 Blasphemy
is a crime in England, but it has become virtually defunct. The offence
is defined as the publication of “contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or
ludicrous matter” relating only to God, Jesus Christ, the bible or the
beliefs of the Church of England — it is not blasphemy to attack any
religion other than Christianity.
In 1989, the film Visions of Ecstasy, directed by Nigel Wingrove, was
banned in Britain for blasphemy because of its depictions of the erotic
fantasies of St. Theresa of Avila, a 16th-century Spanish Carmelite nun
who asserted that she had ''raptures'' about Christ. On appeal, the
European Court of Human Rights ruled that a state can have blasphemy
laws because they are justified exceptions to freedom of expression.
For the most part, however, our law has evolved to become tolerant of
people critical of Christianity. Prosecutions for blasphemy are
extremely rare.
In 2006, Parliament passed the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, which
makes it illegal to stir up hatred against people on the basis of their
religion, but in section 29J it explicitly permits criticism of any set
of religious ideas.
This is a wise law. People can’t change their race or the colour of
their skin, so hating them for it is irrational. But your ideas are
something that should be open to criticism. No group should be given
special protection against being insulted or offended if its ideas are
attacked. There’s a world of difference between saying anyone who
believes the earth is flat is being stupid (an attack on a belief)
and anyone who is English is stupid (an attack on people).
The new offence of stirring up hatred against people on religious
grounds covers words, behaviour and written and broadcast material; to
be an offence, that material must be threatening and intended to stir up
religious hatred. The victims must be defined by their religious belief
or lack of it (though the Act doesn't state what, exactly, constitutes a
religion or religious belief: that is left to the courts to determine.)
After a lively Parliamentary debate, section 29J was inserted into the
2006 Act in an attempt to protect fee speech. It states that nothing in
the Act should be interpreted in any way that would restrict debate or
prevent criticism of particular religious beliefs.
Imagine the consequences if that section hadn’t been inserted. A
religion that, for instance, condoned incest or forbade children from
learning science would be able to preach such practices with impunity.
Anyone trying to speak against it would be punished for insulting the
believers.
We must allow people to hear all sides of an argument about beliefs so
that they can make up their own minds. How good can a set of ideas be if
the only way its believers can keep them alive is to ensure that it is
illegal to criticise them?
|
The
House of Commons voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to support the
abolition of the common law offences of blasphemy and
blasphemous libel. This was the final stage in the Criminal
Justice and Immigration Bill, and the amendment was carried by
378 votes to 57. 
The
Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 was brought into force at the start
of this month.