‘Protecting’ homosexuals will do more harm than good
Dear Jack Straw,
You will no doubt be glad that most of the media is focusing on the Glasgow East by-election this morning, because it gets you off the hook. Over the past several months, away from the public eye, you have instigated some of the brutal attacks on civil liberties ever seen under this Labour government – the power to demand secret inquests based on nothing more than personal whim being one of the most shocking incidents in recent months. Yesterday, your latest assault on free speech was thankfully brought to an end – for now, at least.
Last night, Labour ministers admitted defeat in their efforts to remove a “free speech” defence from new laws against inciting homophobic hatred. MPs have voted four times to scrap it but it has been repeatedly overturned in the Lords, who again last night voted by 179 to 135 to keep it. An offence of inciting hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation was brought in by legislation last year, but a “free speech” defence, opposed by the government, was inserted by Conservative peer Lord Waddington. The law was not brought into force while the government sought to remove the defence but on Thursday, the last day of this Parliamentary session, the Ministry of Justice finally caved. Conservative MP Edward Leigh asked, unsuccessfully, for a statement from you, adding it appeared “that the government has run up the white flag on the Lord Waddington amendment. This is a great victory for free speech, I think we should know more about it.” MPs have on four occasions voted to remove the free speech clause by large majorities during its passage through Parliament, and Lords justice minister Lord Bach also demonstrated his contempt for free speech, civil liberties and our political system by warning peers: “There must come a point where this House, with all its great virtues, gives way to the House that has been elected by the people of this country.”
The very fact that Labour have pushed through laws creating offences for inciting religious and homophobic hatred still fills me with horror. Apart from locking up a few church-going biddies who express their dismay at homosexual relationships, such legislation achieves nothing. It doesn’t change the attitudes that underpin homophobia, it doesn’t make society safer for homosexuals, it doesn’t help society move forward, it doesn’t promote a well-educated and tolerant population – it is simply pandering to the gay rights lobby. Labour peer Lord Smith, the first openly gay MP, warned that a free speech clause could lead to more attacks on homosexuals: “If the signal that is sent is that it is all right to be intolerant… then I fear that we will end up seeing more violence.” What stupid scaremongering. Being intolerant is not illegal and never should be. Being abusive, aggressive or violent is already illegal so there is no need for additional laws on this matter. The fact that Labour see it as their duty to decide what people can think and say is yet another manifestation of their authoritarian motives and associated contempt for freedom.
Ironically, one of the few major pieces of legislation that Obama has managed to push through since becoming President has been to expand the federal ‘hate-crime’ law for the first time in 40 years to cover violence against gays. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor made the truly jaw-dropping remark last month that ”the hate-crimes bill takes on an important civil rights issue to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance.” “What makes these crimes so bad is they are not just crimes against individuals; they are crimes against entire communities,” added Jared Polis, a Colorado Democrat who is gay. The hate-crime legislation will now cover acts of violence motivated by a victim’s sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender identity. I don’t find myself agreeing with Republicans very often but in this case I will make an exception. If a female is attacked, is that an attack on every female? If a black person is attacked, is that an attack on every black person? Clearly not, and making wild extrapolations on this matter is extremely unhelpful. I also find it disturbing that this legislation is being sold on the grounds of it offering ‘protection’. “Violent attacks on people are already illegal regardless of the motive behind them,” said Republican Mike Pence, warning that the legislation would “put us on a slippery slope of deeming particular groups as more important than others under our system of justice.” At least the Americans still have their constitution to protect free speech (a luxury that we can only dream of in this country) even if their laws on violence are being used for political purposes.
I’m sure it’s unpleasant to be verbally abused on a regular basis, but that goes for everyone who is the subject of abuse – not just homosexuals, or black people, or transvestites, or women, or anyone else. I want to live in a society where tolerance and acceptance are the norm. However, this cannot be achieved if governments insist on ‘protecting’ certain groups more than others. If I, a heterosexual white male, get attacked in the street, I don’t expect to have the case treated any more or less seriously because I’m a white heterosexual male – I expect it to be treated as a crime against a person, nothing more, nothing less. Legislating what people cannot think or say will not solve or even diminish the prejudice that underpins homophobia and it is bitterly disappointing that the major political parties in the UK insist on joining in this political posturing on ‘gay rights’ rather than tackling the root cause of the problem – which can only be done through education and promoting tolerance. The truth is that this will take time to show results, but it remains the only way to start genuinely addressing homophobia. Pretending to deal with homophobia by destroying the values that underpin our democracy and freedom will ultimately do more harm than good.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
Excellent post!
“t least the Americans still have their constitution to protect free speech…”
For now. But I’m sure Obambi has plans to resolve that.
Well, if there’s going to be constitutional tinkering, can we change the natural born citizen rule to let Arnie stand instead of the execrable Palin in 2012?
Not sure Arnie is really a Republican, after so many years in La La Land…
Julia, I suspect that Obama has quite enough problems without trying to change the American constitution. We shall wait and see.
Shaun, I hardly think Arnold Schwarzenegger is the solution to the issue of an overzealous gay rights lobby!
As an 80s action movie fan, I have to say that Arnie is the solution to pretty much *everything*!
Spot on, Letter (or Mr. Tory)
As a gay man I was horrified at the thought of this ridiculous clause going through. The threads on some blogs talking about free speech never being free were truly chilling.
We are fast becoming Animal Farm, where some pigs are more equal than others, and the gay lobby wanted to contort the traditions of Englah law because they don’t like the content of what someone else said.
