Of course, some may be apostates when it comes to the political views of their forefathers. Nevertheless, one’s political views are closely bound up with one’s philosophical outlook. But I would hate that to be treated as a defining characteristic, so immutable that it was entitled to special protection. What worries me about the approach of the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) is that it does suggest that someone’s religious outlook is immutable. It suggests that we can compartmentalise society into a series of blocks of individuals believing certain things, which deserve to be preserved in aspic for all time without challenge.
I believe that in the pluralistic society that we are rapidly becoming in this country—indeed, we may have already reached that point—we should be going in the opposite direction. Far from there being special protection, people must face the fact that their personal point of view on matters as sensitive as religion, for instance, will come in for robust criticism, discussion and discourse. If we embark on the road down which I fear the Bill will take us, we will institutionalise difference, curb debate and thus produce a far less flexible society than the society we undoubtedly need if we are to go forward and prosper.
Racial and Religious Hatred Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Dominic Grieve
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 11 July 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Racial and Religious Hatred Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
436 c614 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:26:55 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_257309
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_257309
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_257309