Why is it that some Church of England bishops have a problem with defending free speech? The comments by the Bishop of Leicester, Martyn Snow, about the limits to free speech at a C of E press conference raise the question.
Snow, a member of the House of Lords, was speaking to the press on June 25th before the July meeting of the Church of England’s parliament, the General Synod, in York. As chair of the Bishops’ Working Group for Promoting Unity in our Nation, Snow is due to lead a discussion about this subject at Synod.
I raised the recent attempt by the Bishop of Oxford, Steven Croft, to get Tommy Robinson cancelled from a debate at the Oxford Union on June 17th where he proposed the motion, ‘The West is right to be suspicious of Islam’. I pointed out that Robinson had not been invited to give a monologue but to take part in a debate where he was open to challenge.
In a joint letter to the Oxford Union in May, Croft and Imam Monawar Hussain, co-chairs of the Oxfordshire and Thames Valley Faith and Civic Leaders Forums, said the invitation to Robinson was ‘untimely and divisive’ and that Oxford was ‘a city in which there is no room for hatred’.
They wrote: ‘Those who have issued this invitation need to be mindful not only of the University of Oxford but of the city in which they live and study as students – a city which has a long tradition of hospitality to migrants and the poorest sections of society.
‘We make a strong appeal in these weeks and months of global tension that this invitation should be reconsidered and withdrawn for the sake of this city and its peace.’
I asked Snow how that move by a Left-wing bishop to suppress open debate promoted national unity. Snow said he could not comment on the individual case.
Why not? A bishop is allowed to express disagreement with another bishop. Snow could have expressed his disapproval of Tommy Robinson but defended his right to engage in lawful debate.
But instead Snow wheeled out the ‘we believe in free speech but’ routine before launching into a disquisition about the limits to free speech. He cited ‘incitement to violence’, which is rightly unlawful, and ‘incitement to hatred’, which is a more subjective concept. He then declared that the House of Lords was looking into these issues.
Snow has previously spoken about wanting the State to control the narrative about religion. In a recent intervention in the House of Lords about the Henry Nowak case, Snow called on the government to tackle ‘misinformation about faith communities’.
Snow said:
‘Along with my fellow Lords Spiritual, I stand firmly with Sikh leaders who have made it very clear that, whatever the words used by the murderer, and whatever the words used by his lawyers, faith was not a factor in this crime. I refer noble Lords to the words of Professor Jagbir Jhutti-Johal, an expert in Sikh theology, who stated clearly that the knife used in this crime was categorically not a kirpan, as others have said. The perpetrator was carrying a much larger knife. My hope, therefore, is that we will focus on the societal problem of knife crime.’
Snow asked Labour’s Minister of State at the Home Office, Lord Hanson of Flint: ‘Will the Minister reaffirm the Government’s commitments both to tackling knife crime and to tackling misinformation about faith communities?’
The judge who sentenced Vickrum Digwa for Henry Nowak’s murder could not have been clearer that an aggressive form of the Sikh faith was a factor in the crime. Judge William Mousley KC said:
‘It is a strict requirement of the Sikh faith to have a knife, called a kirpan, at all times. Generally, this will be a small knife, hidden from view, often on a length of cord and worn around the neck. You had that but, in addition, the large dagger in a sheath. You are a member of an order of Sikhs called the Nihang who have a tradition of having a second knife, or kirpan and that is often fully visible, believing that the guru will look favourably on that.’
Unfortunately, Snow’s spiel about the limits to free speech in the context of a question about the debate at the Oxford Union shows that he is no different from any other Left-wing politician. The Left have a problem with free speech because they believe their overflowing political virtue qualifies them to adjudicate what is acceptable speech and what is not.
That is why Croft thought he was entitled to tell the Oxford Union to cancel Tommy Robinson and why Snow chose to give the press a lecture about the limits to free speech.
Julian Mann, a former Church of England vicar, is an evangelical journalist based in Lancashire, UK.