faith of any kind, face the full force of the law. The Metropolitan Police showed that on Saturday with the number of arrests it made, and will do so again, free of political interference, according to the law set down by both Houses of Parliament.
The law does not discriminate against individuals who are Jewish or Muslim. The law says that people who bring forward hate crime or encourage discrimination on the basis of a religion, or indeed a faith of any kind, face the full force of the law. The Metropolitan Police showed that on Saturday with the number of arrests it made, and will do so again, free of political interference, according to the law set down by both Houses of Parliament.
My Lords, can I ask the Minister to confirm that the police will be very robust in tackling antisemitic remarks and actions at pro-Palestinian marches?
The noble Baroness will know that the Government have a manifesto commitment to develop a strategy on anti-violence against women and girls and to halve violence against women and girls over 10 years. As part of that strategy, we are acutely aware that the type of violence against women and girls that is of a serious nature begins with disrespect and basic misogyny. Part of the challenge for this Government is to ensure that all women have the right to live their lives free of intimidation and abuse.
The noble Baroness will know that the Government have a manifesto commitment to develop a strategy on anti-violence against women and girls and to halve violence against women and girls over 10 years. As part of that strategy, we are acutely aware that the type of violence against women and girls that is of a serious nature begins with disrespect and basic misogyny. Part of the challenge for this Government is to ensure that all women have the right to live their lives free of intimidation and abuse.
My Lords, women of all faiths find it difficult these days, particularly women of colour. You cannot say whether someone is Muslim or not because we do not wear a badge on our foreheads to say what we are or are not. We all get abuse. We need to change the tone and the narrative of how we are behaving, not only in Parliament but out there too. I think it is on all of us when we are debating this to make people believe that we are actually coming together to tackle this rather than trying to give it as antisemitic or anti-Muslim. Many of us who are not either are still suffering the same, but we do not have a voice anywhere in the debate.
My noble friend will wish to know that, under existing legislation—and, indeed, under the Crime and Policing Act that was passed by this House with Royal Assent only on 29 April—the police already have powers to both ban marches and/or reroute marches away from areas of potential conflict and issue. That is a judgment for the
police. It would be wrong for politicians to determine which marches take place and when, but it is right that the police look at public security and public order and make some determinations. They have done and will do so.
My noble friend will wish to know that, under existing legislation—and, indeed, under the Crime and Policing Act that was passed by this House with Royal Assent only on 29 April—the police already have powers to both ban marches and/or reroute marches away from areas of potential conflict and issue. That is a judgment for the
police. It would be wrong for politicians to determine which marches take place and when, but it is right that the police look at public security and public order and make some determinations. They have done and will do so.
Can I put it to my noble friend the Minister that, given the events being described that took place at the marches on Saturday and the cost to the police, let alone the diversion of police officers from the task they ought to be undertaking, which is cracking down on the tide of crime in this country, it would be better to limit the number of such marches and demonstrations?
The right to criticise religion is perfectly acceptable and in order. But again, I put it to the noble Lord that those rights to criticise also come with responsibilities. There is a clear definition in law about what is regarded as abuse, what is discrimination and what is intimidation and harassment. In both cases, if such instances are determined by the police, then the police will take action and, as on Saturday, arrests will be made. Some arrests were made in relation to the noble Lord’s question and some were in relation to the initial demonstration raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, so the police act fairly and the legislation is set down. I want to see a fair and open society where people can enjoy their religion and criticise political activity and/or religion, as well as states, at will, but within a limit.
The right to criticise religion is perfectly acceptable and in order. But again, I put it to the noble Lord that those rights to criticise also come with responsibilities. There is a clear definition in law about what is regarded as abuse, what is discrimination and what is intimidation and harassment. In both cases, if such instances are determined by the police, then the police will take action and, as on Saturday, arrests will be made. Some arrests were made in relation to the noble Lord’s question and some were in relation to the initial demonstration raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, so the police act fairly and the legislation is set down. I want to see a fair and open society where people can enjoy their religion and criticise political activity and/or religion, as well as states, at will, but within a limit.
