New Clause 1 - Protection of freedom of expression
Racial and Religious Hatred Bill
1:30 pm
Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We approach the end of the process and return to a topic that we considered this morning. The new clause sets out the provisions that protect freedom of expression so that they can be read alongside the text of the Bill. I hope that in practice everything contained in that clause would remain permissible. Indeed, if I understand the Government’s intention correctly, that will certainly be the case. I infer from the way the Minister put his and the Government’s case that they intend that all the things that I include in the new clause should be permissible, and that the only qualifier they might wish to add would be about the tone of the language used.
I would like to hear the Minister’s response on that point, because quite apart from the merits or demerits of the new clause, the Committee will be interested to tease out whether there is anything in it that the Government find objectionable and that they think would be caught in certain circumstances. For example, proselytising one’s own religion or belief system of necessity means making severe criticisms of other belief systems, but I understand that the Government are trying to prevent that. The Minister will be able to clarify that point. However, if there is nothing in the new clause that the Minister finds objectionable, why cannot we have it?
I suggest that it might be quite useful to have such a general statement alongside the Bill, even in the state in which the Minister wishes it to be passed into law, as it would provide reassurance to religious organisations and groups about what they are still able to do. I am sure that the Minister will be aware that some of the main anxieties about the Bill, expressed by a wide range of diverse religions and sects, particularly those that proselytise, are that it will adversely affect them.
Others, too, are concerned, including secular organisations, comedians and many others. I accept that some of them will not be covered, although I should have thought that the new clause would provide some protection to secularists and humanists who wish to engage in vigorous criticism of religious doctrine and believe. I think that they, too, would benefit. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively.
I must apologise; when we finished this morning I circulated copies of the famous paper that I alluded to in earlier days, but I was unable to secure further copies because of the number of engagements that I had in the intervening period. However, I hope that those members of the Committee who have seen it and had the opportunity to read it will understand what it was about its tone and content that I was alluding to.
The document did not seem to seek to stir up hatred against anyone, but it was undoubtedly of a highly polemical nature and, as I said to the Minister, it was likely to be insulting. I hope that a document of that kind would not lead to prosecution. Although I may disagree with some of its content, think the tone rather strident in places and think that the person writing it may not be the world’s best theologian—although it is probably dicey for me to discuss Islamic theology—I would be unhappy if it was to be criminalised under the Bill. The views would seem to be sincerely expressed, albeit that some might find them uncomfortable or shocking and disagree with them vehemently; but I believe that everybody ought to be unhappy if the document were to be criminalised. That is why I want to tease out a little more what it is in such expressions of view that the Government seek to criminalise.
I very much hope that new clause 1 constitutes a clear statement of what is acceptable in a religious context; and, in that context, that the document would fall within it. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view, so that we can debate that point.