Sunday, December 31, 2006

Happy Gay New Year! ( Ulster)

New Year’s Day 2007 is an inauspicious day in Ulster. It is the day that the Northern Ireland Sexual Orientation Regulations become law, imposed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Peter Hain MP, using ‘direct rule’ powers. The Cabinet has delayed the introduction of these regulations in the rest of the UK because of concerns for religious liberty in schools. But for some reason, the Government cares less about the education of Ulster’s children.

The NI regulations outlaw discrimination and ‘harassment’ on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services and education. Gay rights groups view the laws as the precedent for UK-wide regulations. While Cranmer cares little for what they do in the privacy of their own homes, he cares a great deal indeed for what is forced down our throats, and is positively incandescent when our children – the most vulnerable minds in society - are obliged by law to ‘respect’ a person’s sexual orientation when it may be alien to their understanding of both biology and religion.

Doubtless such an assertion makes Cranmer ‘homophobic’, yet this would be just one more example of the abuse of a word and the misrepresentation of a valid concern. It is one thing to love one’s neighbour from the heart, for that is agape; it is quite another to be forced by statute law to respect how some of them make love, for that is eros.

Of particular concern is the loosely-worded harassment law (Regulation 3:3), which states:

(3) A person (‘A’) subjects another person (‘B’) to harassment in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision referred to in these Regulations where, on the grounds of sexual orientation, A engages in unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of
(a) violating B’s dignity; or
(b) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

From this, it may be adduced that ‘harassment’ may constitute an ‘offensive environment’. This could mean that a church turns down a practising homosexual as a member, or refuses them communion, and when it explains why may find itself sued for harassment. There is some protection for religious organisations, but they may still be vulnerable over the manner in which they deal with the situation. It is more to do with how the victim feels, rather than how the organisation acted.

A teacher who teaches that sex is only for marriage may be sued by an aggrieved pupil. The school curriculum and ‘Christian’ assemblies are not exempt.

A homosexual student could argue that a university has created an ‘offensive environment’ by permitting a ‘homophobic’ Christian Union to promote itself on campus.

A Christian old people’s home may be sued for refusing a double room to a homosexual couple in a civil partnership.

According to the Belfast Telegraph, initial fines could be between £500 and £5000, with subsequent breaches attracting damages of up to £25,000. These laws pose an alarming threat to the religious liberty of Christians in Ulster, which is the one corner of the United Kingdom where the complexities of religio-political tensions find expression in everyday life. They could force schools to actively promote homosexuality, and could form the legal apparatus to persecute Christians.

Christians oppose the harassment of anyone, and there are already adequate laws on the statute books to deal with the offenders. These new regulations will inhibit freedom of conscience, limit freedom of speech, and imperil the freedom of religion.

And as if all this were not bad enough, under Regulation 52, the burden of proof in every case is reversed, such that the accused is obliged to prove his or her innocence.

Cranmer is dismayed, and seeks the termination of this corrupt and corrupting Government, and beseeches the Lord that 2007 might be the year in which we may be delivered from its evils, and granted a government of righteousness and justice.

His Grace wishes all of his regular communicants, infrequent contributors, and silent readers, a most blessed new year.


Blogger Voyager said...

Doubtless such an assertion makes Cranmer ‘homophobic’,

Well at least you are now experienced at getting burned at the stake !

This is going to be an interesting opportunity for Catholic and Protestant to unite and resist...............

We are now into the realms of Thought Control and Thought Police

31 December 2006 at 14:29  
Anonymous Leonard said...

Perhaps one could give the Government the benefit of the doubt and say that all the legislation they have introduced is intended to end discrimination and make for a better society. Unfortunately, every new piece of legislation only serves to discriminate against an opposing view. Each modern society has to be based on a set of principles and beliefs which form the framework around which the majority live. To attempt to base our society on such wide, and at times opposing principles and believes is to do a disservice to us all. This is a broadly Christian country and each new piece of legislation such as this serves only to bring us closer to the time when the people reassert their core beliefs. I just hope that in the meantime the Government does not inadvertently create resentment towards certain groups in society.

31 December 2006 at 14:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This from The Sunday Times today.... Science told: hands off gay sheep ........Navratilova defended the “right” of sheep to be gay.
Oh dear I must be careful of what I say in the hearing of children or animals now.

31 December 2006 at 15:28  
Blogger Eddie said...

I would defend the right of Muslims to practice their religion in this country and I'd defend the right of practising homosexuals to do whatever they want to do in private. But I also defend my right, to say that I think that both of these are (for different reasons) wrong. Liberty for all - including Christian teachers. The question which comes to mind is whether I'll be prosecuted first for religious hatred or homophobia?

31 December 2006 at 15:49  
Anonymous Voyager said...

The question which comes to mind is whether I'll be prosecuted first for religious hatred or homophobia?

No you will be punished for thinking differently

31 December 2006 at 15:59  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

I was beginning to think Cranmer was ignoring this little corner of the kingdom.

