Update
On Monday 26 January 2009, the Second reading of the Coroners and Justice Bill took place in the House of Commons. MPs debated an amendment for the removal of the free speech clause. (See the background of the free speech amendment here: http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=675). There were no votes on the clauses in the Bill. The debate showed that the views of the MPs were divided.
Jack Straw, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, expressed his opposition to the free speech clause, and stated that it was unfinished business and was an amendment put in at the last moment and defeated in the House of Commons by a 200 majority.
John Bercow MP, who opposes the free speech clause, said that the whole business of "creation of the offence of homophobic hate crime" was intended to catch offensive homophobic lyrics in reggae songs and argued that the “so-called free speech amendment was at best superfluous, and at worst deeply objectionable”. He made an outrageous comment that some of those who support the free speech amendment "would not even know how to spell the word equality". He went on saying that the amendment was a "wrecking amendment".
Dominic Grieve, the new Shadow Justice Secretary and shadow Lord Chancellor, responded with disagreement and suggested that if the amendment is removed it will create a law of unintended consequences which will lead to the situation where people who express their legitimate views will feel that they are being persecuted. He sensibly argued that “No case has yet been made — I wait to hear it — to show why the words that were included in the other place do anything to undermine the ability to prosecute the offence that has been created.”
Sir Alan Beith’s view was that legislators should not rush and make hasty conclusions as the offence of incitement of hatred has not been yet brought into force, and therefore, there is “no evidence that what was intended to be a free speech protection will in any way undermine the ability to prosecute the crime and the evil against which that part of the original legislation was directed" but "there were indications of inappropriate actions potentially arising from the original wording and we have no evidence on which I should change my mind in that regard.” He said that before trying to change the existing law, it is important to see what is its effect in practice.
James Gray MP expressed his support for the free speech amendment. He said that it is important to stop homophobic hatred, but the law must not prevent people from doing and saying perfectly legitimate and sensible things that in no sense incite people to murder or commit violence against homosexuals or others. He gave examples of Rowan Atkinson and Christians whose legitimate views could be suppressed if the free speech amendment is not preserved. "I have seen no change since the original Act to suggest that we ought to amend it further now", he concluded.
To remind you, the Freedom of Speech clause (introduced by Lord Waddington) for stirring up sexual orientation hatred says:
“In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”
Please pray that this free speech clause is not removed from the law as the Bill progresses through Parliament and that clause 58 is removed instead. Christians must have the freedom to express their view on sexual ethics for the benefit of the whole of society. We are directed by God to speak Truth in Love and the government should leave the door for the truth open.