One of my best friends is a schoolteacher who has spent much of his working life teaching religious instruction. He is a Roman Catholic, though he impartially tells his young charges about the beliefs of various faiths I am a staunch unbeliever and proud member of h2g2's Freedom From Faith Foundation. However, this in no way prevents us from enjoying a friendship that has endured for over 30 years, since we were at school together. We may hold differing views on the subject of religion, but we are united by our shared enthusiasms for Bradford City FC and beer.

I believe that the Catholic Church has a lot to answer for - and that's not a particularly contentious statement, since the Pope has formally apologised for some of its past excesses, such as the Spanish Inquisition. What he has not apologised for is the Church's present-day demand that its followers reject the use of artificial contraception, a policy that has caused great hardship to many people in the world's more impoverished areas, or for the inherent sexism in its hierarchy, which excludes women from the priesthood. But when I next meet up with my old friend, we won't be discussing any of that. We will, I'm sure, be far too busy agonising over the crucial question of how City's disastrous recent slide down the Nationwide League Division One table can be arrested.

I mention all of this to illustrate how it is easily possible to disagree profoundly with the theology and social policies of a religious faith, without bearing the slightest malice against those who practice that faith. It's a distinction which has now become a pressing concern in British politics, as a result of Home Secretary David Blunkett's decision to introduce legislation making 'incitement to religious hatred' a criminal offence in the UK. It's a proposal that could be either an important additional protection for persecuted minorities, or a damaging infringement on free speech - or, conceivably, both. It all depends upon how the law is framed.

Ideally, the new law should simply extend the existing legislation concerning incitement to racial hatred. It's already illegal in Britain to tell people to go and attack the Pakistanis, the English, the Lithuanians or any other nationality. It makes perfect sense to prohibit the incitement of violence and hatred against , say, Zoroastrians or Seventh Day Adventists too, particularly since the loathsome British National Party has used the tragedies of September 11 as an opportunity to try to stir up resentment against Muslims.

But what must be made clear is the distinction between inciting hatred and causing offence. To say that a religion's beliefs are absurd and its social attitudes repressive may upset its adherents, but as every other kind of belief that exists in society is subject to robust debate, it seems quite wrong that beliefs based on religious dogma should enjoy special protection.

The laws we live by in Britain can be influenced by unelected religious representatives in the House of Lords. Thanks to the influence of Christianity on the law, our Sunday shopping is limited in a variety of strange ways, and we're kicked out of the pub at 10:30pm on Sunday just when we need a drink to help us face the prospect of a new working week. I'm an unbeliever, but I have to live according to faith-based laws - and frankly, I've had enough of it.

So by all means, Mr Blunkett, do everything you can to stop hate crimes - but please don't give the irrational beliefs of minority groups like Christians any more legal protection from reasoned criticism and deserved ridicule. Such beliefs are already over-privileged and over-protected.

I wonder how Mr Blunkett's new laws will be applied in Northern Ireland, the part of the UK where religious hatred is a way of life for many of the inhabitants? There has, rightly, been great excitement this week over the IRA's decision to decommission some of its weapons. Though many have been quick to question their motives, there's no denying that the immediate impact of the move has been to move that troubled part of the world closer to a lasting peace.

The recent history of Northern Ireland has featured a tragic cycle of reciprocal violence. A Protestant was murdered, so a Catholic would be murdered in revenge, so a Protestant would be murdered in reprisal, and so on in an endless, numbing cycle. There is now the thrilling prospect that the same tit-for-tat principle might be applied to peace rather than war. The loyalists have so far been reluctant to offer to match the IRA's gesture with a similar surrender of their own weapons; but the onus is now on them to make the next move.

The loyalists have some cause to be suspicious. Precisely what the IRA did to their weapons is a secret, hidden - like so much of the politics of Northern Ireland - behind mysterious terminology. General John de Chastelain, the chairman of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, has assured us that:
'We have witnessed an event which we regard as significant in which the IRA has put a quantity of arms beyond use. The material in question includes arms, ammunition and explosives'

- but has declined to elaborate on what that 'event' was, or exactly how many weapons were placed 'beyond use'.

What, you can't help but wonder, does 'put beyond use' actually mean? Were the guns melted down? Were the explosives set off at a safe distance? Were arms dumps filled with concrete? The secrecy on the details is helpful to those in Northern Ireland who want to be sceptical about the prospects for peace: those for whom violence and hatred against the other tribe is an unbreakable lifelong habit, and/or a lucrative criminal career. The 'threat' of peace may be enough to provoke a violent response from either side of the conflict, as hardliners on both sides strive to show that they're still in business.

In late August and early September, people around the world were appalled by the sight of young children and their Catholic parents having to run a gauntlet of hate on their way to the Holy Cross School in North Belfast. Then September 11 came along, and the story was largely forgotten. But the daily picketing by Protestants outraged at the Catholic children walking down the 'wrong' street still goes on. The only difference is that they now throw in added taunting about the IRA's supposed 'surrender'. It'll take a very long time for any semblance of trust to be built up in an atmosphere poisonous enough for such scenes to continue on a daily basis.

Despite all of that, however, this week's news has brought to Northern Ireland the best hope of peace in a generation - ironically, at a time when the attention of much of the world is focused on a war. The British government has rightly responded rapidly in beginning to remove army installations near the border with the Irish republic.

They, too have to show goodwill. You never know, it might just really catch on.

There has, I know, been some unhappiness here on h2g2 about the (actually, relatively minor) restrictions on what can be said here concerning the situation in Afghanistan.

But hey, it could be so much worse. We could be Labour MPs. And I can't help feeling that getting peace in Northern Ireland might be child's play compared to producing peace between the government's whips office and its backbench MPs.

Lest the talk of government whips conjure up lurid images in the minds of non-British readers, I should explain that the whips in Parliament are people whose job is to ensure that MPs vote along party lines. And Paul Marsden, the previously little-known Member of Parliament for Shrewsbury and Atcham, has become famous after publishing details of a conversation he had with the government's chief whip, Hilary Armstrong.

Marsden was called in for questioning by Armstrong after addressing an anti-bombing rally in Trafalgar Square, and complaining in the House of Commons about the fact that MPs had not been given the chance to vote on the decision to commit British troops to the war. He repeated that complaint in his meeting with Armstrong, complaining that the decision to go to war should have been the subject of a 'free vote' - one of the rare votes in the Commons in which the party whips do not attempt to influence MPs.

Armstrong replied:
'War is not a matter of conscience. Abortion and embryo research are matters of conscience, but not wars.'

So there you have it, folks, straight from the heart of the UK government, where dissidents are severely disciplined in support of the fight for freedom. War is not a moral issue - official.

Coming soon: Tony Blair explains how black is white, night is day, and the bombs are actually expensive gifts being generously donated to the Afghan people.

Ormondroyd

25.10.01. Front Page

Back Issue Page