Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate. I do so as not quite the newest Member of your Lordships’ House although I have been here for only four parliamentary days. I come here after 13 years in the other place as a representative of the vibrant and wonderful city of Bristol. Parts of my former constituency are certainly both inner-city and multicultural, and I learnt about multiculturalism from them. I also had the privilege of chairing the Joint Committee on Human Rights from its establishment in January 2001 until the dissolution of the previous Parliament in April. I was gratified, as I am sure other committee members were, by the degree to which your Lordships’ House relied on the committee’s scrutiny reports in considering legislation. This Bill has had quite a long gestation. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 contained provisions to make the incitement of religious hatred a criminal offence. The Joint Committee understood at that time that your Lordships’ House did not agree to those provisions because there had not been adequate time for consideration of the human rights implications, given the abbreviated timetable for the Bill following the Government’s assertion that there was a public emergency threatening the life of the nation. However, the Joint Committee considered during scrutiny of that Bill that the proposals on religious hatred were compatible with human rights. We were aware that the Human Rights Committee at the United Nations—in its concluding observations on the periodic report of the UK on its compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in November 2001—had recommended that the criminal law should be extended to protect people who are being subjected to harassment and attacks on account of their religion. We were also aware of the decisions in the Strasbourg court which held that the need to combat racism is a legitimate reason for limiting freedom of expression so long as it is proportionate to that aim. That proportionality test would necessarily need to be reasonably strict so as not to threaten freedom of public debate. So the introduction of the current Bill gave not only a more measured timetable for scrutiny and debate but gave time for the Joint Committee to enter into correspondence with the Government about these provisions. We therefore wrote to the Government questioning whether these measures were a proportionate response to a pressing social need. In essence, it was asserted in reply that the current offence of incitement to racial hatred in Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 was necessary to combat racism, and the proposed offence is based on it. We were also reminded that the Attorney-General and the courts would have to act compatibly with convention rights in interpreting ““hatred”” and in regard to freedom of religion under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 17, which prohibits abuse of rights including the right to manifest religion without the risk of having hatred stirred up. Furthermore, the current offence of incitement to racial hatred which is generally accepted as being necessary to combat racism has been rarely prosecuted. There were only 44 convictions between 1986 and the end of last year. So there is no reason to believe that the current proposals would result in a flood of unwarranted prosecutions. The Joint Committee found the Government’s reasoning persuasive and we concluded without a vote that,"““the proposed measures appear to us to be unlikely to give rise to a violation of convention rights””." One of the strongest criticisms of the proposals has been from the Rowan Atkinsons of this world who have argued that the proposals would make it an offence to tell religious jokes. I think of the late Dave Allen, who week after week would lampoon different religions. No one ever suggested that he was stirring up religious hatred. He was poking fun, not encouraging us to hate. Human rights are not the preserve of lawyers and not confined to judicial interpretation or the pronouncements of leader writers. Human rights can be based only on respect. I do not see how it is possible to have a society based on respect when hatred on the basis of belief can be stirred up with impunity. So if on one view, albeit the collective view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Bill is human rights compatible, the question remains, is it good policy? The Christian faith is protected by the law of blasphemy. For my part, one of the beneficial consequences of the implementation of the legislation is that the blasphemy laws could be repealed so that all faiths have equal protection. Through the development of case law, Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 has been extended to cover hatred against mono-ethnic religious groups; for example, Jews and Sikhs. So there is currently a gap in protection and most people have emphasised the lack of protection for Islam. But there are many other faith and non-faith groups which do not have equal protection before the law and I contend that they should. Having had the honour to represent a constituency of churches, chapels, mosques, gurdwaras, temples and meeting rooms, I believe that the stirring up of religious hatred is totally incompatible with the kind of society that we want to create. I am reminded of the words of Mahatma Gandhi, who said that the windows of his house were open to the religions of the world, but he did not intend to get blown down by any one of them. I think that he was arguing for equal treatment. So am I, and I am pleased to support the Bill.