Blasphemy law 'may be abolished'

[Dartzap]

BBC

Blasphemy law 'may be abolished'
The government has signalled that it will bring forward plans to repeal the law of blasphemy, in an effort to head off a rebellion by Labour MPs.

Ministers are hoping to persuade backbenchers against backing a motion calling for the immediate abolition of the ancient legislation.

They say they want to talk to the Church of England before scrapping the offence of blasphemous libel.

But Labour MPs have been told the government is sympathetic in principle.

'Bouncing'

It is thought there will be an announcement to this effect in the Commons when the issue is debated as part of the Criminal Justice Bill.

Lib Dem MP Evan Harris wants an amendment to be added which would repeal the blasphemy laws.

Labour MPs will be whipped to oppose the amendment - but there had been concerns that there would be a significant backbench revolt.

Labour MP Keith Vaz told BBC Radio 4's World at One: "A lot of MPs, including myself, would have voted for it - because this is a pretty archaic law."

He said he welcomed the government's moves to bring forward its own plans, adding: "There would have been a rebellion and I think the government would have faced a defeat."

'Free expression'

Backbenchers involved in talks with ministers say the government is anxious not to be accused of "bouncing" the Church of England into accepting abolition.

But Mr Harris said: "There is cross-party, secular and religious support for confining this unnecessary, discriminatory and censorious law to the history books where it belongs.

"Neither the Church of England nor the government has given a good reason for the blasphemy law to be retained, so it is time Parliament stood up for free expression and against a religious privilege which protects beliefs instead of people."

His amendment to the bill comes after leading figures, including former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, wrote to the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday, arguing the legislation was discriminatory as it only covers attacks on Christianity and Church of England beliefs.

The letter said it served "no useful purpose" and offered Christian activists a means to intimidate broadcasters, publishers and performers.

The High Court last month rejected an attempt by a Christian evangelical group to prosecute the director general of the BBC for blasphemy over the screening of the musical Jerry Springer - The Opera.

'Respect'

Its director, Nicholas Hytner, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "What we have now is essentially a secular country based on a common bond of decency which includes free speech.

"And free speech includes the expectation that there should be mutual respect between those with different beliefs.

"And I don't believe that the law should address what people believe. The blasphemy laws protect belief; they don't protect people."

Don Horrocks, of the Evangelical Alliance, agreed that there was "no real argument" for retaining the law, saying: "Everybody knows it's not really going to be used again."

But he warned that changing the legislation could "send out a signal" that "gratuitous abuse and offence" is acceptable.

It'll interesting to see if that amendment makes it onto the CJB.

[Sidewinder]

Good for you Brits. Now if only we can get the US government to recognize that legislation against blasphemy is more trouble than it's worth. (Some people forget that the fucking Constitution fucking states that the fucking government is NOT there to fucking make every American citizen accept Jesus Christ as his/her savior.)

[SirNitram]

The only appropriate comment is thus:

Goddamn time.

[Lost Soal]

Mary Whitehouse must be spinning in her grave.
(Cue Patented Evil Laugh)

[Ryan Thunder]

There's a law against it?

I mean, granted, it is England, but they've only had what, a hundred fifty years or so to get rid of it...

[Dartzap]

There's a law against it?

I mean, granted, it is England, but they've only had what, a hundred fifty years or so to get rid of it...

There is a Commission whose sole mission is to looks a laws that need repealing from 400 years ago. Something as recent as this wouldn't get looked at for anouther twenty years otherwise!

Its very, very rarely used, and its only people who are really desperate to make a point who ever used it. And then have it rubbed in their faces when the judges refuse to use it.