(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

The controversial US preacher who has become the first person to be banned from Ireland under a 20-year-old power, Stephen Anderson, a pastor from Arizona, who runs the Faithful Word Baptist Church, oh, it's always God-botherers that end up doing this, isn't it, openly expressing anti-gay and anti-Semitic views. Well, someone who has been, well, spent his life actually campaigning on human rights, particularly the rights of the LGBTQ community, and is someone that I admire greatly and I'm very pleased to be talking to this evening, is Peter Tatchell, and he joins us live on the line. Evening to you, Peter. Good evening. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk to us this evening. Is it right that hate preachers are banned from countries? Should they be or should they be allowed in and allowed to either spew their hate or perhaps potentially make fools of themselves? Where do you stand on it? Well, first of all, I think we need to acknowledge that free speech is one of the most important and precious of all human rights. We as a nation, over generations, had to fight very hard to get that freedom enshrined in law because in ancient times, there were all kinds of legislations that prohibited free speech. So if you were dissenting against the Catholic Church centuries ago, that could not only put you in prison, but it actually put you at risk of being executed, being burned at the stake or hanged at the gallows. So a lot of people went to prison and some even died in order to defend the principle of free speech. So I'm of the view there have to be very strong, compelling reasons why free speech should be inhibited or restricted. And I think there are perhaps three red lines. First of all, if someone makes false damaging allegations against someone, for example, accusing someone of being a pedophile, a rapist, a murderer, a tax fraudster, a rent evader, if those allegations aren't true, then those kind of damaging allegations could do that person great reputational, perhaps even physical harm. If they're accused of some serious crime, it might incite a mob to attack them. The second instance where I think free speech can be legitimately restricted is when someone engages in threats, menaces, or harassment. You might remember the case of the woman, Caroline Corrado-Perez, who fought to get a woman on the banknote, on a 10 pound banknote. And she was subjected to relentless online harassment by trolls. It wasn't just a handful of criticisms, but really abusive stuff involving thousands and thousands and thousands of Twitter attacks. And I think, again, that's a red line. And the final red line is when someone incites violence. Inciting violence is a criminal offense. And quite clearly, if you incite violence against someone or a group of people, you will intimidate them into silence because they will be afraid to speak out because they fear the violent consequences. So in the case of this particular hate preacher, Steven Anderson, who's been reportedly banned from entry into Ireland, it is very clear, according to the BBC, that he has called for the death of the former U.S. President Barack Obama. That's an incitement to murder. And he's also praised the gunman who killed 49 people in an attack on a gay nightclub in Florida in 2016. Now, this is incitement to kill. It's glorification of mass murder. And I think that crosses a red line. If he was merely homophobic or misogynistic, I would probably take a different view. But what Steven Anderson has said is more than mere hate. And therefore, I think Ireland is right to ban him because I don't think free speech includes the right to encourage violence, which, as I said, is a criminal offense in Ireland, the U.K., and many, many other countries. But many people would say that that desire, if you like, to want to inflict violence on others, that comes from their interpretation of a religious doctrine. Now, does that mean that perhaps, as I believe, that increasingly the same protections in the Equalities Act that is enjoyed by people who are for their race, their gender, identified gender, sexual orientation, whether they have a disability, those things are not compatible with a religious ideology, which is, of course, a belief and not the way in which you are born? Well, under the law, we have a very clear demarcation that inciting violence, and in particular murder, is a very serious criminal offense. And you can go to jail for five or more years for inciting violence and murder. Now, I think that is right, because if we're going to live in a harmonious, cohesive society, I don't think people will be able to go around inciting murder. I'm old enough to remember the National Front in the 1970s, who used to march into immigrant areas populated by Afro-Caribbean and Asian people. And some of the people in those marches used to openly encourage the killing of Black and Asian people. That's why I and many others marched against the National Front. We joined with those communities to block their path so they couldn't go and threaten those communities. Those communities had a right to live without fear. And the ferocious, fearful, murderous incitements of members of the National Front in those days were quite rightly resisted. And eventually, of course, the National Front went into decline precisely because