Heather Bellamy spoke with Andrew Marsh from Christian Concern about their campaign, free speech and the significance of Stonewall's decision

Andrew Marsh

In response to supporter feedback, homosexual campaign and lobby group Stonewall has announced that it is dropping its controversial 'Bigot of the Year' Award. In 2012 Christian Concern led a campaign to challenge corporate sponsors of the event to drop their support in light of this award. To discuss the latest developments Heather Bellamy spoke to Andrew Marsh, the Campaigns Director at Christian Concern.

Heather: So, who are some of the people who in the past have been awarded 'Bigot of the Year' and what did they get it for?

Andrew: There've been a number of different people. I think in 2010 Chris Grayling, who's now the Justice Secretary, was given this award - I think that was in light of comments that he'd made in discussing the case of a Christian couple, Peter and Hazelmary Bull, the bed & breakfast owners in Cornwall who had a policy of not giving double beds to those who weren't married. We've had Melanie Phillips, a prominent commentator. In 2012, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the most senior Catholic leader in the UK at the time; and Alan Craig, a Christian campaigner, was also nominated that year. In fact in 2012 a number of those who were nominated for the award were so because they had expressed in quite stark terms opposition to the redefinition of marriage.

Heather: So what were your concerns at Christian Concern about the award that would lead you to campaign against it?

Andrew: Well particularly in 2012, as I say, a number of those nominated were so because effectively they'd spoken out against the plans at the time to redefine marriage. And we thought that this award contributed and was in some way symbolic and symptomatic of the efforts to intimidate and attack those who wanted to contribute to the debate that was going on at that point about what marriage is and whether it should be redefined as the Government planned to do so; to intimidate and to frighten and to add to a climate of fear in calling it a 'Bigot of the Year' Award. It was increasing the aggression against those who, as I say, wanted to speak up for marriage as between a man and a woman.

Heather: In 2012 Stonewall actually defended their 'Bigot of the Year' Award, saying that no-one would be nominated for the category simply for disagreeing with the charity. So how would you describe the current climate - maybe comparing 2012 to now if there are any differences - the current climate in the UK in relation to free speech and the liberty to hold different opinions and disagree about issues of sexuality in marriage without it being very damaging?

Andrew: I think that there are still real challenges on the ground in terms of speaking up for marriage. Here at Christian Concern and the Christian Legal Centre, we've had cases this year where people have had difficulties in the workplace and even been disciplined and effectively lost their jobs for articulating their viewpoint, based on their Christian identity and faith: that marriage is between a man and a woman. So this continues to be a live issue and I think many people would be able to identify with that: if not specific challenges in the workplace or specific conflicts, then a wider chilling effect, which means that there's pressure not to articulate particular viewpoints on some of these contentious issues. That's not just Christians, but certainly would include Christians. I think many of us will be aware of that chilling effect that is taking root and having effect in the workplace and that really is making it harder to discuss certain issues at a substantial level.

Heather: So what response did you get from the corporate sponsors when you approached them in 2012?

Andrew: From some of the big sponsors, which include high-street bank Barclays; also the Queen's banker, Coutts; PWC, a professional services company, I think that a number of these companies, Barclays and Coutts for example, perhaps those who are more senior in the organisation hadn't realised that the awards ceremony featured this category of 'Bigot of the Year'. At the time, those from Barclays for example, a senior spokesman there replied to concerns that had been raised by supporters of Christian Concern and others, saying that he'd recently been made aware of the inclusion of a 'Bigot of the Year' category in the awards. "Let me be absolutely clear," he continued, "that Barclays does not support that award category, either financially or in principle, and have informed Stonewall that, should they decide to continue with this category, we will not support this event in the future." And Coutts, the Queen's bank, also said, "We have advised Stonewall that we will be withdrawing our support of the awards unless they remove", the 'Bigot of the Year' category was what they were referring to there. I think that there was perhaps surprise within the banks - but certainly in response to these concerns raised there was clear response that they weren't supporting this award and if it continued they wouldn't be supporting the award ceremony.

Heather: So what happened in 2013?

Andrew: In 2013 some of those bigger corporate names who had sponsored the overall awards event in the past disappeared from the list of sponsors. That included Barclays and, I think, PWC, a big professional services and accounting company - and these were companies that had been contacted by supporters of Christian Concern who were raising concerns about this way of engaging in public debate and what the 'Bigot of the Year' Award communicated about the way that an important issue like marriage is going to be debated in the public square.

Heather: So now Stonewall have made the decision to drop the 'Bigot of the Year' Award, what are your thoughts on the significance of that move?

Andrew: I think that it is a significant event. I think that it highlights for us that when people who share a concern, when Christians who've got concerns about this aggressive way of positioning in the public discussion, when they raise those concerns together, then corporate sponsors are listening. It highlights for us the value of being in touch with one another and taking action together; not being aggressive about it, but highlighting and informing people of what's happening. I think that many people more widely wouldn't have been aware that this was one of the awards that was given at this event. But not just making people aware of what's happening but making people aware of the concerns, the problems that we have with it. It shows that that has an impact when we act together. It may take time - as we've seen, we first raised this issue in 2012 and it is now 2014 - but nonetheless there has been change and I think change for the better.