Thursday, November 12, 2009

Victory for free speech in ‘gay hate’ law

Their Lordships have triumphed. The House of Commons has accepted defeat in its attempt to remove Lord Waddington’s ‘free speech’ clause from the Coroners and Justice Bill, wherein is contained the legislation intended to eradicate incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexuality, or ‘homophobic’ expression in the public sphere.

A number of comedians had expressed concern that the new law might leave them open to prosecution.

The real comedians were those who thought that such a law was ever enforceable in the first place, for when does a forcefully-expressed opinion become harassment? When does criticism become phobia? When does a reasoned sermon become hate preaching?

Lord Waddington said:

“We are living at a time when Christian beliefs are under attack. That is something that I never thought I’d see during my lifetime. And so, for the first time, for a very long time, we are compelled to state our beliefs very, very clearly. And when issues arise which clearly are matters which affect our faith we have got to be prepared to state our case before the public.”


Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

This is a backward step in the drive for equality and equal opportunity. It is clear that the unelected second chamber needs to be abolished entirely. What right do they have to block laws from the elected commons ?

12 November 2009 at 16:46  
Anonymous Stuart said...

This is marvelous news.

Thanks God for the Lords!

12 November 2009 at 17:04  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Shame there's a Incitement to Hatred law at all, but thank God for the Waddington amendment.

When are we going to see Incitement to Greed laws so that we can get rid of the evil advertising industry?

And Incitement to Greed laws to get rid of the lottery?

Incitement to Lust ... a double blow to the advertising industry, and most of what passes for entertainment.

Incitement to socialism ... nuff said!

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

Why stop at the "elected commons"? Why not let the people legislate directly? Let the people legislate their own muzzling. Let the people legislate free speech only for those who meet socialist criteria. WAKE UP!!

12 November 2009 at 17:13  
Anonymous Randomiser said...

Christian Socialist is at it again.......

12 November 2009 at 17:14  
Anonymous One Sided Triangle said...

And where's D Singh when you need him to kick some socialist butt?

12 November 2009 at 17:15  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

Your Grace - a question for your communicant "Christian Socialist" which particular "drive" towards these alleged utopias are we talking about, here. And whose drive? On whose, and which, manifestos are they listed?

I don't recall being given the opportunity to vote either for or against them. Apparently, though, they are, at least according to your communicant, already up and running

Or is this another of those things which simply exist in ministers' minds, like Jack Straw's apparent view that the UK will be multicultural, simply because he and Tone think it's a good idea, and hence the removal of all border controls worth the name for nearly a decade the ensure the omelette can't be undone.

Really, the arrogance of these people is astounding.

And it's amazing, too, how the House of Lords always cops it when it blocks anything, as being "unelected"

Well the eu is entirely unelected, Mr Christian Socialist, Sir (apart from a rubber stamp parliament with no executive powers,) so perhaps I could cordially venture to suggest that in the abolition stakes of unelection, the eu goes first?

Just a thought.

12 November 2009 at 17:19  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Re: Christian Socialist ... don't feed the trolls folks!

12 November 2009 at 17:21  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

Why is it that the right wingers here moan about the 'unelected' EU commission and yet are praising the unelected House of Lords ? Isn't that a bit hypocritical ? Ah the answer is because the Lords is full of Tory placemen who just vote down anything from our elected labour house of commons !

12 November 2009 at 17:27  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Christian Socialist, you silly oxymoron!

How on earth can you be a Christian and a socialist? You are either one or the other; you can't be both.

Socialism propounds a materialistic solution to the human condition (take from those who have things and give them to those who haven't and you will make them happy); whereas Christianity tells us that Christ is God, Man and Spirit all at the same time and by His Birth, Death and Resurrection he has made a full, perfect, sufficient sacrifice oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.

For the individual this starts with repentance and progresses to obedience through joy and inexpressible gratitude for His saving Grace.

