Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, I want to apologise to the House for speaking in an irregular fashion. I thought I would be unable to attend today, but I have been able to extricate myself from another commitment, and am using this opportunity to speak in the gap. I will be brief. First, I too regret that the Government have chosen not to consult further—as commented on by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill. The events of the summer have hardened positions on all sides, and it would have been most helpful to have re-examined the issues in the light of the changed atmosphere. I believe the Prime Minister told us that the rules of the game had changed. If they had indeed changed, then it would have been useful to use the new atmosphere to look anew at the problems—as well as the solutions that we might be able to find. But the Government’s first instinct, as always, is of course to rush to legislate. That is where we find ourselves today. My second point is on that crucial question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, to which we had no satisfactory answer. That is the contradiction of, on the one hand, bringing forward this measure and, on the other, the proposed glorification and incitement offences to combat terrorism. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said earlier that, for example, if a preacher—an imam—incited violence, then he would be done for that. My question is: what would we do with imams and others who genuinely believed that what they were saying was compatible with their view and beliefs? In other words, that they did not think they were inciting violence when they had. Would we go to Al-Azhar, or perhaps Qom? Depending on which creed it was, it would become an interesting theological debate. In trying to determine where we are, I fear we would leave an invidious task for judges and juries. My final point—probably my most important one—is about the Muslim community. We have heard much in this debate about the impact of anti-Islamic sentiment on the Muslim community, and how we must create a level playing field. I come from a different perspective from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and I am sorry he is not in his usual place to listen to these speeches. I too have been consulting. On the whole, I am not allowed into mosques, or I may be allowed in but I do not have the platform in mosques that men do in my religion. But, like the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, I have spoken to many women, and men, across the board in the Muslim community. We are a divided community on this Bill. There is no question about that. We face two questions. One of our concerns is that the Bill will lead to unfulfilled expectations—I am conscious of time so I shall go quickly—and so, if we look at Northern Ireland, for example, where no prosecutions have been brought, it would shift pressure from those who are racist and indulge in anti-Islamic sentiment to the security services. It would create undue pressure in that regard. On the other hand, if we were prepared to bring prosecutions on all sides even-handedly, then the so-called ““chilling effect”” on freedom of expression and religious belief would very quickly bear the hallmarks of real social and intercommunal strife. So we would all be better served by the police and the DPP using existing laws to prosecute hate against Muslims who, on the whole, are a visible religious group. Even the noble Lord, Lord Gould, in his passionate defence of the Bill, cited racist thugs. He did not use the word ““anti-Islamic”” thugs. I look forward to working through the stages of the Bill to improve it sufficiently along the lines proposed by my noble friend Lord Lester to provide the real protections that Muslims need.