As the noble Lord has mentioned me twice, I hope that he will not feel aggrieved if I ask him a question. I feel aggrieved to be on the opposite side of anything that the noble Lord says. I have never known an occasion when we disagreed on such matters.
I have had a quick look at the matters to which the noble Lord referred me—I had them in my notes and did not mention them, but of course they are important—but the examples and discussions that took place in the Committee on Religious Offences were in toto about incitement. We do not need a new law to make people liable for inciting people to kill others. To that extent the law covers it.
The issue is about incitement. Does the noble Lord agree that if a Bill is introduced to make incitement to something a crime, it is about intentional acts? People on the far right know very well what they are doing. The Bill goes so far beyond incitement, and that is what people are worried about. The amendment reduces the scope of the Bill to intentional incitement.
Racial and Religious Hatred Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 25 October 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Racial and Religious Hatred Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
674 c1085-6 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 20:20:07 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_269806
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_269806
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_269806