The socialist starts from somewhere else entirely and progresses through a maze of dreadful lies that inevitably lead its true believers into terrifying error.

I would venture to say that if you accept Christian teaching you can only see socialism as a wicked heresy and, as such, must have been thought up by the devil to ensnare the credulous and lead them to their destruction.

12 November 2009 at 17:31  
Anonymous Apolitical NeoChristian said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

12 November 2009 at 17:37  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

Christian Socialist is self-condemned:

It is clear that the unelected second chamber needs to be abolished entirely

But you're not going to stop there are you. In your Marxist creed all opposition needs to be abolished.

12 November 2009 at 17:43  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

Your Grace - Actually I was under the impression that the present House of Lords is full of unelected Labour least, that's what the Tories kept saying during the last Tory administration.

I suppose it all depends on which legislation one happens to be cross about being blocked.

If you don't like it being blocked, then the Lords are a bunch of elected placemen. Surely that's always been the case?

PS Yes, folks, I rather take your point about professional bloggers suddenly descending on His Grace's blog. I agree the idea must be to stir up as much trouble as possible with claims about how wonderful (a) the eu is and (b) how wonderful Labour is. Whilst all these things may be true in their own minds, that is a matter of politics, and in that I rather agree with his Grace's point made today in the original posting

I suspect that political labour bloggers are also very happpy to support the (public)hand which feeds them

Not, I might add, that I have much time for the people with the moats and duckponds either, but they, at least, until recently, used their own cash to fund these excesses. It's when they started to use public money that the trouble started

So I shall henceforth ignore Christian Socialist and the other EU fanaticist guy. His Grace can always delete them if they get too much of a nuisance

12 November 2009 at 17:45  
Anonymous philip walling said...

And Mr Christian Socialist [sic]

Sodomy is a perversion - whether practised by heterosexuals or otherwise - not that I'm saying it can't be compellingly pleasurable - but why you should be so obsessed with trying to prove it's not perverse, just shows how caught up you are in the toils of the modern world and are suffering from a form of moral blindness.

I don't for a moment advocate punishing such perverse behaviour by the criminal law, but I do reserve the right to tell them it is perverse and argue my corner.

Why do you suggest it is right that I should be prevented, by force of criminal law, from expressing a view that is not only orthodox for all the world's major religions, but has been held by every generation during recorded history?

12 November 2009 at 17:46  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

No, please stop. The more you feed the trolls, the larger and more vocal they become.

The way to nip 'Christian Socialists' in the bud is to starve them of attention.

Don't go down their blind alleys ... stick to the topic in hand.

Praise God for Waddington :o)

Even Evan Harris said some sensible things in the debate. It's worth reading to realise just how vacuous Liebours 'arguments' were.

12 November 2009 at 17:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent news you’re Grace, it is at times like these we should give thanks to the Lord for what is left of the Constitution.

12 November 2009 at 17:52  
Blogger southwood said...

Christian Socialist, you are not comparing like with like. The EU commission has far more power than the Lords. The Lords acts as a check on the Commons. I agree that it should be elected but at least it is drawn from the citizens of the UK and has an interest in the nation's welfare unlike the EU Commission which is not to any significant degree drawn from UK citizens.
The UK must not be ruled by foreigners. How can that be in our interest ?

12 November 2009 at 17:57  
Anonymous Anabaptist said...

Mr Walling says that 'Christian Socialist' is an oxymoron.

But that cannot be, as the great Christian Socialist was foretold several times in the Book of Revelation(s), as, severally, the beast from the sea, the beast from the earth, the fourth horseman, and the plague of frogs. These things are so clearly obvious it amazes me that anybody can miss them.

Indeed, it is abundantly clear that the Nicolaitans, who are mentioned in Rev 2:6 and 2:15 must have been early examples of Christian socialists, whose works God is said to hate.

So there.

