An attack on freedom of speech for Christians
And a bad day for British democracy
We are saddened to report today’s Court of Appeal decision to uphold a ban on an advertisement which asked Christians to report their experiences of marginalisation in the workplace, and see it is an attack on freedom of speech.
“But this is not only a bad day for freedom of speech for Christians, it is also a bad day for democracy in general, and a very bad day at the office for the Master of the Rolls” said our CEO Peter Kerridge.
As London Christian Radio Ltd, and sister organisation Christian Communications Partnership Ltd, we objected in 2011 to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport’s decision to prohibit the advertisement after the Radio Advertising Clearance Centre [RACC] claimed that it had a political objective.
A Judicial Review in March last year upheld the decision but the Christian campaigners were granted leave to appeal.
Declaring the advertisement unlawful, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, said it was “directed to the political end of making a fairer society by reducing or eliminating the marginalisation of Christians in the workplace”, contrary to broadcasting legislation.
Peter Kerridge says; “This would suggest that any radio advertisement calling for data to inform public debate to help a fairer society would also be banned. But we have to ask ourselves did Parliament really intend a blanket ban on radio adverts for surveys?”
L.J.Elias, in a strongly dissenting judgement, disagreed with the Master of the Rolls and declared the advertisement to be lawful. He said that any advertisement whose purpose was to facilitate debate was not directed towards a political end and concluded; “If an advertisement does not itself constitute a partial political message, why should it be banned?”
Peter Kerridge says; “The wording of the advert did not seek to achieve a political end, it had no political message and there was no attempt to influence the listener to a particular viewpoint, so there appears to be no good reason to ban it. The public interest cannot be best served by preventing people from gaining information and we believe that such a ban represents an attack on freedom of speech for everyone.
“Naturally we are disappointed with the judgement but will now consider further options which may be available to us with our legal representatives,” said Mr Kerridge.
The original advertisement, which we planned for May 2011, quoted surveys showing that 60% of active Christians were being increasingly marginalised at work. It read:
‘We are CCP. Surveys have shown that over 60% of active Christians consider that Christians are being increasingly marginalised in the workplace. We are concerned to get the most accurate data to inform the public debate. We will then use this data to help a fairer society. Please visit CCPmagazines.co.uk and report your experiences.’