Consequently, Jews and Sikhs are protected under the law, not by virtue of their religion, but by virtue of their race, because there was a definition that that constituted their race. The hon. Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) are trying to draw a very narrow distinction, on which, I think, we are all agreed. I am grateful to them for helping me to tease out the point.
The important point we are trying to make is that the particular injustice that we believe exists under the law encourages racists to express their hatred and incite hatred in relation to people’s religion rather than their race, even when their hatred would probably be directed against their race.
I shall come to whether religion is something one chooses or something that is given and how one should address that question. It seems clear, however, that if it is possible to differentiate between the sin and the sinner—if, in other words, it is possible to hate the sin but love the sinner—it must surely be possible to hate a religious belief, or disagree intrinsically with it, yet still like, or indeed love, the person who holds that belief. Equally, it must follow that it is possible to protect the believer and leave the belief to fend for itself. That is what I believe the Bill will do.
Racial and Religious Hatred Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Chris Bryant
(Labour)
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 c624 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:26:24 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_257354
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_257354
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_257354