12 November 2009 at 18:09  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"The real comedians were those who thought that such a law was ever enforceable in the first place."
That wouldn't have prevented them from putting people in the cells, interrogating them and generally making their lives hell on the grounds of suspicion, as already happens all the time with similarly loosely drafted and spiteful legislation. Thank heavens for this setback, at least!
(Word verification "exuallya" - has that machine got a sense of humour?)

12 November 2009 at 18:11  
Blogger OldSouth said...

The biggest concern I have with the entire 'hate speech' idea is: Who decides what is hateful or not?

For instance, here in the US, a great deal of slander and vitriol was directed at one of our recent Vice Presidential candidates. No one in power attempted to label that as hate speech, even though it was truly hateful, and intended to injure.

Had she, however, stood upon a podium and said, 'Perhaps we should rethink our uncritical acceptance of homosexual behaviour.', I suspect the legal knives would have been drawn, not to mention the political firestorm that would have ensued.

Who gets to decide?

The slope is terribly slippery.

12 November 2009 at 18:29  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Probably just a few months ago I would have been dismayed by the failure of this amendment. Now however I am happy that freedom of speech has prevailed.

Though it is rather odd having free speech lauded by Cranmer, who supports blasphemy laws. And, given the reaction of Christians on here to 'Jerry Springer: The Opera', and the recent upset about the defacing of the Bible, and calls for such things to be outlawed, it does seem rather like the alleged dedication to Free Speech is actually wafer thin.

Also, let us not forget the other state restrictions on liberty that the Christians on here support; restrictions on pornography, drug use, prostitution, violent video games etc etc. It would seem that Christian only favour freedom when it suits them.

12 November 2009 at 19:05  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Mr Anabaptist,

You have the advantage over me with your knowledge of the Bible, but I am willing to accept that God hates the works of socialism, just as He hates all sin.

Tell me about the Nicolaitans (sp?) if you would be so kind.

Mr Indigomyth,

Methinks you are a moral relativist, or you are being deliberately obtuse.

I class myself as a libertarian. I do not believe that the state has the right to tell me what I can say (or do, in many cases). There is no virtue in the state, and each of us has to find his own road to salvation, not as part of a collective (which is impossible) but as an individual, and for that we need liberty.

BUT some things are sacred to God, and we learn what those are through His Revelation.
On the other hand there is nothing that can be sacred to the state and whatever the state tries to force me to do I am entitled to test against the revelation of Truth and if it is not consonant with it I am entitled to disobey it in so far as it is against what I believe to be the Truth.

12 November 2009 at 19:24  
Blogger Christopher Evans said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 November 2009 at 19:36  
Anonymous Stewart Cowan said...

YES! Lord Waddington: hero. Let all of us who care take strength from this to win our country back from those who are destroying it with their PC agenda.

12 November 2009 at 19:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's the queers back in their tin, next the Mossies then the Liberals and we will have restored sanity to the nation.

12 November 2009 at 19:45  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'And where's D Singh when you need him to kick some socialist butt?'

You guys are doing better than me!

You're outstanding!

As General Patton of the US 3rd Army said: 'Hold'em by the nose, and kick'em in the butt.'

12 November 2009 at 19:48  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

indigomyth, you are confusing liberty & licentiousness - easily done.

There will always be debate around who gets to decide what & where the boundaries should be. Unfortunately what is happening more & more frequently is that Christians - or indeed anyone that those who have set themselves up in authority as arbiters have decided is 'irrational' - aren't even allowed in the debate.

12 November 2009 at 19:53  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

I find some of the homophobic remarks placed upon this blog as proof that the tory party has not changed and is still full of the bigots of old.

People say how can I be a Christian and a socialist ? Well I could say how can you hold your views- be a Christian and be part of the right wing loonsphere and yet still believe in a god of love - Christopher evans so god hates "fagots" then , good example of christian charity there !?

Also to anabaptist i am the beast ! So I am the devil am I? Pleased to see that one is cleared up!

