| Newsflash | ||
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| The Racial and Religious Hatred Bill [11th Oct 2005] |
|
My Lords, one of my favourite bible phrases is, “…wisdom is better than strength.” Sadly, although this Bill attempts to apply the strong arm of the law, it lacks fundamental wisdom to make it effective. Of course I agree with the laudable aims of the Bill. But it is like someone trying to clap with one hand. One can see the effort, but not hear any result. I believe the Bill is wrong in principle, would be barely workable in practice and is actually not needed. It has also raised expectations among minority communities, who are likely to be very disappointed if they seek its protection. One thing we can guarantee in life is that the unexpected always happens. I am concerned about the unintended consequences of the Bill, which might actually increase racial and religious tensions. It is still not clear what will be the crucial test of an offence. Will it be that the words uttered were intended to stir up racial hatred, or that as a result of words being uttered, an act of religious hatred followed on the part of a third party? The Bill will not be restricted to intended stirring up of religious hatred, but also if an action is “likely” to do so. A person might not think that his or her actions are likely to stir up religious hatred, but if an act of religious hatred follows, someone else can claim that that the accused should have thought that would be likely. The resulting muddle could be good for lawyers, but bad for community relations. The Bill is silent as to the issue of intent. This silence is not golden, but confusing. A number of Christian and other groups are concerned that hatred is not defined in the Bill and is left to the courts to do so. The courts may well use the dictionary definition of hatred, such as ‘an extremely strong feeling of dislike.’ This means that statements from the Bible or Koran could cross the threshold of being ‘likely’ to stir up religious hatred against those who have an ‘extremely strong feeling of dislike’ of what they say. We need to build bridges between communities, not walls. I believe the best way to target someone who hates others because of what they believe is through the force of argument, rather than the law. Criminal law should be used to punish people who do injury to the person, the property or the liberty of an individual- not those who simply offend their beliefs or feelings. In 1986, the Conservative Government rightly sought to criminalise people who attempted to stir up hatred on the ground of race, because race is not something that someone chooses. It is who we are- our very person. An attack on race is an attack on the individual. Religious belief is quite different. Although one can be born into a religion, it is still something one can choose to embrace or reject. I follow the Christian faith, but we know there are many different religions with competing claims and lifestyles. It is entirely right to question and challenge the principles of such religions in the course of debate. It is not surprising that Justice, the independent all-party human rights and law reform group, fear that the Bill would increase intolerance, not decrease it. When other countries have introduced this kind of draconian law to restrict freedom of speech, support has increased for far-right parties. This happened with Jean-Marie Le Pen in France. Canada, Denmark and Holland also experienced this unintended consequence. This Bill is vague, too wide and too ill-defined. It is also not needed. Apart from the Public Order Act 1986, the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the concept of religious freedom into British law. Incitement is already a recognised criminal offence; Judges already have the power to increase sentences if they find that religion is an aggravating factor in a crime. Then the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 gave people extra protection against hate crimes, whatever their motivation. There is no definition of the word “religion” in the Bill. Again it will be for the courts to decide what is or what is not a religion. By failing to define clearly what a religion is, we are leaving the way clear for any body- even racist groups- to set themselves up as a religion and to seek protection. Unfortunately this Bill is attractive bait hiding an ugly hook. The very basis of our democratic society is a belief in free speech. I still remember how hurt I felt as a little boy growing up in Birmingham, when Enoch Powell predicted race riots leading to rivers of blood in this country. His inflammatory comments made me, as a child of West Indian parentage, feel unwanted as a person. Fortunately, I had a very strong mother who gave me the confidence to rise above such bigotry. But one of the reasons why Powell turned out to be wrong is because freedom of speech provoked vigorous debate and more tolerance. Yes, the more laws the more offenders are created. But evil ideas should be met with challenge, not the silence of a ban. “Where there is no root, there is no fruit”. This Bill lacks the fundamental root system to produce what the Government intends. Yet again the Government has over-promised and under-delivered. So many representative groups are against this Bill, for the reasons I have outlined. I know the Government has heard them. But hearing is not the same as listening. John Taylor, Lord Taylor of Warwick 11 October 2005 |