| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he agrees that there is religious discrimination against Muslims? The British National Party has been publishing leaflets and inciting hatred against the Muslim community but there is no legislation to protect that community. How does the noble Lord suggest the authorities should deal with those matters?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, although I have an understanding and sympathy for what he says, I decline to enter into that type of discussion tonight. I am of the opinion that if the present law were enforced as amended by Sections 39 and 40 of the 2001 Act—the noble Lord shakes his head, but I could shake my head at him; I am only answering his question to the best of my ability—it would be a wholly appropriate and effective safeguard. That is my opinion and my answer in amity.
9.38 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I should like to take the Bill in three bites. The first is what it proposes: revival of the Government's proposals for dealing with religious hatred. The second is what it seeks to abolish: the offence of blasphemy. The third is a variety of provisions relating to disorder in churches and churchyards.
First of all, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, it is quite clear that the issue of incitement to religious hatred will not go away. I believe that the Government were right to seek to legislate in this area, but whether they were right to try to bring in such provisions under the banner of a Bill against terrorism is another matter.
Much of the opposition to this proposal expressed fear for the curtailment of free speech. But what is at issue is not the right of free speech; no religion ought to have anything to fear from fair scrutiny and honest debate. No, what is at issue is the abuse of free speech to incite fear, prejudice, contempt and even violence.
The shameful history of European anti-Semitism makes the point. Jews have been abused and vilified not only for their alleged racial characteristics but also for their real or alleged religious practices, all the way from circumcision and dietary rules to stories of baby eating.
As we have already heard, Jews, like Sikhs, are now protected by anti-racist legislation because in their cases the boundaries of race and religion are held to coincide. Not so Christians, Muslims or Buddhists. For the sake of clarity, as I think I may have been misunderstood, I shall repeat some of the things I said on, I believe, 15th October. The boundaries of Christianity and Islam do not coincide with ethnicity. These are religious communities which in principle transcend all ethnic divisions. Nevertheless—and this is the point in the situation in which we find ourselves—in particular historical and social circumstances these religions have become associated in the popular mind with particular ethnic groups.
Islam is not an inherently Asian religion. In my city of Birmingham there are plenty of white Muslims, just as there are plenty of Asian Christians. Nevertheless, Islam is generally perceived in this country as an Asian religion. Consequently, attacks on Islam are used as a cover for incitement to hatred and even violence against people of Asian origin. Islamophobia is an issue and it is not dealt with by current anti-racist legislation.
Leaflets circulated by the British National Party in the West Midlands illustrate the point when they present themselves as defenders—the only defenders, they say—of Christianity and urge parents to withdraw their children from religious education on the grounds that it is now a vehicle for the Islamification of so-called Christian Britain. Of course, for "Christian" read "white" and for "Islamic" read "Asian".
Of course, if there are to be criminal sanctions against religious hatred, there must be measures to prevent their abuse, such as keeping authorisation for prosecution in the hands of the Attorney-General. The proper exercise of free speech must be protected, but not its abuse, which brings us to blasphemy. The present state of the law, which offers protection to one religion only, is plainly indefensible. The only argument lies between those who believe that all faiths should be given protection against hatred and abuse and those who believe that all faiths are fair targets for anything.
The view of the bishops of the Church of England—and it is widely shared—is that if there is satisfactory and plainly effective legislation against religious hatred, the law against blasphemy can go. But before leaving blasphemy, it is worth noticing that what we are now talking about is the protection of the rights of groups and communities and not only of individuals. That is important in view of some of the arguments that were advanced when your Lordships discussed the human rights legislation a few years ago.
Finally, this Bill seeks to abolish various offences relating to disturbances in churches and churchyards. Here, in place of outright abolition, the Church would want to follow the Law Commission in extending protection from Christianity to all faiths by penalising riotous, violent or indecent behaviour in any place of religious worship.
I speak from pastoral experience when I say that such protection is sometimes needed. I find myself wondering on this point whether the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has consulted the police. I believe that they would agree with my point. This part of the Bill, whatever my comments on the rest of it, certainly needs more thought.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate the substance of this Bill, tabled, as it now is, independent of the matters that were raised in the anti-terrorism, crime and security legislation. I also welcome this opportunity to deliver my maiden speech.
Those several sources of advice on the protocol of maiden speeches whom I consulted stressed two points. The first is that a maiden speech should be delicately short. The second is that the speech should not be controversial. I have at moments given way to the thought that perhaps I have chosen the wrong Bill if I am to meet the second of those criteria; that is, of being non-controversial. Two means, however, have occurred to me of avoiding unnecessary controversy in such sensitive—properly sensitive—matters.
