Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

People will buy tickets if they want to watch the sort of stuff that is put on. That is, I think, called the free market, which is something I know the hon. Gentleman supports. I certainly do not think—and I did not think that he did—that we should start to use the criminal law or criminal offences to describe what art, literature or publishing is acceptable. That might have happened in the 17th century, but I would like to feel that I exist in the 21st century, and I hope that one day the hon. Gentleman will see that that is an inappropriate form of censorship—and has been for at least the past two centuries. The Church of England has made it clear that it does not have any reasons in principle to oppose the abolition of these offences. The then Bishop of Oxford made clear in the debate on the abolition of blasphemy laws in November 2005 that the Church of England did not take that view; indeed, it argued that it was only a question of timing. That point is of some relevance to the history of repeal or abolition of these offences. The Law Commission recommended that in 1985. It was raised first, in recent times, in the House of Lords in 2001, during the passage of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, when there was a proposal for a religious hatred law. As a result of that debate, a Select Committee of the House of Lords on religious offences was set up under the chairmanship of Viscount Colville. It took evidence over a period of a year, including oral evidence on a number of occasions from various faith groups discussing not only religious hatred, but blasphemy and ecclesiastical Acts. There was then a debate in which it was made clear that the Church of England, in its evidence to that Select Committee, had argued not for retention of the blasphemy law but that religious hatred needed to be dealt with first. In February 2005, during the passage of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, I tabled an amendment to abolish blasphemy, and the Minister at the time, the present Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, said that she opposed new clause 4 on the abolition of blasphemy"““because I do not think that this is the right time for us to repeal the blasphemy laws…we will keep the matter under review.””—[Official Report, 7 February 2005; Vol. 430, c. 1224.]" The argument was that we had to deal with religious hatred first. Well, religious hatred was dealt with two years ago. There was a settlement; it is done. People are protected from the incitement of hatred against them on the basis of their beliefs when intentional and threatening language or behaviour is used. Therefore, there is no longer an excuse for prevarication. The same point was made in November 2005 by the Bishop of Oxford—and also by the Bishop of Portsmouth, who both said that once religious hatred was sorted out it would be time to abolish the blasphemy law.