people stood up and opposed them. And that happened, that's what happened, like, in Cable Street? That was also Oswald Mosley's fascist in Cable Street. Although, you know, there's a big debate about whether they actually incited violence against Jews or not. But certainly, the intention was to menace the Jewish community in East London. And that, again, was a red line, because the Jewish community had a right and has a right today to live without fear. But isn't there, I guess, the point I'm trying to make with religion being in the Equalities Act? And by the way, I absolutely agree that people who have a religious belief have every right and quite right to live a life in any way that they want to, without violence, without intimidation. I'm absolutely in favour of that. But increasingly, we're seeing more and more stories and, you know, not ones that involve incitement to violence. You're quite right to point out legally that that's wrong, and morally, on every level, it's wrong. But increasingly, we're seeing more and more stories where religious belief is clashing with people's right to be LGBTQ. And I don't see how both of those rights can be compatible when being LGBTQ is an accident of birth. That is how you are born. You can't make a choice not to be LGBTQ, but you can make a choice not to believe in a particular religious belief. So I don't see how those two are compatible. Well, under the Equalities Act, it says that all forms of discrimination are wrong. Whether you are born that way or you adopt a belief, you are entitled to protection against discrimination. And that is why I've been very, very strong throughout my entire life. Although I'm not religious myself, I've been very strong in defending Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, and other faith people against discrimination. They have a right to live their lives free from discrimination. What they don't have is the right to use their belief to discriminate against others. But they would say that's discrimination against their belief, though. And that's why, isn't it not compatible? Because a lot of Christians, and you're quite right, many Christians as well, and many religions have no problem at all with LGBTQ, many people who practice religions. But those that do see it as sinful, they say that they are being discriminated against for their beliefs. You've almost got a clash of discriminations there. And I'm not sure that for me, one, and again, I'm not in favor of discriminating against religious people. And I want to be really clear about that. But one does slightly usurp the other because you can't make a choice to not be LGBT. But you can make a choice not to discriminate if it's based on a religious belief. But no one is stopping a person of faith from holding their belief. I've often said that although I find it sad and disappointing, I will defend the right of Christians to hold the view that homosexuality is wrong. I think that's really sad, but they have a right to believe that. What they don't have a right is to therefore take that belief and seek to impose upon others or use that belief as a justification for discrimination or harassment or violence against others. And I think when the belief moves beyond a mere belief into the realm of public incitement or encouragement of bad things, then I think whoever is doing it should be subject to the law. And they should not be able to do that because that creates a climate of fear in which the people they're speaking against don't feel able to be open and live in a sense of insecurity, anxiety and fear. And we've seen, of course, a lot of it happening in Birmingham and spreading to other places as well, where people with a deeply held religious belief are absolutely against any mention of the just mere existence of people of LGBTQ, you know, their existence even being mentioned in schools, which to me seems barking mad because, you know, that's like saying, well, I'm not going to agree with the existence of the blue sky or the existence of one and one equals two. Well, you're absolutely right, but I would defend the right of Muslim or parents of other faiths to disagree with the teaching of LGBT issues in schools. But I don't think they'd have a right is to veto what the school is doing, which is all about trying to create a climate of acceptance and inclusion where LGBT kids and their families feel included, where they feel valued, where they don't feel depressed, anxious, rejected, excluded. And that's what this program in the Birmingham schools and other schools around the country is all about. It's not about promoting homosexuality or encouraging sex. It's about encouraging understanding and acceptance of difference. And of course, Muslim people or Christians would hate it if other parents objected to their kids being in the school or teaching about their faith. I mean, all schools teach about multi-faith societies, and that's quite right and proper because they're Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Sikh, and others in our society. They're part of our society. Even if we don't agree with them, we should accept them, not discriminate against them. They are part of modern Britain. And that's the same with LGBT people. We are part of the spectrum of modern British society. And I think it's all about live and let live. You don't have to agree with me, but please