Parliament has abolished our laws against blasphemy, laws which prevented people insulting God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

It now needs urgently to put something in their place.

What's this all about?
Which are the most recent cases?
Why do we need blasphemy laws?
God is still Almighty
Atheist arguments examined
After abolition, what next?
What to do about the Zabludowicz Statue

What's this all about?

The Common Law offences of Blasphemy and Blasphemous Libel were there to prevent insults to God, Jesus Christ and the Bible
The blasphemy laws prevented "contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ, the Bible or the formularies of the Church of England." Their abolition means a vital part of our Christian Constitution has been legislated away. Despite the reference to the Church of England, blasphemers never attack the established church's evensong service, its rites of ordination or its doctrine of baptism. The target of the Arts is always God, Jesus Christ or the Bible. Nor was freedom of speech ever an issue. Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' was freely published. In practice, blasphemy is all about insulting the Lord Jesus Christ.

The High Court ripped the blasphemy laws to shreds
In December 2007, in the Jerry Springer the Opera case, the High Court ruled that theatres and broadcasters were exempt from the blasphemy laws and could not be prosecuted. They also said public disorder had to be caused for a blasphemy to have occurred. This political decision, supported by the House of Lords Judicial Committee, made the blasphemy laws unworkable.

What did the Government do?
Rather than close this loophole, the Government forced a clause into their Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill in the House of Lords on 5th March 2008 to abolish the blasphemy laws. Significantly, despite a last-ditch plea from the Archbishops of Canterbury of York, the Government put nothing in place of the blasphemy laws to offer the protection they, let alone the rest of the Christian community, were looking for. The Government 'whipped' the Labour peers and won the vote.

But it is not over yet - the Bill has not yet finished in the House of Lords. A new law to replace the old unworkable common law offence of blasphemy could possibly be tabled. Whether or not that happens, the Bill then has to go back to the House of Commons where there will be another debate.

Bill Shankly, the famous football manager, once said: 'It's not over till it's over. It's not even over when it's over.' If the Bill stays as it is, we must continue to campaign for a new offence of blasphemy, and Christians will have to find new ways to defend the precious name of Jesus until such a law is passed.

What did the Church of England's Archbishops say?
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York recognised the significance of the blasphemy laws to our Christian constitution. Surprisingly then, they agreed to their abolition, provided ('a big proviso', they said) 'that provisions are in place to afford the necessary protection to individuals and to society'.

In the Lords' debate, the Government minister Baroness Andrews claimed the Racial and Religious Hatred Act was such a provision. The Government are even sending out a letter claiming the Archbishops actually specified that the Act was the provision they wanted to see, which is not true. The Archbishops said specifically it was too early to see how that Act was working. In fact, the Act only outlaws 'threatening behaviour' which is a very high threshold to reach, and the Attorney General has to give permission for each prosecution. Unsurprisingly, there have been no prosecutions since the Act was passed in 2006 and it is hard to see how a prosecution could ever be brought.

In truth, the protection which the Archbishops' said had to be in place before the blasphemy laws could be abolished is nowhere to be seen.

What can be done now to stop insults to Jesus Christ?
Nobody knows. We need to ask the Government what law will now prevent insults to Jesus Christ or is Labour Party policy that He may now be insulted? Under which provisions can those responsible for something like Jerry Springer the Opera, in which Jesus was portrayed as an infantile coprophiliac, be prosecuted? How can Anita Zabludowicz, who put on public display her blasphemous statue of Jesus Christ with a pornographic phallus stuck on the front, be brought to book? What are Christians supposed to do to defend the holy name of Jesus in the absence of a law?

We need a new law to protect the holy name of Jesus
The judges of the High Court made the blasphemy laws unworkable, and some action in Parliament was inevitable. Following the vote for abolition, we must press members of the House of Lords to frame a new law which will maintain respect for the sacred, that is, for God, Jesus Christ and the Bible and uphold the Third Commandment in our land.

An opportunity for the Church to uphold His name
Almighty God has given us a brief and precious opportunity to pray and act to safeguard the holy name of Jesus Christ. In this booklet we show you how to put across your views, and those of your church. But we must act now!

