State Interference on the Radio

The UCB (United Christian Broadcasting) organisation recently lost its appeal to the European Court of Human Rights against the State-run UK Radio Authority. The appeal was based on the alleged infringement of their human rights when their application for a digital terrestrial broadcast license was rejected by the State.

The Court ruled that their right to freedom of expression was not violated because the State had the right to ensure that the available but limited frequency spectrum was not dominated by one particular religious viewpoint. The UCB may believe they have one final court of appeal in Heaven, but as far as it goes here on Earth, the fight for a national radio station looks over for the time being.

From here, across the Atlantic, I watch as the current interpretation of the First Amendment runs its course in removing religious words and artefacts from State-funded entities. To that debate, I can add nothing new.

Here, in Britain, there is an establishment of religion in the form of the Anglican Church and whose bishops can occupy seats in the House of Lords and whose bishops require the approval of the Prime Minister for their ordination. To that debate, I could add something, but my main concern here is the symbolism of the UCB case.

The UCB, of course, does not wish to be promoted as a State-established medium; it merely wants to have a voice on the British airwaves. The argument about limited terrestrial digital bandwidth may or may not be relevant. Here, in Britain, there is about 416MHz of terrestrial bandwidth. This is to be compared to 1,485MHz for satellite, and it is to be noted that Sky Television offers about 400 channels within this bandwidth, of which 10 channels are of Christian content. Proportionally, there seems to be enough room for a few religious broadcasters at the terrestrial level.

Now, I do not want to give the impression that, in a multicultural society, only one religious group may have a voice to the exclusion and suppression of all other religious groups. What I do object to is the intention of the State to maintain a multicultural society to the exclusion and suppression of all other societies.

In other words, it is not the job of government to declare that a multicultural society is the best form of society. Assuredly, it is the job of this government to ensure that whatever trends are emerging in society as regards religious belief are not actively or passively hindered insofar that they do not affect the liberty of others.

By way of example, if the majority of British citizens decided to practise the philosophy of Zoroaster and intend to vote into power those who would enshrine its laws, should the State interfere? If the Christians and Jews were still allowed to practise their religion, then what is that to the State?

Why is it a concern of the State that one religious body gains an advantage over others? Does not the established Anglican Church have such an advantage already? Does not the Roman Catholic Church have State-funded schools but Muslims and Hindus do not? How do these current advantages threaten multicultural Britain? Nothing that is apparent to me.

Admittedly, not a few politicians have expressed their fear of the likes of tele-evangelist Benny Hinn being imported to Britain. Well, the Benny Hill show may be exported to America, but not the Benny Hinn show in the opposite direction!

May I venture to suggest one reason for this inconsistent behaviour towards the UCB? A culture that is a fluctuating hive of activity as regards belief is potentially more prone to instability than a mono-belief society. One may argue that its dynamism offers a marketplace of choice in a society’s progress through civilisation and that is true.

But, like the individual consumer who decides on one consumable item from an array of choices, so society has the right if it so chooses to select one item from a volatile array and settle upon it for a period of time. If the chosen product proves to grow stale after a while, then society may settle upon another choice. And is this not the way civilisation has largely progressed through the ages? One new religion or philosophy enters into a society and is embraced because the incumbent philosophy failed to compete or was found wanting (entropy in the form of corruption or complacency is one common reason).

Like an unstable vortex of water, there is dynamism, confluences and eddies of opinion. But the vortex will eventually seek its state of equilibrium and finds a rest position before the next unsettling force chances by.

The State errs greatly in assuming to itself the guardian of a meta-philosophical position. That is, there is a whirlpool of philosophies interacting and colliding in society, but above them, like a large rock in the pool, stands the unshakeable meta-philosophy of multiculturalism. They arrogantly assume that this philosophy is like no other philosophy and must needs be established like the Anglican religion.

No, let it be subject to the same free market forces of belief seeking that it allows of other so-called sub-philosophies. For, in my considered opinion, multiculturalism is not a state of equilibrium but a state of flux as a society rejects the old and seeks the new in an open marketplace of belief (as to what role the State takes when the new dominant philosophy is enthroned is another matter).

But it is as foolish to maintain it perpetually through the artificial means of political correctness, as it is to attempt to put a whirlpool in a bottle. Whatever philosophy comes through the melee and gains the ascendancy will be a matter of historical record in centuries to come. Belief should be deregulated and subject to the enquiries and prayers of the corporate mind of society. That philosophy which is true and has behind it Divine Will shall have nothing to fear in that respect, but any philosophy that needs the State to prop it up is a loser from the very start. If it does not have the devotion of a revived people, it is a shell.

So, UK Radio Authority, let the UCB have their national radio license and may the best philosophy win!