Freedom of Speech under Threat
Police are targeting Sir Iqbal for his religious beliefs
Sir - I wholeheartedly disagree with Sir Iqbal Sacranie’s views on homosexuality (News, January 12), but I wholeheartedly support his right to express these views on Radio 4 - in a manner that was certainly not “threatening, abusing or insulting”.
Surely the police pursuing him under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 are targeting a religious group for their beliefs, which the same Act prohibits.
I can’t help wondering if there isn’t something better the officer concerned could be doing with his time.
Peter Strong, London SW3
Sir - As an atheist I have little sympathy for most things a religious leader has to say, but if Sir Iqbal’s views as reported in your paper cannot be freely expressed, then this is nothing less than censorship. He is entitled to his views and should be all
owed to express them.
Mark Slim, London EC2
Sir - Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 makes it an offence to use “threatening, abusive or insulting words within the hearing of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress” as a result. Sir Iqbal has been investigated under that Act.
Leaving aside the outrageous use of this piece of legislation to curb freedom of speech, it seems that if Sir Iqbal had made his observations in print, rather than on the radio, he would have escaped investigation, as his remarks would not have been “within the hearing” of someone who might be insulted.
It is a crass piece of legislation.
Sandy Pratt, Bromley, Kent
Sir - Police interest in the remarks of Sir Iqbal Sacranie following his comments on the BBC gives us a stark preview of the situation that will pertain if the ill-thought-out “religious hatred” legislation passes into law.
The expression of seriously held religious beliefs will be a criminal offence “if made in the hearing of someone who may be offended”.
If I make the comment that “there is only one God and Jesus Christ is his only son”, am I in future to be investigated by the police for anti-Muslim or anti-Jewish remarks?
Ken Orme, Liverpool
Sir - Sir Iqbal Sacranie deserves the support of all fair-minded persons, not just Muslims, Christians and Jews.
Sir Iqbal, and the Christians you refer to in your article, were not attacking individuals.
It is to be hoped that the Opposition will not only continue to oppose this Government’s proposed new laws on “discrimination” but will, when it gets into office, repeal existing ones that give rise to these unsavoury intrusions into our rights of free speech.
B. W. Cooper, Bradley, Wrexham
Quite right, I agree with all these sentiments, however I did not see an outpouring of concern when this law was passed, neither when it was used by the police to question a Christian lady who made similar comments on the radio, or the Christian couple who were similarly questioned because they wanted to put Christian literature on the same market stand as gay literature.
When will the people of this country wake up to the dreadful incursions this government are making into our basic rights and civil liberties and simply get rid of them and all their appalling faction. If the do not do so very soon, we will have not basic rights left to us.
TBH Ken, I saw (and was) outraged when the I heard about the previous investigation. People can, and must, be aloowed to say stupid things.
The only caveat is incitement; “I don’t think homosexuality is right” is disagreeable but acceptable. “Kill all queers” is incitement and rightly not allowed.
And the provisions were passed back under a Tory govt; while I love railing against NuLab at every opportunity, there’s a reason I grew up anti-Tory. It appears, unfortunately, to be a power thing, Whitehall seeks power
Ah well. Sooner we get them out the better.
Yes, our political situation is becoming worrying right across the spectrum, as both the main parties seem intent on grabbing more power for Whitehall. There was and is a case for the Conservatives to make good headway against this governments incursions into civil liberties and basic rights, the fact that they have not done so, speaks volumes. “Britain’s never never will be slaves†is beginning to sound hollow.