An amendment, backed by 70 MPs proposes ridding us of the iniquitous blasphemy laws. However, ministers look like opposing it.
Government sources say they are “sympathetic” to calls from MPs to abolish the law on blasphemy.
But ministers want to consult the Anglican community further before deciding on such a change.
There really isn’t anything to consult on. Church leaders have proffered an opinion, and it is one overflowing with pragmatic common sense:
The move comes after leading figures, including former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, wrote to the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday, arguing the legislation was discriminatory as it only covers attacks on Christianity and Church of England beliefs.
Which is true enough. There are those who would like to see the law extended to cover other belief systems; however, this is not the appropriate way forward. Beliefs should not enjoy legal protection from criticism, ridicule and speech that believers deem to be blasphemous.
The letter said it served “no useful purpose” and offered Christian activists a means to intimidate broadcasters, publishers and performers.
They have tried recently – and quite rightly, failed. Removing this law from the statue book will, hopefully stop this type of time-wasting exercise ever reaching the courts. People should be allowed to believe whatever they want to believe, but the law should be entirely neutral. No one should be compelled by law to respect anyone’s belief and no one should be afraid of legal consequences for openly criticising and ridiculing such beliefs. I respect peoples’ right to believe – I don’t, however, feel the need to respect the belief; and I don’t.
Dr Harris said: “There is cross-party, secular and religious support for confining this unnecessary, discriminatory and censorious law to the history books where it belongs.”
The history book is precisely where this antiquated law belongs.
“Neither the Church of England nor the government has given a good reason for the blasphemy law to be retained, so it is time Parliament stood up for free expression and against a religious privilege which protects beliefs instead of people.”
This is doubtless because there is no good reason. And Dr Harris is quite right, parliament should stand up for free speech. Well, it would be nice, just for once…
Of course, Aunty has to get into the old “respect” thing:
Its director, Nicholas Hytner, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “What we have now is essentially a secular country based on a common bond of decency which includes free speech.”
“And free speech includes the expectation that there should be mutual respect between those with different beliefs.”
Um, yes, providing that by “respect” you mean peoples’ right to believe and not the belief system itself.
“And I don’t believe that the law should address what people believe. The blasphemy laws protect belief; they don’t protect people.”
Oh, good.
It seems that even the evangelicals are generally in favour of ditching it.
Don Horrocks, of the Evangelical Alliance, agreed that there was “no real argument” for retaining the law, saying: “Everybody knows it’s not really going to be used again.”
So, pretty much everyone except for the deranged, lunatic fringe believe that this legislation has had its day. Why, therefore, do ministers plan to oppose the amendment? They’ve had more than enough time to consult on the matter.
All I said was, “That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.”
Ah, yes… Stoning’s too good for you…
Of course, the Monty Python team were accused of Blasphemy when The Life of Brian was first released.
“So, pretty much everyone except for the deranged, lunatic fringe believe that this legislation has had its day. Why, therefore, do ministers plan to oppose the amendment? They’ve had more than enough time to consult on the matter.”.
You said it yourself. Everyone except the deranged lunatics…
Damn me! of course – how remiss of me to miss that one.