Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

I am not going to give way. We supported the principle in general terms in Committee. However, such legislation needs very careful drafting, especially when it comes to scope. While clause 107 is more tightly drafted than some feared—it is limited to intentional acts and threatening words, not merely abusive or insulting words—it remains unclear what words and behaviour would be caught by the offence. I believe that Church groups are right to seek clarity on that point. Amendment No. 1 does not seek to exempt expressions of dislike, insult or abuse of gay people. It relates only to conduct. The question before us is whether criticism of such conduct should be a matter for the criminal law. In my view, it should not. None of Stonewall's examples of hateful words against gay people would fall within the scope of that defence. The examples that it gives criticise not conduct, but people. We have to beware of clumsy police investigations and the chilling effect of the law. There is an important balance to be achieved between free speech, including what Stonewall rightly calls ““temperate comment””, which it agrees should not be outlawed, and the protection of a minority from harm. Edmund Burke said that we"““ought to know…what belongs to laws, and what manners alone can regulate. To these…politicians may give a leaning, but they cannot give a law.””" Hatred towards gay people has no place in a civilised society, but the mark of a civilised society is that, except where harm is done, people are free and have freedom of expression. I would not support amendment No. 1 if I thought it weakened gay people's protection from incitement to hateful violence, but I do not believe that it does so weaken it; I believe that it helpfully clarifies the law. That is why I will support amendment No. 1.