I also say that the labour party was founded by people of faith and there is an old expression that the labour party owes more to methodism than marxism.

12 November 2009 at 20:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It seems free speech is under threat here too as my comment on the Monckton article was removed, was it because I said Mr Cranmer was not a real Bishop? I understand one can only post here if one takes the party line.

12 November 2009 at 20:17  
Blogger D. Singh said...

I see that the socialist racist is still here.

‘…old expression that the labour party owes more to methodism than marxism.’

It used to. You’re right. It is old.

It’s dead.

You socialists were ready and prepared to frame this law so that you could imprison Christians.

It is not you that disgusts me. It is your thought and actions.

Socialist racist.

12 November 2009 at 20:23  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

D Singh

Oh please ! This coming from the person who equates the current EU with Hitler's Germany !

And by some logic that I cannot get , because I am pro-EU and support open borders better memeber states I am therefore a racist because this discriminates against british workers? You really are a twisted person arn't you ?

This from the person who thinks the second coming is about to happen because of the EU as the 'Second Rome'.

You really need to check into a pscyco ward.

12 November 2009 at 20:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's hope that D Singh becomes the next tory leader. That way they will never win power. But his rants will be extremly entertaining to watch !

12 November 2009 at 20:32  
Blogger D. Singh said...


A little more research and a little less rhetoric would be admirable.

It is: Constantinople.

Why don't you inquire with the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office as to where Turkey is?

Do you a lot of good son; don't you think?

12 November 2009 at 20:34  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Honestly ... I implore you ... please, please, please DON'T FEED THE CHRISTIAN SOCIALIST TROLL ... resist the temptation to bite the bait ... otherwise we'll be over-run by his fatuous comments.

I've seen many a good comments page run down by those who simply couldn't resist the trolls.

12 November 2009 at 20:34  
Anonymous Jeeves said...

I think some people are getting a bit concerned with Christian Socialist. No he is not employed by the labour party. He is like the old Norse God of mischief, Loki, enjoying creating mischief and watching the results.

12 November 2009 at 20:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D Singh

That is not what you were saying yesterday in your rant about the end of the world .You are now making things up as you go along. You are quite insane .

12 November 2009 at 20:38  
Blogger D. Singh said...


The socialist racist and I have one thing in common: we love the sting of battle.

12 November 2009 at 20:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D Singh

So you really don't believe in free speech. You try and trash anyone who disagrees with you and call them racist if they don't agree.

12 November 2009 at 20:40  
Anonymous Loki said...

I will stop this now, it is no longer any fun.

12 November 2009 at 20:42  
Blogger D. Singh said...

You socialists tried to frame a law that was going to imprison Christians.

It is you socialists that attempted to suppress free speech.

That canot be denied, concealed nor suppressed.

You socialists are on the run.

12 November 2009 at 20:45  
Anonymous Cardinal Rowan said...

Am I the only one who seems to think that this blog has gone into a personal duel between D Singh and Christian Socialist ? Surely you can argue over a pint and not his Grace's blgosphere?

12 November 2009 at 20:55  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Let me make this clear to you sociaists - you've already had a foretaste of it today - when we get into power we are going to use the same laws that you have installed.

We won't be making the same mistake as Cromwell did.

12 November 2009 at 20:56  
Blogger D. Singh said...

A pint with the socialists?

How can you ask me to sully my purity by being seen to consort with my enemies?

I have been sent to two 're-education camps' by them.

Stay out of my way. I need to have a clear line of sight.

12 November 2009 at 21:00  
Blogger D. Singh said...

My dear Cardinal,

I'm a lucky Joe.

God has blessed me with the same anger as the ancient Greek hero: Achillies.

12 November 2009 at 21:06  
Blogger Albanarius said...

"Christian Socialist" or "Marxist Leninist?

12 November 2009 at 21:26  
Blogger Albanarius said...

P.S. What General Patton (God Bless Him) said was: "Hold 'em by the nose and kick 'em in the ass!"

