Friday, November 13, 2009

Lithuania incurs EU wrath for law against the propagation of homosexuality to children

If ever proof were needed that EU national governments may no longer legislate in accordance with their own cultural traditions, or enact laws which uphold the Christian understanding of the family, it is now evident.

Astonishingly (or perhaps not), the European Parliament has considered ‘Article 7’ action against Lithuania, which could have resulted in Lithuania’s suspension from the European Union. And all because they have dared to confront what they deem to be insidious homosexual propaganda.

Lithuania is a predominantly Roman Catholic country, and has effectively passed its own Section 28: ‘A Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information’ which prohibits promotion of ‘homosexual, bisexual, polygamous relations’ among children under the age of 18. The law does not ban the discussion of such issues; it prohibits their promotion. This is not ‘anti-gay’ or ‘homophobic’; it is for the protection of children. But Gay and human rights groups have condemned the law, claiming it institutionalises homophobia, is discriminatory, and violates the right to freedom of expression. The ubiquitous Michael Cashman, who spends every waking hour of his working life on the promotion of homosexuality, all at the expense of the EU taxpayer, said: “It is my duty as an elected member of the European Parliament to act strongly against grave attempts to diminish human rights of EU citizens. This new law is a spit in the face of the European values. To limit freedom of expression based on homophobia is a clear breach of EU’s fundamental rights and principles.”

No mention, of course, of the diminishing rights of EU Christians, or the buckets of saliva being thrown into their faces, or the limitations being placed on their freedom of expression.

While the Lithuanian president vetoed the measure last June, the Lithuanian parliament exercised its democratic right and overturned his veto. The law is due to take effect next March.

And so the European Parliament voted 349-218 to condemn the new law because they say it contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights. They insist that the law should therefore be repealed: it is inconsistent with EU membership.

And yet we are told that the education of children and parental rights are not a competence of the European Union. And the Irish were duped into believing that the Lisbon Treaty (into which the Charter of Fundamental Rights is now incorporated) does not impinge upon national sovereignty in these areas.

The Lithuanian parliament has expressed ‘regret’ and ‘deep concern’ that the European Parliament attempted to ‘doubt the lawfulness of the law passed by the great majority of the democratically elected parliament of a member state, although this issue should not fall under the jurisdiction of the EP’.

Yet the Lithuanian parliament can ‘regret’ and express ‘deep concern’ until the cows come home. When the European Court of Human Rights speaks, its pronouncements are ex cathedra, perfect wisdom, infallible. The will of ‘the democratically elected parliament of a member state’ is of no consequence.

Interestingly, Lithuanian Labour Party member Mecislovas Zasciurinskas asked if this is a one-off attempt to interfere with the affairs of a sovereign state or the beginnings of an absolute dictatorship. He said: “Some years back we called this ‘Moscow’s Grip,’ the tendency to meddle in everybody’s business…”

Is ‘Article 7’ the fate which awaits David Cameron’s quest to ‘repatriate’ certain competences under subsidiarity provisions? Are threats of expulsion the consequence of transgressing the divine right of the European Union?

The faithful communicant who brought this story to His Grace’s attention has attempted to get a transcript of the debate in the European Parliament. This was eventually provided, but he says that in order to understand what was going on, he would have needed to have been proficient in every European language that was used in the debate. Apparently the EP rapporteurs do not see fit to provide translations of the whole proceedings in a single language. No doubt to do so would provide too much transparency.

245 Comments:

Blogger D. Singh said...

Michael Novak, the preeminent American Catholic neo-conservative political philosopher. In his 1991 book, The Spirit Of Democratic Capitalism, published just after the fall of Communism, he wrote that,
"One of the most outstanding characteristics of our age is that ideas, even false and unworkable ideas, even ideas which are no longer believed in by their official guardians, rule the affairs of men and ride roughshod over stubborn facts. Ideas of enormous destructiveness, cruelty, and impracticality retain the allegiance of elites that benefit from them. The empirical record seems not to jut through into consciousness to break their spell. The class of persons who earn their livelihood from the making of ideas and symbols seems both unusually bewitched by falsehoods and absurdities and uniquely empowered to impose them on hapless individuals."

Quoted by Bernard Connolly in his essay: The Circle of Barbed Wire (an essay on the EU)

13 November 2009 at 09:11  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

Is that all you need to do to get suspended from the EU? Let's pass one too.

13 November 2009 at 09:42  
Anonymous Stuart said...

Every Christian, that is a parent of school age children, should opt for home-schooing, whilst they are still at liberty to do so.

13 November 2009 at 09:52  
Anonymous Martin Sewell said...

It is a sign of the times that we can apparently leave matters of religion so that "let them decide for themselves at 18" is ok , but the same does not apply to sex.

13 November 2009 at 10:00  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

The EU’s Charter of Fundamental Freedoms is one of the most oppressive and destructive instruments that will be applied to this people.

Artcle 52 of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Freedoms states:

(1) Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.

When the EU uses the term the ‘general interest’ it does not have the same meaning as it does in our law as ‘the public interest’. The ‘general interest’ is an idea from the bloody French revolution: it means the General Will. That is the Will of the State power. In the EU superstate it means the Will of the EU. The peoples of Europe have nothing whatsoever to do with the General Interest – as it belongs to the unelected ruling elite.

Article 52 awards the unelected ruling elite the power to:

1. to restrict all; and
2. any freedom; including
3. freedom of speech;
4. freedom of assembly;
5. freedom of political association;
6. freedom from arbitrary arrest;
7. freedom from an unfair trial;
8. freedom from retroactive criminal legislation (that which was not a crime yesterday you can be arrested for tomorrow);
9. freedom from personal attainder; and
10. freedom from torture.

Soon, no one on this website will be permitted to criticise the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Freedoms:

Article 54 of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Freedoms states:

Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as implying any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognised in this Charter or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for herein.

Criticising Article 52 is forbidden by Article 54. ‘Any activity… or any act’ aimed at the destruction of these super power rights is verboten.

In other words the rights in the Charter are rights execlusively for the ruling elite of this new super power – not for we ‘the men of clay’.

13 November 2009 at 10:18  
Blogger Christopher Evans said...

Wouldn't it be funny if NATO attacked Britiain one day? What about 2066, it would be like Déjà vu.

13 November 2009 at 10:42  
Anonymous Anabaptist said...

'The European Parliament has considered ‘Article 7’ action against Lithuania, which could have resulted in Lithuania’s suspension from the European Union.'

Lucky Lithuania. Any chance we can get the same treatment, please?

13 November 2009 at 10:43  
Anonymous Stuart said...

Martin Sewell, what an excellent observation. I shall remember your comments and use them next time the 'religious indoctrination' of children in education argument is thrown at me.

13 November 2009 at 10:48  
Anonymous non mouse said...

As Messrs. Hamblin and Anabaptist say: Suspension sounds like the best idea for years!!

13 November 2009 at 10:51  
Blogger Christopher Evans said...

Considering how we were once single celled organisms, we have achieved wonders really to get this far.

Speaking of single celled organisms, would this mean that we started out as queers? What ever, but there must have been a sound evolutionary principle behind the formation of two different sexes for virtually every life form on Earth form plants up wards.

Considering the theory of evolution and how it is based upon the survival of the fittest, I would say that in order for us to continue as a healthy species it is going to be necessary to consider genetic manipulation. Otherwise, the way things are going, we will all be taking it up the arse by the next millennium, and this can't be good for any species, not healthy anyway. I am hoping that nature will do her duty and wazz out some kind of deadly virus and us back on track again.

13 November 2009 at 11:22  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Dear Mr Singh
What you say in both your posts above is all too true.
You quote Michael Novak's observations on the spirit of our age and they are spot on, but they are nothing new, they just happen to have the advantage at the moment. Edmund Burke (even though he was a Whig) railed against the same thing.
I have long thought (in this context) the world can be divided into two types of people between whom there is a great gulf fixed - the sheep and the goats. There are those who live in the truth (reality as it appears to those with the eyes to see and wisdom and humility to accept it) and those who prefer to order the world according to their own ideas of how things ought to be (either for their idea of the betterment of mankind, or in their own interests - or a mixture of the two).
This division is ever with us: Roundheads and Cavaliers, Whigs and Tories, Liberals and Traditionalists, Democrats and Republicans etc etc.

And by the way, it is a false analogy to say that the EU is a reincarnation of religious tyranny. It is the imposition of a set of rules based on a wrong reading of the truth of human existence, whereas Christendom largely ruled by consent and strained every sinew of its being to organise itself according to Truth, which most of the people accepted for centuries and allowed them to flower into the civilisation Europe created.

13 November 2009 at 11:32  
Anonymous Pro EU & Socialist said...

It seems to me that you either agree to be in the EU or out of it. It's clear from this blog there are no pro EU conservatives left and at heart the tory party agrees with UKIP -why doesn't Cameron just make it party policy to withdraw from the EU. It could be another 'cast iron' promise .

13 November 2009 at 11:35  
Blogger Preacher said...

Not often that one sees Sodom & Gommorah & the tower of Babel mentioned in one blog on the same day in 2009 eh?.

13 November 2009 at 11:35  
Anonymous Gay Christian Tory Voter Anti EU said...

So where does that leave me ?

13 November 2009 at 11:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Christendom largely ruled by consent and strained every sinew of its being to organise itself according to Truth, which most of the people accepted for centuries and allowed them to flower into the civilisation Europe created."

I can think of times when this would not quite fit the description of what was taking place, but in general, if we consider the chaotic nature of some of the pagan religions of old, this is one main reason why Christianity took hold, because it gave hope and order to many living in squalid darkness and superstitious confusion.

The problem now is that we have measured the universe with science and we now have reproducible facts to back up what we believe to be true. Much of what we now know makes some of the old religious ideas seem rather backward, primitive and embarrassing. As corporal beings, we still have a large spiritual capacity, but in order to develop and enhance this with what we are now, and where we are now along the journey of development, we need to grow up a bit more with our religious ideas also. Some of the stuff that we are supposed to believe is retarded and remedial to say the least.

13 November 2009 at 11:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gay Christian...Ok...Iain Dale

It leaves you in the que to start behaving like a decent principled and moral human being who has control over his perverse sexual appetites. Or consider doing the right thing.

13 November 2009 at 11:51  
Blogger English Viking said...

Iain Dale,

It leaves you in need of repentance.

13 November 2009 at 12:02  
Blogger Frugal Dougal said...

Nichael Cashman and his ilk are part of the problem. His aggressive and bullying style of promoting homosexuality bear no relation to the decent homosexual people of my acquaintance.

