Last month, a man who burned a copy of the Quran was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence. Clearly, his action was in poor taste, but I believe it should not have been a criminal offence, and that Parliament never intended that it would be.
The Government is consulting on a definition of Islamophobia. Quite rightly the preface to the consultation document states that “Any proposed definition must be compatible with the unchanging right of the UK’s people to exercise freedom of speech and expression – which includes the right to criticise, express dislike of, or insult religions and/or the beliefs and practices of adherents.”
I am not reassured. The danger is that blasphemy laws are creeping in by the back door, through public order offences, where the expression and actions of those who criticise the Muslim religion are deemed to cause ‘harassment, alarm and distress’ .
The Public Order Act 1986 is being misused—far beyond the intent of Parliament—to police what we can and cannot say about Islam.
Part 3 of the Act created new offences relating to racial hatred, and this was later amended to include religious hatred. Nevertheless, Part 3 clearly states “Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents”.
So, clearly, the Public Order Act was never intended to become a blasphemy law.
Ever since the violent furore that followed publication of Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, public conversation about Islam has been muted by self-censorship in fear of a violent response by those who are offended. But In a free society nobody should have right not to be offended.
Nevertheless, charges have been brought for causing “distress” to the “religious institution of Islam” and making the author responsible for the violent reaction of those who will not tolerate the opinions of others.
The Public Order Act is being used to prohibit us from saying what we like about religion: A person may be found guilty because of the violent reaction of those offended.
From Sir Salman Rushdie to the Batley teacher still in hiding with his family, the threat of violence is what lies behind these attempts to use the Public order Act as new blasphemy law.
The problem is that the guarantee of freedom to criticise religions, which I quoted from part 3 of the Act, only applies in Part 3 -the part that deals with racial and religious hatred.
Parliament never thought Part 1 of the Act, which makes it an offence to cause “harassment, alarm or distress” by using “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour” would be used to criminalise the expression of opinions about religious belief. But that is exactly what is now happening.
A definition of Islamophobia it will make matters much worse whatever its intent.
To defend our religious liberty and freedom of expression it is vital that we clarify the law to stop the misuse of the Public Order Act by the courts.