My Lords, there were two protests last weekend. One of those attracted widespread condemnation from the Prime Minister, the Mayor of London, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and most in the Parliamentary Labour Party; the other attracted little or no condemnation. That other protest, staged by the far left, saw Nazi salutes, calls for Jews to be beheaded and the displaying of a sign calling Jewish people Nazis. One wonders why those very people who found it so easy to criticise one of those protests found it so difficult to criticise the other. Can the Minister perhaps give a guarantee that legitimate criticism of religion, which is a fundamental aspect of free speech, is always maintained?
The Government treat all forms of hate crime equally seriously. There is no hierarchy of victims. The police and the CPS will make decisions based on the facts and legal threshold in each case. There are definitions of types of harassment, and definitions of types of assurance for both Jewish and Muslim communities, but the Government and the police will treat all hate crime extremely seriously.
The Government treat all forms of hate crime equally seriously. There is no hierarchy of victims. The police and the CPS will make decisions based on the facts and legal threshold in each case. There are definitions of types of harassment, and definitions of types of assurance for both Jewish and Muslim communities, but the Government and the police will treat all hate crime extremely seriously.
My Lords, all communities seen as different experience prejudice. There are no comparative statistics, properly gathered, to show that one community suffers more than others from this hate crime. It is visible difference that is the causing factor. Does the Minister agree that all communities should be protected equally and that there should not be a special difference set aside for one community, such as the definition of anti-Muslim hate crime? Why not anti-Sikh, anti-Hindu or anti-Buddhist hate crime? Does he further agree that the law already protects different communities? It is already there in law, and if other communities are hurt, that should also be looked at.
I say to the noble Baroness that it is not tolerated. The Prime Minister said on Saturday that this is a
“fight for the soul of the country”
and condemned the speeches made at that demonstration. The police have taken action accordingly. Indeed, the Government banned certain individuals from entering the country because of concerns about further activity following those speeches. This is not being tolerated. Muslims have a right to live, contribute and participate in our society free of intimidation and free of harassment. The Government, along with the Jewish community, will make sure that those individuals enjoy their lives free of that intimidation.
I say to the noble Baroness that it is not tolerated. The Prime Minister said on Saturday that this is a
“fight for the soul of the country”
and condemned the speeches made at that demonstration. The police have taken action accordingly. Indeed, the Government banned certain individuals from entering the country because of concerns about further activity following those speeches. This is not being tolerated. Muslims have a right to live, contribute and participate in our society free of intimidation and free of harassment. The Government, along with the Jewish community, will make sure that those individuals enjoy their lives free of that intimidation.
My Lords, at the rally last Saturday led by the convicted criminal Tommy Robinson, some of the hate speech we heard was specifically about Muslims, such as “It’s time for Muslims to leave the country”. Sadly, they are completely focused on attacking the Muslim community. History teaches us where such language can lead. British Muslims helped to build this country and serve it by teaching in schools, while over 89,000 Muslim staff work in our NHS, so I say that this is our country. My question is: why is this disgraceful hate speech and Islamophobia tolerated when it comes to British Muslims, and even defended, when the equivalent aimed at any other group would rightly be met with condemnation, prosecution and political outrage?
Lords motion to take note of the seventh report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on Transnational repression in the UK (HL 160). Agreed to on question.
Lords motion to take note of the seventh report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on Transnational repression in the UK (HL 160). Agreed to on question.
To ask His Majesty's Government how the Crime and Policing Bill proposal regarding a prohibition on face coverings when in an area designated by police is compatible with the right to freedom of expression.
To ask His Majesty's Government how the Crime and Policing Bill proposal regarding a prohibition on face coverings when in an area designated by police is compatible with the right to freedom of expression.
The government is committed to protecting public safety and preventing disorder and crime whilst balancing the right to peaceful protest.
Under the provisions in clauses 118 to 120 of the Crime and Policing Bill, the police can only designate a locality for the purposes of the offence of concealing identity at protests where a senior officer reasonably believes that a protest is or may take place in the locality, that the protest is likely to involve or has involved the commission of offences, and it is expedient in order to prevent or limit offences being committed to designate the locality.
