Archbishop's Blasphemy Speech in Lords Debate

My Lords, the definition of blasphemy provided in Stephen's Digest of the Criminal Law and adopted by Lord Scarman in 1979 case, states that:

"Every publication is said to be blasphemous which contains any contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ, or the Bible, or the formularies of the Church of England as by law established. It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the Christian religion or to deny the existence of God, if the publication is couched in decent and temperate language. The test to be applied is as to the manner in which the doctrines are advocated and not as to the substance of the doctrines themselves."

There is little doubt my Lords that such a definition is unworkable. On that at least there should be common agreement. What is more difficult is to reach for that understanding which replaces the Common Law of blasphemy with a law which essentially provides for a protection not exclusively of the Christian faith, but of the fabric of society.

My Lords, in our recent letter to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Archbishop of Canterbury and I highlighted a number of our concerns around the Government's proposals on Blasphemy.

The Church of England has signalled for more than 20 years that in our view the Common Law of blasphemy could, in the right context, be abolished. It is not our intention to oppose abolition now, as proposed by the Government, provided we can be assured that provisions are in place to afford the necessary protection to individuals and to society. The offences against incitement to religious hatred are new on the Statute Book and have yet to be tested in the courts. Is this the right moment for abolishing the Common Law offences against Blasphemy?

In our recent letter to the Secretary of State, the Archbishop of Canterbury and I wrote of "The increased significance of issues touching on religious identity, both in this country and internationally, which has underlined the importance of not lightly changing laws that, though their day-to-day importance may be small, nevertheless carry a significant symbolic charge."

My Lords 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.

My lords, if there is an elephant in the room which no one is addressing, then the elephant is that of illiberal zealous and intolerant secularism.

The mover of the motion in the other place seems to assume that religion no longer matters and as such there is no need for a blasphemy law in a society which he believes is secular. Where has the spirit of magnanimity gone which made this great nation what it is?

To employ an analogy my Lords this is akin to saying because a child is consistently late for school there is no need to have clocks. A persistent lack of punctuality does not do away with the need for time.

The place of Christianity in the constitutional framework of our country, governed as it is by the Queen, in Parliament, under God, should not be in question in the current debate. The relationship between Church and State, reaffirmed by the Government last July in The Governance of Britain, will continue to provide a context in which people of all faiths and none can live together in mutual respect in this part of the Realm.

However, it is apparent from the debate in the Commons on 9^th January, a number of those calling for the repeal of the offences misunderstand both what the existing law is intended to achieve and the extent to which, in doing so, it protects society against civil strife. The recent High Court decision seems to make it even clearer than before that the real purpose of the offences is the preservation of society from civil strife, rather than the protection of the Divine or any particular religious beliefs; and in so far as achieving that end indirectly protects religious beliefs, they are the beliefs of Christians generally.

The High Court case which was decided on 5^th December last year, underlined the very high threshold that has to be passed for a successful prosecution to be brought under the current law. Such a threshold is not simply concerned with offending the sensibilities of the religious – as some have argued – but rather, to quote the judgement of Lord Justice Hughes and Mr Justice Collins, in Stephen Green –v- Westminster City Council:

"The publication must be such as tends to endanger society as a whole, by endangering the peace, depraving public morality, shaking the fabric of society or tending to cause civil strife. ... This element will not be shown merely because some people of particular sensibility are, because deeply offended, moved to protest. It will be established if but only if what is done or said is such as to induce a reasonable reaction involving civil strife, damage to the fabric of society or the equivalent."

In the light of this decision, which should make it a good deal harder for prosecutions to be brought in all but the most compelling circumstances, it is not clear, my Lords, that there is a pressing need for repeal at this time.

Finally my Lords I am compelled to comment on the inherent link between the "damage to the fabric of society" mentioned in the judgement and the nature of that fabric which has been formed through the operation of the Christian faith in this land.

Of late the Government and others have concerned themselves in trying to discover what it means to be British and what the essential elements of Britishness might be.

Whilst we may agree that virtues such as fair play, kindness and decency are part of our nation's make up, do they qualify as those things which makes us quintessentially British?

My Lords, it is my belief that such virtues and those associated with them which form the fabric of our society have been weaved through a period of more than 1,500 years of the Christian faith operating in and upon on our society. The Christian faith has weaved the very fabric of our society just as the oceans around this island have shaped the contours of our geographical identity.

Whilst it is of course true to say that such virtues of kindness to neighbour, fair play and common decency are not unique to the Christian faith, just as they are not unique to Britain, it is equally true to say that these virtues have become embedded into our social fabric and heritage as a result of the Christian faith and influence on society.

In my first speech in your Lordship's house I said that: "We urgently need, as a United Kingdom, to reaffirm, fan into flame, and live those values which we owe to the Christian legacy. Without wishing to appear syncretistic or patronizing, in my experience and friendships I have seen that these are values that are also held dear in the traditions of Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism and also amongst those who say they have no faith, but are people of good will."

My Lords, it was The Venerable Bede in his Ecclesiastical History who writes of the way in which the Christian faith played a major socialising and civilising role by uniting the English and conferring nationhood on them, turning this land from a nation of warring tribes into one of united purpose.

This is why it is particularly important that the Government provides clarity over precisely why the Common Law offences are being abolished and what the implications of their removal are for the position of the Christian religion - in relation to both the State and society more generally.

At a time of continuing debate about the nature of our society and its values, this change needs to be seen for what it is, namely the removal of what has long been recognised as unsatisfactory and not very workable offences in circumstances in which scurrilous attacks on the Christian religion no longer threaten the fabric of society. It should not be capable of interpretation as a secularising move, or as a general licence to attack or insult religious beliefs and believers.

In conclusion my Lords, the current common law offence of blasphemy could be said to serve the four following ends:

• the protection of society, in the sense that it is important that religion (or at least the Christian religion) be treated with respect

• the protection of public order;

• the protection of the bonds that hold society together in a more general sense; and

• the signalling of the fact that the Christian religion holds a special place within the social and constitutional fabric of the nation.

Were the current offence to be abolished, no other single offence would clearly achieve all these ends.

The protection of public order would be protected in different ways by the offences related to stirring up religious hatred and by the offences in Part 1 of the Public Order Act 1986.

The protection of the bonds that hold society together could also be said to be protected, in the more restricted way described above, by the offences related to stirring up religious hatred and by the offence of sedition. But the protection of society, in the sense of ensuring that religion (or at least the Christian religion) is treated with respect and the signalling of the fact that the Christian religion holds a special place within the social and constitutional fabric of the nation would only be protected, if at all, by the offence of sedition. I will listen eagerly to what Her Majesty's Government has to say on these and other related matters.

As to Lord Avebury's new clause, a Lord I greatly respect, I hope, my Lords, you will see it off. Like a gigantic Christmas tree it has attracted discordant baubles i.e. other offences that have nothing to do with the law of Blasphemy. If nothing else your Lordships' House must resist it for the sake of keeping in play the issue of protection of places of worship raised by Section 2 of the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act of 1860. Social strife must be avoided.