It's ironic that this is being imposed under Direct Rule legislation. It is opposed by the Assembly, and the DUP will have nothing to do with it. It's a bit like the impending abolition of our grammar schools. However, it's too late to stop it, and repeal would be unlikely to be high on the agenda if/when the Assembly is restored. Ulster is sinking into a morass of depravity. God help us and our children, and Happy New Year to Cranmer!

31 December 2006 at 17:13  
Anonymous Voyager said...

and repeal would be unlikely to be high on the agenda if/when the Assembly is restored.

unless it is a precondition forced on the DUP leadership

31 December 2006 at 17:43  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Not a hope, the Reverend Doctor would never stand for it.

No Surrender!

31 December 2006 at 17:51  
Anonymous Olympic Catastrophe said...

Freedom of thought and speech died some time ago in the UK. Though I suspect I will not end up sharing your Grace's fate, I think we should be prepared to be martyrs. I do not use the term as an Islamasist would, we could end up as out of pocket martyrs or possibly jailed martyrs. If we all keep talking, they can not get us all.

1 January 2007 at 00:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No Labour government law will change the way we think.

Our day will come, so stay true to your belief

1 January 2007 at 00:50  
Anonymous david aberdeen said...

Since such a law seems so unpopular in Northern Ireland and it is being imposed by direct rule, is this a weapon to try and force out an agreement between SF and DUP? Is it Labour trying to force their morality whilst the can? All of the above I suppose...

1 January 2007 at 11:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was interested to see a homosexual man explaining that he wouild not be ,married becuase his religious beliefs included an admission of the sacred place of man and woman,. He would on the other hand have civil ceremony as an aknowledgement that he was of as much worth as anyone else.More questions than answers I thought

I have to admit I find this subject immensely difficult cutting as it does across contrary beliefs I hold.

1 January 2007 at 11:18  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Yes Newmania, but the subject of this thread is something altogether more insidious - it is demanding that you think in conformity with what the lawyer and policeman say. It is Ideological Conformity to The State. It is the ultimate Socialist Dream of The State as Fount of All Morality and the basis of all is the French Revolution and its Totalitarian Submission to Secular Power.................

1 January 2007 at 11:40  
Anonymous Colin said...

"We are now into the realms of Thought Control and Thought Police"

Exactly, Voyager.

There is an interesting example how to fight and win the battle with the thought police. In an article entitled My Battle With the Thought Police, H.H. Hoppe reports that he was accused at the university of providing a "hostile environment" because he " referred to homosexuals as a group which, because they typically do not have children, tend to have a higher degree of time preference and are more present-oriented. I also noted – as have many other scholars – that J.M Keynes, whose economic theories were the subject of some upcoming lectures, had been a homosexual and that this might be useful to know when considering his short-run economic policy recommendation and his famous dictum "in the long run we are all dead...

[A] student claimed that he as a homosexual had been made to "feel bad" by my lecture. Based on this "evidence" the commissar, who, as I would find out only weeks later, was a former clergyman turned "certified" gay activist, called me at home to inform me that he would shut down my class if I continued making such remarks.
In April I was ordered to appear before an administrative committee assembled by the commissar ...

My request to have the meeting taped was denied. During the hearing, which was conducted in a style reminiscent of the interrogations of politically suspect academics in communist countries or Nazi Germany, essentially only the commissar spoke.
My repeated request to hear witnesses was denied. One student, recommended by the complainant, was later secretly interviewed, but because her testimony contradicted what the commissar wanted to hear, it was suppressed.
In November, ..order me to show up for a second trial... My lawyer's request to have the meeting taped or have a court reporter present was denied. After the student explained about his hurt feelings, my lawyer asked where in the code a "hostile learning environment" was defined. Neither the code officer nor the university lawyer could answer the question because no such definition exists...

Two months later, ... the "peer" committee had affirmed the first committee's "hostile environment" finding and would recommend to the provost a letter of reprimand and forfeiture of my next merit increase There might be a little room for negotiation, but if I didn't accept the offer even more serious punishment up to termination might be in the offing. My lawyer's request to see the report was denied.

I rejected the offer and having until then been placed under a gag order, finally started a counteroffensive...

1 January 2007 at 13:47  
Anonymous Colin said...


"I just hope that in the meantime the Government does not inadvertently create resentment towards certain groups in society."

I am afraid that your hope will be disappointed because it has always been the strategy of rulers (a minority of the population) to divide the majority by creating resentment between groups.

1 January 2007 at 13:53  
Anonymous Colin said...

Ulster man,

"Direct Rule legislation".

Does this mean that democracy has been abandoned in Northern Ireland because of conflicts between religious groups? Well, here we have a paradigm for the EU. They might abandon democracy in about 10 years and rule part of the EU, e.g. the UK, by Direct Rule legislation. Reason: prevention of religious conflicts and fight against terrorism.

1 January 2007 at 14:09  
Anonymous Colin said...


"is demanding that you think in conformity with what the lawyer and policeman say."

