I am sure that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) feels, as I do, that, perhaps not for the first time, our hope lies in the Lords.
No one could impugn the good faith and intentions of either the Under-Secretary, who is an amiable and genuine chap, or the Government. However, not only the road to hell but that to legislative chaos is paved with good intentions. If there were time and it were in order, I could cite the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and many other knee-jerk reaction Bills, which you and I, Mr. Speaker, have seen pass through the House and that subsequently either passed into oblivion or caused danger.
The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) made a powerful speech. I am sure that he did not mean to imply that, if the Bill had been enacted four years ago, the events of last Thursday would not have happened, but it is important that people read his speech and my comments on it in that context because a careless listening or reading could give the wrong impression.
I was moved by the testimony of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). I am delighted—I am sure we all are—that she so thoroughly beat off the nasty challenge of the BNP. Her words deserve wide circulation and careful study because if we stand for anything in this place, it is freedom of thought and expression, unfettered freedom of speech and, of course, proper constraints and sanctions against those who do what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) described: encourage people to violence and evil. They must be dealt with. No hon. Member would disagree with that.
However, the Bill is not the way to achieve that. I was unable to take part in the Second Reading debate because I was still fighting the general election. However, I received petitions, containing many hundreds of signatures, and many dozens of letters from churches and chapels in my constituency. They were from ordinary, decent people, who have as high a regard for their Muslim friends and neighbours as the hon. Member for Keighley and I do. I remind hon. Members, 10 years to the day after Srebrenica, that I was one of the few who spoke out against those appalling atrocities in Bosnia. However, my constituents do not believe that the Bill is the way to help their Muslim friends and neighbours.
My constituents are also concerned about the inhibitions that the Bill might place on them in proclaiming their beliefs and faith fearlessly and openly. We want a society where people can proclaim and defend their beliefs and, yes, attack those of others if they feel that they are wrong. We want a truly tolerant and free society. I am sure that the Government and the Under-Secretary want that. However, the Bill, which the Under-Secretary clearly took through the Committee with great good humour, is not the way to achieve that. I shall vote against the Bill without any qualms or inhibitions. I hope very much that, when it comes back from the other place, it will have been significantly improved, and that the points raised in new clause 4 and the other amendments that have been rejected, withdrawn or not moved tonight will have been inserted into it so that it becomes workable and manageable. In its present state, it manifestly is not.
Racial and Religious Hatred Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Cormack
(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 c665 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:25:59 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_257443
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_257443
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_257443