RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND INCITEMENT (Hansard, 23 January 1963)

§ Mr. Fenner Brockway (Eton and Slough)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence to discriminate to the detriment of any person on the grounds of colour, race or religion in the United Kingdom, and to incite publicly contempt or hatred of any person or persons because of their colour, race or religion. I want to acknowledge that for a fleeting moment yesterday, while we were listening to the tributes to Hugh Gaitskell, I considered postponing the introduction of this Motion today. I did so because I have now introduced it for nine successive years and it may be regarded as a hardy annual. But it was only for a fleeting moment, because those of us who are associated with the Bill do not regard it as a routine matter. We regard it as going to the very depths of human relationships.

The principle of the Bill, in our view, is imperative for human harmony in Britain and the world. The Measure is divided into three parts: the first deals with discrimination in public places, the second discrimination in leases for accommodation and the third incitement of racial hatred or contempt. The proposals in the first part are very moderate. They distinguish between personal and public relationships. We may deplore it, but the State has no right to impose on any individual an association repugnant by mind or instinct. That is in the realm of the individual, but if 98 we believe that racial or religious discrimination is a denial of the essence of the human family and community living, then we should say at least that in public places, particularly when operating under public licence, differentiation should be made an offence in law.

My Bill would apply to common lodging houses, hotels, places for the sale of food and drink to the public, and places of public entertainment or recreation. It has been urged before that there is no need to include hotels. It has been argued that the present law requiring the provision of accommodation to all still applies, but it does not apply to any applicants to hotels who are not travellers.

In addition, I want to draw attention to the inclusion of lodging houses, because this provision might lead to a misapprehension. The advertisements that appear in local newspapers saying, in the case of private lodgings, "no coloureds need apply", probably has a worse effect than anything in this sphere, but the Bill would not apply to private lodgings because we recognise that an Englishwoman's home is her castle.

It has sometimes been argued that there is no need fox my proposed Bill. If any hon. Member argues that he must have a very different kind of correspondence from that which I receive, which shows that there is need of the Bill in relation to hotels and public houses, and to dance halls, where discrimination is particularly practised. That is the first part of the Bill.

The second part of the Bill would apply to the refusal of leases for accommodation on grounds of race or of colour. My correspondence shows that this very frequently occurs. I get letters giving instances in which a coloured man has telephoned an estate agent and has been offered accommodation immediately, but when he has spelt his name and it is African, or when he has appeared at the estate agent's office, he has been refused that accommodation. We had the disgraceful occurrence recently when a leading officer at an embassy in London tried for five weeks to find accommodation here, was promised it immediately, but when it was discovered that he was a coloured person the accommodation, even to an embassy official, was refused.

99 I want very briefly to answer three arguments that are urged against my Bill. The first is that we shall rid this country of racial discrimination by education rather than by legislation. It is agreed that education must be the primary factor, but surely a lead can be given by legislation and so contribute to education.

Secondly, it is urged that our Statute law makes no reference to race, and that to have a law addressed to it would be a recognition of race. The Minister has urged that argument. One might as well say that a law against murder is a recognition of murder. Racial discrimination is admittedly a social evil with disastrous effects on the community; we should recognise that fact by making it illegal.

Thirdly, it is said that legislation has not always succeeded—again, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. Nobody who has been to America during recent years can doubt the salutary effect of the laws of many States there, despite isolated events. This legislation is applied in a number of British Colonies, with a liberating effect. Is the centre of the Commonwealth to lag behind the Commonwealth itself?

The third part of the Bill would make illegal incitement of hatred or contempt on grounds of race, colour or religion, whether by speech, writing, illustration or printing. This has become urgent because of a resurgence of Fascist propaganda in our country. I believe in the freedoms of speech and of Press. I would not ban meetings except when social disorder would occur, or when they were for the deliberate purpose of inciting hatred or contempt of race or religion. I would not ban a newspaper. But just as it is an offence to slander an individual, so it should be an offence to slander a whole race, the social consequences of which may be far more serious than those of personal slander.

A Bill to amend the Public Order Act has already been introduced. My Bill goes further, but I welcome that Measure which has come from the other side of the House. I delayed the introduction of this Motion in order to give the other the first opportunity. I hope that one or other, in so far as it refers to the third part of my proposed Bill, will be passed.

This is the ninth time that I have introduced such a Bill, but always with 100 greater encouragement; every time the support grows. On this occasion we have the support of the Churches, the National Council of Women, educational organisations, the National Council of Civil Liberties, the Jewish community, the Labour movement, the Liberal Party, Conservative clubs at universities, and many Conservative Members.

On previous occasions the House has agreed to the First Reading and then a group of hon. Members has obstructed the Bill at further stages. I do not ask the House to accept every Clause, but I do ask it to accept the principle that the law of our land should make public racial discrimination and incitement an offence. And I challenge those who oppose that principle to divide against this Motion today. Let them have the courage to do that openly rather than to resort to methods of obstruction at a later stage. If it is logical to give leave today, I ask that they shall not oppose Opportunity for discussion at later stages. Otherwise, let them try to defeat the Bill today—I challenge them to do so.

If that challenge is not taken up, I ask the Government to provide facilities for a Bill that has been given its First Reading more often than any Bill that has ever been introduced into this House. It embodies a principle necessary for the good of the nation and of the world, and I have no doubt that public opinion supports it. I have no doubt that the majority in the House supports it. I hope that a Division will be challenged, so that we may know that that is so.