12 November 2009 at 21:28  
Blogger Christopher Evans said...

I have got two spare orange suits, who fancies a holiday in Iraq?

12 November 2009 at 21:31  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

I apologise for shouting at your guests.

There is a time for all things which are done under the heavens.

12 November 2009 at 21:36  
Blogger Andy JS said...

People should accept that a bit of offence if a good thing in a democracy. As soon as one group of people is protected from being offended, every group will demand the same rights not to be offended.

I don't normally support the House of Lords but I think they've done the right thing this time.

12 November 2009 at 21:39  
Blogger Christopher Evans said...

Seriously though, whoever gets in, it will be hilarious. The old model that inhabits Tory brain cells will soon have a rude awakening as they find themselves impotent in any efforts to regain the reigns of wealth. Truly it will be a display tantrums and squirming like never seen before.

Please don't spew out some self assuring claptrap in defence of this, I am only trying to help reduce the analeptic shock that will follow.

12 November 2009 at 21:45  
Anonymous Socialist (I am not Christian like the other one) said...

This just shows the conservatives for what they really are- right wing, racist, homophobes. I think that the election will be closer than people think.

12 November 2009 at 23:23  
Anonymous B Gramhmey, Evangelical Preacher said...

I think we need to pray for the socialist christian. that he may truly hear God's Word. Amen!

12 November 2009 at 23:26  
Anonymous Liebour mole said...

Just the sort of abuse I expected from right wing tinkers!

12 November 2009 at 23:27  
Anonymous Achilles said...

D Singh

You know what happened to me? What is your heal ?

12 November 2009 at 23:30  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Labour over the last 12 years has had ample time to mould the Lords into an organisation that would spout its pernicious doctrine. In spite of its best endeavours it has so far failed.

Deo gratias!

The police are quite assiduous at feeling the collar of any Christian who has the temerity to criticise a gay, without any law defining gay hate crimes. There have been many examples of that recently.

12 November 2009 at 23:44  
Anonymous No to the EUSSR said...

Note to EUSSR President: FOR HIS EYES ONLY.

Comrade Blair, excellency of the people’s republic of the Eurasian Union of Sovereign Socialist Republics, comrade Christian Socialist has failed to move or bend the loyal Britons who read the infamous 'Cramner' blog. Therefore our efforts in subversion have failed miserably. I recommend that Comrade Christian Socialist be removed from his mission and place in a retraining camp as per EUSSR directive 1346.

Note to all operatives should be, England cannot be broken, he spirit remains free and using agents to subvert Britain will not work.

Further note: be wary of freedom fighter D Singh. He cannot be defeated in verbal combat.

We require new orders to bring EUSSR province 12 (formerly Great Britain) to EUSSR thinking.

12 November 2009 at 23:49  
Blogger Preacher said...

Your Grace.
It's reassuring to see the stand of the House of Lords for the right of freedom of speech & to hear the comments of Lord Waddington & his endorsment of the Christian Institute, I hope that the point he made about their encouraging christians to write in to both houses at Westminster having great effect on the outcome of potential policies was not lost.
The furious reaction of certain postings from the left proves that they are far too immature to understand that brakes are as important or more important than the throttle when a fool is on the footplate.

13 November 2009 at 00:09  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

I would like to apologise for being late to the party. I am pleased that the House of Lords have thrown out this despicable piece of legislation, this abrogation of free speech. This dastardly attempt to create some nonsense socialist paradise in Albion!

Turning now to the thread. I for one would like to have given the socialist a dam good thrashing! Furthermore I think that D Singh should be made a knight of the realm for single-handed determination for keeping these rouges at bay from his Grace’s blog.

My apologises for this outburst, the possible misuse of his Grace’s blog, but I am most distraught and angry by the rot that Christian Socialist spouts! Firstly the House of Lords is not full of “Tory Placemen”, but has for the past decade been transformed from one of the noblest institutions in the land to one of the worst. We actually have a chamber dominated by Blair and Brown placemen, with a few hour able exceptions.

