Examination of Witnesses (Questions 175-179)
WEDNESDAY 10 JULY 2002
MR BRIAN
PEARCE AND
REVEREND JONATHAN
GORSKY
Chairman
175. In parliamentary terms, good morning to
you. Thank you very much for coming. I appreciate that we have
asked you an awful lot of questions. I want to give both of you
time to address any of them, but if, when we finish at half-past
one, we have not reached things or you have not finished telling
us everything you want to about a topic, please will you write
it down and send it to us because we will then incorporate it
as part of the submissions. I just do not want you to feel that
you are frustrated by lack of time, too many questions and everybody
chipping in. We really do want to hear what you have to say on
all this, so feel free to write. I think it might be helpful if
you would very briefly introduce yourselves for the record.
(Revd Gorsky) I am Jonathan Gorsky. I
am an orthodox Jew and I work for the Council of Christians and
Jews as Educational Adviser. A brief note of introduction about
the CCJ: it was set up in 1942 to promote better relations between
Christians and Jews and that is obviously of great relevance to
the subjects to be discussed today.
(Mr Pearce) My name is Brian Pearce. I worked for
a number of years in the civil service. I now work as Director
of the Inter Faith Network for the United Kingdom, a body that
I was involved in helping to bring into being, which came into
formal existence in 1987. We are an organisation which links member
bodies; we have no individual membership. We ave organisations
in membership which are representative bodies of the main faiths
in the United Kingdom; of national inter faith organisations,
including the Council of Christians and Jews; local inter faith
groups and councils in different parts of the UK (which are not
branches of the Network but belong to us in their own right);
and a variety of educational and academic bodies. We take care
not to purport to speak on behalf of the faith communities but
rather to facilitate their involvement in public life as well
as working to promote mutual understanding and respect. We did
not submit a piece of written evidence to the Committee but I
was very glad to respond to the invitation to attend this hearing.
The Network has been interested in these issues for quite some
time. It was only a couple of years after the Network was established
when there was the controversy surrounding The Satanic Verses,
and that led us to hold two joint seminars with the Commission
for Racial Equality, looking at the blasphemy law and other related
issues.
176. As you probably will understand all too
well, the set of questions has been divided up in accordance really
with the two entirely separate aspects of Lord Avebury's Bill
that got to second reading: first of all, the common law on blasphemy
and blasphemous libel and, secondly, a list of statutory offences
which were proposed for appeal, and then we will come on to incitement
of religious hatred. The first group—and it may well be
that you could combine these: Do you think the distinction between
the dictionary definition of blasphemy and Lord Scarman's definition
in the only recent case in the House of Lords is well understood?
Is there any justification for a law which protects the sacred
entities of Christianity and probably the Church of England only
but no other religion? Is there any demand for the offence of
blasphemy to be extended so that it applies to the sacred entities
of all religions? It dose not matter if you deal with those questions
together, but your views respectively on those would be very welcome.
