A Thinking Man

It took an arcane debate to the hasten the end of an arcane law, but that is what happened in the House of Lords on Wednesday 5 March when an amendment to repeal the UK blasphemy law was finally passed (148 votes to 87). The Christian tenets of the Church of England will no longer be afforded special protection under English and Welsh law. Baroness Andrews, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government, stated that ‘it is crystal clear that the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel are unworkable in today’s society.’

In Libelling God I considered the arguments in favour of such a repeal and I briefly rehearse them here for convenience:

• The law of blasphemous libel purports to protect beliefs rather than people or communities. 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. (There have been only four successful prosecutions since 1676.)

So, I am glad to see its proposed passing. Hanne Stinsen of the British Humanist Association suggested that the House of Lords’ vote indicated “a clear commitment from across the political and belief spectrums to abolish the outdated and discriminatory blasphemy laws”. Over at the National Secular Society, Keith Porteous Wood said: “It is disgraceful that such a relic of religious savagery has survived into the 21st century”.

However, while enjoying the party, there are disturbing signs which are beginning to spoil the celebration. Archbishops Williams and Sentamu, were reported to have questioned the timing of the move, saying it was “too early to be sure how the Incitement to Racial and Religious Hatred Act would work” - the latter act purporting to give protection to all religious faiths and none. In other words, it is not, “We agree to the ending of the notion that a religious belief must have legal protection,” but rather, “We reluctantly accept the ending of this law giving protection to the beliefs of the Church of England in the hope that a new law will give protection to all religion. We hope, NOT that blasphemy will disappear as a crime, but that its potential will be expanded!”

From where I am sitting, there are at least five problems with this new legislation. First, it still completely ignores the fundamental argument that while it may be legitimate to protect people because of their ethnicity, their gender, their sexual orientation, their age, their natural ability (because these are things over which they have no control), it is wrong to give them special protection because of their religion, because their religion is a matter of choice. It makes no more sense to have a blasphemy law than it does to have a law protecting me against the insults of some of my friends who constantly and unrelentlessly taunt me because I happen to believe in the benefits of talking therapies or like listening to the music of Celine Dion!

Secondly, the new legislation is vague. The Racial and Religious Hatred Act makes no attempt to define what exactly ‘intent’ is, or how intent will be proven. Nor, in fact, does it attempt to define ‘hatred’.

Thirdly, ‘hatred’ is a term which surely can only be used to describe a valid human emotion, rather than a potential crime. I am not ashamed to admit that I do feel a level of hatred for the way some religions treat other human beings, and I am willing to express that feeling and argue a case for change. In expressing opinions about, for example, the way some Christian and Muslim groups treat women and gays shamefully, am I then doing something wrong? Gender and sexual orientation are matters that humans have no choice about. Do I not have a right to feel anger when people are abused because of this, and a right to try to change minds through argument, satire, and art? Why should I grant protection to a faith that often kills its members if they renounce their beliefs?

Fourthly, given the lack of definition about ‘intent’ and ‘hatred’ one can only assume that the law will be applied similarly to existing legislation where such terms are also not defined. If we look at the present UK laws concerning racial attacks it would seem intent is in the eye of the beholder: if the victim, or the investigating officer, believes an attack was racially motivated, then they will pursue the case in those terms. Many cases do come to court in this way. In my professional life I spend hours trying to encourage people to see that they cannot read the minds of others or be sure about their motives, and that projecting what we feel onto others is a powerful force in human relationships. Justice is not served if others are given the power to know what my motives are, or if my legitimate feelings are criminalized.

Fifthly, the present act is part of a worrying trend world-wide. There are currently attempts by Muslim leaders to get protection against defamation of religion written into UN charter of Human Rights. The UN charter currently outlaws discrimination on religious grounds, but some Muslim leaders want these right vamped up to include defamation. At a two-day conference in Senegal which ended on Friday demands were made for redress for historical incidents such as the publication of the cartoons in Denmark.

At present Muslims have the right to point to the inconsistency of the large western claims made on behalf of freedom of expression, when measured against the reality of legal practice in Europe and America. In the Netherlands, for instance, “scornful” abuse of the Christian deity is an offence. German law prohibits disturbing the peace through the ridicule of religion. In Canada, “blasphemous libel” carries a maximum prison sentence of two years. In the US, the first amendment coexists uncertainly with the many state laws which defend Christianity. Finland, Italy, Spain all restrict blasphemy in one way or another, and when defendants appeal to the European court of Human Rights, the original judgment is often upheld.

Britain appears to have abolished the crime of blasphemy, but it looks like it may have just changed the title of the offence and possibly invigorated the substance. It is time to let the gods look after themselves, and let the people get on with other things. The party is almost certainly premature.

Tags: Baroness Andrews, blasphemy, Christian, Church of England, defamation, hatred, House of Lords, intent, motivation, Muslim, Racial and Religious Hatred Act, Senegal