The Religious Hatred Law and the Arts
On February 7th the House of Commons rushed through a law that will change the right to freedom of speech in Britain – a right that has been with us since the end of the English Civil War.
'The Religious Hatred Law' will make it illegal to encite hatred towards somebody because of their religion. That sounds fine, but as Rowan Atkinson – spokesperson for the Arts – has pointed out, the actual wording of the law makes it difficult to see where hatred starts and legitimate criticism of religion ends.
Defenders of the law have insisted that the aim is to curb the rhetoric of hatred towards actual persons because of their religion – not to stop legitimate comment or freedom of speech. But the problem lies with the fact that each case will be assessed by an individual judge and can anyone feel confident that he or she will not have any prejudices one way or another?
In the State of Victoria in Australia a similar law led to the prosecution of Daniel Scott, a lecturer who had resisted pressure to convert to Islam in Pakistan by saying what he really thought about Mohamed. Scott was imprisoned and sentenced to death for his comments in an Islamic state. With pressure from the Australian government he was freed and returned to his homeland to start his life again. When he was asked to speak at a seminar on his experience in prison he was prosecuted by the authorities for criticising Islam. He lost his case and was heavily fined.
I have been deeply disappointed by the artistic community as a whole in Britain for being so ignorant and apathetic about this law. Can no-one see what the implications are for artists, writers and journalists if this law is finally passed in the Lords?
Instead of defending and protecting Salman Rushdie – who has recently had the fatwah reimposed upon him from Tehran – the British government could end up prosecuting him for writing 'The Satanic Verses'.
It has been mostly Christians who have opposed the introduction of the law – one of the groups it claims to be protecting, but they can see that this law is dangerous and could stifle the legitimate criticism and debate within the world's religions represented in this country.
As a Christian artist I am aware that some of my own writing and performance could fall foul of this law, because I express my own frustrations with religion – particularly my own. I did not like 'The Life of Brian' or 'Jerry Springer the Opera', but to consider prosecuting the creators of these works takes the whole issue into an unacceptable area.
If an idea – be it religious or secular – is a strong idea then it should be able to withstand criticism and not be protected by law. To quote the Deist Voltaire "I disaprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."