Dear Sir
In the letters page of the April edition, Patrick Sookhdeo takes issue with my critique of the Barnabas Fund’s proposals for new laws to ‘enshrine our religious freedoms’ (en March 2019, p19).
Of course Mr Sookhdeo is at liberty to do so. I continue to disagree with his position. New laws guaranteeing broad religious rights are not necessary in my view because protections already exist explicitly or implied-ly under Article 9 ECHR. Unfortunately, courts have not always taken these rights sufficiently seriously when they have been weighed against other rights, as they inevitably will be. Religious rights will often clash with the rights of others – employers, atheists (who may wish to be free from religious discourse entirely), adherents of other religions, same-sex couples, etc – and courts will always have a role in adjudicating between these competing rights, regardless of whether or not they are rewritten as Mr Sookhdeo would wish. The important thing in my view is that courts do their job fairly and with sufficient religious literacy to understand the religious viewpoint.
Whilst I respect his right to disagree with me, what I am disappointed about in Mr Sookhdeo’s letter is the mischaracterisation of my position. He writes: ‘Mr Hambler’s greatest anxiety seems to be that followers of non-Christian religions might also benefit from such a law. At Barnabas Fund, we say: “So they should, and atheists too.” … . How can we seek to deny the same liberties to non-Christians in the UK? Freedom for one must be freedom for all.’
Nowhere in my article do I express or imply ‘anxiety’ (or even the mildest desire!) to ‘deny’ religious freedoms, either prospective or existing, to non-Christians. This would of course be a ridiculous position to adopt! My argument was an entirely different one and the main points of it are summarised in my second paragraph (above).
Yours sincerely,
Dr Andrew Hambler, by email