Which were the most recent cases?

The blasphemy laws were only ever invoked in modern times in prosecutions for the most extreme and gratuitous insults against the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is always the blasphemers' target.

The Gay News poem, 1976 - 1982
This was a homosexual fantasy of what a Roman soldier wanted to do with the crucified body of Christ. It was published in Gay News in 1976. The late Mary Whitehouse brought a private prosecution in 1977. The publishers were convicted and fined. The outcome was upheld in the European Court of Human Rights in 1982.

'Visions of Ecstasy' 1989 - 1996
Wingrove's 'Visions of Ecstasy' contained a sequence of a nun having sexual relations with the body of Jesus Christ. The British Board of Film Censors banned the film for its blasphemous content in 1989, citing the blasphemy laws as justification. The ban was upheld in the European Court of Human Rights as recently as 1996.

'Jerry Springer the Opera' 2005 - 2008
'Jerry Springer the Opera' centred on humiliating Jesus Christ by casting His character as a sexual deviant, an infantile coprophiliac, to be precise. There was much more that was blasphemous in it, but that was the centre-piece. It was broadcast on BBC2 in January 2005 and went on a tour of regional theatres in 2006. Christians gathered outside theatres to pray, witness and evangelise during the tour, which turned into a financial disaster. Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, attempted a private prosecution, which the High Court prevented from going ahead.

The Zabludowicz Statue 2007 - present
This is a pornographic statue of Jesus Christ robed but with a phallus attached belonging to art collector Anita Zabludowicz. It was briefly exhibited in the Baltic Centre in Gateshead from September 2007 to January 2008. Lawyers for Christian Voice are currently looking to see under what law Anita Zabludowicz can be prosecuted. In the meantime, the statue has generated a storm of protest (see page 16 for what you can do about it).'there was a judge which feared not God neither regarded man' (Luke 18:2)Why do we need blasphemy laws?

We need blasphemy laws - or their equivalent:

(1) To protect the holy name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Anyone who loves the Lord Jesus will want to prevent attacks upon His person, just as they would defend a member of their own family, or their own reputation. Remember, blasphemy is not about the freedom to criticise the Christian faith. It's all about insulting Jesus.

(2) As an expression of the centrality of the Christian Faith in this United Kingdom . We are a Christian country, where 72% of the population describe themselves as Christian, with laws which were historically based on the laws of God, with a Christian heritage, a Christian constitution and a Sovereign who was - and is - anointed in a Christian service after promising to 'maintain the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel.'

(3) To keep what remains of the blessing of God. That being said, there is no doubt that we are a nation in rebellion from God. Man has become a law unto himself and we have enacted evil and injustice. The Third Commandment was the only one we as a nation had not broken. Christians love God, we pray for those in authority and we love our neighbour as ourself. So we must pray and do what we can to keep more of His judgment from falling on our nation.

(4) To help build a culture of respect. The Lord Jesus, in His parable of the unjust judge (Luke 18:2), shows that respect for our fellow man begins with fear of God. In a culture of gathering disrespect, laws to prevent blasphemy and foster respect for the sacred are needed more than ever.

(5) To maintain the Queen's peace. Christians are rarely provoked into violent conduct, but in the absence of blasphemy laws, there will be many more street protests, which do have public order implications. Thousands turned out over Jerry Springer the Opera, and the police were obliged to maintain a presence. However, at a protest in January 2008 outside the Baltic Centre in Gateshead over the Zabludowicz Statue, there was much anger amongst those present. It could fairly be said that only the laws against blasphemy, and the belief at that time that someone could be prosecuted under them, prevented a serious breach of the peace inside the Baltic Centre itself.

'governors ... are sent by Him for the punishment of evildoers' (1Pet 2:14)

God is still Almighty

In today's humanistic climate, an offence in law in which God is the 'victim' is a difficult concept to grasp. Everything is written in terms of human rights, of which God has none. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York phrased their 'big proviso' with which the blasphemy laws could be abolished in such a way, demanding the protection of 'individuals' and 'society'.

