And another thing…

Tom. You have voted on what you believe is right and I assume on the basis on what the good people who voted you in told you via email, letters etc rather than your party telling you how to vote. Independence is the future. The Party rule is long gone!

i wish some other labour mps had more backbone as you

It is rare in my adult lifetime that a new government comes in and reverses the previous government’s legislation on social policy. There are of course some notable occasions but on balance the incoming government seems to find it has better things to do (like sort out Brown’s Weimar-style economic management). I fear that, when this evil, wicked adminstration is finally ousted, the belligerent way that age-old freedoms of thought and expression have been deliberately undermined will remain on the statute book. But if you vote socialist then this is by definition the kind of thought-policing that you get.

We lost the vote.

Do you mean YOU lost, and as such the amendment was removed, or the government lost, so the amendment stays? If it’s the latter, huzzah!

Removal of that section would have been an abortion. It would have criminalised free speech, and free opinion.

What irks/frightens me most about the political left is that there is “a commonly held opinion” on things. Taking an opposing view is at best shouted down with accusations of all sorts, and at worst outright criminal. Dictatorships throughout the world use the same tactics. It MUST NOT be allowed to develop in this country. It’s dangerous.

So well done for opposing this.

Too right you lost the vote.

Would it be acceptable to say we should not tolerate the love of two BLACK people at the same level as two WHITE people?

Congratulations for showing some backbone! (But why on earth would you be _proud_ this is the first time you’ve gone against a three line whip – I thought MPs were meant to primarily represent _their_constituents_ not their party?)

What kind of ramifications is this likely to have for you?

The careful wording of Lord Waddington’s amendment is quite clear. One part of that states quite clearly (Just subtract some “Or”s…) “the discussion of sexual conduct shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”.

The removal of this caveat quite clearly shows the governments intention here!

With new provisions in the Coroners & Justice bill which mean the state can cover up any inconvenient deaths it might have caused, if you even dare to discuss something they object to and it’s “mind your step in the police station” time!

So this government (until recently _your_ government thinks that mere discussion of sexual conduct should fall within the remit of the law. This to me is absolutely _ludicrous_.

I hope that Lenny is right but fear he’s probably not…

While the country goes to hell in a handcart, the government can’t resist bringing out the same old toys to play with to stir things up among our various ‘communities’ so-called.

Well done, Tom, for playing with the big boys this time!

Let’s just be honest and say that the government are against Lord Waddington’s clear and concise amendment because they actually want the situation to be as clear as mud to invite hostility.

Plus the fact, as someone called ‘Boggart’ wrote on the Telegraph blog:

“Freedom of speech is a small thing, this government are out to abolish freedom of thought.”

And the homosexual actor Chris Biggins writes in today’s Mail:

“It is bitterly ironic that, in the name of tolerance, the Government should be marching towards such a culture of intolerance.”

Fortunately, the unelected Lords care more about our freedom than our elected representatives.

No wonder some in the government wants to abolish them.

Well done, Tom.

Both an excellent speech and an excellent vote. Commiserations, Tom, on losing today, but hopefully the next Government (of whatever ilk) will reform this legislation properly to ensure it achieves only its intended purpose, and not the purpose that people like Patrick Harvie already try to attribute to it.

Tom – ‘No-one has the right not to be offended…’

There you have it, in one short sentence.

I reserve the right not to be offended, but the disagreement is between me and those who offend me, not between them and the state.

There is no need for this legislation, nor for most of the nonsense that has been passed in the last 12 years.

Are there more than just you and Frank Field supporting traditional working class values in today’s Labour Party, or shall I just vote BNP as a protest?

And what was your decision on the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006? It criminalised telling religious nutters they were nutters (which they are).

I ask this because inciting religious hatred has always been my hobby.

I have long thought that there should be a moratorium on the word “offense” until everyone calms down,

You are quite right in saying that no one has a right not to be offended. The whole concept is absurd. I also know you are a strong campaigner for the dignity and humanity of gays, which is to be commended.

I wrote some time ago that you have gone from being a government toady to a voice crying in the wilderness.

Except that, the wilderness is becoming populated by a lot of very sensible people.

Well done Tom. I don’t know how this will impact on your “career”, but to be honest, the only people left in the Fuhrer Bunker are going to have to take their cyanide pills on election night.

Would criticism of inter-racial sexual relationships and urging people not to engage in miscegenation, be protected under Lord Waddington’s amendment? Would it protect criticism of attempts to portray marriages conducted by the Catholic Church as being on a par with real marriages? And would it protect the right to describe anyone marrying out of thier religion as being a threat to social cohesion?

Tom

Every so slighty off topic, but ive just logged on to parliament TV to have a look at your 3 mins today and its such a woefully inadquete service its not possible.
I can either watch live H of C or I can watch the entirety of todays debates in the commons with no option to fast forward.

Im unlucky enough to have to access the speeches of MEP’s regulary, however it is a pleasure to do so as the website is super fast and super efficent.

With just a search for an MEP surname I can get everything they have ever said on video.

I do wish the House authorites would stop paying lipservice to technology and get a proper accessible site.

As a techy MP

Which way did the other parties vote?

Tom — first the EDM and now this. You’re turning awfully sound. Are you sure you belong in New Labour?

Congratulations on taking a stand for freedom.

So freedom of expression is now gone (officially and in practice), shame it served the country well.

Perhaps the UK is amongst those failed states jaquie was ranting about; no freedoms allowed except those approved of by the goverment and those will go.

Can’t say anything that offends someone else; well can I get the police to arrest the cabinet, most things they say offend me.

On the police horse; why was someone arrested for calling it gay? Is calling a horse gay offensive? If the police think it is aren’t they being homophobic?

stewart cowan@ – ‘Fortunately, the unelected Lords care more about our freedom than our elected representatives’.

and what a commentary on political life in this country that we have to depend on the unelected house of lords to defend our freedoms!

