Current Laws and how we've got here

Britain has a long history of legalised censorship. For instance, as far back as 1727, Edmund Curll became the first person to be convicted of obscenity following publication of Venus in the Cloister (The Nun in her Smock), under the common law offence of disturbing the Kings peace. The moral code of our nation has often been enforced by legal precedent. But what are current statutes in regard to religious satire? Article 10 from the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) had laid out basic protections for freedom of expression, stating the need for this right, but also the responsibilities that come with it.

So why was this not enough? Following September 11th, and the increased focus on religious fundamentalism that followed, Tony Blairs labour government looked to define the boundaries around what could and could not be said. In 2001, they submitted the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, clause 38 of which would have extended race-hate provisions set out in the Public Order Act 1986 to cover religious hatred. However, objections from the House of Lords led to its rejection. It was then brought forward again in 2005 as part of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, but once again rejected. Commons however, eventually supported amendments from the House of Lords on the 31st January 2006, which limited the legislation to "a person who uses threatening words or behavior, or displays any written material which is threatening... if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred". This removed "Abusive and insulting concepts", and required the intention - rather than simply the possibility - of stirring up religious hatred. Yet as the act awaits the publication of a Statutory Instrument, many performers remain concerned that despite a more targeted translation they are still at risk from prosecution.

So should performers be worried?

I spoke to Mark Stephens, a free-speech lawyer to gain an informed view on what current laws exist relating to religious satire and of what performers have to be wary.

Mark believes the law does have a duty to prevent the incitement of violence against religious groups...

However, even as a devout Christian, Mark believes religious satirists (including those with an apparently blasphemic focus) should be penalised by law...

Mark encourages performers to push the boundaries as it allows society to examine itself...