| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Buscombe: While dealing with that point, will the noble and learned Lord the Attorney General respond to a powerful speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, yesterday when he said that he would have preferred a separate Bill dealing with incitement to religious hatred rather than the carrot and stick approach in this Bill?
Lord Goldsmith: Gladly, and I very much understand and respect what underlay that remark made by my noble friend Lord Ahmed. It may have been part of the thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, when he spoke yesterday, but if I misinterpret him I apologise.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said, the choice we have is to deal with an urgent problem now in this Bill—it is the vehicle which exists—or to put it off. I understood my noble friend Lord Ahmed to be saying that, while he would have preferred to have dealt with the matter separately, he took the view that it was right to deal with it now because this is an opportunity to do so.
I noted the words spoken tonight by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, who said, XThe time is now", and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, who said, XNow is the time. It is a pressing issue". I invite the Committee to consider what the consequences would be for failing to deal now with an urgent problem and an anomaly. I return to a point I made earlier: is it not an anomaly that offensive threatening behaviour towards Jews and Sikhs is criminal but towards Muslims it is not?
That does not mean that the Bill, if passed, would protect only the Muslims. I deal here specifically with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Desai. It may be that 11th September is the catalyst for bringing the provision forward now and it may be that the attacks on the Muslim community are the catalyst for bringing it forward now. We believe that the Muslim community must be protected against false accusations. As my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary made so clear, terrorism and belonging to the Muslim religion are very far from being part of the same thing. They are absolutely not the same thing at all. Muslims must be protected. That is the catalyst for the provision but the protection provided if the Bill were passed would be for every religious group; for Hindus and everyone else. I suggest that that is the right answer to my noble friend Lord Desai.
That is the key issue. I have indicated that the Government will look carefully at the point raised here and by Sir Brian Mawhinney on the precise definition. However, perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee that the overall structure is a tried and
tested one for the racial hatred cases. It has not been dreamt up in a day for this Bill. Much thought has been given to it in the past and I suggest that we ought to consider seizing the opportunity to give the protection now rather than putting it off.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may make a plea to the noble and learned Lord to clarify these clauses. It is extremely difficult to shuffle one part of the Bill into pre-existing legislation. Is it beyond possibility that before we return to the matter the Home Office officials in charge of the Bill could produce the clauses as they would appear? A practitioner would have the gravest difficulty in following the Bill; the CPS must make decisions upon it; and those who are liable to commit such offences would have no idea what the legislation was. Could we have something clearer?
Lord Goldsmith: Yes. There are two ways to deal with it. When the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, began I was not quite sure whether he meant for the purposes of this debate. I smiled because I was sure that he of all people would have no difficulty in putting the Bill and the Act together. It is possible to consider the inclusion of a Keeling schedule so that the Bill contains a version of the Public Order Act which would be amended to include this matter. Perhaps we may take it away. I accept the importance of understanding what the provisions do, and I shall ask for that to be considered urgently.
Lord Lucas: As I understand the noble and learned Lord, as long as moderate language is used a person can argue factually as hard as he likes. If one considers in particular some cults, which doubtless call themselves religions, one can argue for their prosecution, abolition and avoidance by all sane members of society as long as one does it in reasonable words. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that the fact that one expresses strong opinions does not make one liable to prosecution?
Lord Goldsmith: Yes, absolutely. The use of moderate language is not abusive, threatening and offensive, and it is not intended or likely to stir up hatred of a group.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): I must advise the Committee that because of pre-emption, if Amendment No. 97 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 98 and 99.
Clause 39 [Religious hatred offences]:
[Amendments Nos. 97 to 100 not moved.]
Clause 41 [Racial or religious hatred offences: penalties]:
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Clause 42 [Hatred and fear offences: penalties]:
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
- House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past midnight.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |