Freedom of expression concerns as CPS says it is "no longer appropriate" to quote parts of the Bible in public

In a now-dropped prosecution against a street preacher, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for England and Wales said that parts of the Bible are abusive and contain references "which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society, and which would be deemed offensive if stated in public" (Christian Post, Epoch Times, NewsLetter).

John Dunn, 55, was preaching in Swindon in November 2020 when two women walked past holding hands. It was alleged he shouted that the women would "burn in hell" and called one of them a "devil woman". Mr Dunn denied this, though his lawyers at the Christian Legal Centre said he acknowledged telling them: “It says in the Bible that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God”. The two women reported Dunn to the police, describing his comments as “biblical speak”.

Mr Dunn was subsequently charged with using "threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby". According to Mr Dunn's lawyers, the case was discontinued during this week because the complainants could not be reached.

While pressing its case against him, however, the CPS made remarks in writing to the court which potentially have implications for freedom of speech, expression and belief far beyond this case. The relevant passage is as follows:

"Whether a statement of Christian belief or not, the court is being asked to consider whether the language has the potential to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

"This document is not the forum for religious debate, but the bible contains other material recognising slavery (Exodus 21:7), the death sentence (Exodus 35:2 and Leviticus 24:16) and cannibalism (Deuteronomy 28:27) [although presumably the CPS meant Deuteronomy 28:53, which, unlike 28:27, contains references to cannibalism].

"There are references in the bible which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society, and which would be deemed offensive if stated in public."

As the Belfast NewsLetter points out in an opinion piece, this is a troubling development: “Many people who are thoughtful and also irreligious see the Bible as one of the most important texts in western civilisation.”

In a statement issued to Fox News, Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre that represented Dunn, said the attitude of the government prosecution toward the Bible in the case was "deeply concerning." Ms Williams wrote: "'Offense' is an entirely subjective concept and is easily manipulated to shut down viewpoints that people simply don't like. Any suggestion that there is a right not to be offended must be strongly resisted. In today's democracy, we need?the freedom to debate, challenge and disagree."

Commenting on the case for the Belfast NewsLetter, Gavin Millar KC, a barrister at Matrix Chambers in central London who specialises in freedom of speech law, said:

"Both at common law and under the freedom of expression provision in the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 10), it is envisaged that the right to free speech should be exercised responsibly. If it is not, the right can be restricted.

"But context is everything in deciding whether the right is being exercised responsibly. You need to assess everything that the person was saying on that occasion, to whom it was said, and why... [t]his bare, and rather sweeping, statement about passages in the bible is ill-judged because it does not recognise this".

Mr Millar went on to explain: "In relation to responsible speech, the passages could be read out or referred to in public in a way/context that is not at all offensive – for example in an academic or religious discussion of whether the sentiments in these passages are defensible in this day and age, or how they might be reinterpreted or understood to mean something that is not offensive in modern terms.

"Someone could, for example, argue for the return of the death penalty as part of a legitimate political debate (and people do though it is increasingly rare these days) citing that passage in the bible in support of their opinion. This would have a value as political speech in a democracy.”

***

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to help support the Free Speech Union's research arm — we publish?briefings?on where free speech needs to be better protected, where existing protections may be in jeopardy, and what the government should do to strengthen and safeguard those protections. You can do so by clicking?here. Thank you.

And if you think there’s a risk you’ll be penalised for exercising your legal right to free speech, whether it’s in the workplace or the public square, you need the protection of the Free Speech Union. Membership starts from just ￡2.49 a month. You can join us?here.?