13 November 2009 at 12:06  
Anonymous Gay Christian Tory Voter Anti EU said...

Anon,
I am not Iain Dale, so I would suggest you retract that comment. Your comments are disgusting and adds nothing to the debate on this post.

13 November 2009 at 12:09  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

The EU, unknowingly, may be preparing to establish the necessary legal protections for the Anti-Christ:

“Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all” (Dan. 11:37).

13 November 2009 at 12:23  
Anonymous Labour's masterplan said...

Labour's masterplan as follows :

1) Yet another plus point for the EU is its belief in equality and it is good that the Parliament wants to overrule such an anti -progressive measure.

2)Thanks to Lisbon the tories won't be able to do anything at all about this ,the UK will have to agree with the other EU states or be thrown out altogether. bad news for a tory govenment- we have a large defecit (which is a result of the need to invest during a recession) and that we rely on the EU to pay our bills. So the tory government will have no real choice but to comply with the EU, thus keeping our equality and closer EU ties agenda going.

3) all the foaming at the mouth tories will go and vote UKIP in 2015,after being fed up with what they think is the pro EU stand of Cameron, thus splitting the righ wing vote and labour will return to power for the next century and a half .

13 November 2009 at 12:28  
Anonymous Nebuchadnezzar Williams said...

D Singh

So is the EU an unwitting pawn in the end of the world or is a key player in preparing the coming of the Anti Christ/the Beast from the sea etc ? I am confused , so please enlighten me further !

13 November 2009 at 12:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"behaving like a decent principled and moral human being who has control over his perverse sexual appetites. Or consider doing the right thing."

If this is disgusting then tough titty. It's what floats my boat.

It has dawned on me that Dale may well be anything than Christian so I will reconsider that bit.

All suggestions are welcome, I can't make any promises though.

13 November 2009 at 12:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would just ignore the Anon at 12.39. He is taking my right to be the only anon in the village.....

13 November 2009 at 12:43  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

Can't see what is wrong her your Grace. It goes without saying that homophobia has to be stamped out and the best way to do this is by education.

13 November 2009 at 12:47  
Blogger D. Singh said...

We keep getting this: the EU needs to pay our bills.

The facts:

By 2008 Britain will have made total contributions to the European Community (EC) Budget of £230.4 billion gross or almost £68.2 billion net.

By the end of the current EC budget period Britain will have made estimated total contributions to the EC Budget of £315.4 billion gross and £101.4 billion net.
By 2007 Britain had an accumulated trade deficit with the other EU member states of £383.7 billion.

The Common Agricultural Policy costs Britain at least £16.8 billion per annum.
The Common Fisheries Policy costs Britain at least £3.275 billion per annum.
Over-regulation on business costs Britain at least £28 billion per annum.
In 2008 membership of the European Union costs Britain almost £65.675 billion per annum gross or almost £55.775 billion per annum net.

FRAUD:

Due to the EU being riddled with corruption it is likely that the equivalent of Britain's entire net contribution to the EU is going into the pockets of fraudsters.

THE EFFECTS OF FREEING BRITAIN FROM THE EU:

A BOOST TO THE ECONOMY. As EU red tape is holding back the UK economy by £28 billion, 2% of UK GDP, it is clear that freeing Britain from EU control will get Britain out of recession and get British people back to work.

COST FREE TAX CUTS. As politicians of the three main parties are struggling to explain how they will deliver the tax cuts that the British economy needs they have failed to realise that this money can be found if we stop paying the EU billions of pounds per year of taxpayers’ money.

The 2% boost to economic growth created by leaving the EU and slashing its excessive red tape would also increase tax revenue by £10.73 billion. Combine that with the direct savings to the exchequer and it will allow for a 6p in the pound cut in the basic rate of income tax.

G. Batten, MEP

Williams – you are content with your darkness – keep writing the word ‘sun’ on the wall of your cell.

13 November 2009 at 12:47  
Anonymous Williams said...

D Singh

Please explain why you say this to me ?

13 November 2009 at 12:51  
Anonymous Run of the Mill C of E Person said...

Yes D Singh does leap from one theme to the next- he talks about the EU preparing legislation to prepare the coming of the Anti Christ but refuses to back this up with anything further and when some asks his view he is rude to them . Very strange.

13 November 2009 at 12:54  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

D Singh

Your reading of s52 of the Charter is entirely incorrect. Only member states can pass laws not the unelected elite as you call them. And the EU is not able to amend the Charter unless the member states agree. s52 is there to place a limit on which member states may amend their laws in order to get around the principles within the Charter.


Get the facts right first then we can have a proper debate.

Cue loads of troll comments etc.

13 November 2009 at 12:54  
Blogger D. Singh said...

there is no s52 in the charter.

13 November 2009 at 12:57  
Anonymous Anonymous II said...

Sorry anon 12:43

The problem is that I have all these nasty values about me and if I use my name I will be disqualified from any debate where I feel the need to put my name on it.

Such is the brainwashed nature of political correctness. We live in a world where a Muslim can scream Allah Akbar and slaughter 13 good people, and then a huge debate erupts around what to call him: a nutter, a Muslim nutter, a radical Muslim nutter, a radical Muslim, an ordinary bloke who flipped, basically anything other than a terrorist, and God help anyone who ends up on the wrong side of the conclusion after the media have successfully brainwashed the sheep into making their minds up. It is of course already a fore gone conclusion that Islam had nothing to do with it.

So in order to speak anything that resembles the truth, it has become necessary to manifest many identities in order to escape the vampire-like nature of political correctness.

13 November 2009 at 12:57  
Blogger D. Singh said...

No.

13 November 2009 at 13:01  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

D Singh

I meant Article 52

13 November 2009 at 13:01  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

Tory boys never group up.

Don't bother with D Singh. You cannot have anything like "a proper debate" with this man.

He equates the EU with Hitler's Germany and thinks that EU arrest warrant is the same as the concentration camp. He thinks you are a racist if you agree with an open borders policy (because it is racist against British people) .

If a labour supporter said that the sky was blue he would argue that it is green and quote from the bible as it being part of a conspiracy with the EU as (naturally) 666.

None of this is argument from a rational mind, so I wouldn't waste your breath.

13 November 2009 at 13:01  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

I suppose it was inevitable that Mr Christian Socialist can't see anything wrong here.

In the hierarchy of rights it would seem that, in his book, gay is the ace over everything.

The wee problem there is, however, that Islam will trump his ace, and he'll be the first on the chopping block come the Islamic UK state (about 20 years, I suspect)

However, for the rest of us mere mortals who can see quite a lot wrong with the eu, gay rights aren't the be all and end all of everything, especially when our rights are being ceromoniously trashed at every turn

PS todays password is SCARI AAD. Nice one, your Grace

13 November 2009 at 13:08  
Anonymous Williams said...

D Singh

You said no because you have no idea. I suspect that you are really a paid up labour troll- it is the only way to explain your views and how one second you are a catholic, the next a protestant and the next a run of mill c of e person.

I suspect that you hope to encourage others to agree with you and in so doing managing to show otherwise moderate conservatives to appear to be whacky, by them agreeing with your outlandish theories or at least humouring you in them.

13 November 2009 at 13:08  
Blogger D. Singh said...

I said 'No' because you used the word 'please'.

13 November 2009 at 13:10  
Anonymous Williams said...

No I did not use the word please ....

13 November 2009 at 13:16  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Williams has left a new comment on the post "Lithuania incurs EU wrath for law against the prop...":

D Singh

Please explain why you say this to me ?

13 November 2009 at 13:18  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Christian Socialist


I don't disagree with you - but in a democracy don't we have a duty to engage with those we disagree with, a point which many here should bear in mind when trying to dismiss those they disagree with by abuse and accusations of trolling.

With Mr Singh I suspect the best tactic is one punch on the nose at a time - and to avoid prolonged debates where he tries to bend the usual rules of logic. Real trolls tend to stick to a single bridge, to which they become quite attached, in my experience

13 November 2009 at 13:18  
Anonymous the public house said...

Williams

You did say please. I am not sure why D Singh now has a problem with people being courteous .

13 November 2009 at 13:20  
Blogger D. Singh said...

‘Real trolls tend to stick to a single bridge, to which they become quite attached, in my experience’

‘Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity.’

General Patton

Haven’t you read Antonio Gramsci – war of manoeuvre?

13 November 2009 at 13:22  
Anonymous Williams said...

D Singh

At the end of your rant about the EU you said

"Williams – you are content with your darkness – keep writing the word ‘sun’ on the wall of your cell."

What do you mean by that ?

13 November 2009 at 13:22  
Blogger indigomyth said...

And once again we have clear evidence that Cranmer disapproves of Freedom of Speech, which this Lithuanian law directly curtails. I do not know which is worse; his hypocrisy, or his support for the limiting of Free Speech.

13 November 2009 at 13:23  
Anonymous lunacy said...

D Singh @ 13.18, you are now asking yourself questions !!!!!!!

13 November 2009 at 13:27  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

Freedom of speech is not an absolute. Incitement to violence should be curtailed as should leading little children into the paths of unrighteousness.

13 November 2009 at 13:29  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Haven’t you read Antonio Gramsci – war of manoeuvre?

No - despite frequently being accused of being part of the Gramscian marxist myth.

Difficult as it may be for some here to believe not all socialists are marxists. Just like not all Tories are narrow minded homophobic nationalists.

13 November 2009 at 13:32  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

lunacy

They are the easiest ones to answer ;)

13 November 2009 at 13:34  
Blogger indigomyth said...

//This is not ‘anti-gay’ or ‘homophobic’; it is for the protection of children. //

Are you sure that you are the reconstituted remains of Thomas Cranmer, not Maude Flanders? 'Won't somebody please think of the children!'.

In all honesty, I think this post is the most disgusting one you have ever written. It is one thing to say that you hate homosexuality, it is quite another to say that it is permissable to restrict speech promoting it. Next time I read of a Muslim country suppressing the speech of Christians, think long and hard before you start b*tching and moaning about "Freedom of Speech", for you yourself have shown that you do not value it.

13 November 2009 at 13:34  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

The best line was when someone suggested yesterday that me and D Singh settle our differences over a pint- to which D Singh inferred he would be sent to some retraining camp if he did so!

13 November 2009 at 13:38  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Terry Hamblin,

//Freedom of speech is not an absolute. Incitement to violence should be curtailed as should leading little children into the paths of unrighteousness.//

Yes it is an absolute. I was under the impression that it was the duty of parents to prevent children from the path on unrighteousness, not the States. Or are you a left-wing moron?

