“You can’t preach here!”

“Go and preach somewhere else.”

That dismissive statement is fast becoming the stock response to the expression of Christian faith in modern Britain. 

Earlier this year, a video of a lone female police officer went viral after she rejected demands from hecklers to stop a Christian street preacher sharing the gospel in Whitechapel.

In the middle of the exchange , bystanders were recorded trying to silence the preacher, shouting: “He can say it in a peaceful place like Hyde Park, go to Hyde Park!”; claiming “this is a Muslim area”. Quite rightly, and to the pleasant surprise of many, the officer was having none of it.

It’s not the first time we’ve heard “Go and preach somewhere else”. In 2008, The Christian Institute assisted two church workers in Birmingham in pursuing legal action after they were prevented from handing out Christian leaflets. On that occasion it was a Police Community Support Officer telling them, “you can’t preach here, this is a Muslim area.” 

Others have been stopped from peacefully evangelising at pride festivals.

In each case the underlying message is the same: “Preach if you have to, just not in places where there are people who might not want to hear your message.” And the list of places where offence rules supreme gets longer and longer. 

It’s as if in his Great Commission, Jesus had actually said: “Go into some of the world and preach some of the good news to some people”.

But more broadly, this rubs up against fundamental human rights provisions for freedom of speech, freedom of thought, conscience and peaceful assembly as well as religion.

One of the most serious examples of this form of creeping censorship is found in a court case that took place last month in Northern Ireland. Clive Johnston, a 78-year-old retired pastor, was found guilty of being reckless as to whether his actions might “influence” people accessing abortion facilities when he preached “For God so loved the world” outside Causeway Hospital, Coleraine. This hospital is in an abortion buffer zone.

Clive was found guilty despite the universally accepted fact that he didn’t even mention abortion. He had even taken the trouble to let local police know his intentions, reassuring them that this was not an abortion protest, but an open-air Sunday Service taking place near the hospital with a small group from his local church.

This was not good enough for the officers who told Clive he should end his Bible preaching and move it to a “safe space” like a chaplaincy, where he wasn’t at risk of being heard by passers-by. 

Some critics may well nod along with the police’s decision: “You can’t preach here, it’s an abortion area!”

Yes, we still enjoy a great deal of freedom of religion and freedom of speech in the UK. But that is because over the centuries there have been those, often Christians, prepared to stand up for them. But left unchallenged, the Magistrates’ Court ruling threatens those historic freedoms. It risks turning an “abortion buffer zone” into a “gospel censorship zone”. To simply shrug our shoulders and say: “There are other places he can preach” is to willingly accept that there are “no-go” areas for the Christian message, and potentially for other forms of speech the authorities don’t support.

Neither is it good enough to suggest that because most street preachers who get into legal difficulties are eventually vindicated there’s nothing to worry about. The legal process can be punishing even if the preacher is cleared. Preachers no longer preaching in public for fear of what may happen to them is not something to celebrate.

The critics also ignore the fact that the law on buffer zones, egregious though it is, does not forbid preaching in and of itself. Indeed, Clive’s whole purpose in sharing John 3:16 near the hospital was to preach this general Christian message and demonstrate that the law allowed him to do this. It’s quite legitimate for him to be concerned that the badly written law could have a chilling effect, causing innocent people to unnecessarily self-censor the most important message in the world.

Here’s what the law actually says:

It is an offence for [a person who is not a protected person] to do an act in a safe access zone with the intent of, or reckless as to whether it has the effect of—

(a) influencing a protected person, whether directly or indirectly,

(b) preventing or impeding access by a protected person, or

(c) causing harassment, alarm or distress to a protected person,

Clive did not mention abortion. No abortion placards were displayed. And everyone involved in the case accepted that he did nothing to impede, harass, alarm or distress anyone. But the vague and controversial word “influencing” has been selectively applied to criminalise gospel preaching. 

It is true that in 2022 the UK’s highest court ruled that the Northern Ireland abortion buffer law constitutes a proportionate interference with fundamental rights and freedoms – at least in terms of the somewhat narrow question referred to it. But, in case you missed it, Clive’s case was not about abortion. The Supreme Court surely did not have his situation in mind.

The implications of the judgment in Clive’s case reach far beyond this one pastor. Abortion buffer zones exist all over the UK. They cover swathes of our major cities. Could John 3:16 posted outside a church in one of these zones also fall foul of the law? What does it mean for chaplaincy work in hospitals?

And why stop there? If the authorities can prosecute someone for reading the Bible and preaching on God’s love, then other fundamental freedoms are at risk. Put simply, an act, unconnected to abortion, has been found to break buffer zone rules. Whoever you are, if you believe in free expression, that should worry you.

That’s why The Christian Institute is helping Clive to take his case to the Court of Appeal in defence of religious liberty and free speech for all.