Well said Tom. There is a growing disposition in this country that arguments do not need to be won but rather they just need to be stopped. I agree with you about homosexuality, but I won’t prevent others saying they oppose it. We’ll just win the arguments about it until there’s one angry man in a room somewhere preaching to himself.

“Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad”..

A fair comment on current legislation.

I defend freedom of thought: obviously this Government does not like freedom – of anything. Not so much as evidenced by its words but by its actions.

I do think Ministers are either mad, or stupid or so blinded by the day to day, they cannot see the major issues.

We need less government interference in our lives. We cannot afford more – neither financially nor morally.

Financially is obvious.

Morally? – a complete abrogation of personal responsibility: the Government legislates.

(But enforcement is impossible).

If the Government really believed in anything, what about stopping illegal drug taking? That does more damage.

Oops too difficult.. try something else.

Time for a clearout and fewer policies: and IMPLEMENT the laws we have.

It’s a sad tale. An MP standing up for free speech, for freedom of expression, for a free country – only to be shot down and ignored.

Credit to you Tom, and shame on the government for attacking free speech just to get a few more votes.

ID cards, the war in Iraq, secret inquests, abolition of the 10% tax… there’s a big long list of things you probably didn’t go into politics to support, but this is the one that finally made you rebel?

I don’t disagree with your stand on this, but you really should have grown a pair long before now.

You are getting into the habit of making rational comments Mr. Harris. That is not a trait that sits well with the autocratic “liberal” left.

You may become a hate figure for the apparatchiks as are Frank Field and Kate Hoey and as we fondly remember the late Gwyneth Dunwoody.

Tom, dear Tom

All this recent “I’m not really Labour anymore” is not going to save you. You know that, don’t you?

It’s going to be a long, hot summer.

But its only one more thing Tom, in the end You can’t legislate the way people think,that way lies chaos.It’s all very sad.

Firstly, Tom congrats on showing some backbone. (Why did you have to bring religion into it though?)

Secondly, much as I morally object to their existence, hopefully the House of Lords will put a stop to this.

@Alisdair:
“Would it be acceptable to say we should not tolerate the love of two BLACK people at the same level as two WHITE people?”

YES! It is entirely tolerable to spout such nonsense. The people that say it should be laughed out of town, but they should nevertheless be allowed to say it.

“Would it be acceptable to say we should not tolerate the love of two BLACK people at the same level as two WHITE people?”

Acceptable to say it? Yes. I would disagree and argue with it. I might boycott the individual, even. But he shouldn’t be locked up for saying it.

I can’t say I’m surprised that you didn’t bother to ask me what I actually wrote to Strathclyde Police, Tom.

If you done had you’d have found out that I was not accusing Conti of inciting hatred, or calling for anyone’s arrest. I was just asking how the police view the limits of Breach of the Peace, largely to satisfy myself that Incitement to Hatred legislation is not required under Scots law since the more flexible charge can be used if police officers and courts, using their discretion, feel that it’s appropriate.

But instead of descending to anything as sordid as facts, you’ve clearly decided that it’s more sensible to swallow the absurdist nonsense of fundamentalist organisations like the Christian Institute, groups which have lots to say about how wicked other people are on matters of personal morality, but little to say about the eradication of poverty, the need for a compassionate welcome for the strangers in our midst, the turning of swords into ploughshares, not trying to serve both God and Mammon, the call for stewardship of the Earth, or other genuinely strong Christian themes.

Given that, I guess I’m also unsurprised that of ALL THE POSSIBLE ISSUES you have picked this one as your first act of rebellion against the New Labour machine.

You could have rebelled against the screwed up benefits system, which is designed to humiliate and harass young parents back to work before they’re ready. But no.

You could have rebelled against the inhumane and brutal asylum system, which send officers to kick in people’s doors in YOUR CITY at six in the morning to tear children from their mothers’ arms. But no.

You could have rebelled against the renewal of the UK’s nuclear arsenal, the Trident system at Faslane. But no.

You could have rebelled against the light-touch regulation of the banks, which saw mutuals snapped up for profit, debt piled upon debt, city bonuses spiral out of control, all under the rule of a government which declared itself “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”. But no.

You could have rebelled against the absurd decisions to approve new coal fired power stations and airport runways while Ministers made vacuous speeches about climate change. But no.

No. Instead you chose to rebel on this. The need to defend people’s right to use “threatening words or behaviour, or displays written material which is threatening… intending thereby to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation”.

Great. Just great. It’s hard to imagine how anyone could be a disgrace to the Labour Party anymore, but you appear to have managed it. Give it up now and join UKIP, you’ll find it more to your taste.

I am sorry that this story was eclipsed somewhat on the blogosphere by the Daniel Hannan speech.

However, I felt I needed to record my thoughts on your rite of passage:

http://wrinkledweasel.blogspot.com/2009/03/tonight-was-big-moment-in-life-of-big.html

Way to go on the free speech Tom! If anyone wishes to read my comment on this post, which our host has decided not to pass, it can be found here.

Assuming of course that this signpost passes muster.

Have to agree with Patrick Harvie – is this really the issue, in the last 8 years, which most threatened the welfare of your constituents. I somehow doubt it.
However, you are right on this issue. But you seem to have a bizzare belief that everyone else in the LP but you is an ultra-liberal who hates families etc etc – I think you maybe need to talk to your CLP members a bit more, because I don’t think many people feel that way… My thoughts here:
http://cambridgeunilabour.blogspot.com/

Chris – I’m sorry, but I don’t have the time or the inclination to research and check the veracity of allegations against named individuals in comments posted here. As I have said many times before, I have no intention of exposing myself to legal action by aggrieved third parties for the sake of “free speech”.

And incidentally, I don’t see why the identity of the person who moved a particular amendment should have any influence on my decision as to whether or not to support it. Surely, if you agree with the text and its effect, then you supopoort it?

Jeremy Bentley:

Apologies, I expressed myself unclearly. My point was that incitement to hatred against homosexuals should be on the same legal basis as incitement to racial hatred.

