|
Speeches
>
Racial and Religious
Hatred Bill
> Back
From House of Commons
Hansard 21st June 2005 Second Reading Debate
Mr. Sadiq Khan
(Tooting) (Lab):
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for asking me to follow that.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of a
Bill that I referred to in my maiden speech almost a month
ago. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Dewsbury
(Mr. Malik) and for Copeland (Mr. Reed) on making their
maiden speeches this evening. My contribution to this debate
falls into two sections. First, why is there a need for this
legislation? Secondly, I want to deal with some of the
concerns raised by Members of this Chamber and by others
outside it.
Our country has a good
track record of positive relations between different races,
cultures and religions stretching back hundreds of years.
Prophesies made by former Members of this House about race
riots leading to rivers of blood have proved to be grossly
false and nothing more than scaremongering. However, life in
the UK for some is far from utopian. Pockets of our
community are suffering and parts of it are less equal than
others. There are some in our community—thankfully, a small
minority—who exploit circumstances to incite hatred against
the most vulnerable, knowing that they will get away with
it.
It was a Labour
Government, in the face of huge opposition, who first
introduced race relations legislation in this country in
1968. A Conservative Government introduced the Public Order
Act 1986, which contains the current law outlawing
incitement to racial hatred. Parliamentarians, academics and
commentators—I am afraid that I found no examples of
comedians—all bemoaned and criticised the need for those new
laws. It was said that they would stifle robust debate and
destroy the centuries-old tradition of freedom of speech,
and that it was political correctness gone mad.
No one today is
seriously suggesting that inciting hatred against blacks is
acceptable—of course it should be against the law. The
courts were right to interpret those laws to give protection
to the followers of mono-ethnic faiths such as Judaism and
Sikhism. Those laws, which were so contentious, have made a
real difference to the lives of black and ethnic-minority
people in Britain. They did not just stop the abuse; they
made us feel full citizens of this, our country.
This Bill is about
trying to close a loophole that far-right groups are well
aware of, and outlawing incitement against the followers—the
followers—of multi-ethnic faiths. In the last few years, the
far right have cynically and deliberately been targeting
British Muslims. "Freedom", the British National party
magazine, has explained the loophole to its readers. An
article under the headline, "Police drop a clanger" said
that a supporter who repeatedly displayed a copy of an
"Islam out of Britain" poster in his window was arrested,
questioned and charged with "incitement to racial hatred".
The article continues:
"The snag for the
police, however, is that Muslims are not covered by
anti-free speech race law . . . it's legal to say anything
you want about Muslims, even far more extreme things".
Incidentally, that
person sued the police for wrongful arrest. Far right groups
no longer—thank God!—have posters saying, "Blacks out of
Britain" or "Jews out of Britain". Why? Because they know
that they would be committing a criminal offence. They know
that creating such an atmosphere by inciting hatred is
unlawful. However, they have no such qualms in respect of
Muslims.
Vulnerable communities
who are at the receiving end of the violence that religious
and racial hatred can lead to have no problems with hate
language being censored, or with the environment in which
such harassment or violence takes place being challenged.
Let us be clear that we are not talking about gagging
comedians—the jokes and gags can go on. We are talking about
hatred creating an atmosphere in which Muslim women—British
women, some of them white—wearing a hijab or scarf are spat
at, insulted, sworn at and even hit.
Dr. Evan Harris
rose—
Mr. Khan:
It is not about race,
as many of these women are white converts. One third of
British Muslims are not of Asian heritage. Young children
with Muslim names are bullied and picked on as a result of
the atmosphere that hatred breeds. Clearly, those children
have not made a decision about their religion; like many of
us, they have been brought up in it, so why are they not
protected?
Dr. Harris:
Will the hon. Gentleman
give way?
Mr. Khan:
No, I am sorry.
The idea that one cannot choose one's race but can choose
one's religion so that the former but not the latter should
get protection is absurd. Some people talk about religion as
a lifestyle choice, but what is being suggested—that
Britain's 1.6 million Muslims should convert to Christianity
or become atheists? We have a duty to protect our most
vulnerable communities.
As I understand it,
there are four main objections to the Bill. First, it is
argued that there is no need for new law because the
existing laws are sufficient. That is simply not the case.
The amendment that the Liberal Democrats and the Tories have
produced—the "dream team" amendment—demonstrates that
neither of the main Opposition parties have any solutions to
these problems. If it were possible to identify religious
hatred as linked to racial hatred, there would be no need
for the proposed law. That is why the so-called Lester
amendment is inadequate.
