Memorandum submitted by Peter Coulson (CJ&I 37)

Dear Members of the Committee,

I am writing to express great concern about the proposed amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, which would make it a criminal offence to incite hatred on the grounds of sexuality. As a committed Christian I firmly believe that we should love and show love to all people, irrespective of their lifestyle, beliefs and sexual practices. However, I also feel that the introduction of this proposed law is ill advised and poses a considerable danger to freedom of speech and freedom of religion in our nation.

The law is unnecessary. All people are protected from assault and threatening words or behaviour under the current criminal law. In addition, the law concerning incitement to commit a criminal offence would make it an offence for any person to incite an act of violence against another person, for whatever reason.

The law is unreasonable. Christians do not hate anybody. However Christians have a right to express what the Bible teaches even though others may disagree or not believe or accept it.

The law is provocative and will allow mischief makers to create problems for churches and religion in general, if they so wish.

The law is unfair. Although Christians do not hate homosexuals but are commanded to love them, they are instructed in the bible to hate sin. The bible is also clear that God intended sex to be kept in a marriage relationship between one man and one woman. Many people may find such teaching offensive. They may even find it threatening. But it is an orthodox belief of the Christian Church, and the propagation of such teaching should not be a criminal offence. Many advocates of free speech would ascribe to the motto I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. This law is attacking a Christian's right to freedom of speech.

The law is biased. Christians and others are already living in an atmosphere of fear when it comes to being allowed to speak openly about their beliefs regarding sexuality. There have been a number of examples in the media where people have been reported to the police, interviewed by police, taken to court and even prosecuted for speaking openly about sexuality, lost their positions at work. Bringing in such a law favours the homosexual and is anti-Christian in its expression. I have a friend who lost his job as a registrar because he would not accept civil partnerships between homosexuals on the grounds of his Christian beliefs.

The law is not being debated fairly. There is no representation of Christian or religious thinking in the debate, so it become Stonewall and the law rather than Stonewall and Christianity and the law. There will therefore be an imbalance of reason in any debate.

Once again, it is a law that appears well meaning superficially but can cause serious repercussions in society if not well debated and thought through as to its practical implications.

In light of these above concerns I would urge the Committee to uphold freedom of speech and to recognise that the proposed amendment is not only an unnecessary measure, but that it would endanger the freedoms that we now enjoy.

Thank you for taking the time to read my submission.

October 2007