Contents
- Home
- News
- Archbishops warn of symbolic charge of blasphemy law
- Ration your flights, airport protester tells churchgoers
- Juvenile justice is ‘barbaric’ and worst in Europe
- Political action is a danger area for religious charities
- More than 100 die in Gaza offensive
- Fears grow for kidnapped archbishop
- Church’s burglar is a regular
- CHP does new deal
- CARE reports rise in ‘couple penalty’
- Muslims in poll seek harmony
- Paisley plans to ‘bow out’ in May
- Kunonga elevates associates
- Broadcast times for The Passion
- ‘Feminist’ baptisms are not valid, says the Vatican
- Viewing
- Bishop Forster: freedom-of-speech clause not necessary
- Childhood over by 11, say parents
- Stranded
- News in Brief
- Church could join state to aid countryside, says advocate
- Bishop of Coventry named
- Historic churches get £15m
- Cambridge science don ticks off the teen rebels
- A century of chapel
- Church challenges school-bias claims
- Warm welcome
- Christians call on Arroyo to resign
- Peaceful start
- CMS backs Dawani in Holy Land row
- Serious support
- Question of the week
- Comment
- Letters
- Real Life
- Features
- Faith
- Humour and crossword
- Pastimes
- Books
- Arts
- Media
- Gazette
 back to News |
next story 
|
Archbishops warn of symbolic charge of blasphemy law
by Pat Ashworth and Simon Caldwell
 Case in point: David Soul as the lead in Jerry Springer - the Opera, in 2004 PA |
THE criminal offence of blasphemy against Christianity is to be abolished in England and Wales. |
| The move was challenged by opposition politicians, led by Baroness O’Cathain, a Conservative, who said that “abolishing the blasphemy law does not demonstrate neutrality; rather, it contributes to a wider campaign for the adoption of a secular constitution, which . . . would actually be hostile to religion.” She said that the amendment “proposes to legalise the most intense and abusive attacks on Christ”. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu, said in a joint letter on Friday to Hazel Blears, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, that the Church of England would not oppose the abolition of the blasphemy law, provided that individuals and society are given the necessary protection. But the Archbishops expressed “serious reservations” about the timing of the repeal, “and especially as part of a Bill introduced to deal with quite different matters”. They warned that it was too early to be sure how the new offence of incitement to religious hatred will operate in practice, referring to the High Court decision that blasphemy had not occurred in the case of Jerry Springer — the Opera (News, 14 December). The case underlined the very high threshold that needed to be passed in order for a prosecution to proceed, the Archbishops said. Publication of “contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous and/or ludicrous material relating to God, Christ, the Bible, or formularies of the Church of England” had to be proved to endanger society as a whole, “shaking the fabric of society or tending to cause civil strife”. In the light of the “increased significance of issues touching on religious identity”, the Archbishops also warned of the importance of “not lightly changing laws that, though their day-to-day importance may be small, nevertheless carry a significant symbolic charge”. They affirm the central place of Christianity in British public life and its constitutional framework, and call on the Government to explain precisely what the removal of the blasphemy laws might mean for those living out religious faith. In the debate on Wednesday, Dr Sentamu once again questioned the Government’s timing in seeking to remove the offence of blasphemy without addressing how it might be replaced so as to provide for “a protection not exclusively of the Christian faith, but of the fabric of society”. He pointed out that the new offences against incitement to religious hatred had not yet been tested in the courts. “Is this the right moment for abolishing the Common Law offences against Blasphemy. . ? It is extraordinary to think that, at a time when religion and religious identity has come to dominate global and domestic concerns, parliamentarians seek to stick their head in the sand by attempting to relegate considerations of religion and faith from matters of public policy into the private sphere.” Dr Sentamu did not vote in the division to the amendment. The Bishops of Durham and Portsmouth both voted with the Government; while the Bishops of Chester, Rochester, and Southwell & Nottingham all voted against the amendment. The Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship (LCF) has argued that abolition of the offence would support a secular agenda, which seeks to remove Britain’s Christian heritage from its laws. “The offence has such a high threshold that it does not restrict freedom of speech, and UK law is fully compatible with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights,” said the LCF’s public-policy director, Andrea Minichiello Williams. The House of Lords’ Appeal Committee has now rejected the petition in the Jerry Springer case from Stephen Green, the director of Christian Voice, who brought a private prosecution, and whose request for judicial review the High Court turned down in December. “Christians will now have to take matters into their own hands when Christ is insulted on stage and on screen,” Mr Green said on Monday. He described the Lords’ decision as “a blatant, shameless political manoeuvre by a God-defying élite”. He said: “If this is to remain a Christian country, with the Archbishop of Canterbury crowning the future king, Parliament needs to legislate quickly to protect the honour of Jesus Christ.”
|
