Memorandum submitted by Ronald T Hollands (CJ&I 162)

Dear Members of the Committee,

I would like to take this opportunity to register my anxiety about the proposed amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, which, if I understand the matter correctly, would make it a criminal offence to 'incite hatred on the grounds of sexuality'. As a Christian minister, I am committed to and would teach my congregation that we should love and show respect towards all people, regardless of their beliefs and behaviour. However, I also feel that the introduction of this proposed law poses a threat to freedom of speech and freedom of religion in our nation: freedoms won over many years and at great cost. 

· As all sections of society are, under existing legislation, already protected from assault and threatening words or behaviour (including incitement to commit a criminal offence), the proposed legislation would appear to be supefluous.

· The attempt to make 'hatred' a criminal offence - on account of a person's sexuality or for any other reason - seems to me to be a worrying move towards an Orwellian society where 'thought crime' needs 'thought police' to enforce it.  Of course, as a Christian, I deem hatred without reason wrong (the Lord Jesus called it murder in the Sermon on the Mount), but it cannot be the subject of parliamentary legislation.

· The charge of 'homophobia' sometimes levelled against Christians fails to distinguish between hatred of a person and hatred of moral evil.  Christians are commanded to love people (including homosexuals) but, taking as they do their moral teaching from the Bible, Christians affirm that God intended sexuality to be expressed within in a marriage relationship as defined by the Bible i.e. between one man and one woman.  Recently publicised statistics confirm empirically that marriage 'works' and scores favourably over so-called 'living together.'  It is, I would say, a case of 'best follow the Maker's instructions.' The health risks associated with homosexual practice are also well known, as is illustrated in restrictions placed upon blood donation . The orthodox belief of the Christian Church may be offensive to some, but the propagation of such teaching should not be criminalised.  Indeed I myself would consider such an attempt to do so unconstitutional. The Queen, at her coronation, vowed to uphold and defend 'the Protestant Reformed religion established by law.'  She was presented with a Bible, which has been the foundation of our common law since at least the time of Alfred the Great.

· Christians and others are already living in an atmosphere of intimidation 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, or have lost their positions at work. For instance, on 2 September 2006, Stephen Green of Christian Voice was arrested in Cardiff at the city's Mardi Gras for distributing leaflets of an allegedly homophobic nature.  The text of the leaflet quoted the Bible at length to support his belief that, while same-sex love is not a sin, sexual activity between members of the same sex is.  The leaflet then asserts that sinners can be saved through the death and resurrection of Jesus if they truly repent.  On Thursday 28 September 2006, the case against Stephen Green was dropped by Cardiff Magistrates Court, as there was no evidence to present against the defendant.  While not all Christians might wish to identify with Mr Green's method of protest, his leaflets simply contained the teaching of the Bible.  Other instances could be cited e.g.:

· Glasgow firemen were threatened with disciplinary action because, for conscience' sake (as Christians), they refused to attend a 'Gay Pride' march.

· Family values campaigner, Lynette Burrows, was telephoned by police saying they were investigating a 'homophobic incident' after she said on radio that homosexual men may not be suitable for raising children.

· The Bishop of Chester was investigated by the Cheshire constabulary after he told his local newspaper of research showing that some homosexuals re-orientated to heterosexuality.

· A Member of the Scottish Parliament asked Strathclyde Police to investigate the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow after he said in a sermon that the moral teaching of the church was being undermined by the introduction of civil partnerships.

· Joe and Helen Roberts were interrogated by police after they complained about their local council's 'gay rights' police. The police said it was a 'homophobic incident'. The police later admitted no crime had been committed and the police and council issued a public apology.

· In 2006 the Western Isles Council in Scotland received hate mail and death threats because its registrars refused, on moral grounds, to conduct civil partnership ceremonies. 

· In Scotland, both Edinburgh and Heriot-Watt Christian Unions have faced opposition from their respective student associations. In Edinburgh University, the Christian Union had sought to teach the "Pure" Course on University facilities. This course promotes biblical teaching on sex and specifically that Christians should exercise sexual restraint until marriage. The Christian Union was criticised for teaching that the bible states that homosexuals must remain celibate. The course was criticised for being homophobic. Accordingly, the Christian Union was banned by the University authorities from teaching this course on University facilities. At Heriot-Watt University, the Christian Union is not being permitted to affiliate with the Student Association because it requires all members to sign a statement of faith. 

In light of the above concerns, I would respectfully 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 hard won freedoms that we now enjoy.  I would also reaffirm my belief that it would be unconstitutional.  More importantly, I would encourage the committee, in spite of the clamours of a vociforous minority, to continue to uphold those unchanging (well tried and proven) values that are the basis of a healthy and functional society.

November 2007