Ceci n'est pas un blog
Free speech
As a Bible-believing Christian, I am deeply committed to freedom of expression and to tolerance (for example, of those with whom I deeply disagree).
I'm talking about the freedom to believe something, and the freedom to express those beliefs - of course, with the proviso that those beliefs are not expressed with the intention to threaten, to cause abuse or to incite violence or any other criminal activity.
But it seems I am in a minority. Certainly I would be, in the House of Commons. The House of Lords previously secured the place of a "free speech" clause in the legislation for the recently-introduced homophobic hatred offence (an amendment tabled by Lord Waddington). This has been vigourously opposed by the Government, who are now trying to remove this clause. Here is the wording the Government finds so objectionable:
In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.
From the government's determined efforts to remove these words from the statute books, one may conclude that the Government would like it to be the case that if I merely express the belief that certain sexual conduct is wrong, then that may, of itself, be taken to be a "hate crime".
Just think for a moment about what this means. Does no one believe in freedom of speech any more? Sure, my beliefs may be utterly repugnant, but should it be illegal for me to discuss them with anyone? Seriously?
Thank God for our unelected representatives in the House of Lords, who at least seem to believe in democracy and freedom of expression. But if the government has its way, we're certainly going to see more cases like this and this.
What do you think? Is freedom of speech worth fighting for? Or are there some beliefs that are so obnoxious that it should be illegal to express them, under any circumstances?
| Print article | This entry was posted by Anthony on 12 Nov 2009 at 11.54 am, and is filed under Politics & Community. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |




I live in York and I
about 3 years ago
Update: the Government has backed down, and (with "considerable disappointment") will allow what they perceive to be an unnecessary clause to remain in the legislation.
about 3 years ago
As I recall, various religious groups were arguing that there should be no 'freedom of speech' defense when the racial and religious hatred bill was passing through parliament. If that measure had passed then it would now be illegal to 'criticise and ridicule' religious beliefs, and such movies as The Life of Brian would be banned since it's content would have been deemed to be a 'hate cerime'.
You can't have it both ways...
about 3 years ago
Hi Dave,
The religious groups I'm aware of were campaigning for the free speech clause for religious beliefs - e.g., The Christian Institute. I, for one, am very glad we live in a society where it's not illegal to criticise and ridicule religious beliefs.
Anthony
about 3 years ago
According to my memory and various sources the anglican and roman catholic bishops supported the measure as well as the methodists. That's probably a majority of what I understand of as christians in the UK. Not sure where they stand on the issue of criticizing sexual practices, but I could make an educated guess that they'd quite like to criticize...
about 3 years ago
...and if they did, should they be arrested?
about 3 years ago
They would appear to want that for those criticising and ridiculing religion, so it would also have to be the case here if the law were to be consistent. Of course they might see things rather differently. I would argue that would be more than a little hipocritical.
Of course incitment to violence on racial, religious, or sexual grounds, as with other forms of incitement, is something to take very seriously and should be investigated and, if necessary, punished.
about 3 years ago
The Government was trying to remove the "free speech" clause for sexual conduct, while leaving the "free speech" clause for religious hatred intact. That strikes me as being somewhat inconsistent, and I'm glad that common sense has prevailed.
I'm not sure which groups you are referring to, but those I'm aware of have argued for free speech to be protected explicitly in both cases. After all, Christians want to be allowed to argue against other religions just as much as "non-religious" people do!
Incitement to violence - or to any crime - is, and always has been, illegal. This "incitement to hatred" legislation is different, because it is not a crime to hate someone.
Back to the source extraction...
about 3 years ago
My recollection is that the government didn't want a free speech protection for either. I can clearly remember the protests by the likes of Rowan Atkinson and other comedians wanting to retain the 'right to offend' in the context of the religious hatred legislation. The government were defeated on that too. As stated above, catholic and anglican bishops and the metodists were in favour of limiting free speech on the religious hatred issue but have been notable in their silence on the current legislation. This is what I'm suggesting is hipocritical.
about 3 years ago
I'm with Anthony on this - the only Christian groups whose position I'm aware of were in favour of free speech which criticises religion. I seem to remember that a mulsim group and the UN HRC wanted a ban on such criticism though - perhaps that's what Dave was thinking of? Do you have a source or a link for the specific groups you had in mind, Dave?