Incidently, since the path of unrighteousness includes rejection of Jesus, and belief in other Gods, do you also support curtailing of speech promoting religions other than Christianity? What about in Muslim countries, where the path to unrighteousness starts at apostasy, and includes Christianity? Do you support Muslims restricting that speech because of "the children"?

What about racist speech? Do you support the curtailing of racist speech? How about anti-Semetic speech?

13 November 2009 at 13:39  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...

Many laws curtail the freedom of speech in connection with what kind of propaganda, campaign messages, etc., schools are allowed to expose their students to.

13 November 2009 at 13:41  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Christian socialist was it this post?

Is Christian Socialist a racist with regards to supporting the EU in excluding British workers from British jobs?

Race Relations Act s.3 (1) defines ‘racial grounds’ and ‘racial group’, both of which are used as the foundation for the definition of ‘racial discrimination’, as follows:

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires –

‘Racial grounds’ means any of the following grounds, namely… nationality… or national origins;

‘Racial group’ means a group of persons defined by reference to… nationality… or national origins…

British workers were discriminated against on racial grounds by EU companies when they recruited workers in Portugal and Italy to work in Britain.

That in my opinion, given Christian Socialists support of the EU, defines him as a racist.

13 November 2009 at 13:41  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

D Singh

Yawn.

You said all of this yesterday. I rebutted your stupid accusations .

perhaps others might engage with you . I can't be bothered until you think of some arguments which make sense.

13 November 2009 at 13:47  
Anonymous williams said...

D Singh

You still have not said why you said to me the following (your post at 12.47):

"Williams – you are content with your darkness – keep writing the word ‘sun’ on the wall of your cell."

13 November 2009 at 13:49  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Hank Petram,

//Many laws curtail the freedom of speech in connection with what kind of propaganda, campaign messages, etc., schools are allowed to expose their students to.//

And they are all wrong. That does not mean that this one is correct. Parents are the ones responsible for their children, not the State. They decide what their child learns, but that does not mean that they have the authority to restrict someone else's freedom of speech and expression.

13 November 2009 at 13:49  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.

13 November 2009 at 13:52  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

D Singh

Even if your reading of EU legislation were correct - this is a guilt by association argument - perhaps we could start playing the same argument with yourself?

13 November 2009 at 13:52  
Blogger indigomyth said...

D. Singh,

//British workers were discriminated against on racial grounds by EU companies when they recruited workers in Portugal and Italy to work in Britain.//

So, Mr Fascist (as we have previously determined that you are), could you show that they were discriminated against on grounds of their race? I would like evidence.

And what is an "EU Company" anyway? Surely those are just individual companies that are in Europe?

13 November 2009 at 13:53  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'Surely'?

13 November 2009 at 13:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What has a quote from Virgil got to do with this thread?

13 November 2009 at 14:02  
Blogger D. Singh said...

To be sure that they were in fact reading the exact text.

They are clearly not.

You are.

13 November 2009 at 14:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D Singh is Cranmer? Discuss.

13 November 2009 at 14:10  
Anonymous labour voting anglican said...

I think that the EU is right on this issue, just like the Lords was right to keep free speech yesterday.

People should have the right of free speech, even if that means homophobic free speech. But also gays should have the right to educate young people about homosexuality, alongisde hetrosexuality.

However tories can't see to reconcile free speech at all, unless it is on their side.

13 November 2009 at 14:11  
Anonymous Williams said...

Anon @14.10 , yes, the thought had crossed my mind as well. Mr Singh's rants are just too extreme to be for real and I've met a few extreme people in my time!

13 November 2009 at 14:12  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...

The best line was when someone suggested yesterday that me and D Singh settle our differences over a pint

Who's standing the drinks? Are we all invited?

13 November 2009 at 14:14  
Blogger D. Singh said...

It is often forgotten that in the great classic celebration of free speech, Milton's Areopagitica, Milton says, "Now you understand of course that when I speak of toleration and free expression I don't mean Catholics. Them we extirpate". The exclusion of the Catholic message in Milton's text is based on much the same rationale as the BBC's exclusion of the Pro Life Alliance - by which I mean that the coincidence is not doctrinal, but jurisprudential: the only difference between Milton and the BBC (and the House of Lords upholding its decision) is a difference in what we would exclude from the zone of "free speech", not a difference between exclusion and inclusion.

The debate about where the line should be drawn - for example, allowing anti-Christian propaganda on the one hand, but prohibiting anti-semitic speech on the other - is not one heading towards some universal truth, only a weathervane of contemporary sensitivities, which change over time. Everyone has such a trigger point, which is either acknowledged at the beginning or emerges in a moment of crisis. As Stanley Fish, Professor of Law and English at Duke University in North Carolina, observed in a journal interview:

"Most of us today would not say, "Well, of course, you understand I don't mean toleration of Catholics". But we would say things like, "I don't mean toleration of neo-nazis" or "I don't mean toleration of discourses advocating child molestation". There is no-one in the history of the world who has ever been in favour of free speech."

This makes the legal argument over where the constraints should cut in a largely sterile one. All the balancing tests at the heart of free speech jurisprudence - the rights of individuals to free expression versus other rights and values, are therefore no more than gestures of current prejudice. In so far as they are principles they are empty rhetoric, unattached to any real content.

Rosalind English, Barrister

13 November 2009 at 14:15  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...

Mr Singh, you quote the Areopagitica, but please bear in mind that Milton held the post of head of censorship (I don't remember the exact title) in Cromwell's government.

13 November 2009 at 14:22  
Anonymous Faggot Puker said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

13 November 2009 at 14:27  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

The way this blog is descending into personal quarrels, we shall have David Dee joining in soon, and we don't want that to happen, do we?

13 November 2009 at 14:37  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

I think we can safely leave God to inflict his own retribution on those who lead little children astray. But be warned, there is something about millstones and deep sea diving coming. I agree it is for parents to bring up children and it would be wise for the state to keep its nose out of a child's sex education. However, it is not an infringement of free speech to prevent children from listening to something. Homosexuals can freely prate about their perversion as much as they like. The rest of us don't have to listen.

13 November 2009 at 14:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

13 November 2009 at 14:50  
Anonymous The publican said...

Hank @ 14.14

D Singh does not want drink with socialists - he thinks he will end up in 2 retraining camps. Yes they are called lunatic asylums.

13 November 2009 at 15:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is D Singh on about now ?

13 November 2009 at 15:08  
Anonymous Rowan Williams as the next Pope said...

Anon @ 14.10 , why do you think D Singh and Cramner are one and the same ? What's the evidence?

13 November 2009 at 15:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gentlemen

This blog is not about the (in)famous 'D. Singh'.

So please try to discuss the issues in the main post sensibly.

Ann Consuelo Sing

13 November 2009 at 15:16  
Anonymous Right Charlie said...

Getting back to the topic at hand , how dare the EU superstate try a bully a luthania. Another reason why the EU project needs to be reversed.

13 November 2009 at 15:17  
Anonymous Rowan Williams as the next Pope said...

Anon at 15.16, so why did you mention this at 14.10. Or are you a different anon ? Makes me think there might be some merit in this theory, given that we are being thrown off the scent .

13 November 2009 at 15:19  
Blogger Kenpachi said...

Can someone explain to me in what sense or context homosexualtiy would be 'propagated' to children under Article 7?

I would support the idea of children being told that it's wrong to call gay people by derogatory names or think it acceptable to abuse/intimidate gay people in anyway.

However, I definitely would not like children to think it's all gravey to see men holding hands and kissing in public or parading down the street in leather chaps etc.

So where is the line here?

13 November 2009 at 15:20  
Anonymous Bag lady said...

The EU Parliament is right to rebuke this backward country for its homopoblic laws .

13 November 2009 at 15:23  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

Anon at 15.16, what's your view then, on the post?

13 November 2009 at 15:25  
Blogger Weekend Yachtsman said...

Wow, is it that easy to get suspended from the EU?

Excellent.

Now, what do we need to do to get expelled? Let's start working on it.

13 November 2009 at 15:27  
Blogger Christopher Evans said...

I can only imagine that one of the reasons why this thread has deteriorated into childish squabble is because the big boys have killed off legitimate debate anyway.

I mean, if you give out the wrong answer about the EU, the question gets rephrased until the desired response is extracted. So people know full well what the real debate is but it just seems futile to argue any salient facts, thus we have childish squabble. Maybe this is an intentional reaction, who knows.

I would conclude that if there is a God then IT needs to do something soon because you guys are on the back foot I am afraid to say.

News out now that scientists are close to three parent babies:

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/scientists-move-closer-to-three-parent-babies/

The possibilities are endless it seems.

13 November 2009 at 15:27  
Anonymous Ham Cheese and pickle bagutte said...

Ah , but are D Singh and Cramner the same person ?

13 November 2009 at 15:30  
Blogger D. Singh said...

No.

13 November 2009 at 15:32  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Am I the only one who worries that some chaps on this thread are loosing grasp of the issues in this post and are just posting about anything that is coming into their heads? Is it 'the Friday feeling’?

Turning to the post's theme, the simple answer is for Britain to withdraw from the EU. If others feel the same then they should feel able to withdraw as well.

The parliaments of European countries, should be the ones who make their laws. If people do not like those laws then they can get elected in the usual way, but it should not be the EU forcing the issue.

13 November 2009 at 15:37  
Blogger Kenpachi said...

Can someone help me out?

13 November 2009 at 15:42  
Anonymous Williams said...

Kenpachi , out of what ?

13 November 2009 at 15:45  
Blogger D. Singh said...

The argument began with passage of a Lithuanian “Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information” which prohibits promotion of “homosexual, bisexual, polygamous relations” among children under the age of 18. While the Lithuanian president subsequently vetoed the measure, the Siemas overturned his veto and the law is slated to go in effect next March.

As a consequence, in September the European Parliament (EP) voted 349-218 to condemn the new law and ask the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights to review it. The Parliament also considered what is called an “article 7” action against Lithuania, which could have resulted in Lithuania’s suspension from the European Union. Jean Lambert, a British MEP said at the time, “This law contravenes the EU Treaties, the EU Charter and the European Convention on Human Rights, and should be urgently repealed on those grounds.”

Besides the education of children and parental rights, the issue of national sovereignty is central to the debate. The Lithuanians insist they are free to enact such laws and that the European Institutions have no “competence” in them. Many Europeans have long feared what they see as inevitable EU interference in life and family matters.

