Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

I can tell the right hon. Lady that in my opinion, and in that of the human rights lawyers whom I have consulted, it is unlikely that under the Human Rights Act the blasphemy offence would pass muster in United Kingdom courts, where there is no margin of appreciation on national grounds because they are our courts. It is extremely unlikely that the English blasphemy offence would survive Strasbourg nowadays, and I think it right and proper that it would be struck down, but I do not think we need wait for that. The offence is not necessary, it does not work, it is ancient, it is discriminatory, and it ought to be abolished. The offence is also divisive in terms of social cohesion, partly because it is discriminatory. The corollary of that is that it raises a sense of unfairness among other religions, particularly those whose adherents are more sensitive than adherents to the Christian faith—a sense that they are being singled out because they are not protected. It raises the expectation, which previous Governments may have sought to keep going, that they will be entitled to their own—Islamic, say—version of a blasphemy law. The best way in which to make clear to the communities and people of this nation that we do not expect there to be protection of beliefs, or indeed of people's sensibilities about their beliefs, is to abolish the existing blasphemy offences, and that is one of the strongest arguments for so doing. As many Members will recall, when we last discussed the religious hatred offences a couple of years ago, it was made clear even by those who supported the Government's original wide offence that we did not want to prevent attacks—including scurrilous, lampooning and offensive attacks—on religious or indeed other beliefs. That is one of the main reasons why the House was right to narrow the offence, so that insulting and abusive language and unintentional words and behaviour would not be covered by the law relating to incitement to religious hatred. The House was right to do that, and anyone who voted in favour of narrowing that offence must surely also be in favour of abolishing these laws. They have even less justification than over-wide offences aimed at protecting people and their sensibilities, because they purport directly to protect people's beliefs.