However, a blasphemy law is not there to 'protect' individual Christians but the honour of God. It stems from the understanding that God is the Almighty lawgiver and ruler of the nations and that Jesus Christ is King of kings.

The Third Commandment is then as valid as all the others and is just as important to society. The same chapter of Exodus which forbids adultery, theft and murder forbids blaspheming the name of God ('thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain' [Exod 20:7]).

The Bible also speaks of corporate responsibility. Criminals are brought to justice to remove judgment from the whole community. The sacrifice of a heifer for an unsolved murder (Deut 21:1-8) and Christ's condemnation of certain cities show that God deals with us corporately as well as individually.

It needs to be said that the Ten Commandments are not abolished just because Parliament votes against them. Legislating against them can only bring judgment. God revealed his righteous laws out of love for us, to stop human society from disintegrating. And as we sow, so shall we reap.

Allowing blasphemy is likely to bring the judgment of a dramatic breakdown in the code of mutual respect which binds us all together. In addition, a nation which so blatantly tells God He is not needed and that the Redeemer may be freely insulted will not enjoy His blessing when trouble comes.

Bishop of Manchester wanted a greater consultation
There is little sign that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York understood any of this, nor the leaders of the old-established denominations such as the URC, Methodists and Baptists to whom they spoke. No members of any of those churches were consulted at all, by the way.

However, during the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill in the House of Lords in January (Lords Hansard Col 143), The Bishop of Manchester called for a wide consultation over the abolition of blasphemy:

'Abolition,' he said, 'is not a matter for the Church of England alone but for Christian denominations and groups more generally, although ... we are playing a central part in all those discussions at the moment.'

'Incidentally,' said the Bishop, 'I assure the Cross-Benchers in particular, in this centenary Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, that the Christian churches together hope to speak on this matter with one voice.'

It is a great pity that a consultation to achieve that laudable aim was never even attempted. The Pentecostal churches were not consulted, despite being the fastest-growing Christian movement in Britain, and nor were Evangelicals. Some church leaders tried to make representations anyway, but there was no official way to do so in the mad rush to abolish the blasphemy laws.It is hard to resist the conclusion that the only church leaders consulted were those of a more 'liberal' disposition. It seems that neither the Government nor the Archbishops really wanted to hear any dissenting voices. As to 'one voice', not even the bishops managed it. In the vote on 5th March, two voted for abolition, three against, one (York) abstained, and the others were absent.

The clause to abolish the blasphemy laws is now part of the Government's Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, which has been through all its stages in both Houses.  The Bill will return to the House of Commons for 'Consideration of Lords Amendments' on 6th May. In theory, MPs could throw out the Clause abolishing the blasphemy laws. In practice that is very unlikely to happen, but there needs to be a debate at least.

Atheist arguments examined

The blasphemy laws weren't working
No they weren't, following the shameless way the High Court redefined them in the Jerry Springer the Opera case. So now we need a new law to protect the honour of God, Jesus Christ and the Bible.

Blasphemy laws are archaic
The law against murder is 'archaic', as is the law against theft. Just because something is old doesn't make it bad. The Ten Commandments are one of the oldest law codes in the world, written with the finger of God Himself. They were given to Israel as an example to be followed by all (Deut 4:5-8).

It was a bad law as it was rarely invoked
It might be that a law which is rarely used is doing a good job of keeping the peace. The blasphemy laws were last used to convict in 1977, and were used as justification by the BBFC when refusing a certificate to Visions of Ecstacy in 1989. But now we plainly need a new law which can perhaps be used more often, to bring to book those responsible for outrages like Jerry Springer the Opera and the Zabludowicz Statue.

The Law Commission recommended abolition in 1985
Many Law Commission reports and individual recommendations have been rejected by the Government, so the Law Commission is not the fount of all wisdom, nor are its pronouncements as the Oracles of God.

'God can look after Himself'
When we use that expression about a mortal man, we mean he has the ability to knock us down. So by saying 'God can look after Himself' one can only mean He can bring judgment against individuals and nations, knowing that 'As a man sows, so shall he reap'. By the principle of corporate responsibility, that applies to a nation as well. A nation which permits blasphemy is bringing on itself the judgment of God, who, as we know, 'can look after Himself'. That should fill us with holy fear, not the desire to humiliate His name.

