Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, I believe that this Bill is unnecessary, unpopular, unwise and certainly unclear, as the debate today has shown. Many of the Christians who are demonstrating outside today are looking for assurances that they can preach the gospel, but I know that they would be the first to insist that this is not just a religious issue, but about standing up as responsible citizens for society’s right to liberty for everyone and freedom of speech. One should look at the wide coalition that has developed in opposition to this Bill. I did a double-take when I saw the Evangelical Alliance standing shoulder to shoulder across the road with the National Secular Society on this issue. Christians join society as a whole in insisting that robust, forthright debate and critique are essential in a free society. Many believe this Bill will seriously jeopardise such freedom. I believe the Government privately realise that the Bill in its present form is likely to cause confusion and are even now wondering how engage in post-legislative education both of courts and public on how to interpret it. It would be very unfortunate if the Bill opened the way for the courts to start having to interpret theological language, especially from religious traditions with which we are not familiar. The Church of England is bad enough in itself. The warning from Australia, where they have direct experience of similar legislation, is ““do not legislate for hate, because it will inevitably create the very problems it seeks to address””. Attempts at social engineering, especially restriction of ideas and freedom of speech, can end up undermining the very freedoms we try to protect. What is worse, it may introduce tension and disharmony, as has been alluded to earlier, to the very communities that we are trying to unite in this country. At the heart of such regulation lies an essential fallacy: that the state can control human emotions. The assumption is that if only people can be prevented saying hateful things, hatred will evaporate. The state may try to criminalise the public expression of hateful ideas, but it cannot ban the ideas themselves, which experience and history confirm usually proliferate under oppression. State criminalisation of ideas, including hateful ones, usually fuels their sense of legitimacy. If religious groups start to sue their critics rather than explore the comparatively demanding but socially healthy means of resolving conflict and differences—that is, free, open, robust, respectful dialogue—we are all losers in our society. Most people who hate something enough to express it verbally do not graduate to violence. If they do, I believe there is general legal agreement on all sides that the law is already adequate to deter and deal with both incitement to criminal activity and the crimes themselves. However, once we start on the path of ““chilling”” speech, exactly where do we stop? Despite government assurances to the contrary, many informed people on the ground are convinced that unintended consequences of this confusing legislation are likely to be rising community tensions and ““chilled”” neighbourly relationships. The prospect of campaign martyrs, alluded to earlier, will be heightened. One should note the scenes in Australia, where Christians and Muslims have publicly appeared locked in a spiral of legal claim and counter-claim, public protest and counter-protest. It is complacent merely to suggest that the law is set at a lower threshold in Australia. As we know, the line that connects criticism, satire, ridicule, vilification and incitement to hatred is very thin and progressive. There is a broad coalition of sensible opinion that is urging the Government to consider various amendments to the Bill. The so-called protection of the Attorney-General is of very little practical use. In any case, the guidelines under which he will operate have not been presented to the House and his decisions could apparently be subject anyway to judicial review, not least by those who feel failed by any future process. If Parliament is so confused about what the Bill will or will not do—and we need only to look at the debate in the other place for evidence of that confusion—what hope is there for ordinary individuals? All major religious traditions include strong language in their sacred documents. We are not surely in the business, even in the present climate, of removing the hard stuff and dumbing down. Certainly, those holders of religious faith would not want their sacred texts tampered with. It is ironic that a government who have unambiguously demonstrated their commitment to human rights should in this case be blind to human liberties. Christians are definitely not asking for any special privilege, but what they and others want is a clear and effective commitment by Parliament to maintaining religious freedom and freedom of speech for everyone, everywhere. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and members of all faith groups should remain free to express openly and publicly their rites, doctrines, beliefs and traditions without any fear of inhibition or chilling, and without any fear of prosecution, even if they may offend some others. Academics, writers, comedians and the media should remain free to express openly their views concerning religion, even when these might be considered offensive. That is how society works. Right and opportunity of reply still exist in this country, and the proper response to criticism is dialogue and persuasion. Surely the way to tackle religious misbehaviour is through community action and by the example of leaders in religious communities. We should deal with it by bottom-up, not top-down methods. In the East End of London, an Islamic institution was spray-painted by racists. The local priest and people set to, cleaned it up and repainted the house, the community making it clear that it was not prepared to tolerate such action. I repeat, the Bill is unnecessary, unclear, unwise and unpopular. Rigidity on the Bill will only add to the impression that Her Majesty’s Government are not listening.