The Government is attacking civil liberty by attempting to remove a free speech protection from a law on ‘inciting homophobic hatred’, says a new report.
The report was produced by University College London (UCL) in collaboration with a new campaign against the erosion of civil freedoms.
The campaign is backed by the Guardian newspaper, and groups such as Amnesty UK and Liberty.
The report refers to wording in the incitement law which makes it clear that criticising homosexual practice or urging people to refrain from such conduct is not, in itself, a crime.
The Government says this protection is “unnecessary” and is using its new Coroners and Justice Bill to try to remove it.
This attempt is listed as an example of the erosion of human rights in Britain in the UCL report, entitled What We’ve Lost.
The report “describes the wholesale removal of rights that were apparently protected by the HRA [Human Rights Act] and set down nearly 800 years ago in Magna Carta” and “shows how the unarticulated liberties that we assumed were somehow guaranteed by British culture have been compromised”.
It shows how 25 Acts of Parliament and over 50 individual measures, past, present and forthcoming, have contributed to the undermining of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The Government’s attempt to remove the free speech protection is listed as an attack on Article 10 of the ECHR, which covers freedom of expression.
Article 10 states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”
Under this heading, the report says: “New laws affecting the freedom of expression will be introduced by Jack Straw’s Coroners’ and Justice Bill: the discussion, criticism or discouragement of sexual conduct or practices will become an offence of stirring up hatred on grounds of sexual orientation.”
The Christian Institute believes the free speech protection is necessary to prevent over-zealous police officers or local authorities from trying to hinder legitimate activity and discussion.
In theory, if the protection was removed Christians would remain free to express their beliefs about homosexual practice.
The law ought only to catch the use of threatening words or behaviour which have the intention of stirring up hatred, and no genuine Christian should find themselves falling foul of that.
But The Christian Institute believes the free speech protection should nevertheless remain attached to the offence to clarify an area of the law which could easily be used as a pretext for silencing Christian views on sexual behaviour.
The case of Joe and Helen Roberts, two pensioners who were interrogated in their own home by police officers after they complained to their local council about the display of homosexual literature, is an example of the kinds of problems Christians face.
During a debate on the issue last month, Conservative justice spokesman Dominic Grieve said the Roberts’ story made him “ashamed of the system that we seem to be creating in this country”.
He argued that without the free speech guard, “the law of unintended consequences will lead to people who express views that are perfectly legitimate – even if they are views with which we disagree – feeling as if they are being persecuted.”
He added: “I want to see a right for people to express their views, including views that other people might not like.
“That is what a free society is about, and the House must ensure that that can still happen, even when we have ensured that expressions of rabid hatred and incitement to hatred can be curbed.”
Justice Secretary Jack Straw writes in the Guardian today that amid concerns about civil liberties the Government will use the Coroners and Justice Bill to revise controversial data sharing plans.
In his article, Mr Straw refutes the suggestion that civil liberties are being eroded, pointing out Labour’s achievements in incorporating the ECHR into British law through the Human Rights Act. However, he makes no reference to the attempt in the Coroners and Justice Bill to remove the free speech protection.