The first might find me accused of mauvaise foi—bad faith—for it appeals to the example of Shakespeare's Mark Antony, who came, as he reiterated,
- "to bury Caesar, not to praise him".
This short literary excursion may seem a self-indulgence, but it is not. It takes me to my first point. The difficulty that the clever use of words by a polemicist, an orator, a preacher and, heaven help us, these days even perhaps a religious spin doctor might pose for those who would seek clear legislation in such essentially disputable areas as religious belief and religious offence is a real difficulty and must be tackled in any adequate legislation.
There is an alternative basis, of course, for speaking non-controversially in such sensitive contexts. That is perhaps to be found in a previous world that I inhabited. I was, in fact, a professor of the philosophy of religion at King's College, London, and now, fitfully—as other duties allow—at the University of Edinburgh. That is to say, I speak as one who seeks to understand, through scholarly intersections of philosophy and religious belief, what these issues are and how they affect the tenor and course of our society.
Yet even there immediately one courts the risk of controversy. It was David Hume, who suffered in his own life the offences of religious discrimination and hatred—indeed, denied, as he was, a professorship of philosophy because of his alleged atheism and actual
scepticism—who reminded philosophers of the change of terrain when one moves from philosophy to religion. He wrote:
- "Whereas the mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous".
However, a background in the philosophy of religion, as well as an early but growing respect for the conventions of this House, reassure me that there are merits in speaking on this topic not just as a Cross-Bencher defined in party political terms but as a Cross-Bencher in fact in matters of religious belief and practice.
I restrict myself to two specific points. In the first place, I welcome particularly Clause 1. Subsections (1)(a), (2)(a) and (2)(b) of the Bill are particularly welcome. The classification of blasphemy as a crime belonged to another age.
In the second, and final, place, I further ask your Lordships to reflect a little more widely upon the context from which Clause 2 of the Bill comes before us. The context is one of ignorance that promotes fear and suspicion of the religious beliefs and practices of others. I am not wholly persuaded of the truth of the adage that:
- "To understand all is to forgive all",
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, stressed the appalling level of religious discrimination and harassment in our society. This is clearly a matter that requires serious attention. I suggest that one way in which to give it serious attention is to consider what I believe is an obvious point: the question of what means we provide for our people to understand these issues. What is the pattern and form of religious education which we operate in our schools and more widely in our society?
My suggestion is that we do not yet have an adequate form of religious education—adequate, that is, for the character of the diversity of the society in which we live. If that is the case, surely one way in which to tackle such appalling discrimination—it is there; I have no doubt about that—is to think once more about the groundwork and fundamental principles of the kind of education which we provide in our schools.
Therefore, if, in fact, we proceed further with the discussion of these matters—I hope that we do—I hope that in due course that will include the opportunity here and elsewhere for a reassessment of the place and nature of religious education both generally in our society and specifically in our schools. If one considers that such a reassessment might be too controversial, and if one considers that such a search for knowledge and understanding might be too difficult or even too expensive, then the only alternative, as one of my fellow vice-chancellors from
the USA once put it, is to "try ignorance". Surely not. It is undoubtedly the presence of that very ignorance which has led to the need properly to debate such a Bill this evening.9.52 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is genuinely a great pleasure and a privilege for me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, on his maiden speech. He could have chosen any of a variety of topics on which to speak. He could have chosen education, care for the elderly, on which he wrote a masterly report, philosophy or religion. I am glad to say that he chose this Bill and managed to make a very balanced and non-controversial speech on the subject.
The noble Lord brings to us great distinction as an educationist, philosopher and social thinker. Indeed, he has the incredible distinction of having once been my boss—it is not given to many people to be that—since when he has fallen on hard times. But I welcome him here on behalf of us all and I hope that we shall hear much more of him in the years to come.
It will come as no surprise that I do not like the Bill. There is a famous story of a couple who went to see the film "Ben-Hur". One asked, "What did you think of it?", to which the other replied, "I liked Ben; I hated Hur". I like Clause 1 but hate Clause 2. That is my summary judgment of the Bill.
However, seriously speaking, I believe that there are a number of problems with the Bill. I have a deep and abiding respect for the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who introduced it. He has made an unmatched contribution in defence of human rights, and I entirely understand why he is doing what he is doing. But I shall, to the last breath in my body, oppose any legislation of this kind because I believe that it is misconceived and, if passed, will do untold harm to the people whom it seeks to protect.
