Newsline 20 March 2015

Je suis Michael Overd: this obnoxious street preacher is a canary in the coal mine for free speech

Opinion | Fri, 20th Mar 2015

An offensive street preacher has been charged for giving a "religiously aggravated" sermon, and was told by a police officer that he is not allowed to offend anyone. Benjamin Jones warns of the danger posed to our civil liberties if the state continues to police free expression.

There is a preacher in Taunton named Michael Overd who likes to spend his days in the town centre, denouncing the 'sin' of homosexuality, preaching the Gospel, and offering his critique of Islam and its prophet.

During one sermon, after complaints from passers-by, Mr Overd was given this chilling warning by a police officer: "If I hear one homophobic word out of your mouth here today, I will arrest you," the officer said.

The officer then explained to Overd that while he had the right to free speech, he was not to make comments which offended anyone.

Mr Overd's hobby has now resulted in his prosecution for causing "religiously aggravated" harassment, alarm or distress, and for using "threatening words." This is a heresy trial in which he stands accused of two modern thought-crimes: homophobia, the ugly manifestation of real bigotry, and 'Islamophobia', an empty neologism coined to suppress scrutiny of a religion which makes some large claims for itself.

In an unhappy turn of fate, the inquisition was presided over by Judge Shamim Qureshi, who happens to moonlight as a 'judge' for a UK sharia tribunal.

A whole string of witnesses to Overd's terrible 'crime' have come forward during the trial. One said, "I felt belittled." Another witness said that Mr Overd had made "defamatory comments" about the Prophet Mohammed. She said, "there was no mention of good" in the religion of Islam, as though crackpots have some BBC-like obligation to editorial balance in their ranting on street corners.

The court was told by one witness, "I am all for free speech but not at the expense of [belittling] someone."

A police officer told journalists: "I'd advise people that if they're offended to record any incident on their mobile phone and send it to us."

It seems almost futile to repeat this mantra, again, but I will add my voice to the chorus: you do not have a right to not be offended. This applies just as uncompromisingly if you are a Muslim upset about cartoons of Mohammed, or a gay person distressed by a street preacher claiming that your love life is 'sinful'.

We must be completely unambiguous and unrelenting in our defence of free speech: up to the point of defamation of living people, or incitement to violence, anything goes.

Even marginal speech, like the tedious example of someone shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, must be protected or, at the very least, should never become a matter for courts and judges to decide upon. We do not need to reach for legislation every time we encounter something we don't like. It seems perfectly obvious that anyone who makes a habit of shouting "fire" where there is none, will very quickly come to be ignored, discredited and derided- which is exactly how I imagine most people deal with rude or irritating street preachers.

This is why we must hold our noses and defend the odious Mr. Overd with the same vigour and determination as Charlie Hebdo; it is why those European countries which have them must repeal their laws banning Holocaust denial; it is why student unions must stop their farcical incantation of 'safety' to prevent controversial speakers being given a platform. Any infringement on Mr. Overd's rights is an infringement on my rights, and an infringement on yours. Any additional prohibition on free speech makes it that much easier for Islamists to paint the West as hypocritical.

Unfortunately, that is clearly not how the state sees matters. The invidious decision to wade into the policing of ideas and the manner of their expression has produced an insoluble mass of contradictions.

The Orwellian prohibition on distressing 'public order' can be used just as easily to stop homophobes from making intolerant remarks in public, as it can be to obstruct criticism of Islam, or of any other religion. In Overd's case, both of these things are happening at once, and it is very, very alarming. The net result is appalling: whether to combat homophobia, or to silence criticism of Islam, freedoms are being abridged and curtailed.

There is something particularly jarring about 'witnesses' being called to testify in a British court because they heard a religious figure being insulted. It is as though we have already accepted the premise that criticising Mohammed is a cause for suspicion, and this assumption (coupled with the well-meaning doctrine of tolerance and the stultifying attitude that anything insulting or upsetting is to be avoided at almost any cost) is proving to be nearly ineradicable from our civil society.

