Tweet
The House of Lords strikes a blow for common sense.
Bravo Lords! 
House of Lords casts off Britain's blasphemy laws
Sudan teddy bear flap spurs agonizing reappraisal of centuries-old attempt to protect Anglican beliefs
March 09, 2008
KIM MURPHY
LOS ANGELES TIMES
LONDON–A funny thing happened last November when Britain launched a righteous protest over the arrest in Sudan of a British school teacher who was accused of insulting religion by naming a class teddy bear Muhammad.
The Sudanese ambassador was summoned; Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued a protest; Muslim MPs were dispatched to Khartoum as negotiatiors.
It didn't take long, though, for someone to point out that Downing Street was standing on diplomatic quicksand, since Britain itself outlaws blasphemy.
Thus began a period of collective soul-searching on free speech and secularism, traditional values and the church that anoints Britain's queen. It culminated last week in a 148-87 vote in the House of Lords to abolish the laws on blasphemy after a wrenching, two-hour debate.
"It is crystal clear that the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel are unworkable in today's society," Baroness Kay Andrews said in introducing the amendment, adding that "as long as this law remains on the statute books, it hinders the U.K.'s ability to challenge oppressive blasphemy laws in other jurisdictions."
But in a debate that underscored Britain's continuing strong roots in the Church of England, there was substantial doubt about the wisdom of abandoning what for many is a symbol of the increasingly multicultural nation's reliance on Christian values as a foundation for law and society.
"The essential question is: should we abolish Christian beliefs and replace them with secular beliefs? As long as there has been a country called England, it has been a Christian country, publicly acknowledging the one true God," said Baroness Detta O'Cathain, a Conservative member of the upper house.
"Noble lords may cry freedom, but I urge them to pause and consider that the freedom we have today was nurtured by Christian principles and continues to be guided by them."
Most remaining blasphemy laws in Western democracies are either little used or, like Britain's, on their way out. Last week, the Massachusetts legislature began consideration of a bill to phase out the state's blasphemy proscription, along with other outdated "blue laws."
Wednesday's vote in the House of Lords was an amendment to a broad proposed law on criminal justice that must go back to the House of Commons for approval before taking effect.
Still, the vote was seen as a crucial hurdle in a process that is now all but assured.
"The law on blasphemy will be abolished. And good riddance, is what we say," commented Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society.
"It's an unusable law, as it stands at the moment, and in the past it's been a very cruel law."
In fact, parliament has never actually passed a blasphemy law. Blasphemy is covered in common-law measures established centuries ago and clarified by judges in the 1800s to protect Anglican beliefs.
Outlawed are references to Christ, the Christian religion or the Bible in ways that are scurrilous, abusive or offensive, or that are uttered in a way that could breach the peace.
Attacks on other religions are not covered, a shortcoming that has prompted many critics to brand the laws as discriminatory.
In practice, few blashepmy charges have been laid. In 2006, parliament passed a law making it a crime to incite religious hatred as a more equitable alternative.
The last successful blasphemy prosecution came as a result of a private complaint in 1977 against a gay newspaper for publishing a poem that described a Roman centurion's homosexual lovemaking with Christ's dead body
The last time a Briton was imprisoned for blasphemy was in 1922, when a man was convicted for comparing Jesus Christ to a circus clown.
Legal analysts say it is doubtful any new prosecution could survive European human rights laws.
Just last week, a Christian activist organization, Christian Voice, lost its appeal under the blasphemy laws of a challenge to the musical Jerry Springer: The Opera.
"Far from being abolished, the laws against blasphemy should be strengthened to remove the loopholes the courts have created," Christian Voice's national director, Stephen Green, said in an interview. "This is all part of a move by the atheists to turn us into a secular state."
Sudan teddy bear flap spurs agonizing reappraisal of centuries-old attempt to protect Anglican beliefs
March 09, 2008
KIM MURPHY
LOS ANGELES TIMES
LONDON–A funny thing happened last November when Britain launched a righteous protest over the arrest in Sudan of a British school teacher who was accused of insulting religion by naming a class teddy bear Muhammad.
The Sudanese ambassador was summoned; Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued a protest; Muslim MPs were dispatched to Khartoum as negotiatiors.
It didn't take long, though, for someone to point out that Downing Street was standing on diplomatic quicksand, since Britain itself outlaws blasphemy.
Thus began a period of collective soul-searching on free speech and secularism, traditional values and the church that anoints Britain's queen. It culminated last week in a 148-87 vote in the House of Lords to abolish the laws on blasphemy after a wrenching, two-hour debate.
"It is crystal clear that the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel are unworkable in today's society," Baroness Kay Andrews said in introducing the amendment, adding that "as long as this law remains on the statute books, it hinders the U.K.'s ability to challenge oppressive blasphemy laws in other jurisdictions."
But in a debate that underscored Britain's continuing strong roots in the Church of England, there was substantial doubt about the wisdom of abandoning what for many is a symbol of the increasingly multicultural nation's reliance on Christian values as a foundation for law and society.
"The essential question is: should we abolish Christian beliefs and replace them with secular beliefs? As long as there has been a country called England, it has been a Christian country, publicly acknowledging the one true God," said Baroness Detta O'Cathain, a Conservative member of the upper house.
"Noble lords may cry freedom, but I urge them to pause and consider that the freedom we have today was nurtured by Christian principles and continues to be guided by them."
Most remaining blasphemy laws in Western democracies are either little used or, like Britain's, on their way out. Last week, the Massachusetts legislature began consideration of a bill to phase out the state's blasphemy proscription, along with other outdated "blue laws."
Wednesday's vote in the House of Lords was an amendment to a broad proposed law on criminal justice that must go back to the House of Commons for approval before taking effect.
Still, the vote was seen as a crucial hurdle in a process that is now all but assured.
"The law on blasphemy will be abolished. And good riddance, is what we say," commented Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society.
"It's an unusable law, as it stands at the moment, and in the past it's been a very cruel law."
In fact, parliament has never actually passed a blasphemy law. Blasphemy is covered in common-law measures established centuries ago and clarified by judges in the 1800s to protect Anglican beliefs.
Outlawed are references to Christ, the Christian religion or the Bible in ways that are scurrilous, abusive or offensive, or that are uttered in a way that could breach the peace.
Attacks on other religions are not covered, a shortcoming that has prompted many critics to brand the laws as discriminatory.
In practice, few blashepmy charges have been laid. In 2006, parliament passed a law making it a crime to incite religious hatred as a more equitable alternative.
The last successful blasphemy prosecution came as a result of a private complaint in 1977 against a gay newspaper for publishing a poem that described a Roman centurion's homosexual lovemaking with Christ's dead body
The last time a Briton was imprisoned for blasphemy was in 1922, when a man was convicted for comparing Jesus Christ to a circus clown.
Legal analysts say it is doubtful any new prosecution could survive European human rights laws.
Just last week, a Christian activist organization, Christian Voice, lost its appeal under the blasphemy laws of a challenge to the musical Jerry Springer: The Opera.
"Far from being abolished, the laws against blasphemy should be strengthened to remove the loopholes the courts have created," Christian Voice's national director, Stephen Green, said in an interview. "This is all part of a move by the atheists to turn us into a secular state."
Comment