Racial and Religious Hatred Bill |
|
Chris Bryant: The whited sepulchres. 5 pmMr. Grieve: Not just those.
Column Number: 49 he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because you are not of God. Then answered the Jews, and said unto him”— and so it continues. My point is simply that that is one illustration—perhaps not the most extreme even within scriptural texts in the New Testament—of sayings that could be preached and reproduced and could be construed as inciting hatred against others. Indeed, I regret to say that it has undoubtedly been used in the past for that very purpose. We cannot get away from the problem. Take Psalm 139. Admittedly it is Old Testament, but some people give great scriptural significance to the Old Testament:
That is the very thing that we were discussing when we mentioned intense dislike and enmity. If a priest taking that as his scriptural text on a Sunday morning were to use it to refer to people of no religious belief, or of a religious belief that he believed to be wholly incompatible with the scriptures, and his audience were incited to religious hatred, he would have committed the offence. One is never sure what sort of audience one is going to get. I simply say to the Minister that these are serious matters. The Government seem to be labouring under a delusion that religious faith is all-inclusive and cuddly. In fact, religious faith is not particularly inclusive and cuddly, although many of its modern manifestations and the tolerance that underlies it have enormously benefited humankind in general, and there is, of course, a great deal of interpretation by people who say without difficulty that statements such as the ones I read out should not be taken literally. We have the same problem with the Koran. I tread slightly more warily here because I am extremely ignorant of the Koran, but I have had the opportunity of reading it and find it to be full of texts of a kind that some people might find extremely offensive. It is impossible to get away from that. Some of those texts have been used in the recent past to justify acts of violence of an extreme and unpleasant kind. For example, Sura 5:33 states:
The scriptural interpretation at the bottom, which I read some time ago with interest, puts some interesting and very moderate glosses on the interpretation of that text, but it is idle to pretend that it has not been used to justify terrible things. I say that to the Committee because one of the difficulties with which we have to grapple is what I call the circularity of the problem. Why do people hate
It then goes on to provide answers to those questions about Islam. To avoid any misunderstanding I want to make a couple of points. It contains sections such as the following:
It then cites examples, so whoever the author is—an unknown person on the net—he clearly acknowledges that Muslims are speaking out in different ways. However, a lot of the text is a pretty devastating polemic against Islam and its practices. I should be happy to circulate photocopies of it, rather than read it all out in Committee. The person making the remarks thinks that Islam is a revolting faith founded on a fraud perpetrated on credulous people at its inception. Reading the text leads me to suspect that those views are held with utter sincerity by its maker, although his ability to perceive some good aspects of Islam does not suggest to me that he approached the subject with a completely closed mind. The text does suggest to me that the maker was very angry at what he perceived to be the beliefs of Muslims, and their behaviour which led from those beliefs. As a result, there can be no doubt that he was encouraging people to think very ill of Islam and Muslims in Britain generally. That is a classic example of the sort of person whom the Government may intend the Bill to catch. However, at no point in the four pages of discursiveness is there the merest suggestion that anyone should do anything unpleasant to a Muslim. That does not feature, but it is a polemic, clearly deeply felt, about practices that the writer regards as abhorrent. The main point is that I think that if I were a Muslim and I read the text I should pretty quickly feel insulted. It does not threaten. It might be described as abusive, but that depends on whether one considers that any of the points being made have a rational basis. It includes accurate quotations from the Koran, but there is no doubt that the writer places different interpretations on them from those given in the Koran that I have in my room, which was kindly supplied to me by the Muslim community after 9/11 and which I have always read with interest. I have serious doubts about what we are doing if we are saying that the text that I received should be made criminal. If so, we are not creating a new freedom but imposing a new regime of orthodoxy on every religious group by telling people, “You can think what you like, but if your thought does not accord with the inclusive
I hope that the Committee will excuse me. I suppose that I could have focused on another example, but I have highlighted this one because of the circularity of the issues. It is true that hatred may sometimes have no rational basis, but often it does have a basis. If one looks at Muslim websites, as I have done, it is sometimes not difficult to perceive at least a basis to some of the criticisms of the west and Christians, even if the extremism of the thought is disturbing. Those are not necessarily sites that call for holy war or violence. We simply have to face up to the fact that such things exist. Mr. Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): Will my hon. Friend expand his argument slightly? Some of the things promoted, for example, by the Catholic religion may be deeply unattractive to many people, such as its view on birth control, which has had an impact on the spread of AIDS in Africa, where literally millions of people are dying from what is, basically, a preventable disease. I feel very strongly that such beliefs are wrong and that millions suffer because of them. Would I be caught by the Bill if I put my belief in writing? Mr. Grieve: It depends. If I have understood the Minister’s approach, I suppose that the Government would say that such opinions were all right as long as they were expressed with moderation. However, if one were encouraging people to hate Catholics because of their beliefs, as opposed to attacking their beliefs, one might be caught. If my hon. Friend were to say that Catholics should be shunned because their beliefs cause a great obstacle to the eradication of AIDS in the world and they are therefore nasty people who have no respect for the integrity of human life and are an obstacle to progress, he might be caught, if the language he used was sufficiently strong. I cannot say. We are treading on eggshells. The Government seem to believe passionately that the eggshells will not break—that the dividing line can be clearly established. All I can say to the Minister is that I hope that I have provided some material for the Committee to discuss. I acknowledge that there are problems to which I do not have simple answers. However, I return the polemic against Islam: it is certainly insulting and it may well incite hatred, yet I suspect that that is not what the author intended. That example highlights the huge difficulties that we are likely to face. Harry Cohen: The hon. Gentleman has made a good and interesting argument and I accept his point that the way in which laws are interpreted and implemented has a psychological effect in our society. I simply ask him, what is wrong with a new orthodoxy of restraint against incitement to hatred? Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman puts a clear case which, if it were the one that the Government were making, would give rise to some interesting debates in the Committee and in the House. If, however, he accepts the logic of his own argument, as I am sure he does, there is absolutely no reason why it should be
One could say that the Bill proposes a prohibition of hatred, whereby people will not be allowed to express intense dislike of anybody else in any circumstances because society will not permit such a thing. Such a provision is slightly Orwellian and runs contrary to a long tradition of human development. One reason why I do not believe the legislation is a good idea is that if the state tries to suppress deeply held beliefs, all that happens is that such beliefs are pushed underground and actually cause far more trouble in the long term than what we have—or have had—in this country, which is a degree of self-censorship brought on by the mixture of ridicule, censorship and criticism that comes from within groups against people who offend others excessively. My understanding is that one reason why the Government have introduced the Bill is that they believe that that system has broken down under the pressure of religious pluralism and multiculturalism. It is a rather sad state, but I do not think that the solution lies in what the Government are trying to do. 5.15 pmMr. Khan: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, for the benefit of those of us who are new to the House, whether he held that same view when the religiously aggravated offences legislation was introduced? As he will be aware, it brought in offences to do with religious aggravation, such as harassment, violence, criminal damage and so on. The protection extends to adherents of all religious groups. The term “religious groups” has not been defined, but has been left to the courts to define should the occasion arise. Will the hon. Gentleman also give examples of problems involving the cases of Satanists—or even of Jedi Knights and the other people he is talking about—who are the victims of religiously aggravated offences that have been before the courts? Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good point. I was perfectly happy to support that measure, because it puts a more severe penalty on somebody who commits a criminal offence and seeks to justify it on the basis that it is against somebody of another religion. Let us say that I decide to set fire to a mosque, and my motive is Islamophobia. Under the law as it stands, I am allowed to harbour Islamophobia, but if I set fire to a mosque that should be taken into account as an aggravating factor. I do not have any difficulty with that; I think the state is entitled to do so. Judges, of their own motion and without Parliament passing laws, have historically adjusted penalties. Indeed, if they think that Islamophobia is giving rise to criminal offences against Muslims, they ought to do so. The Lord Chief Justice would send out a letter saying that this crime is becoming far too prevalent and the judges,
Mr. Khan: Can the hon. Gentleman not see the contradiction in his argument? He is saying that it is perfectly okay to dislike someone intensely because of their religious belief or lack of it, not because they are gay or because of their race, in which they have no choice. He is saying it is rational and okay to do that. If that is the case, I can see the point if someone who intensely dislikes someone commits a criminal offence, is found guilty of the offence and then punished. But why should the person who is allowed to dislike someone intensely be doubly punished, or given a harsher punishment, because the intense dislike was the reason and the aggravating fact behind that offence? Mr. Grieve: It is perfectly appropriate for Parliament to say, “I have no reason to criminalise your words, your intense dislike or your encouraging people to dislike other people intensely.” However, there is a complete difference between that and carrying out hostile acts, whether acts of violence or—as we have discussed and are moving to consider with respect to another Bill, which I support—acts of discrimination. I may think a Satanist a horrible individual, but if I was a shopkeeper and a Satanist came into my shop and wanted to be served, and if I said, “You cannot be served in this shop because you are a Satanist,” unless that person was about to commit a criminal offence, the good order of society would dictate that we should exercise a measure of tolerance towards each other. There is a very clear dividing line. The hon. Gentleman may have a better point—we debated this when we looked at religiously aggravated offences—on the historical aspect. For example, someone might say, “I threw a brick at the man, but I did it because I thought that he was a Satanist. He’s a horrible person and I was goaded beyond belief.” I suspect that that might have been used as a mitigating factor 50 years ago, but times have changed. I feel that the needs of society should make this an aggravated offence. If someone is otherwise law abiding and doing nothing wrong, even if people find his belief revolting, it is not right for them to take hostile action against such a person. If they do, they must face the consequences, including the offence being treated as aggravated. