New Attack on Free Speech about Homosexual Practice

Christian Concern for our Nation says,

'In May 2008 the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act was passed after a long campaign to secure the right of Christians and others to discuss or criticise homosexual practices without fear of prosecution. The Act created the criminal offence of ‘incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation’ and the Government, at the instigation of ‘gay rights’ lobby groups, initially refused to make exceptions that would allow for free speech by those who wish to express their disagreement with homosexual practice.

However, a group of dedicated Peers led by Lord Waddington finally won in the House of Lords, forcing the Government to accept that people should not be hauled before the Courts for stating that homosexual sex is wrong, or for trying to persuade homosexuals to remain celibate. They tabled an amendment that now forms section 29JA in the Public Order Act 1986. This ‘free speech clause’ reads as follows:

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.

Neither the section creating the offence, nor the free speech clause has yet been brought into force.

CCFON was part of a key driving force behind the campaign that succeeded in securing this free speech clause. To read more about that victory, please click on the following link: http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=278.

Unfortunately, the homosexual rights lobby will not let the matter rest. They have persuaded the Government to include a clause in the Coroners and Justice Bill 2009—clause 58—that will remove the free speech clause and thus negate the freedom of Christians or others who wish to communicate in any form their belief that homosexual sex is sinful. Clause 58 was inserted only in the final version of the Bill, without notice to anyone who might not support its inclusion. The Clause will be debated during the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons on Monday, 26th January 2009.

Should clause 58 be passed, it will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech for religious beliefs on sexual ethics. In order to see the text of the Bill, please click on this link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmbills/009/2009009.pdf.
Whilst Christians do not believe that hatred should be stirred up against people on the grounds of sexual orientation, it is reasonable to allow debate on the subject of Biblical texts and sexual morality without those who oppose homosexual practice being made to feel that they cannot criticise it without infringing the criminal law. This is the ‘chilling’ effect on free speech that is likely to result from the removal of the free speech clause.

The free speech clause was voted in only recently in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act in May 2008. It is a travesty of democracy to repeal so soon what has only just been decided by our Parliament and Government and without warning to the public.

The free speech clause is needed to protect orthodox, traditional Christian beliefs on sexual morality not to mention the freedom of speech of other traditionalists.

Removing the clause would have serious implications for our dearly-held belief in freedom of speech, because it could criminalise the mere criticism of homosexual practice, which is precisely what the free speech exemption that the Government wishes to repeal, seeks to avoid.

In balancing rights and freedoms against each other, the rights of freedom of religion and of conscience, together with freedom of speech in a democratic society should allow for criticisms of different types of sexual conduct or practices. It is important to have this free speech provision to show where the borderline lies so that criticism is not caught by over-zealous or confused police investigation. Guidance will not suffice as it is important that it is within the wording of the Act, as this is the first place the police, courts and judicial system will look.There is judicial authority from Northern Ireland recognising that these traditional Christian beliefs are long-established and worthy of recognition. (See Christian Institute & Ors, Re Judicial Review [2007] NIQB 66 (11 September 2007) at paragraph 50. This is available at: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/QB/2007/66.html).

Existing public order offences already outlaw threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. These laws cover every member of the population, regardless of the particular motives for the words used. Already there are laws that prohibit discrimination in the fields of employment and the provisions of goods and services. The ‘incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation’ offence is therefore unnecessary. (For the relevant provisions, please see: Public Order Act 1986, Section 5, Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 and Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, all of which are available at: http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/Home.aspx).

The ‘incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation’ offence created by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is so widely drafted that it does not make a distinction between sexual orientation (which is a characteristic that can be attributed to a person) and sexual practice, which is a matter of lifestyle choice.


Christians believe that we should love everyone, whether neigbour or enemy, but that we should state clearly when a particular practice is contrary to God’s commandments. Christians should be able to state their beliefs or discuss them amongst themselves or with non-Christians without fearing intervention by the state.



The offence does not distinguish between inciting the commission of a criminal offence and expressing a view that opposes homosexual practice. Those who oppose the practice of homosexual sex and who wish to criticise it or to discuss the matter should not fear sanctions for exercising their freedom of speech. The expression of an opinion on the subject is not the same thing as inciting hatred and it is self evident that this distinction should be recognised.

The removal of the free speech clause has been justified on the grounds that the threshold for the offence to be made out will not be changed. This is hardly the point: without an assurance on the face of the legislation that the criticism of homosexual behaviour will not be caught, there are likely to be many false allegations and fruitless police investigations.'