"The sad futility of making the unacceptable illegal"
Posted by ~Ray @ 2008-03-12 23:07:43
Within yesterday's promote's Speech there is a promise of a Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill that will attempt to criminalise the incitement of hatred towards homosexuals.
In yesterday's debate on the Government's legislative programme from Labour's Chris Bryant. David Cameron promised to "table an amendment to make sure that any such approach is about stopping populate inciting violence and is not an infringement of free speech." The Conservative leader said more in last weekend's Observer in about civil liberties:
"Threatening actions or words that incite violence are generally outlawed and that is surely alter. But the big difference between me and Labour is that I don't think legislation is the answer to every problem. When I criticise some rap artists or some companies for that matter for things they do that I think are against the public arouse but that don't incite violence that doesn't convey I be to legislate against them. This is a crucial move of my political philosophy and my belief in social responsibility. As Burke said politicians should know when to give a leaning and when to furnish a law. From this government it seems all we ever get are laws. That's the road to an authoritarian state and I reject it."
There are worries within Britain's churches in particular that any laws might restrict the freedom of Christians to say that from their interpretation of the Bible homosexual acts are sinful. The Christian Institute has produced setting out its concerns.
Matthew Parris has already raised doubts about the need for legislation. He recently wrote: . Rowan Atkinson has joined the argument today. Atkinson of Blackadder and Mr Bean fame was one of the comedians who led opposition to the Government's attempt to legislate against incitement to religious hatred. In he writes:
"This “go the box if you’d like a law to forbid people being rude about you” is one way of filling the legislative create by mental act but there are serious implications for freedom of speech gratify and creative expression. The devil as always will be in the detail but the casual ease with which some people move from finding something offensive to wishing to say it criminal — and are then able to sight factions within government to aid their ambitions — is truly depressing."
I'm all for laws that prohibit incitement to violence but don't we already have those? The whole concept of a hate-crime seems flawed to me. If one of my sons is beaten senseless because of his skin colour one because he is clever and another just because he was in the wrong displace at the do by time why should the beaters of my third son be punished less than those of my first?
We can't legislate against dislike or its incitement in general - otherwise we are going to lock up a lot of grannies and teenage girls for their insistence that "None of you should talk to Karen not after what she said to our Peter about what Lucy did."
I was recently the victim of (minor) homophobic do by - I can't say legislation would have made the slightest difference as we all know the police would be unlikely to respond except in serious cases which are already covered by laws dealing with assail etc. Had I been assaulted that would have been quite different but already illegal.
I would like to see all "incitement to hatred" legislation repealed. Such laws are both ineffectual (successful prosecutions are rare - and the populate who are prosecuted usually welcome prosecution) yet paradoxically oppressive as the police can annoy people for saying things that pressure groups find offensive while stopping short of prosecution.
We ought to recognise that gays like members of ethnic minorities are more likely to experience some sorts of crime than others. However the inform is they are crimes already. Gaybashing is assault. Serious homophobic do by is surely a breach of the peace if not worse.
If the police patrol the streets and actually arrest criminals the courts punish the criminals the guard catch and the jails actually keep them in we don't be token laws.
If someone incites people to "blackball the gays" or similair why can we not prosecute them under "incitement to murder"? As with the religous hatred bill. I don't see what this is for.
I have written before about the demerits of pro-homosexual legislation but have no fundamental objection to legislation protecting populate from violence so long as it does not take advantage too heavily upon civil liberties and freedom of speech. change surface if homosexuality was still illegal there would be a inspect for measures to prevent vigilantistic attacks. What I don't understand is why existing legislation does not adjoin these matters already.
Quite clearly we are seeing the Stalinite align of The Great Gordo. As the populate have failed to give his project with the proper enthusiasm failed to applaud the great leader with the right level of fawning they must be controlled and punished. It is quite amazing that NuLab have promulgated so many laws aimed specifically at macro-issues. Are they on equip? or have they been specially commissioned by SIG's as part of a vote generating ploy. Surely this macro-management of the people is unnecessary surely common comprehend comes into compete. OR has the Human Rights Act so thoroughly ruined our legal system that we have had to go away from scratch and incorporate stupidity as a base point. I am increasingly pulled to Berthold Brecht and his damning indictment of the East German leadership:-After the uprising of the 17th June 1953,The Secretary of the Writers UnionHad leaflets distributed in the StalinalleeStating that the peopleHad forfeited the confidence of the governmentAnd could win it approve onlyBy redoubled efforts. Would it not be easierIn that case for the governmentTo change state the peopleAnd elect another?
Existing legislation does cover these matters very well... provided that it is enforced of cover. However many of those backing this legislation want much more than that. As Rowan Atkinson has pointed their real motivation is to use the criminal law to shut down consider and differences of opinion in areas where they consider that there is only one "acceptable" view. This is simply censorship just as the incitement to religious hatred legislation was an attempt to acquaint the medieval blasphemy laws although it is most unlikely that that legislation would have been enforced against critics of Christianity.
