Coroners and Justice Bill

This offence has not existed for long while the free speech saving clause has been in place, so I do not think that there has been an issue in that regard. What we must deal with is the existing mischief, rather than hypothetical situations. There is a real threat of incitement to homophobic hatred by extremist political parties, as opposed to the religious. The example that I gave would not currently constitute an offence because it does not directly incite violence, but incites hatred and involves the use of threatening language. Until we have this law, there was no provision to deal with incitement to hatred on grounds of sexual orientation. Let me turn to the so-called Waddington amendment. I do not doubt the sincerity of Members who support it, but I note that its sponsors in the Lords were not very keen on free speech when it came to the repeal of the blasphemy laws, and generally have not been defenders of free speech when it comes to terrorism law. There is clearly a lobby in favour of extra provisions for free speech in one area, the area of sexual orientation, but we must take that on its merits. What concerns me about that amendment is that its wording creates confusion. Let me give the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) an example, because he invited me to do so. The amendment states that the""criticism of sexual… practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred."" Does that mean that if some extremist group, probably political rather than religious, says, "These gays should keep their dirty practices away from our children or they will get what is coming to them," that would be covered by the clause? They might think, rightly or wrongly, that because they were restricting their language to criticism of practices—and it is clearly critical of a sexual practice—and urging people to refrain from such practices, albeit in an outrageous and distorted way, they would benefit from the protection of the clause. They might say that their language should not of itself be taken to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred, although it clearly is threatening and does stir up hatred. I think it is a bit too late for the hon. and learned Gentleman to get out his law books after the damage has been done, and to say, "No, actually they do not benefit from the saving clause", but I should be grateful if he could address the issue.