Free speech and incitement? | The Christian Institute

The liberty of Christians to live and speak according to their moral beliefs is an area of growing concern to The Christian Institute.

There have been a number of alarming cases recently that demonstrate the rapidly changing attitude to Christian freedom. A street preacher from Bournemouth was convicted by magistrates for displaying a sign which said homosexuality was immoral.

A gentle Christian couple who post Christian leaflets through the letterboxes of their Muslim neighbours were told doing so was a racial crime (although the police later admitted they were wrong to say this). The Bishop of Chester was investigated by the police for saying therapy can help some homosexuals to ‘reorientate’. Two Christian social workers in the North West were forced out of their jobs because they refused to approve of placing children for adoption with homosexual couples.

We are a long way from the kind of persecution that exists in countries like China and Iran and Pakistan, but we must not underestimate the threats to our freedom here at home.

Government bill

Over recent months there has been one issue in particular which has given widespread cause for concern. The Government wants to introduce a new offence of ‘incitement to religious hatred’ — a criminal offence punishable by up to seven years in prison. It is currently proposed only for England and Wales. But if the Government succeeds in getting the new offence on the statute books it won’t be long before there are strong attempts to have it in Scotland too.

Jesus commanded us not to hate our enemies, but love them (Matthew 5.43-44). So what could be wrong with a law against religious hatred? Well, the problem is the law catches far more than ‘hatred’. It could outlaw ordinary criticism of false religions, wrong ideas or immoral behaviour. This is not just our view. It is a view supported by leading lawyers, many politicians and secular journalists. The Christian Institute is opposing the introduction of this law because it goes way beyond ‘religious hatred’.

Australian example

In case you think that is far-fetched, let me tell you what happened to one Christian minister in Australia. In March 2002 in the State of Victoria, Daniel Scot held a Christian seminar on Islam. Daniel is a Pakistani Christian who was forced to flee from his homeland because he refused to convert to Islam. He has studied Islam for many years and grew up in an Islamic country whose culture is almost entirely Muslim. He knows the religion of Islam very well, and in particular the dangers of fundamentalist Islam.

Daniel gives many seminars for Christians on the teaching of Islam. So it was, in March 2002, that he was giving his usual seminar. Two months earlier the State of Victoria had passed a law banning ‘religious vilification’. This is similar to the offence being proposed for England and Wales. In the seminar, Daniel made his usual comments about Islam — about its teaching relating to Jihad, women and the punishment of thieves. Unknown to Daniel, three Australian Muslim converts had been sent to the seminar with the intention of taking offence and making a complaint based on the new ‘vilification’ law.

As a result of this complaint, Daniel was charged with religious vilification. In December 2004, after a court case lasting over a year, he was held to have broken a state law on inciting religious hatred.

We’ve looked at the transcripts of what Daniel Scot said. He was calm, reasonable and accurate in his criticisms of Islam. We’ve looked at the court judgement (which is full of factual errors, by the way). Daniel Scot said nothing that deserves to be against the law. Yet because of the law in Victoria he has been branded a hater, an inciter.

UK will be worse?

Earlier this year he was in the UK to argue against the introduction of a similar law here. In doing so, he joined a chorus of protest. Journalists, politicians, actors, academics, religious leaders, secularists and lawyers have all been lining up to oppose the Government’s proposals.

Of course, the Government has always said we have nothing to worry about. Specifically, the Home Office says the Australian law which caught Daniel is different to their proposal. To a certain extent they are right. Neil Addison, a leading criminal barrister and author of the standard legal textbook on harassment law, says the Government’s proposed offence is different — he says it is worse than the Australian law. At least the Australian law has defences for statements made for ‘any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose’ (not that they helped Daniel Scot, but at least the defences exist). The proposed law for England and Wales has no such defences. Crucially, the Australian law is a civil law with civil penalties. Our Government wants the offence to be criminal with a maximum penalty of up to seven years in jail.

The Government says its law is only aimed at really serious cases, and they remind us of the attacks on mosques in the UK after September 11. Well, encouraging anyone to attack a mosque, or a church, or a Tesco supermarket for that matter, is already illegal. We don’t need a religious hate law to tackle that. It’s already illegal to incite or encourage someone to commit any criminal act against someone else. We don’t need a new law to tackle that. It’s already illegal to harass anyone, shouting at them in the street or pestering them with nasty phone calls or poison pen letters. We don’t need a new law to tackle that.

Justifiable fears

The Government says that no prosecutions would take place without the consent of the Attorney General. We are to trust his judgement that only sensible cases will be prosecuted. That is cold comfort. It simply means an offence introduced for political motives, operating in a politicised climate, will be administered by a politician.

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what the Government’s intentions are. Once a law like this in the hands of lawyers, it can take on a life of its own.

We do not claim that the wording specifically and explicitly outlaws evangelism, or that saying ‘Christ is the only way to God’ will be criminalised overnight. But the justifiable fear is that in the hands of the wrong policeman, the wrong prosecutor, and the wrong judge, some Christian somewhere could be in prison because of their beliefs.

Of course, the danger with a religious hatred law is not just that there will be prosecutions. It’s the chilling effect, the self-censorship through fear. This would be true even if defences were built into the law. The effect of such a law would be that some Christians back off from criticising other religions and back off from declaring the more offensive parts of the gospel. It is vital that this does not happen. If we are forbidden from doing what God commands or commanded to do what God forbids then we obey God rather than man (Acts 4.19).

Temporary reprieve only

Just before the General Election in May the Government was forced to drop a previous attempt to introduce an ‘incitement to religious hatred’ offence. This was due to strong opposition from the House of Lords. Christians had deluged Peers with letters opposing the offence. In fact, we understand that Peers received more letters on this issue then they received on fox hunting. This shows what an effect Christians can have.

It is interesting that when the Government was forced to drop its plans, the Home Secretary sent a letter to many Muslim mosques apologising for not getting the offence on the statute books and blaming the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrat Party for blocking their way.

More letters needed!

But blocking the Government’s plans was only a temporary reprieve. The Government is having another go. This time the offence is contained within its own stand-alone Bill. The Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, is reported to be prepared to use the Parliament Acts (a mechanism where the Government can force legislation through Parliament without the approval of the House of Lords). However, talk of the Parliament Acts may be premature. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats both oppose the offence and some Labour backbenchers are equally critical of the measure. Another round of letter writing will be needed. The Government has been defeated on two previous occasions. We must persist and work for a third defeat.

One final point. If an incitement to religious hatred law goes through, gay rights groups will say it should also be a crime to criticise homosexuality. Government ministers are already sympathetic to the idea. Given the grip the gay rights agenda now has on the powers that be in the UK this would be even more serious than an incitement to religious hatred offence.

We must act now. If you wish to be kept informed about this issue, please contact The Christian Institute on 0191 281 5664 or see our website http://www.christian.org.uk