(Revd Gorsky) I will try to be very brief on the questions
about blasphemy. I am not at all sure that the different definitions
are well understood but, on surveying some of the material, I
am struck by the changing definition over time of the notion of
blasphemy which no doubt makes matters somewhat complicated. It
seems to me that initially the notion was framed against the background
of a fundamentally religious society, of a society that was possessed
of a single faith, that that faith was the root of its political
and moral behaviour, and, therefore, to challenge that faith or
to offend against it was to strike a very serious blow against
the fabric of political and moral society. Clearly, if we move
to the present, that is no longer the case. Some of us might regret
that it is no longer the case, but nevertheless that is so. The
concerns that one reads of currently are matters of the preservation
of the peace of the realm, which is a very different matter indeed
from the early concerns. The concern, in other words, is not so
much with our views of God as with the satisfactory state of society,
which is reasonable but nevertheless a very different matter,
and clearly Lord Scarman was operating out of the second sort
of concern rather than the first. I think that is very important
to note the great sociological change that has taken place in
society over the centuries that this law has been in operation
and that that might not be well understood, especially perhaps
among certain religious communities. Very traditional communities
continue inhabit the world of definition one—this is certainly
true of some of my co-religionists and also, I gather, true of
many in the Moslem community—and here we have a simple problem
of perception. In terms of matters being well understood, that
is a very profound problem, because it really depends where you
are coming from as to how you perceive it. I think that is very
important to pay attention to. With regard to other matters, it
is very difficult, to have a law which protects what the question
describes as the "sacred entities of Christianity" but
does not offer similar protection to other faiths. One of the
problems, of the law as it stands is that it is not only the law
in question but its symbolic importance. It makes statements to
different communities and someone of non-Christian community reading
it might, rightly or wrongly, draw certain conclusions about the
role of his or her faith in society by comparison with that of
Christianity. A law that protects only Christianity, albeit understandable
in terms of the history of this country and indeed its culture,
nevertheless, is going to have certain consequences with respect
to the composition of society today, a multi-faith society, so
I think it would be very difficult to provide a justification
for maintaining protection for Christianity alone. In terms of
a demand for the offence to be extended, undoubtedly there have
been requests that the offence of blasphemy be extended. One of
the Chief Rabbis, I gather, made such a request—I do not
think it would be stated as a demand—and I have heard from
people in the Moslem community, likewise, that they feel the offence
should be extended to include all faiths. Personally, I must say—and
this is speaking for me personally and not on behalf of the entire
Council of Christians and Jews, which is a little difficult because
our 4,000 members are probably in considerable disagreement about
those matters—that I am extremely dubious about the offence
of blasphemy in the modern world. I feel rather more affinity,
if you like, with the notion of religious hatred; that is, hatred
directed against a particular group of people distinguished by
their religion. Blasphemy seems to me to make sense within the
ambit of a religious society. People who make certain observations
about God do so within the context of a religious society, and,
again, for better or for worse we no longer inhabit such a society
and I do not see even an extension of the law of blasphemy really
protecting the various communities today with respect to either
the discrimination or hatred or whatever that they are suffering.
I do not think a law of blasphemy would be of assistance. I would
admit one exception to that; that is, of course, the case of Salman
Rushdie, who might have been touched - and, again, that is debatable—but
who presumably would not have been affected by a law of religious
incitement or religious hatred. It would be very difficult to
maintain that his book was an endeavour to incite religious hatred
and it would fall rather more simply into the category of blasphemy.
But I think that is a highly exceptional case and that the notions
of discrimination with which I am familiar or the feelings of
the religious communities when they are offended would not be
alleviated, I think, by an extended law of blasphemy. With respect
to the final question—again I can only speak from very limited
knowledge—I personally am not aware of the law on blasphemy
exercising a restraining influence on anyone at all, I am afraid,
but that might be a deficiency in knowledge on my part.
177. Could we come back perhaps later to the
question of whether freedom of speech in the Salman Rushdie type
of case is compatible with the offence of incitement of religious
hatred, because that comes later in the list and I would like
to hear you on that. Mr Pearce, would you like to deal with these
together or would you rather deal with them separately.
(Mr Pearce) I would be happy to deal with the questions
collectively in relation to blasphemy, my Lord Chairman.
178. The fourth one was: Is there a restraining
influence from having the law?
