And another thing…

“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” – Noam Chomsky.

Seems like you don’t believe in freedom of speech. There is no freedom being aloud to say something it isn’t controversial. True freedom of speech is to say that which can be offensive, hurtful or otherwise. Society will deem what it is acceptable. It is not for the law to tell people what words can and cannot be uttered from their mouths.

Uhuh… you did read my post, yeah?

Sorry to clarify – this is aimed at the government, not you. You did a brave thing.

My post was unclear.

I too would like to apologise. I do not think that you are homophobic, and I am sorry if this was the impression my earlier post gave. I appreciate that there is a legitimate argument for supporting Lord Waddington’s amendment on the basis of freedom of speech, and that this would have been the motivation for many, such as yourself, who backed it.

That said, I do not accept that we have an unfettered right to offend. Ideas, beliefs and values should be open to full and frank debate and such debate can often cause offence. I of course accept this. But, we get to choose our ideas, beliefs and values. Things that we choose to think should rightly be challenged. This is in contrast to things that we have no choice over, like our ethnicity or sexuality. People shouldn’t be able to deliberately offend a person for either of these.

Some condemn homosexuality as an ‘abomination’ based on their religious beliefs. Somebody does not choose to be gay, but somebody does choose whether to accept a literal interpretation of the Bible. It begs the question, as to whether religious beliefs are a legitimate excuse for bigotry. No doubt I will be accused of political correctness. But, political correctness is at its base, simply a way of seeking politeness and decency to others.

We need to protect groups that are the target of threatening behaviour intended to stir up hatred.

Like telling them that they stink, and are killing everyone around them? I’ll second that.

Even with Lord Waddington’s amendment, some people find themselves walking on eggshells. Just recently, this man was handing out invitations to his church Easter service and had five coppers, two on horseback, onto him after a ‘complaint’ from a member of the public. Afterwards he had a visit from the race and hate crime unit who had vetted his literature.

It seems to me it’s now the general public who need safeguards!

And, Tom, what about *freedom of conscience*?

What about the right of people to run their businesses the way they want?

This couple run a B&B from their home and only let out double beds to married couples. That is *their* right, but not acc. to Stonewall, who seem to have spotted the condition on their website and decided to make an example of them.

The Earl of Devon has lost £200,000 a year after the homosexual lobby forced him out of business for not offering same-sex receptions. Now he’s selling the family heirlooms.

All well and good, but only if you therefore don’t accept the Bradshaw/Byrant ‘argument’ (slur, I’d say) that the Tory party has deep strains of homophobia. While we can all accept there are old timers with less than tasteful views in both parties, I see no evidence the Tories are a homophobic party. It’s nonsense. What Bradshaw then did was to equate pro-freedom arguments, like the ones you made, with homophobia. Utterly wrong. It shows just how worried Labour are of being beaten, they’re now resorting to name calling and threats that gays will “rue the day” they vote Tory.

And Jimmy – I disagree when you imply that people can’t help but act upon homosexual desires.

Making excuses for people’s behaviour is one reason society is going downhill.

Children aren’t naughty anymore, they suffer from various conditions shortened to 3 or 4 letters.

The pharmaceutical companies make billions off them and the state monitors them. I dread to think what a childhood spent on psychotropic drugs does to their thinking.

I have a 16 year old schoolboy who works part time for me and I asked him last week if they have a common room.

He replied that they used to, but now it’s only for the kids who misbehave. If they are being naughty in class they are sent to play pool or watch telly in their common room until they calm down.

This society punishes those with morals and rewards badness.

Tom – I’m sure this isn’t why you and most of your comrades went into politics, so why have you engineered society so?

stirred up a hornets nest tom……….
not to worry they are only English Torys !

Just for the record, this comment from Stewart Cowen is disgraceful: ‘I disagree when you imply that people can’t help but act upon homosexual desires. Making excuses for people’s behaviour is one reason society is going downhill.’

Aside from that, I think Tom’s support of the amendment is the correct approach – freedom to criticise is an integral part of our democracy. I should also imagine more homophobia is whipped up by turning people who criticise homosexuality into criminals, than if we were to just (am I being old-fashioned?) argue with those people.

I have concern though, that the people who worry that their criticism of homosexuality could be criminalised are the very same people who seek legislation to criminalise criticism of their religion.

People who disagree with the amendment should at least be able to recognise that this form of criticism is in a different league to criticism of sexuality. It is not spelled out often enough that religious beliefs are just ideas, and thus deserve no special legal protection whatsoever.

