Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

If the hon. Gentleman is talking about people who are being attacked on a theological or doctrinal basis, rather than as a proxy for race, I believe that that is perfectly proper. I do not believe that the law should protect people from attacks on either theological or doctrinal bases. Furthermore, if it is anything other than that, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that it would be covered by the terms of the new schedule, which I invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect on more closely and carefully. Our other concern is that the Government have adopted a very narrow approach to the Bill. If we are to deal effectively with religious hatred, we cannot deal with it in isolation. We have to recognise that the reform of the law of blasphemy is long overdue. That law, which provides protection only to people in the Church of England rather than Christians as a whole, is a law that has long since outlived any useful purpose that it may ever have had. In that regard, I want to mention amendment No. 12, which is proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). He has tabled the provision in a personal capacity, but I want to make it clear that I have absolutely no difficulty in supporting it and that I commend my hon. Friend for introducing it. The other important element of the new schedule is what I would call the free-speech rider in paragraph (3), which suggests that"““It shall not be an offence under this section if the activity consists of . . . criticising the beliefs, teachings or practices of a religion or its followers, for example, by claiming that they are false or harmful; . . . proselytising one’s own religion or urging followers of a different religion to cease practicing theirs; . . . expressing irreverent comedic comments about religion or belief; its worship, teaching, practice or observance; . . . expressing antipathy or dislike of particular religions or their adherents.””" A significant distinction may be drawn between that free-speech rider and the one in new clause 2, proposed by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. My provision is about protection of free speech, whereas the hon. Gentleman invites us to accept a condemnation of speech that is used to justify violence. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman might have been better advised to finish his new clause after the words"““belief or lack of religious belief””." It would then read simply:"““Nothing in Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 . . . shall be read or given effect in a way which restricts or prohibits freedom of speech or expression on any matter of religious belief or lack of religious belief””." Thereafter, the operation of the new clause becomes problematic. I appreciate why he brought it forward and I am broadly with him, but I see some difficulties with the wording.