Cameron faces backlash from social conservatives on gay adoption decision

The danger for Mr Cameron is the breadth of offence he is beginning to cause.  Tory Eurosceptics are still pained by the delay to leaving the EPP.  Small government conservatives regret the caution on tax.  Hawks are disappointed that defence is a lower spending priority than the NHS and Atlanticists fear the long-term consequences of the coolness towards the White House.  Upsetting the party's social conservatives may be Mr Cameron's biggest risk so far, however.  It became clear to ConservativeHome yesterday evening that David Cameron's decision to back the Government and gay rights against the liberty of the churches has upset a large section of his parliamentary party.  The Cornerstone Group of 40 MPs are particularly angry.  For a while this tightly-knit group within the parliamentary party has been relaxed about Project Cameron.  The Tory leader's social conservatism on marriage and his support for Iain Duncan  Smith's social justice agenda have kept them quiet.  Their enthusiasm evaporated yesterday.

Ann Widdecombe (not a formal member of the group) warned that Britain was "in completely new territory" and that we could be witnessing "the death of religious freedom in Britain."  She said that this debate was not about gay rights and compared the situation to abortion.  Miss Widdecombe said that gay couples now had a right to adopt and a pregnant woman had a right to an abortion.  The unsettling difference was that the woman did not have the right to require a particular doctor to terminate her preganancy but a gay couple had the right to go to any adoption agency to find a child.

MPs Gerald Howarth and Douglas Carswell also registered their concerns in quotations to the Daily Mail.  Shadow defence minister Gerald Howarth:

"We now undoubtedly face a challenge from the UK Independence Party and to a lesser extent from the British National Party.  We therefore need to measure what is the effect of the message we are sending. This will cause concern among a lot of traditional Conservatives up and down the country. This is an incredible assault on freedom of conscience... This is a motif for his leadership. Our core supporters in the country don't like it and they are saying they will vote for UKIP. It's wrong, it's offensive. it's political correctness, and it's social engineering.  Tony Blair has given us 20 months to adapt 2,000 years of Christian teaching. It's unacceptable."

Douglas Carswell:

"I will not be taking David Cameron's position on this. I will be supporting the Churches.  This isn't about gay rights, it's about whether we should be interfering in the very good job that a part of civil society does on our behalf for children who are hard to place."

Comments

[Tory T]

You protest too much, Ed.

I am a social conservative and very happy overall with Cameron. His speech yesterday was a cracking example of why he is to be welcomed.

I am firmly against the Equality Law as written. We need, not opt-outs, but a different law.

BUT. This is clearly a conscience issue and it is a free vote. Remember those? Free votes? Carswell - and myself - are free to argue our positions without being disloyal. David Davis can take the opposite position and there is no "Tory split" because this is a free vote.

[Editor]

This is an area where a free vote is the wrong way forward, Tory T. Greater voluntary sector-provided social action is supposedly David Cameron's big idea. You cannot invite faith-based and other groups into the public square to receive government funding and then fail - as a leader and party as a whole - to protect their freedom to organise according to their long-held beliefs.

[Tory T]

As you will have seen from my comments on earlier threads I am totally against the law as t is written. But you cannot whip a conscience issue.

IMO, as posted earlier, the way forward was to suggest a different law.

[Editor]

I see gay adoption as a conscience issue - I see the freedom of religious organisations to be true to themselves as more of a fundamental protection of liberty issue.

[Gareth]

Ed,

We all know you have strong feelings on this but this really isn't the end of civilisation as we know it. You can't seriously propose that you'd whip MP's to vote against gay rights (as some would see it) any more than you could whip them in favour of gay adoption (as others would see it)?

[Tory T]

Certainly Anne W. has a strong point with her abortion analogy.

In America Catholic hospitals were threatened by nominally Catholic politicians with being forced to provide abortions and contraceptives. When it was pointed out they would all rather close down than do that the pols backed off.

But still you simply could not have whipped this issue without splitting the parliamentary party. I am disappointed Cameron does not share my view on it, and would much have preferred a free vote with Cameron going the other way, but social Conservatives will be heartened, on the other hand, with his understanding of the divisions of multiculturalism and protection of the rights of Muslim women.