Mr. Grieve:
The hon. Gentleman used
some illustrations of horrible behaviour to Muslims, and I
think that he would concede that they are all already
criminal offences. What he is trying to achieve through the
Bill is a change in people's mindset. Will he explain how or
why that will come about and will he also deal with the
undoubted fettering of freedom of speech that will result
from what is, in fact, a draconian piece of legislation?
Mr. Khan:
I shall deal with the
last point later. On his first point, the examples that I
provided are not covered. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously
suggesting that there should be only one criminal law to
deal with every criminal act that is committed? The reality
is that if he were arrested for murder, he could be charged
with any of four criminal offences.
I am going to continue.
The whole point is to protect a group of people who do not
fall under a single racial identity. That is why so many
senior police officers, including the recently retired
Metropolitan Police Commissioner, believe that current
legislation is inadequate and support the new offence.
The hon. Member for
Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) advanced the second objection—that
the Bill will restrict freedom of speech. The idea that we
have complete and unrestricted freedom of speech is
nonsense. Article 10 of the European convention on human
rights—the article that deals with free speech—also talks
about the "rights and responsibilities" that go with free
speech in civil society. Free speech has a number of
restrictions to ensure the smooth running of society.
Examples where such restrictions apply include pornography,
intellectual property, race hatred, defamation and national
security issues. If Voltaire were inciting hatred on grounds
of race, I would not fight to the death to defend his right
to say that.
The fact that the new
offence will not be in breach of our article 10 obligations
is confirmed by the support for the proposals of such groups
as the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the UN Committee on
the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Law Society,
the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance,
Justice—the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter)
was wrong to say that Justice opposes the Bill; it supports
it—and the UN Human Rights Committee. In fact, what many
international human rights organisations say is that by
failing to protect our most vulnerable citizens, we are in
breach of our obligations as a State.
The third objection is
that this is a sop to the Muslim community, giving them
preferential treatment because of the Iraq war. I heard a
new one today; apparently, it is blasphemy law for Islam by
the back door. Well, as my right hon. Friend the Member for
Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) said earlier, the
first time the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the
Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) tried to
introduce this legislation was in winter 2001—more than a
year before the war with Iraq—so I am afraid that the
chronology of those who make that point is simply wrong. If
British Muslims really were as powerful and influential as
the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) suggests, one would
have thought that they could have persuaded the Government
not to fight the Iraq war in the first place.
Not only the Government
and Labour Members believe in equality before the law for
all of our communities. The Board of Deputies of British
Jews, the Church of England, the Catholic bishops of England
and Wales, the Hindu Council UK, the network of Sikh
organisations, the CRE and other organisations all support
the Bill. They are hardly a bunch of Muslim fundamentalists
looking for preferential treatment or special favours, or
seeking a new blasphemy law for Muslims by the back door.
The fourth point that
has been made is that the Bill will lead to unemployment—of
comedians, artists and theologians—and possibly to their
prosecution. That is just humbug. The new law will not stop
anyone offending, criticising, ridiculing or taking the p***
out of faiths. Police vans will not wait outside comedy
clubs, and censors will not go through everything that is
said, written or done. Nobody wants to stop our irreverent
sense of humour flourishing. The bigots are the only ones
who have anything to fear from the Bill.
The Bill is about
protecting people from hatred, and not about protecting
faiths from criticism. That goal is entirely in keeping with
Britain's unique record of religious and racial tolerance. A
society should be judged on how it treats its most
vulnerable members. A loophole that allows religious hatred
to be propagated must finally be closed. This Bill closes
that loophole, and I urge the House to support it.
From
House of Commons Hansard 31st January Third Reading debate
Mr. Sadiq Khan (Tooting)
(Lab): The hon. Gentleman suggests
that "Beshti" is a classic example of the sort of play that
would be caught under the legislation. However, the existing
law against incitement to racial hatred applies to the Sikh
faith, so why were the producers of the play not prosecuted?
Does not that provide the reassurance that future plays
about the Islamic faith would also not be caught under the
Bill?
Mr. Grieve: I disagree with the hon.
Gentleman's analysis. The racial hatred laws do not exist to
protect the beliefs, but to protect the racial and ethnic
identity of the believer. Hypothetically, "Beshti" could
have come under the existing racial hatred laws, but in
practical terms it would never have done so. Once we
introduce religion into the matter, it is entirely possible
that it would do so.
Back to Speeches
Page
| 
