The Lutfur Rahman verdict and the spectre of ‘undue spiritual influence’ | Giles Fraser

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/29/lutfur-rahman-tower-hamlets-mayor-verdict-undue-spiritual-influence

A few days ago, there was an uproar in some of the Labour subs because a group of Muslims sent a list of demands to Starmer. The one which gained the most hate was the 18th demand asking for "Undue spiritual influence" to be removed from the statute.

A bit of history from Giles Fraser:

“The Irish hate our order, our civilization, our enterprising industry, our pure religion,” wrote then prime minister Benjamin Disraeli. “This wild, reckless, indolent, uncertain and superstitious race have no sympathy with the English character. Their ideal of human felicity is an alternation of clannish broils and coarse idolatry. Their history describes an unbroken circle of bigotry and blood.” The priest and historian Charles Kingsley wrote in a letter to his wife, “I am haunted by the human chimpanzees I saw [in Ireland]”.

This law was devised to prevent Irish Catholics from voting. It has only been used against Catholics and once against Muslims in Tower Hamlets.

Now, personally, I think the Tower Hamlets case had the correct outcome - it had been turned into a rotten borough. But if the CPS needs to dredge up a racist law from the 1800's that hadn't been used in 100 years, maybe the law needs updating. Or if we're fine with the law as it is, can we have it applied equally?

I find it interesting that Reverend Ian Paisley, the former head of the DUP, was never found to be in breach of this law. When Lammy called himself a "good Christian boy" this week, wasn't that in breach? The implication that his religious upbringing means that fellow Christians should vote for him or their souls will perish? He doesn't need to even mention hell or God's punishment for it to be in breach of the law. When Justin Welby speaks up for refugees during his Easter sermon, isn't that breaking the law?

Justin Welby told the congregation at Canterbury Cathedral that "subcontracting out our responsibilities" goes against Christian values.

For context:

In 1892, the bishop of Meath, Dr Nulty, wrote a colourful letter to his congregations, urging them not to vote for “Parnellism” (despite the fact that Charles Stewart Parnell had died the year before). It “saps the very foundations of the Catholic faith” the bishop said. And, as a result of his intervention, the general election result for Meath was set aside on the grounds of “undue spiritual influence”. Reading the bishop’s pastoral letter, it is worth noting that he did not threaten hellfire or damnation. He simply told his congregations that, in his opinion, a vote for Parnellism was incompatible with being a good Roman Catholic.

Parnell was revealed to have had a longstanding adulterous relationship - this is the moral objection that Nulty had.

If imams are not allowed a voice in British politics, why are the Board of Deputies given a voice (though not when they criticised the Tories)? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43540795

Fraser raises a final interesting point. Physical and spiritual injury is banned by the law. You can't physically bar someone's path to vote or threaten them with violence or eternal damnation for voting one way or another. But you can threaten them with hypothetical job losses. Vote Labour and businesses will leave. Should the CBI not also be prevented from lobbying or speaking in favour of parties?