Dear Sheffield Council and Sheffield City Trust, 

We believe Sheffield is a liberal and inclusive city. A city that is a refuge for many and a city where people can speak freely, within the law, without fear of censorship. This is a city that is home to persecuted Christian, Jewish, Muslim, LGBTQ+, BAME and other minority groups from across the globe. Some have had to flee their homes and nations because of the views that they hold. They believe that their right to free speech is protected in our city.

Therefore our approach to equality and inclusivity cannot be selective; if we only hear the voices we agree with then we are choosing to be half deaf. History tells us that silencing viewpoints that we may disagree with breeds populism and extremism.

From Blades to Owls, steel workers to miners, from tech startups to teachers and socialists to conservatives - in Sheffield we have a proud tradition of allowing sparks to fly and talking through our differences. Sometimes we disagree passionately, but we do not deny one another the right to think and speak differently.

Franklin Graham has committed to sharing a message “of God’s Love” that he believes, and if we do not allow him to speak to those who choose to hear, then we are in danger of showing him the same intolerance of which he is accused.

Those of us who are Christians believe that the Gospel message is good news and relevant for all, and while some may disagree with the theology of this messenger at points, we support the message of Jesus and the hope He brings. Mr Graham has invited the people of Sheffield, in our diversity of sexuality, agenda and faith to hear what he has to say and judge for ourselves. Some of us might want to attend, some boycott and some demonstrate, as is our right as citizens of a democracy.

Lord Paul Scriven, a previous Leader of Sheffield City Council and member of LGBTQ+ community, recently stated on BBC Radio Sheffield: “We cannot have self-appointed people who decide what platform people can and can't have; we have judges and a legal system to do that. You cannot shut somebody down simply because they may say something you find offensive.”*

We agree, and trust that the table of hospitality, conversation and debate in Sheffield is big enough to give people space to speak and share different opinions and moral convictions even if they are offensive. In fact, the right to offend is foundational to freedom of speech and has been the instigator of progress, science and modernity. Some may not necessarily agree with what Mr Graham and others have to say, but we defend their right to say it as essential for the maintenance of a functioning democracy. Censoring what can and can’t be said in Sheffield is not progressive, it is intolerant and paternalistic.

We ask that:

• The council upholds their commitment to equality, free speech and religious freedom and clarifies how the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association is breaking the law in Sheffield. 
• We would furthermore ask the Council and Sheffield City Trust to outline clearly their censorship policy as the precedent that has just been set will affect books, faith groups, comedians and anyone else who may give offence with their speech within the law.

There are many things the undersigned do not necessarily agree on, including issues of faith, sexuality and politics, but we do love this city. There should always be space for tolerating different opinions, however strongly we may disagree with them.

With thanks for your service to Sheffield,

Undersigned,

Pastor Jon Watts (Sheffield Leaders in Prayer & Rock Christian Centre)  

Rev. Abiodun Alabede (City of Refuge Foursquare Church)

Dr Towan Greene PhD

Mrs Paulette Forbes-Williams

Tricia Watts (Coordinator, Sheffield City Street Pastors)

Andrew Birtwhistle (Burngreave Foodbank Chairman)

Todd Roberts (Antioch Community Church)

Sallie Wilson (Church on the Corner)

Pastor Pete Smith

Pastor Samuel Okerenta PhD (Royal Assembly, RCCG))

Pastor Musa Bako (Victory Assembly, RCCG)

Rev. Simon Copley MA (Sheffield URC Team Ministry)

Rev. Nick Allan

Rev. Oliver Buckley (OAC Ministries South Yorkshire)

Rev. David Middleton (Holy Cross Gleadless Valley Parish Church)

Mr Isaac Wallace (International Christian Worship Centre, Assemblies of God)

Rev. Canon Paul Williams (Christ Church Fulwood)

Rev. Dr Ben Cooper (Christ Church Fulwood)

Rev. Paul Edwards DipTh (Sheffield Central Elim Pentecostal Church)

Rev. Canon Tim Davies (Christ Church Central Sheffield)

Andy & Heidi Tiplady (Bushfire Ministries)

I've a section on the grotesque beliefs of Bushfire Ministries in my page on the participating Churches of Arise!  Bushfire Ministries aren't members of Arise! now. I have no information as to why Arise! is now without the blessings of Bushfire Ministries.  Did they voluntarily withdraw? Were they expelled? This is unlikely. They can't have been expelled because their views were regarded as too extreme - consider the fact that Rock Christian Centre is still a participating Church.

Some objections to the pursuit of 'Hate Crime,' as practised by South Yorkshire Police, as directed by the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner.

