I did not intend to speak, although I was intrigued by the clause, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones. The Minister’s reply concerns me, because he has more or less said to the Committee that the word is there only because my noble friend Lord Carlile thought that it was appropriate to have it there. We do not know why the noble Lord wanted it there, and the Minister seems to think that it will reduce confusion because ““racial”” and ““religious”” have tended to go together in recent times. Many of us who have opposed the insertion into recent legislation of as much religion as there is would argue that it adds to confusion. It is completely erroneous to argue that adding ““racial”” because ““religious”” and ““racial”” have tended to go together for the past five years or so will reduce confusion. Ethnicity will be brought in, and there will be all sorts of other confusions, such as whether we consider Jewish people to be a religious group or a racial one. In case the Conservatives suggest that the opposition to the Question was only probing, I suggest that it may well turn out to be more and might come back on Report.
Counter-Terrorism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 21 October 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Counter-Terrorism Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c1065 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:20:33 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_502247
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_502247
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_502247