Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-202)
14 DECEMBER 2004
MR CHRISTOPHER
JONES, CANON
GUY WILKINSON,
DR DON
HORROCKS, REV
KATEI KIRBY,
MR RICHARD
ZIPFEL AND
FATHER PHILIP
SUMNER
Q200 David Winnick: That is a very fair
reply. Whoever wishes to respond on behalf of the Catholics? Father?
Father Sumner: I would agree with
that and see that there are potentials on Friday prayers or at
Catholic churches on a Sunday for comments to be made to a group
of people in public that could be taken out of context and used
to suggest that you are inciting religious hatred. We are not
sure how that sort of thing would turn out with regard to the
law itself, but it would open ourselves up to all sorts of other
situations which could add to the tension in contradistinction
to aid the reducing of tension between communities. A suggestion
recently that I thought was interesting was about religion rather
than race. Race, or ethnic background, is something you do not
have any choice about—you are born into it—whereas
with religion you choose it, and so there should be a difference
in terms of how we legislate for it as well.
Dr Horrocks: Our position on this
has been fairly clear. We welcome any legislation that would outlaw
hatred—no-one is going to quarrel with that—but our
feeling at this moment (and, to be fair, we do not know what the
Government's precise plans are; we are yet to see them) is that
the price could well be too high, because we think that the restriction
on fundamental freedoms is too high here; and, in fact, we worry
that by bringing in this kind of legislation community hostility
will be created where it does not exist now and that there will
be a propensity to look for opportunities to see hate speech.
There is a very good example in today's press, as a matter of
interest, that at the weekend Charles Moore in the Daily Telegraph
wrote an article in which he was expressing similar views and
he referred to a rather nasty view of Islam that somebody could
hold, an argument that they may put forward. He said, "I
do not agree with this. I think it is terrible that they would
advance it, but I would nevertheless defend their right to say
it."
Q201 David Winnick: Can I put this point
to you, Dr Horrocks? As I understand it—and I am not a Muslim—Mohammed
is looked upon as the prophet not the saviour. To all of you representing
the Christian religion, Jesus Christ is the same thing. If some
offensive remark was made about your saviour, would you not consider
that highly offensive?
Dr Horrocks: Could I finish what
I was about to answer and then make my point by giving an illustration
of that. The Muslim Association of Britain this morning has called
for Charles Moore's sacking. They have asked for the Telegraph
to be boycotted. They have seen this as a clear incitement to
religious hatred, and Charles Moore, when being tackled on this,
has said, "I see this as very threatening." It seems
to me that this gets at the heart of the matter.
Q202 David Winnick: You have not really
answered my question, Mr Horrocks, with respect?
Dr Horrocks: I was going to come
on to the point: is Christianity threatened? All the time. In
fact there is a very popular threat going around at the moment,
like the Da Vinci Code, which is going to be made into
a film, which is a total parody of Christianity, but our response
to that will be a careful, academic response and already has been.
We do not call for the author of that book to be restrained in
some kind of way. No. We do not like the book; we are offended
by it; we are insulted by it in some cases; but our response is
to give it a proper answer that stands up in the public sphere.
Chairman: Thank you very
much ladies and gentlemen. We are going to need to draw the session
to an end because we are running slightly late, but can I thank
you all very much indeed for your very helpful responses to our
huge range of questions.
| 
