Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, I want to address only one issue, and in doing so I hope to get through my short contribution without being reduced to a whisper, but please forgive me if I break down into croaks. I want to address the widespread concern, which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, about the possible impact of the legislation on artistic freedom. Like many of today’s speakers, I support the Bill’s intentions. There can be no reason for withholding from some religious groups protection that is already available to others, by virtue of their ethnicity, despite what my noble friend Lord Desai said; nor can there be any justification for allowing loopholes in existing law to be exploited by those genuinely bent on stirring up religious hatred. It has been said by some who oppose the Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who is no longer in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, are two of them—that there is a fundamental difference between race and religion: race is fixed, goes the argument, but religion is a choice. Although I can accept the theoretical truth of this view, it does not take us very far. Religion is one of the most powerful ways in which human beings create social identity, and although it may be disavowed by individuals, those who have been brought up within the strictures and structures of religious belief of any kind are marked permanently, for better or for worse, by that experience. ““Once a Catholic, always a Catholic,”” is not a light-hearted assertion. The actual practice of religion is not required for people to identify themselves in relation to it nor, more importantly, is it required for others to make that identification. We have only to look across the Irish Sea, or at the supporters of Rangers and Celtic, to see the evidence. Along with race, religion is one of our routine shorthand ways of describing both ““sameness”” and ““otherness””, and history reveals how depressingly often we use it to persecute our fellows. For that reason I support the intention of the Bill to extend protection under the law equally to all religious communities. There is, however, a vast difference between persecuting or harassing a person because of his or her beliefs—which cannot ever be acceptable—and causing offence to that person by criticising, lampooning or failing to show respect for his or her beliefs. Although in general I believe that good manners demand that we tolerate each other’s differences, there are circumstances in which causing offence is both healthy and necessary. In the Explanatory Notes issued with the Bill, the Government make the following statement:"““Hatred is a strong term. The offences [created by the Bill] will not encompass material that just stirs up ridicule or prejudice or causes offence. Further what must be stirred up is hatred of a group of persons defined by their religious beliefs and not hatred of the religion itself. Of themselves, criticism or expressions of antipathy or dislike of particular religions or their adherents will not be caught by the offence””." I recognise that that is an attempt to meet objections to the Bill, which have been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Corston in her excellent maiden speech—I am sorry that she is no longer in her place. Those objections have been raised by writers, including playwrights, and others—cartoonists and comedians, for instance—who regard tweaking the tail of all forms of authority, religious or secular, as a legitimate and necessary part of their job. I accept that the Government do not intend to limit their freedom to ply their trade, and that they have tried to allay their anxieties in what they have said about how the law will operate in practice. Despite those efforts, however, there is still a risk that the Bill, if it is passed unamended, may give a useful tool to those seeking merely to silence criticism of their religious beliefs, by encouraging attempts at prosecution, which, even if unsuccessful, will be costly and time-consuming for anyone caught up in them, including the police. Is the Minister satisfied that the Bill is drafted robustly enough to ensure that no one can use it, or fear having it used against them, in any but the very narrow circumstances that the Government seek to cover? British Equity, the performers’ union, for example, says:"““We would not wish to see such well intentioned legislation contributing to an environment where performers were inhibited from tackling sensitive religious issues, or raising expectations from religious groups of action being taken to curb these freedoms””." Similarly, English PEN, which has already been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, said:"““If a publisher, production house, theatre or comedy venue has to have recourse to lawyers every time a religious term is used which might offend the sensitive, it is clear to all of us who know the arts sector that the book or play will simply not be put on in its present form. Knowing this, many writers will inevitably self-censor””." The Arts Council England has made representations in a similar vein. I repeat what I said earlier: I accept that the Government do not seek any such outcomes from this legislation and that they have tried to explain their intentions and reassure their critics. But, although I recognise that self-censorship is a hard matter to detect, on the impossibility of proving a negative principle, these fears are keenly felt by artists, as my noble friend well knows. Will he consider strengthening the wording in the Bill to make it unambiguously clear that it is only people who are to be protected and not belief systems? Much will also depend on how the guidance for the Bill is drafted. I hope that my noble friend can reassure the House that advice will be taken from organisations such as Equity, PEN and ACE to ensure that artistic freedoms are properly protected. In conclusion, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor noted in his opening speech that the Government have as yet no developed plans to repeal the current blasphemy laws in the wake of this proposed new legislation. As others here have said, it must surely be time to consider whether it is still appropriate to retain such outdated law on the statute book.