The measure includes a defence for individuals charged with this new offence if they prove they wore or used the item for a purpose related to health, religious observance or relating to the person’s work.
As such, a locality will only be designated where criminality has or is likely to take place, and under this new measure, the police will be expected to take action only against persons who are wearing or using items to conceal their identity at protests in a designated locality, without a legitimate purpose. Given these safeguards, the government is satisfied that this measure does not disproportionately interfere with individuals’ human rights.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of teaching at police training colleges, in particular in regard to teaching about hate speech and free speech.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of teaching at police training colleges, in particular in regard to teaching about hate speech and free speech.
The Government is committed to ensuring there are consistent, high standards in police training and leadership to help maintain public trust and confidence. That is why the Home Office continues to fund the College of Policing to deliver support to forces and improvements to leadership and training standards through the National Police Leadership Centre.
The College of Policing sets national guidance and standards for policing in England and Wales, which includes publishing Authorised Professional Practice (APP) on hate crime. This APP provides guidance on how police should respond to hate crimes and promotes a proportionate and consistent approach that upholds the rights of victims and protects free speech.
While the College sets the overall framework, individual police forces are responsible for determining their own local delivery of training.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the potential for official speech-related guidance to create a chilling effect on free expression of religious or philosophical belief.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the potential for official speech-related guidance to create a chilling effect on free expression of religious or philosophical belief.
Freedom of religion and belief is a fundamental human right. People are expected to express their views concerning religion and beliefs respectfully, acting within the confines of the law when providing criticism. This government is committed to protecting the right of individuals to freely practise their religion and we will not tolerate religious hatred in any form.
Our approach to tackling religious hatred does not and would never inhibit free speech or override fundamental rights such as the right to freedom of religion and belief. The courts recognise the right to manifest religious belief as one of fundamental importance, but it is limited by the State’s legal obligation to protect the rights and freedoms of others – this includes respect for their freedom to have religions or beliefs different to our own. Any definition of religious hatred that the Government has adopted or may choose to adopt would be non-statutory.
Operational guidance relating to speech and expression is the responsibility of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, who develop such guidance in line with legislation that is determined by Parliament.
Lords question for short debate on what estimate they have made of the number of people arrested daily for non-threatening, online communication offences, and what assessment they have made of the implications of such arrests for freedom of speech.
Lords question for short debate on what estimate they have made of the number of people arrested daily for non-threatening, online communication offences, and what assessment they have made of the implications of such arrests for freedom of speech.
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to review the operation of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 to ensure that it respects freedom of religion and belief in the United Kingdom.
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to review the operation of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 to ensure that it respects freedom of religion and belief in the United Kingdom.
The Government have no plans to review Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 but remain committed to ensuring that all public order legislation protects both public safety and, importantly, individual freedoms.
The Government have no plans to review Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 but remain committed to ensuring that all public order legislation protects both public safety and, importantly, individual freedoms.
The Government have no plans to review Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 but remain committed to ensuring that all public order legislation protects both public safety and, importantly, individual freedoms.
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to review the operation of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 to ensure that it respects freedom of religion and belief in the United Kingdom.
The Government are absolutely committed to free speech and to ensuring that we are an open, diverse country where freedom of speech is valued and freedom of religion is maintained.
If the noble Baroness is referring to a particular case that I am aware of in relation to the burning of the Koran recently, I take the view that the law should apply no matter what the religion or faith that is potentially impinged upon. The offence there was not because burning the Koran was illegal. The actions of the individual were seen by the Crown Prosecution Service, following police investigation, to be harassment and abusive action. In that case, the police investigated and collected evidence and put it to the CPS. The CPS looked at that evidence and the case was put before a court, where the individual was found guilty. The individual concerned is now appealing. I cannot say any more about that case. However, whatever we do, it is important that the law is applied equally, fairly and across all religions.
The Government are absolutely committed to free speech and to ensuring that we are an open, diverse country where freedom of speech is valued and freedom of religion is maintained.