The offence is discriminatory
And so should a new one be. It should protect Almighty God, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Bible from contemptuous, scurrilous, reviling and insulting attacks. That is because Britain is a Christian nation with a Christian heritage, culture and constitution, an established church and a 72% Christian population. Christianity is the faith of the United Kingdom and it is right for it to be given special recognition in our laws.

The law encouraged the idea that other religions are protected.
Not true. The Salman Rushdie case established that our blasphemy laws did not protect Islam. A new offence should not protect Islam either. Any law against blasphemy is not there to prevent believers of religions from being offended, but to prevent God from being offended. It would be impossible to protect both Christianity and Islam as they say too many contradictory things. Islam, for example, denies the divinity and crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

Blasphemy laws are against Human Rights Article 10
Not true. In every case (Lemon, Wingrove and Preminger) brought before the European Court of Human Rights, state blasphemy laws including our own have been upheld. The Court has always held that states have the right to frame blasphemy laws.

Such an offence is divisive and against social cohesion
It is not a law against blasphemy which divides and damages social cohesion, it is the lack of any civilised standards of decency, restraint, respect and consideration in the world of the arts. What the arts call 'freedom of expression' the rest of us too often have to describe as obscene, blasphemous, offensive, inhuman, pornographic, degrading or just plain crass.

The offence limits our ability to criticise Muslim countries
If we have a blasphemy law, can we not criticise Sudan's blasphemy law under which a teacher was sentenced to fourteen days for allowing a teddy bear to be called Mohammed? Sudan also has a law against theft, under which a thief may have his hand cut off. We also have a law against theft. The fact that we have a law by the same name as theirs does not mean we cannot criticise their threshold of tolerance or penalties.

A Christian's faith shouldn't need protection from secular courts
Our courts are not secular, because Her Majesty the Queen is a Christian monarch and they sit in her name. The blasphemy law or any replacement is not 'about faith' it is about respect for the sacred, in particular, for the person of Jesus Christ, who is always the blasphemers' target.

After Abolition - What Next?

A second precondition of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York for the laws against blasphemy to be abolished was that the place of Christianity in the constitutional framework of the nation would not be put in question. Their very mention of the subject shows that there is a great risk that abolition of the blasphemy laws, with nothing put in their place, will indeed lead to the elimination of Christianity in our Constitution and to a secular state.

The secularist agenda is clear as daylight. Despite Dr Evan Harris's specific denial in the House of Commons of a 'slippery slope', the abolition of the laws against blasphemy and blasphemous libel was never a stand-alone campaign by the extremist anti-God National Secular Society. It is merely today's first item on the secularist agenda for the de-Christianisation of Britain.

Once the blasphemy law is safely abolished, secularists will justifiably say: 'There, the criminal law doesn't protect the name of Jesus Christ or privilege the Christian faith any more.'

From that bridgehead, they will move on to their next target, which is the disestablishment of the Church of England. Many Christians object to the established, privileged position of the Church of England and say that the Christian faith should be established, not a specific church. Still others bemoan the weakness of the CofE bishops in general on the issues of our time. All that may be true, and yet in the present climate, disestablishment would send the baby of our Christian Constitution out with the bathwater of a troubled national church.

The children of this world are wiser than the children of light. The secularists know exactly what an impediment the establishment of a national church is to their dream of an atheist state. And such is their confidence that Bob Russell MP and two others slipped away to put down an Early Day Motion to disestablish the Church of England while Dr Harris's amendment was actually being debated in the House of Commons on Thursday 10th January 2008.

In a curious spiritual twist, the next number which fell to the clerks to allocate to that motion was 666, the Biblical Mark of the Beast. "It looks as though God or the Devil have been moving in mysterious ways," said Bob Russell. "What is even stranger is that this motion was tabled last night when MPs were debating blasphemy." That should make Christians sit up and take notice, not just secularists.

After disestablishment, or as part of it, the Bishops will lose their seats in the House of Lords and much Christian influence in the land will go with them.

