Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, the 20th century saw more Christian martyrs than the previous 19 centuries combined. Of the world’s 6 billion inhabitants, more than half live in countries where being a Christian could cost you your life. By way of example, the systematic and routine imprisonment and torture of religious believers—Christians, Buddhists and Falangong—in China is well documented. So are the internment camps and forced labour camps of North Korea. Only last week, I raised with the North Korean ambassador in London the case of Moon Seong Jun, a 64-year-old Protestant pastor from Pyungan Buk Do, who is currently facing execution for his beliefs. Elsewhere, in countries such as Sudan, jihadists have attempted forcibly to convert people living there through bombing campaigns, siege, abduction and enslavement. Of course, many Muslim leaders reject that sort of coercion, but it remains an unresolved issue within Islam. Contemporaneously, in Western society 9/11, Madrid, Bali and the London bombings of 7 July 2005 have thrown into sharp relief the interplay between religious belief and out ability to coexist peaceably. How the great faiths live together and within a secular society is one of the great challenges of the 21st century. I therefore understand the reasons and motives why the Government want to try to address this issue. But as I argued in your Lordships’ House in the aftermath of the events of 9/11, when the Government first mooted the introduction of the law on religious hatred, I do not believe that the straitjacket of legislation is the way to address these challenges. If the Bill becomes law, it could well have a deleterious effect, quite the reverse of what the Government intend. The law could be used as a weapon by different religious groups and by secularists and, far from facilitating more harmonious relations, it could undermine the good relationships that in many parts of the country characterise our faith communities. We should be immensely careful before instigating an era of self-censorship about issues that instead require mature and reasoned debate, but a debate that will inevitably at times be legitimately critical. To threaten sanctions of seven years’ imprisonment on the basis of a law which could be open to a wide range of interpretations and is highly subjective would be a huge error. The very title of the Bill—Racial and Religious Hatred Bill—reveals an inherent flaw. Putting race and religion together in this way is a non sequitur. We are all born with our race. It is inherent and unalterable. Race is neither good nor bad, nor right or wrong. I have always believed that to subject someone to prejudice and irrational discrimination because of their race is wholly irrational and that proportionate sanctions should be available within the law. By contrast, our religious beliefs, if we have any, should be freely embraced and ultimately we can affirm those beliefs or walk away from them. The existing law provides all the safeguards necessary if criminal acts occur. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred earlier to my own faith. My late mother was an Irish-speaking immigrant, and as a young boy I went to a Catholic grammar school. As is the way with these things, as we walked home, youngsters from a nearby school would frequently taunt us and sometimes worse. Early on I had to develop a reasonably thick skin and learn to appreciate the importance of tolerance and respect towards those of other origins and other beliefs. I learnt that you do not have to hate one country because you love another, be it Britain or Ireland, Britain or Pakistan. I also had to learn to negotiate and how to defend my beliefs, and not to be intimidated into disowning them simply for expedient reasons. Men and women are diminished when they are forced to collaborate in opinions that they do not hold, or told that they must believe that which is contrary to their conscience. In the United Kingdom we should be wary of trying to impose a blend of political and religious correctness. We can hardly legislate for that. In a very thoughtful speech—as is her wont—the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, was quite right to remind us of the experiences of the west of Scotland. I would only say that my experience in Liverpool, representing part of that city for 18 years, was a very good one. The Mersey miracle that occurred there, where Catholics and Protestants, and people now of all faith, have come together in a spirit of tolerance, was not as a result of legislation, but through the leadership particularly of the city’s religious leaders. Many in our British Muslim community come from    Asian backgrounds. Many have suffered discrimination and irrational prejudice because of their racial origins. There are echoes here of Northern Ireland, where we rightly acted to end discrimination and inequality. If we were to properly address the causes of deep alienation on the back streets of Bradford, Leeds, Oldham and Burnley, we would be using our time more productively than producing legislation which many even in the Muslim community say is irrelevant. Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, the leader of the Muslim Parliament in Britain says,"““This law will not protect Muslims””," He cited the negative experience of Australia that has been mentioned earlier, saying that this had proved to be a ““double-edged sword”” and he rightly said that:"““Muslims must build alliances with civil society to promote a fairer and more tolerant society in which everyone’s views are respected rather than be seen to be undermining freedom of speech””." By rooting religious freedom in the dignity of the human person, the claim for religious freedom becomes a universal one securing the freedom of all people of conscience—Christian or not—to embrace the religious belief of their choice. In turn, the elevation of religious freedom brings great bounty to society in the working out of charitable endeavour and the deepening of the common good. A society which promotes religious freedom will be enlivened and enriched; one which does not will decay. The limitation of free speech, an unwillingness to allow open debate and a reliance on punitive legislation like that which is proposed is not the way to achieve that objective, and I hope that the Bill will not proceed in its present form.