We must be on our guard from the forces of state sponsored thought police and unspeak however, as they will try again and again
Shaun, if Arnie is the answer that I despair at what the question must be….
Julian, I really hope that gay men and women who believe in freedom and democracy shout from the rooftops about this nonsense. On that note, Iain Dale has made his strong opposition to these gay hatred laws clear in the past:
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/07/angela-eagles-difficulty-with-truth-on.html
Interesting that you posted this. I just put up one about Carrie Prejean and that furore. You’re right that it does nothing to help them.
Superb post- a vicious assault against anyone is a hate crime in my opinion. The idea of treating two analogous crimes differently is ridiculous, and only serves to separate “minorities” from the “mainstream”. I used those words for ease of reference and in the interests of brevity because I don’t append too much meaning to them.
We really must begin viewing people as being the same, regardless of sexual orientation or race, and that must apply in the very first instance to the law. These laws are an affront to every admirable UK legal tradition. Straw ought to be hauled before the appropriate select committee to be given a non-customary bollocking for his continuous assault on our common law constitution.
James, I do find it incredible that the gay rights lobby can convince themselves and politicians that these stupid laws will actually reduce homophobia or tackle prejudice.
GK, it is wonderfully ironic that a party obsessed with equality spends so much of its time telling us how different we are from one another.
That’s the rub isn’t it?
To you or I, or indeed most right-thinking people, equality is about treating everyone the same. To the ideologists of the left who inform this debate/govt, they view everyone as a member of a sub group who they wish to treat differently in an attempt to manipulate the *outcomes* to what they (politically) believe are equal ends. So, for example, rather than engaging with muslims, and everyone else, as citizens of the UK, they prefer to treat them as a homogenous bloc and deal only with their self appointed (oft islamist) leaders in the MCB. Rather than deal with individual homosexuals as equal victims before the law, it suits them to treat them as a homogenous bloc in need of special treatment to overcome what their politics tells them is a bias in outcomes.
Its the ‘positive discrimination’ approach which looks to equalise outcomes against perceived structural discrimination by deliberately discriminating IN FAVOUR of the group you want to bring up. Intellectually, I find this bankrupt, morally and logically, since it basically says that two wrongs do add up to a right.
And then they complain about diminishing social cohesion, entirely without irony, while treating people as different and unequal based on their race, gender, orientation or religion and then wonder loudly where the proles get these ideas of difference from!
It’s just an outworking of the corruption that we have instead of a government.
Large companies and well funded / organised minority interest groups have set the agenda for the last decade or more.
So wWhere’s the legal protection for victims of state instituted heterophobia?
Straw’s legislation does achieve something that is very dear to the Marxist heart – ever-encroaching lock-down of free speech. They simply attack the easiest target of the times, then move onto the next one.
By Labour’s reckoning, the Tories might undo some of their dirty work, but not all, if history is to repeat itself. They are probably correct.
Thus, with each passing administration, we lose more of our rights until the next generation, starved of history lessons, have no idea what freedom is and don’t miss it.
They’re playing a long game.
Shaun, eloquent and devastating in equal measure.
FLS, various lobbies have indeed become incredibly powerful, but don’t think for a second that the Conservatives aren’t lining up their own lobbyists-led agenda.
Faustie, really interesting point about people growing up in this climate. It wasn’t that long ago that freedom of speech was in a much healthier state, but if you weren’t there to see it and experience it then would you really notice when free speech is curbed again?
‘FLS, various lobbies have indeed become incredibly powerful, but don’t think for a second that the Conservatives aren’t lining up their own lobbyists-led agenda.’
I know, depressing, isn’t it? The colour will change, but we will still have rank corruption instead of government.
Integrity is a dirty word among the political class. In fact it has been redefined by them as ‘not getting caught’.
Labour are very cunning when it comes to this type of legislation.
Even if they know they cannot get the laws passed it keeps the issue in the headlines.
It is very difficult to argue against these laws without giving the impression that you are anti gay.
With the election coming soon Labour always try to portray the Conservatives being anti gay / racists when in fact they are mostly talking common sense.
This applies to many issues when minority groups are involved.
With our electoral system you only need a small swing in few marginal seats to win and this can tip the balance in Labours favour.
I am happy that freedom of speech was protected. However, I learn of a severe restriction of Freedom of Speech and parental choice in Lithuania:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Lithuania#Law_on_the_Protection_of_Minors
And, guess what, the very same people http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/11/victory-for-free-speech-in-gay-hate-law.html who lauded the defeat of the British amendment, because of their “religious convictions”, are also celebrating the passing of the Lithuanian law http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/11/lithuania-incurs-eu-wrath-for-law.html. This is direct evidence that the dedication of most of these Christians to Free Speech is actually wafer thin, and is only a pretext to further their own goals. There just isn’t enough hatred in the world; they will be on the steps of the guillotine, behind Gordon Brown and Harriet Harperson, but in front of Pope Benedict.
But then, what if someone goes out looking for black people, or for white people or for homosexuals (for example) to beat up?
I think that might constitute a hate crime.
“M’Lud, as to the accusation that my client attacked and killed the other man because he was a homosexual, there is no truth. The fact is he killed him because he had ginger hair.”
“Case dismissed”
Alan Douglas
I have told my family that if any crime happens to them,
claim that they believe it to be a homophobic, racial . religious hate crime.
This has the effect of :
1 getting a police response
2 showing the sheer stupidity of “hate” crimes
if everyone done this the system would collapse and perhaps we would
get back to the idea of one law for everyone.
Also I have passed on the guide for dealing with the police by the
sadly outed Nightjack.
When the government hates u , u have to fight back.