The pressure for Church schools to turn fully secular will intensify, as it will be argued that Christianity has voluntarily given up its privileged position as the faith of the United Kingdom.

Ofcom will remove the requirements for regular religious programming.

Prayers in Parliament will be sidelined, made multifaith or abolished.

Christians will find themselves increasingly purged from public service jobs for their beliefs. Christians in the fields of adoption and fostering are already under attack because their views clash with diversity policies.

The Church will lose its charitable status (the assumption that a religious purpose is charitable has already gone). Faith-based social initiatives will have to give up their Christian ethos to gain Government approval.

The default position that witnesses swear on the Holy Bible in court will be replaced by an assumption that an affirmation is all that is necessary. The Bible will be available for a while for those who insist upon it, then it will go, or be just one of a number of available sacred texts. Swearing as such is an issue for some of us, but again, it is the symbolism of abolition that matters.

Public manifestations of the Christian Faith will be attacked one by one. Hospitals and the armed forces will no longer have paid chaplains. Mayors' chaplains will abolished.

Christianity will be relegated to a private matter with no relevance to the public sphere. Atheists are always saying that they don't mind people doing religion in private, but that God should keep out of politics. Thus the arena of public policy will be left clear for atheist agenda-setters - and Islamists.

Laws based on Christian principles will be systematically changed to be in line with atheist beliefs. This is happening right now, of course, but the process will accelerate.

Finally, there will be a radical de-Christianising of the Coronation Service. With no Christianity to speak of in public life, the idea of God anointing the monarch through the Archbishop of Canterbury to reign as a Christian prince will be unsustainable.

The divorce of the Christian Faith from the United Kingdom will have been accomplished. And it all started with abolition of the blasphemy laws.

 

What to do about the Zabludowicz Statue

The statue is a plaster cast of Jesus Christ robed, in a traditional pose, but with a grotesque phallus stuck on the front. It belongs to Anita Zabludowicz and was briefly on display at the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art in Gateshead. The exhibition closed on Sunday 20th January 2008.

Anita's husband, the Finnish billionaire Poju Zabludowicz, sits on the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC), with the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Mr Henry Grunwald, QC, and a host of the Jewish great and good. Poju and Anita are close friends of the Chief Rabbi, Sir Jonathan Sacks.

Strangely enough, the Chief Rabbi and Mr Grunwald have refused to condemn the statue in the face of calls from Christians and Jews for it to be destroyed.

The knowledge that a leading Jewish couple own such a disgraceful piece of work has soured relations between Jews and Christians who pray for Israel .

'It is unpardonable to show such disrespect and cause such gratuitous offence to our Christian friends and supporters of Israel , above all in these troubled times,' said leading Jewish criminal law barrister Jonathan Goldberg QC . 'Mr and Mrs Poju Zabludowicz should now demonstrate the qualities of Jewish communal leadership to which they aspire, no doubt worthily, by consigning this artefact to the depths.'

Back in 2005, the Chief Rabbi lectured on "How to build a culture of respect". He spoke of both the Christian and Jewish communities feeling "on the defensive" and "bruised". In February 2006, he asked on the BBC: "Can we learn to respect what others hold holy?" Well, can he - and can his friends?

PRAY: That Poju and Anita Zabludowicz destroy their statue. Whatever it is worth, good relations between Christians and Jews are worth far more. Pray the Chief Rabbi will show the Christian faith the 'respect' he preached about.

WRITE: Email Anita Zabludowicz at info@zabludowiczcollection.com  and Poju at poju@tamares.com  or write to them at 43 The Bishops Avenue, London N2 0BN. Also write to the Chief Rabbi, Sir Jonathan Sacks, at Adler House, 735 High Road, London, N12 0US. His email is info@chiefrabbi.org  Write to Mr Henry Grunwald, QC at 6 Bloomsbury Square, London, WC1A 2LP, or email him on info@bod.org.uk  Also write to Lord Levy and Lord Janner of Braunstone of the JLC at the House of Lords, London, SW1A 0PW. Ask them to condemn the statue.

'For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy' (2Tim 3:2)

'The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ; and He shall reign forever and ever' (Rev 11:15)