Updated Tuesday evening
Update The text of the “Waddington amendment” can be seen in the context of the legislation it amends by going here.
Today’s Observer has a report by Jamie Doward headlined Bishops fight for right to criticise gay lifestyle.
Church of England bishops are on a collision course with the government over its plans to amend the incitement to hatred laws, claiming they will stifle what they believe is legitimate criticism of homosexual lifestyles.
In what is being portrayed in some parliamentary quarters as a battle for free speech, a coalition of Anglican bishops, Conservative peers, Labour malcontents and leading crossbenchers have united to block the proposals.
You can read exactly what the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham said over here.
For the background to this development, see these two TA articles from 2007:
The latter item contains a link to the statement issued jointly by the Church of England and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales at that time.
More recently (my copy undated, but was sent to me in March) the CofE issued a briefing note to parliamentarians which is reproduced in full below the fold. This shows that the CofE has changed its mind since 2007 about the adequacy of the legislation as originally proposed:
…While we were satisfied with the definition of the offence as it stood, we believe that the amendment successfully moved by Lord Waddington now provides a valuable safeguard…
(The relevant clause was numbered 58 in the original bill but because of other amendments has now becomes clause 61.)
CofE briefing note to parliamentarians – Coroners and Justice Bill – Clause 58
The Church of England, in common with many other organisations – not all of them religious – has concerns about Clause 58 of the Bill, which seeks to remove the so-called “free speech” provision on incitement to hatred on grounds of sexual orientation. The Church of England is not convinced of the necessity for this change and as such supports the cross party amendment 297, which seeks to leave out Clause 58 from the Bill.
When the offence of incitement to hatred on grounds of sexual orientation was first put forward within the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill (now Act) 2008, we supported it on condition that it did not infringe freedom of expression on issues of sexual morality and conduct. We were satisfied that the high threshold of the offence (intention to stir up hatred by means of threatening words, behaviour or material) struck a reasonable balance between protecting people from attacks directed against their sexual orientation and maintaining freedom of expression.
Subsequently though a “freedom of speech” provision was inserted by a Lords amendment in the name of Lord Waddington and now stands part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. While we were satisfied with the definition of the offence as it stood, we believe that the amendment successfully moved by Lord Waddington now provides a valuable safeguard (parallel to the freedom of expression protection in relation to religious hatred) by making it clear that “the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices” does not in itself constitute an offence. If, as the Government argues, removing the amendment would not lower the threshold of the offence it is hard to see any justification for doing so. If it is argued that it is necessary for the effective operation of the law that the amendment should be removed, the implication would be that such discussion or criticism could in itself constitute an offence, and to this we would be strongly opposed. The present provision was made “for the avoidance of doubt” and in the absence of compelling grounds for change, it seems to us that this is an example of the kind of restless fidgeting with the law that Government and Parliament would do well to avoid.
Problems in this area often arise less from the formulation of the law than from over-zealous action by the police based on misunderstanding of what the law means. This was seen in investigations of alleged homophobic conduct carried out under existing public order legislation. In a joint submission with the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales to the Public Bill Committee of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill in November 2007, we said: “We believe it is vital that there should be the maximum possible clarity about what is forbidden and what is permitted. Christians engaged in teaching or preaching and those seeking to act in accord with Christian convictions in their daily lives need to be assured that the expression of strong opinions on marriage or sexuality will not be illegal…. We also draw attention to the possible ‘chilling effect’ on free speech, which formed part of the debates on religious hatred. Uncertainty in the law has the effect of inhibiting behaviour which may not in fact be illegal. People holding firm opinions on sexuality will generally be reluctant to risk the emotional and financial costs of being challenged by a neighbour or colleague and investigated by the police, even if this does not lead to prosecution or conviction.”
I would be far more surprised if the church was seen to be actively and enthusiastically supporting any pro-gay equality legislation.
This is why religionist influence really does need to be opposed. It is rather like a cancer, destroying that which is good, but I didn’t realise just how wrong it is until I left the church.
For goodness’ sake, what is this almost suicidal reduction of the Gospel of Love to the right to criticise and therefore sail close to demeaning anything that is not conformant with 100% heterosexual behaviour all about? ++Williams should be thankful he is not in the position of facing a common vote since I for one would be asking people to use it wisely, in case forces “that are the very opposite of the values of justice, compassion and human dignity…rooted in our Christian heritage” become dominant. Just why are the wholesale concepts of class and sexuality of seeming anathema to… Read more »
European attitudes towards free speech scare the bejesus out of me. If this legislation becomes a blunt object with which to beat people who believe homosexuality is a sin, it will not do the cause of gay rights in the US any good at all.
Eventually God’s Church will catch up with society in recognising hatred in all its forms and intolerance of difference are contrary to the Gospel. In the meantime society seeks to legislate to prevent bigotry. It is a sad day when the Church lags behind society rather than leads it.