Mr Christian Socialist, Sir, Labour succeeded in doing away with most of the hereditary peers in the Lords. Had this not occurred I could only think that much of the abomination of the legislation passed through Parliament would not have occurred? You may believe in that we are not worthy to take our seats in the High Court of Parliament, that we have not been elected. But, Sir, I can tell you we hounrable Peers swore an oath to our Queen and to our Country, to defend and protect this realm. And as the Lord as my witness we shall do so!

We shall take back from what was stolen from us , our liberties and freedoms which have been granted since the magna carta . We will not bend or bow the knee to the European State. We shall live as free men. And we shall see this nation prosper, properly governed as it has been for centuries, under the benevolence of our beloved Monarch, with a government who understands the problems of this country.

So go you retched Socialist tyrant! By the name of God go!

13 November 2009 at 00:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lavendon

You are a joke, you say you are euro sceptic , but you fully support a house of lords . In the 21 st century! You are living in at least the 19th!

13 November 2009 at 00:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lavetory

I bet your brain feels as good as new, seeing that you've never used it.

13 November 2009 at 00:59  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Nec belua tetrior ulla est, Quam servi rabies in libera terga furentis

13 November 2009 at 01:07  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Thanks to Lord Waddington, and to Your Grace!!! O Happy Day.

And thanks to the Communicants, too - all who see that incitement and hatred are trademarks of marxists. They invert and project; but they're incapable of understanding the British people they're dealing with - .

And, D Singh
"I have been sent to two 're-education camps' by them." Ah - me too. It's no pleasure, but it sure acquaints a person with the Enemy and his Terrible Ways.

13 November 2009 at 04:17  
Blogger indigomyth said...

philip walling said,

//Methinks you are a moral relativist, or you are being deliberately obtuse.

I class myself as a libertarian. I do not believe that the state has the right to tell me what I can say (or do, in many cases). There is no virtue in the state, and each of us has to find his own road to salvation, not as part of a collective (which is impossible) but as an individual, and for that we need liberty.

BUT some things are sacred to God, and we learn what those are through His Revelation.
On the other hand there is nothing that can be sacred to the state and whatever the state tries to force me to do I am entitled to test against the revelation of Truth and if it is not consonant with it I am entitled to disobey it in so far as it is against what I believe to be the Truth.//

I am neither a moral relativist (I believe in the primacy of freedom), nor am I being obtuse.

You are not a libertarian if you support restrictions on narcotics. That is so foundationally true that I do not know how you could believe otherwise. Every single libertarian blog, publication and party I have ever encountered is against the criminalisation of drug use.

What you believe is valuable to God is completely and totally irrelevant, if you value individual liberty. If I do not believe as you do, then it is my right to act according to my beliefs provided that they do not limit your Liberty.

So, I could believe that taking heroin is completely and totally wrong. Yet I could also believe that it is completely within someone else's right to do what they want with their own bodies. I recognise that my own (non-relative) belief about what is right or wrong, does not give me the right to dictate to someone else what then can and cannot do with their body. This is libertarianism 101.

Rebel Saint,

//you are confusing liberty & licentiousness - easily done.//

Licentiousness is a human right, because it is a right to do what you want with your own body. What more basic freedom can their be, than freedom over your own body? And is someone wants to use their body for casual sex, or drug use, or prostitution, than what authority do you have to tell them not to?

No one - not Christians, not Muslims, not Jews or atheists - has the right to "set themselves up in authority as arbiters" to dictate to people how they can and cannot use their own bodies.

//There will always be debate around who gets to decide what & where the boundaries should be.//

And my point is that there should not be such a debate about boundaries with regard to personal liberty.

Do you believe that you have the right to dictate to people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies? Do you believe that it is acceptable to use threat of violence, via the state, to get people to conform to what you want them to do with their bodies?

