|
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.
|