I will defend to the end anybody’s right to criticise, offend or insult somebody for a choice they make. But I will never stand by and watch someobody be criticised for something over which they have no choice, be that race, gender, sexuality or anything else.

Which doesn’t deal with my suggestion that you might check the veracity of allegations which *you* make against people in your own blog…

@Patrick Harvie
No. Instead you chose to rebel on this. The need to defend people’s right to use “threatening words or behaviour, or displays written material which is threatening… intending thereby to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation”.

If you don’t understand why free speech is foundational for a democratic society to function perhaps you should think about it.

You claim the right to voice your agenda irrespective of whom you offend but seek to deny this right to others who offend your sensibilities.

Anyone should be allowed to say what they wish, if you have a counter argument then you give it.

I also include so called “hate speech”, this is an evil catch all and incitement claims is it’s brother.

If you can show that a speech has led to an attack then put the assailant in jail, if the incitor is the leader of an organised group then, perhaps, indite them as an accessory.

If an attack is made because of race or creed why should that attract a longer sentence than any other similar attack?
GBH is GBH no matter the reason.

You discuss/argue with those whom you disagree with, invoking the law just means you don’t have a good enough argument.
The law that you use today against your opponenets they can likely use against you either now or in the future.

You have no right ‘not to be offend’. You have no right to ‘respect’ (you have to earn that in the eyes of each person you come in contact with).
You have no right to have your lifestyle, philosophy or hairstyle admired.
You have no right to happiness (though you should be free to pursue it).

You have a right to be tolerated, as long as tolerating your freedom doesn’t impact on mine. Then I’ll argue for my freedom and an agreement would have to be made between us as to limits on our respective actions.

@Alisdair:

Do you mean you will take someone to task verbally, physically or legally for criticising someone based on something they had no choice in?

I am all for intellectually crushing someone for espousing a ridiculous opinion, but not physically and even less legally.

Also, the bit where it says: “criticism of sexual conduct or practices… shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.” is actually sensible, otherwise if you see a young person constantly engaging in unprotected one night stands and criticise that lifestyle you would be committing a hate crime.

All criticism, however vile, should be allowed to be discussed and argued against. Sunlight is the best disinfectant as someone once said. Popular derision at holding such beliefs is the best way to remove those beliefs from society. (e.g. how many people believe the earth is flat? how many people say they believe Elvis is still alive?)

“Sunlight is the best disinfectant as someone once said.”

Nah. I left a sandwich on the parcel shelf once. Two weeks later I had to sell the car.

@Paul

I agree with the sentiment.

This bit of what you say is interesting:

‘I am all for intellectually crushing someone for espousing a ridiculous opinion’.

You mean you are all for crushing the argument intellectually, I take it, rather than the person. Or do you? Not a chess or poker player are you by any chance? Very aggressive games, the chess and the poker.

@Old Holborn

Who would buy a used car from you?

@ Patrick Harvie, 11.50am

It quite amazes me how, if anyone dares express a different opinion to someone currently involved in a homosexual lifestyle, they snap back with vitriol about ‘fundamentalist’ Christians.

If your lifestyle has any merits then let it stand the test of scrutiny without resorting to the usual:

a) Name calling
b) Going in the huff/getting stroppy
c) Attacking Christians

I would expect, indeed demand that my MP votes to provide the assurance that I can express my opinions free from the remotest danger of prosecution – then people can either agree with me or disagree with me, but encouraging people to call the police if my opinion ‘offends’ you?

How can you be serious?

Why don’t you grow a backbone, like Tom has started doing?

Stewart Cowan said: “Attacking Christians”

Regrettably, attacking god-botherers has been illegal since the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.

Thus ended free speech some years ago.

Well I’m gay, and on free speech I pretty much believe that the US First Amendment should be enacted here (and not some phony mish-mash of “rights and responsibilities”). So on the exact issue, I suppose I would support Tom Harris.

But that would be in an “all other things being equal” situation. As the discussion by Tom and in the comments has made clear, Tom has quite willingly gone along with other restrictions on so called offensive speech (see Simon Gardner above). And as Patrick Harvie notes it is on this of all issues that he breaks a three line whip.

I think that stinks to heaven.

You could get your bona fides back, perhaps, Tom, by sponsoring legislation that allowed gay people access to marriage, or even more cheaply by simply calling for civil partnerships to be allowed to be celebrated in the many churches that would be quite willing to host them.

As it is, this vote stinks.

@ Simon Gardner

I was against the religious hatred legislation as well. Free speech is for everyone.

The whole nasty business is to cause division in society and your posts just go to show how successful it has all been.

Whatever grounds I have for believing something is my business. I am entitled to my beliefs and I am also entitled to share my beliefs, just as you are.

The difference between us is that I try to use a modicum of respect and even, occasionally, some humour.

Tom, massive thanks to you. This is why I could never bring myself to support Labour in the Blair era, because as I Christian I feared persecution for my views.

I’m delighted that you lost the vote. I am tired of offensive remarks being given credence because those expressing them make the excuse of religionism. I note that this obsession with free speech makes little comment about the effect of such remarks on the climate of opinion and the evidence that it legitimises homophobia.

I note that your voting has not been consistent. Scared of your Catholic constituents, Tom? Not a great deal of principle there.

Patrick Harvie sounds like he remembers what being progressive and left wing means. You clearly don’t. Again, excusing religionist prejudice.

Hope you lose your seat next time.

@Terry
As a Christian you should be challenged on your beliefs and your actions based upon them. If your faith is strong and your beliefs justified then they will stand up to any criticism.

@MerseyMike
Evidence, education and reasonable people mean that whatever ANYONE says attitudes such as homophobia will be laughed at and sent to the edges of society where it can no more lead to a climate of homophobia then the belief in little green men leads us to wear tinfoil hats.

Banning such nonsensical claims will drive it underground into groups that will use it for nefarious purposes, not always related to the thing that brought them together initially. Do we want that? Seriously? Let people say what they want then show, using evidence, that they are talking complete drivel.