I start by arguing my case. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham made my case for me. He said, and I agree, that when the British National Party writes its pamphlets against Muslims, that has nothing to do with religion. It is not indulging in some obscure theological debate about the Koran, the prophet or the Sharia. It is a racist attack on Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Indian Muslims. It has not attacked black Muslims, although it could have done. It has not attacked white Muslims. It is attacking south-Asian Muslims because they are south Asians. If the BNP saw a south Asian walking along the streets of Bradford, Burnley, or wherever, it may not even care that he is not a Muslim but a Hindu. The issue is not one of religion, but religion has been raised because of all the Islamophobia taking place.
I am an atheist, but I was born a Hindu, so I have to ply my goods. I believe that in the debates on religion there is too narrow an emphasis on the three monotheistic religions. We need to be careful or we shall upset a lot of people in the world—one billion at least—who are not children of Abraham. As I have said before, the three great monotheistic religions of the Middle East have a history of almost 2,000 years of
hating each other. That is what neighbours do; they hate each other. I would even say that religious hatred has been preached inside churches, temples and mosques. In the past 2,000 years religious hatred has been preached inside religious temples. That happens today in India among Hindus. Hatred of Muslims is being preached in Hindu temples. It is an absolute recipe for religious hatred to belong to another religion.I do not take seriously the professions of religion that they all preach tolerance and believe in peace. I shall not go down that road, or I shall never stop. The problem is not one of religious hatred. Both the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the right reverend Prelate gave the example of Northern Ireland. How very nice. When I see children being spat upon as they go to primary school and being fire-bombed, do I say, "That cannot possibly happen in Northern Ireland because it has legislation against religious hatred"? What do we think is going on there? It has nothing to do with religion.
People identify certain groups by religion, but there is communal hatred. In India and Pakistan there used to be what was called "communalism". This is communalism; that is, hating communities. People are labelled by religion. Even though they look exactly like you, behave like you, eat like you and drink like you, you hate them because you label them as belonging to another community.
I have said before that if we were really serious about this question, we should re-examine the racial hatred legislation and see whether we cannot extend the definition of race to cover these kinds of acts. There is a question of religious discrimination with which we should deal, but that is not an issue in this legislation. Therefore, I shall not deal with it tonight. I shall make one comment, which I have made before. My race is not my choice; my religion is my choice. Therefore, one cannot draw a parallel between race and religion.
People say that Jews and Sikhs have an identity between race and religion. I do not believe that that is entirely true. Carl Marx's father converted to Christianity. However, everyone still denounced Marx as a Jew. If one wants to hate the Jews, one does not care what religion they are; one still hates them.
Some prominent Christians become Jews when they marry. For example, Miss Taylor became a Jew when she married her second husband, Mike Todd. She has never been hated as a Jew. Why? There is a real distinction here. If I was a Sikh and I shaved off my beard and cut my hair no one would know what religion I was. So there are funny things going on here. I think that people hate Jews because they hate Jews as a race. Theological issues which used to be part of Christians hatred of Jews are now, thank heaven, almost gone.
We are dealing here with communal or racial hatred. It is hatred of—let us call them—national groups which live in certain areas. We are making a great mistake for entirely honourable reasons by putting a religious tag on this issue. Religion has caused enough trouble for the last 2000 years; let it not cause any more.
10.1 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I share a great deal of sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has just said although I suspect that my logic would lead me back to the Bill in order to tackle the problems with which he sought to deal. I cannot, in the limited time that I have spent looking at the matter, see any other practical way of tackling the kind of problems that we all agree exist. Although I entirely agree with the noble Lord that these are not problems that, by and large, at the moment spring from religion in this country, they are expressed in that way. Perhaps tackling the expression is the practical and sensible way forward.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has brought the Bill back to us. Like my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I am pleased to be tackling this matter again. I was delighted that we did not have to tackle it in the rush to pass the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill because a great deal of care and thought is needed to get the provision right. There are activities which should be caught under this Bill, and there are activities that it might threaten to catch which should definitely not be caught.
It is difficult to define a religion. We do not have any definition of religion in this Bill or, so far as I am aware, in our law. Once one starts with the great religions, certainly with Christianity and Islam, one is not dealing with a community but with a whole scatter of communities which have spent some parts of their history burning each other (and doubtless doing other dreadful things to each other) because of minor differences in their interpretation of the same gospels. One is not dealing with one friendly community, but with a whole collection of little communities; one of which is a community that we have just been to war with—the Taliban. It seems to me that one can reasonably get to the point of hating the Taliban—and it is a group which would define itself in relation to religion. Therefore, if it was a circumstance that was happening within this country one could find oneself, without a great deal of care, caught by legislation such as this.
We could also find mothers being caught under the provisions whose children had been kidnapped by quasi-Christian sects. That happens in this country and it causes a great deal of pain. There are a number of what one might call quasi-religions which are extremely rich and which are fierce in prosecuting their enemies. One must be careful not to hand a loaded weapon to them.