The two principal accusations levelled against Mr Overd — who is our canary, testing the parameters of all of our freedoms — are that he was homophobic, and that he was 'Islamophobic'. These accusations have a perverse symmetry as most religions, needless to say including Islam, have an embarrassing wealth of homophobic injunctions and prohibitions.

If Judge Qureshi finds Mr Overd's comments, in which he was quoting from the Bible, to be criminal, then presumably a very great volume of the 'moral' teachings in the Koran and the Old Testament (for example) will likewise contain criminal content? Are we to ban religious scripture which goes much further than Mr. Overd did, and which actually calls for the capital punishment of homosexuals? If Overd is found guilty, what possible reason is there for not also banning the scripture which he articulates?

This is a preposterous situation. Regardless of their content, do we really want to live in a society where books are banned?

The answer to this mess, of course, is obvious. Free speech must be 'free' in the sense of meaning uninhibited, restricted only by prohibition on the incitement to violence or defamation. 'Free' however, is not to imply that speech does not have a cost for society: the price is paid in allowing Mr Overd to set out his stall, and so we take the inconsequential risk that people may be upset by what he says. We must be confident in our values, even if they are at times inconvenient to those of us who find Mr Overd's use of our shared rights to be distinctly unpleasant. Needless to say, there are people in recent months who have endured rather a lot more than discomfort to defend freedom of expression.

I doubt there will be a long queue of people declaring "je suis Michael Overd", but the principle at stake remains: any infringement on the free speech of one person, regardless of their substantive use of that right, is an infringement on the rights of every member of our society. Irrespective of whether Mr Overd is found 'guilty' or not, it is a scandal — and to our discredit — that questions of 'guilt' or 'innocence' came into any contact at all with our treatment of thought and expression.

Benjamin Jones is the NSS communications officer. The views expressed in our blogs are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the NSS.

There is no widespread discrimination against Christians in the workplace

Opinion | Fri, 13th Mar 2015

NSS president Terry Sanderson challenges the notion that Christians are widely discriminated against in the workplace, and calls for fairness, justice and common sense.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has published the results of its research into the way religion is treated at work.

The report appears to proceed from the assumption that there is some kind of major problem in workplaces up and down the country, with conflict over personal beliefs a major issue for workers.

They seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker for the propaganda promoted by The Christian Legal Centre and the Christian Institute with their endless failed legal attacks on the equality law.

The EHRC has given undeserved traction to the claims that there is a widespread ban on wearing religious symbols, or that poor, put-upon Christians are being tormented and mocked all day long by their colleagues because they go to church. But these kinds of incidents are very rare and when they do occur, the Christian Legal Centre makes sure they are writ large in the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph.

The ultimate aim of the evangelicals in creating this mythology is to either have the equality legislation abolished completely or have it rewritten so that Christians are exempted from observing it, but still receive the full benefits of the protection it offers.

They want carte blanche in the workplace for the pious. They want the right to demand time off to observe their holy days, whatever the consequences for the business they work for. After all, as far as they're concerned, a person's "faith" trumps all other business considerations.

They want to refuse services to people of whom they don't approve (let's be honest, lesbian and gay people). They want to be free to proselytise and use the workplace as an extension of their church or mosque. They want prayer rooms and halal only canteen facilities. They want diversity policies rewritten so as to exclude gay people.

By giving credence to these ambitions through the publication of this report, the EHRC is endangering the whole concept of equality legislation. It has given the Mail and the Telegraph another opportunity to reinforce the idea that discrimination against Christians is widespread.

So, what is the real story of religion in the workplace? I can only tell of my own experience.

I worked for almost thirty years for a London borough which is one of the most diverse and multicultural in the country. As part of its policy of inclusion, the council drew its workforce from all sections of the community. This meant that in my decades working in a day centre for adults with profound learning disabilities, I met and worked with people from all over the world.

