Jon Bellamy spoke with Mike Judge

Mike Judge

Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, makes it a crime to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or actions that are likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. But this legislation is raising major concerns over free speech. The Government Joint Committee on human rights has called for the removal of the word 'insulting' from the law which is currently in place across England and Wales. Mike Judge is from the Christian Institute who are also calling for the word 'insulting' to be removed and Jonathan Bellamy caught up with him to find out more.

Jonathan: First of all to help people understand, what's the purpose of the Public Order Act 1986? What does it aim to achieve?

Mike: The Public Order Act was introduced during the 1980's to help police deal with serious and genuine public disorder. Industrial disputes had got out of hand, football hooliganism that kind of thing. It's really important that the police have those kinds of powers, because keeping the peace is part of what the police are there to do. Trouble is that aspects of that law have been used in a way that has begun to hinder free speech in a way that concerns me as a Christian but is also a concern to others who care about free speech.

Jonathan: How would you say the law has been commonly misused from your perspective?

Mike: At the very lowest threshold on this offence you commit a crime if you've insulted someone in some way that's caused them distress. Now no genuine Christian wants to go around insulting people, but as a Christian I'm aware that sometimes people can be offended by some of the beliefs that I have on certain sexual ethics or other faiths and they can make a complaint to the police and the police can then, if they wish to, act.

This isn't just a problem in theory; it's been a problem in practice. There was a Christian couple in Liverpool who got into a religious discussion with a Muslim and the Muslim was offended by some of the things the Christian said and the matter actually ended up in the criminal court in Liverpool. The case against them was dismissed but it should never have got that far. In another case a Christian Street Preacher who was sharing the gospel on a public street in Cumbria was arrested by police officers, not because of what he said during his sermon, but because during a conversation with a police officer he confirmed his religious belief that he thinks homosexual practice is not moral or acceptable under the Bible. Those are two real life cases where people have been arrested and charged with a crime and I think that's been a misuse of Section 5 of the Public Order Act.

Jonathan: It's interesting you mention those stories, because when it was set-up in 1986, Home Secretary Douglas Hurd said, 'It was intended to provide the Police with more effective powers to protect the public against hooligan behaviour. We have no desire to use the criminal law to enforce a particular social standard'. Do you think that's what happening now then, that actually people might have different opinions on certain things and try to use this law to try to enforce that opinion?

Mike: Yes I think so. I think this is a hecklers veto. I think this is an opportunity that if people hear something they don't like, they can pick up the phone to the Police.

We live in a democracy and we know that we don't always agree on everything in our society. If people hear something that they disagree with, they are at perfect liberty to stand there and argue the point or just role their eyes, shake their heads and walk away. I think we are in very dangerous territory when we start thinking that what you can do is to walk up to a police officer and have your opponent arrested just because you disagree with what they say.

Jonathan: I understand the government are looking at this and there's a parliamentary committee looking at it and there's something called the Freedom Bill. Tell us about that.

Mike: The Freedom Bill is an initiative launched by Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister. He said that what he wants to do is to introduce legislation that gets rid of certain laws that have infringed our civil liberties. This hit the headlines a few months ago because Nick Clegg set up a website and invited people to make suggestions as to the kind of laws that they think should be repealed. That consultation period has closed and we expect the Freedom Bill to be published very soon, but we still think there's an opportunity to get this proposal in there, which is the proposal to repeal the word 'insulting' from Section 5 of the Public Order Act and we think there's broad support for this right across the political parties. We feel very comfortable that this is something people want, both Christians and people who don't necessarily share our Christian beliefs but do share our concern about free speech.

I think anyone who's involved in campaigning or a robust exchange of ideas is concerned about this. Almost everyone who's involved in that kind of area of work knows the ground rules; they know that in a democracy there's going to be a sharp exchange of ideas and beliefs and sometimes if you passionately believe in your set of values you can get offended if someone else disagrees with you. I don't think any of those people are particularly calling for a law that would criminalize that kind of behaviour. You'll find on this issue, people who sharply disagree on points of ethics and their beliefs, will agree on this one point that we can all be free to disagree.

Jonathan: In terms of going forward, what would you say would be a better word to be used in the legislation instead of insulting?

Mike: The legislation bans threatening or abusive words or behaviour. That wording does capture the kind of activity and yobbish behaviour that the police should be clamping down on and protecting us from. I think repealing the word 'insulting' would still give the police sufficient powers to be able to deal with genuine public disorder. Plus there are other laws too. There are harassment laws; there are breach of the peace powers that the police can use. We don't need to necessarily replace 'insulting' with another word, we just take the word 'insulting' out and that would leave Section 5 with sufficient powers to deal with the kind of yobbish behaviour that the Bill was originally intended to deal with.

Jonathan: Is this something that the public can get involved with? Is it something that you would be looking for people to air their opinions on?

Mike: Yes, I think it's very important that members of parliament are aware that their constituents are concerned about free speech being policed. I think it would be really beneficial to pop along and see your local MP and say, 'I'm concerned about this and I think we should take out the word 'insulting' from Section 5 of the Public Order Act. That's something that MP's should support.

MP's hold these surgeries where they invite their constituents to come and talk to them. There are very few constituents who take up that opportunity. I think this is a wonderful chance to go and meet your MP and chat to them about this issue and I think nine times out of ten you will find that your MP agrees with you.

Jonathan: If people want to find out more do you have a website that helps them?

Mike: Yes, information about this particular issue and how to visit your MP you can find it all at christian.org.uk/section5