Yes, it is. But I guess you have to accept it because you demanded in the previous thread that "The world runs on Power, and as Mao Tse-Tung said in words too wise for most Europeans - "Political Power comes out of the barrel of a gun"

And that is what you get when you subscribe or accept the view that the barrel of a gun ought to reign surpreme: "Totalitarian Submission to .. Power".

Bon voyage.

1 January 2007 at 14:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the subject of this thread is something altogether more insidious

Is it really Voyager not entirely I suspect. I rather doubt the distinction you make will survive the predictable outrage when this dreadful piece of meddling reaches out shores. I accept what you say myself entirely .

There is a terrible pincer attack on homosexual men in particular . On the one hand the State is intent on involving them in its plans to outlaw marriage and all other Sub State institutions (small business. .community groups , charities and so on ) . On the other hand there is a fearsome rise of homophobia . I can only speak for London but there have been many gang murders related to sexuality and the casual loathing directed at “gays “ by boys is sharply at odds with the Governments homogenous wishes.
I wonder if these two contrary phenomena are related.

1 January 2007 at 15:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"peter Hitchens" was himself subject to a "harassment" notice a couple of years ago.
nothing to do with gays, he merely used some colourful language towards an individual who despite being politely asked to desist, had continued to chain his bicycle to the railing of the "Hitchens" mansion.
The result?
A visit from two met police detectives who served him with a "harassment" notice.
So here we are in a country where one individual can accuse another individual of "harassment" and the accused has no means of redress, he can be served with a notice to stop "harassing" another without prior interview nor investigation of the supposed "harassment" to see if any harassment actually occurred.

1 January 2007 at 22:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

absurd thought -
God of the Universe mad
at gays on Earth...

1 January 2007 at 22:42  
Anonymous Colin said...

5-Year-Old Boy in Maryland Accused of Sexual Harassment

"In Maryland, a 5-year old boy was written up for sexual harassment because he pinched a girl on the bottom. According to the state, 28 kindergarten students were suspended for sex offenses last year - 15 of those suspensions for sexual harassment.

The father of the boy was told he should "explain" what his son did so it wouldn't happen again. The father said his son knows nothing about sex, so what he did was not sexual. How can you explain to a 5-year old what sexual harassment is?"

1 January 2007 at 23:58  
Anonymous Voyager said...

that J.M Keynes, whose economic theories were the subject of some upcoming lectures, had been a homosexual and that this might be useful to know when considering his short-run economic policy recommendation and his famous dictum "in the long run we are all dead...

That was a particularly silly comment mixing up The Cambridge Apostles group with a comment on the Pigou Effect.

Keynes Comment referred to those who said the economy would right itself in the long run. True - it is called The Pigou Real Balance Effect - it requires prices to be totally flexible and even go negative and can take a century or two to work through the system. In fact if you abolish all patents, make all contracts null and void, allow starvation and drive people to pay to find jobs ie might make such an economy function but without any lasting prosperity.

The world Westerners live in today is a direct result of Keynes' comment about the long-run equilibrium in Economics being beyond most people's lifespan.

2 January 2007 at 07:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The long term effect of this legislation (and other legislation like it) will be to foster conflict between different minority groups, and conflict between the state and the groups it is seeking to 'protect'.

I expect the law of of unintended consequences to bite with a vengance: as the law will chiefly be used AGAINST the types of groups that it seeks to protect - most often groups built around faith, because it is those types of groups that tend to have the fiercest, most strongly felt and most discriminatory and least tolerant belief systems.

Expect to see plenty battles now: gay vs church, church vs state, women vs gay, gay vs state you name it. we'll see it.

2 January 2007 at 13:23  
Anonymous Voyager said...

It would have been better to prohibit prosecutions under such an Act without permission of the Attorney General

2 January 2007 at 14:30  
Blogger Man in a shed said...

When New Labour obtained power I warned my friends in our Church that this would be the outcome. I think they thought me excessively peramistic and reactionary (typical Tory). It gives me no pleasure to be shown to be right.

As your earlier posts have eluded with the oppression of Christian Unions in the UK - all this stems from University politics of the late 1980s.

The cost of being a Christian is about to go up.

2 January 2007 at 17:43  
Anonymous newmania said...


3 January 2007 at 11:26  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Newmania,

His Grace is not cognisant of the precise urgency of your announcement, and is somewhat puzzled by the appearance of your advertisement on this thread.

Would you care to elucidate?

There is, by the way, a facility for informing His Grace of any matters of interest, permitting him to adjudicate their relative merits and demerits, and to further consider whether or not they are worthy of his time and the attention of his communicants. He would be most appreciative if you would make use of it in future.

3 January 2007 at 13:37  
Anonymous newmania said...

Sorry your Grace(..can`t get through actually ).
Just a joke of Praguetories at my expense really.

3 January 2007 at 21:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good stuff, it's in and you're linked, thanks!

absurd thought -
God of the Universe feels
threatened by gay marriage

27 January 2007 at 07:52  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older