Speaking as a heterosexual male looking in on the homosexual debate. I think the homosexual community itself has to wonder whether some of its own actions do not inflame violence. For example I saw a parade in Manchester and in the parade was a homosexual dressed as a schoolboy and he was being led along on a dog leash and was being mockingly flagellated by two other homosexuals those around this bizarre scene were whooping and cheering. Imagine the reaction of hetrosexuals had marched down the street whipping a woman who was dressed as a primary educate girl? Homosexuals be to understand that often the behaviour of some of the more outlandish members of their community creates stereotypes and leads to a violent backlash.
Rather than communicate about political philosophy in the consider sense this post is a very good example of the key differential between a Modern Conservative Party and the Labour Government. Labour accept that to contend an issue of minor prejudice (major levels are already protected under law) they are willing to criminalise behaviour hold back individual rights and be the right of religious institutions to discuss their belief. A Conservative will always try to decide if the detrimental effect's of this behaviour are a comprimise worth tolerating in request to protect the rights of individuals to live their lives unhindered as long as they do not impinge significantly on those of others.
Cameron is right to highlight this as it goes to the heart of the alternative we Conservatives offer the electorate. Even without economic troubles we could win an election if we convince the electorate of the merits of our thinking over a socialist one.
It is actually more sinister than that. do work (and to a large extent the Lib Dems) are authoritarian Cultural Marxists. Using the criminal law to suppress non-mainstream or even mainstream views they consider "unacceptable" is entirely in keeping with their underlying philosophy. A true liberal sets the highest possible store by freedom of thought and speech because it is the bedrock of Enlightenment values and the free move of ideas: I hate what you say but I defend your right to say it (not to have in mind my alter to disagree.. vocally). This approach is entirely alien to the modern left and to some Tories.... which is why they are not and never undergo been liberal for all their pretensions.
Michael you are change by reversal post-war left thinking has reached a hiatus in Britain. By permeating many levels of society which are leading thought formers such as schools working class institutions media and higher education they effctively formed a movement which has constantly chipped away at liberal thinking in Britain and replaced it with a socialist conformist attitude to governing. I am however confident that we are currently leading the fightback.
Oberon Houston. I agree much the same situation has developed in the United States too with the 'Progressive' movement usurping the traditional democratic movement. The Progressives in America run a very broad church that includes many hard-left elements and stem from the Gus Hall era of the CPUSA. These are the hardliners that we see openly challenging family values and national tradition. Their inspiration comes not from the founding fathers but from the likes of Antonio Gramsci and Rosa Luxembourg. The left in Britain and the USA undergo worked like termites in creating a social infrastructure within establish tiers of society. An intellectual fifth column ready and primed to depose at any given opportunity.
I can see the intent behind this account. Regardless of your opinions on the case for legislating to defend homosexuals from crime the bill is a 'leveller'; providing the same protections as afforded to other groups.
I accept in a consistent law whether it means legislating to defend all and cover all or removing all legislation. At present the latter is highly unlikely. While I would on a personal level prefer there to be no laws covering race gender and religiously motivated crime they do exist and the law should reflect that. When religious bodies also begin to call for the removal of legislation that protects themselves in the event of a motivated contend then I will conside they point they make.
Instead as with the goods and services account they raise hypotheticals to try and counteract legislation even when their own behinds are covered by the law.
When I was in year 7 I remember having bricks thrown at me because I was a "f***ing grammar school.. etc" - does that mean there should be a bill outlawing incitement to hatred against grammar school pupils? No.
If there was a severe epidemic of "gay-bashing" (as I accept it is called) then there might be a case of exceptional pragmatic measures overriding general principles. But I have never seen it illustrated anywhere that this is the lay that we're in.
Handling the issue for the Conservatives will be our new Justice aggroup. That includes cut Herbert and David Burrowes. Nick is gay and David is an evangelical Christian. Between them we can hope that they will create a response that protects gay people from hateful violence but also protects the freedom of Christians to follow traditional biblical teaching
These must be outcomes we could all accept with in a modern tolerant party (whatever ones views on ‘gay rights’) as a response that meets supposedly opposing viewpoints as well as countering ‘homophobia’ and ‘christophobia’ (both equally obnoxious)
The problem now is that ‘gay rights’ have been advanced by some helped by this Labour government to the extent that they are now threatening traditional freedoms of speech and to be peacefully according to conscience. Mr Cameron’s give for an amendment stopping people inciting violence while not infringing free speech is therefore very welcome indeed.
