THE BLASPHEMY LAWS

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1740, 3 May 1913, Page 2

THE BLASPHEMY LAWS

MR BERNARD SHAW & THEIR ABOLITION. " MEETING IN LONDON. ("Manchester Guardian.") London, March 5. In Essex Hall—a. traditional home of freedom of religious thought—there was a large meeting to-night to urge the abolition of the Blasphemy Laws. In this hall in 1821 a meeting, at which many ministers were present, was held for precisely the same purpose. Tho speakers and tho-audience to-night represented various kinds of religious faith, and many Secularists ivero present. A Unitarian minister, tho Rev. W. Copeland Bowie, was in the chair. The chief -speaker was Mr, Bernard Shaw, and among the other speakers were tho Rev. Stowart Headlam, Sir W. P. Byles, M.P., Mr. George GresmVood, M.P., Sir Hiram Maxim, Mrs. -Bradlaugh Bonner, and Mr. G. W. Eoote. A statement circulated in the meeting said that there havo been more blasphemy prosecutions during the past year than during the previous fifty years, and mors prosecutions for spoken blasphemy during that time than during the previous century. The resolution urged tho early repeal of the laws on tho ground that their existence, "which judges of the High Court have pronounced 'ferocious' and 'inhuman,' is an infringement of tho great principles of civil and religious liberty;." Messages of support were received from many members of Parliament. "It is as a rational and Teverent friend of religion," said Mr. Copeland Bowie, "that I support tho abolition of tho Blasphemy Laws." Ho spoke of the unjust discrimination which goes on in tho administration of the laws. If a Fellow of an Oxford College, a distinguished member of Parliament, or an eminent literary man cared to blaspheme in. learned and forcible language, thero was littlo chanco of his being prosecuted and imprisoned. But if a working man at the street corner or in tho public park gave expression to tho same ideas in crude or foolish languago, he was haled before tho magistrate and frequently sentenced to a considerable term of imprisonment. That was not only an injustice, but an iniquity. (Cheers.) The Rev. Stewart Headlam, in moving tho resolution,, said that he had been in favour of abolition over since 1874, when ho met ono of the biggest and strongest men he had ever known—Charles Bradlaugh. When iho met Bradlaugh in debate iu the Hall of Science, Bradlaugh sa.id it was impossible for llim to deal frankly with his (Mr. Headlam's) arguments, because if ho did so ho would bo liablo to prosecution for blasphemy. In thet interest of religion and free discussion, and what ho believed to bo the great Christian teaching, it was of tho utmost importance that tho laws should bo got rid of. The only real blasphemy was to call good ovil and evil good. (Cheers.) While the laws existed it was impossible to speak freely and frankly on things of tho utmost importance. Mr. Headlam referred to "this audience, which contains many who aro bitterly opposed to religion—(cheers)—and also some of those who believe in the Christian religion—(cheers)—and some, like Mr. Shaw, who don't know where tkej; stand. (Laughter, in which Mr. Shaw joined.) Mr. Shaw's Specch. Mr. Shaw refused to accept Mr. Headlam's challenge to declare his own re- j ligious views. Hp siid such declarations were precisely what they, wanted to avoid, for tlie aim was to uuite people of all opinions iu tho demand for the abolition of tho laws. "I have," ho said, "always been received with very great tolerance, and I appear to give every satisfaction to evcrybouy. I am rcceivetl by enthusiastic audiences at the City Tejnplo as the last refugo of the Christian religion,', and I am received by Secularist audiences as a sort of super-atheist." (Cheers and laughter.) The laws wero obsolete, in the same seiiso in which id was obsolete for kind-hearted gentlemen to leave money in their wills to be devoted to tho ransom of Christian prisoners from tho Turks. Nowadays such bequests would be applied by the Charity Commissioners to othor purposes. Tho laws had been made obsolete by the mere progress of events. When tJiey came into existence England was a Christian State, and if the State choso to bo intolerant there was then nothing undemocratic about it. But at the present time, even assuming that everyone who called himself a Christian was a Christian (and there could hardly be a moro oxtravngant supposition), and even assuming that exeryono was a Christian who • did not actively deny' Christianity—nevertheless, "we Christians are in an insignificant minority." Wo now; belonged to an Empire in which Christianity was simply nowhero by the test of numbers. There were blasphemy laws all over the Empire, but in many places, so far from being directed again peoplo who vilified Christianity, they wore directed to people who affirmed tho truth of Christianity. It was absurd to continue a state of tilings whioh used to lead judges to say that Christianity was part of tho law of England, for if that opinion was promulgated now an enormous number of our fellow-subjecta would be forced at onoo tp revolt against tho Empire. Ho did not'understand how people could insult a faith at all. People had been trying to insult his faith all his life, but they had not left a scratch either on his faith or on himsolf.

Plays About Mahommed. If people used insulting, gross, or obsceno language, lot them Do brought bot'oro tho magistrates and punished. Wo were suffering terribly in tins country, intellectually and spiritually, because wo did not iiko to liurt. one another's feelings, \and because hardly any public man would tell the trutn on any subject. "1 want to write a play on the subject of Mahommed, ami so does Mr. Hall Caiuo, but wc lira not allowed to do it because it would hurt the feelings of our Mahouimodun fellow-subjects to represent Malioniuied as a man." Ho appealed to Mahommedans to stand up against this sort of thing, because it was ot great importauco to tliem to havo their prophet Mahommed shown from tho point of viow of n Christian. There would never bo genuine religious thought in this country until there was completo freedom for this sort of representation. All laws which professed to defend religion from any kind of criticism—including rcdiculo, irony, the reductio ad absurdum—should bo uncompromisingly abolished, ami he hoped they would finite tho suffrages of all genuinely religious persons to this end, including those who called theinsolvca Atheists. "Under tho existing system of persecution no one but a thoroughly religious man would venture to call himself ail Atheist," Mr. Shaw added, saying that it would be a pity to disappoint tiro audienco without uttering what superficial people would call a paradox.

Discussing tlio mutter from tho legal point of view, Mr. G. Greenwood, M.P., said that tho i-ecent prosecutions l had boon taken not under the Blasphemy Laws, bill under tho Town Polico Clauses Act or the .Metropolitan Police Act, under which u man could bo imprisoned for using what was called prolans language. In considering fresh legislation the only point was whether the uso of outrageous languugo au<l vulgar abuse in a publio plnco should not bo limited, 110 thought they would meet with great opposition if they tried to do away with that limitation.

Tho laws were criticised from many points of view by Mrs. Bradlaugh Bonner, jMr. G. W. Poole, and Mr. 11. G. Chancellor, RI.P., all of whom agreed as to tho necessity of bringing immoral or outrageous language tending to breaches of the p'eaco within tho law. This could l>o done, Mr. Chancellor said, by prosecutions for indecency or sedition. A breezy Secularist speech was made by Sir Hiram Maxim, and Sir JV. P. Byles, M.P., said that to bind truth, to check doubt, and to fetter expression was to dam up truth, and that wa.s tho real sin against tho Holy Gliost. The real mischief of tho law of blasphemy was that it made men profess that which they did not believe, and afraid to think lest they should becomo biasphem ers. IT'S EI'FKCT WAS MAGICAL. "My hor»c was attacked with griping pains," writes Sir. C._ Mitchell, Storekeeper, IJenwicklown, X.Z. "1 gave him Chamberlain's' Colic and Diarrhoea lU'med.v, and found its elfect magical, tho horse being relieved at once. To anyone handling horses, I can recommend this remedy as a splendid cure in cases of colic, nml would not bo without a bottlo on hand mysolf."—Advt.