If I can be arrested for criticising someone’s beliefs and/or lifestyle choices then there are a lot of priests who could have me put in jail (possibly where they are) and several nations that may take exception to the fact that I think a country based on a religion is a fundamentally flawed idea. (pun half intended)

This of course makes all public health campaigns against sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, illegal.

Responding to two comments –

@Chris Willis

Of course I support freedom of speech, indeed while speaking at the recent Convention on Modern Liberty hosted by No2ID and Liberty I had the chance to agree with many people about New Labour’s record of *real* attacks on free speech such as the Walter Wolfgang incident:
http://tinyurl.com/8d9e2
Or the experience of Maya Anne Evans:
http://tinyurl.com/2×6dps
But the issue Tom Harris has made his stand on is nothing of the sort. The UK Government has decided that incitement to hatred should be outlawed. I disagree, and said so in my original post. But if such a law is to exist, Tom believes that people who can cite a religious reason for inciting hatred should be exempt, given special protection which the rest of us don’t have. This position simply has no rational defence.

@Stewart Cowan

My lifestyle’s fine, thanks for asking. I don’t need anyone else’s approval, scrutiny or tolerance to know that.
As for whether organisations like the Christian Institute are fundamentalist, they openly argue that in making policy and law, religion should be considered a higher source of authority than the democratic process.
If anyone wants to live their life according to a religion they’ve subscribed to, that’s just fine. Far from attacking Christianity, my original post recognised several important and widely understood Christian values which I have great respect for. But they have no need to wag fingers at me or anyone else simply because we don’t worship gods or have a different set of personal moral values.
That’s the basis of that whole ‘free society’ thing which Labour has been so determined to undermine, but which can still be kept on its feet if we work at it.

If anyone’s interested in a coherent 21st century take on issues of freedom in modern society, I recommend:
http://www.modernliberty.net/
and in particular Philip Pullman’s keynote speech.

Patrick: “Tom believes that people who can cite a religious reason for inciting hatred should be exempt.”

Is that a deliberate lie or an accidental one, Patrick?

Even the government minister who asked the Commons to remove the Waddington amendment conceded that its presence in the first place was “innocuous”. You claimed in your first comment that I had been mistaken to claim that you accused Archbishop Conti of incitement to homophobic hatred. But now you claim that my vote to maintain the freedom of speech clause was, in fact, a vote for the exemption from prosecution of people who incite hatred. It was not, and since you know this to be the case, i have to ask why you’re trying to mislead people.

My vote was to protect from prosecution, or police investigation, those who criticise homosexuality publicly, but I have always in the past supported legislation to criminalise any behaviour which actually incites hatred. Even with the so-called Waddington amendment in place, there is plenty in law to make sure that those who genuinely incite hatred against homosexuals (as opposed to those like Archbishiop Conti who merely criticise) are prosecuted.

Perhaps you believe that, despite my strong voting record in favour of gay rights in the past, I must be a homophobe because, on this occasion, I dared to defy the gay rights lobby?

It looks like an Iris Robinson inspired ammendment basically to possibly protect her and possiblly Archbishop Conti. There is a fine line between freedom of speech something that even John Stuart Mill had a dilemma with and had the ‘harm principle’ discussion. What is more important the freedom of the individual to act or the freedom of speech which may in certain cases make that individual’s freedom hard to maintain. Both should be protected to as full a degree as possible but where the line is drawn is down to the harm principle.

Lord Waddington says that such a viewpoint shall not be taken in itself as to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred. Which is I believe true, each case needs to be taken on its individual merits.

If Labour have voted for the removal of such a phrase and 3 lined whipped it I will say I am not surprised. I agree with you Tom that its inclusion was important. And Patrick just because such language ’shall not be taken of itself’ as evidence does not mean it can never be the case. What happened after Mrs Robinson spoke may well have inspired some and that case is still under investigation.

“My vote was to protect from prosecution, or police investigation, those who criticise homosexuality publicly…”

Just out of curiosity, how can you “criticise homosexuality”? It seems to me akin to “criticising” left-handedness or blue eyes.

Now religion is quite another matter. It’s an ideology people adopt or choose for themselves. It’s a matter of that individual’s choice (let’s leave aside all the infant indoctrination that goes on for a moment).

How on earth you can “criticise homosexuality” is beyond me.

How you can forbid ridiculing someone’s very silly religion is beyond me also.

@ Tom Harris

Sorry mate, but your position is now completely confused.

You can’t tell me that
“My vote was to protect from prosecution, or police investigation, those who criticise homosexuality publicly…”

while still saying that the Waddington provision was “innocuous”. Either it did give people protection from prosecution for incitement to hatred, or it didn’t.

If it did give that protection on religous grounds but on no other then it was right to remove it because religion should have no such special privilege to incite hatred.

If it didn’t give that protection then it was right to remove it because it was pointless.

I can’t help pointing out too that you seem to have nothing to say on any of my other points – not only the inaccuracy of what you’ve said about me, but crucially why you never rebelled against…

Labour’s track record on attacking real freedom of speech
Labour’s track record on war and nukes
Labour’s track record on runways and coal
Labour’s track record on brutalising asylum seekers
Labour’s track record on runaway free market capitalism…

…or anything else. Until this.

Patrick: “Either it did give people protection from prosecution for incitement to hatred, or it didn’t.
If it did give that protection on religous grounds but on no other then it was right to remove it because religion should have no such special privilege to incite hatred.”

The Waddington amendment doesn’t mention religion. Haven’t you read it? And it was the minister who described it as “innocuous”, not I.

As I said in my speech, I felt that the inclusion of the Waddington amendment, even if it didn’t change the law significantly, if at all, would have sent out a message to all those of a sensitive disposition that they shouldn’t waste police time by complaining every time they get a bit annoyed at somebody else’s opinion.

