THE BLASPHEMY LAWS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXV, Issue 3831, 14 May 1913, Page 8

THE BLASPHEMY LAWS.

MR BERNARD SHAW AND THEIR ABOLITION.

MEETINGS IN LONDON

.ONDON, 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 1824 a meeting, at which many ministers were present, was held for precisely the same purpose: The speakers and tho audience to-night represented various kinds of religious faith, and many Secularists were present. A Unitarian minister, the Rev. W. Copeland Bowie, was in the chair. The chief speaker was Mr. Bernard Shaw, and among other speakers were tho Rev. Stewart Headlam, Sir W. P. Byles, M.P., Mr. George Groenwood, M.P., Sir Hiram Maxim, Mrs Bradlaugh Bonner, and Mr. G. W, Foote. A statement circulated in the meeting said that there have been more plasphemy prosecutions during the past year than during the previous fifty years, and more prosecutions for spoken blasphemy during that time than during tho previous century. The resolution urged the early repeal of the laws on the ground that their existence, “which judges of the High Court have pronounced ‘ferocious’ and ‘inhuman,’ is an infringement of the great principles of civil and religious liberty.” Messages of support were received from many members of Parliament.

“It is as a rational and reverent friend of religion,” said Mr. Copeland Bowie, “that I support the abolition of the Blasphemy Laws/’ Ho spoke of the unjust discrimination which goes on in the 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, there was little chance of his being prosecuted and imprisoned. But if a working man at the street corner or in the public park gave expression to tho same ideas in crude or foolish language, ho was haled before the- 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 the resolution, said that he had been in favor of abolition ever since 1874, when he met ono of the biggest and strongest men ho had even known—Charles Bradlaugh. When he met Bradlaugh in debate in the Hall of Sciences, Bradlaugh said it was impossible for him to deal frankly with his (Mr. Headlands) arguments, because if ho did so he would bo liable to prosecution for blasphemy. In the interest of religion and free discussion. and what he believed to bo the great Christian teaching, it was of tho utmost importance that the Law's should, be got rid of. The only real blasphemy was to call good evil and> evil good. (Cheers.) While tho laws existed it was impossible to speak freely and frankly on things of the utmost importance. Mr. Headlam referred to “this audience, which contains many who are bitterly opposed to religion—(cheers)— and also some of those who believe in tho Christian religion—(cheers)— and some, like Mr Shaw, who don’t know where they stand. (Laughter, in which Mr. Shaw joined.)

MR. SHAW'S SPEECH. Mr. Shaw refused to accept Mr. Head lam’s challenge t-o declare his own religious views. He said such declarations were precisely what they wanted to avoid, for the aim was to unite people of all opinions in the demand for the abolition of the laws. “I have,” he said, “arways been received with very great tolerance, and I appear to give every satisfaction to everybody. lam received by enthusiastic audiences at the City Temple as the last refuge of the Christian religion, and I am received by Secularist audiences as a sort of superatheist.” (Cheers and laughter.) The laws Were obsolete, in the same sense in which it was obsolete 'for kind-hearted gentlemen to leave money in their wills to be devoted, to the ransom of Christian prisoners from tho Turks. Nowadays such boqxiests would ho applied by the Charity Commissioners to other purposes. The Jaws had been, made obsolete by the mere progress of events. When they came into existence England was a Christian State, and if tho State chose to lie intolerant there was then nothing undemocratic about it. But at. tho present time, even assuming that everyone who called himself a Christian was a Christian (and there could hardly be a more extravagant supposition), and even assuming that everyone was a Christian who did not actively deny Christianity—nevertheless, "we Christians are in an insignificant minority.” We now belonged to an ■ Empire in which Christianity was simply nowhere by the test of numbers. Thero wore balsphemy laws all over the Empire, but in many places, so far from being directed against people who vilified Christianity, they were directed to people who armed the truth of Christianity. It was absurd to continue a state of things which used to lead judges to say that Christianity was part of tho law l of England, for if that opinion was promulgated now an enormous number of our fellow-subjects' would bo forced at once to revolt against the Empire. He 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 nob left a scratch either on his faith cr on himself.

PLAYS ABOUT MAHOMMED. If people used insulting, gross, or obscene language, let them bo brought before tho magistrates and punished. Wo were suffering terribly in this country, intellectually and spiritually, because we did not like to. hurt one another’s feelings, and because hardly any public; man would tell the; truth on any subject. “I want to write a play on the subject of Mahommod, and; so -does Mr. Hall. Caine, but wo are not allowed to do it because it

. to Mahommedants to stand up against this sort of thing, because it was oi great importance to them to have their prophet Mahommed shown from the point of view of a Christian. There would never be genuine religious thought in this oountry until there was complete freedom from this sort of representation. All laws which professed to defend religion from any kindl of criticism—including ridicule, irony, the reductio ad absurdum—should 1 be uncompromisingly abolished, and ho hoped they would unite the suffrages of all genuinely religious persons to this end, including those who called themselves Atheists. “Under the existing system of persecution no one but a thoroughly religious man would venture to call Jiimself an Atheist,” Mr. Shaw added, saying that it would bo a pity to disappoint the audience without uttering what superficial people would call a paradox. Discussing the matter from tho legal point of view, Mr. G. Greenwood, M.P., said that the recent persecutions had! been taken not under the Blasphemy Laws, but under the Town Police Clauses Act of the Metropolitan Police Act, under -.which a man could bo imprisoned for using what was called profane language. In considering fresh legislation the only point was whether the use of outrageous language ance vulgar abuse in a public place should not be limited. Ho thought they would moot with opposition if they tried to do away with that limitation. The laws were criticised from many points of view by Mrs Bradlaugh Bonner, Mr. G. W. Foote, and Mr. H. G. Chancellor, M.P., all of whom agreed as to the necessity of bringing immoral or outrageous language tending to breaches of the peace within the la-c. This could be done, Mr. Chancellor said, by prosecutions for indecency or sedition. A breezy Secularist speech was made by Sir Hiram Maxim, and Sir W. P. Byles, M.P., said that td bind truth, to cheek doubt, and to fetter expression was to dam up truth,' and that was tho real sin against the Holy Ghost. Tho real mischief of the law of blasphemy was that it made men prof ess. that which they did not believe, and afraid to think lest they should become blasphemers.