don't encourage violence or discrimination against me. So it's violence, really. It's the key to banning people, isn't it, really? Well, it's also discrimination as well. Remember the case of the Christian bed and breakfast owners who objected to accommodating a same-sex couple in their bed and breakfast accommodation? Well, I turn around and say to them, how would you feel if you as Christians went to a hotel or a bed and breakfast and were told we're not going to accommodate you because you're Christian? That would be absolutely outrageous and wrong. Well, if it's wrong for you as a Christian, surely it's wrong for you to exclude people who happen to be LGBT. But you defended the gay cake thing, didn't you? The Asher's Bakery thing. You defended them not to have to make that cake. Isn't that the same thing as a hotel? Yeah, it was really sad that Asher's Bakery were not willing to decorate the cake with the message requested by the customer, which was support gay marriage. Because after all, they had advertised they would decorate a cake with any message that the customer wished. And when Gareth Lee came along and said, we'd like to have a cake decorated with support gay marriage for our LGBT event we're holding in Belfast, Asher's turned around and said no. Well, that was discrimination. But it was discrimination against an idea, not against a person. They didn't refuse to serve Gareth Lee because he was gay. They refused to put that particular message on his face. See, I disagreed. I disagreed with you on that, actually, Peter. One of the few times I have disagreed with you because I felt that the reason I disagreed was because you could have taken any part of the Bible. For instance, if I'd come along and said, right, you know, I want to celebrate Women's International Women's Day and I want to put a message on a cake celebrating women's equality, I bet you a pound to a pinch of the proverbial. There is no way that that bakery would have said, well, actually, sorry, the Bible states that women need to obey men and have permission of their husbands to work, which you can find passages in the Bible that say that. There is no way that they would have discriminated against that. So I felt that actually that was discrimination against the LGBT community. Well, at one level, you're right, but I think it'd be very, very dangerous in my view to go down the road where we say that people have to promote ideas with which they disagree. So at the end of the day, I came down on the side of Asher's saying, although I totally reject their opposition to same sex marriage and, you know, I totally am appalled they wouldn't decorate the cake with that message. Nevertheless, as a matter of conscience, if they don't believe in same sex marriage, I don't think they should be forced to put that message on the cake. What they would under no circumstances should ever be allowed to do and they did not do was refuse to serve the customer because he was gay. And if we went down the road to say, you know, people have to support businesses or individuals have to promote messages that they disagree with, then you could get a situation where a Jewish printer, for example, could be compelled to publish a book on Holocaust denial, which would be totally wrong or a gay baker forced to make a cake with an anti gay message. So I know it's a difficult issue and it's it's it's finely balanced. There are arguments, pros and cons on both sides. But I think at the end of the day, discrimination against ideas is acceptable. But of course, never discrimination against people. No, yeah, I think I've got you, though. The way I think, again, where we differ is that I see religion as an idea as well. And that's why I kind of think that although I don't think the religious person should be discriminated against, you should be able to discriminate against the idea of religion, because religion is surely religion is more of an idea than than the idea of gay equality. Well, you're there's two different issues. I mean, obviously, it's quite right for people to have the freedom to criticize all ideas, including my own. And, you know, lots of people like Richard Dawkins, you know, criticize religion. And I think that they have every right to do so, whether you agree with them or not. But what they don't have the right to do is to suggest that people because of their faith should be treated as lesser human beings with fewer legal rights. That would be discrimination. I think that that's the core issue. And if you look back to history, of course, I mean, many of the most significant ideas in human history have caused great offense to religion. I mean, Galileo Galilei, he was excommunicated with the Catholic Church for over 400 years. You think about the Bruno Girdano, who was burned at the stake because he had a different view of the universe, where the Catholic Church believed that the earth is the center of the universe. He said, no, no, no, we we are just part of a much bigger, broader, wider solar system and universe. So he was burned alive for expressing that idea. And, you know, the publication of the Bible, you know, when people want to translate the Bible to English, the Catholic Church persecuted those people and even killed some of them because they were trying to bring the Bible to ordinary men and women. Now, you know, that is where I draw the line.