“I can’t help pointing out too that you seem to have nothing to say on any of my other points – not only the inaccuracy of what you’ve said about me, but crucially why you never rebelled against…
Labour’s track record on attacking real freedom of speech
Labour’s track record on war and nukes
Labour’s track record on runways and coal
Labour’s track record on brutalising asylum seekers
Labour’s track record on runaway free market capitalism…
…or anything else. Until this.”

Patrick, if I strongly disagreed with any other area of policy, I would have said so.

I suppose a bit of history might help all sides here, for the Catholic Church in Scotland has not always had such a problem with homosexuality.

In fact it often had its biggest problems with heterosexuality. For decades the biggest pastoral problem discussed was “mixed marriages” (i.e. Catholics wanting to marry Protestants). Apart from that there were occasional problems such as when Mario Conti’s predecessor as Bishop of Aberdeen eloped with his housekeeper, who happened to be the wife of a local Church of Scotland minister.

Meanwhile, in the 1970s, the incipient gay movement in Scotland was getting its greatest support from various Catholic parishes and priests. For example, in Edinburgh Fr. Anthony Ross OP allowed the first gay discos in Scotland to take place in the basement cafeteria at the Catholic Chaplaincy at 23 George Sq. While the Gay Catholic group QUEST had strong groups in both Edinburgh and Glasgow. More than that the Scottish Minorities Group (later Scottish Homosexual Rights Group, with Robin Cook MP no less as honorary President) for years had its mimeographed publication GAY SCOTLAND produced and distributed from a Parish house in, I think, Cumbernauld.

Tom:

“The Waddington amendment doesn’t mention religion.”

Your whole speech did. No other groups would seek such protection, with the possible exception of the BNP. There is no other rationale for Waddington’s amendment, as five minutes looking at Tuesday’s Hansard is enough to demonstrate.

The basic question is the same – did it give them protection from prosecution or didn’t it?

If it did, that’s unjustified. If it didn’t than it was a misleading and silly bit of legislation, which could only serve to reinforce the ideas of those who demand that society casts a moral judgement against people on grounds of sexual orientation.

In any case, there’s little point in defending it as harmless on the grounds that it wouldn’t be used in court. Section 28 was never used in a court either, but it was used day in and day out as a weapon of fear to deny funding to community groups, health projects, and so on.

“Patrick, if I strongly disagreed with any other area of policy, I would have said so.”

Yes I know. That’s my point. You didn’t disagree with any of that dismal record, but you’re so put out by the removal of this fig leaf for bigotry that it becomes your first Great Stand for Freedom.

That’s all I was trying to point out.

Patrick Harvie has been reduced to mentioning the ‘BNP’ to try and win the debate.

I therefore declare Tom Harris the winner!

@ Patrick Harvie

Thank you for your reply.

You try to assure me that you don’t need anyone else’s approval, scrutiny or tolerance to know that your lifestyle (sic) is fine.

In that case, I wonder why you object to a simple amendment that clears the way for you to relay this to people like me who want to question the way you live and its impact on society. I can only surmise that you have doubts about your lifestyle, like so many homosexuals do, and would rather silence any debate, never mind criticism.

That’s what it looks like from where I’m sitting.

I don’t think the Christian Institute get to make many laws. It seems they mostly get ignored, unlike special interest groups like Stonewall, who were told by Blair that whatever they wanted they would get (link available if required).

You also are confused about the idea of a ‘free society’. It doesn’t mean you can behave any way you choose and disregard everyone else. Society needs ONE set of principles to operate by. This we used to have, based on Christian values, and we all got on with each other much better, did we not? It just didn’t suit people who wanted to act immorally, so they set out to change it out of selfishness.

Just out of interest, but does Mr Harvie actually beleive that the archbishop’s views amount to inciting hatred against homosexuals?

Whatever Mr. Harvie believes, I certainly believe that religious attacks on homosexuality – including the Roman Catholic church’s repeated statements that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” do in fact incite hatred against homosexuals.

But, in an open market place of ideas, I believe (as a Gay Catholic) that such hatred is best repulsed by verbal contestation.

What is objectionable is the effort by some religious groups to protect *themselves* by law whilst demanding *by law* the right to attack others, and *by law* the right not to be offended.

I am quite happy for the law to allow Mario Conti the free speech to attack my sexual desires as “intrinsically disordered”, just as long as I can point out that Catholicism is full of suppressed homoeroticism, and that if I want to go, in Glasgow, to go and get turned on by seeing a naked man being ritually humiliated, I have a choice of looking at a Crucifix in St. Andrews Cathedral, or going to a gay S/M club.

[In fact, all the best SM clubs have always been in Edinburgh. Glasgow poofs are sissies.]

http://englisheclectic.blogspot.com/2009/03/ongoing-discussion-about-free-speech.html

Stewart, you’ve misunderstood Godwin’s Law. In its original form it simply stated that every online discussion would tend, eventually, to include comparisons to the Nazis.

The traditional extension is that anyone comparing another party in a discussion to the Nazis has “lost”.

However, the idea that merely mentioning the BNP in such a debate, especially one about hatred, triggers that version of Godwin’s Law is simply absurd.

Such an interpretation would prevent any discussion of the BNP at all, which would make it harder to counter their arguments.

Incidentally, if it were permitted in law I’d be offering 5/4 on that Tom Harris switches parties some time in the next six years.

@james

Incidentally, if it were permitted in law I’d be offering 5/4 on that Tom Harris switches parties some time in the next six years.

I’m sure William Hill would offer you a price. I bet with them on Bush to win against Kerry. I needed some compensation, after all.

@Patrick Harvie
Tom believes that people who can cite a religious reason for inciting hatred should be exempt, given special protection which the rest of us don’t have. This position simply has no rational defence.

Has Tom actually said/written this?

His point seemed to be about someone trying to have someone else (who happens to be a Bishop) charged.

I happen to think that all such laws should be scrapped, they are stupid and uncivilised. Let the atheists rant against the theists and vis-a-versa, let the SWP (does it still exist?) and other loony lefties rail against Thatcher.

