Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, in relation to words such as ““hatred””, no; we do not intend to produce any definition in relation to that because it is a word that a jury could perfectly well understand. As to ““threatening, insulting or abusive behaviour””, again we have no intention to introduce a definition because, again, that is something that a jury could perfectly well understand. As regards ““religious beliefs””, no, again, because that has already been defined by case law. A religious belief, to be a belief protected by the Bill, will need to attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. The belief, in order to be a religious belief protected by the Bill, must be worthy of respect in a democratic society and not incompatible with human dignity. So the answer is no; we believe the law has sufficient safeguards in relation to that. As I say, the question is whether we have achieved our aim. I have given the six reasons why I think we have achieved it. For all these reasons we think that the Bill will not have the impact on freedom of speech that opponents claim it will. The racial incitement offence which already exists has not had this effect although it covers not only Jews and Sikhs but also nationalities. I do not think that the impact of extending this protection to faith groups will be any different. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, when considering the proposals—