We must also be careful about the extension of the concept of religion to other things. There is much more observance of fox hunting and keen enjoyment of it and participation in it among those who go in for it than there is of Christianity among many people who would call themselves Christian. Communism might qualify as a religion, if it did not deny the fact so earnestly. It is difficult to know where the boundaries of religion will be drawn.
As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, religion and race are different. Religion is not always a choice; one is born into a community, as well as a race, and religion
can be part of that. I was born a Christian, although I am no longer a Christian. Christianity has doubtless made its mark on me, and I identify with much of the belief system with which I grew up. I would be identified as a Christian by someone who wanted to put me into a religious slot.It is reasonable, in some circumstances, to hate things religious, although I cannot think of a circumstance in which it would be reasonable to hate someone because of their race. If Catholics were still burning us, and we were still burning Catholics, it would be quite reasonable for us to hate the other side. It does not strike me that, under those circumstances, we should seek to stop someone hating someone who is doing something hateful. Religion, sadly, often results in people—or groups within a religion—doing hateful things.
I should like to see the Bill go into Committee. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that that would be a bad way of dealing with it. I do not want to see a stitch-up between the major religions, with them deciding what the law should be and presenting us with a fait accompli. I want us, the non-religious, who are equally concerned about the effect of religion on our society, to participate.
Referring the Bill to a Committee of the House would mean that it would run into the sands, because it would not get time to pass by the end of the Session. However, the Bill would be thoroughly debated. It would probably come back to the House for a Report stage and then die. That would mean that it was open to the community at large to decide whether we could bring back an amended Bill and run it through its proper course in the new Session. That would be a sensible way of doing things and could be a constructive way of raising the issues in a calm, collected and open atmosphere and of having them properly debated by all sides without the debate being captured by any particular section of society.
In changing the Bill, we must go for common sense in constructing the defences that would be available to a citizen. We must rely on the common sense of judges and produce something that is reasonably flexible. I should like to see a defence against the charge of religious hatred on the grounds that the action taken by the accused was reasonable in all the circumstances. That might be worth considering. We might have to define the breadth of that, to make it clear that free speech was defended and that someone would be able to challenge the tenets or practice of a religion as long as that is what they were doing and what they had intended to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out that criticism of a religion can tend to stir up hatred. That is what animal rights activists do. They stir up hatred against Islam and Judaism by pointing to the method that they use for killing animals. I should not wish to see such people—much though I disagree with them—prevented from making that criticism. They are not doing it to stir up hatred against individuals in that group; they are trying to deal with a particular
religious practice that they find extremely difficult because of their views about how we should treat animals. I do not want that to be caught by the Bill.I want there to be time for the Bill to be tested against all the potential things that ought to be able to be done, to make sure that it does not catch them. I want to make sure that the evils that we are trying to catch really would be caught by the Bill and, in particular—to cover the points made by my noble friend—would not already be better caught by something else. We should focus this Bill on things which need to be caught and we should catch them in the right way.
I wish the Bill good fortune, as long as—and I do mean "as long as"—it does not become law during this Session, but we have a great deal of time in which to debate it.
10.10 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I shall be very brief. We are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for sticking to his purpose with this the second of his Bills on the subject. I echo his tribute to the excellent Library note.
In warmly supporting the Bill, I shall not propound the arguments I have prepared because most of them have been made already with great eloquence, and it is rather late for the others. They have been made eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, my noble friend Lord Ahmed and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. But, following the subtle and erudite maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, I shall add two authorities for my opinion.
One is the third century Indian king, Ashoka, who said that the beliefs of other people all deserve reverence; and the other is John Stuart Mill, who included within religious freedom the tolerance of scepticism and atheism, as does the European Convention on Human Rights.
As for blasphemy, I read last week in the History of Blasphemy just published, by Alain Cabantous, that the Talmud was publicly burned as blasphemous and that the publisher of Tom Paine's The Age of Reason was punished as a blasphemer. That is not an edifying history, and one better curtailed.
Finally, I strongly endorse the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for the reasons he gave and because of the various concerns expressed by noble Lords, and because of the innovatory nature of Clause 2, with its implied acknowledgement of a post-secular age, which those of us who care for the enlightenment may regret, but I think that that is the case.
Not least, a Select Committee could reflect on the opinion of the United Nations Human Rights Committee that,
- "the UK should extend its own criminal legislation to cover offences motivated by religious hatred".
10.13 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I should like to say how much I enjoyed the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. The right reverend Prelate was a long-standing member of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, NACRO, and has a record on equality and human rights second to none. That was clearly demonstrated in his speech tonight. I thank him for that.
