Peter
Soulsby (Leicester South, Lab)
At the heart of the hon. Gentleman's argument is the assertion
that a person's religious belief is, in many respects, very
similar to that person's political belief or—this example
was given earlier—his or her support for a football
club. Does he accept that many people's religious beliefs
are much more fundamental than their political beliefs, or
even their support for football clubs? Are not those beliefs
fundamentally connected to their family, culture and heritage?
Indeed, in many cases their religious beliefs are even more
fundamental to their sense of identity than their race.
Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield,
Con)
Some would argue—and I think surveys demonstrate it—that
many people's political views are inherited. That certainly
applies to the political parties that they may choose to support.
Douglas Hogg (Sleaford &
North Hykeham, Con)
Look who's talking.
Dominic
Grieve (Beaconsfield, Con)
Of course, some may be apostates when it comes to the political
views of their forefathers. Nevertheless, one's political
views are closely bound up with one's philosophical outlook.
But I would hate that to be treated as a defining characteristic,
so immutable that it was entitled to special protection. What
worries me about the approach of the hon. Member for Leicester,
South (Sir Peter Soulsby) is that it does suggest that someone's
religious outlook is immutable. It suggests that we can compartmentalise
society into a series of blocks of individuals believing certain
things, which deserve to be preserved in aspic for all time
without challenge.
I believe that in the pluralistic
society that we are rapidly becoming in this country—indeed,
we may have already reached that point—we should be
going in the opposite direction. Far from there being special
protection, people must face the fact that their personal
point of view on matters as sensitive as religion, for instance,
will come in for robust criticism, discussion and discourse.
If we embark on the road down which I fear the Bill will take
us, we will institutionalise difference, curb debate and thus
produce a far less flexible society than the society we undoubtedly
need if we are to go forward and prosper.
|
|
Peter
Soulsby (Leicester South, Lab)
I certainly do not think that a religious outlook needs be
immutable, but I believe it to be fundamental. It is, I believe,
fundamental to how people identify themselves, and fundamental
in a way that is particularly relevant to the Bill—fundamental
to how others identify them and promote hatred of them. Surely
the purpose of the Bill is to protect those who are identified
by others, and by themselves, according to their religion.
Surely we should extend the protection that already exists
in the context of their identification in terms of race.
Dominic
Grieve (Beaconsfield, Con)
I appreciate that we are dealing with religious hatred. We
should bear in mind, however, that 200 years ago those in
this Chamber—or rather down the Corridor, where the
Chamber was then—were living in a society in which,
notwithstanding the tolerance accorded to some dissenters
and indeed to small Jewish minorities, there was a consensus,
institutionalised by Parliament, that certain Christian beliefs
contained in the 39 Articles of religion must be imposed for
the sake of social conformity, and to maintain the body politic.
That is the state in which our country then was.
Over the last 200 years we have seen
a dramatic change, not just in the extent of the tolerance
accorded to others who wish to practise other religious beliefs.
The country is in the process of a massive transformation:
multiculturalism and religious views are important not just
to small minority groups, but to substantial sections of society.
I must tell the hon. Gentleman that in those circumstances
I think it is particularly important for freedom of discourse
to be maintained, including freedom to criticise in vehement
terms. We must all get used to that. If we do not, we shall
be moving in the wrong direction.
|