The Lisbon Treaty, which among other changes would make the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights binding upon members, was defeated by Ireland two years ago at least partially over such questions of sovereignty. Irish voters eventually approved the Lisbon Treaty but only after written guarantees of sovereignty were written into the treaty.

13 November 2009 at 15:45  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

D Singh

Thank you for your unequivocal answer. That is good enough for me. Now can we get back to debating the real issues on this post?

13 November 2009 at 15:47  
Anonymous Williams said...

D Singh has still not answered my question from this morning !

13 November 2009 at 15:48  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

I think this is going to happen more often, intervention by the democratically elected Federal Parliament. As said before Lisbon is the only way to make the new Federal Union work, but if some countries don't like it then they can and should be shown the door.

Also we need to think about the EU Parliament getting a second or revising chamber, it might make the process work better.

13 November 2009 at 15:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Don't believe anything until it is officially denied" as Claud Cockburn said.

13 November 2009 at 15:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gentlemen

This is not an answer-and-question session for ‘D. Singh’; there are others to consider.

I agree with the young aristocrat Lord Lavenden.

Ann Consuelo Sing

13 November 2009 at 15:55  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

Ann Consuelo Sing , what's your view on the post then? Or are you writing on behalf of the blog owner Most Rev Cramner?

13 November 2009 at 15:58  
Anonymous Jeffrey Corn said...

Anon @ 15.55, why do you think this ? where are the facts eh?

13 November 2009 at 16:00  
Anonymous Brian Barras said...

The problem is that the baltic states DO need money from somewhere as their economies are collapsing around them. So they will proabably have to revise this law or they won't get EU support to bail out their failing economies. This will happen to the UK sooner or later.

13 November 2009 at 16:15  
Anonymous Jim Blinker said...

Another fine example of the EU super state at work.

13 November 2009 at 16:24  
Anonymous IanCad said...

From Toleration to Promotion.
I would suggest the eminently sensible Wolfenden Report still reflects the attitude of the majority.
"The law's function is to preserve public order and decency, to protect the citizen from what is offensive or injurious, and to provide sufficient safeguards against exploitation and corruption of others ... It is not, in our view, the function of the law to intervene in the private life of citizens, or to seek to enforce any particular pattern of behaviour"

13 November 2009 at 16:32  
Anonymous Trevor Black said...

D Singh as Cramner - what ?? Some people on this blog are real trouble makers you Grace. Clearly we must say NO to the EU on this as it has no power over education policies. Simple as that

13 November 2009 at 16:36  
Anonymous McKenzie said...

Pssst! Your Grace, it is Friday the 13th. Hopefully tomorrow will be an improvement. Today is definately a thread you would feed to the dog.

13 November 2009 at 16:46  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

I ahve been flattered to be compare with you. However, posters should have been able to discern that the quality of my grammar is inferior to yours.

So for the sake of any doubt: D. Singh is D. Singh and not His Grace, Archbishop Cranmer.

The reason why my posts have been short is that we are trying to address a highly unusual situation here - which is likely to continue for the next 48 hours.

The tasks are unpleasant. Will post on Monday morning depending on if we can make it.

Over and out.

13 November 2009 at 17:08  
Anonymous full english breakfast said...

Has anyone noticed how D Singh has got very quite. Also his last post was less of the rant about it than others ........ strange eh!

13 November 2009 at 17:10  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Oh dear Your Grace, you have alienated the homophiles. Be careful you do not arouse the Great Panjandrum St**ph*n F*y (whose name cannot be mentioned except with fawning reverence) or he will smite thee with his twittering machine.

Your Grace has merely reported an example of the burgeoning Euro-dictatorship and does not merit this furore. For Moscow's grip, now read Brussels grip.

But then the furore is a measure of the hectoring and bullying that we have increasingly have to endure from the homosexual lobby in any debate or news item that does not meet their agenda.

13 November 2009 at 17:10  
Anonymous Gay Christian Anglican said...

I think that this sends a warning signal to an incoming Tory government - if you are really been false about your so called relaxed attitude to homsexuals and gay rights, then the EU shall override your bigotry.

Thank goodness we are in the EU and that we had a labour government to sign the lisbon treaty.

Hopefully the next item will be a law , before the tories get in, to have and allow same sex couples to get married in a religious service in a religous place of worship and for them to be able to baptise their children. It is only fair.

13 November 2009 at 17:21  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

For a more balanced view of the Lituanian law actually is see here

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/15/lithuania-anti-gay-law-pr_n_233654.html

As anyone should be able to see its goes way beyoond promoting homosexuality in schools and is actually a much broader attack on free speech. I may not agree with UFOs and bad food - but I wouldn't want to censor public television so that they couldn't be mentioned.

When any state signs the Charter of Human Rights which is not just an EU thing - you agree to abide by it and accept the consequences if you don't. Given that it supports perfectly decent principles, such as free speech, I'm afraid I have no problem in supporting it myself - and indeed I very much doubt most reasonable people would have no problem with it being incorporated into a UK Bill of Rights.

13 November 2009 at 17:22  
Anonymous Thinking liberal said...

The EU is a democracy, so it has no alternative but to defend minority groupings. Simple as that.

13 November 2009 at 17:25  
Anonymous The Alternative Service Book 1980-2000 said...

Is the Anon who thinks D Singh and Crammy are one and the same convinced now ??

13 November 2009 at 17:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D Singh

God bless and God-speed.

Marina

13 November 2009 at 17:32  
Anonymous Billy the Evangelical preacher said...

"this thread has deteriorated into childish squabble "

Amen to that !

13 November 2009 at 17:32  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Dearly beloved,

This is a most peculiar thread (as was yesterday's).

There appears to have been a slight infiltration which has precipitated a modicum of imbalance which in turn has been detrimental to His Grace's standards of intelligence and erudition on matters religio-political.

His Grace apologises to Mr Singh that anyone should be so insulting to the poor chap as to believe that he is His Grace. Please would communicants not cause offence to one another. Should offence persist, each incident will be reported to the ECHR and His Grace will write to the European Commission in order that legislation might be passed to eradicate all expressions of blog hatred, for they are an abomination unto the EU and an infringment of one's cyber rights.

13 November 2009 at 17:34  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

D Singh

Yes may I also offer you my thoughts.

13 November 2009 at 17:34  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

"The law classifies public information about homosexuality and bisexuality alongside material that portrays physical or psychological violence and the display of dead or mutilated bodies. Also prohibited is material that 'encourages gambling, encourages and suggests participation in the games of chance, lotteries and other games that imply easy win'or 'promotes bad eating, sanitary and physical passivity habits'. "

So much for free speech - could you just imagine how Cranmer would be howling if a Labour Government introduced a law that banned public information that 'promotes bad eating, sanitary and physical passivity habits'

Don't worry the Tory's Lithuanian ally in the European Parliment was strong supporter of the law - although he should not be confused with their Latvian ally, whose party wanted to introduce military pensions for former members of the Waffen SS.

13 November 2009 at 17:40  
Anonymous Colby Hamish said...

your grace, people have come to the wrong site. They should go to guido's site if they want to engage in the tantrums we have seen on this blog over the past few days.

13 November 2009 at 17:44  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

"Article 4 of the law lists 19 categories of information that are considered to have a 'detrimental effect on the development of minors' and which are banned from schools, public places and media where they could be viewed by children. Sub-section 13 of Article 4 prohibits 'Information which agitates for homosexual, bisexual and polygamous relations".

Doesn't this concern any Tories at all?

13 November 2009 at 17:47  
Anonymous Loki, Norse God of mischief said...

Oh I think it was a good debate yesterday. Got people thinking.

Today's thread D Singh as Crammy was pathetic though. Can't commentators stick to the issue of the post ??

My own belief is that the EU has no power over educational affairs, so states should be free to pass the laws they want in their own country.

13 November 2009 at 17:47  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Or this?

"An explanatory note accompanying the law states that 'the propagation of a non-traditional sexual orientation and exposure to information containing positive coverage of homosexual relations may cause negative consequences for the physical, mental and, first and foremost, moral development of minors.' "

13 November 2009 at 17:50  
Anonymous Cardinal Rowan Williams said...

Well said your Grace. Some comments here have been deeply disruptive to the discourse.

13 November 2009 at 17:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It won't be an issue when NuLabour (or perhaps BluLabour) have embedded Shari'a in UK law. Or perhaps the EU are going to do it at national level for us all.

13 November 2009 at 17:57  
Anonymous Maturecheese said...

Gay Christian Tory Voter Anti EU

I see you are saying that another poster's comments about you being gay are disgusting. I think what a lot of 'gay' people fail to realise is that a lot of us 'straight' people find what you get up to 'disgusting'. We would be more likely to tolerate it though if it wasn't shoved down our throats as it is these days.

13 November 2009 at 18:35  
Anonymous Farrage the fursty ferret said...

Your Grace is right to be concerned about the power of the EU superstate. The EU consitution is just like the old Imperial Russian constituion of 1906.

13 November 2009 at 18:42  
Anonymous out of the closit said...

Maturecheese- OK but can gay people like myself be

1) Conservative party supporters and

2) be Christians?

It seems from the threads of yesterday and today that I can be neither? Yet Cameron says his party has changed. I can't see that- can you really ?

13 November 2009 at 18:45  
Anonymous Billy the Evangelical Preacher said...

I believe that God loves the whole world. Gays can be Christians and Conservative party supporters. I would add that when you become a Christian you are call to repent of your sins. The Bible says that homosexual acts are a sin. Therefore I believe that Christian gays should be celibate.

13 November 2009 at 18:57  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Your grace is fortunate to have lived a life to be able to tell the difference.I too have seen "social progress" in the form of no choice politics and i am surprised that the EU is feeling like our master now that Lisbon is signed , the chech president must be be wishing he had not been so rished , I suspect the polish president will see what is comming.

It is ironic that jesus came to set us free from the yoke of slavery , he must be very dissapointed with the EU .

13 November 2009 at 18:57  
Anonymous don't call me late for the tory victory said...

Your Grace is right. We must weed out the infestation of infiltrators and thrown them out the brethren.

13 November 2009 at 19:12  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Gay Christian Anglican

'Hopefully the next item will be a law , before the Tories get in, to have and allow same sex couples to get married in a religious service in a religious place of worship and for them to be able to baptise their children.'

Dream on. Even gay Labour won't dare to do that, unless they want to be totally wiped out at the election. But perhaps it's on their agenda for the next parliament. Who knows? They've got form in promising one thing and doing another.