Furthermore if Carswell really worries about ukip he should take a look at Political Betting. com today where there is a lead article analysing ukip's actual poll performance lately:

"Populus recorded a drop from 2% to 1% with five out out of the seven supporters (not percentages you should note) being male.

ICM discovered that 11 people in its survey said they had voted UKIP at the 2005 General but only 3 were ready to do so now - all of them male.

YouGov found an unchanged 3% UKIP support level - the same as it has been for several months with the men, as ever, outnumbering women.

Another trend in the polls is that what support there for the Anti-EU party is not coming from the younger age groups with very few of those under 35 saying they are supporters. There is also an almost total lack of response to the party in Scotland.

How frustrating this must be for the Simon Heffers of this world."

[Editor]

It's not the end of civilisation, Gareth, - of course not - but for me it's the most disappointing thing that David Cameron has done. You may not believe me but this isn't about gay rights for me. It is about the freedom of a Christian organisation to run its affairs according to its own teachings. I do not think that religious beliefs should be imposed on other people but any Government inteference in the affairs of religious organisations should be exceptional measures of last resort. I do regard yesterday's decision by our leader as a worrying attack on religious liberty.

[Tory T]

And so do I, and as an ardent Cameroon I confess that this is the only thing he has done that truly saddens me. For the sake of the children who will be left behind.

For Catholics are not being forced to violate their consciences - we can (and now must) just shut down. However, a small fraction of would-be adoptive parents are gay couples, but Catholic agencies currently find good homes for a full third of the hard to place children in the system.

A year from now, this will be yesterday's headlines. Still, very few gay couples - all of whom could have been served by secular agencies - will want to adopt; but those hard to place children, forgotten by the champagne socialists at the BBC, will be languishing in care homes, and will never know a happy family.

The characteristic of this debate has been the "rights" of would be parents in contrast to what the UN charter calls for as the paramount and overriding consideration, the welfare of the child.

It is a deeply disappointing decision by Cameron to flip that around.

But I would have wished to see a free vote, with Cameron leading from the front in calling for a law rewritten so as not to allow either opt-outs or trampling on liberty.

[HF]

I agree with Tory T, a flawed proposal that needs an unwhipped vote and for once DC and DD to keep quiet.

If the Catholics and CofE etc do not like what this Govt has done, then maybe they should not have voted for them?

Editor, we are here because we have lost elections. We lost the elections because we were divided and focused on things that the majority of the electorate did not want.

This is a country, where the majority are not regular church attending christians, I do not like that, but I do have to recognise the reality.

For UKIP stuff go to
http://www.politicalbetting.com/

[TomTom]

In America Catholic hospitals were threatened by nominally Catholic politicians with being forced to provide abortions and contraceptives.

That would be interesting since Abortion is a flawed Judgment of Justice Blackmun in the USA rather than a legislative matters passed through Congress.

One day the Roe v. Wade issue will have to return to the Supreme Court especially in view of the fact that the case was contrived from top to bottom and on a fake premise. Had not the attorney from the Mayo Clinic been appointed to the US Supreme Court the pitiful state of Blackmiun's intellectual capabilities would not have been quite so exposed as in his paperwork.

How a man so prejudiced ever got to be a Supreme Court Justice is a case study which should illustrate the dangers of Rule by Judiciary

[TomTom]

This is a country, where the majority are not regular church attending christians,

Sorry, what goes on in many Churches is not Christian and staying away from them is....

[Richard Willis]

Cameron has this absolutely right in giving his MPs a free vote. In a free and democratic society it is unacceptable for a hotel to refuse entry to someone because they are black or disabled. Why should it be acceptable for an adoption agency to refuse to deal with someone because they are gay?

It is not an attack on religious freedom, it is an attack on bigotry and prejudice.

Let the Catholic agencies twin with a non-Catholic agency, as they have done in the far more religious US. I dont see why a tiny minority of Catholics should impose their view by default on the rest of society.

There are two key points in this for me.
1. Services that are provided for society in general should be free from discrimination and prejudice, and

2. The prime motivation should be what is right for the child. ALmost everyone agrees that the worst option is in institutional care.