(Mr Pearce) Indeed. I would agree with a good deal
of what Jonathan Gorsky has said. I think it might be worth saying
that one of the roles which the Inter Faith Network tries to play
is to encourage organisations in membership of the Network, including
various representative bodies of the faith communities, to respond
to situations such as the setting up of your Select Committee
by offering evidence to help the Committee's deliberations. I
know that some faith communities have already submitted evidence
and that other communities are in the process of preparing that
evidence. But, as Jonathan Gorsky said, of course there will be
divergent views, not only between faith communities but among
faith communities, but the evidence that you will be receiving
will give you some broad sense, I would hope, of the position
in different faith communities. At the time we were looking with
the Commission for Racial Equality at the situation created by
the controversy over The Satanic Verses, and looking at
a variety of aspects of that, we looked at the work of the Law
Commission looking at religious offences. Not surprisingly, the
Muslim community at that time had been looking to see whether
there were legal remedies to which they could resort in relation
to that publication and therefore tried to use the law of blasphemy
but unsuccessfully. It would be fair to say that among member
organisations of the Network there were divergent views about
the proper role of legislation in that area and the effectiveness
of that legislation. I think it would also be fair to say that
in broad terms there was a recognition that in a more religiously
diverse society there was a case for saying that there should,
as it were, be a level playing field in terms of the protection
given to members of different faiths. I think also there was a
recognition, which I think Jonathan Gorsky has already brought
out in what he has said, that if one was seeking to frame legislation
in this area to deal with the sensitivities of a variety of different
faith traditions, it would be unlikely that one could achieve
that by seeking, as it were, if one would like to use a simplistic
phrase, to protect God rather than the godly; and that the issue
was whether there was protection for the followers of different
faiths and, of course, whether there was a wider social interest
in that protection being offered of the kind to which Lord Scarman
pointed. It might just be worth quoting from a summary of where
we reached in our seminars: "There is now an increased recognition,
partly as a result of recent controversies, of the importance
of religious identity in a multi faith society. There is clearly
a need for us to show respect for one another's most deeply held
values, otherwise we shall undermine the possibility of our building
a cohesive community with one another within our plural society.
Whether through the law or by other means, we need to find the
right balance between freedom and restraint in this vital aspect
of our common life." I think that remains the issue, although,
as has been said, the context has actually moved on since 1985,
and we can perhaps come back to that when discussing incitement
of religious hatred. I would just like to add one or two points.
One is that, when in that seminar we were looking at whether there
were options that might be followed in order to introduce some
new legislative provision rather than simply abolishing the blasphemy
law, a variety of possibilities were under consideration. It is
true that incitement of religious hatred was one of those, but
I would myself feel that the option of legislating, if you like,
against vilification of different religious traditions, which
was considered in those seminars, is perhaps a closer match to
that which the blasphemy law is directed towards. I would also
want to pick up the point which emerged from what Jonathan Gorsky
said about the origins of the law. I think what was very interesting
in the seminar discussion was the reflection on the extent to
which the common law of blasphemy had developed almost as an extension
of the law of treason, at a time when to be heretical was to be
treasonable, and that was what the law was concerned with. So
when the power of the monarch and the religious position which
the monarch upheld became less closely intertwined, then the law
of blasphemy became relatively less important. I think that is
interesting when one looks at the Islamic tradition, where there
is not the same concept of blasphemy although there is the concept
of apostasy, which is in a sense treason in relation to the Islamic
community. I am putting that in very simple terms and obviously
it would be much better expressed by representatives from the
Muslim community, but therefore the context when the law
of blasphemy was developed is not the context that we have
now. I think there are issues to consider, in terms of whether
it is appropriate simply to abolish the blasphemy law without
any replacement other than incitement of religious hatred. I would
not want to offer a view one way or the other because I think
it is a finely balanced argument. What I would just add—and
it is relevant to the issue of incitement of religious hatred
and other aspects of your area of study—is that I am aware
that both governments and parliament are sometimes not attracted
to the notion of what one might call declaratory law but I think
that there is a very important role which law has in setting the
framework for society and the way in which one hopes that people
will interact with one another within society. I think that was
the point behind Lord Scarman's often quoted observation.
179. Just before I offer the opportunity to
other members of the Committee to ask questions, did you ever
formulate the vilification point which you have just mentioned?
(Mr Pearce) There were various formulations which
were discussed and considered and I would be very happy, if they
are not already available to the Committee, to make available
copies of our two seminar reports because I think they still contain
a lot of useful material even though the context is somewhat different.
I think the likelihood is that some faith communities at least
will want to argue in favour of some additional protection, going
beyond simply incitement of religious hatred, in the area of vilification
and contempt.
|