Tom chose the right side of this argument for what most of you appear to see as the wrong reasons (religion). I have no idea if that was his divining rod on this, but the fact is the amendment, in and of itself, is fine, logical and sensible. There is no rational argument against it.

Please, anyone who thinks the amendment takes a single right away from you or encourages anyone to be bigoted explain why….

I am more liberal than anyone I have ever spoken to, but to those of you defending gay rights on this issue, especially the non-gays, you have backed an absolute loser here. Tom was right until he brought religion into this. The amendment is fine, taking it away may have no obvious effect but the danger is getting the police involved in intellectual discussions. And if no-one can see any problems with that then I will stop framing my arguments for a cheap laugh!

Here is a YouTube by young gay Christians in the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBMbNSyqwkA

I was once a young gay Catholic living in Scotland, and while I think Conti should be allowed to say what he wants, he need to know that he hurts people.

People don’t have a right not to be offended. But neither do those being offensive have a right not to be told what are the consequences of what they say.

People like Conti make young gay kids try to kill themselves.

Mr Harris, as a gay man myself, it may surprise certain people when I say that I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with you on this, good job. Frankly, I am getting pretty sick of this Government being overly sensitive on people’s behalf, this has to stop. If people want to criticise me for my sexuality, in a democratic society surely they should be allowed to do so? It’s a scandal how little regard this Government has for basic fundemental liberties. It was the same with the religious hatred act. I can understand the banning of threatening language, as such

(continued sorry), as this is in itself an assault on our ability to go about our daily lives freely and safely. However, limiting the free exercise of legitimate debate? Outrageous. Can you make sure this outrage is represented at the highest levels too. The erosion of civil liberties has to stop. The Public Order Act 1986 being a starting point for change. People should be allowed to be insulting, noone has the right not to be offended by a legitimate debate.

@Paul Halsall
If you are gay and a Christian your biggest problem is not being gay!

“People like Conti make young gay kids try to kill themselves.”
That is society’s fault. We should make being gay seem such a natural part of who we are as a people that any rantings from the pulpit look outdated and bigoted.

And using the US in an argument that has a religious tinge is akin to the reducto ad hitler paradigm.

The fact is many lifestyle choices (not that being gay is a choice, but how you choose to live your life is) are not good for you. Straight or gay, living a promiscuous life having unprotected sex is dangerous. Selling your body on the street is also a choice and is dangerous.

I am no prude, but I think that certain lifestyle choices SHOULD be subject to criticism for the benefit of those who lead that life and those that may follow. Unfortunately that does open the door to allow the religious people to criticise a happy home because the people in it happen to be gay. Such is the price of free speech.

@ Paul “We should make being gay seem such a natural part of who we are as a people that any rantings from the pulpit look outdated and bigoted.”

You’ve read “The Overhauling of Straight America” then? That’s one of the many pieces of manipulation that is recommended, along with:

The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights.

almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters

The way to benumb raw sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way.

The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.

So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream.

Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science & Public Opinion (the shield and sword of that accursed “secular humanism”).Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work again here.

In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression.

Now, there are two different messages about the Gay Victim that are worth communicating. First, the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference.

By the way, we realize that many gays will question an advertising technique, which might threaten to make homosexuality look like some dreadful disease, which strikes fated “victims”. But the plain fact is that the gay community is weak and must manipulate the powers of the weak, including the play for sympathy.

…the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know–this trick is so old it creaks.

we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.

The gay community should join forces with other civil liberties groups of respectable cast to promote bland messages about America the Melting Pot, always ending with an explicit reference to the Task Force or some other gay organization.

As we said earlier, there are many ways to portray gays as victims of discrimination: images of brutality, tales of job loss and family separation, and so on.

These images [i.e. of religious extremists, neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen] made to look evil and ridiculous should be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists call the “bracket technique.”… The contrast speaks for itself. The effect is devastating.

It’s all BY DESIGN! This is how ‘attitudes’ have changed so much in so short a space of time!

@Stewart Cowan

Are you going to post The Protocols of the Elders of Fairyland next?

@ Paul Halsall

I’m going to expose lies and manipulation wherever I find them. Any objections?

@Stewart Cowan

Hadn’t read that. Seems like the kind of propaganda you’d find at any media college or any third reich meeting, albeit with the gay topic changed to something else.

Doesn’t change the fact that being gay is natural, we see it in many animals for whatever reason. I personally believe it is a misfiring of another instinct in the brain, but then so is charity so I’m not moralising on it.

I have a much bigger issue that I am moralising on – we have no business looking at what any two (or more!) consenting adults choose to do that involves no harm to themselves or other people. NEVER has an argument been made that convinces me we should. I look forward to someone giving me such an example… but I won’t hold my breath.

Mr Cowan,

You seem to have a somewhat exaggerated fear of gay people.

Usually this means a person has something to hide.

@Paul
I have a much bigger issue that I am moralising on – we have no business looking at what any two (or more!) consenting adults choose to do that involves no harm to themselves or other people.

Please define what you mean by harm?

Is it wrong to point out that unprotected sex with multiple partners can lead to the spread of STD?

Is it wrong to point out that STDs don’t spread amongst monogamous couples?

The harm of STDs is fairly obvious:
1) it costs the state money (a trivial point I agree) and this money comes from tax payers who may object to funding your lifestyle.
2) it can harm those who are peripheral to a group indulging in multiple partner sex (i.e. they agree to have sex with a carrier not realising the risk, even the carrier may not know).

If one is saying that anything goes do we draw anylines?

Until you define harm (to the person , society, culture, state etc) then it is perhaps that you’ve heard nothing convincing. Their definition of harm may not coincide with yours.

@ Paul Halsall

“You seem to have a somewhat exaggerated fear of gay people.”

Not at all. If I had any sort of fear of homosexuals then I wouldn’t be using my real name. I am therefore not remotely homophobic. As the Bible says: “perfect love casteth out fear”.

@ Paul

Yes, I’m sure Goebbels would have been proud of “The Overhauling of Straight America” and its unprecedented success.

