Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, anyone who has studied the history of conflict will be aware that religious antagonisms are even more intense and potentially dangerous than antagonisms based on race, class, language or political philosophy. It is not necessary to go back to the Crusades, the St Bartholomew’s day massacre or the 30 years’ war to demonstrate this. Consider the past 100 years. After setting aside the two world wars and their immediate aftermath, and the mass murders perpetrated by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, which were too one-sided to be classified as conflicts, most of the remaining wars, battles and massacres had a strong religious element, even where superficially the quarrel was about something quite different. The Indian sub-continent 58 years ago is naturally the first to spring to mind. Going back a few decades, one thinks of Ireland north and south; the southern Balkans prior to World War I where Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Greece and Turkey were all locked in bloody combat; the newly-formed state of Yugoslavia after World War I where three religions—orthodox Christians, Roman Catholics and Muslims—massacred each other with great gusto not simply from 1990 onwards but intermittently over the decades; Cyprus; Israel/Palestine; Lebanon; Syria in 1982; Algeria after 1953; northern Nigeria; southern Thailand; the southern Philippines; Malaysia in 1969; Indonesia spasmodically over the decades; Sri Lanka, where the protagonists practise different religions; Pakistan where Shia Muslims are the chief victims; and of course Iraq where both Shias and Sunnis are massacring one another. Even the Spanish Civil War—the Basque regions excepted—could be described as a merciless struggle between Catholic ultras aided by Muslim mercenaries on one hand and militant atheists on the other. The only major exceptions I can think of are in Africa: Biafra, Rwanda and Darfur. It is clear that the stirring up of religious hatred can have horrible consequences. But this is not what the Bill will prevent. Paragraph 16 of the Explanatory Notes makes it clear that actual religions can be attacked with the most extreme vehemence, with no holds barred. This is only proper in a free society which values freedom of expression, much as one might hope for voluntary restraint. Unfortunately, with the example of Salman Rushdie in the forefront of the minds of satirists, comedians, playwrights and so on, this voluntary restraint is likely to apply only to criticisms of those religions that do not believe in turning the other cheek. The Bill seeks to prevent hatred being stirred up against the adherents of those religions, as if the two could be neatly compartmentalised. This cannot be done in practice. Moreover, surely it should be a crime to stir up hatred—which is bound to lead to violence sooner or later—against any group, be they Pentecostalists or paediatricians. Noble Lords will remember that mobs attacked paediatricians not long ago, confusing them with paedophiles. For the record, I do not believe that actual paedophiles should be subject to mob violence either. Furthermore, the Bill does not confine itself to the deliberate stirring up of hatred, but as my noble friend Lady Cox pointed out, extends to the unintentional stirring up of hatred. How on earth can people know in advance that they might do this? I agree totally with the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Oxford that we must amend that clause. The fact that similar words occur in earlier legislation does not make it any better. While we can unite in deploring threatening or abusive words or behaviour, insults are a different matter. There is no objective clear-cut definition of ““insult””. Very few people are naturally thin-skinned. Many more have been encouraged to become so by the indigenous zealots for political correctness. Who could have imagined even five years ago that the three little pigs would seriously be in mortal danger? I have heard the views of Muslim friends—ranging from the almost secular to the devoutly religious—for more than 50 years, and not one of them would worry about such things, let alone make a fuss about them. The current hyper-sensitivity is a politically inspired innovation. Judging by her excellent speech, I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, would agree with that. Furthermore, could not the unvarnished truth, calmly presented, be considered nevertheless insulting? Let me give an example. Home Office statistics confirm that followers of certain religions are much more likely to be in prison than followers of other religions. Might it not be insulting to the first group to publicise this and might not the public revelation stir up animosity? What about ritual slaughter? Having looked into the matter carefully, I am satisfied that ritual slaughter is scarcely more cruel than non-religious slaughter, but there are millions of people who sincerely—if hypocritically, in the case of the carnivorous majority—believe it to be barbarous and those who practise it barbarians. Will they be prosecuted if they say as much, as Brigitte Bardot was prosecuted in France for voicing similar sentiments? We shall clearly have a very hard fought Committee stage, and I am only sorry that I shall have to miss the first day.