But pray tell me how same sex married couples can beget children. My sexual education is obviously lacking.

Ah.... I see... It's the adopted children of whom you speak.

13 November 2009 at 19:14  
Anonymous David Judah said...

Grumpy Old Catholic. Don't forget that lesbian couples can have children via IVF treatment .

13 November 2009 at 19:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It isn't illegal for gays to bring up children - be it 2 women or 2 men. This is 21 century Britain , not the 16th.

13 November 2009 at 19:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous 13 November 2009 19:27 said...

It isn't illegal for gays to bring up children - be it 2 women or 2 men. This is 21 century Britain , not the 16th.


But it will be when MPs of all persuasions have to pander to the whims of the followers of the Religion of Peace(TM) (for example, in the modern equivalent of rotten boroughs where Asian elders decide how entire communities vote).

Alfred of Wessex

13 November 2009 at 20:15  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

@ Indigoblue 13:34

Don’t you think that the vulnerable impressionable minds of children & young people need to be protected in order that they can have and enjoy an innocent childhood and a natural development ? Some five and six year olds still believe in Santa Clause!

Why would you want to actively promote homosexuality? It’s not a product or a service and if you and others think sticking your penis up another man’s anus for pleasure is a culture or even a lifestyle well I’m afraid you are very sad. And if homosexuality is promoted then so will all the other variants of sex have to be promoted too in order to be equal and personally I think some of them best belong in the private domain. And where will it stop? Where will be the moral standards?
Soon we will be as debauched as the crumbling Roman Empire was.

Society has just about got to grips with accepting homosexuality, we know it goes on BUT we don’t want it rubbed in our faces and actively promoted on every billboard.

It’s not freedom of speech that is under fire here just the active promotion of variants of sexuality to the public and children in particular.

I doubt that they would really allow us or any member state to be expelled under any Article. Our contributions are too valuable and the poorer states are more needy.

The fun will start when the Turks come on board, prepare for war and I wouldn’t want to see Britain dragged into all this. As long as we are a sovereignty there is a chance that we will be able to extricate ourselves from all this and I think D Singh will find it in his valuable research.

13 November 2009 at 20:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

13 November 2009 at 20:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

13 November 2009 at 21:23  
Blogger ZZMike said...

Christian Socialist: "It goes without saying that homophobia has to be stamped out and the best way to do this is by education."

"Homophobia" is a non-word. For one thing, it literally means "same-fear'.

There is no fear involved.

The ancient Greeks treated homosexuals with contempt. Men found guilty of that were exiled and their houses burned.

What the Greeks practiced (all too well) was what we now call pedophilia.

13 November 2009 at 21:31  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

13 November 2009 at 22:02  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

David Judah

I hadn't forgotten. But IVF results on offspring with only one partner's set of genes.

Did you hear about the two lesbians in Sweden who persuaded some bloke to donate his sperm and there were two children born.

So far so good, but after a while the pair broke up and the natural mother was left with the 2 kids. She applied to the state for support and the Swedish equivalent of the Child support agency eventually forced the bloke to contribute to his children's upkeep.

Serves him right I say.

13 November 2009 at 22:05  
Anonymous Gay Pride said...

ZZ Mike - you might want to equate gays with paedophiles and want to burn gays in their houses, but this is the 21st century and is slightly different from the 14-century world you obviously live in.

13 November 2009 at 22:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

13 November 2009 at 22:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

13 November 2009 at 22:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

13 November 2009 at 22:24  
Anonymous Lighter Fluid said...

Your Grace, this is the result of years of political correctness. I think it will demonstrate that it is only a temporary catharsis, and intelligent and erudite conversation and debate will resume post hangover. It's a bit like the aftermath of WWII when everyone thought things were going to change now for the best, when in fact nothing could have been further from the truth.

Just to add my two penny worth though while it's all being discharged:

Do we really believe that elections are won and lost with any help from Pink News?

There, I'm all ejaculated - pass me the cigarettes dear!

13 November 2009 at 22:25  
Anonymous Philip said...

This shows the totalitarian nature of the EU. Another example is the proposed Equal Treatment Directive, which would allow someone to prosecute on hearing something they disagree with, claiming ‘harassment’. Of course in this culture of so-called ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’, this would be used to suppress expression of Christianity. And the Directive would put the burden of proof on the accused to prove they didn't cause harassment – a breathtaking reversal of the accepted course of justice, where the prosecution has to prove guilt.

If Lithuania is expelled, i.e. liberated, from the EU how blessed they would be! Free from the old USSR, now free from the EUSSR. For the UK...if only... Let's hope Lithuania stand their ground and are not tempted to compromise by the lure of mammon (economic benefit) which seems to me one main reason why nations are attracted to join the EU in the first place.

Anyhow the Lithuanian parliament is not (as far as I know) saying homosexuality should be criminalised but that children should be protected from harmful propaganda promoting homosexuality and other lifestyles that deviate from what they consider to be the norm. But of course beliefs are unacceptable to the EU and deviant from those prescribed. Whatever one’s views on the promotion of homosexuality to children (Why is the homosexual lobby so determined to promote homosexuality to children anyway?), why should the EU (or any State) prescribe a correct view? The EUSSR indeed. Imagine the fuss that authoritarian liberals would make if the boot was on the other foot, and Christian beliefs and values were being promoted by the State!

13 November 2009 at 22:38  
Anonymous Williams said...

D Singh still has not answered his own riddle to me from earlier on.

What's happened to the old boy anyway? I miss his postings!

13 November 2009 at 22:41  
Anonymous Putin's Russian Empire said...

Yes and if Lithuania gets expelled from the EU, there is another Union which she can join........

13 November 2009 at 22:42  
Anonymous stereodog said...

Isn't 'promoting' homosexuality rather like 'promoting' having black hair? If I were to go into a school and tell people that being gay is the bets thing in the world do you seriously believe that I would turn a single straight student gay? On the other hand I might make an already straight student better about himself. One of the worst things that I have found about being gay is that my relatives believe that I am doomed to a life of profligacy and loneliness. The thousands of gay people in happy relationships disprove this point and I think it would do a small amount of young people good to have this point 'promoted'.

13 November 2009 at 22:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

13 November 2009 at 22:51  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

His Grace has deleted comments which are puerile, irrelevant or otherwise irritating. He refers the trolls to his 'bottom line' in the side bar.

He has decided to limit comment to those with Google accounts, at least until normal service is resumed.

13 November 2009 at 22:54  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

13 November 2009 at 22:58  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Perhaps you should also delete Marie1797's comment - which if nothing else is in extremely bad taste and probably provoked many of the comments which were susequently deleted. Believe it or not most people on the left and I suspect most gays would not consider such crudeness as being appropriate in any public forum.

13 November 2009 at 23:06  
Blogger len said...

The truth about homosexuality is known because God has made it plain. The truth is rejected and replaced with a lie. The lie is then promoted and the truth suppressed and attacked. The vehemence and anger expressed by many in the gay rights movement to any who oppose them is, in fact, an indication that they know their position is indefensible. Trying to overcome a weak position by raising your voice is the oldest trick in the debating book.

13 November 2009 at 23:06  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

And why was my 22:58 comment deleted? The crime of disagreeing I presume.

13 November 2009 at 23:14  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Tory Boys Never Grow Up,

His Grace has a high threshold of tolerance for freedom of speech: whilst he does not agree with very many comments on this thread, they are reasoned and therefore permitted. The fatuousness of many has been irritating, and His Grace has just had a clean-up. This is not a public forum: it is His Grace's space. If people wish to leave, they are free to do so. If they wish to stay in order to get offended, they are free to do that also.

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure.

13 November 2009 at 23:15  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Of course the Lithuanian law also prohibits the use of public media to promote physical passivity in minors - so encouraging anyone to read books or heaven forbid minors could be seen as a breach of the law. Or does physical passivity mean something else in Catholic societies? Doesn't anyone appreciate that this law is actually a major assault on free speech, regardless of whether one believes free speech should be given to homosexuals. Please read the Amnesty International report in detail.

I for one are quite happy that the EU parliment is standing up for free speech throughout the EU.

13 November 2009 at 23:29  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

"This is not a public forum: it is His Grace's space."

This is a very weak argument I'm afraid - you cannot invite the public in to speak and then expect them not to try and engage in the arguments that are there. You can quite rightly set standards of decorum for all to follow- but that is all.

If you hadn't deleted my comment everyone could I have seen that I was trying to engage with the argument and actually attacking those from both sides who were going off on tasteless tangents.

I to believe in free speech as you will see from my previous post - and that in fact is my main criticism of the law in question.

13 November 2009 at 23:42  
Blogger Hank Petram said...

Your Grace,

I heartly endorse your final paragraph above (13 Nov. at 23:15), which, in the present context, I take to refer to expressions of so-called "homophobia", which the apologists for homosexuality need to learn to tolerate.

13 November 2009 at 23:56  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

@Stereodog 22:48
Isn't 'promoting' homosexuality rather like 'promoting' having black hair? If I were to go into a school and tell people that being gay is the bets thing in the world do you seriously believe that I would turn a single straight student gay? On the other hand I might make an already straight student better about himself. One of the worst things that I have found about being gay is that my relatives believe that I am doomed to a life of profligacy and loneliness. The thousands of gay people in happy relationships disprove this point and I think it would do a small amount of young people good to have this point 'promoted'

I think young people discover naturally or already know deep down if they are gay or not, so I agree you wouldn’t turn anyone gay who didn’t already have that leaning. I don’t think it’s such a shock or difficult anymore for people to come out. Your communities are big enough to support each other and don‘t you think your relatives are just teasing you? Society on the whole accepts it, but I wouldn’t push your luck with grand schemes to push it upon us, and you would be by going into schools and lecturing young people on how great it is.

My reasoning is that we do not need homosexuality ’ promoting’. If there are people who have difficulties with their sexuality then there is counselling available, likewise if relatives have issues with a gay family member it’s a private matter for them and their councillor or psychiatrist.

BTW
I am sorry I was basic in my last post but I was trying to find the special something in being gay as opposed to heterosexual? What is it that homosexuals feel they have to shout from the rooftops about?

13 November 2009 at 23:57  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace,

Tactically speaking you had to restrict the comments, but strategically will this do any good ? Surely all these trolls have to do is to create google accounts and then let rip again ? Perhaps they are putting you into a trap, because you may be forced to use comment moderation. And that can be uneconomical for a blog such as this one.

