CHAPTER 10: Conclusions
131. As we have already commented in Chapter
1, the Committee's appointment had its origins in the Anti-Terrorism,
Crime and Security Act 2001, in particular parliament's decision
not to agree to a proposed offence of incitement to religious
hatred. Our deliberations have, however, gone much wider than
the merits of such an offence, or even the proposals in the Religious
Offences Bill to repeal a number of old common and statute laws.
They have included consideration of the nature of religion in
today's society and the changes in that society over the last
half century, both in the numbers who follow other than the Christian
faith, those who reject religious belief, and those whose religious
faith is usually expressed privately. The census results show
that Christianity, in its many forms, is still the faith followed
by the large majority of the population. But memberships of other
faiths constitute a significant minority, and it is beyond doubt
that Britain's is now a multi-faith society. Intrinsic to our
deliberation was consideration of the question of whether these
changes to society have been reflected in the role played by religion
in the formulation of morals and values and the way these continue
to affect community life, and whether the transition to multi-faith
was in effect a transformation to a secular society.
132. The constitution of the United Kingdom is
rooted in faith—specifically the Christian faith exemplified
by the established status of the Church of England. We did not
however see it as our task, in discharging our remit to "consider"
the law on religious offences, to challenge the constitution or
question the Church's part in it, although there is little doubt
that the pre-eminent role enjoyed by the established church is
probably outdated. But our own researches, and the evidence we
heard, reinforce a view that religious belief continues to be
a significant component, or even determinant, of social values,
and plays a major role in the lives of a large number of the population.
The United Kingdom is not a secular state.
133. The question nevertheless arises as to whether
the protections afforded by law to religions and their adherents
continue to have relevance in the 21st century and,
if they do, how they might be adapted to meet the interests of
all faiths (and those of no faith), rather than discriminate in
favour of some. We believe there should be a degree of protection
of faith, but there is no consensus among us on the precise form
that it might take. We also agree that in any further legislation
the protection should be equally available to all faiths,
through both the civil and the criminal law.
134. That equality will be reinforced under civil
law with the introduction in December 2003 of the Employment Equality
(Religion or Belief) Regulations, which are drawn from European
Council Directive 2000/78/EC. As this report demonstrates, the
criminal law is less comprehensive. The law of blasphemy only
provides protection for the Church of England, although members
of other Christian Churches draw comfort from it. Race relations
legislation has the effect of protecting Jews and Sikhs from incitement
to religious hatred, but not Christians, Muslims (at 3%, the second
largest faith community in the population) nor others, because
they are not regarded as coming from a common ethnic origin. The
rarely used Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860 can be
invoked to provide protection for properly certified places of
worship of all religions, but is archaic in its construction and
carries minimal penalties that cannot be categorised as having
deterrent value. Finally, section 39 of the Anti-Terrorism etc
Act also provides for all religions, but provides a statutory
aggravating factor in sentencing rather than an offence in itself.
135. The starting point for legislation may be
the requirement on Government to enact legislation to implement
the draft Council Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia,
which would not be confined to incitement to hatred in the two
areas so far selected: race and religion. It is impossible to
forecast how this might be transplanted into UK law, but the occasion
might be ripe to include incitement to hatred across the range
of targets of hate crime, even beyond the list currently under
debate in connection with the Decision, for example the gay community,
asylum seekers or whoever incurs the opprobrium of some branches
of public opinion.
136. Since this would take the form of primary
legislation, the opportunity could be seized to take account of
the other two matters which have preoccupied the Committee: that
is, the two aspects whereby Parliamentary "statements"
could be made about matters of faith itself as opposed to the
protection of those who profess the faiths. What is to happen
to the common law offences of blasphemy may not depend upon legislation
but upon the contemporary climate, both social and legal, which
could lead to a decision to take no action at all. Whether places
of worship, of all faiths, need a modern protection in criminal
law is something which has become increasingly marginal. Other
offences cover the majority of incidents which are seen to be
offensive, but there remains a modest area still only covered
by the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860. Evidently
this Act is not obsolete.
137. We support the protection of everyone's
right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the
freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs, under Article 9
of the European Convention on Human Rights, and we consider that
the ordinary law gives that protection. We agree however that
there is a gap in the law as it stands. We have examined whether
there needs to be any additional protection either for believers
as a class, or for the objects connected with their beliefs. There
is no consensus as to whether such protections should exist and,
if so, the precise forms they should take, but we do agree that
the civil and criminal law should afford the same protection to
people of all faiths, and of none.
138. These are matters of profound concern in
the community, or communities. There exists a series of subjects
on which Parliament alone can reach decision: the debate will
be intense. What the proceedings of the Select Committee have
made clear is that it is perfectly possible to conduct this debate,
among witnesses and members of all persuasions, with equanimity
and understanding. There is recognition that the differences need
to be resolved, and there is much good will on which to draw in
so doing.
|
