Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has stated today, the Bill proposes a new offence, with a maximum of seven years in prison, of,"““stirring up hatred against persons on religious grounds, and . . . amends provisions relating to offences involving stirring up hatred against persons on racial grounds.””" Although the Bill aims to protect people of a religious persuasion—or none—the public view is that it also protects religions. That interpretation was the view among Muslims in north-west England after a meeting when the Home Office Minister with responsibility for race equality, Paul Goggins, explained that this law is intended to protect religious groups from extremists who seek to stir up hatred against them. He also stated that this law would be used to protect Muslims from violent attacks. Clearly, an understanding of the Minister’s words and what is meant in the legislation are two different things. Arrangements to increase community cohesion are the real solution to the problem of violent attacks against Muslims. That includes education, housing, employment and a lot of other enabling arrangements. Opinions are strongly divided among people within the different faith communities, as some noble Lords have stated. The proposed legislation is not the way to deal with this matter. It is more likely to lead to resentment, harassment and an increase in hatred. The editor of Asian Voice, for example, wrote against the proposed legislation on 15 January this year and again on 18 June. The editor of Asians in Media also highlighted the dangers of the legislation on 4 July. Inciting religious hatred is wrong, but there is widespread opposition to the Bill. The current laws criminalising aggravated harassment, violence, threatened violence and property damage under Sections 1 to 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 are considered adequate to protect Muslims and members of other religious minorities. I had personal experience of the protection of these laws because on 1 August, during the parliamentary Recess, I received an odd-shaped envelope at my home, containing a calling card with the following words:"““Serve your country—burn down a mosque””." This card had arrived at my home three weeks after an arson attack on the only mosque in Birkenhead following the London bombings on 7 July. The rest of the contents of that card are not suitable for quoting in your Lordships’ House. I informed the police immediately; they called at my home for a detailed interview that afternoon and removed the card for forensic tests. The police assured me that if they could find the culprits, they would be prosecuted. I await further news from the police. Secondly, the Bill would lead to unintended consequences restricting freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of religion. This law could allow extremist members of one religion to silence those who hold opposing views. For example, an article in a church magazine that included a Christian’s claim that no one can get to God except through Jesus Christ might be seen as inciting hatred against other religious communities by implying that their faith is false. Some people who supported the idea of this legislation in principle have changed their mind as they have seen the likely consequences. The fact that the Muslim Council of Britain asked in the Muslim Weekly of 8 to 14 June this year for the Koran and other scriptures to be exempted from the Bill indicates that it has also realised the possible consequences. Despite government assurances to the contrary, statements from the Bible or the Koran could cross the threshold of being ““likely”” to stir up religious hatred against those who have an extremely strong dislike of what they say. For example, if a moderate Muslim were to criticise aspects of Islamic law such as the death penalty for apostates, it could be argued that this is inciting hatred against those who hold such beliefs. Since the tragedy of the London suicide bombings of 7 July, followed by the abortive bombings of 21 July, it is crucial that the voice of moderate Muslims should not be stifled through self-censorship or fear of the Bill on incitement to religious hatred. Because of fears of the Bill curbing free speech and events such as open-air evangelist meetings and preaching in the open, a few hundred Christians assembled outside this building this morning and afternoon to protest and to make their presence heard. Thirdly, the Bill will open the way for vexatious complaints to the police. Although vexatious complaints cannot go to the law courts because the agreement of the Attorney-General must be obtained, complainants who go to the police about religious and anti-religious material written, spoken and broadcast in the media, can easily demand that the police do something about it. I gave one example of this type of complaint in March in Rochdale. The police will no doubt have to investigate complaints which the complainants feel have stirred up religious hatred. A good deal of disruption would be caused to the organisation being investigated. Finally, hatred will not be diminished by this legislation; instead, it will inflame hatred. In its current form, the Bill will not have my support.