As the Government publishes its amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill to abolish the blasphemy laws, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, have made public their response to the Government's consultation. In their response the Archbishops make clear their affirmation of the central place of Christianity in British public life and call on the government to explain precisely what the removal of the blasphemy laws does and does not mean for those living out their religious faith in society.

The Archbishops, following consultation with a number of other Christian leaders in England and Wales, restate the Church of England’s longstanding position on the blasphemy laws in their joint letter to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: “Having signalled for more than 20 years that the blasphemy laws could, in the right context, be abolished, 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 to society”. They also register ‘reservations’ about the method and timing of such a change and call on the Government to be clear as to precisely why the offences are being abolished.

The Archbishops point to four issues that highlight the need for caution before abolishing blasphemy laws. Firstly, it is still too early to be sure how the new offence of incitement to religious hatred will operate in practice. Secondly, the increased significance of issues touching on religious identity has underlined the importance of not lightly changing laws that carry a significant symbolic charge.

Thirdly, as recently as 5th December the High Court underlined the very high threshold that has to be passed for a prosecution to be brought. Fourthly, a number of those calling for the repeal of the offences misunderstand both what the existing law is intended to achieve, as clarified in the High Court decision as the preservation of society from civil strife, and the extent to which, in doing so, it protects particular religious beliefs.

In the letter, the Archbishops emphasise that: “Against that background we in the Church of England have serious reservations about the wisdom of legislating at this moment, and especially as part of a Bill introduced to deal with quite different matters, themselves of significant importance. In the light of the recent High Court 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 that there is a pressing need for repeal until there has been more time to assess the impact of the offence of incitement to religious hatred.”

They call on the Government to be clear as to precisely why the offences are being abolished and what the implications 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.

“The place of Christianity in the constitutional framework of our country, governed as it is by the Queen, in Parliament, under God, is not 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,” the Archbishops say.

Ends

For more information please contact Ben Wilson in the Church of England Communications Office, telephone 020 7898 1326

Full text of letter sent to Right Honourable Hazel Blears MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:

Thank you for your letter, received on January 16th, on the Government’s intentions in relation to the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel. We have consulted a number of other Christian leaders in England and Wales about the terms in which we intended to respond. Some of them may wish to make their own views known to you separately. 

The Church of England has taken a consistent line since the Law Commission Report of 1985. The unsatisfactory nature of the common law offences was clearly set out by the Commission and has been accepted by all. The difficult question has been what best to do about it. By a majority of three to two the Law Commissioners recommended abolition, with no replacement of the offences. The Church of England, however, supported the view of the minority that abolition needed to be accompanied by some new provisions to protect all citizens against the most extreme and inflammatory attacks on religious beliefs and convictions. 

It was for that reason that in 2002 the Church of England expressed support in principle for a new offence of incitement to religious hatred. In a submission to the Select Committee on Religious Offences the Archbishops’ Council noted that “if such an offence were enacted and proved effective, that would provide the context in which the current offence of blasphemy could be repealed.”

Developments since then have reinforced that analysis, while pointing to the need for caution. 

Firstly, the eventual introduction of the offence of incitement to religious hatred in 2006 proved extremely contentious. It is still too early to be sure how the new law will operate in practice and we shall all be helped to clarify our minds as we see what the courts will do in this regard. 

Secondly, the increased significance of issues touching on religious identity, both in this country and internationally, 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. 

Thirdly, as recently as 5th December the High Court underlined the very high threshold that has to be passed for a prosecution to be brought. Essentially this means that “there must be contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous and/or ludicrous material relating to God, Christ, the Bible or formularies of the Church of England. Second, 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.”

Fourthly, as is apparent from the debate in the Commons on 9th 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 particular religious beliefs. The recent High Court decision seems to us 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, not just those of the Church of England.

Against that background we in the Church of England have serious reservations about the wisdom of legislating at this moment, and especially as part of a Bill introduced to deal with quite different matters, themselves of significant importance. In the light of the recent High Court 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 that there is a pressing need for repeal until there has been more time to assess the impact of the offence of incitement to religious hatred.

Nevertheless, having signalled for more than 20 years that the blasphemy laws could, in the right context, be abolished, 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 to society.

If the Government does introduce the necessary amendments in the House of Lords it will, in our view, be particularly important that there is clarity over precisely why the offences are being abolished and what the implications of their abolition 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.

The place of Christianity in the constitutional framework of our country, governed as it is by the Queen, in Parliament, under God, is not 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. 

The Most Revd & Rt Hon. Rowan Williams

The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury

The Most Revd & Rt Hon. John Sentamu

The Lord Archbishop of York

Item from: The Church of England