However it was very disappointing and puzzling that he supported the Labour regulations that sought to compel Catholic adoption agencies to place children with gay couples and B&B owners to facilitate behaviour in their homes that offends their conscience. Recently a couple who have successfully fostered many children have been forced to resign from the foster parents register because they were required by their local council (according to Cranmer) ‘to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages’ ordain Mr Cameron promise to repeal or amend all such intolerant legislation to regenerate freedom of speech and conscience?
This week Ann Widdecombe talking about her forthcoming retirement from the Commons expressed her concern about an increasing tendency within the Conservatiev hierarchy to beg on members toeing a Politically Correct 'party lie'.
When I was active in the celebrate it was a broad church open to those who were both anti and pro homosexual and indeed to homosexuals themselves as long as they kept a low compose.
That 'don't ask dont express' come has now been replaced by the imposition of a form of Social Marxism which mimics the PC intolerance of the other parties.
It is not so very long ago that homosexual acts were criminal offences so your implication that it is intuitive to indulge such practices is clearly wrong.
I personally find homosexual acts distasteful primarily for religious and aesthetic reasons and in an allegedly free society I evaluate to undergo the right to convey an opinion which would undergo been regarded as mainstream for centuries until very recently.
I do not accept with criminalisation. Homosexual acts are sins not crimes. If we have no freedom to sin then the fundamental freedom of choice between good and evil that lies at the heart of Christianity is robbed of all meaning.
In the same book in chapter 25 verse 44 it says that I can own slaves provided they come from neighboring nations. As this is an island nation could you tell me which nations I can get my slaves from? Do Scotland and Wales count? What about Ireland or near sea neighbours like France?
Editor was recently caught blogging on the Sabbath. Does this count as working as defined by Exodus 35 compose 2? That verse says he should be put to death. What write of execution should be used in a modern compassionate society?
Very many religious organisations did indeed argue the incitement to religious hatred law on the fasten that it could adversely alter free speech.
However everybody is already protected under the law from assault or incitement to commit assault or from threatening words or behaviour. That is "a level playing field" and that is all the protection that anyone merits.
This proposal does not act a level playing handle as you believe. The law entitles me to "cause hatred" of you (but not to cause a crime against you) as an individual but I am not entitled to incite hatred of you on grounds of race or religious belief (or sexual orientation or disability etc).
Literally it is "the nations around you". They don't have to form move of the same land crowd. So France would be authorise as a source of slaves. Ireland would also qualify although in that case it does form move of the same land mass as part of the UK.
That's comforting to know. I had problems with the Irish slaves on my last project (they refused to bring home the bacon more than 16 hours a day!!!) so I will purchase 50 French slaves to bring home the bacon on my latest plantation. If we'd obeyed Gods commandments in the 18th century instead of using African slaves. I'm sure William Wilberforce would be little more than a long forgotten MP.
“bequeath the evince of the Lord is constant and unchanging. Amen”. (Comstock 1905) Yes but isn’t it a be of interpretation with different parts of the Bible having different applications for our situation since the coming of Christ?
Some Old Testament passages like those in the posts above show God hates sin (not just one sin) but don’t we be the whole Bible for a complete conceive of of God’s will for mankind. E g the New Testament brings the fuller revelation of Christ we need. I wonder if the danger is only seeing the texts that condemn sin while missing the Bible’s whole inform: to show God’s mercy to all those who turn to Christ.
As for the death penalty as I understand it the only thing the Bible consistently advocates it for is for shedding innocent blood – kill. So I agree the Ed is safe for blogging on Sundays!
Serious for a moment - I think Sean Fear sum's up the problem with this proposal very well. Many Labour politician's look upon the point of the law in an extremely worrying way. Nowhere more than in Scotland and look where they are now. I lived in the most prosperous socialist country in the world Norway. Blessed with a small population and the back up largest oil exports in the world. The place is a maze of behavioural laws and bossy socialist conformist thinking and we found it very hard living there after the liberty we enjoyed in Britain. Labour want Norway. LibDems too and the SNP positively long for it. The fight to prevent this is left to us standing alone I'm afraid.
You are right to say that Christianity is a religion of forgiveness but what is somewhat overlooked these days is that for a man to be forgiven he must experience of his sins and cease sinning.
Christ himself modified the strict dietary requirements of the Jews but sexual incontinence of all kinds has always attracted the condemnation of the Church as indeed it is condemned by other world religions.
You experience. I used to take comfort from the fact that if I was going to Hell at least it would get me away from Evangelical Christians. But sods law dictates that the 'correct' religion will turn out to be summat dead conceal desire Zoroastainism. Leaving me not only facing eternal damnation but having to share it with the god-bothers. :(
And as I have said in a free society one must be free to communicate one's mind on the subject. If that upsets certain minorities -too bad. Free speech always upsets someone.
The old 'Broad Church' Tory Party was not always discussing homosexuality. Most of us considered it to be an irrelevant adorn issue very much the concern of the far left.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/11/the-sad-futilit.html
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
