Memorandum from the Evangelical Alliance
The Select Committee has requested submissions
addressing two main issues which we consider in turn:
1. SHOULD EXISTING
RELIGIOUS OFFENCES
(NOTABLY BLASPHEMY)
BE AMENDED
OR ABOLISHED?
The Alliance believes that Christian social
ethics embodies concern for the well-being of all in society,
especially those who are vulnerable. Therefore, it endorses legislation
that will effectively provide protection from both racial and
religious hatred.
The Alliance opposes both the abolition and
the extension of the common law offences of blasphemy. It advocates
the dual approach of simultaneously retaining the blasphemy law
together with the creation of an appropriate new offence of incitement
to religious hatred.
Whilst the definition of blasphemy has varied
over the years and prosecutions under the blasphemy law are rare,
nevertheless in line with Lord Scarman who regarded the blasphemy
laws as an integral part of the legal safeguard of social harmony
in Britain, we do not subscribe to the view that "the common
law offence of blasphemous libel serves no useful purpose in modern
times". In a civilised society, whilst we naturally wish
to protect the democratic right of freedom of speech, restrictions
still have to be set against statements or material which is slanderous,
libellous, defamatory or racist. A blasphemy law recognises that
element of hurt and deep personal violation bound up with offensive
words or images directed against religious faith. The Alliance
believes that the abolition of what is rightly "common"
law would send a wrong signal to a cynical society, implying that
nothing remains sacred or of ultimate worth and value, whilst
retention would act as a largely symbolic reminder of the Christian
basis to UK law. Abolition would be seen as an official declaration
that after some 1,500 years Britain was no longer a Christian
nation, and would further raise wider problems relating to the
status of the established Church. Religious belief should be entitled
to special protection, not least because it is in most cases an
essential motivation to good conduct and worthy of respect, if
not admiration. We consider that even a secular British state
ignores both the power of religious commitment and its heritage
of Christian values at its peril.
We consider that suggestions for extension of
the blasphemy law (prompted mainly by frequent confusion between
religion and ethnicity) raise additional and probably insurmountable
complications, are practically unworkable, and could result in
a rush of litigation and competing claims which would damage inter-faith
relations.
Firstly, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 adequately
covers offences involving racial as opposed to religious hatred
(although this does not cover adherents of Islam where ethnicity
and religion do not coincide).
Secondly, defining what is/is not a religion
is problematic, fails to account for atheistic faiths, and may
be exploited by certain groups, such as anti-social or dangerous
cults. On the other hand, mainstream religious groups may find
themselves classified as dangerous sects as has already occurred
in France. Although alternatives are not readily apparent, leaving
definition to the courts still involves uncertainty and allows
scope for self-proclaimed groups to manipulate the system to define
themselves.
We acknowledge concerns regarding sects and
aggressive and militant fringe religious organisations, especially
following September 11. However, distinctions must be drawn between
such groups and orthodox pedigree religious organisations with
creeds and doctrines that are thousands of years old, and which
believe in the non-coercive propagation of their faith. We recognise
the difficulties this involves, however it is vital that any Bill
addresses such issues of definition of religion rather than leaving
it up to the Courts to make up as they go along.
It also appears logically contradictory to promote
a blasphemy law to protect the beliefs of different religions
which are themselves mutually contradictory. Religious belief
itself cannot be the standard according to which offence is measured
for there is no general agreement about its content or veracity.
The major belief systems involve essentially incompatible worldviews.
Core statements of belief in one faith may de facto be
deeply offensive to adherents of another. For example, Christians'
historic insistence that Jesus Christ is the unique Son of God
may be regarded as blasphemous by Muslims. On the other hand,
Christians, whilst respecting the right of freedom of conscience
of Muslims to hold certain beliefs about the Koran and Muhammad,
would see it as part of their responsibility to expose what they
regard as false claims.
What can be agreed, however, is that groups
will respect the rights and consciences of others to hold their
beliefs and practice their faith within the inclusive laws of
society—such agreement focuses not on the content of beliefs
but on the overall well-being of society where peaceful co-existence
is vital. Protection should therefore not be principally concerned
with the content of religious beliefs, but forms of abuse, hatred
and offence incited against people in general who hold beliefs
(to quote Lord Scarman, abuse involving "scurrility, vilification,
ridicule and contempt"). In this regard, general protection
against insulting and abusive publications and behaviour seems
more appropriate for new legislation, which nevertheless retains
the symbolic blasphemy laws to emphasise the religious dimension
and heritage.