If you answered yes, then you are a fascist. It is as simple as that.

13 November 2009 at 08:00  
Anonymous Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Gentlemen (and of course, ladies),
I was taken up the cleristory the other day by Mr Slope, who wanted a private word. The poor dear was all hot and bothered and in need of counselling, for he had decided to 'come out' - I think that is the modern phrase. His impassioned plea for understanding made me think. The Good Lord created all things and all natures. Therefore he created homosexuals, and a jolly good thing too. Homosexuals have served the church well over the centuries (and have a certain 'eye' for church fabric and furnishings too), a fact universally acknowledged. Live and let live is what I say (and my Lord the Bishop of Barchester preaches).

13 November 2009 at 09:13  
Anonymous Carl Gardner said...

I'm quite happy with the Lords amendment - good. I think I'd prefer this legislation not to be on the statute book at all - but given that only intentionally threatening words will be criminalised, perhaps it's acceptable. I do worry though that some extremely PC people or even PC PCs might apply it overzealously and start questioning people inappropriately using this legislation. The Lords amendment will help.

I wonder though whether your Grace's communicants feel the same about religious hatred. Some of you may have taken the line that Christian Voice did (and that astonished me given their attempts to close down Jerry Springer the Opera), that there should be no religious hatred laws. I opposed them too. I'd have liked an amendment like Waddington's, but we did at least succeed in having the government water down the religious hatred offence so that only intentionally threatening speech will be criminal. As it is with this "homophobia" offence.

So my view are the same on both pieces of legislation. Instinctive I'd prefer to have neither. I can live with each as amended in the Commons, and hope they won't be abused. And I'd like something similar to the Lords amendment to be included in the religious hatred legislation too so that for the avoidance of doubt, criticism of religion or religious practice would not in itself be taken as threatening.

Do believers want a level playing field, too? If you're absolutely against this homophobia law, as some of you seem to be, are you absolutely against religious hatred laws, too? If you back this Lords amendment, do you want it in the religious hatred legislation too? As an atheist, I can respect either position.

Or do you want free speech, but just a little bit less when it comes to criticising your religion?

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

No religious hatred criminal laws.

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


My 'heel'?

'All glory is fleeting.'

Gen. Patton US 3rd Army

13 November 2009 at 14:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So if I see a couple who are aesthetically displeasing to most people can I sneer at the notion of them copulating? Can I tell them that the thought of them getting it on turns my stomach? Or can I only say these things to or about homosexuals? Can someone clarify for me please?

13 November 2009 at 20:38  
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 13:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The bible also tells us to kill witches - anyone willing to admit that is what they have been up to recently?

14 November 2009 at 19:12  
Anonymous len said...

Re killing witches - God deals with people entirely differently in the New Testament during this present period of Grace.

14 November 2009 at 19:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The bible also tells us to kill witches - anyone willing to admit that is what they have been up to recently?

14 November 2009 19:

Not only is this area of Gods will neglected but there are so called christians who eat shellfish and wear clothing made up from mixed fabrics!!

14 November 2009 at 19:53  
Anonymous len said...

Jesus Christ paid humanities sin debt in full.
People will not go to hell for their sins, they will go to hell because they have rejected their only source of help.
We live in a period of Gods Grace when people who accept Jesus Christs atonement for their sins have their sin debt cancelled.
This was the whole point of Jesus Christ coming to earth to set people free from the entanglement of sin.
Jesus came to set the captives free (Lk 4:18), "to bring out prisoners from confinement, and from the dungeon, those who live in darkness" (Is 42:7).

14 November 2009 at 19:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Len is right- see revelation 3 verse 20.

14 November 2009 at 22:44  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Oh well that's that then. It says it in a book.

I'm off to Mordor this weekend to get rid of some old gold rings, anyone up for a adventure?

17 November 2009 at 08:37  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older