You’ve fallen for the propaganda though, like almost everyone else, when you compare human and animal behaviour. It’s a ridiculous comparison to make for many obvious reasons.

Like Chris’ Wills has begun to explain, it does matter how people behave. Even two people alone are not immune to the law of cause and effect.

To stay with homosexuality. First it was legalised for two people over the age of 21. Now it is everywhere – all over the media – even promoted in schools.

Nothing in this world happens in isolation.

It has resulted in the reduction of the age of consent for homosexual acts to 16 and thus legalised pederasty, in my opinion.

Even typing away here on my own I have the power to fill someone with joy or else grievously harm them with my words.

Like I said, nothing in this world happens in isolation. We’re in this thing called life together. That’s why we need a strong moral code or else things fall apart and everyone suffers.

Stewart + Chris’, why do you think homosexual behaviour was outlawed in the first place? I am not 100% sure but I’d place my money on the Bible being involved.

@Chris’
Harm: the physical, psychological or financial detriment of someone.
Yes, multiple partners leads to a higher risk of STDs but that is just as valid in the straight community, and gays have one advantage – the incidence of unwanted pregnancy is virtually zero!
Gay people can be just as monogamous as straight people and to ban homosexuality on the basis of people getting STDs is one of the weakest arguments I have ever heard.

@Stewart
“It has resulted in the reduction of the age of consent for homosexual acts to 16 and thus legalised pederasty, in my opinion.”
Must…avoid…obvious…comparison…
So girls of 16 are informed enough to have informed consent over their bodies but boys aren’t?

“You’ve fallen for the propaganda though, like almost everyone else, when you compare human and animal behaviour. It’s a ridiculous comparison to make for many obvious reasons.”
Erm, can’t think of a single one. Please elaborate.
As for falling for the propaganda, if you consider science to be propaganda then I am guilty as charged.

You only make 2 arguments without resorting to “it’s against nature”, which it isn’t as you yourself seemed to agree, or “the Bible says it is bad” well the Bible says lots of things are bad and slavery isn’t one of them! We allow people to eat shellfish, we allow people to work on the Sabbath etc. etc. Your arguments are:
1. It promotes homosexuality in our culture and it is now everywhere.
2. It allows pederasty.

Point 1 – So what? No-one is gay because they saw two guys or two girls make out on TV. Maybe some young people will experiment with their sexuality a little more but if we didn’t vilify homosexuality then they wouldn’t feel embarrassed or ashamed over it. No-one is completely straight or completely gay, humans are too complex for that and too androgynous.

Point 2 – 16 is the age of consent for people, that is the law in out society. It is the age we agree that people are mature enough to be in control of their own bodies and make informed decisions. You don’t like it, write to your MP. but to say to a gay boy you can’t act on your urges unless you go for a girl is wrong.

PS. When I was discussing harm, think of the harm caused to a gay person when the rest of society shuns them, their family treats them like a leper and the police think they should be locked up. (btw. putting gay men in jail for sodomy is one of the funniest things ever, from an ironic perspective)
If anyone can define a reasonable harm that gay people cause to themselves or society at large that does not depend on Biblical moralising and is not applicable to straight people indulging in similar activities (e.g. promiscuity=STDs) then I would be more willing to listen, but everything I have heard thus far stinks of Westboro Baptist Church (youtube them if you are unfamiliar).

Well done Tom. I’m sick of being told what I can and cannot say. Actually I have nothing offensive to say, but there are loads of bigoted morons who have lost their right to free speech, yes even the BNP, the Christian right and the odd historian.

BTW Can anyone explain why the leadership of the BNP are all overweight?

One of the saddest things about living in 21st Century Britain is that we have a Saviour who has taught us how to live peaceably with one another and yet people increasingly look to Christianity to actually blame it for what’s happening in a society whose problems are due to the masses turning their back on their Creator in the first place.

Can you see how totally and bizarrely unfair this is? Nothing positive can really be achieved in this society because of this vicious circle. A black hole might be a better comparison.

Paul, you wonder why homosexual behaviour was outlawed in Britain in the first place – I don’t know what the exact basis was. Why has it been outlawed in almost every society since time began? It’s because, as I have been saying, there are wider implications regarding the rest of the tribe. Nothing to do with Christianity – some things are clearly either right or wrong and moral confusion has probably never been so rife as it is in the 21st Century ‘West’.

Yes, legalised pederasty! Not everything in the world operates by modern ideas about ‘equality’ which is another farce. The human body testifies to the truth – that a man and a woman procreate and have a family of their own. It’s not just ‘in the Bible’ – the evidence is in the flesh!

To assume that a 16 or 17 year old is mature enough to behave contrary to nature is not simply a matter of ‘equality’.

You can’t think of a single obvious reason why comparing humans to animals is ridiculous. Man has put dogs into space – how many men have dogs sent out on rockets? Mankind is vastly different to any other ‘animal’. Do I really have to spell it out?

Your reference to the Westboro Baptist Church is a bit desperate, if you don’t mind me saying.

Lastly, if there really is such a thing as the ‘gay gene’ then, as we are all here due to the result of a long, long line of heterosexual relationships, how can it still be in the genome?

@Stewart Cowan
No-one has suggested a ‘gay gene’ on this thread. But even if there were such a thing it would be recessive and there are many recessive characteristics that survive in today’s gene pool, many of which are fatal and only occur when both parents pass the bad gene onto the child.

“some things are clearly either right or wrong” maybe so, but being gay is not one of those things.

“Man has put dogs into space – how many men have dogs sent out on rockets? Mankind is vastly different to any other ‘animal’. Do I really have to spell it out?”
Yes! I may be being obtuse, but that is a nonsense example. No zebra has ever killed and eaten a lion, but they are still savannah dwelling mammals. Not one of the five senses do humans excel at, there is an animal that beats us on each of them. The only difference between us and other animals is that we have unfeasibly large brains for our bodies. It was an evolutionary accident, a biologically expensive change that just happened to work out for the best. We are not special, we are not above the animals, we are mammals that respond to stimuli but can often override our natural reactions using our brains.