Finally, it should be noted that some faiths,
such as Buddhists, have explicitly stated they do not desire the
protection of the blasphemy law.
2. SHOULD A
NEW OFFENCE
OF INCITEMENT
TO RELIGIOUS
HATRED BE
CREATED AND,
IF SO,
HOW SHOULD
THE OFFENCE
BE DEFINED?
The Alliance is in favour of the creation of
a new law which will effectively protect all recognisable religious
groups from threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour
used with the intent to outrage, or knowingly expected to outrage
the feelings of a significant number of the group. The Alliance
will support measures that effectively seek to prevent incitement
to religious hatred whilst at the same time preserve religious
freedoms, beliefs, and the right to express them. It is possible
to define the difference between offence which nevertheless allows
for response and engagement, and outrage which is gratuitous and
causes powerlessness because it offers no opportunity for combat
or redress.
But there is a danger that historic rights and
freedoms may suffer in the future as a result of the courts' interpretation
of Parliament's intentions. It is possible that a Christian could,
for example, be prosecuted for criticising someone else's beliefs
or for asserting the exclusive claims of Jesus. Christian broadcasters
have already, and may again, be censured simply for quoting the
Bible. Mission organisations could end up being monitored for
the claims made in their literature and their proselytising activities
circumscribed. For example, the editor of Muslim News has
recently expressed concern that he could be prosecuted for offending
Christians by denying the claims of Christ. Likewise, traditional
Christianity insists on the uniqueness and divinity of Jesus Christ
and its adherents could never compromise on this position.
The Alliance does not seek special privilege
for Christians. But what it would seek from a new law is a clear
and effective commitment by Parliament to maintaining religious
freedom. It would also seek specific assurances that Christians,
Muslims, Hindus, and members of any other faith group (or none)
be allowed to observe the rites, doctrines, and traditions of
their beliefs, and be permitted to continue to express them openly
without fear of prosecution. Of course, it is important to make
a distinction between religious rites that are acceptable in a
civilised society and "rites" that threaten life—for
example, the practice of child sacrifice. We note that the Government
have previously stated that they do not intend to restrict the
longstanding tradition of rights to freedom of speech in Britain,
and people will remain able to criticise religion or religious
practices.
The Government aims to preserve the right to
practise one's own religion without fear of assault, and believe
that there is an obvious difference between criticising a religion
and inciting hatred through a criminal act. We understand that
to be prosecuted, perpetrators must be guilty of using "threatening,
abusive or insulting words or behaviour intended or likely to
stir up hatred against a group of people because of their religious
belief". Nevertheless, it remains unclear in practice as
to how distinctions are to be made between intention to stir up
hatred and whether hatred is likely to be stirred up—whether
offence is intended or where offence is taken. The taking of offence
is clearly a subjective matter—how can the law decide which
speech about religion is so offensive as to warrant prosecution?
Whilst appreciating the legal difficulties in
defining "intention", the Alliance remains concerned
that prosecution could follow unintended but nevertheless perceived
offence. In a recent case in Bournemouth a street evangelist was
accused of inciting public disturbance and was actually prosecuted
himself when he was attacked by a group objecting to his message.
It is therefore vital for any proposed legislation not only to
define "religious hatred" but also to clarify precisely
what types of activity are to be covered under the new to provisions.
The basic right of freedom of speech and of religion must cover
liberty to preach and disagree in public, even though inevitably
there will be those who do not like what they hear.
In this context, the Alliance believes that
it will not prove possible to devise legislation which can effectively
measure intention without draconian restrictions on freedom of
speech. What is really required is social restraint and change
in public attitude which cannot simply be legislated into existence.
At best, legislation can probably only address extreme forms of
abuse, thereby helping to stimulate a climate of respect for others
and a renewed sense of responsibility which must accompany the
right of freedom of speech. Ultimately, the only really effective
control against dangerous and extreme expressions of disrespect
is respect for others and their beliefs. As we know from attempts
to curb racism, the law is a blunt instrument. But it can assist
in the process of setting standards by educating society, authors,
artists and media to criticise fairly and responsibly.
The Alliance therefore seeks assurances that
any definition of "religious hatred" within proposed
new legislation will be sufficiently clear to enable all faiths
(and none) to freely press and advertise the claims of their own
religion and criticise others. The Alliance also requests that
new legislation incorporates unambiguous assurances, preferably
defined within the legislation itself, that courts will not entertain
trivial, frivolous, and malicious cases.
| 
