Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, like every other noble Lord, I strongly oppose any incitement to religious hatred, but I shall focus on four problems with the Bill. The first is my fear that it will increase tensions between people of different faiths. That has already been one result of similar legislation in Australia, highlighted by Amir Butler, executive director of the Australian Muslim Public Affairs Committee. In a statement entitled, ““Why I’ve changed my mind on vilification laws””, he claims:"““This legislation is undermining those religious freedoms it is intended to protect””." He is worried by a turning of the tables against Muslims, who, although they advocated the legislation and used it against the Christian pastor, Daniel Scot, are now finding themselves the target of alternative attention. He describes how they are now being monitored by Christians and how that has increased intercommunal tensions. Secondly, I was deeply shocked by the way in which the Home Secretary tried to make party political capital out of the opposition to this Bill during the previous government’s attempt to push it through Parliament. I believe that the Home Secretary’s letter to every mosque blaming the failure to pass this legislation on the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats was deeply offensive, inappropriate, inaccurate and tendentious. Your Lordships will remember that there was widespread resistance from many Labour Party supporters, representatives of many organisations, including the National Secular Society, and the general public. Indeed, the massive demonstration outside your Lordships’ House today by a wide cross-section of ethnic groups, including the African, Asian and Afro-Caribbean churches, many of them traditionally Labour Party supporters, proves that the opposition to this legislation transcends party politics. Such opposition is justified, for what is at stake in the subtext of the Bill is the threat to one of our most cherished freedoms—freedom of speech. Whatever Ministers may say, there is a real danger that this legislation will inhibit criticism of religion, affirmation of religious belief and satirical or comical discussions. In the real world, we are already witnessing symptoms of religious intolerance, intimidation, inhibition of expression, censorship and self-censorship. My examples relate to Islam and to some members of the Muslim community because much of the pressure for this legislation has come from them. Complaints have already been made to the police by members of the Muslim community, and those could escalate if this law is passed. The complaints reflect certain aspects of Islamic beliefs held passionately by many Muslims. For example, for them, a Christian statement of belief in the divinity of Christ is seen as blasphemous and offensive. In traditional Islamic law, blasphemy is deemed such a serious offence that it may incur the death penalty, as do statements which may be deemed to be critical of Islam and the Prophet. A number of serious commentators and academics have already been stigmatised as ““Islamophobic””. They include Polly Toynbee, and my noble and right reverend friend Lord Carey of Clifton has made reference to the effects that he has suffered. Neither Polly Toynbee nor my noble and right reverend friend wrote or spoke irresponsibly or inaccurately, but both have been subjected to hurtful labelling and public, potentially damaging and intimidating stigmatising responses. Another example concerning the inhibitions of freedom of speech that the Bill may have is infringement of the age-old tradition of public preaching, following in the footsteps of predecessors such as John Wesley. An example was provided in a letter that I received:"““For over 40 years, I have (with others) been preaching the Gospel on the Cornhill in Ipswich . . . About 18 months ago we were approached by Community Police Officers . . . my companion was called into the Police Station and . . . he was warned that preaching in the street was a delicate matter and if anything we said could be taken as racist the charge would be pursued””." As it is the police who will have to take the initial steps of investigation, the argument that the final arbiter will be the Attorney-General is less than comforting. Academics, journalists, writers, religious leaders and others who wish to speak about religion may be intimidated and inhibited to such an extent that legitimate, critical discussion and debate may be stifled for fear that, however reasonable and important, it might give offence. That is particularly important because, as the proposed legislation stands, truth is no defence against a charge, nor is lack of intent to cause hatred. Therefore, I will strongly support amendments designed to clarify provisions for the protection of freedom of speech, and I suggest that that is all the more important following the terrorist bombings in London in July. The Prime Minister has rightly said that we need to work with the Muslim community to identify what went wrong and to try to prevent such attacks happening again. That will require complete openness in discussing religions, including Islam, and the extensive activities within Britain of international Islamist groups such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the Muslim Brotherhood Movement. I finish by quoting again from Mr Amir Butler because he was one who had originally proposed such legislation in Australia:"““It is obvious that criticism of one’s religion is likely to offend, but just as Muslims should be entitled to aggressively criticise other faiths, likewise those same faiths should be afforded the right to voice their concerns about Islam . . . Who, after all, would give credence to a religion that appears so fragile it can only exist if protected by a bodyguard of lawyers?””." I conclude: this Bill is unnecessary, contentious and potentially damaging to that most fundamental freedom—freedom of speech—in our liberal democracy today.