I loved it. I made good friends with people from Nicaragua, China, Russia, France, Italy, Germany, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Fiji and many more. Because I was working in the "caring sector" the sorts of people who were attracted to the job were generally kind, compassionate and concerned. They were also often very religious.

I worked with many black evangelical Christians who felt it was part of their religious calling to work in such a difficult and challenging environment, taking care of people who would otherwise be rejected by society. I found their religious enthusiasm quite perplexing – incomprehensible even – and they were equally totally flummoxed by my atheism. They had been, until then, totally enclosed in their happy-clappy community where the possibility of non-belief didn't seem to exist.

I didn't mind their constant discussion of the finer points of the Bible. I even helped one man write a sermon for his church, the first he had ever delivered.

Despite the occasional robust exchange of opinion, we got on with our work together in mutual respect. Humorous banter was never interpreted as "disrespect".

Then there was the Church of England vicar who came to work with us. He had decided to resign from his parish over the Church's liberalising approach to women. He was working at the centre from an agency, just as a social worker not as a clergyperson, needing to make some cash before he joined the Catholic "ordinariate".

I couldn't have disagreed with him more over his opinions, but strangely I quite liked him personally and we got on very well. Again, our discussions were frank, sometimes mocking, but both took it on the chin.

It would never have occurred to either of us to go complaining to the manager that our religious or non-religious approach to life was not being properly respected.

The only real problem I experienced over religion came from a cook, who was a devout Muslim, complete with moustacheless beard and traditional Pakistani clothing. It was his habit to play tapes of recitations from the Koran during meals – very LOUDLY.

I don't understand Arabic, so what was being recited meant nothing to me, but I had to complain because of the noise. Some of the people we were caring for were very sensitive to loud noise and trying to eat in a dining room where over-amplified chanting was being broadcast was becoming problematic.

I suppose he could have accused me of religious intolerance in making that complaint, but it was nothing to do with the man's religion, it was about the anti-social volume of his tape player.

I had another Pakistani colleague, someone I worked with for 20 years, who I liked very much, a woman who had become almost entirely westernised. One very hot summer's day she came to work wearing a short-sleeved blouse, like all the other women. But when the Muslim cook saw her he said that she was a disgrace to Islam for showing her arms in that way when there were men around.

She immediately put on a heavy cardigan, guilt-tripped into it by the po-faced Islamist in the kitchen. That annoyed me, but I realised it was her decision and said nothing.

This man was eventually fired from his job – not because he inappropriately intruded his religion into the workplace, but because he had been using the centre's telephone to call premium-rate pornographic phone lines. When the phone bill arrived, he had racked up hundreds of pounds at council tax-payers expense.

The workforce of our day centre was so diverse that the potential for religious conflict was enormous, but apart from these few small incidents there was general peace and harmony.

The workplace is a wonderful place to have your prejudices challenged, an opportunity to meet a wealth of different people and to learn to get along with those who have very different lives to your own.

I am not claiming here that workplace bullying, harassment and intimidation doesn't exist. I have seen enough of it in a long working career and I know that not all working environments are free from crude racism and prejudice.

But that is what the equality legislation is there for. It is to protect individuals from such nastiness, and if that nastiness is because of their religion (or their sexuality) then it needs to be challenged.

But protecting people from victimisation is not the same as protecting them from discussion and from their workmates challenges to opinions that they may find disagreeable (so long as it is reasonably expressed). It is not about giving one group of people special rights and privileges.

The evangelical Christians who have created this myth of widespread religious conflict in the workplace have done a good job in misleading us.

They have convinced a lot of people that if an employer insists that everyone in their workplace observes health and safety regulations (maybe involving the removal of jewellery) then Christians have been "persecuted".

Or that by asking them to do their job in its entirety – even if that means serving gay people or handling alcohol or pork products – they have subjected them to discrimination.

We will wait for the new guidance from the EHRC, but we hope that it will be based on fairness, justice and common sense – not on the dissembling demands of the Christian Legal Centre.