Submission from the General Assembly of
Unitarian and Free Christian Churches
1. BLASPHEMY
LAWS
1.1 Speaking to the Royal Society of Edinburgh
in 1988 Unitarian Minister Andrew M Hill stated:
"Our indigenous Western European
understanding of blasphemy is rooted in the God centred world-views
of the ancient world, where denying, abusing, insulting, speaking
ill of God or the gods was thought to invite divine retribution,
social disaster and public disorder. Lord Denning wrote its obituary
in 1949— `The reason for this law was because it was thought
that a denial of Christianity was liable to shake the fabric of
society, which was itself founded upon the Christian religion.
There is no such danger to society now and the offence of blasphemy
is a dead letter.'"
It was thought when the statue law was repealed
in 1967 that it was solved. However, the continuing provisions
noted by the Law commission in 1985 have been used in private
actions.
1.2 Since the 19th century, Unitarians have
opposed the continued presence on the statute book of laws relating
to blasphemy. Their existence does not accord with a modern nation
state based on democratic principles. Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
stated in the Lords on 30 January 2002 (Col. 325) "The classification
of blasphemy as a crime belongs to another age", and Baroness
Whitaker added (Col 330) "I read . . . that
the Talmud was publicly burned as blasphemous and the publisher
of Tom Paine's "The Age of Reason" was punished as a
blasphemer. That is not an edifying history and one better curtailed."
We completely agree.
1.3 The point has been made that the blasphemy
laws, as set out in the Law Commission's report of 1985 have rarely
been used in the last 100 years, and in consequence are of little
import. However, the threat of their use, possibly brought forward
by private action, has regularly been made. The threat is therefore
a real one, and an inhibitor of free speech and free action by
zealots with a mindset out of tune with our age, or even the previous
age. For those with religious beliefs and those without, freedom
of speech and expression must be allowed on equal footing for
all.
1.4 It has been argued, notably by Lord
Ahmed in the Lords debate on 30 January 2002 that indeed the present
blasphemy laws should be withdrawn but replaced with others that
will cover all religions. This to us would be worse than leaving
the present laws in place. Freedom of speech would be significantly
curtailed. The state should not be involved in the minds of religious
belief. Our resolution passed in April 2002 at our General Assembly
in Sheffield makes our position very clear and by which we stand.
The resolution was as follows:
"That this General Assembly of Unitarian
and Free Christian Churches deplores the threat to bring charges
against Joan Bakewell for blasphemy for quoting from `The Love
that Dares to Speak its Name' by James Kirkup, and calls upon
Her Majesty's Government, the Scottish Executive and the Welsh
Assembly to repeal the Blasphemy Laws."
2. INCITEMENT
TO RELIGIOUS
HATRED
2.1 While removing the blasphemy laws is
clear cut, legislating in the field of outlawing religious hatred
is a much more difficult issue. We do not see a necessary connection
between the two as suggested in Lord Avebury's Bill, and believe
that they should be dealt with separately.
2.2 Religious hatred is a curse on modern
society but as the Lords debate made clear its definition is very
problematical and drawing a line between it, and attacks on social
customs adopted by different religious groups very difficult to
draw. Attacks on differing religious dress is an example of a
social custom which comes into this latter category, and is not
religious hatred. While a similar provision to that proposed in
Lord Avebury's Bill has been in operation in Northern Ireland
for some time, we do not feel that its straight adoption in England
would produce the same effect nor solve the most intractable issues.
While it may be desirable to have a measure that attempts to prevent
religious hatred in statute, we find the definition offered in
the 2001 and 2002 Bills too simplistic, and if private prosecutions
were possible under it then this could lead to results far from
the proposer's intentions. Our view is that the Lords Select Committee
should undertake or recommend further studies aimed at a closer
definition the world "hatred" which needs to be longer
term and wider than the present consultation exercise.
21 June 2002
| 
