Submission from The Fellowship of Independent
Churches
The Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches,
an association of 470 independent evangelical churches in England,
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, wishes to submit the following
representations to the House of Lords Select Committee appointed
to consider the following questions:
1. Should existing religious offences (notably
blasphemy) be amended or abolished?
2. Should a new offence of incitement to
religious hatred be created, and if so, how should the offence
be defined?
In our submission we consider these questions
in turn:
1. Should existing religious offences (notably
blasphemy) be amended or abolished?
(i) Blasphemy against the Name of God, the
Lord of heaven and earth, is a sin expressly forbidden in the
Ten Commandments (The Bible, Exodus chapter 20), and therefore
an immensely serious matter; and
(ii) The criminal offence of blasphemy under
English law provides a degree of restraint upon those who might
otherwise be more blasphemous, and gives a helpful signal that
the practice of blasphemy is neither desirable nor guiltless,
but rather is shameful and deplorable; and
(iii) The existence of a blasphemy law which
defends the honour of the living God, the God of the Bible, is
a strong signal that the United Kingdom is a country whose national
religion is uniquely Christian, whose culture and values are built
on the principles and practices of the Christian Faith, the source
and inspiration of its heritage; and
(iv) Christianity is a Faith which has only
ever been a beneficial influence upon the people who follow it,
and upon societies which promote and encourage, it is fitting
that the laws of our nation should uphold the honour of God by
outlawing blasphemy against the name and character of God, and
of the Lord Jesus Christ; and
(v) Our society should set an example to
the younger generations by encouraging those things which are
"true, noble, right, pure, lovely, and admirable" (Philippians
4.8); outlawing blasphemy against God is one way of showing what
we approve of and do not approve of, and it is good for the young
to be made aware of the importance of respect for God.
We submit that the present blasphemy law should
be retained, and that it should be enforced with greater seriousness
and urgency than has been the case in recent years.
(b) We submit that on no account should the
current blasphemy law extended to cover other religions whose
deities are not the God of the Bible, and in support of this would
make the following comments:
(i) Since it would not be a logical possibility
for a non-existent deity to be blasphemed, it would be inappropriate
for the law to presume that it could be, by the extension of the
law of blasphemy to include the different, exclusive and incompatible
gods of many religions.
(ii) The present blasphemy law has as its
emphasis the fact that it is the Name of God—God Himself,
rather than his followers, who is being abused and offended by
blasphemous utterance and writings. Any extension of the law to
cover a diversity of gods and religions is bound to transfer this
emphasis to the sensitivities of religious bodies, authorities
and individual adherents. This change of emphasis would be inevitable
because in our contemporary generation there are few committed
followers, but there is an overwhelming public belief in "tolerance",
"equal treatment" and "the rights of the individual".
If the public believes that blasphemy would hurt people's feelings,
and that people are entitled not to be hurt by occasions of what
they may regard as blasphemy, the law, both in its drafting and
in its interpretation, would be bound to reflect this. The effect
of this would be that any revised blasphemy law would be used
to protect religions and individuals, rather than to ensure that
God is not dishonoured. This is not currently, and should never
be, the purpose of a blasphemy law.
(iii) Although the abolition of the blasphemy
law would remove a vital pillar of the moral strength of our legal
framework, abolition would still be better than extending the
law to other religions, since adopting the latter could not fail
to bring such a law into disrepute.
2. Should a new offence of incitement to
religious hatred be created, and, if so, how should the offence
be defined?
In our submission there should be no new offence
of incitement to religious hatred, for the following reasons:
(i) While we agree that it is the duty of
the State to protect and guarantee religious freedom, and that
it is wholly wrong that someone should be harmed or threatened
with harm solely because of his or her religious belief or practice,
we believe that the law can and should be framed in such way as
to reserve the peace and safety of all individuals without specific
reference to their religious adherence. An offence which might
be regarded as coming within the category of "incitement
of religious hatred" should be dealt with as coming within
the existing or an extended range of public order offences—"threatening
behaviour", for instance. Sentencing options could be reviewed
and increased if necessary without there being any need to create
a new type of offence.
(ii) There would be a tendency for religious
authorities to use any such new legislation to defend the intellectual
integrity of their own religion. Criticism of the intellectual
substance of their creed could be viewed as a collective attack
upon their followers, likely to lead to a reduced level of public
esteem. If their public regard is perceived as having been demanded,
it is not difficult to imagine that those who made the intellectual
criticisms would be accused either of intending "religious
hatred" or of singling out the group concerned for critical
attention. If any new "incitement of religious hatred"
law was brought to bear in this type of circumstance, it would
be bound to influence and restrain genuine discussion and inhibit
freedom of speech, both among academics and writers, and on the
soap-box in the market-place.
(iii) In a letter to the Fellowship of Independent
Evangelical Churches dated 26 October 2001, on the subject of
emergency "religious hatred" legislation then being
proposed, the Home Office stated: "This is not a restriction
on people criticising religions or religious practices. We need
to balance the rights to free speech which have been long respected
in this country with the right to lead a life in which one can
peacefully practice one's own religion without fear of assault."
Such words are easy to utter, but both government and Parliament
must ensure that the right to engage in restricted intellectual
debate is absolutely preserved, and that those whose writings
or speeches are cogently critical of religions and secular philosophies,
and their effects and implications, do not become targets for
prosecution. One sure way of achieving this would be to refrain
from creating a new law specifically focusing on "incitement
to religious hatred." We submit that any conduct likely to
threaten or put individuals in "fear of assault" should
be dealt with under general public order legislation.
|
