British Members of Parliament are being asked to consider an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill to repeal the law of blasphemy.
There are several reasons why I have written to my MP urging him to support this amendment.
- The law of blasphemous libel purports to protect beliefs rather than people or communities. I accept there may be the need for laws to protect particular groups concerning things that they have no control over - race, gender, age, ability. But a religion is a choice. Those who make that choice should argue and defend it. Its defence should not be enshrined in the law of the land.
- If god is god, she or he does not need the protection of the law.
- It serves no useful purpose other than to allow partisan organisations or well-funded individuals to try to censor broadcasters or intimidate small theatres, print media or publishers.
- It is discriminatory in that it only covers attacks on Christianity and Church of England tenets. It therefore fosters an expectation among other religions that their sensibilities should also be protected by the criminal law (as with the attempt to charge Salman Rushdie) and a sense of grievance among minority religions that they do not benefit from their own version of such a law.
- The Church of England no longer opposes its abolition on principle.
- In 1985 the Law Commission recommended its repeal, because it is uncertain in scope, it doesn’t allow merit or lack of intention as a defence, and it is unlimited in penalty.
- It is in clear breach of human rights because it is discriminatory and unnecessarily limits free expression.
- In the end, no one is likely to be convicted under it. (Nobody has been since 1921.)
In the light of both the widespread outrage at the conviction of the British teacher for blasphemy in Sudan over the name of a teddy bear and of the Government’s criticism of those blasphemy laws, it is surely time to repeal our own blasphemy law.
__________
Update 11/01/08: See Is Nothing Sacred?
__________
Update 11/01/08: I quote from the National Secular Society Newsletter
The 140-year battle that the NSS has waged against the blasphemy law in England is on the brink of being won. On Wednesday, our honorary associate Dr Evan Harris MP, tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, calling for an end to the blasphemy law.
At first the Government were unsympathetic, and early reports on the BBC indicated that they had “no intention” of scrapping the antiquated law. But it soon became apparent that a large number of Labour back benchers didn’t agree with the official line and intended to support Evan’s amendment.
A flurry of behind the scenes activity then resulted in a compromise. If Evan would withdraw his own amendment, the Government would bring forward its own amendment to do the job, in the House of Lords. The only caveat was that “the Churches”, particularly the Church of England, would have to be consulted first, to make sure it was OK with them.
The Government minister, Maria Eagle, promised that the consultation with the Church would be “short and sharp”. But the Church of England is not yet acknowledging that abolition is inevitable, urging “caution” in proceeding. “We are open to the possibility of a review,” said a spokesperson, but that’s all.
Although the CofE has indicated in other debates that the law is an anachronism and are not averse to it going, they may change their tune now the possibility is imminent. They may decide to use it as a bargaining tool to beef up (that is, illiberalise) the Racial and Religious Hatred Act. Some religious people are arguing that abolition of blasphemy would be the first step to disestablishment, and that may push the Church into resisting. However, one correspondent to the Times asked: “Why is it necessary to consult the Anglican Church? Are we going to start consulting burglars on the breaking and entering laws?”
Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society, said: “It would be scandalous if the churches were permitted to scupper this. But I think the Government recognises that if they don’t bring an amendment in the Lords, someone else will and they will again be faced with a rebellion from their own troops.”
I also “instructed” my MP to vote for the amendment. There are several laws still on the statute that no longer apply to modern life and are generally ignored. Until recently, we might have considered a law against blasphemy to fit this description but that is no longer the case.
In the wake of more self-assertive action from secularists, certain religious groups are acting more aggressively than they have for some time. We can no longer assume that no one would try to use the law against blasphemy nor can we assume that such a case would be thrown out of court.
I think it unlikely that any judge in the UK would take such a prosecution seriously but the safest option is to remove the possibility once and for all.
Recent news that the Catholic Church is actively seeking to influence the votes of Catholic MPs indicates that a sensible attitude on the part of Parliamentarians towards religious troublemakers is not assured.
I don’t want to be presumptuous in speaking about a law in a foreign country, but I agree that blasphemy laws everywhere should be repealed. Protecting particular sets of beliefs is never a good idea.
“In the end, no one is likely to be convicted under it. (Nobody has been since 1921.)”
Except for the 1977 private prosecution by Mary Whitehouse - which is the problem with this law on the statute books: fundamentalist Christians can harass people with it.
Thanks for the information Paul.
[...] email. I had contacted him asking him to support the abolition of the blasphemy law in the UK (see Libelling God). He sent me a brief letter stating his agreement with the abolition and the Hansard report of the [...]
[...] Libelling God I considered the arguments in favour of such a repeal and I briefly rehearse them here for [...]