The irony is that the Catholic Church takes this position when it has been the defender of paedophile priests and other abusers. Officially and unofficially the Catholic Church has systematically covered up for priests who have inflicted terrible sexual and physical abuse on children in its care.

Why on earth should we listen to them now?

[Zorro]

I've just taken a look at the opinions of Mike Smithson. Mike Who? Definitely a name to conjure with.

"UKIP is still finding it hard to extend its appeal beyond white males in their late middle age"

Which of course just happens to be the Tory core vote, but don't let that spoil a good story.

1) When UKIPs vote starts to move up it's usually just before an election, as in the case of the last Euro-elections. That's when the public become focused about issues.

2) At the last General Election at least 27 Tory hopefuls were trashed by UKIP candidates scoring in many cases ony 1-2%

We're prepared to work with Cameron on terms which we will dictate. If he won't play ball, and on current form we have every reason to expect that he won't, he will have only himself to blame for the ensuing Tory defeat.

And don't kid yourself that winning back a few seats will be compensation. In politics a miss is as good as a mile.

[Margaret on the Gullotine]

There's no massive backlash. Montgomerie wants there to be one because of his own religious views, and he thinks that if you can get enough people to believe something to be true, then it is.

Just as if enough people think this site is "the home of the Conservative roots", then he thinks it is, rather than seeing CH for what it is: around 100 malcontents and UKIP trolls whinging to their heart's content.

[Tory T]

Richard,

The Church does not refuse to deal with anybody because they are gay, and currently places children with gay single parents.

Rather it has the positive criterion "Are these parents offering a Catholic family ethos?" that means placing with single and married people - not civil unions and not straight cohabitees either.

[Tory T]

Zorro, it's not surprising you haven't heard of Smithson; he deals with polls, ie reality. Three of them quoted above, all disastrous for UKIP.

[John Coles]

Editor
I have always thought that you have been commendably restrained by rarely offering direct comment on the many contentious threads that have passed through this site. Now that, on this occasion, you have declared an opinion I think it a pity that you should have harried by the glib (Gareth) and the downright rude (Margaret on the Guillotine).
You deserve a little better than this.

[TomTom]

Let the Catholic agencies twin with a non-Catholic agency, as they have done in the far more religious US. I dont see why a tiny minority of Catholics should impose their view by default on the rest of society.

but they do...they refuse the Eucharist to non-Catholics

Why should Catholic parents give their children up for adoption to the Church to have them adopted by non-Catholics ?

[Tory Lady]

It may be a new turning point against the Cameron led Party.Christians everywhwere will be privately despairing at the stance Cameron has taken and will be silently witholding their vote.
It could cost the Tories over a million votes in silent protest and these will be the loss of solid goodwill votes.The Chrisstian press will soon start rolling and exacerbate the situation.
Is this the opportunity for the makings of a new Christian led Political Party and the demise of the Conservative Party.

[Will]

AW - " The unsettling difference was that the woman did not have the right to require a particular doctor to terminate her preganancy but a gay couple had the right to go to any adoption agency to find a child. "

Rubbish. The equivelent is a abortion doctor who refused to perform an abortion because the mother was black.

The doctors right not to perform abortions is a moral choice against the act of abortion. An opt out on gay couples adopting is an act of discrimation against a set of individuals.

Gay couples can legally adopt. Catholic agencies have to find a way of dealing with this or get out of the adoption business. If they really do put children first they will find a way to continue to provide their service without discrimation.

Also Cornerstone can stop bleating - the majority of their members voted for Cameron - what did they expect they were getting ?

[malcolm]

I very much doubt it Tory Lady. It will be interesting to see how many Tory MPs take the Cameron position and how many vote with Davis/Cornerstone. I would hope that the vast majority take the latter route, we shall see. I do disagree with you though Editor, this is a vote of conscience and therefore the correct decision is to have it unwhipped.
Does anyone know if Labour are doing the same?

