Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, I invite my noble friend to agree that it is important that the issue of incitement is dealt with. The polls reflect that. We take them as active encouragement for the measures included in the Bill. The heart of the debate in your Lordships’ House has focused, understandably, around freedom of expression. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in his opening speech, made it plain that the Bill will have an impact on freedom of speech, just as the incitement to racial hatred offence does. We believe that that is right because there are words and actions that, as many have argued persuasively this evening, should have no place in a civilised society. In his contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, accepted that there will be infringements on the absolute right of freedom of speech. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, did exactly the same in his contribution. The noble Lord, Lord Plant, also agreed with that point in his comments. However, we need to understand what the Bill will not do. Many contributors to the debate focused on the issue of freedom of expression. When I listened to the comments, I could not recognise the Bill as its impact was being described. The Bill will not catch those who criticise beliefs, teachings or practices of a religion or its followers, for example, by claiming that they are false or harmful. The Bill will not catch or penalise those who proselytise their own religion or urge followers of a different religion to cease practising theirs; for example, Christians claiming that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, the life and the only way to God. The Bill will not lead to the prosecution of those telling jokes about religions. The noble Lord, Lord Plant, told a rather good joke which certainly will not be caught by our legislation, and it is not our intent that it should in the future. The arguments that have been advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, deserve some attention. Today and in the past, he has argued that the current law provides equal protection for Jews, Sikhs and Muslims and that Jews and Sikhs are covered by the racial hatred legislation only because of their ethnicity. Any stirring up of hatred against them based on their religious adherence would not be covered. He also suggests that the Government could define Muslims as a racial group for the purpose of including them in the racial hatred offences. We believe that the arguments of the noble Lord are flawed, in that Muslims are clearly not a racial group. It is difficult, in practice, to distinguish racial from religious in terms of the mono-ethnic religions. That would not achieve our stated policy intentions. For those reasons, we need to proceed as we are.