“contrary to nature” Animals in the wild are often gay. It would appear to be pretty natural. If men and women can have loving platonic relationships (that are against nature!) then so can two people of the same gender, and if they find each other attractive then so be it.

“One of the saddest things about living in 21st Century Britain is that we have a Saviour” Stop bringing Gordon Brown into it

“Why has it been outlawed in almost every society since time began?”
That may or may not be true (Romans and Greeks would disagree) but I know for a fact that you don’t know it or you would have supplied evidence.

Finally, “Your reference to the Westboro Baptist Church is a bit desperate, if you don’t mind me saying.” I was being a bit hyperbolic, but your last post shows it to be fairly accurate, if I may paraphrase you:
17 years old is not mature enough to behave contrary to nature;
Gay people can’t produce offspring so shouldn’t be allowed to have sex;
homosexuality is one of the moral absolutes, it needs no evidence to back up the claim it is wrong.

Sorry, but that is the kind of arguments the Westboro people use and I never even got on to your Biblical views on the act.

@Paul

I never mentioned any sexual orientation in what I wrote.
Why do you bring it in, is it simply to rebuff a straw man of your own creation?

My point was simple your definition of harm may not be coincident with some elses. Is that so difficult to understand?

I do find it sad that you think that the spread of STD is trivial.

Harm: the physical, psychological or financial detriment of someone.

Rather trite and meaningless, you’ve just collected some buzz words and strung them together.

What is detriment?
It’s a synonym for harm.

Perhaps you didn’t realise that your definition of harm is ‘harm is harm’.

Is social harm (however defined) not relevant?

Paul, OK. You believe your great, great, great….grandparents were swinging through trees and that they in turn were descended from slime swishing around a lake.

If you’re going to believe such ridiculous fairytales that actually defy logic, reason and scientific evidence then you will be confused. It’s only natural.

I equate Gordon Brown more with Satan.

“Romans and Greeks would disagree”

I might be wrong, but I thought the ancient Greeks were into pederasty – intergenerational man/youth encounters – such as between teachers and pupils – and not general homosexuality.

So if your argument is that homosexuality is OK because the ancient Greeks might have done it and it happens in the animal world* then it’s a pretty poor one.

*no animal I know of is solely homosexual.

“homosexuality is one of the moral absolutes”

I agree and so do most people. You tell me why we should be subjected to mind control in order to ‘accept’ it.

Tom, as a person who is comfortable with homosexuality, but opposes this terrible law (thus loosely in the same camp as yourself), I would urge you to give thought to this as a demonstration of why our country needs some form of constitutional restrictions on government power- a demarcated line which legislation and government action may not cross (and not a list of entitlements and duties to the state as proposed by Jack Straw).

We are falling down the rabbit hole into some kind of awful moralitarian tyranny. No free nation can rationally criminalise nebulous emotions like “hate”. No free nation can reasonably curb its citizens right to state their opinions and beliefs. This way lies madness.

I would also ask you to consider the currently absurd legislation criminalising cartoons, winging its way through parliament. When a government reaches the stage of trying to protect imaginary beings- drawings- from abuse, it has entered a realm of true insanity. This too is legislation that must be opposed. We have the irrational position that any drawing deemed by somebody to appear to represent somebody under eighteen(!) years of age will be classified, with all the same severity as the real thing, as child pr0n. Not only must one wonder how the age of a drawing can be objectively adjudged (one imagines bizarre exchanges in court of the “she looked old enough to me, guv” sort) but this is from the same government that deliberately (and rightly) lowered the homosexual age of consent to 16. Thus leading to the farcical position that a lad of 17 can have sex with another, but if he draws a picture of it he’ll get sent to prison!

Please Tom, you’re a thoughtful chap. I applaud your principled stance on this issue. Take a look at some of the other insanity being perpetrated.

Tom, why did you moderate my last comment? I didn’t think there was anything libelous or insulting in it. I simply addressed the points raised by Chris’ and Stewart.

@ Chris’ Wills

Not to be facetious, but I might be anyway, the way we define words is by using other words, so to reduce my explanation of harm to ‘harm is harm’ because I used the word detriment and gave three situations where this was so is intellectually poor. Your argument that my definition of harm and someone else’s may differ however is beyond reproach. Much like morality, justice, love and all sorts of other nebulous, impossible to nail down ideas.

I do not find the spread of STDs as trivial. I simply make the point that any human can cause this regardless of sexual orientation. Equally, gay or straight people can have one partner for life.

All of which leads somewhat off topic in that criticising a lifestyle choice is a valid criticism if it comes from a sexual health or personal safety point of view or even if it comes from a religious moralising point of view. The fact some people have decided that a gay lifestyle is wrong for whatever reason has created a debate on this thread that is not related to the original post.

@ Stewart Cowan
Evolution:
“If you’re going to believe such ridiculous fairytales that actually defy logic, reason and scientific evidence then you will be confused. It’s only natural.”

Well, this is insightful (and possibly inciteful) you have a hard time believing that we cam e form another species? Ok, so be it, but I assume your reasoning for not going along with ‘unscientific’ evolution and being against gay couples comes from the same source of knowledge, justice and morality…

“So if your argument is that homosexuality is OK because the ancient Greeks might have done it and it happens in the animal world* then it’s a pretty poor one.”

Nope.

My argument is that what two people get up to in private is no business of mine or the government if it impacts no-one except those involved, and even then not to the permanent damage of them. (I am now careful about using the common word ‘harm’ lest people stop looking up dictionaries…)

[...] of the so-called “freedom of speech” amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill (about which I have blogged [...]

“You believe your great, great, great….grandparents were swinging through trees and that they in turn were descended from slime swishing around a lake.

If you’re going to believe such ridiculous fairytales that actually defy logic, reason and scientific evidence then you will be confused.”

For a few minutes there, I actually thought you were serious. You let slip with this one, though.