If the noble Baroness is referring to a particular case that I am aware of in relation to the burning of the Koran recently, I take the view that the law should apply no matter what the religion or faith that is potentially impinged upon. The offence there was not because burning the Koran was illegal. The actions of the individual were seen by the Crown Prosecution Service, following police investigation, to be harassment and abusive action. In that case, the police investigated and collected evidence and put it to the CPS. The CPS looked at that evidence and the case was put before a court, where the individual was found guilty. The individual concerned is now appealing. I cannot say any more about that case. However, whatever we do, it is important that the law is applied equally, fairly and across all religions.
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Your Lordships’ House will be aware that freedom of religion or belief in the UK was hard won over many centuries. Citizens need to be able to peacefully criticise the tenets of someone’s faith or beliefs and institutions. Regrettably, recently the Crown Prosecution Service purported to charge an offence under the Public Order Act of
“intent to cause against religious institution of Islam, harassment alarm or distress”.
That is entirely wrong in law, as well as poor grammar. It raised emotions on an already delicate situation and had, of course, to be amended. While respecting the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service from both Parliament and government, will the Minister outline what review is being undertaken to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service has adequate legal and religious knowledge and that senior leaders approve charges in cases such as this—I am assuming they did not approve that charge—to ensure that that does not happen again?
The act of standing and making a protest is a fair and open act. It will not be covered by Section 5 of the Public Order Act. If the noble Lord is referring, as he may be—and if he is not, I apologise—to the question of abortion clinics and abortion legislation, the Government have passed legislation on this matter. Silent protest is allowed, but not within a limit set by law. That is fair and appropriate for people who wish to protest, as well as for people who wish to access a service that this House and the House of Commons have passed as being legal.
The act of standing and making a protest is a fair and open act. It will not be covered by Section 5 of the Public Order Act. If the noble Lord is referring, as he may be—and if he is not, I apologise—to the question of abortion clinics and abortion legislation, the Government have passed legislation on this matter. Silent protest is allowed, but not within a limit set by law. That is fair and appropriate for people who wish to protest, as well as for people who wish to access a service that this House and the House of Commons have passed as being legal.
My Lords, if such a review were to take place, would the Minister and the Government reaffirm that exercising the freedom to stand silently praying in a public place is not an act of hostility and should therefore not be considered a criminal office within the United Kingdom?
The noble Baroness again raises measures that will come before this House in very short order in the Crime and Policing Bill. We are planning to introduce a new measure that gives protection to synagogues, mosques, churches and other places of worship from—and this is the key point—
“intimidating levels of disruption caused by protest activity”.
That is across the board, whatever the religion, whatever the faith. If somebody is undertaking intimidating levels of disruption, and that protest is an intimidatory, harassing protest, action will be taken. This House will have an opportunity to debate where that line is drawn when the Bill comes before the House. It is certainly a measure that I hope Members of the House recognise as being important; it is important that we protect religious organisations from disruption and harassment while, at the same time, ensuring that everybody has the right to protest.
The noble Baroness again raises measures that will come before this House in very short order in the Crime and Policing Bill. We are planning to introduce a new measure that gives protection to synagogues, mosques, churches and other places of worship from—and this is the key point—
“intimidating levels of disruption caused by protest activity”.
That is across the board, whatever the religion, whatever the faith. If somebody is undertaking intimidating levels of disruption, and that protest is an intimidatory, harassing protest, action will be taken. This House will have an opportunity to debate where that line is drawn when the Bill comes before the House. It is certainly a measure that I hope Members of the House recognise as being important; it is important that we protect religious organisations from disruption and harassment while, at the same time, ensuring that everybody has the right to protest.
Given reports that recent protests have been largely peaceful, how will the Government ensure that the new powers to restrict protests near places of worship are not used to criminalise lawful dissent or acts deemed to be merely offensive? What guidance will be provided to police so they avoid subjective or arbitrary enforcement and to ensure that these powers are applied proportionately and transparently, to maintain public trust?