Submission from the United Religions Initiative
The United Religions Initiative UK (URI-UK)
is an interfaith movement connected to URI globally. Its stated
purpose is ". . . to promote enduring, daily interfaith co-operation,
to end religiously-motivated violence and to create cultures of
peace, justice and healing for the Earth and all living beings".
We are very concerned about the incidences of
conflict in which there is a religiously-motivated element, and
we believe that the law does need to address such issues urgently.
However, the existing law on blasphemy is inadequate (and to a
certain extent has fallen into disuse). The proposals for a law
on incitement to religious hatred are to be welcomed, and we believe
that these proposals can be perfectly compatible with protecting
open debate on religious issues. We offer these comments for the
committee's attention in this context.
EXISTING RELIGIOUS
OFFENCES
1. The current law on blasphemy has distinct
problems, namely:
(a) its scope does not extend to the range
of faith and spiritual traditions now present in the UK, nor can
it be easily extended to other faith positions;
(b) the lack of willingness to apply the
law on blasphemy in the changing social and religious environment
has itself undermined its purpose. Laws that are not enforced
fall quickly into disrepute, and it is hard to comprehend how
the law on blasphemy could be properly applied in the current
context.
2. We would hesitate to endorse the abolition
of the distinct offence of disturbing a religious service or religious
devotions unless there are clear safeguards. This issue is potentially
one of the most inflammatory ones. Fortunately there are few instances
of religious services being disrupted, but we would not wish this
to become a legitimate "tactic" for protest groups of
whatever persuasion.
NEW OFFENCES
3. We do need to take seriously the concerns
of those who believe that a law on religious hatred could encroach
on free speech, theological debate, academic inquiry, evangelism
or even satire. But we also take the view that there are distinctions
that can be made between proper debate and incitement to religious
hatred. We would ask the committee to note the following:
(a) some organisations are against any formal
recognition of religious communities and any specific protection
for religious belief and practice. We believe, in contrast, that
religious identity is an important social reality, just as much
as racial identity. For example, many Muslims feel that the law
that protects racial minorities is circumvented by groups hostile
to Islam, since it can be claimed that Muslims are not a racial
minority. We have heard of many instances of hostility to, and
attacks upon, Muslims (and similarly, attacks on Sikhs who are
apparently confused with Muslims in the minds of some).
(b) There have been examples of inflammatory
remarks in the public domain, directed particularly at Muslims
and Jews, which we believe could be likely to incite violence.
This is important to note, since authentic academic inquiry or
theological debate is of an entirely different order.
(c) We believe that the clear distinction
that can be made between proper debate and incitement to religious
hatred may be based on the intent, context and impact of any remarks
or actions. To call for attacks on members of a certain religious
group would clearly be an offence, as would generalised remarks
likely to demonise a particular community in such a way that they
would be subject to hatred and/or violence. So, to put forward
the proposition that increased immigration by non-Western cultures
or faith groups might hinder social cohesion may be considered
a legitimate subject for debate; whilst calling for particular
faith groups to be deprived of their existing entitlements as
citizens would be an incitement to hatred. The context is important,
and we would look to issues such as the inflammatory use of language
to be critical.
4. Laws protecting religious belief and
practice should not be seen in simple human rights terms. Religious
adherence must be within the framework of civil law generally.
Thus, we would not like to see the situation develop where any
religious practice could be claimed as a "right" and
thus could override other legislation. Examples might include
drug use, the carrying of weapons, polygamy, etc. These are properly
matters for parliament, and to give religious groups preferential
rights would be likely to cause undue conflict.
5. There are many offences against religious
codes that should properly be dealt with only as matters internal
to each religious community and we should be wary of extending
the law too far into the protection of specific beliefs or practices,
as distinct from the protection of religious belief and practice
as such.
6. The test of good law is not simply its
appeal to public opinion. Law has an educative role, and we believe
that a law on religious hatred, properly framed, could help to
reinforce efforts to foster respect and understanding between
diverse religious communities.
7. Finally, we note that the legislation
has to be robust without being draconian, but the problems of
drafting robust legislation should not deter us from offering
proper protection to all of our religious and faith communities.
8 July 2002
|
