Lib Dem MP Evan Harris hopes to lead a debate this evening on an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill in an attempt to have the laws of seditious libel and criminal defamation scrapped. Seditious libel is an archaic law that makes it an offence to bring into disaffection the state and its institutions.
He’s being supported by Index on Censorship (of course), English PEN, Liberty and individuals including Rowan Atkinson and Geoffrey Robertson QC.
Harris told The Times today that ‘seditious libel and criminal defamation laws are a stain on our legal system and a terrible example to set in a world where free expression is so often restricted and oppressed. Parliament should seize this chance to get rid of them.’
The bill as it stands does contain other points of note for anyone interested in free expression. Chiefly, there is a clause which might make it easier to bring prosecutions for incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. Fears similar to those raised around the Incitement to Racial and Religious Hatred Act have been raised, with comic performers such as Atkinson and Christopher Biggins complaining that humour could suffer if people are hemmed in by concerns about the law. Writing in the Daily Mail, gay actor Biggins warned against the ‘silent void of puritanism’ that could result.
Harris, however, believes there are still sufficient caveats in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act to render the possibility of prosecution very slim indeed.
The bill could also make it an offence to possess ‘pseudophotographs’ (that is to say ‘fakes’) and images, even cartoons, portraying under-18s in pornographic scenarios. The precedent does not bode well here: last year in Australia, a man was prosecuted for possession of drawings of Simpsons characters in sexual positions. Liberty has said it would be tragic ‘if the creation of an offence aimed at private cartoons and drawings reduced the police resources available to tackle real child pornography or other circumstances where victims are clearly forced to submit to sexual abuse.’
Liberty also raises the legitimate question of how a drawing of a 17-year-old is meant to be distinguished from a drawing of an 18-year-old.
Of some concern in this portmanteau bill is Clause 11, which allows the Secretary of State to decide whether or not coroners’ inquests can be held in private. While the government brought in certain amendments, meaning any move must be approved by a high court judge, it must remain a worry that such an important part of the legal process may be made secret as and when the government deems it ‘necessary’.
On the upside, ani-ID and database campaigners have welcomed the governments announcement that Clause 152 of the bill, which would have allowed sharing of personal data across government departments, is to be removed.
