Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

The hon. Gentleman is right. I hope that I made it clear earlier that this is not just about protecting people with religious beliefs but people with all beliefs. They are entitled to their say. Those of us who have beliefs—like the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), I am a Christian and a practising member of the Church of England—just have to lump it when people say things that we find offensive. We have grown used to doing so in the period of greater tolerance that developed in the last century, and it worries me that the Government are asking us to take a step backwards on the issue, instead of saying, ““Those are our values, and people who live in this country have jolly well got to subscribe to them.”” Without that, we will move towards the dominance of whichever group makes the loudest noise, is the most insistent and threatens other people—in subtle ways—the most. That is profoundly undesirable. My next issue is what constitutes ““abusive and insulting””. We have touched on the issue already, so I may not need to say too much about it. The fact is that abusive and insulting words and behaviour are different from threatening words and behaviour. If the word ““insulting”” is put back in the Bill, even remarks that to an ordinary person might appear innocuous but are deeply wounding to a person with a particular religion or belief would be caught. A person could engage in a moderate discourse that nevertheless caused great insult—the examples given earlier included calling into question the divinity of Christ or calling into question whether the Prophet Mohammed’s revelations were divinely inspired. Another example is the play ““Beshti””, which was profoundly insulting to Sikhs. It was insulting in its concepts and its implications about the behaviour of priests and elders in gurdwaras, and it is that sort of play that would, logically, be caught by this legislation, even if the Minister thinks that any guidelines that might be enacted would provide protection. ““Beshti”” is a classic example and that is why the House should not allow the words ““abusive and insulting”” back into the Bill. By keeping the word ““threatening””, we latch on to the very things that were identified by the Minister, such as the Norwood case and the poster with the twin towers that said ““Muslims out of Britain””. That is threatening. The examples that the Minister gave of people attacking women wearing the hijab or calling for people to be thrown out are threatening and would not require the words ““abusive and insulting”” to be added.