Religious offences
Submission to the House of Lords Select
Committee
In response to a call for
evidence the following points have been submitted by mediawatch-uk to the
Select Committee on Religious Offences. We hope these are helpful as the
Committee deliberates on this important matter.
T |
he noble purpose and intention of the law against blasphemy is to
protect the sensibilities of Christian believers and sympathisers from
gratuitous offence and scurrilous attack, and thereby, to maintain tranquillity
and public order.
T |
he law, which is essentially a public order measure, as a matter of right,
should be amended to safeguard the sensibilities of the adherents of other
major religions.
T |
he successful prosecution of James Kirkup's poem, 'The Love That
Dares To Speak Its Name' published by 'Gay News' in 1976,
established that this ancient law could be effectively invoked against the
publication of intemperate literature and false assertions calculated to cause
offence. (We note that this poem, in a challenge to Britain's blasphemy laws,
is to be publicly recited on the steps of a central London church on 11 July.)
I |
n recent times the media, film and television in particular, has been
responsible for considerable - and continuing - offence by the inclusion in
programmes of the scripted use, as expletives, of Holy Names, Jesus and/or
Christ, on their own or in combination with obscenities. For Christians this is
extremely hurtful and offensive and almost entirely unnecessary, without
dramatic integrity or purpose or justifiable in any context. Many people regard
this as discriminatory and it would certainly be regarded as such if applied to
other widely venerated religious figures.
W |
e draw attention to the BBC's Producers' Guidelines excellent provisions
on blasphemy (see Appendix 1 below). In our opinion these were completely
disregarded by the transmission of part of James Kirkup's poem in the fourth
part of 'Taboo' screened in December last year (see Appendix 2
below). Without the additional
safeguard of the law the very people for whom they were intended can,
apparently, disregard the BBC's non-statutory Guidelines.
W |
e believe that the abolition of
the existing law relating to religious offences would give rise to an upsurge
of gratuitous offence and scurrilous attack. The freedom of religious believers
not to have their beliefs intemperately ridiculed and their feelings offended
would be so seriously eroded that their basic human rights could be placed in
jeopardy. Whilst we accept that the Human Rights Act sets out to secure freedom
of expression this freedom is not absolute nor is it without conditions.
Freedoms come with responsibilities and both should have equal force in law.
G |
iven that the modern means of social communication are so pervasive any
offence is caused to millions of people. A primary objective of the law
relating to religious offences should be to prevent the cause of widespread
offence by the powerful media. We acknowledge that the Government's draft
Communications Bill provides, in Clause 307, safeguards against religious
bigotry but we believe that this needs to be buttressed by effective law. We
believe that this objective, more than any other, would win broad public support
and would promote respect, civility and generally advance human progress.
R |
eligious hatred is an attitude of mind that sometimes finds expression
in criminal acts and it is these acts which should be - and are - pursued
through the law. A new criminal offence of 'incitement to religious hatred' may
prove to be desirable just as 'incitement to racial hatred' has become a
necessary buttress against racial discrimination. We believe that blasphemy in
the media is a form of gratuitous discrimination that is just as unacceptable.
The offence might be defined using other statutes enacted to prevent
discrimination as models.
26 June 2002
Appendix 1
9 RELIGIOUS SENSIBILITIES
Programme makers dealing with
religious themes should be aware of what may cause offence. Programme makers
and schedulers of international services should consider carefully the varying
sensitivities of audiences in different parts of the world. What may be
unexceptional in a UK programme may raise strong feelings elsewhere. Advice can
often be given by departments dealing with religious programmes in both
domestic and international services, or by relevant World Service language
sections.
Deep offence will also be caused
by profane references or disrespect, whether verbal or visual, directed at
deities, scriptures, holy days and rituals which are at the heart of various
religions - for example, the Crucifixion, the Gospels, the Koran and the Jewish
Sabbath. It is against the Muslim religion to represent the Prophet Mohammed in
any shape or form. Language must be used accurately and be consistent in our
description of different religions. Use of a term such as "Islamic
Fundamentalist" has to pass the test of whether we would talk about
Christian or Hindu Fundamentalism.
Particular care should be taken
with programmes to be broadcast on the principal holy days of the main
religions to ensure that unnecessary offence is not the caused by material that
might be more acceptable at other times.
What constitutes blasphemy and
how seriously it is viewed, varies within and between different religions and
cultures. Blasphemy is a criminal offence in the UK and advice should be
sought, through Heads of Department or Commissioning Executives, from Editorial
Policy and lawyers in any instance where the possibility of blasphemy may
arise.
Appendix 2
I |
n the course of BBC2 TV programme 'Taboo', transmitted 12
December 2001, while the text and the cartoon drawing, published in 'Gay
News', were shown on screen, Miss Bakewell said:
"The other institution you
criticised at your peril (was) the Christian church. Blasphemy was an offence
and still is. In the 1970s a poem, an explicit homosexual fantasy of the
centurion taking Christ's body down from the cross, was bound to offend…
IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE
FOR mediawatch-uk TO ADD TO THE OFFENCE BY REPRODUCING HERE THAT PART OF THE
BLASPHEMOUS POEM READ OUT BY MS BAKEWELL ON BBC TELEVISION.
James Kirkup's poem 'The
Love That Dares to Speak Its Name', pushed what had been a tacit tolerance
of blasphemy too far. It was published in 'Gay News' in 1976. Mary
Whitehouse took out a private prosecution, the first blasphemy case since
1921"
House of Lords Press Information issued 10 June 2003
LORDS REPORT PREDICTS THAT AMENDING LEGISLATION ON RELIGIOUS OFFENCES IS
LIKE TO BE CONTROVERSIAL
T |
he House of Lords Select Committee on Religious Offences today published
a detailed analysis of the law relating to religious offences. The report examines old common law offences,
including blasphemy, and statutory offences, like the Ecclesiastical Courts
Jurisdiction Act of 1860, and considers whether there is a case for repealing
them, leaving them unchanged, or modernising them. The committee also considered the case for creating an offence of
incitement to religious hatred, analogous to the existing offence of incitement
to racial hatred. The new offence would
remedy the anomaly that some religions receive protection under race relations
legislation while others do not, and would discourage extremists from using the
pretext of religion to pursue a racist agenda.
But the committee is concerned about both the potential threat to
freedom of expression and the risk that the standards of proof would need to be
so demanding under the proposed legislation as to make it a difficult offence
to prosecute.
For the full text of the report
visit: www.parliament.uk (click on Committees and then click on Lords
Select Committees.)
Click here for 'Is Nothing Sacred'
Click here for 'The Blatant
Blasphemy Corporation'
Click
here for mediawatch-uk's Parliamentary Briefing on Clause 319
Click here for Joining Form
Lords Committee report on Religious Offences
Press
Information released on 10 June 2003
The House of
Lords Select Committee on Religious Offences today published a detailed
analysis of the law relating to religious offences. Viscount Colville of Culross, who chaired the inquiry said:
"After extensive public consultation we have analysed the merits of all
the options, but feel it is up to Parliament as a whole to decide how it wants
to proceed. Religions play a vital role
in our society and there should be a degree of protection equally available to
all faiths, but there is no consensus among us on the precise form that that
protection might take. The introduction
of a Bill to deal with any, or all of these issues is likely to run into
profound controversy, despite the pressure to take action on incitement to
religious hatred."