Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, I am not speaking as a Back-Bencher and therefore I am perfectly entitled to make a full speech, if your Lordships please. We shall not oppose a Second Reading, but if the Bill is given a Second Reading we will move an amendment to cover Muslims, Jews and Sikhs equally. We will also seek to place a strong protective fence around free speech. Words, behaviour, and so on abusive or insulting to a religious belief should not be treated as giving rise to an offence unless they are intended or likely to incite violence against individuals who hold that belief. That will ensure that the stirring up of hatred against religious groups such as Jews or Muslims will be unlawful but that the stirring up of hatred against Islam or Judaism or any other religion would be unlawful only if it were likely to stir up violence. Broadcasting, plays, operas, films, novels and other works of artistic or literary merit and popular entertainment should be protected by the law against threats posed by the intolerant, the ignorant and the politically correct. There is also the chilling effect on free speech. We need to draw a bright line in the Bill rather than leaving it to the Attorney-General and the courts to draw the line. Soli Sorabjee, Senior Council, the former Attorney-General of India, gave evidence to the committee of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, as follows:"““experience shows that criminal laws prohibiting hate speech and expression will encourage intolerance, divisiveness and unreasonable interference with freedom of expression. Fundamentalist Christians, religious Muslims and devout Hindus would then seek to invoke the criminal machinery against each other’s religion, tenets or practices. That is what is increasingly happening today in India. We need not more repressive laws but more free speech to combat bigotry and to promote tolerance””." We should heed that wise advice.