shell.SDP

My personal view on an important matter. On the 18th of March the House of Lords rejected the amendments tabled to remove or meaningfully limit Clause 208 of the Crime and Policing Bill, a clause which decriminalises, without restriction, a woman ending her own pregnancy at any stage up to and including full term. Abortion is a matter of considerable moral complexity on which reasonable people hold differing views. It has long been held to be a matter of individual conscience by both myself and the Social Democratic Party (SDP). However, this clause was not in any party's manifesto. It was not debated during a general election campaign. Rather, it was inserted into the sprawling Crime and Policing Bill and given just 46 minutes of debate in the House of Commons. Abortion pills may now be obtained over the internet, without prescription or medical oversight. A full-term viable pregnancy may be ended at home with no legal consequence. Further, it could be argued that this law leaves vulnerable women more exposed, not less. It reduces vestiges of the legal framework by which coercion towards abortion would have been identified and prosecuted. It also opens the door to sex-selective abortion - which some societies practice at scale throughout the world - with no mechanism remaining to challenge it. This reckless legislative change has been passed without public consent, without adequate scrutiny, and - critically - without regard for the viable human lives it leaves entirely unprotected. My personal position is clear: I regard this as an appalling and distressing decision by the Lords. To decriminalise abortion at any point in pregnancy crosses a line which, hitherto, I had considered to be well beyond the majority view of any reasonable British parliamentary body. Sadly, I was wrong. It’s an extreme decision which some argue puts into question our claim to be a civilised society. Were I in government I would push for the restoration of the legal protections for viable human life that this clause removes.

You can say “I think women who are denied an abortion and attempt one on their own as a desperate last resort should be charged with a crime and sent to jail”. You don’t need to lie and say “abortion up to birth had been legalised”. It hasn’t. Own what you believe.

Nick Timothy and Nigel Farage are right, and Sadiq Khan and Keir Starmer are wrong. Small groups of people, of whatever religion, praying in public places is fine. And as a Christian country we should allow a special privilege for churches to lead services in our national spaces, like the Palm Sunday celebration that happens in Trafalgar Square. What we don't want is mass ritual observances intended to claim the civic realm for another religion, or assert the domination of another culture over our own Christian traditions. What happens in our national spaces is not neutral. People use Trafalgar Square, for celebrations and demonstrations, to make a point about the kind of country they want us to be. The Palm Sunday pageant reminds us of who we are - not as individuals (many or most of us don't identify as Christians at all) but as a national community, with the roots of our institutions in the ground of the Bible and our most solemn communal moments, from coronations to funerals, mediated through the liturgies of the Church. A mass Adhan held there, or in any town square, is making a different point: that Britain is not a Christian country, and that - inshallah - one day it shall be Muslim. This is unacceptable to the British public and indeed incompatible with our constitution. As ever with these debates, the issue is partly one of kind and partly one of degree. There is an issue with Islam itself as a religion which in most interpretations does not admit of pluralism or freedom of conscience, and therefore is inherently aggrandising, including over territory. But with a bit of confidence and a bit of toleration we could handle that - if it were not for the issue of degree. It is the scale of Islam in Britain, and the ambition of its leaders for greater scale, that makes the problem. The numbers of people who assembled for the adhan in Trafalgar Square, clearly and openly claiming the territory for a faith with no connection (indeed, with strong doctrinal disagreement) with the model of Western liberal democracy that Britain has developed and exported to the world - that is the problem. The numbers, whether everyone there understood it this way or not (and I suspect many did), convey an explicit threat to the foundations of our country. Being relaxed about other people's religion is a good thing, a very British thing. I don't mind modern druids dancing around Stonehenge in my constituency (arguably, though the historicity is tenuous, they have a claim to the place). I don't mind small groups of Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims demonstrating the reality of Britain's religious toleration by worshiping in Trafalgar Square. But let's not kid ourselves about this adhan, or pretend that we're just seeing another harmless expression of Britain's religious diversity. We are seeing an abuse of liberalism, led by people who are not themselves liberal; or - let us imagine they are acting in good faith - who are themselves deceived about what they are doing. It should not happen again. And it would be good to hear the Church of England say so.