Submission from the Gay and Lesbian Humanist
Association
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Gay and Lesbian Association ("GALHA")
was formed in 1979, and, while speaking chiefly for gay and lesbian
people who hold to no religion or organised belief system, it
is an ethical organisation that opposes religious privilege while
supporting the individual's right to possess religious or other
beliefs and to belong to any legal organisation of his or her
choosing. In keeping with kindred humanist, rationalist and secular
organisations, it believes that the ethics of human beings should
be mediated through human beings, based on sound principles of
integrity, honesty, decency and respect for others. It opposes
all laws that seek to discriminate between one section of society
and another, especially when such discrimination is justified
by religious belief or affiliation.
1.2 GALHA calls for the abolition of the
offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel. It opposes any extension
of the blasphemy laws to other religions and belief systems.
1.3 GALHA opposes the existing law (the
Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860) that distinguishes
between places or worship and all other premises and places.
1.4 GALHA further opposes any legislation
that proposes a crime of incitement to religious hatred, believing
that such an offence would erode progress towards more universal
legislation that would protect everyone from any incitement to
hatred, be it for religious or any other belief; be it for political
affiliation; be it for belonging to any racial group or other
distinctive group within society. GALHA believes that laws dealing
with incitement to hatred for any beliefs or affiliations should
be appropriate to protect people of all beliefs and affiliations
or none.
2. BLASPHEMY
2.1 GALHA seeks an end to the offences of
blasphemy and blasphemous libel. It recognises that blasphemy
laws prevent free speech and, while some may interpret sound,
rational argument as fair, others may interpret it as offensive
to their religious sensibilities and therefore blasphemous. GALHA
believes, therefore, that, untested as such common-law offences
are because there have been so few prosecutions in the 20th century,
such laws are open to fluctuating interpretation, leading to unfairness.
Far from being extended to other religions, the motion of an offence
of blasphemy or blasphemous libel should be abolished as unworkable
and unfair.
2.2 In recalling the trial and prosecution
of Gay News and its editor, Denis Lemon, in 1977 on a privately
brought prosecution of "blasphemous libel", GALHA recognises
how easy it was for such a law to be used against a vulnerable
group within society. We further note the decision not to prosecute
Joan Bakewell and the BBC for the reading of the poem that led
to the Gay News trial,[8]
and believe that, while, in what may be deemed to be a different
climate from the one that held in 1977 such a prosecution might
well be thought less likely to succeed, any changes in the climate
could bring about use of the law to persecute minorities in a
similar way in the future.
2.3 GALHA notes further that, as blasphemy
laws stand, they relate only to the Christian religion. There
have been suggestions that blasphemy legislation should be extended
to other religions, but GALHA believes this would be both undesirable
and unworkable. Even if it were extended only to the other major
religions, the committee will, we are sure, be aware of the very
different manners in which different religions view what is offensive
to their beliefs. We instance the death threat made to the author
Salman Rushdie—something that would not have happened had
Christians believed his work to be offensive to their belief system.
3. PLACES OF
WORSHIP
3.1 GALHA supports the abolition of the
law that makes places of worship special under the Ecclesiastical
Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860, believing that laws exist to prevent
violent or intimidatory behaviour in all places and that no one
type of building or space should be picked out for special consideration.
We believe this merely singles out those who practise religion
as being superior to those who do not, or who seek other forms
of spiritual expression that do not involve officially recognised
places of worship.
4. AN OFFENCE
OF INCITEMENT
TO RELIGIOUS
HATRED
4.1 GALHA believes that the whole question
of incitement to hatred should be seen as universal, and that
attempts to distinguish between groups within society, and between
individual groups and society as a whole, is the wrong approach.
In supporting this belief, we make the following points:
4.1.1 The law concerning incitement should
be effective enough to protect everyone from violence brought
about as a result of such behaviour.
4.1.2 We question whether it will be possible
in all cases to distinguish between robust debate concerning or
criticism of certain belief systems and incitement to hate those
who adhere to those systems.
4.1.3 GALHA, in common with kindred organisations,
does from time to time, through its media releases, its public
meetings and articles in associated publications, heavily criticise
religions not only for the privilege they are given in law and
within the education system, but also for practices that we believe
are hostile to a decent and fair society in which all human beings
should be seen as equal and the welfare and wellbeing of other
living creatures is valued. We instance the Islamic treatment
of women and the Islamic and Jewish traditions of killing animals
for meat in manners that are inhumane. We instance further the
Roman Catholic Church's stance on sensible birth control, and
the harm that is being perpetrated throughout the world as a result
of its policies, not only in the creation of poverty through soaring
populations but the needless deaths of millions of people who,
as a result of their church's diktats, do not practise protected
sex. GALHA feels that such criticisms would be interpreted by
some religious groups as inciting hatred against individuals who
happen to share the beliefs of such religious organisations, rather
than encouraging robust opposition to the belief systems themselves.
4.2 GALHA recognises that there are vulnerable
groups within society, be they racially distinctive or distinguished
by their sexual orientation. However, it would not support a threat
to free speech, even if such free speech displayed abhorrence
towards, say, the sexual orientation of most of its members. If
such speech were deemed to be a direct incitement to someone to
hate, vilify or do violence towards someone for his or her sexual
orientation or beliefs, then that ought, we believe, to be covered
by general laws concerning incitement and violence. If legislation
covering incitement is carved up among different groups for different
reasons, we foresee an unworkable situation, with claims and counterclaims
being interpreted in as many different ways as there are religions
or other groups within society.
5. IN SUMMARY
5.1 GALHA believes the very notion of blasphemy
to be illogical and to have no relevance in a modern society that
prides itself on free expression and freedom to choose among the
many belief systems that exist in a multicultural, multiethnic
society or to choose no such belief system.
5.2 GALHA opposes the singling out of groups
for special treatment concerning incitement to hatred, believing
that all incitement to hatred of individuals or groups of people—as
opposed to belief systems or other opinions—should be dealt
with under effective laws designed to bring about a more peaceful
society.
8 The Love That Dares To Speak Its Name by Professor
James Kirkup. Ms Bakewell read this poem on the BBC television's
Taboo series, leading to an attempt by Mediawatch-UK, the
successor to the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association-which,
with its president, Mary Whitehouse, brought the prosecution against
Gay News and Denis Lemon-to have the BBC prosecuted. Back
|