14 November 2009 at 08:55  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Lord Lavendon,

His Grace is not so concerned with trolls. Certainly, if they are forced to acquire a Google account, it becomes rather tiresome having to log in each time in order to leave their single-sentence inane drivel: they will most likely tire of the pursuit, unless, of course, they are being paid.

14 November 2009 at 09:43  
Anonymous Maturecheese said...

Marie 1797

Hear Hear.

Regarding the 'Gay issue', That was more or less what I was trying to say but you have put it so much better.

14 November 2009 at 09:57  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Marie 1797

I agree. You've have nothing to apologise for.

Re: black hair etc

If homosexuality in males were genetic, why haven't gays become extinct - or their prevalence extremely rare?

14 November 2009 at 10:53  
Blogger Baba said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

14 November 2009 at 11:29  
Blogger Pavlov's Cat said...

Your Grace, I'm afraid you have this one the wrong way round. The Lithuanian law has routinely been used to suppress freedom of speech and expression - Even the teletubbies were deemed "Dangerous" under it. The name of the law "Control of information" should give you a clue - The law is anti-freedom, and just because it's against a group to which you are religiously opposed doesn't make it any less totalitarian. In realpolitik, the law is no less a fig leaf for the state to deny homosexuals a voice.

Much as I loathe the EU and the overriding of sovereignity, they're the ones ensuring free speech for all.

The Christian answer to homosexual free speech must always be more free speech. Trying to confuse education of children that homosexuality exists with the idea that children are being indoctrinated into being gay is a technique many bigots have used to try and whitewash homosexuality out as an abstract concept, and it's a trap I fear Your Grace has fallen into.

Personally, I'd like to see Christian beliefs taught in Religious Education lessons rather than Hindu and Muslim ones...

14 November 2009 at 12:01  
Blogger len said...

I think what the E U is doing is setting up a system to displace God.
Gods definition of sin is well known and Gods solution is Jesus Christ.
If you can re-define sin ie = make sinful things no longer sin( this is being done in the name of human rights, the rights of man, freedom of the individual )etc, etc.
This is a slow and insidious process intended to mask mans fallen condition and to make salvation unneccesary.
Alastair Crowleys (satanist) more code was" Do what you wilt be the whole of the law".
This in effect is the way society is heading.

14 November 2009 at 12:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marie 1797

Re: black hair etc

Some children and adolescents are insecure about themselves. If they are told by the State that those feelings mean they are homosexual, when they are not, then they may believe the teacher, government etc. The insecurity or whatever may be anormal phase of development or there may be an issue which needs to be addressed - which will not if it is falsely labelled homosexual. Also, it says in the bible that a few people are celibate ie not attracted to the opposite sex - so again, false labelling does not free the child to be themself, it potentially imprisons them into a socially engineered lifestyle and sin.
While it is not a sin for someone to be tempted by homosexual thoughts or any other sinful thoughts, the bible is clear that a chosen lifestyle of homosexuality is sinful. God said that, not man.
Literature has also been issued to some school children and to some elderly people encouraging masturbation. If a child is thus trained to seek pleasure though masturbation rather than thru a range of childhood persuits, then a higer percentage of children will grow into sex addicts and will not learn to cope with pain.
Also, promotion of sex including homosexuality in schools indirectly reduces the authority of parents and the parent-child bond. Ever child is unque in their development, their stregnths and their weaknesses, and parents usually know what to say when, and children often ask parents things - there is no one size fits all state solution which is not injurious. And social engineering is dangerous. And grooming is even worse.

14 November 2009 at 13:05  
Blogger Tarquin said...

Anon -

"I can think of times when this would not quite fit the description of what was taking place, but in general, if we consider the chaotic nature of some of the pagan religions of old, this is one main reason why Christianity took hold, because it gave hope and order to many living in squalid darkness and superstitious confusion."

bwahahaha

Ah, that was funny - now, go do your history homework

(start with those chaotic Greeks and Romans)

14 November 2009 at 13:15  
Blogger indigomyth said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

14 November 2009 at 14:59  
Blogger indigomyth said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

14 November 2009 at 15:00  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Marie1797,

//It’s not freedom of speech that is under fire here just the active promotion of variants of sexuality to the public and children in particular.//

Yes it is restriction of freedom of speech. Because if you speak of "promoting homosexuality", then you are guilty of committing a crime. How can this possibly not be restriction of speech?

Re your comments criticising the language used, as in "promotion". Note, it is not those of us on here that favour Free Speech that passed this law against "promotion of homosexuality", but rather the Lithuanian parliament.

The phrase "promotion of homosexuality" is usually meant as the promotion of the idea that homosexuality is a non-negative attribute / activity. So, it is either neutral or positive. I would be very curious if someone were to say that homosexuality was good, according to their beliefs, and encourage people to embrace their sexual and romantic feelings. Under this law, they would be guilty of "promoting homosexuality". And you don't think that this is a restriction of speech!


//Don’t you think that the vulnerable impressionable minds of children & young people need to be protected in order that they can have and enjoy an innocent childhood and a natural development ? //

Yes I do, but that is the parents job to protect their own children, not the states. Parents do this by controlling what their children watch and listen to. However, they do not do it by dictating what other people can and cannot say in the public forum. This infantilization of society, the attempt to turn it into a giant crèche, is an example of a reduction in parental responsibility. Why go through the bother of having to control what your child, having to tell them what they can and cannot do, when all you need to do is get the state to do the work for you! Afraid of being an irresponsible parent, no need to fear, the state is here to help (six words that should send a chill down anyone's spine). Afraid that you are unable to control your child, that you are an inferior adult, well just try our new version Authoritarian Nanny State 2.1 TM, now with added Crack Down on Free Speech TM update! Pathetic.

//Why would you want to actively promote homosexuality? It’s not a product or a service and if you and others think sticking your penis up another man’s anus for pleasure is a culture or even a lifestyle well I’m afraid you are very sad.//

Firstly, that is not all homosexuality is, is it? It is also about relationships and affection. So promotion of those is a good thing. Secondly, it is irrelevant what the motivation is of those speaking - it is still their right to speak as they wish, without fear of state sponsored violence.

//And if homosexuality is promoted then so will all the other variants of sex have to be promoted too in order to be equal and personally I think some of them best belong in the private domain. And where will it stop? Where will be the moral standards?
Soon we will be as debauched as the crumbling Roman Empire was. //

Again, a typical statist, collectivist response. The state has no business promoting or dissuading any particular moral code - its only job is to ensure the Freedom of its people. That is it. Where are the moral standards? Why within every individual, as they hold them. The free market will sort it out. Why do you believe that the State has any role in promoting any moral code?

If debauchery is the future of society, if it is what individuals wish to dedicate themselves to, then who is the state to stop them? Tell me, if there were no laws governing what you can and cannot do with your body, would you immediately go out and take heroine? No? Then why do you believe that huge numbers of other people would?

14 November 2009 at 15:03  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Anonymous 13:05
I agree whole heartedly with you. Homosexuality is a sin written for all to see in The Bible. Your post makes perfect sense.

Even if a child is genetically predisposition toward homosexuality it is the parents who have to deal with it not the state. The EU are playing a dangerous game of blurring the boundaries and causing confusion leading to the breakdown of structured society and decency. I also agree with Len’s comment 12:52

These aggressive homosexuals wanting to advertise and promote their sexuality to children and other vulnerable minds by campaigning to governments for the rights to do so in the name of free speech should be stopped in the name of preserving the life of the human race and sanity of the human mind.

14 November 2009 at 17:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marie1797@17:01 from anon@13:05
Not all those who practice homosexuality are against free speech by Christians.
Also I feel the need to balance with the fact that there are other sins like murder and theft and gossip (see Romans and other scripture), and one sad thing about the onslaught of laws criminalizing Christians or others who do think that the act of sodomy is a sin (regardless of whether by a homosexual or heterosexual) is that some homosxuals may falsely think that Jesus is only against sodomy and not aginst all sin (sexual or other) or that acts of sodomy cannot be forgiven by Him just like sins of gossip, gluttony, lying (outside of perjury) or pride which are almost impossible to legislate sensibly even though they are sinful. Jesus never said that sodomy is the worst sin. He did say we are all sinners needing His forgiveness and also His love.

14 November 2009 at 17:36  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

I think ladies and gents are missing the point here or rather the one from the post. It is about the powers of the European Union to override the wishes of an elected Parliament of a member country of the EU.

If the legislation was about a turnip quota and the EU overruled this then that would be wrong as well. Unfortunately the matter, which the EU wants to overrule, is on the emotive subject of gay rights –it is one of those issues which is zero sum and one which people are very reluctant to find any common ground. This is evidenced in the comments on this post.

My answer is that the Lithuanian parliament should be free to make whatever laws it so chooses. It is the body which is elected to make laws and to elect the government of that country.

If the Lithuanian gay rights movement disagree with the legislation, then they should form a party and campaign for this like any other democratic party. They should submit themselves to the will and judgement of their peers (Lithuanians) and not rely on the unaccountable mandarins of the EU to get what they want.

14 November 2009 at 17:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lavendon @ 17:55
I agree which is why I dislike such widesweeping social engineering from "above" or similar undemocractic "backdoor" legislation.

14 November 2009 at 18:18  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Marie1797,

//These aggressive homosexuals wanting to advertise and promote their sexuality to children and other vulnerable minds by campaigning to governments for the rights to do so in the name of free speech should be stopped in the name of preserving the life of the human race and sanity of the human mind.//

Yes, and it is their right to promote their sexuality, and if you believe in Free Speech, then you believe in the right for them to do that. In the same way it is a human right to promote a religious belief or philosophy, so it is a right to promote the rightness of homosexuality. You cannot say on the one hand you approve of free speech, then on the other say that it should be restricted on the basis of "preserving the life of the human race and sanity of the human mind" and still call it Free Speech; it is logically incoherent. Tell me, do you think that people who preach that homosexuality is wrong should be likewise gagged? What about the "vulnerable" minds that are warped into thinking that their sexuality is morally wrong?

So we have established that you do not believe in Free Speech, but rather in the enforcement of morality by the state, under threat of violence. All in the name of "the children", of course.

//Even if a child is genetically predisposition toward homosexuality it is the parents who have to deal with it not the state.//

But the state has intervened in Lithuania, and said that no parent can have their child sent to a pro-gay school. This judgement removes freedom of choice from individual parents. Why is the state being involved in this instance?
---
Lord Lavendon,

//My answer is that the Lithuanian parliament should be free to make whatever laws it so chooses. It is the body which is elected to make laws and to elect the government of that country.//

So, you do not believe in certain inalienable rights, like Freedom of Speech either? What about Freedom of Religion? Do you think that Christians in Muslim countries should be allowed to preach and openly display their religion in public spaces?