Daniel – “Just for the record, this comment from Stewart Cowen is disgraceful:”

Big supporter of free speech, are we?

I was opposed to the so-called religious hatred ‘protection’. It’s clear that some of the Muslim spokesmen asked for it and of course New Labour was keen to oblige. Nothing to do with the likelihood of attracting more votes, of course.

I consider criticism of my faith to be an opportunity to have a dialogue. I wonder why spokesmen for homosexual groups don’t feel the same way. Why do they campaign to bulldoze any dissenting voices off the road?

Daniel – your final sentence is incredible. You genuinely believe that carnal behaviour should be elevated above the search for spiritual enlightenment and given precedence in law?

What you’re saying is that people who give in to temptation are better than those who try to resist it.

I’m not surprised. Like I said above, these days it’s the bad boys who get the common rooms and the criminals who get the understanding. Even prison inmates get more spent on their meals than hospital patients.

As Dr Nazir-Ali told today’s Telegraph: repent and be changed.

It’s something we all must do. Why not start today?

Peace and love.

Surely the issue is that freedom of speech should apply equally? That is the point that Daniel raises.

Religious people appear to want to have it both ways. They want the right to campaign against gay people – because it is not simply about having a moral opinion, it’s about wanting to make gay people second class citizens.

Yet they also appear to support giving religious views some kind of protected status.

That is what is called trying to have your cake and eat it (I don’t know why!).

Firsty, i am an advocate of absolute freedom of speech. Whilst i try not to intentionally offend people it is my absolute right to do so, should i want to. a law stopping me from doing so would be INCREDIBLY dangerous!

Secondly; @Stewart Cowan
Your entire argument about homosexuality seems to be based on belief in and acceptance of the Bible. Whilst i accept your right to live your life in this way and seek to convince others of it, surely you can see that there is a vast degree of difference between what you deem immoral and whether something should be illegal? We are, to all intense and purposes a secular country and our laws should reflect this.

Thirdly, @Tom Harris. Thanks for posting a few things i agree with…..i was about to give up on you!

Religious people, despite the mild mental illness clear in their preposterous delusions, have every right to hate what they perceive as the sin of homosexuality.

And I have every right to laugh at them.

It’s when they get the burning pyres and bombs out that religion ceases to amuse.

“….and of course I will be offended….. At the end of the day, it’s only words.”

why will you be offended? people have to take offence, they decide to, it’s a voluntary act. why not take the Stoical viewpoint that any populace has it’s quota of idiots, and ignore them.
at the end of the day, Tom, it IS only words. but the freedom to say or write those words is more valuable than protecting the sensibilities of those homosexuals who are hypersensitive to criticism.

‘But feel free to call me a homophobe. It’s not true, and of course I will be offended. But hey, it’s your right to offend and my right to be offended. At the end of the day, it’s only words.’

I was going to take issue, last night (well, in the wee hours, really), with the notion that anyone has a ‘right to be offended’, or even ‘right to offend’. Then I became unsure that what I was typing really held water, so I scrapped the comment.

As I was entertaining thoughts of getting up and catching the end of the Archers omnibus, though, I thought of someone who got really crotchety about my opinions on a local message board recently, and it came to me that it’s really about annoyance than offense. Whoever heard, after all, of calls to ban a programme because it ‘annoyed’ people? ‘Offense’ is the trendy indefensible crime in dodgy legislation, but complain that someone has annoyed you with their views, and something *must* be done, and most ‘right thinking people’ (erm…) would tell you to get a life.

So yes, I think I, along with everyone else, have a ‘right to annoy’, and anyone is welcome to be annoyed by me, and I’ll return the favour. But if they want to censor me, they should come up with something a little more actionable…

Thirdly, @Tom Harris. Thanks for posting a few things i agree with…..i was about to give up on you!

Yeah, thanks for keeping Ben on board Tom.

I gave a bit more thought about the distinction between annoyance and offence. ‘Offence’, like ‘offensive’, as in a military assault, refers to doing harm. So if someone castigates homosexuals and homosexual practises in such a way as to encourage violence against gay people, that’s offensive. If someone criticises the government over an extended period, like Brian Haw, that’s annoying.

