A cross-party group of MPs want ensure that homophobic Christians can continue to express their views on gay people.
They’ve tabled an amendment to that effect, effectively seeking to amend the government’s proposal to make a criminal offence of incitement to hatred on the grounds of 
sexual orientation. Among them, as we might expect, are a pair of Catholics: Anne Widdecombe (pictured) and Jim Dobbin.
A pressure group called Christian Concern for our Nation wants its supporters to put pressure on MPs to back the new amendment, which will be voted on on 9 January. Christian Concern for our Nation has as its aim to “stand up against a tide of unChristian legal and political changes in the United Kingdom”, according to a story in Pink News, which continues,
Stonewall, the gay equality organisation, gave evidence about the sort of incitement to homophobic murder and hatred that goes unchallenged.
Chief executive Ben Summerskill quoted extensively from the homophobic lyrics of dancehall star Beenie Man and others to demonstrate the nature of their comments about gay men and lesbians.
MPs were confronted with the words “motherfucker”, “pussy-sucker” and “batty-fucker” during his testimony, along with excerpts from BNP leaflets claiming the government were trying to “legalise child sex” by equalising the age of consent.
Mr Summerskill rejected concerns that a law banning incitement to religious hatred would be used to silence the voices of religious people who regard homosexuality as a sin.
Summerskill made it clear that Christians would still be allowed to state a religious objection to homosexuality if they wished, that it was not that sort of opposition the government’s move sought to prevent.
Pink News continues:
The new amendment from Christian MPs reads:
“Nothing in this part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion of, criticism of or expressions of antipathy towards, conduct relating to a particular sexual orientation, or urging persons of a particular sexual orientation to refrain from or modify conduct relating to that orientation.”
Among the MPs asking for the right to show antipathy towards their gay constituents are: Lib Dems Colin Breed (South East Cornwall) and Alan Beith (Berwick Upon Tweed); Conservatives Philip Hollobone (Kettering) and Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and the Weald); and Labour MPs David Taylor (North West Leicestershire) and Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton).
3 Comments
Christian Concern? Aren’t they another mob of godbotherers who changed their name because of their previous failures?
Think you’ll find that the main movers behind this used to call themselves ‘Keep Sunday Special’ back when they restricted themselves to trying to stop shops opening on Sunday - these were the days when Whitehouse & Muggeridge led such antics
Christian Concern for our Nation
Lamentably it IS, in part, their nation. That’s what really bloody scares me – the idea of a country brought up under the word of ignorant zealots like those above is almost as scary as the idea that the amendment would allow more criticism of sexual orientation (a predetermined preference, not a choice) than religion (well and truly a choice, built on irrationality, prejudice, ignorance and fear). To attack sexuality is to be hypocritical, given the abundant religious dismissal of criticism as “religious hatred” or “failure to understand”.
Hang on a minute here - before we all get as zealous and unreasonable as those we are opposing, I don’t see anything wrong in allowing people to express antipathy towards homosexuality, or criticise aspects of it, or dissuade people from following homosexual lifestyles. No doubt those behind this amendment have a much broader agenda of bigotry (which should be resisted), but the amendment itself is perfectly reasonable, framed, as it is, as a safeguard for freedom of speech and individual conscience. Similar free speech concessions were sought (and won) when the Religious Hatred Laws were passed, I seem to remember, so why should gays get additional protection? Are our shoulders not broad enough to take a little flak now and again? Who could reasonably oppose any amendment safeguarding freedom of speech? Oh, silly me - authoritarian left-wing numpties and a brace of bossy old GALHA-gays prepared to do their bidding! Plus ca change …
Post a Comment