On August 17, the Rev. Dr. Alan Clifford, pastor of the Norwich Reformed Church, became the subject of a criminal investigation after sending two gospel tracts by email to the leaders of a gay pride event.
The tracts prompted the recipients to contact the police, alleging that a homophobic crime had been committed. Dr. Clifford was offered an on-the-spot fine of £90, thus admitting his guilt, which he refused to do. He decided to contest the allegation and provide a signed statement in his defence, which, after a review by a senior officer, has now been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service where he may have to appear in court to defend his actions.
Homophobic offence?
During the police interview Dr. Clifford was asked why he had sent the email. He responded that he ‘was reporting to the gay-pride people our Christian complaint against the public display of their homosexual propaganda, which we find offensive’.
He was then asked if he was aware that he’d committed a homophobic offence as defined by the official police leaflet which the officer gave him. It apparently defined such an offence as ‘any incident which is perceived to be homophobic by the victim or any other person’.
Dr. Clifford refuted the accusation, explaining that the meaning of ‘homophobia’ stems from the Greek phobia, meaning ‘fear’, and does not embrace hatred. While acknowledging the changing vernacular usage, he explained: ‘I certainly fear the influence of homosexuality on society, but this should not be regarded as hatred unless criticism is taken to mean hatred’.
He pointed out to the officer that his tract ‘Good news for gays’ was actually subtitled ‘A compassionate call to Christian conversion’ and asked: ‘Is that hatred? We don’t hate these people. We love them and want to help them. So, even though the gay-pride people are upset, we are guilty of no crime’.
Freedom of expression
Dr. Clifford helpfully explained the law to the police officer, pointing out that the European Court of Human Rights, in Handyside v. UK (1976), made it clear that freedom of expression embraces not only information and ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also: ‘Those that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no democratic society’. More case law included Lord Justice Sedley, in Redmond Bate v. DPP (2000).
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 contains the offence of stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. Anyone using threatening words or behaviour, or anyone displaying, publishing or distributing any written material which is threatening, is liable for prosecution. Former Conservative Home Secretary, Lord Waddington, won an amendment to the law, which established that no one might be prosecuted for stating their belief that homosexuality is sinful or wrong. It read: ‘For the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred’.
Untouchable with the gospel?
If ‘Good News for Gays’ is prohibited by law, then ‘Good News for Muslims’ and ‘Good News for Jews’ must likewise be banned. In fact, Good News for any protected characteristic may be deemed to constitute ‘hate’, we might as well abandon the pulpits and close all the churches. The gospel may now only be preached safely to white, able-bodied heterosexuals, and we’d better hope that ‘any other person’ doesn’t happen accidentally to overhear.