Who is to decide what is 'Hate Crime?' Who is to decide what expressions of 'Hate Crime' should be subject to action  by South Yorkshire Police, should be subject to sanctions? In South Yorkshire, the individual with  the most influence by far is Alan Billings, the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner. Is he an individual without bias, without ideological baggage, someone who has always shown himself to be impartial, someone without errors of judgment? Surely not. Again, the pages of this site give examples of his multiple  failures in these areas.

To decide if a particular expression (spoken or written) is or is not an expression of 'Hate Crime' will often be a very difficult matter. To avoid blatant injustice, investigation and decision-making will often have to be detailed and lengthy. On the evidence I have, Alan Billings has shown complete disregard for such matters as argument and evidence in his imposed policies on the pursuit of 'Hate Crime.' Sanctions have been imposed based on the testimony of the complainant, without the least interest in obtaining the testimony of the person complained against.

That has been my experience: the action taken against me for calling someone a 'blundering buffoon' and for 'mentioning' a person's Christian faith. The much fuller treatment of these issues on other pages gives alarming insights into what can happen in South Yorkshire.

I like very much the emphasis in the Petition quoted above on some strengths and values to be found in Sheffield - strengths and values which are in strong contrast with the views which underlie the pursuit of 'Hate Crime' here. Again, my own experience is relevant, I'd claim. Yorkshire people are very often thought of as blunt, plain-speaking folk,  with robust views and a high degree of common sense. But South Yorkshire folk need to be aware that to an alarming degree, their community is now under attempted control by people who  whose values are very, very different. In fact, South Yorkshire communities are under the actual control of these people to a significant extent.

These are people who see nothing wrong in pursuing someone who uses the words 'blundering buffoon,' to give just this one example. It may be that the people responsible now realize that their actions have been grossly disproportionate and unjust - or it may be that these people don't acknowledge it but do realize that they have blundered and are now looking for loopholes, a way out, ways to minimize damage to reputation and even to their careers, in one or two cases.

When police constables called at my house - when South Yorkshire Police decided to devote time and money and other resources to deliver a 'Police Information Notice' ('Harassment Warning') and later a 'Community Protection Notice - Written Warning' - on each occasion, the police constables were at my house for about an hour, without any attempt by the authorizing members of South Yorkshire Police to find out my testimony. It was also without the least idea of my circumstances.

When I received the Community Protection Notice - Written Warning, it was the day after my mother, 96 years old, had been admitted to a frailty ward. I won't exaggerate, I put these ridiculous documents in context, but they have had an impact, and a continuing impact. I called at a Police Station in Sheffield to speak to a duty police officer about the impact but an officer wasn't available. This was on a Friday. I and other family members had been informed that our mother couldn't live longer than the Monday ofter the weekend. After leaving the police station, I went to the hospital and found that mother had died a short time before.

Alan Billings has declared - repeatedly, in his various police and crime plans and many other places - that 'treating people properly' is one of his main priorities and a priority for South Yorkshire Police.

This isn't someone who has turned claim into reality, I would contend, this isn't someone who has enhanced the reputation of South Yorkshire, this isn't someone whose judgment I trust - rather, this is someone whose plans, decisions, actions should be scrutinized very, very carefully. But the bodies who are supposed to do that, the Police and Crime Panel and the Independent Ethics Panel, have comprehensively failed to offer proper scrutiny, to 'hold to account' the Police and Crime Commissioner. They too have largely failed the public. Again, I provide argument and evidence on these pages.

I refer to the wording of the petition as remarkable, heartening, well expressed but the petition is also grotesque and misleading. The omissions are very serious. In their long history, Churches have again and again been persecuting Churches, penalizing words they claimed are blasphemous or heretical. In the column to the left, I give the evidence that Rock Christian Centre thinks of blasphemy in a way that would be endorsed by Churches in the Middle Ages, and in later centuries, and in earlier centuries.

The main difference is in the sanctions. In this secular age, the most severe sanctions, such as burning alive, are unavailable. In our tolerant society, some things are tolerated and freely permitted which shouldn't be banned, in most cases, but which should be opposed, surely.

I wouldn't advocate the banning of Christian faith schools but I think that t to subject the children of non-Christian parents to what could be caled Christian indoctrination, to subject any children to what could be called sectarian education is not just misguided but indefensible, in the form it so often takes.

The authors of the petition have produced a document with many strengths but one which is unbalanced. They overlook, or don't include, the many advantages which Christians have, such as the many evangelical faith schools which offer an unbalanced curriculum. The Churches receive donations on a massive scale. One of my objectives is to give wider recognition of the need to consider very carefully if a church (or cathedral) is worthy of receiving a donation. The money given to a church (or cathedral) is money which could have gone to an organization without the severe disadvantages of Christian organizations.