The action of the Bishops (especially the bishop of Southwell and Nottingham) on this issue provides one very good reason why Anglican Bishops should relinquish their seats in the House of Lords. For a Bishop to support any act of discrimination against women or the LGBT constituency is against the tenor of the Gospel. Oh yes! Bp. George Cassidy may appear to be protecting a common right to ‘discussion’ on the subject, which of itself may seem right and good, but it seems to gays and women that he really wants to protect the Churhes’ freedom to preach and practise… Read more »
If being straight does not as such serve to prevent anybody from being violent or hurtful, still less will NOT being straight categorically doom anybody to human incompetence or unethical or violent patterns of daily life. Just as the exceptional existence of freed former slaves calls the whole belief system (about people of color being cursed by God – once upon a time not that long ago, a very strong and very widespread cultural and religious belief system?) into question; so too, the exceptional existence of many out gay citizens living daily life goods among us calls the legacy negative… Read more »
This reminds me of one of Duncan’s precious follows, a woman priest who said to me, “homosexuality is an ungodly life style. Sacred Scripture is clearly against it.” (not to say against womens ordination which for the record I approve). So many conservative Christians say they’re opposed to the gay lifestyle but what exactly is the gay lifestyle? Straight or gay, there are people who live in monogamous relationships, some people get married, some co-habitate and some swing, others just sleep around. People just like to criticize be they a holier than thou bishop or the man (who’s having an… Read more »
These daft bishops are daily talking the Church out of a role in British society, unfortunately.
“the gay lifestyle” Ha! There is an advice columnist in the States whose writing handle is Miss Manners. A large number of questions for her are about wedding customs, usually prompted by the behavior of a Bridezilla making demands of her guests: asking for cash to finance an expensive honeymoon, demanding guests fly to an exotic ‘destination’ wedding site, etc etc. So much for Holy Matrimony. The other questions are about how to refer to long-time live-ins [heterosexual]. The funniest one lately was someone inquiring if it was accurate to call an 8 year live-in boy friend as a ‘fiance.’… Read more »
LOL.. Cynthia. The lady priest I mentioned in my earlier posting, after calling the gay lifestyle “ungodly,” said “I served at a parish where two vestry members were having an affair.” I remarked that two people in a loving, monogamous relationship is not the same thing as two straight or gay people cheating on their spouse. As an organist, I’ve met some of the Bridzilla’s lol. Last summer one spent 3,000.00 on flowers alone. I have criticized promiscuity of any kind since it can be destructive to self and others. It’s not just the some in GLBT community that are… Read more »
Do I need to tell people to turn their sarcasm monitors on? “what exactly is the gay lifestyle?” I’m told it consists of practically limitless anonymous sex occurring anywhere, anytime, and in the context of equally limitless drug use. It also, apparently, includes sex with children and relentless recruiting of unsuspecting heterosexuals, whose sexuality is so very fragile, they can be tempted to turn gay just by being in the same room with gay people. Now, I find sex with minors not merely repulsive, but reprehensible, so I decided, somewhat selfishly, that I would not take part in it. I… Read more »
I don’t think there is a homosexual lifestyle, and I think the leaders of the C of E have been criminally silent when their fellow Anglicans have demonized GLBT people. That said, this sure looks like a violation of very basic rights to free speech.
“As an organist, I’ve met some of the Bridzilla’s lol. Last summer one spent 3,000.00 on flowers alone.”
Most clergy I know would far rather do a funeral than a wedding. IMHO, we in the States should all give up our status as arms of the civil government and stick to asking God’s blessing on the couple. Let them get the civil license from the civil authority.
If anyone doubts the possibility of this sort of legislation being used in an attempt to silence the opponents of gay rights, they need look no farther than the case of the Swedish Pentecostal preacher Åke Green. He was convicted of hate speech by a lower court because of a sermon he preached, but an appellate court overturned that sentence. Not satisfied, the prosecutor pursued the case all the way to Sweden’s Supreme Court, where the appellate court’s judgment was upheld. A spokesman for the Supreme Court explained that if the judges had taken only Swedish law into account they… Read more »
“Freedom of speech that protects only expression of which the party in power approves isn’t freedom of speech at all.” But with freedom of speech comes the responsibility to use it well. To Americans, it is anathema that there be any restrictions on free speech. We who are not Americans do not share this fear. There are limits. The simplistic example of not crying “Fire” in a crowded theatre is tacit acceptance of that. What you see in British parliamentary democracy is an attempt to codify what those limits might be. I think the British government sometimes goes too far,… Read more »
I don’t agree this is a matter of free speech. It isn’t about criticism but the incitement to hatred, which is a different concept. The change introduced by the government reflects the bill carried by the House of Commons by a large majority. The amendment introduced by a small majority in the Lords is of little legal effect as the legal hurdle is considerable in mounting a prosecution. The language is at best superfluous and at worst damaging in that someone inciting homophobic hatred can claim free speech as a cover. The government had no choice but to accept the… Read more »
I am an American and so I too have difficulty understanding why anyone would wish to limit freedom of speech, even when it is dasterdly mean, evil, unfair, or whatever. I think usually when there is freedom of speech, those who give hate speeches come to be seen for what they are. However, if there are to be limits placed on freedom of speech to protect particular groups, then it is really untoward for any Christian church to ask to be excused from obeying the law.
