|
Peter Soulsby (Leicester
South, Lab)
My constituency is one of the most ethnically diverse
of any represented in this House outside London. In
the last census in 2001, more than 40 per cent. of
its population described themselves as other than
white British, and the proportion is probably somewhat
higher today. In giving that description, they used
many different criteria, the two most notable being
race and religion.
It is not only in the census
that the two criteria of race and religion are used
as indicators of how people identify themselves. For
them, when it comes to race it is not a matter of
choice, and, contrary to what has been said several
times during this debate, neither is it a matter of
choice when they identify themselves by religion.
For many of those in that 40 per cent. in my constituency,
their religion is as fundamental a part of their culture,
family and tradition as their race—in many cases,
more fundamental. Of course, it is also on the basis
of race and religion that many of those who seek to
promote division, discord and hate categorise people
in my constituency and in others.
Today, Leicester is very fortunate.
Relations between the various ethnic and religious
groups tend to be very good, and are very different
from how they were in Leicester and in many other
places some 30 years ago, and still are today in many
places. That is partly because the people of the city
have been very sensible in the way they have worked
together to understand and get to know each other.
It is also because of the general legislative framework
whereby promotion of racial hatred is against the
law and clearly unacceptable. The legislation forbidding
the promotion of racial hatred has not required many
prosecutions, but it has provided a legal framework
and enabled a culture in which the promotion of racial
hatred is totally unacceptable. Of course, it is not
only on the basis of matters of race that those who
seek to promote hatred categorise others—it
is also, sadly, by religion.
The four in 10 in my constituency
may have some degree of protection if they are threatened
by racial hatred, but it is different if that hatred
is promoted purely on the basis of their religion.
As other hon. Members have said, particularly my right
hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras
(Frank Dobson), there are two exceptions. If hatred
is stirred against the one in 20 of my constituents
who are Sikh, they will protected, because Sikhism
is covered by racial hatred legislation. Similarly,
if the one in 100 of my constituents who are Jewish
find that hatred is being promoted against them, they
too will find some protection because they happen
to have an identification that is beyond racial and
includes a religious identification. As my hon. Friend
the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said,
the extension of the law preventing racial hatred
has enabled them to get some degree of additional
protection. Unlike my hon. Friend, however, I do not
feel that that should be regretted as an extension
of the existing legislation—rather, that it
should be extended to include other religious minorities.
Graham Allen (Nottingham
North, Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Peter Soulsby (Leicester
South, Lab)
Certainly, because I realise that my hon. Friend may
feel that I have misrepresented him slightly.
Graham Allen (Nottingham
North, Lab)
What I actually said was that I was pleased about
the extension to cover Jewish and Sikh people but
that it had not been in the original legislation,
and therefore as we pass legislation tonight there
may be other unintended consequences as a result of
case law being built on it.
Peter Soulsby (Leicester
South, Lab)
I entirely accept that that was my hon. Friend's point
and that he was welcoming the extension; my argument
is that it should be extended to other religious minorities,
which is the purpose of the Bill.
Evan Harris (Oxford
West & Abingdon, LDem)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that case law in cases
regarding Sikhs and Jews recognises that the existing
laws on incitement to racial hatred protected those
groups because they are races as well as religions?
Is he not making a good argument for extending the
race hate laws to cover religions when the motive
is racial hatred, which is what the so-called Lester
amendment does?
Peter Soulsby (Leicester
South, Lab)
No; my point was that a significant proportion of
my constituents and others identify themselves primarily
by their religion, and that that identification that
they have of themselves and that others have of them
should be protected.
Mark Hendrick (PPS
(Rt Hon Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State), Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
My hon. Friend makes a strong point, because race
and religion are essential in terms of how people
see their own personal identity. It is a shame that
Opposition Members see religion almost as a lifestyle
choice, not as something that is innate in somebody's
identity.
Peter Soulsby (Leicester
South, Lab)
The fact is that the law preventing the promotion
of hatred on the grounds of race deserves to be extended
to those who suffer from the promotion of hatred on
the grounds of their religion. Members of certain
religions are not protected when, as they increasingly
perceive to be the case, extremists promote hatred
of them and of their friends, families and communities
on the grounds of their religion. The Bill is not
about giving special treatment to particular religions—it
clearly applies to all, and has indeed been extended
to apply to those who have no religion. Nor is it
about stifling criticism of other faiths, or, indeed,
mocking them or making judgments about them. It is
about giving the same protection to those who have
hatred stirred up against them because of their religion
as is already given to those who have hatred stirred
them because of their race.
In recent years, especially
since the events of September 2001 but also before
that, ordinary, law-abiding, peaceful and productive
citizens, who happened to be Muslim, have, with their
families, felt themselves targeted and demonised.
Of course, we are considering Muslims, but it could
be members of other religions, for example, Hindus,
in future.
David Davies (Monmouth,
Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman concede that many Jewish people
have felt targeted since 9/11 and that, unfortunately,
some of that has come from a small section of the
Muslim community?
Peter Soulsby (Leicester
South, Lab)
That was precisely my point about the way in which
the law has been extended, is capable of being extended
to prevent attacks on Jews and Sikhs and should be
extended to prevent such attacks on Muslims and members
of other religions in future.
The Bill will not prevent
anybody from being criticised or joked about. However,
it makes a clear statement. It will provide a legal
framework and help ensure that incitement to religious
hatred is as unacceptable in Britain as is incitement
to racial hatred
|