It is simple; you either believe in Freedom of Speech, as an absolute right, or you don't.

To be honest, I am quite surprised by the level of moral relativism on display here. All these Christians that are happy to criticise Muslim countries for their violation of Christians "rights", yet start bleating about national sovereignty, and individual cultures, and independence when it comes to Lithuania.

//If the Lithuanian gay rights movement disagree with the legislation, then they should form a party and campaign for this like any other democratic party.//

Except that if they try that, they may very well be struck down as well. Case in point:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/11/12/09/comelec-says-gay-party-immoral
---
Anon @ 1736,

//Not all those who practice homosexuality are against free speech by Christians. //

Yes, but in here we are talking about Christians removing the right of free speech by homosexuals.

14 November 2009 at 20:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Indigomyth @20:44 from anon@1736 - there is a difference between free speech and the promotion of certain agendas to the under-18s. I challenge you to think about something you find sexually repugant if you are comfortable with that..should that be promoted in schools? Should a primarily Roman Catholic society have the promotion of homosexuality forced on them by the EU if they don't like that - if they haven't voted for it? Bible-believing Christians will always find the act of sodomy uncomfortable becuase the bible is clear on the matter.

14 November 2009 at 22:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Children need to be 'protected' from the promotion of homosexual relationships?

What will it do, corrupt their minds? Or heaven forbid, they might grow up believing that allowing two people of the same sex to love and express their commitment to each other is a good thing?

15 November 2009 at 00:56  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Indigomyth 20:44

// “Yes, and it is their right to promote their sexuality” //

And it’s also the right of the non homosexual Roman Catholic citizens of Lithuania NOT to have it thrust upon them, not to have their children’s minds damaged by homosexual literature and promotions in schools? And God forbid ever have to endure Gay Schools which would only serve to segregate the population.

Homosexuality is a sexual preference/persuasion not a religion or a philosophy. It is also a sin along with all forms of sodomy.

//”But the state has intervened in Lithuania, and said that no parent can have their child sent to a pro-gay school. This judgement removes freedom of choice from individual parents. Why is the state being involved in this instance?”//

The elected parliament in Lithuania are defending their right to protect their minors and leave these matters to the parents. It is the EU that are dictating to them what they have to tell their mainly Roman Catholic children. The EU are a dictatorship and quite frankly why they want to homogenise all their member states into one pot of grey mass erasing all individualities is really wrong.

Indigomyth 14:59

//“Yes it is restriction of freedom of speech. Because if you speak of "promoting homosexuality", then you are guilty of committing a crime. How can this possibly not be restriction of speech?”//

To speak of promoting homosexuality is not the crime the crime is the physical and actual promotion of homosexuality by verbal or written means. We are speaking of the promotion of homosexuality now.


//” The phrase "promotion of homosexuality" is usually meant as the promotion of the idea that homosexuality is a non-negative attribute / activity.”//

Where does it state that the promotion of the idea that homosexuality is a non-negative attribute/activity?


//”Secondly, it is irrelevant what the motivation is of those speaking - it is still their right to speak as they wish, without fear of state sponsored violence.”//

You already can speak about homosexuality without being arrested, and it is up to the individual parents to address the issues with their children at the time that they are ready for those sort of conversations not for the state to employ official gay activists to go into schools and other public places actively promoting with literature and lectures their way of life.

15 November 2009 at 02:03  
Blogger indigomyth said...

//Should a primarily Roman Catholic society have the promotion of homosexuality forced on them by the EU if they don't like that - if they haven't voted for it? Bible-believing Christians will always find the act of sodomy uncomfortable becuase the bible is clear on the matter.//

It is not having "promotion of homosexuality" forced on them by any higher power or authority. It is about protecting the right of freedom of speech in society. And yes that includes speech to children. And I also support the right of websites to promote anorexia.

If you do not find it wrong to promote Christianity or heterosexual relationships to under-18s, then why should the state restrict freedom of speech to promote homosexual ones?

The right to free speech exists in Roman Catholic societies as much as normal ones.

Consider this; if it was a primarily Muslim society, a Koran-believing society that found denial of Muhammed abhorrent, would you still claim that it was the right of the state to restrict its promotion?

//I challenge you to think about something you find sexually repugant if you are comfortable with that..should that be promoted in schools?//

This is not about what is or is not repugnant. This is about the right to free speech. Lithuanian parents already have the right to teach their children as they see fit. If a teacher would promote homosexuality in a school where that was against the ethos, then they should be fired. However, this law removes the right of parents to send their children to a pro-gay school, because it issues a universal law declaring promotion of homosexuality in all schools, and society at large, to be illegal.

//there is a difference between free speech and the promotion of certain agendas to the under-18s.//

Again, no there is not. If you are restricting what someone says because you do not like it, even if that is to the children, then that is restriction of speech.

15 November 2009 at 08:53  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Marie1797,

//And it’s also the right of the non homosexual Roman Catholic citizens of Lithuania NOT to have it thrust upon them, not to have their children’s minds damaged by homosexual literature and promotions in schools? And God forbid ever have to endure Gay Schools which would only serve to segregate the population.//

Yes, it is the right of individual parents to declare that they do not want their child to have homosexuality promoted to their own child. However, that does not give them the right to restrict peoples free speech in society at large. They can send their child to a school with an anti-homosexual ethos, where teachers who say anything positive are fired. However, this law forbids the establishment of a pro-gay school, and what can be said in public. This is about individual choice, not the state dictating what can and cannot be said in individual schools, and society in general.

//Homosexuality is a sexual preference/persuasion not a religion or a philosophy. It is also a sin along with all forms of sodomy.//

Yes, but the ideology that says that homosexuality is acceptable and good IS an ideology (it is called Sexual liberalism). If it was not an ideology, it could not advocated. So, when we talk of the "promotion of homosexuality" we are actually talking about the promotion of the belief system that says that homosexuality is good. That is obvious.

If it is an ideology that says that homosexuality is a sin, then it must also be an ideology that says that it is not. That is obvious.

The fact it is regarded as a sin is utterly irrelevant to the current debate. So is apostasy in Islam, and so is eating shell fish in Judaism. Doesn't in anyway effect individual rights.

15 November 2009 at 09:01  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Marie1797,

//The elected parliament in Lithuania are defending their right to protect their minors and leave these matters to the parents. It is the EU that are dictating to them what they have to tell their mainly Roman Catholic children. The EU are a dictatorship and quite frankly why they want to homogenise all their member states into one pot of grey mass erasing all individualities is really wrong.//

But they aren't, are they? They are singling out homosexuality, and saying that teachers in every school, and no one in society can promote homosexuality. Tell me, will this law stop Christians publicly advocating different-sex marriage in the public sphere? No? Well if your argument about the nature of leaving this sort of thing to private discussion, then they should. So, are you going to complain about Catholic priests publicly condemning homosexuality? After all, should this not be an issue discussed in private, not public? Your argument is inconsistent.

And, once again, the EU is not saying that the Lithuanian state should promote homosexuality - it is defending the right of people to free speech. Tell me where the EU has said that the Lithuanian state should promote homosexuality? Anywhere? No? That is because this is about Freedom of Speech, and the Lithuanian state impinging on that right.

//erasing all individualities is really wrong.//

Oh, like the Lithuanian parliament has erased all individualities in Lithuanian schools? So now, all Lithuanian schools are limited by the same rule and regulation, irrespective of the parents wishes. And speech in open society is limited, merely because it might panic some inadequate parents.

15 November 2009 at 09:08  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Marie1797,

//To speak of promoting homosexuality is not the crime the crime is the physical and actual promotion of homosexuality by verbal or written means. We are speaking of the promotion of homosexuality now.//

Yes, but the "verbal promotion" of homosexuality, by saying that homosexuality is a positive attribute, is speech, isn't it? You are effectively saying that you are not restricting free speech, just restricting a certain viewpoint of homosexuality from being spoken. That is restriction of speech. Tell me, does this ruling mean that you cannot publicly say that homosexuality is good? Yes, well then that means that this restricts freedom of speech.

Think of it this way; let us reverse this and say that we outlawed criticising homosexuality in schools, that is, we outlawed saying homosexuality is bad. But we permitted the open discussion of homosexuality, provided it was only in a positive light. Would you consider that a restriction on free speech? It would, after all, prevent Christians from saying that homosexuality is a sin? Would that be a restriction on free speech? Why then is it not a restriction on free speech to say that homosexuality is not a sin?

So, it IS an attack on free speech, which it the right to say anything in society, promoting anything, be it a political party, a cultural identity, an ethical stance, or an activity.

15 November 2009 at 09:13  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Marie1797,
//Where does it state that the promotion of the idea that homosexuality is a non-negative attribute/activity?//

"An explanatory note accompanying the law states that 'the propagation of a non-traditional sexual orientation and exposure to information containing positive coverage of homosexual relations may cause negative consequences for the physical, mental and, first and foremost, moral development of minors.' "

Seems pretty conclusive to me!

and

"Article 4 of the law lists 19 categories of information that are considered to have a 'detrimental effect on the development of minors' and which are banned from schools, public places and media where they could be viewed by children. Sub-section 13 of Article 4 prohibits 'Information which agitates for homosexual, bisexual and polygamous relations"

You do not think that "agitating" for homosexual relations refers to saying that it is good to be gay?

15 November 2009 at 09:17  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Marie1797,
//You already can speak about homosexuality without being arrested, and it is up to the individual parents to address the issues with their children at the time that they are ready for those sort of conversations not for the state to employ official gay activists to go into schools and other public places actively promoting with literature and lectures their way of life.//

Oh, and what about heterosexual, Catholic activists, going around saying that homosexuality is evil and wrong? Is there any limit on them?

So, why are Catholics allowed to stand in the public square condemning homosexual relationships and activity, but gay activists are not allowed to stand in the public square celebrating homosexual relationships and activity?

//for the state to employ official gay activists to go into schools and other public places actively promoting with literature and lectures their way of life.//

And where is the EU saying that is what should happen? Where is the EU mandating for that to occur. Again, this is about free speech - not about getting the state to promote homosexuality, but about stopping the state from restricting the speech of pro-gay activists.

So, once again Marie, how is this not an attack on free speech, since I have rebutted every single objection you have raised?

