I always feel depressed when I say anything in which I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, especially in view of where she is coming from on this issue, but I agree with the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In its report, it said that the definition did not need to be altered in the way suggested. It welcomed the definition of the inclusive terms in the Bill, which reflect the protection afforded to religion and belief under Article 9 of the European Convention, which has been quoted by the noble Baroness. It pointed out that it makes it clear that protection is not dependent on similarity of belief. That was in the sixteenth report for 2004–05, paragraph 38.
I agree, and although this is not in the amendment, I add that any attempt to try to define religion would create appalling problems, since those outside the definition would complain, and one would get into the vexed question of old religions, new religions, cults, and so on. For that reason, and with diffidence, I do not think that this amendment is needed.
Equality Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 13 July 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Equality Bill (HL).
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
673 c1106 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:56:29 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261372
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261372
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261372