Amendment tabled to abolish UK blasphemy offence
As the final foot-note to the failed blasphemy prosecution targetting Jerry Springer: The Opera, The Guardian reports that:
Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris, the former Labour minister Frank Dobson and the Conservative MP David Wilshire have tabled an amendment to the criminal justice and immigration bill that would abolish the law making blasphemy an offence.
The chance of the amendment coming to a vote will depend on whether there’s any time left after the new clauses (which form the bulk of the business) have been debated.
This follows a letter published in The Telegraph earlier this week in support of the ammendment, signed by comedians, human rights campaigners and clergymen:
The ancient common law of blasphemous libel purports to protect beliefs rather than people or communities. Most religious commentators are of the view that the Almighty does not need the “protection” of such a law.
We are representatives of religious, secular, legal and artistic opinion in this country and share the view that the blasphemy offence serves no useful purpose. Yet it allows partisan organisations or well-funded individuals to try to censor broadcasters or intimidate small theatres, print media or publishers.
followed by a response from Stephen Green, who brought the case against JS:TO:
Sir – I am the one seeking to bring a private prosecution for blasphemy in the case of Jerry Springer: the Opera against the director-general of the BBC and the show’s producer.
You published a letter (January 8th) from more than a dozen campaigning atheists and two clergymen arguing for abolition of our blasphemy laws. The author and director of Jerry Springer: the Opera was among the signatories, as were Philip Pullman and Richard Dawkins.
Your correspondents are wrong to say the blasphemy law “purports to protect beliefs”. His Dark Materials and The God Delusion have been published, both criticising Christian beliefs, without falling foul of it. No, the blasphemy law seeks, primarily, to maintain simple respect for Almighty God, Jesus Christ and the Bible.
Strangeness of the present tense aside (given that the case has been denied the chance to proceed) Green’s attempt to differentiate between protecting beliefs and “maintaining simple respect” doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny.
The unique legal protection offered to the Church of England alone by blasphemy law certainly represents more than “simple” respect – and, more importantly, the rational for that respect is based in religious belief. Green even argues as much: that blasphemy law should be retained because we are a “historically and constitutionally” Christian nation.
I’ll update if the ammendment comes up for a vote.