Well, anyway, three cheers and then some for the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland. Puts us miserable, pusillanimous C of E types to shame. Our bishops – most of them – are – how shall one put? not good. Yet and yet … life in many parishes is different and better.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
It’s when your words turn into actions (the act of discrimination, physical abuse and inciting hatred) that you have effectively disregarded and made mockery of that statement.
That’s why we have laws to prevent those actions, and it will include unfair treatment of the LGBT community, whether the “church” can stomach it or not, bishops and bridzillas included.
There is freedom of speech and there is responsibility for what one speaks. Here in the US we seem to want the former with none of the latter, as in the case of Miss California. She spoke her mind. Good for her. But that is no reason why folks can’t boycott her in kind. Fair is fair. This whinging now that she’s being persecuted is outright baloney and a means of not taking responsibility for her opinion and speech. The leadership of the C of E have been criminally silent with regard to Anglican violence to lgbt persons and they… Read more »
BillyD: I don’t think it would be at all accurate to get the impression that Scandinavians suffer from a lack of freedom of speech. In my experience, their culture is much more likely to challenge unjust authoritarianism, ecclesiastical or otherwise, than is the case in, for example, Britain. There seems to be something of a myth current in some circles in the US that the EU harbours a scary lack of freedom. It is emphatically not the case: across the EU, a just society transcending the limitations of national jurisdictions is in formation. I think the Anglican tradition should tie… Read more »
I agree with BillyD. Suppressing free speech is always dangerous; and it helps make people feel justified in their prejudice.
Oh hello, I’m on the ambivalence train again.
No, not every “homosexuality is an abomination” sermon should get the preacher tossed into gaol.
…but merely being *delivered from a pulpit* shouldn’t get “Kill a Queer for Christ” Hate-Speech protected, either.
Context, context, context…
“There seems to be something of a myth current in some circles in the US that the EU harbours a scary lack of freedom.”
While I’m not usually a fan of the EU, in the Green case it was evidently the EU’s Convention on Human Rights that overrode the scary local Swedish law.
BillyD
The European Convention on Human Rights, and the associated Court, are not the creation of the European Union, but rather of the Council of Europe.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe
for further explanation.
The US may draw a clear line between hate speech (which is not criminalized)and hate crimes (which are), but when hate speech incites hate crimes here, the inciting bigots can be held to account:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/14/klan.sued.verdict/index.html
and
http://www.splcenter.org/legal/docket/files.jsp?cdrID=30
Not as satisfying as tossing them in prison, I’ll give you, but it is something. And the law is evolving rapidly. Every democracy struggles to balance free speech with responsible speech — we all just slice and dice it a bit differently.
Ford, it may have less to do with being an American than with being a journalist. Libel laws in the UK are much friendlier to the powerful than are those in the US, as the NYT pointed out in an editorial his morning.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/opinion/26tue2.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
There is a significant difference in that Miss California was not punished by the State. She faced consequences in the contest and in the private world. No agency of the State or Local governments has punished her for her words. The consequences are social and civil, not punitive. Now had she ended her stupid little speech with a call to arms and violence, we would be talking a different game. Freedom is messy, and is often unpleasant. The desire to shut up those with whom we disagree because it might do something is a bad precedent, in particular when the… Read more »
The problem here is that some on the right confuse “free speech” with “speech without consequences”. There is no country on the earth where you can say whatever you want without consequence.
On the whole it’s country simple – ++Williams has not long decided that the BNP is a bad thing, and I am sure in the same vein he would not ask for current legislation on incitement to racial hatred to be repealed in pursuit of pure free speech. Yet, on the other, there is a desire on the part of the established religious to arrogate to themselves on grounds that are ostensibly at least as ‘irrational’ as the racist views of the BNP, the right not to be prosecuted for criticizing the ‘gay lifestyle’. There’s either the recognition that prejudice,… Read more »
“The problem here is that some on the right confuse “free speech” with “speech without consequences”. There is no country on the earth where you can say whatever you want without consequence.”
Very, very good point toujoursdan, and it seems to have increasing relevance in the church as well.
And John Robison there is also a difference between freedom of speech and classes of speech like Churchy speech that do tend to give permission to beat up and worse on gay people. It often amounts indirectly to screaming “fire” in a crowded theatre. Legal consequences arise from such shouts.