In the United Kingdom Blasphemy is an indictable offence at common law consisting
in a publication of contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous, or ludicrous
matter relating to God, Jesus Christ, the Bible, or the formularies of
the Church of England.
1 It does not matter if the blasphemy is spoken,
written, or placed on the World Wide Web, however in the latter two
cases a Blasphemous Libel will occur. It is irrelevant whether an
accused person intended to commit blasphemy; a jury cannot
hear evidence of a person's good intent when considering their
verdict.
The law of blasphemy dates to the middle ages, however the criminal
law of Blasphemous Libel was enacted in 1819. The intention of law is
`To preserve the internal tranquility of the the Kingdom'
2 There is no protection for other
faiths, and case law from the reformation onwards suggests that
Catholics are also not protected by this law.
From 1890 the law has been rarely used, and never from 1922--1976, however in that year Professor James Kirkup -- a respected author, translator, and poet -- published in Gay times a poem entitled `The love that dares to speak its name'. Its subject was the home-erotic fantasy of a Roman centurion who is present at the execution of Christ. It suggests that Jesus engaged in gay sex with his disciples. Professor Kirkup, and the editor of Gay times were prosecuted for Blasphemous Libel, an on appeal they were convicted. This poem cannot be published in England. However it is widely available on the web, and I suggest you find a copy. Do a search on Alta vista for "the love that dares to speak its name".3
In 1997 the law was upheld by in Europe, when the Court of Human Rights ruled (by seven votes to two) that the BBFC was within it's rights to ban a film Visions of Ecstacy on the basis that it may be blasphemous.4
This law is inappropriate to modern Britain. It provides for the Church of England special protection that no other institution has. If the law were interpreted narrowly it would make almost any criticism of Christianity illegal. It has not been interpreted in this way, but it has been used in homophobic attacks on gay newspapers. A tolerant Britain should not have such a law.
There is a general principal that a government may make something illegal only when it is necessary to do so, to protect democratic society. Is this law necessary? Other religions seem to prosper without the protection of blasphemy laws. Would society be threatened by the repeal of this law.
It has been suggested (by Lord Scarman amongst others) that the law of blasphemy should be made to protect other religions. I believe this law should be repealed, extending it to other religions would be a regressive step. I don't believe that religious organisations require special protection in law. How would one define a `religion'? I, and I think many others, would feel very uncomfortable if death-cults, satanists and any number of small groups of people with strange beliefs were given special protection from blasphemy. It would also lead to contradictions in law. To deny the reality of the revelations to Mohammed is a clear blasphemy against Islam, yet not to could be to blaspheme against Christianity.
1Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edition, Vol. 11(1), para. 348
2Lord Scarman, Criminal Appeals Reports 1979. Whitehouse vs. Gay News Ltd.
3This is not a link to the poem, rather a link to an internet search engine, which may then link the poem, however I have no control over what links the search engine provides.
4Wingrove v. United Kingdom, Reports of the European Court of Human rights. 1997.