May I also say how delighted I was to listen to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood. His speech was a matter of considerable substance because I believe that he has highlighted education as one of the elements that we need to consider as a part of this equation.
I support the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Avebury because its purpose is clear. It seeks to abolish the common law offence of blasphemy and certain other offences, and to create an offence of religious hatred. I have a great deal of sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, but this is not a recent phenomenon. When I came to this country in 1956 and settled in Brighton, the local National Front and British National Party formed the Sussex Racial Preservation Society in case I contaminated the local culture.
The recent trend of the National Front and British National Party is not to behave on the basis of racial element but to exploit Hindus and Sikhs against Muslims. I worked for the Commission for Racial Equality for more than 28 years. Whenever racial discrimination or religious hatred against Muslims came before the CRE, it was powerless to do anything.
If the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and I were to walk down the street together, I do not believe that any National Front member would be able to distinguish which one of us was a Hindu or a Muslim. Both of us would be one to him. To that extent, the racial argument is valid but it goes beyond that—and it is time that we were a step ahead.
The record in respect of incitement to racial hatred has been poor. The situation in relation to religious hatred is even worse—as I found during my work at the CRE. One must feel concern about the security of all communities in Britain. The Minister might be tempted to ask why we did not support a similar measure during the passage of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. That measure was not the right place for such a provision. The events of 11th September were not relevant. A distinction had to be made between anti-terrorism measures that could be
justified as necessary in an emergency situation and those that have wider implications and should be given greater consideration by Parliament.Unlike the measures that the Government had in mind, my noble friend Lord Avebury goes one step further. The Bill is designed to abolish the common law offence of blasphemy that was not covered by the anti-terrorism legislation. The view is widely held that the current law is unfair and protects only members of the Christian faith. The Government certainly face a dilemma. There are people who believe that the common law offence of blasphemy should be abolished. Equally, there are people who advocate a more stringent approach. It does not matter which view one supports. It is clear that the offence as it stands gives better support to one religion while others are left to fend for themselves. Any law that discriminates in its application is a bad law and goes against the Government's stance on equality legislation.
My noble friend's solution is worthy of consideration. The Bill will amend Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 to include racial or religious hatred. In addition, it will introduce a common, universal definition that treats all religions equally. Section 17 will be amended so that religious hatred means
- "hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief".
Thus it will be possible to tackle incitement resulting from words or behaviour; the display, publishing or distribution of written material; public performances or plays; distributing, showing or playing a recording; broadcasting or the possession of racially inflammatory material.
I note the concern expressed by the Bishop of London's working group on offences against religion and public worship as early as 1987. At that time, the right reverend Prelate said:
- "It is our strong opinion that to withdraw the protection of the law altogether from grossly abusive attacks, made with the purpose of outraging religious feelings, would be widely taken to express the view that religious belief was no longer a matter deserving the protection of the law".
Section 17A of the Public Order Act 1986 as proposed by my noble friend is clearly designed to ensure that all religious beliefs are adequately protected. I trust that the Bishops' Bench will welcome this provision.
The working party of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London expressed a clear view about other religions. It stated:
- "We feel that the requirements of natural justice entail that this protection should not be limited to Christians. Other members of the British Society who sincerely hold religious beliefs are members of the same society as Christians and so should enjoy similar protection under the state law. A new offence which seeks to protect adherents of all religions, would be a cohesive and supportive element in the plural society of the country today".
The creation of an offence of religious hatred is very important. There have been a number of research reports—identified by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed—published by the Home Office, which have examined religious discrimination. Much emphasis has been placed on this issue because "racially aggravated" offences are defined by race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins. The definition does not include religious groups, although some religious groups may be covered by analogy with court decisions made under the Race Relations Act 1976.
The House of Lords held that Sikhs constitute an ethnic group, whereas Muslims do not. I do not think that this is the place to rehearse the arguments about ethnicity, but suffice to say that racial hatred can be dealt with under the present race relations legislation on incitement to racial hatred, but there is no equivalent protection afforded to matters of religious hatred.
Even in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 there is an ambiguity about this matter. There may be an offence which may appear to be motivated by religious hostility but which may also contain a racist element. The test of what amounts to "racially aggravated" requires that the racial hostility is "wholly or partly" a motivating factor. Even if there is a religious hostility, provided that part of the hostility is racist and provided that part of the motivation was based on racial motivation or hostility, then, and only then, is the offence covered under the Act. In other words, if a racial element cannot be established, the case for religious hostility fails.
What is now required is a detailed consideration about the appropriateness of an offence of religious hatred.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page