[changetowin]

Oh dear me. This website is trying to whip this story up into an even bigger issue. This is a free vote! I would prefer it if everyone was whipped to support my view that there should be one law in Britain that applies to all, but accept that given the strong feeligns on both sides a free vote is a fair compromise. The multiculturalists, who believe that their group membership should confer opt-out rights from British laws, are being allowed to vote against equality. That doesn't satisfy the Editor. On an issue of great sensitivity he wants everyone to have to vote for his view. Perhaps it shouldn't surprise us that he wants us to repeat the mistakes of IDS on gay adoption.

[changetowin]

And while I'm at it, the issue at stake here is not religious freedom. Roman Catholics should always remain free to think and preach whatever they like about homosexuality. That is religious freedom and freedom of conscience. But this issue is about two fundamental things:

1. whether a religious group should be subject to British law. If we say 'no' then we are opening a can of worms, which could lead to sharia law in Britain.

2. whether groups should be in receipt of state funding when they are acting outside British law and values.

If we want to talk about 'social responsibility', how about the Roman Catholic church's social responsibility to vulnerable children (and no I'm not talking about paedophilia!)? The Roman Catholic church has disgraced itself by saying that the adoption agencies would close if there was a chance that they might have to deal with gay couples (as opposed to single gay people). Talk about throwing your toys out of the pram! Shouldn't the Roman Catholic church put the care of vulnerable children above their belief in inequality for gay people?

[Tory T]

Changetowin, let me try again; there is no belief in inequality of gay people, as you put it, but in inequality of relationships, some that promote sex outside marriage, contrary to Christian teaching, and some that don't. Catholic groups will also not place children with unmarried straight couples who are legally as entitled as gay couples to adopt.

It won't place a child into a situation where the child's soul could be harmed by being raised to believe that sex outside of marriage is fine and dandy.

The Church's belief is that single and married people can adopt. No co-habiting couples, straight nor gay.

[Michael McGowan]

Changetowin provides the usual unpleasant Portillista sniping which we have come to expect: the snarling features of the Provisional Wing of the modernising movement, contorted with hate, especially of IDS who denied the Beloved Michael his birthright. Tim and Malcolm, I agree with you: it must be a free vote like all such votes but the whole point is that this country has always been a drabber, less tolerant, less free place when self-righteous members of the middle classes like Changetowin use the blunt instrument of the law to impose, on pain of penalty, ethical views which they regard as "right". Their hubristic arrogance will be their downfall. One footnote, Tim, this isn't an issue just for social conservatives. It is one for authentic liberals who believe in pluralism and the right of people to have seemingly odd and weird views and to live their lives accordingly. The finger-wagging tendency don't accept such rights.

[changetowin]

Tory T,

First of all your fair and balanced procedure is to offer adoption to all who are married and then exclude a group from marriage!!! The result of your policy is to offer adoption to single gay men (who presumably might have sex) and not to gay men in a committed relationship.

Secondly, let's suppose that society as a whole takes a different view from a religious group. There are two options.

1. Apply the law to all and make the religious group comply with the State (render onto Caesar and all that).

2. Have two laws - one for religious group and one for everyone else.

If we go for (2) as you and the other multiculturalists are arguing, we are setting a dangerous precedent. What do we say when Muslim groups want exemptions on a whole raft of things?

[Tory T]

But I do think Changetowin makes one important point, that of equality under the law. Of course we must have equality under the law and I do not support opt-outs for Catholics, Jews or anyone else.

The correct Conservative position is not to advocate an opt-out but to vote to defeat the law, and later to work to repeal it, because it is a wrongly drafted law.

[Simon Newman]

"One footnote, Tim, this isn't an issue just for social conservatives. It is one for authentic liberals who believe in pluralism and the right of people to have seemingly odd and weird views and to live their lives accordingly"

Yes, I'm not against gay adoption and I'm not pro the Catholic church, but I absolutely am against this whole totalitarian approach to 'non discrimination', where the government imposes its own views into every part of our lives.

[changetowin]

Tory T you are totally right on that. What Michael is offering us is not liberal. Liberals deal with individuals and support indiviudal freedom under the law. If they don't support a law they work to repeal it, never offer group based exclusions.

[Tory T]

Change, I'd take your 1. I can draft a law easily enough that applies to all but would not compel religious groups to face the choice of spiritually hurting vulnerable children or closing.

