The repeal of the blasphemy laws could be a Pyrrhic victory if other laws are used to provide greater protection for religion, writes Padraig Reidy
Secularist groups greeted the first step in the repeal of the blasphemy laws with delight last week. Hanne Stinsen of the British Humanist Association suggested that the House of Lords’ vote indicated ‘a clear commitment from across the political and belief spectrums to abolish the outdated and discriminatory blasphemy laws’.
Quite so.
Over at the National Secular Society, Keith Porteous Wood said: ‘It is disgraceful that such a relic of religious savagery has survived into the 21st century.’
Indeed, Keith. Indeed.
Meanwhile, in free-speech land, Jonathan Heawood of English PEN was preparing the wake for a law he declared already ‘long dead’ (the last prosecution having been in 1977 — the infamous Gay News trial).
Hurray!
All these statements came after the vote on 5 March. But perhaps the most significant statement came earlier that week, when the Church of England’s big guns, Archbishops Williams and Sentamu, were reported to have questioned the timing of the move, saying it was ‘too early to be sure how the Incitement to racial and religious hatred act would work’.
This suggests something: the bishops expect the new law to replace the old one. Is this wishful thinking on their part? Maybe. They went on to say ‘the church is not going to oppose abolition now, provided we can be assured that provisions are in place to afford the necessary protection to individuals and society’.
Essentially: we don’t mind you getting rid of the old law, as long as we can have a new law that does the same thing.
Back when the Racial and Religious Hatred Act was passed, we were assured that the need to prove intent made the law completely toothless. This was troubling on many levels, but two in particular.
First, why create a new law that you admit can’t be used?
Second, one needs to look at existing laws where motivation plays a part, say, in laws concerning racial attacks. Currently, it would seem intent is in the eye of the beholder: if the victim, or the investigating officer, believes an attack was racially motivated, then they will pursue the case in those terms. Many cases do come to court in this way.
The Racial and Religious Hatred Act makes no attempt to define what exactly ‘intent’ is, or how intent will be proven. Nor, in fact, does it attempt to define ‘hatred’, a term which surely can only be used to describe a valid human emotion, rather than a potential crime.
The potential abolition of blasphemy legislation, a protection particular to the Church of England, should be welcomed in a country where an established church is an anachronism, and where we claim to concern ourselves with equality. But we should be wary of attempts to use the Religious and Racial Hatred Act as a more comprehensive blasphemy law.
This article was first published on Comment is Free
