When free debate is shut down, it's hard to see who benefits

The Law Society, the proud bearer of a Royal Charter, should be deprived of that honour following its decision to ban a pro-marriage conference from its London headquarters.

The conference, in question was organised by the US-based World Congress of Families together with UK lobby group Christian Concern under the title “One Man. One Woman. Making the case for marriage, for the good of society.”

Thankfully, it has not been cancelled. Christian Concern says it is determined to hold the conference next week at an alternative central London venue if attempts to persuade the Law Society to honour its initial agreement fail. Among the speakers lined up is Sir Paul Coleridge, the Family Division judge who recently launched a new charity to combat marital break-up.

As the Monarch of the United Kingdom is supreme governor of the Church by law established, the Law Society has disrespected the duly constituted authority of Her Majesty by forbidding the expression of Christian moral and social teaching on its Chancery Lane premises.

The Bible, whose supreme authority the Church of England acknowledges in its Canons, is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Book of Common Prayer, which Canon A5 declares to be a faithful liturgical expression of the biblical doctrine of the Church of England, describes the God-created institution of heterosexual marriage as “an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought in Cana of Galilee” (The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony).

The Law Society, founded in 1825 as a professional body for solicitors in England and Wales, is proud of its Royal Charter, declaring: “Our Royal Charter of 1845 still provides the constitutional basis for much of our corporate governance. The principal 1845 Charter provided for the incorporation of the Society and the establishment of our governing body – the Council.”

Desmond Hudson, chief executive of the Law Society, explained the decision to revoke permission for the conference to be held on its premises: “We are proud of our role in promoting diversity in the solicitors’ profession and felt that the content of this conference sat uncomfortably with our stance. Through our events and venues supplier, we have assisted the organisers in identifying an alternative, non Law Society venue."

His explanation of the decision - made at short notice - is the epitome of political correctness, a PC 'diversity' which excludes the conviction about marriage clearly taught in the Holy Scriptures of the faith of which the British Sovereign is defender.

According to the Privy Council Office: “An application for a Royal Charter takes the form of a Petition to The Sovereign in Council. Charters are granted rarely these days, and a body applying for a Charter would normally be expected to meet a number of criteria.” Among the criteria is the need for “a convincing case that it would be in the public interest to regulate the body in this way".

With an ethos that is both restrictive and anti-Christian in its political correctness, it is no longer in the public interest that the Law Society should bear the honour of a Royal Charter.