And another thing…

THE LATEST furore over homophobia is one I really don’t want to get frawn into. However…

Following my last post about a Tory smear against the Labour Party, "Jimmy" left the following comment:

Whilst sadly acknowledging that there will be homophobes in both the Labour and Conservative Parties, it would be interesting to hear his view’s on Lord Waddington’s (and Baroness O’Cathain’s) opposition to clause 61 of the Coroners and Justice Bill:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90518-0005.htm

Will David Cameron now prove that he means what he says, and openly criticise his colleagues in the Lords for their outdated and (I would argue) offensive views?

Jimmy is no doubt referring to the debate in the Commons on 24 March on the so-called "Freedom of speech" clause which was inserted into the Justice and Immigration Bill last year in the Lords by David Waddington. It was accepted by the government at the time due to lack of parliamentary time. But they used the opportunity of the Coroners and Justice Bill to attempt to remove it from statute. 

Essentially, Waddington’s amendment provided legal cover to those who merely criticise homosexuality and advocate desisting from it, making sure that such did not constitute the offence of incitement to hatred of homosexuals. Personally, I don’t see the point of telling a gay man he shouldn’t be doing what comes naturally, but I know some evangelicals who obsess unhealthily about this sort of thing and I don’t see the point in charging them with a criminal offence.

The point is, neither does the government. In replying to the debate in March, the minister, Bridget Prentice, said:

We need to protect groups that are the target of threatening behaviour intended to stir up hatred. We must also ensure that those who have concerns about some types of sexual behaviour are free to express their arguments and concerns in a reasonable way. They do not need to fear that they will be caught by the criminal law.

The government did not regard the Waddington amendment as homophobic, but merely as unnecessary to achieving the goal which both sides wanted: a freedom to criticise without fear of prosecution.

I supported the amendment, and joined Labour rebels and most of the Parliamentary Conservative Party in the lobby. The full account is here.

Jimmy and others will no doubt call me a homophobe, despite a strong record of supporting gay rights in the Commons and despite the fact that my aim, and the aim of other supporters of the Freedom of Speech clause, was identical to the government’s.

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.

SINCE being elected in 2001, I have never, until today, voted against my party on a three-line whip. That is something I’m extremely proud of.

However, yesterday I wrote to Nick Brown, the Government Chief Whip, informing him that I could not support the government on an issue which, I accept, is not that important to some people and which some might think is an odd choice of issue on which to make a virgin rebellion.

The subject was incitement to homophobic hatred.

Last year the government was forced, through lack of parliamentary time, to accept an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill moved by Lord Waddington, the former Tory Home Secretary. This is what the amendment says:

For the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.

Tonight, the government asked the Commons to vote to remove it. This is what I wanted to say, had I been given time. In the event I had to cram it into less than three minutes, so the final version is considerably shorter than this.

In a sermon in 2006, the Roman Catholic Archbishop, Mario Conti, restated the church’s long-held policy that homosexual relationships should not be given the same value as married heterosexual relationships.

Now, as it happens, I don’t share the archbishop’s views. In fact my Hon Friend, the member for Rhondda and Deputy Leader of the House, once told me: “Tom, the only vaguely left-wing thing about you is that you quite like poofs.” And I have, in fact, a long and proud record of supporting gay rights legislation.

Nevertheless, Archbishop Conti’s views are widely held among other Christians and by most Christian denominations.

The Green MSP, Patrick Harvie, took such exception to the archbishop’s comments that he reported him to the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police, accusing the archbishop of incitement to homophobic hatred.

I don’t know what happened after that; I assume that the chief constable, being a man of decency and common sense, quickly filed Patrick’s letter in the nearest waste paper bin.

And the danger of this stance being taken by the government tonight is that there are plenty of people out there who, like Patrick Harvie, combine a hyper sensitivity with an inclination to legal recourse

It is not, I assume, the government’s intention that homosexuals or any other group, should be protected from hurt feelings, or from being offende – and d. What the archbishop did in his sermon was not to incite hatred of homosexuals, but to invite disapproval.

So what signal will we send to people like Patrick Harvie and others who equate criticism with physical violence, that we are removing a protection, a caveat that the vast, overwhelming majority of people in this country would, I’m sure, support

If it is not the government’s intention that people of faith who criticise homosexual practice should be prosecuted for doing so, why are they insisting on the removal of this phrase

Does my Rt. Hon. Friend realise the harm done to the government’s excellent record in socially progressive policy by the actions of people like Patrick Harvie? Or indeed by the police officers who arrested and held a student in the cells overnight for calling a police horse gay?

I guarantee my RHF that if he is successful, if this phrase is removed from the Act tonight, it will be seen as a green light to all those who believe they can silence anyone who disagrees with them

There are a great many things in the Bible – the New as well as the Old Testament – which many people would find objectionable if they only bothered to read it. If it hasn’t already happened, I can see, in the not too distant future, a complaint being raised with the police because a quote from the book of Leviticus or I Corninthians on a placard outside a church is “incitement to homophobic hatred

It would be wrong to assume that every gay man and woman in the land supports what the government is doing this evening. I have many gay friends, and those with whom I’ve raised this matter have, frankly, more important things to worry about. They are more than capable of defending themselves against criticism from either Archbishop Conti or anyone else.

I dread the day when, in response to any kind of criticism, we in this country feel that it should become a police matter. No-one has the right not to be offended and we should steer well clear of establishing such a right now

We lost the vote.

Police officers throughout this country, if they are not avidly tuned into BBC Parliament right now, will take a keen interest in this debate. Its outcome will have a major impact on their already massive workloads, and they will have every right, if the government gets its way, to roll their eyes heavenward and resign themselves to having to deal with an increased volume of correspondence from those who interpret every harsh word uttered as a broken bottle thrown

Given my long voting record in defence of gay rights, I hope I don’t have to state on the record that I don’t happen to agree with what the Archbishop said about the inferiority of gay relationships. But at the risk of sounding more like Gamaliel than Voltaire, I absolutely defend his right to say it. So should the government.

We lost the vote.