See my comprehensive page on Church donations:

Giving to good causes. Objections to  giving to  churches / church organizations. 

In South Yorkshire, under the controlling influence of Dr Billings, the Churches have what amounts to a privileged status. Churches have received public money from the Police and Crime Commissioner, grants to organizations which can be criticized severely, grants which could have gone to far more deserving organizations.

The Police and Crime Commissioner has failed to address adequately issues to do with sexual abuse and other forms of abuse perpetrated by members of Churches. Church hierarchies have failed again and again to address the alarming problems and in some cases have allowed the perpetrators to go on offending. Dr Billings has given the impression that the problem is low in the list of priorities - so low as to be absent from his 'To do' list, matters which demand some form of action.

He has cultivated an image of himself as something of an expert in ethical discourse, someone whose practice is intensely moral. His practice is far less accomplished than his image-construction.

Members of 'Arise!' have gone in for what I would call 'prayer-stunts,' what they think of as a form of conversation with God. A few years ago, it was claimed, they walked along every street in Sheffield, praying as they walked. I can well believe that they covered most streets, or almost all the streets.

There's no record of the prayers that they offered but it's easy to construct a general outline, given the beliefs and 'values' recorded on the Church Websites. I haven't consulted all the Websites, obviously, but I have consulted what amounts to a representative sample.

Members of Rock Christian Church and the Philadelphia Network Church may well have prayed to God in terms such as these, an imaginary example but not at all wide of the mark, I'd say:

'Heavenly father, we thank you for the gift of your son, our saviour Jesus Christ our Lord. We ask that you show your light to the lost, and that you rescue from the sin of homosexuality those who know nothing of your Word.'

Dr Billings wouldn't use a prayer which is anything like that but in the course of my researches, which include some of the books on my bookshelves written by Dr Billings, I've come to the conclusion that this is someone whose Christian belief is much closer to orthodoxy than might be realized. In particular, he seems to view prayer in a way that completely neglects the difficulties, which does, I think, treat prayer as effective in all kinds of circumstances. He may lack the particular certitude to be found in hard-core fundamentalist believers but he's not vastly different from them, on the evidence I have.

In peace as in war, this reliance upon prayer is open to many objections. Prayer was not responsible for the defeat of Nazi Germany. It would be a gross distortion to give prayer - or chaplains attached to the armed forces - the credit for defeating Nazi Germany. Similarly in the case of the defeat of Russia and the victory of Ukraine, which I and countless others fervently hope will be the outcome of the current conflict.

Despite all this, I oppose attempts to make criticism of homosexuals and objections to homosexuality a hate crime, attempts to make use of Bible texts to justify that criticism a hate crime, for a number of reasons. These are addressed after the summary of my objections to the practice of Alan Billings and South Yorkshire Police.

I have such loathing for such people, but to back up loathing with legal penalties and police action in these cases is impossible. Nobody should demand that the law and the police should address situations which, realistically, cannot possibly be addressed. There are too many deranged and semi-deranged Christians out there. Dealing with more than a small percentage would take up too much time, too much effort, too much money. The same objection applies to the futile attempts of Alan Billings and the people in South Yorkshire Police who are glad to follow their leader. In significant areas of their work, it's Alan Billings who is the leader, not the Chief Constable.

Correcting an abuse can sometimes entail over-correction. Too many advocates for LGBQT issues take this route. I see no reason whatsoever for assuming that LGBQT advocates are uniformly enlightened, sensible, with a strong sense of realities, for what is possible and what is impossible. I completely oppose the view that LGBQT advocates can do no wrong, that LGBQT people can do no wrong, that they are uniformly virtuous.

There's Christian orthodoxy and such a thing as non-Christian orthodoxy. Non-Christian orthodoxy has power of its own. Non-Christian orthodoxy misuses its power often, suppressing fair-minded discussion, attempting to censor, attempting to ban.

Again and again, I encounter evidence of the narrowness of so many people who are advocates for one or another variety of non-Christian orthodoxy, not just a narrowness of thinking but a restriction of human sympathies. Many of them, I think, are ineffectual. Some of them  seem to  show no particular interest in helping people outside their favoured group and not much interest in helping people who belong to their favoured group Some of them give the impression of being narcissists.

In fact, again and again, people have done far more for the welfare of people  who wouldn't fit into these circles at all. The most important help given to LGBQT people in Afghanistan was given by the armed forces who kept the Taliban at bay for so long.