"There is, right now in this country, an intolerance of Christians of a sort that I never thought I would see. Street preachers are threatened and Christians expressing mainstream orthodox views on sexual behaviour are harassed and abused. A marriage registrar is bullied at work for asking to be excused from civil partnership duties; a housing charity worker is suspended for discussing with a colleague his beliefs about same-sex relationships.

"I fear that, if the Government get their way, not only will this intolerance grow, and those bent on silencing all who disagree with them gain new strength, but many will take the revocation of the safeguard as a signal that voicing views on morality -- even making jokes about homosexuality -- could attract the attention of the police and that they would be wise to keep quiet. People will be reluctant to express their views, when the right to express views, including views that other people might not like, is one of the hallmarks of a free society."

Thus concluded Lord Waddington in the debate on the second reading of the Coroners and Justice Bill in the House of Lords on Monday. This is precisely the kind of legislation that Bristol University's Professor of Jurisprudence, Julian Rivers warned against in his recent interview with the Jubilee Centre, which you can watch below. In this he suggests that the reason for the recent trend towards intolerance of Christians is a new "vision of human dignity that is very individualistic and which treats human beings as creators of their own identity and their own self", so that "if you criticise someone for something they've done in their life or you disagree with them about some matter of ultimate truth, it's seen as a personal affront or a personal offence."

As Lord Waddington noted, "No decent person supports the stirring up of hatred, but no reasonable person should object to peaceful criticism and discussion of sexual behaviour. The law, as it stands with the free speech safeguard, makes the point with complete clarity. It is sad that the Government should be setting out to blur what is now clear and to remove a protection that events have already shown to be necessary." Some suggest that this is simply Christians being homophobic, but the issue is freedom of expression, not freedom of sexual expression. Again, it is worth heeding what Lord Waddington had to say:

"While not out to weaken the protection that the Government say that they seek to give gays, I want what is outside the scope of the Bill to be made absolutely plain in order to avoid the scandals of the past and to protect freedom of expression. Not only have I said that, but Mr Straw's own notes on clauses say that the free speech clause does not raise the threshold for the offence or make prosecutions more difficult.

"It has been suggested that any possible difficulties can be dealt with by guidance and that that is better than legislation. That, I suggest, is plain wrong. Guidance is not binding, so it can be ignored. Not only is a simple, short, pithy free speech clause more likely to be read than reams of guidance, but it is much more likely to be heeded. Furthermore, there is already guidance available in the shape of the 2007 CPS Guidance on Prosecuting Cases of Homophobic and Transphobic Crime, which, far from inspiring confidence, seems to make the case for the free speech clause. Somewhat surprisingly, the document says that homophobia does not necessarily mean hatred of gays but covers mere dislike of their practices. Basing their reasoning on the Stephen Lawrence definition of a racial incident, the authors go on to say that a homophobic incident is any incident perceived to be such,

        "by the victim or any other person".

"So there you have it. By that guidance, the police are as good as encouraged to investigate incidents that amount to no more than a member of the public complaining that someone else has had the temerity to criticise homosexual practices. Indeed, that is precisely what has been happening; it is what has caused outrage and precisely what gave birth to the free speech clause. It is what happened to the Roberts couple from Fleetwood; it is what happened to Lynette Burrows, who dared to question the desirability of gay adoption on the radio. There is a real danger that similar scandals will occur in the future, but it is a danger that the free speech clause can help to avoid."

Ultimately, Lord Hylton was probably right when he later observed, "I fear that Her Majesty's Government may have caved in to pressure from the fashionable homosexual lobby. What evidence is there that this important defence, protecting freedom of expression and speech, has done the slightest harm? ... Innocent people should not have to be investigated unnecessarily."

• 
• Share