ANGLICAN and Roman Catholic peers failed on Monday to introduce a clause about freedom of speech into the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. It would have ensured that people of religious faith were not prosecuted for criticising homosexual lifestyles.
The amendment to Clause 126 was drafted by the Mission and Public Affairs Council and the equivalent department of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales. It said that nothing should prohibit or restrict “criticism of, or expression of antipathy towards conduct relating to a particular sexual orientation, or urging persons of a particular sexual orientation to refrain from or modify conduct according to that orientation”.
It was moved by Lord Waddington of Read, who told the Lords: “We must ensure that [the clause] does not catch people who, honestly believing in the tenets of their religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism or Baha’i, express, for example, the view that, while a homosexual inclination is not wrong, homosexual practice — like, for that matter, adultery or heterosexual sex outside marriage — is.”
Recent history showed that the police were not very good at distinguishing between legitimate comment and language calculated or intended to stir up hatred, he said, citing the case of the Bishop of Chester, Dr Peter Forster, who had commented to his local newspaper on research suggesting that some homosexuals reoriented to heterosexuality. The Bishop had consequently found himself the subject of investigation by the Cheshire Police.
Lord Waddington quoted from the Churches’ submission to the Public Bill Committee’s hearing: “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”.
The Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt, said the amendment arose out of a “strong sense that this point needed to be made by the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches in this country”. But Dr Forster said that the amendment should not be necessary.
“Requiring proof that there is intent to threaten is a pretty high threshold. There is the additional requirement that the Attorney General gives consent, which is pretty much a backstop provision, as we understand it,” he said.
Dr Forster also said that the amendment might be seen as referring to free speech exclusively about homosexuality. “From a Christian perspective, we want the freedom to speak about marriage and the Christian understanding of marriage as the proper context for sexual relationships,” he said.
“We do not want a privileged part of the law that is seen to allow criticism of homosexual activity, as, from a Christian perspective, one would be equally critical of heterosexual activity outside marriage. The amendment’s focus on sexual orientation will be read as particular permission of the freedom to criticise homosexual behaviour. From a Christian perspective, this freedom should be even-handed across different sexual orientations.”
Lord Waddington withdrew the amendment, though not without complaining that the guidance the Lords favoured over legislation had been in existence for some time now, “and a fat lot of good it has done.”
|
back to News
previous story
|
next story 
back to top
