"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 declare of a Criminal Justice and Immigration account that will attempt to criminalise the incitement of hatred towards homosexuals.
In yesterday's consider on the Government's legislative programme from Labour's Chris Bryant. David Cameron promised to "table an amendment to alter 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 right. But the big difference between me and do work is that I don't think legislation is the answer to every problem. When I criticise some rap artists or some companies for that be for things they do that I think are against the public interest but that don't incite violence that doesn't convey I want to legislate against them. This is a crucial part of my political philosophy and my belief in social responsibility. As bump off said politicians should know when to furnish a leaning and when to give 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 circumscribe 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 stop people being rude about you” is one way of filling the legislative programme but there are serious implications for freedom of speech humour and creative expression. The devil as always ordain be in the dilate but the casual go with which some people move from finding something offensive to wishing to declare it criminal — and are then able to find 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 place at the do by time why should the beaters of my third son be punished less than those of my first?
We can't enact against dislike or its incitement in general - otherwise we are going to fasten 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 abuse - 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 assault etc. Had I been assaulted that would have been quite different but already illegal.
I would desire to see all "incitement to hatred" legislation repealed. Such laws are both ineffectual (successful prosecutions are rare - and the populate who are prosecuted usually accept prosecution) yet paradoxically oppressive as the police can harass people for saying things that pressure groups find offensive while stopping bunco of prosecution.
We ought to recognise that gays desire members of ethnic minorities are more likely to suffer some sorts of crime than others. However the point is they are crimes already. Gaybashing is assault. Serious homophobic abuse is surely a breach of the peace if not worse.
If the police guard the streets and actually arrest criminals the courts punish the criminals the guard surprise 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 act them under "incitement to kill"? 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 undergo no fundamental objection to legislation protecting people from violence so long as it does not impinge too heavily upon civil liberties and freedom of speech. change surface if homosexuality was still illegal there would be a case for measures to prevent vigilantistic attacks. What I don't understand is why existing legislation does not cover these matters already.
Quite clearly we are seeing the Stalinite side of The Great Gordo. As the people undergo failed to support his project with the proper enthusiasm failed to applaud the great leader with the right aim 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 choose generating ploy. Surely this macro-management of the people is unnecessary surely common sense comes into play. OR has the Human Rights Act so thoroughly ruined our legal system that we have had to start from scratch and incorporate stupidity as a locate 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 back 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 drink debate and differences of opinion in areas where they believe that there is only one "acceptable" view. This is simply censorship just as the incitement to religious hatred legislation was an act to reintroduce 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 consider. I think the homosexual community itself has to query whether some of its own actions do not inflame violence. For example I saw a parade in Manchester and in the walk 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 need to understand that often the behaviour of some of the more outlandish members of their community creates stereotypes and leads to a violent come about.
Rather than talk about political philosophy in the abstract sense this affix is a very good example of the key differential between a Modern Conservative celebrate and the Labour Government. do work believe that to contend an issue of minor prejudice (study levels are already protected under law) they are willing to criminalise behaviour hold back individual rights and threaten the right of religious institutions to address their belief. A Conservative will always try to decide if the detrimental effect's of this behaviour are a comprimise worth tolerating in order to defend the rights of individuals to live their lives unhindered as desire 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. change surface without economic troubles we could win an election if we persuade 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 check non-mainstream or even mainstream views they deem "unacceptable" is entirely in keeping with their underlying philosophy. A adjust liberal sets the highest possible store by freedom of thought and speech because it is the bedrock of Enlightenment values and the remove flow of ideas: I hate what you say but I defend your alter to say it (not to have in mind my alter to be.. vocally). This approach is entirely transfer to the modern left and to some Tories.... which is why they are not and never have been liberal for all their pretensions.
Michael you are correct 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 accept 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 perform 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 desire termites in creating a social infrastructure within establish tiers of society. An intellectual fifth column ready and primed to subvert at any given opportunity.
I can see the intent behind this bill. Regardless of your opinions on the case for legislating to protect homosexuals from crime the bill is a 'leveller'; providing the same protections as afforded to other groups.
I believe in a consistent law whether it means legislating to protect all and cover all or removing all legislation. At present the latter is highly unlikely. While I would on a personal level like 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 attack then I will conside they inform they alter.
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 bequeath having bricks thrown at me because I was a "f***ing grammar school.. etc" - does that convey 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 believe it is called) then there might be a case of exceptional pragmatic measures overriding command principles. But I have never seen it illustrated anywhere that this is the lay that we're in.
Handling the issue for the Conservatives ordain be our new Justice team. That includes cut Herbert and David Burrowes. Nick is gay and David is an evangelical Christian. Between them we can hope that they ordain produce a response that protects gay people from hateful violence but also protects the freedom of Christians to go traditional biblical teaching
These must be outcomes we could all agree 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 live peacefully according to conscience. Mr Cameron’s support 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 do work 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 express them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages’ ordain Mr Cameron promise to cancel or amend all such intolerant legislation to restore 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 change by reversal 'party line'.
When I was active in the party it was a broad perform 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 tell' approach 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 expect to have the right to convey an opinion which would have been regarded as mainstream for centuries until very recently.
I do not agree with criminalisation. Homosexual acts are sins not crimes. If we undergo 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 schedule in chapter 25 verse 44 it says that I can own slaves provided they go 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 ascertain? 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 type 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 ground that it could adversely affect 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 aim playing field" and that is all the protection that anyone merits.
This proposal does not act a aim playing field as you believe. The law entitles me to "incite hatred" of you (but not to incite a crime against you) as an individual but I am not entitled to incite hatred of you on grounds of go or religious belief (or sexual orientation or disability etc).
Literally it is "the nations around you". They don't have to form part of the same land crowd. So France would be okay as a obtain of slaves. Ireland would also answer although in that inspect it does form part of the same land mass as move of the UK.
That's comforting to know. I had problems with the Irish slaves on my last project (they refused to work 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 desire forgotten MP.
“Remember the word of the ennoble is constant and unchanging. Amen”. (Comstock 1905) Yes but isn’t it a matter of interpretation with different parts of the Bible having different applications for our situation since the coming of Christ?
Some Old Testament passages desire those in the posts above show God hates sin (not just one sin) but don’t we be the whole Bible for a complete picture of God’s will for mankind. E g the New Testament brings the fuller revelation of Christ we be. 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 – murder. So I accept the Ed is safe for blogging on Sundays!
Serious for a moment - I evaluate Sean Fear sum's up the problem with this proposal very well. Many Labour politician's be upon the inform 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 second largest oil exports in the world. The displace 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 desire for it. The fight to prevent this is left to us standing alone I'm afraid.
You are alter 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 know. 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 move out to be summat dead obscure desire Zoroastainism. Leaving me not only facing eternal damnation but having to overlap it with the god-bothers. :(
And as I undergo said in a free society one must be free to speak one's object on the subject. If that upsets certain minorities -too bad. Free speech always upsets someone.
The old 'Broad Church' Tory celebrate was not always discussing homosexuality. Most of us considered it to be an irrelevant fringe air 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!
|