15 November 2009 at 09:21  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Bravo Lithuania!

You paying attention to this Cameron? You want to deliver your promise and reclaim UK sovereignty then you don't negotiate with EU scumbags, you set them at defiance! Lithuania has shown the way.

15 November 2009 at 10:27  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Are those promoting homosexuality, like Indigomyth, Tory Boys Never Grew Up and Christian Socialist, also promoting paedophilia?

If the perversity of same sex is permitted which it is, then why not paedophilia? Any objection would be based upon their emotions not their what their line of reasoning would suggest. That is why homosexuals are suing the American Boy Scout Association and introducing morally perverse sex teachings into British schools (as the Christian Institute demonstrates).

The reason why these, logically consistent, supporters of paedophilia are supporting the EU is that they know that the EU embeds these strains of moral perversity and protects them (for the time being).

What they cannot eliminate from the future is the EU using the very same instruments of law and turning against them in much the same way as I showed how the 1976 Race Relations Act (as amended) can be used against Christian Socialist to classify him as a racist.

15 November 2009 at 13:13  
Blogger indigomyth said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 November 2009 at 13:58  
Blogger indigomyth said...

D. Singh,
//Are those promoting homosexuality, like Indigomyth, Tory Boys Never Grew Up and Christian Socialist, also promoting paedophilia?//

Well, I didn't know we were promoting homosexuality. I thought we are arguing in favour of free speech?

//If the perversity of same sex is permitted which it is, then why not paedophilia? Any objection would be based upon their emotions not their what their line of reasoning would suggest. That is why homosexuals are suing the American Boy Scout Association and introducing morally perverse sex teachings into British schools (as the Christian Institute demonstrates).//

I believe it is the right of paedophiles to free speech, and to talk about their depravity in the public sphere. And I also support the right to publish fantasy stories about children. That is Free Speech. What is not permitted is the physical abuse of children by raping them. And, as no children are capable of consent, having sex with any child is raping them, therefore is wrong, and should be punished accordingly. It is a violation of their bodies. However, "promotion of homosexuality" does not involve violating their bodies. However, speaking is not a violation, therefore should not be criminalised. If I write a fantasy story about killing Gordon Brown, should I be charged with murder, or have my speech restricted? If I write a story about abusing a child, should I be charged with child abuse? The same as if I write a story about raping and murdering many women, I should not be arrested, because I have a right to free speech.

If someone draws an erotic image of a child, then who is harmed? No one, that is who, therefore no law can be enacted against that person.

//and introducing morally perverse sex teachings into British schools//

And that is wrong, if it is against the wishes of the parents. This is about individual parental choice. However, if some liberal parents wish for their child's school to teach pro-homosexual teachings, then is not that their right as parents? And, no matter how many parents want to restrict public speech, it is irrelevant, because people have inalienable freedoms, one of which is the freedom of speech.

15 November 2009 at 13:59  
Blogger D. Singh said...

And there we have it; once you accept the moral perversity of homosexuality as legitimate; you are logically inconsistent or arbitrary if you do not permit the promotion of paedophilia.

Let's read it again from that arch 'logician':

Indigomyth who stated:

'I believe it is the right of paedophiles to free speech, and to talk about their depravity in the public sphere.'

His defence of paedophilia is that if you do not permit its promotion you are denying 'free speech'.

He has to say either 'free speech' is absolute (and no jurisdiction has agreed with that) or that 'free speech' is relative.

If he elects to argue for the latter, then I suggest his defence will be the stronger against those who may allege he is a paedophile.

15 November 2009 at 15:31  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Indigomyth states:

'If I write a fantasy story about killing Gordon Brown, should I be charged with murder, or have my speech restricted?'

No.

It is likley that you will be charged under an offence connected with terrorism.

It is for the jury to decide whether it was a 'fantasy' or not.

15 November 2009 at 15:45  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Indigomyth states:

'If someone draws an erotic image of a child, then who is harmed? No one, that is who, therefore no law can be enacted against that person.'

Yet, if Indigomyth is downloading indecent images of children then he is ripe for a police investigation.

15 November 2009 at 15:51  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Indigomyth states:

'And, no matter how many parents want to restrict public speech, it is irrelevant, because people have inalienable freedoms, one of which is the freedom of speech.'

In other words parents natural inclination to defend their children is irrelevant.

To cap it all he describes 'free speech' as 'inalienable'. Which supports his point that 'free speech' is absolute and therefore under its heading the promotion of paedophlia is to be supported.

15 November 2009 at 15:58  
Blogger indigomyth said...

D. Singh,
//'If someone draws an erotic image of a child, then who is harmed? No one, that is who, therefore no law can be enacted against that person.'

Yet, if Indigomyth is downloading indecent images of children then he is ripe for a police investigation.//

Indeed, because those are pictures of real children, not fantasy children. I am supporting the raping and violation of children by doing so. Rather like funding genocide. However, we are not talking about actual offence, but free speech.

//In other words parents natural inclination to defend their children is irrelevant.//

Yes. Their instincts are to be ignored if they are to deny human rights to other members of society. Rather like the instinct of Muslim parents to protect their children from promotion of Christianity is irrelevant - it is still a fundamental right of Christians to promote their beliefs, irrespective of how many people disagree with them.

//To cap it all he describes 'free speech' as 'inalienable'. Which supports his point that 'free speech' is absolute and therefore under its heading the promotion of paedophlia is to be supported.//

Exactly. Glad you finally understand.

//It is likley that you will be charged under an offence connected with terrorism.

It is for the jury to decide whether it was a 'fantasy' or not.//

And that would be wrong. Clearly if Gordon Brown has not been killed, then it is fantasy.

I presume you understand the difference between planning to carry out a particular action, and merely writing about it? In any case, writing about wanting to murder someone should not be a crime.

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/news/nr035.htm

15 November 2009 at 16:38  
Blogger indigomyth said...

D. Singh,
//there we have it; once you accept the moral perversity of homosexuality as legitimate; you are logically inconsistent or arbitrary if you do not permit the promotion of paedophilia.//

Well it happens if you accept that freedom is a fundamental right. It has nothing to do with the specific issue of homosexuality. It could equally be applied to the "perversity" of Christianity, or the "perversity" of Islam etc etc.

//His defence of paedophilia is that if you do not permit its promotion you are denying 'free speech'.

He has to say either 'free speech' is absolute (and no jurisdiction has agreed with that) or that 'free speech' is relative.//

I was under the impression that the Constitution of the united states has protected freedom of speech. The fact the right has not been upheld is not my fault.

//If he elects to argue for the latter, then I suggest his defence will be the stronger against those who may allege he is a paedophile.//

I am unconcerned with defending myself against allegations of paedophilia. I am not one, therefore what you believe is irrelevant.

It seems rather odd to me that you think that recognising and supporting the right of people to free speech means that you agree with them? I support the right of holocaust deniers to deny the holocaust, the right of Christians to declare homosexuality is a sin, the right of Muslims to hate Jews, the right of Jews to deny women from temples, the right of Creationists to teach their children about their beliefs. It does not in anyway mean that I agree with them.

Your "paedophile" hysteria, D. Singh, is what has driven this society to the ridiculousness of forbidding parents from taping sports days.

15 November 2009 at 16:46  
Blogger D. Singh said...

//To cap it all he describes 'free speech' as 'inalienable'. Which supports his point that 'free speech' is absolute and therefore under its heading the promotion of paedophlia is to be supported.//

Exactly. Glad you finally understand.

So you are a paedo.

15 November 2009 at 16:49  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'It is for the jury to decide whether it was a 'fantasy' or not.//

And that would be wrong.'

Not only are you a paedo but you don't want trial by jury.

15 November 2009 at 16:52  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Indigomyth stated:

'I am unconcerned with defending myself against allegations of paedophilia.'

You may not be tonight. But what about your workmates and your employer - and the police.

15 November 2009 at 16:58  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Indigomyth

Because you promote one you, logically, cannot have a defence against promoting paedophlia.

15 November 2009 at 17:03  
Blogger indigomyth said...

D.Singh,

//Exactly. Glad you finally understand.

So you are a paedo.//

No. I merely believe that paedophiles have the same rights as everyone else. The right to free speech.

//Not only are you a paedo but you don't want trial by jury.//

No, I merely do not want laws against violent speech. I do not believe they should come before I jury, because I do not think they should be crimes. Simple.

//You may not be tonight. But what about your workmates and your employer - and the police.//

I am innocent until proven guilty. It is not for me to defend myself against the police, it is the police to find evidence of my guilt of being a paedophile. There is no such evidence, because I have committed no offence. Again, simple.

15 November 2009 at 17:03  
Blogger indigomyth said...

D. Singh,
//Because you promote one you, logically, cannot have a defence against promoting paedophlia.//

Exactly. Doesn't mean that I think paedophilia is right or good. Does not even mean that I think it should be legal. However, it is a right to talk about it in a positive light, despite how much it disgusts me.

15 November 2009 at 17:06  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Indigomyth said:

'No. I merely believe that paedophiles have the same rights as everyone else.'

Why should they when they want to harm our children? Why should you not be open to an invetsigation, given that you support them.

15 November 2009 at 17:11  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Indigomyth said about paedophilia:

'However, it is a right to talk about it in a positive light,...'

In other words, he has made it clear to all the parents that are viewing this that he is promoting paedophilia.

Do you not realise that the police can trace you through the Internet?

15 November 2009 at 17:17  
Blogger indigomyth said...

D.Singh,

//Why should they when they want to harm our children? Why should you not be open to an invetsigation, given that you support them.//

A right is something intrinsic to a human being. To say something is a right is to say that it is incorruptibly theirs.

I do not support paedophiles in the way that you understand "support". I support the right of the BNP to speak on Question Time, but that does not mean that I agree with them. So I support the right of paedophiles to free speech, but if they abuse children by interfering with them, then they deserve to be imprisoned, or even executed. That is because they have violated the right of the child to their own body, and violated the wishes of the parent to dictate how their children are raised.

However, when it comes to this Lithuanian law, this makes illegal the portraying of homosexuality in a positive light, in the public forum. And that is wrong, in the same way it would be wrong to make it illegal to say that homosexuality is a sin, or that paedophilia is not wrong.

It would also be wrong for a gay activist group to force its way into a school to promote its own agenda, because that would be violating the rights of the parents. However, the state does not have the authority to take away the right of liberal and gay parents to send their children to a school that fits in with their ethics. Nor does the state, or the parents of society, have the authority to dictate what can and cannot be said in the public space.

15 November 2009 at 17:22  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older