Answering Parnel Campbell’s shadows

by Anesia O. Baptiste Tue, May 8. 2012

Parnel Campbell, in his Monday 30th April, 2012 edition of “The Law and You”, gave what I consider to be misleading interpretations of the constitutional provision of protection of freedom of conscience, also known as the religious liberty right. After listening to his words, one is left with the impression that it is unconstitutional and a breach of section 119 of the criminal code to criticize religions. Nothing could be further from the truth.{{more}}

Firstly, section 9, subsection 1 of the constitution plainly guarantees the freedom to hold religious ideas, to change them and to practice and propagate one’s religion privately and publicly. In so doing, freedom of expression of religious ideas which are critical of other religious ideas is guaranteed. For years, many religions have spread their religious teachings via electronic, print and even open-air/meeting type media. These programs have included criticism of religious teachings. The Seventh Day Adventists crusades have heard biblical explanations of the need for Saturday Sabbath keeping, as opposed to Evangelical and others’ Sunday keeping, which they have shown originated with paganism and was adopted into Christianity by the Roman Catholic Papacy. For years, Roman Catholicism has criticized the rest of Christendom for not recognizing the Pope as their head. Rastafarians have criticized the Pope in the RC church as being the antichrist. These are all legitimate expressions of religious practice protected under the constitution.

Therefore when subsection 5(b) speaks of the fact that laws can be made in harmony with subsection 1, which are reasonably required to protect the right of others to observe and practice their religion without the unsolicited intervention of persons of other religions, it is clear that it is not at all outlawing the act of criticizing religious doctrine. If so, every single religion in SVG, which have all in their public church services, books, tracts, writings and other media programs been critical of other religious teachings, would be said to be in breach of the constitution, including Mr Campbell’s criticism of my religion, which teaches that it is okay to criticize religious teachings. You see, simply put, criticism of criticizing is criticizing! Yet Campbell uses words and phrases such as, “So the constitution is saying, look, keep your hands off other people’s religion. Don’t interfere with another person’s form of worship”, “Mind your own religious business and do not interfere with other people’s religious business”, “You are not free at large to castigate or denounce other people’s religious beliefs…”, “So, nobody should feel that the constitution gives a person a blanket right to denounce other people’s religion…”, giving the impression that criticism of religious teachings is unconstitutional, when it is not! To denounce is to condemn or criticize and to castigate is to criticize or reprimand severely. Neither constitutes unconstitutional behaviour.

So, what does it mean to be protected from unsolicited intervention by members of another religion? Firstly, this intervention must be a kind which hinders you from observing and practicing your religion. The intervention must actually upset or disturb your practice and observance of your religion. Criticism of religious teaching does not do this and is not unsolicited intervention. The person, whose religious teaching comes under criticism by another religion’s radio or TV program, is still free to practice his or her religion. Secondly, the intervention must be unsolicited, in the sense of uninvited, not having legitimate permission to occur in the place and time when it did. Therefore, the entrance of a group of another religion into your church service, shouting or singing a different song from what you are singing, evidently disturbing your religious observance and practice is unsolicited intervention, for example.

Now, section 119 – offences relating to religion- of the criminal code, speaks against the intentional wounding of religious feeling and it is necessary to give precise examples of this offence for guidance into what it does and does not constitute. Contrary to Campbell’s impressions, it does not outlaw criticism or ridicule in sharp terms of religion; it does not forbid religious doctrinal disputations within or between sects; it does not prohibit the pointing out of folly or evil in what religious people consider sacred; it does not outlaw expert theological evidence as basis of critical statements. This I discerned from Law Commission Report no. 145 – Criminal Law-Offences against Religion and Public Worship – of 1985, which recommended the creation of a similar offence that citizens should not, “insult or outrage the religious feelings of others”. The commissioners Ralph Gibson and Brian Davenport were clear when they indicated that the offence should only strike at “grossly abusive or insulting material… published with the purpose to wound or outrage religious feelings” and “the deliberate causing of outrage”, pg 43, paragraph 5.6 (Read pages 43 and 44, paragraphs 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8)

An example of such publications is the poem by James Kirkup “The Love that Dares to Speak its Name”, the publication of which the paper “Gay News Ltd” and Denis Lemon were found guilty of Blasphemous Libel in the 1977 case of Whitehouse v Lemon. They appealed and lost and one judge – Lord Scarman described the publication as one that “cause grave offence to the religious feelings of some of their fellow citizens”. In short, this poem was written from the viewpoint of a Roman centurion, graphically describing him having sex with Jesus after his crucifixion, and also claims that Jesus had had sex with numerous disciples, guards, and even Pontius Pilate. It is truly gross and is an example of the offence in section 119 of our criminal code of words (written in this case) which wound the religious feelings of others. Theological criticisms, although strong and pointing out wrong in religions, neither breach this law nor the constitution.

Finally, in a 2007 E Law journal, Ben Clarke of Murdoch University wrote a piece called FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND CRITICISM OF RELIGION. WHAT ARE THE LIMITS? In the section: C DOES FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE RELIGIONS? Clarke said: “Freedom to criticize religious ideas has long been a foundational principle in western democratic societies. Two important justifications for this position are noted here. Firstly, without this freedom, those who found religions for financial gain (i.e. in order to exploit the religious vulnerability of others) would be legally shielded from public criticism of their ‘religious’ practices. Secondly, belief which advocates physical violence may also be legally protected. Denunciation of dangerous religious sects has played an important role in human security and development in many States, including Japan and the US.” These truths show that it is in fact against democracy for Parnel Campbell, Arnhim Eustace and the leadership of the NDP to take such a policy position against legitimate freedom of expression (including criticism) in a democratic society. Under the constitution and criminal code anyone is free to criticize whatever beliefs he believes is not right.