Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, if I thought that the criticisms of the Bill that I have heard today were valid, I would not support it. But in the main, they are wide of the mark. One speech only criticised the provisions on our statute book regarding incitement to racial hatred. Yet most of the arguments I have heard today against the Bill would seem to apply equally to the incitement to racial hatred provisions if they were not already on the statute book. There is virtually no difference between the arguments that have been used. The provisions on incitement to racial hatred have had a beneficial effect on race relations in this country. I do not believe they have had all the appalling consequences that were alleged to be inevitable when they were first discussed in Parliament. I believe that they have set certain values for our society. The laws of this country should set the values by which we live as a sign to members of our communities what this country is about. I believe, therefore, that there is a gap in the protection given by the incitement to racial hatred provisions as regards Muslims—there may be others—who are not protected by them. Yet much of the abuse that Muslims in our country suffer is akin to racism. It is used in the same way that racist abuse is used against people whose skins are black. The Bill will give those Muslims the same protection that is provided under the incitement to racial hatred provisions. That is what the Bill is about. The racial hatred provisions have been effective. They do not give special rights; we are not talking about giving Muslims special rights but about giving them the same level of protection that exists for other minority racial groups. I have not heard any criticisms of the Northern Ireland legislation. If there were some, I am sure we would have heard them. Of course we all value freedom of speech. If I thought for a moment that true freedom of speech were to be damaged by the Bill, I would not support it. It is right that there should be serious criticism of religions, and that right should be protected by legislation. I am opposed to the attitude of some religions—not just one—to women and gay persons. I believe that all the major religions of this country were wrong about stem cell research, designed to tackle such conditions as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. There are, however, two issues which are much more damaging to freedom of speech. One is the blasphemy laws, to which reference has already been made. I believe that they are weakening freedom of speech and that we should do away with them. Secondly, as I said in my earlier intervention on my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, the way in which the Sikh play ““Behzti”” was stopped because of a riot damaged freedom of speech in this country. Yet do we hear much about that? No, we do not. It is a sad comment on our support for freedom of speech that we are not willing to speak up about that. It is healthy to poke fun at religion, as it is to poke fun at political parties. At the Edinburgh Festival in August, I went to see a Muslim woman stand-up comedian who made fun of her own religion. It was wonderful. I am quite convinced that that act would not be caught by the Bill. If I thought it would be, I would not support it. Some years ago, I was chair of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, which looked at standards on television. We asked a group of young people what they thought about various film clips. It was the morning after Channel 4 had shown ““The Last Temptation of Christ””, a film that was seriously criticised by many of the Churches in this country. They sent petitions that the film should be banned before they had even seen it. I asked a young man, a devout Christian, whether he had seen the film the night before. He said yes, and I asked him what he thought as it had been greatly criticised by most of the Christian religions in Britain. He said, ““My view is that Jesus can look after himself””. That film, which he defended, criticised religion—it did not incite hatred against Christians. There is a world of difference between legitimate criticism of religions, whether humorous or not, and doing specific things which incite hatred against some people who have a religious belief. That is the difference and that is the key point which this Bill seeks to address. If you are against the Bill, you are leaving that gap in our legislation. Finally, I have three questions of the Minister. First, what do we do about ““nutty”” religions? I am trying to find a more appropriate word for it, but I think we all know what I mean by that. What do we do about some of the very odd religions? They have not been mentioned, except one which was mentioned briefly earlier today. Secondly, can we be assured that the Attorney-General will absolutely forthright, right from the beginning, in resisting pressure on him? I am sure he will be, but it is important that that is known and expected. Thirdly, I feel that expectations of what this Bill will do are a bit high among the Muslim community. Will the Government explain exactly what the Bill can do and what it cannot do? The Bill will be limited in its effect, important though that will be, and I trust that, in practice, there will be very few prosecutions under it. It will have a salutary effect in influencing people’s attitudes, and that is surely the benefit that the Bill will have. Therefore, the Bill will be good for this country, but it will not damage freedom of speech.