Criticise a religion, though, and it’s a different story. Many religious people believe that nothing is more important than bringing new followers to their faith and keeping them, that it’s a matter of afterlife or death, and if anyone threatens the immortal soul of a single person with their ’sacriligious’ remarks, be it Salman Rushdie, Richard Dawkins or Marcus Brigstocke, that is an offence against them and their spiritual calling. Cue face contorted with hate under a banner on a London Street. No-one is just ‘annoying’ to a ‘true’ believer.

@ Jimmy

A Christian doesn’t need to believe in a literal, word-for-word interpretation of the bible to believe that homosexual acts are sinful. The issue of homosexual AND heterosexual purity runs right through the old and new testament in both the didactic teaching and narrative.

In order for a Christian NOT to believe that homosexual acts are sinful, he/she would basically have to deny that the bible is a trustworthy document. Since Jesus Himself said that scripture (ie. the Old Testament – the NT hadn’t been written yet) IS trustworthy, the Christian would then have to believe that Jesus is a liar.

Since the whole basis of the Christian faith is that Jesus is the perfect, sinless Son of God, the Christian would have to stop being Christian.

So then what would happen to the notion of “freedom of religion and conscience?”

Of course the fact that a Christian believes that sex outside of marriage is sinful does not stop him treating homosexual people (or indeed anyone else) with common dignity, humanity and respect.

I don’t care why some Christians feel that gay sex is wrong, it’s up to them to interpret their own religion. The issue for me is where you draw the line in allowing one group of people to campaign against another group of people, whatever their motivation is.

Where does freedom of speech become a threat to the freedom of others?

I can understand the view that gay people are hyper-sensitive about criticism because in some senses they are – but we have to remember there is a very good reason for that. Within living memory being gay was a criminal act and there is no doubt that certain Christians, people like Mario Conti for example, would like to make being gay a criminal act again. They would like to lock gay people up in jail for the crime of having sex. That’s not simply expressing disapproval of someone’s lifestyle, it’s wanting to punish them for it.

There is a parallel with the BNP I suppose – note I am not comparing Christians with fascists before anyone gets hot under the collar about that. But there is a comparison with trying to find the point at which one person’s freedom of speech becomes a threat to another person’s right to live their life free of fear. The BNP are a political party, they have the right to campaign for their policies. But obviously if you are black those policies are a bit more intimidating than they are for a white person.

Where do you draw the line and say no, that is going too far, you can’t say that. It’s very difficult and I don’t envy those who have to make that judgement.

@ Marra

Without wanting to belittle your faith, which I respect, could I just make the following point:

Exodus 35:2 – on six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the Sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death.

Do you think people should be put to death for working on the Sabbath? By the way if you don’t, it doesn’t make you any less a Christian in my opinion.

Can someone clarify for me the term ‘homophobic’.

I don’t hate or even dislike homosexuals and I certainly do not fear them (phobia). I have many homosexual friends whom I like and would trust with my life.

However, I suspect that because I believe that marriage is for people of different genders and that the primary purpose of sex is procreation, I suspect that in the eyes of many, I am ‘homophobic’. Am I correct?

Mel – homophobia means simply hostility or fear towards gay people.

I don’t think you are a homophobe.

Nor do I think the issue is anyone’s personal opinion that marriage is for people of different genders and that the primary purpose of sex is procreation.

The issue is surely whether it is valid to try and impose that opinion on others.

If you believe that marriage is for men and women, does that mean that two men and two women should not be allowed to get married?

If you believe sex is primarily for procreation do you believe that sex for fun should be discouraged? That wouldn’t just apply to gay people of course. It would apply to anyone who was infertile, as well as to all women over childbearing age – seeems a bit harsh to me!

@ Jimmy

“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23

I said you don’t need to believe in a literal word-for-word interpreatation of the bible to believe that homosexual behaviour is a sin. The bible is one book with one message – one plot, if you like.

The Old Testmant often talks about punishing sin with death. In the context of the whole message of scripture, Jesus paid this penalty by dying on the cross so that those who believe in Him don’t die but have eternal life.

Jesus also said “Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27) The opportunity to take one day off in 7 was given to us for our good – as were all of the biblical laws. This is a good principle to live our life by. That shouldn’t stop us running for milk on a sunday morning if unexpected guests arrive.

It’s the same with laws relating to sexual purity: there is sin but there is also forgiveness and the opportunity of new life. These laws are for our good. Ask the child of parents torn apart by adultery; a son who has never known his father. I am, of course only referring here to heterosexual sex, but the principles are the same.

@ Indy you raise some important points. The situation we CAN’T have is where a vicar can be prosecuted simply for reading Leviticus in a pulpit.