Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, following the noble Earl is always interesting but never easy. He mentioned in passing the Free Church in Scotland. I recount an argument that was going on in the readers’ letters columns of the Stornoway Gazette between the Free Church and Free Presbyterian Church. It was on an obscure point of doctrine. One of the contributors made the mistake of referring to the views of the Church of Scotland, which is of course the established Church. That was brushed off in the next week’s letters as, ““the reference to that other pigsty””. I have no doubt that that would have produced some sort of reaction under the clauses of this Bill; but it would not have been an appropriate reaction. We note that sort of thing. Just to reassure the House that there are those who live north of Hadrian’s Wall who take a more rational view of the world, I quote David Hume:"““Mistakes in Philosophy are merely ridiculous whereas mistakes in religion are dangerous””." That is a warning that he gives us. We move in deep waters when we discuss these matters. Mistakes in legislation about religion are, if I can extend his quotation, even more dangerous. It is evident that we are moving in deep water in the wording of the Bill and indeed the wording of the Explanatory Notes. There are uncertainties and ambiguities which have been well examined in the course of this debate. I shall pick out one or two just to re-emphasise the uncertainty and ambiguity. There was actually another Presbyterian preacher who used to write down the side of his sermon notes: ““Argument weak here, shout like hell!””. I am not suggesting that the Government have been shouting like hell, but I do think that there are weaknesses at points in the argument. First, and this has been referred to, the Bill is presented in a way that draws a very close parallel between race and religion, between inciting racial hatred and religious hatred. The main difference is overlooked in the Bill. Race is a matter of ethnic origin and can be established, one way or the other; religion is a matter of belief and beliefs that we are free to accept or reject. That is a radical difference that I do not see properly attended to in the Bill as we have it before us. The Bill and its proposers sometimes imply that there is no distinction between believers and beliefs. The Bill tells us that we should define a group as religious by reference to religious belief. That is not a passing matter; it is important. If we define a group or an individual as religious by referring to what they believe, then ipso facto if we criticise the beliefs we will criticise the believer; one cannot tear them apart. There is a real sense in which I am what I believe and if my beliefs are criticised I am criticised; if my beliefs are detested, I am detested, and I must defend those beliefs if I am to resist that. However, Clause 3 makes proper reference to defining believers by their beliefs, but the drafters are uneasy. If we look at the Explanatory Notes, they are aware of the dangers of following that line, because if one follows that line one runs into difficulties over freedom of speech and criticism of ideas and belief that we all cherish. They state that hatred of a group of persons defined by their religious beliefs must be separated from hatred of their religion. I do not see how that can be done. Hatred is not an easy emotion and not one that we should seek to inculcate or defend, but it is there, and sometimes for good reason, as we have heard from the noble Earl. But if it is the case that in the Explanatory Notes they are once again trying to prise apart the believer from the religion, the first definition offered does not stand. There is uneasiness, uncertainty and ambiguity. The difficulties are also implied, perhaps in a less important way, in a clause that we have hardly mentioned: Clause 2. There will be no citizens’ arrest provision for this: why? Is it because the issue is not sufficiently clear to trust the citizen to make a judgment? It has to be done by the constable—pity the poor bobby. If we as citizens cannot decide whether an offence has been committed, what hope has the policeman to decide on the arcane differences between religious viewpoints, which might be the source of the argument that has led to the fracas and the allegation of inciting hatred? Why is that particular provision being withdrawn in the Bill? There may be an explanation; I do not understand, but I would like to hear it. Unfortunately the uncertainty continues. Some would make a merit of it—I certainly do not—by suggesting that we should not bother defining what religion is. I was a professor of philosophy of religion for 13 years and I am aware of the complexities of the subject, but there is a standard reading list that I could provide if that would be helpful. I appreciate the realities and the difficulties of providing the definition. I am not sure that leaving it to the courts is the wisest way ahead, perhaps not even the theologians. Maybe the bishops: some of my best friends are bishops. But the definition is not there. As a citizen I would like some help in knowing whether I am likely to transgress. Knowing what the law would regard as religious or a religion would help me in that. For example, let us take the case of Nazism. Is it a religion or is it not? It passes many of the tests that people apply to the definition of religion. I detest the beliefs of Nazis and would encourage all to eschew them; to have nothing to do with them—to hate them. Ipso facto, those who lived by those beliefs and practised the terrible things that they did perhaps deserve our hatred. Is that a religion or not? And what about the Unification Church? It was under consideration by an Attorney-General of years gone by, not least to decide whether it was a religion. If it was a religion, charitable status would be involved. There is a big issue underlying the point. The issue, however, is, with no definition how do we take a view on the gossamer fine line that we occasionally apparently have to draw between ideology and religion? Finally, a puzzled question from an academic: will the Minister assure me that an audit of university libraries would not produce a range of publications that would fall under the potential criticism of the Bill and in so doing provide perhaps for extreme students in that same university a basis for taking to court the librarian, or even worse, the vice-chancellor?