Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, I can give two examples of what I do not believe would be covered. The first is the example to which my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws referred: what Paul Goggins said on the radio this morning. The poster is headed ““The Burka Bombers”” and shows a picture of a woman in a burka. The text under the poster claims that Muslim women, including white converts, are being recruited by extremists and that the burka is being used to get round security. It says:"““Who knows what they have under their sinister and ugly looking clothes—stolen goods, guns, bombs even?””." I do not know the basis on which the noble Baroness says that the matter was successfully prosecuted, but the prosecution, in order to be certain of success, if it included white Muslims, would need to be under the incitement to religious hatred. I can give another example. The noble Baroness is absolutely right, examples are important. A Muslim cleric in a lecture to similarly minded members of the Islamic faith makes emphatic claims that sexual perversion is rife among infidels, there is nothing wrong with hating Christians and to be a good Muslim, that is something one ought to do. In my view, both of those examples are not covered by the existing law. That is why we need a law in this form. It is a small gap, but it is a very important gap. I believe that the debate should not be about whether we should try to capture that kind of thing in the criminal law, but whether we have succeeded in doing it in a way that does not have unintended and unacceptable consequences. I am sure that we shall have an interesting debate this afternoon and I am sure we shall have an interesting debate in Committee and in the later stages of the Bill. This is an important and controversial Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)