Memorandum submitted by Mr S Chikhlia (CJ&I 143)

Dear Members of the Committee,

I am writing to express my deep concern about the proposed amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, which would make it a criminal offence to 'incite hatred on the grounds of sexuality'.

As a committed Christian I firmly believe that we should love all people, irrespective of their lifestyle, beliefs and sexual practices. However, I also believe that love entails that if that lifestyle, belief or sexual practice is wrong people in society should be free to speak out against it withour fear of being criminalised. The introduction of this proposed amendment is ill advised and poses a considerable danger to freedom of speech and freedom of conscience in our nation for the following  reasons:-

Firstly, the amendment is unnecessary. All people are protected from assault and threatening words or behaviour under current criminal law. In addition, the law concerning incitement to commit a criminal offence would make it an offence for any person to incite an act of violence against another person, for whatever reason.

Secondly, although it is not good to hate another person, nor is it a criminal offence to hate somebody - for reason of their sexuality or for any other reason. This amendment would be just another step towards 'thought crime', as it outlaws the act of trying to make someone hate something or someone else.

Thirdly, although Christians are to love all men, they are instructed in the bible to hate sin. The bible is also clear that God intended sex to be kept in a marriage relationship between one man and one woman. Some people may find such teaching offensive, and some may even find it threatening. But it is an orthodox belief of the Christian Church, and the propagation of such teaching should not be criminalised. Many advocates of free speech would ascribe to the motto 'I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it'.

Fourthly and finally, Christians and others are already living in an atmosphere of fear when it comes to being allowed to speak openly about their beliefs regarding sexuality. There have been a number of examples in the media where people have been reported to the police, interviewed by police, taken to court and even prosecuted for speaking openly about sexuality, and some have even lost their positions at work.

I can point to number of examples, but to take just one ...please consider the case of Edinburgh University which initially banned the University Christian Union from running a course on sexual purity because of pressure from The Gay and Lesbian Society at the University. The University eventually relented but insisted that when the course was run material must be made available at their meetings which represents a different view!! Since meetings of the Gay and Lesbian Society at the University are not forced to reciprocate and distribute literature which presents the Christian viewpoint, one fails to see why such an imposition was made on the Christian Union. Here we have just one among countless other examples where the views of a 1% minority group (i.e. on a national basis) trump the views of those in the majority who have moral scruples over their sexual practices.

In light of these above concerns I would urge the Committee to uphold freedom of speech and to recognise that the proposed amendment is not only an unnecessary measure, but that it would endanger the freedoms that we now enjoy.

Thank you for taking the time to read my submission.

October 2007