We've heard a lot from the Lords recently about protecting our country's traditions of justice and fairness. Today, as the Lords debate the government's proposals on incitement to religious hatred, I want to challenge them to deliver justice and fairness to members of minority faiths.
It might surprise some that this is not the first time protections for people on the basis of their faith have been sought. I know that until recently some of the architects of the 1965 Race Relations Act believed that it would be an appropriate next step to protect people of faith communities.
An amendment to that effect was tabled by the then SDP during the passage of the existing racial incitement offence in 1986, but it was rejected on the grounds that there wasn't a mischief to address at that time. Now that there is clear evidence of mischief, the Liberal Democrats have voted against the provisions at every stage in the House of Commons. In 1994 the Bishop of Oxford, in a report by the Runnymede Trust, called for the creation of a law on incitement to religious hatred. Again no action was taken.
In 2001, shortly after September 11 and the disturbances in Bradford and Burnley, we tried to legislate to prevent this behaviour in the anti-terrorism, crime and security bill. The excuse then was that the provisions should not be included in an anti-terrorism bill. But Lord Dholakia said at that time: "The minister would have our full support if legislation that was separate from the anti-terrorism bill was involved."
And yet now, when the legislation we intend to introduce is almost identical to that proposed in 2001 and is not included in a terror bill, and when there is evidence of religious hatred having a corrosive effect on our communities, the excuse is that the "climate" is wrong and that it might have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. It looks to me as if any excuse will do for people who profess to support protections but never actually step up to the mark.
The offence we propose will not prevent people from debating or ridiculing religions and beliefs as robustly as happens today. Evangelical Christians will still be free to preach the gospel and warn of the evils they perceive in other religions. We are not banning critical and offensive remarks or extending the law of blasphemy. The bill focuses on something very specific, namely the conduct of those who try to propagate hatred of people and communities because of their religion or belief. Surely we can all accept that this is not what we want to happen in our society.
In the late 70s a young Sikh boy, Gurdip Singh Chaggar, was stabbed to death by a gang of white youths outside a cinema in Southall. Kingsley Read, the leader of the National party, a splinter from the National Front, joked: "One down, 1 million to go." It wasn't funny and it was designed to encourage those who hate and would do violence to others on the basis of their race, but it was ruled not to be illegal. In the words of the judge: "In this England of ours, we are allowed to have our own view still, thank goodness, and long may it last." Like some of today's advocates of free expression, he missed the point: the law does not proscribe opinions but prevents using them to create hatred of others.
What reasonable person would want Read's comment to be acceptable now? It's a hallmark of civilised society that persecuting people on the basis of their race is illegal. The "chilling" effect of that law has helped to stop people behaving like this.
So why do we appear happy to allow hatred against a person because of their faith? Advocates of this view would argue that race and religion are different. That race is fundamentally about someone's common humanity and something that they can't change, unlike religion.
Yes, people can in principle change their religion. But for many in our society, religion is not a choice. Even if they later change their beliefs or do not fully practise their religion, for many, severing ties with their faith would involve severing ties with their whole community and on many occasions even their immediate family. And our proposed law does not protect the belief - it protects people.
Children cannot choose their religion. They have no control over the faith of their family or community, and yet they can be made to live in fear because of those who seek to destroy their way of life. Existing laws protect them against direct harassment and assault, but do not address the hate propaganda that can cause or exacerbate such offences. We know religious hatred underpins much law-breaking. The CPS recorded 49 religiously aggravated offences in 2003-04.
Today is a crucial test of the society we want to create. By supporting the government's proposals, the Lords would send a clear message to stop people who are currently beyond reach of the law from promoting hatred of others because of their faith. This behaviour has no place in modern Britain, and there can be no more excuses for not taking action.
· Fiona Mactaggart is the Home Office minister for race equality and community cohesion