In one of the most worrying developments of recent times the new Coalition Government, of Conservatives and so-called Liberal Democrats, has blocked a House of Commons debate on reforming the divisive section 5 of the Public Order Act (1986) which has been used, in several recent high profile public cases, to suppress freedom of speech and expression, especially for Christians who criticise Islam, or who regard homo-sodomy as a sin; and who have said such in a public context, not in their own homes.

Soviet Britain?

Hitherto it has seemingly been a criminal offence - in the eyes of the police and their police guidance rules - under that badly worded enactment, the POA, to: “…use threatening, abusive or insulting words…” likely to “…cause harassment, alarm or distress…”.

There does not seem to be a problem with the word ‘threatening’ or possibly ‘abusive’ because they clearly amount to a breach of the peace through the threat of, or fear of, violence. The problem has been with the word ‘…insulting…’ which can cover the voicing of divergent and contradictory views which are not intimidatory but merely “…offensive…” or simply disagreeable to one side. Here a line has been crossed from stopping intimidation (violence or the threat thereof by the use of words) to free expression (views which one may find merely offending or insulting - views, in other words, which you merely strongly disagree with).

The difference is perhaps best illustrated by an example: Some anti-Christian says to a devout Christian “…I am going to get you: I know where you live….”. That would be an example of ‘threatening’. An example of abusive could be: ‘…Bible basher, God squad….’. An example of ‘…insulting…’ is down to something like: ‘…the Bible is full of myths and legends.’ Should that really be a public order offence and a criminal offence leading to arrest, charge, trial and possible conviction? I am sure that threatening words should be criminal, but they always were under the common law; but I am not sure that abusive words should be criminal unless they threaten, which would depend upon the context, the way they were said and the effect they had upon the abused. Abusive words which amounted to a threat would, in any case, be covered outside the Public Order Act by the common law, which recognised the line between the need to police behaviour and yet not compromise the robust exchange of opposing views; the kind of thing which both myself and evolutionary highwayman Dick Dawkins (the zoology professor) are, at times, good at.

Dick, put away your pistols and pull down your mask: we know who you are.

However, opinion seems to be - from groups like the Christian Institute and other civil liberties groups - that the offence of merely “…insulting words…”, not abusive and threatening words, should be removed from the POA. But even that was too much for free debate in the House of Commons! Worrying times indeed. MPs have noted the irony of their being denied an opportunity to freely debate an amendment in favour of the citizens’ rights of freedom of robust debate.

However, the Coalition Government has committed itself to consult the public on this issue of freedom of speech; and the consultation is to take place over the next few months.

The Christian Institute will doubtless be contacting its supporters.