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I think there is a clear distinction. Ms Emily Thornberry (Islington, South and Finsbury) (Lab): This brings us to the nub of the issue. Perhaps there is a new orthodoxy. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason for that is perhaps that we have moved on. We are in the 21st century, in a multicultural, multiracial society. On behalf of society, this Parliament has said that it is an aggravating feature to assault someone because of their race or religion. The same should be true of encouraging us to hate one another because of our racial or religious
Mr. Grieve: I disagree fundamentally and profoundly with the hon. Lady. Protection is given to race because, as we discussed, race is immutable and is, in any case, a characteristic irrelevant to a person’s being. Religion, as I said, is a matter of choice, just as politics is. Ms Thornberry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Grieve: If the hon. Lady will be patient, I shall give way to her in a moment. The logic of the hon. Lady’s argument must lead to the extension of the measure to political discourse. That has worried me more and more about the Government in a number of contexts over the last eight years. The road is clearly signposted. I do not wish to sound anti-European, but, because of the changes in society that she highlighted, we in this country are moving inexorably towards being offered a zone of peace and security—or peace and tranquillity, or whatever it is—but the return for that is that we must all behave in a way that is completely conformable with what the received wisdom of the state dictates. The Bill is another step in that direction. I hope that the hon. Lady’s words are taken up by the Minister, as I am interested to hear his views. The logic of those words is inexorable: we will end up in a society in which there are norms of conformity. Lest we doubt that, we can see it happening in other countries. I am half-French. Philip Davies: I am sorry. Mr. Grieve: This may mark the end of my political career in this country, but I must accept that. As an example, the French have clear cultural views on the cultural norms of what it is to be French. That is what led them to ban the wearing of turbans and scarves in schools. One of the things that I said at that time was how much I rejoice in the fact that—by chance and circumstance—my upbringing and my life have taken place here, because I live in a country in which imposing a cultural norm on the population is not part of the political culture. The French believe, with great passion, that what they are doing in that area is right and that they are doing it to protect the secular values of republican life. I disagree profoundly with that philosophical belief, but this afternoon the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Ms Thornberry) has put forward the absolute argument for going down that road. I shall give way once more and then finish my remarks. Ms Thornberry: What I am arguing is simple. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that in today’s society we should not be encouraging one another to hate each other. That is the issue, not the
To suggest that, in some way, it is excusable to encourage other people to hate someone because of their religion because that religion is a matter of choice is, frankly, nonsense. Although it is possibly open to someone born in a village in Gloucestershire to become a Sikh, it is highly unlikely that they will be given the proper opportunity to do so. I hear what the hon. Gentleman said about a white German Sikh he once met— The Chairman: Order. This intervention is becoming a speech. Ms Thornberry: To wind up, then, I simply say this: although a woman in a village in Gloucestershire has a choice about whether to be a Conservative, clearly she does not have the same open choice, in practice, over religion. To encourage people to hate one another because of their religion is clearly wrong. Mr. Grieve: The hon. Lady says that she does not like hating people, and I must say that we should be very careful about hatred. Several members of the Committee are Christians who profess Christianity, and we know what a difficult issue that can sometimes be. On the whole, however, there are people in the western canon of demonology whom we are encouraged to hate. We hate Adolf Hitler, and any suggestion of his rehabilitation, which is sometimes made when academics say something slightly different about him, is usually visited with vitriolic condemnation immediately afterwards, as well as with huge criticism of the person concerned. I have heard many expressions in the House of hatred of the British National party, and frequent expressions of hatred of the individuals in it. The logic of what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury says is that all that should be sanitised down to a moderate criticism. On that note, I look forward to the debate continuing. Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): This has been a fascinating hour. I crave the indulgence of the Committee, because although the question of a new orthodoxy of restraint, to use the term used by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), may get to the heart of the Bill, it is not strictly relevant to the proposals we are discussing. I listened with interest to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) on hatred of Roman Catholics. For six years, I lived in Glasgow, where sectarianism and the hatred of Roman Catholics are very real. I was reminded of a man called Pastor Jack Glass—he is now dead, but he had his own church in Glasgow for many years—when I attended the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland a few weeks ago. His residual followers still picket the General Assembly on church and nation day, although with rather less panache than when Pastor Glass was alive. Column Number: 56 I particularly remember Pastor Glass for two reasons. First, he was a candidate at the Hillhead by-election, following which Roy Jenkins entered Parliament in 1982. Secondly, because he was based in the west end of Glasgow, he was frequently rolled on to speak at union debates at Glasgow university, where I was briefly a student in the early 1980s. Pastor Glass used to tell us with fiery determination that the Pope was the Antichrist and that Catholics were responsible for a raft of things, the very least of which covered the issues raised by the hon. Member for Broxbourne, and that all manner of legislation, including the Catholic Emancipation Act, whichever year it was, should be repealed. Pastor Glass was listened to and some people would debate with him, but, in large part, I believe he was humoured or ridiculed. That brings us to the broadest possible question of this new orthodoxy of restraint, because that way of dealing with someone like the late Pastor Glass is eminently preferable to trying to bring such a person within the ambit of this new orthodoxy, if it is to be constructed on the basis of legislation such as the Bill. Whether or not there is this new orthodoxy is a massive question, but, as it is not particularly relevant to the amendments, I shall not develop the theme any further, except to say that hon. Members who make points such as this should be mindful of their full import. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) spoke to his proposals at considerable length. 5.30 pmMr. Prisk: Every word was a golden one. Mr. Carmichael: There were golden words every step of the way, as is usually the case with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. Everything has been said, but not everyone has yet said it, so I shall favour the Committee with a few thoughts on the subject. [Interruption.] I hope that that is what the hon. Member for Rhondda is suggesting when he gestures to me like that. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield raised the issue of a religion not necessarily consisting of a group of people. If we are dealing with worst-case scenarios, he makes an interesting point, and I would be interested to know what the Minister has to say about that. I worry about the hon. Member for Beaconsfield sometimes, because he is the only person I know who can consider an expression such as “lack of belief” and manage to come up with such tortured logic as he did. However, although it is tortured, it is logic, and one can see a possible extrapolation of the law. We have spoken a lot in Committee and on Second Reading about the manner in which the 1986 Act has been extended by judicial interpretation. Judicial legislation is by no means a novelty within our common law jurisdiction, and it is right that we should anticipate different ways in which the law may be extended. Although the amendments are probing, the Minister would do well to consider the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. Column Number: 57 The hon. Gentleman’s definition of religion has rather more to commend it than he initially suggested. With regard to amendment No. 24, which, if I may use the shorthand, is the inclusive definition, as it lists those religions that will be covered, I cannot improve on that list. I cannot think of any other religion that could be included. The Minister may also be aware that it is a practice much beloved of this Government to add a rider to just about every measure, saying that they can change lists and add to them by statutory instrument. That is a practice that the hon. Gentleman and I have in the past been known to deplore, but on this occasion it might have some merit. As the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead said, religions come and go, and there is an element of fashion about them. If an event were to arise that meant a religion should be added to the list, it would be open to the Government to add the religion in a brief and perfunctory manner. From my knowledge of how secondary legislation goes through this House, I should expect the addition to be guaranteed largely all-party support; I should not expect that to be particularly difficult. I turn now to the exclusive list and to amendment No. 25. The Minister will have seen some of the press comment on the Bill. I do not normally read The Daily Telegraph, but I think I picked it up, as is normally the case, when I was stuck in an airport lounge. It had a front-page headline along the lines of, “Now we have to be nice to Satanists”. A reasonable amount of comment has picked up on that fact, and I think that the Minister has been reported as having accepted that the Bill could in theory apply to Satanists. He must realise that that causes considerable concern, and if he wants to maintain the Bill’s standing in the wider community, there is a considerable benefit in including a proper definition, such as that in amendment No. 24. In fact, it would assuage a number of the concerns that are felt outside this place. It would be wrong if we were to afford Satanists or, more likely, Scientologists, protection under the Bill. It was put to me earlier today that, because of this Bill, mainstream Christians who want to preach to and convert Scientologists might feel constrained from doing so. I do not believe that the Government want to protect the advancement of Scientology. At best, I would hope that they would be neutral towards it as a religion and that, more realistically, they would be prepared, if not always expressly, to thwart it. However, if they end up inadvertently—through the law of unintended consequences—protecting the Church of Scientology, the Minister will find that a wide public policy has been defeated. I urge him to consider the elegant solution that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has offered the Committee by way of a definition of religion. It could be altered by addition or subtraction by statutory instrument if he were to accept it. Parliamentary draftsmen are ingenious at creating lists and finding ways of maintaining flexibility. Although I do not necessarily want to improve the Bill—I would rather see the end of it—I
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 1 July 2005 |