Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, we had a Race Relations Act in 1976, and two more bites at the cherry in, I think, 2001 and 2003. Presumably we are having another go partly because the previous ones have not done what was required of them. What was required of them? We were told that they were to give British Africans, Indians, orientals, Arabs, Jews and any other race you care to think of equality of treatment in all areas of life. What these Acts have in fact done is not to give them equality, which is right, but, in some cases, to give them preferential treatment, particularly in the area of employment, where in some professions it is now well known that ““middle class whites need not apply””, although I am sure no such principle ever appears in writing. Not surprisingly, middle-class whites feel bitterly resentful, for their ability to earn their living in the profession of their choice in their own country is being undermined. Not surprisingly, they hate those whom they perceive to be a threat to their livelihoods. What has also happened is that employers are so frightened of being sued, that they dare not refuse to employ a person of foreign race however unsuited they may be to the job, and naturally better qualified applicants are resentful. I do not know whether that was one of unintended consequences of the Act, or whether those who stood to benefit pushed for it. If they did, I say two things to them. First, by doing that, you are admitting that you are not equal and need preferential treatment. Is that what you really believe? Secondly, you are responsible for any antagonism or hatred you meet with from those who are damaged by such preference as you are given. You will never cure race or religious relations problems by heavy handed legislation such as that was and this is. You will only make bad worse. Many of your Lordships are too young to have any idea how attitudes have changed in my lifetime. When I was young, Jews were beyond the pale. Roman Catholics were not much better and were not exactly welcome in a Protestant family. Muslims certainly were not welcome. As for blacks, Chinese, Arabs, Indians, I will not distress and anger my friends of such racial origins in this House by describing the views of them which were prevalent at the time, or the nicknames given to them. I think they know them all too well. Attitudes have changed enormously since then. Why? Not because of legislation. They started changing long before that. I think that it is because a number of thinking people prominent in public life, who are sometimes called icons nowadays, have given a lead, and over time others have followed. Time does it. The trouble with politicians to whom, we are told, a week is a long time, is that they want results yesterday—certainly before the next election—because they can think only in terms of votes. Change, which takes decades, even centuries, will not do, even if it is the only kind of change that is genuine and lasting. It is entirely natural to be suspicious of strangers and foreigners. It is how simple and more primitive communities survived. When I was young in north-east Scotland, people from towns and villages 20 miles away were ““furriners””. At a time when the minions of a laird were at war with your laird they were dangerous enemies. That is no longer the case; it was no longer the case then. I cannot help thinking back to the time many centuries ago when some French families like mine arrived in Scotland, and wondering how they were regarded by the native Scots and Picts. With deep suspicion I dare say. In this instance, we are dealing with human nature, and it does not change. We should try using finesse, not a bludgeon such as the Bill. Incidentally, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should distinguish between hatred, which wishes to harm the object, and intense dislike, which abhors but does not wish ill to the subject. The noble and learned Lord said that they were the same. They are not. Hatred is horrible; dislike is natural and often inevitable. With regard to the religious aspects of the Bill, many noble Lords who have doubts about it have said, or certainly will say, everything that there is to say—probably over and over again. I echo the sentiments, so beautifully expressed, of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. On a lighter note, one thing worries me. For those of us who are blessed with a sense of humour, jokes are part of the oil that lubricates life. A few months ago when Ellen MacArthur had just returned from circumnavigating the world there was a lovely Matt cartoon on the front of the Daily Telegraph. It said:"““Flat Earth Society issues fatwa against Ellen MacArthur””." I wonder whether that would have been permissible under the Bill. I do not know how many members the Flat Earth Society has, or whether it considers itself to be a religion, but might not the Muslims take exception to ““fatwa””, and say that it was incitement to hatred?