Heather Bellamy spoke with Andrea Williams, the CEO of Christian Concern, about the 'Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill' and the amendment that gives particular regard to free speech.

Andrea Williams

In December and January, the Government held a consultation on new official guidance aimed at combating terrorism as they examined the 'Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill'. The draft Prevent duty guidance was going to oblige universities to censor all external speakers, with requirements including 14 days minimum notice to the authorities and advance notice of the content of the event. A number of Christian organisations expressed concern over this guidance and the impact it would have on Christian Unions. However the freedom of University and College Christian Unions to continue to share the Gospel without interference was safeguarded by an amendment to the Government's Bill. Universities will still have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism, but now they will also be asked to give particular regard to free speech. Heather Bellamy spoke with Andrea Williams, the CEO of Christian Concern, to find out more.

Heather: First of all, what was the intention with these guidelines?

Andrea: Well, on face value, we have to agree there is a need to ensure our safety and to ensure that we don't have the radicalisation of students on campus. But in a sense what happened was the Government was failing to really identify and name the real issue. We all want to ensure that laws are made that ensure terrorism does not grow here on our own soil and that we make sure that we find those that are propagating such terrorism. What these extremist orders were going to do though was to potentially silence many others and that was our real fear. What we wanted to see was the upholding of the current counter-terrorism law and the upholding of public order law as it currently stands, the vetting of groups and the identification of groups that are operating on University campuses and that are propagating terrorism - where we're seeing young men and women being radicalised. This is always tied to radical Islam - there's not been any identification at all of terrorism being linked to any other groups and certainly not to Christian groups.

Heather: The guidance is designed to combat extremism, so how do the Government define extremism in this context, because I believe they define it in relation to what they're now calling 'British Values' don't they?

Andrea: Yes and that's what was particularly stark and would have been impossible to police in any real way and would bring an unnecessary burden on groups who are operating within the University. What we're seeing with regards to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs - we've seen over and over again that the Christians become the easy targets. So most of the Christian interest cases...the religious freedom cases in this country have all been about Christians that have been excluded from the public space; an occupational therapist excluded from work because she gave a book to a Muslim colleague and offered the Muslim colleague prayer. Those that would critique Islam, Nohad Halawi at the airport - sacked.

Heather: So would this have been State intrusion into freedom of speech?

Andrea: Yes, it would have meant the monitoring of speakers for University groups, for Christian Unions and once sermons start getting monitored, preachers start getting monitored, then we're in very difficult territory in terms of our freedom.

Heather: So how important is it that this safeguard to freedom of expression on University campuses has been agreed to in this amendment to the Bill?

Andrea: It's an absolutely vital freedom of course, and it's a vital exception that the Government has made, acknowledging that the ability to have ideas and not to clamp down in the way they were suggesting is absolutely vital. It would have had unforeseen consequences. I mean the idea behind it all is of course important. We know that our University campuses are places where young men and women are being radicalised, but rather than naming it and rather than naming the issues and the groups or the ideologies that were causing the problem, what the Government did was put out a proposal that would have meant a severe fettering of freedom for various groups, but we were particularly concerned about Christian Unions.

Heather: So does this mean that Universities won't have to vet speaker's talks now?

Andrea: They may still have to, but not in the way they were anticipating. The way they were anticipating was quite extraordinary - sufficient notice of booking was going to need to be given at least 14 days beforehand. I don't know if anyone out there is like me, but very often I am still writing my talks almost as I'm going up to speak. So notice was going to need to be given of the person who was going to be attending and notice about what they going to say and notice with regard to any presentations that might be given, or broadcast footage. It was going to be very practically unworkable. That has gone, so that is good. What the Government, however, is keen still to do, is to say that there needs to be proper safeguarding and there needs to be monitoring, but it has to be proportionate and there needs to be proper safeguarding of vital freedoms of speech.

Heather: Are you now satisfied with this amendment and confident in how this law will be applied with regards to freedom for Christians to speak freely about their faith?

Andrea: I believe that what this exception does is provide us with an argument. It provides us with a legal defence should we find ourselves in difficulty. That's what gives me hope. Prior to that my concern was that many of the things that we might discuss as Christians, whether it's our belief in marriage being between a man and a women, or that children do best with a mum and a dad, that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life and no-one comes to the Father but by Him, our belief that life begins at conception and ends at the point of natural death, that these things would be monitored and watched and clamped down on. This now provides us with a defence, but I think that's all it is, it's going to be an arguable point of defence. I think we are seeing in our society situations where our freedom to express the Gospel is becoming increasingly difficult, so I think we will see incidents on campus where this sort of law might be used against us, but we have a way of defending ourselves in the midst of it.

Heather: Does this climb-down by the Government have any implication from the wider point of view? Will it help shape future laws, or help give more freedom to express faith in the public square, or is it literally just going to help Christians to defend themselves if they get in that difficulty?

Andrea: I don't think at this point this particular exception will help us in the bigger picture. I think as Christians in this nation today within the institutions and indeed in the public square, even on the streets, it is becoming increasing difficult to hold fast, to speak out Christian truths. We've had situations in the University, the Purity Course was banned in Edinburgh because it was deemed to breech the equality and diversity policy - we managed to get the Christian Union and the Purity Course reinstated, but it was banned. The Christian Union had difficulty in Hull. The Christian Union was banned from the Student Society in Exeter - we managed to get them reinstated, but there was a banning of these groups because they were distinctively Christian and because they required leaders to be Christian. So we've already had examples of where Christian Unions have fallen foul of equality and diversity policies.

We've got situations at the Christian Legal Centre where street preachers have been arrested just for reading from the Bible. We have situations of late where, for instance, Victoria Wasteney, a senior manager in an NHS Trust, who gave a book to a colleague and the book was found to be offensive - she gave 'I Dared To Call Him Father' (the story of a Muslim who converted to Christ) - she gave it to a colleague with whom she'd been having many and long conversations; similarly the case of Sarah Mbuyi, the nursery nurse - the complaint against her is that she gave her co-worker a Bible and the co-worker said that she found it to be completely inappropriate and highly offensive. This is the cutting edge of where we are at and what is vital in these situations is that we use all the freedoms and all the legal defences that we can find. We have it here in this Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, and if it is used against us we should use the freedom of speech clauses to argue our case to keep the Gospel in the public space. There is a sense in which increasingly it is vital that we put the proclamation of the Gospel, the proclamation of Christ, into the public space because otherwise we just self-censor, we allow His name, Jesus' name, to disappear from the public discourse and it's particularly important on University campuses and way beyond that, that we keep His name firmly at the heart of public discourse.

Heather: In relation to this guidance, when will it be finalised and is there a chance things could change again or is this free speech clause definitely going to stay?

Andrea: This is going to stay, it has been passed through already and so this guidance should be with us very soon because this Parliament of course dissolves before the next election, so it dissolves at the end of March, so we should be seeing this guidance come in and be applicable I imagine very soon by the summer, or the autumn.