I suggested yesterday a law should go something like, all voluntary bodies offering adoptive services are required to prove that they are placing children with fit and proper parents.

That way a Jewish agency could place with only Jewish parents, a gay agency with civil partners, an agency which believes children should have siblings only in such families, etc.

The duty would be universal, no opt-outs for faith groups, and would allow voluntary orgs to carry on their good work.

[changetowin]

And Michael, most members of the public reading this would be amazed that those supporting an Equality Act are being accused of being intolerant by those supporting group-based exclusions from British law for groups who want to discriminate against others based on their sexuality.

[Edward]

I don't see that the law would say, within the terms of these regulations, that not allowing people to adopt because they're having sex outside a married relationship would be a disproportionate response to achieve a legitimate aim (protection of the child). Storm in a teacup?

[changetowin]

Tory T - why is purity on this rather academic issue more important for the Roman Catholic church than the care of vulnerable children. Why should it be a choice between getting their way and closing?

[HF]

Under this regulation can a church refuse to have in its membership homosexual couples?

If not then the RC could just create a membership system and use that to exclude who it did not want.

[Denis Cooper]

On the electoral level in Scotland, it seems this is a bit of a gift to the SNP.

[Andrew Lilico]

I agree with the Editor that this should not be a free vote. Let us understand what this is about, clearly. First, Catholic adoption agencies do *not* discriminate against homosexuals. They discriminate against unmarried couples. Thus gay rights are neither here nor there.

Nonetheless, they do discriminate, and they do so against government policy. But their doing so reflects the faith-based nature of the service they offer. It is precisely because of this faith-based nature that Alan Johnson etc oppose them, as they likewise opposed faith schools - because it is in the nature of faith-based public service delivery that it will be discriminating and that it will reflect faith-based ethical judgements rather than government policy or democratic judgements.

And this is precisely why there should not be a free vote for Conservatives - because we are avowedly in *favour* of faith-based public service delivery. We cannot be in favour of faith-based service delivery but then be against the basing of such delivery on faith positions - that would be absurd.

As a Party, we are either for such "little platoons" as the Catholic adoption agencies, or we are against them. If we are for them as a Party, then we must have whipped votes that support them. Otherwise, friends, we just aren't putting our votes where our mouths are.

[Tory T]

Changetowin, you and I agree on many things, not on this, though.

What you don't see is that (Catholics believe) that it is doing dreadful harm to a little child to put him or her in a home where they will grow up believing it is OK to have sex outside of marriage. You are asking Catholics not to protect vulnerable children, but to hurt them.

As to "right to marry" Catholics are Christians, we are bound by Christ's teaching on marriage in the Gospels where he said it existed because God made them male and female.

I can clearly see you don't agree with a word of it and I am not trying to convert anybody, but it would be good if people tried to see things from the other's point of view.

If you understood that to a Catholic, placing a child with a co-habiting couple straight or gay is hurting that child, you could understand why they refuse to do it. Because the child's needs have to come first.

[malcolm]

Andrew Lilico, so you argue freedom of conscience for Catholics but not for MPs? What a strange argument.

[Michael McGowan]

It is authentically liberal to argue that individuals are entitled to live their lives according to their consciences which, however peculiar or wrong in the disapproving eyes of the moral majority, have minimal adverse impact on others and can be accomodated with relative ease. The cry of "conscience is not an excuse for prejudice" is the cry of the censor down the ages. There is the world of difference between this limited degree of pluralism and upholding the "rights" of irredentist minorities to beat their wives, deny them education, force their teenage daughters to marry, persecute homosexuals and blow people up on the Tube. Such "rights" are a direct assault on the foundations of a free society - the very kind of society which permits pluralism in the first place. I suggest that Changetowin do some basic reading in political theory, starting with Voltaire and Mill's essay On Liberty. If you adopt his/her anti-Enlightenment approach, Catholic doctors must perform abortions; Quakers who refuse to fight in the armed forces must be sent to prison; and Sikhs must wear crash helmets - just because the House of Commons says so.

When less than a third of the voting population vote for the Government of the day and 40% of the electorate abstain, the moral authority of the sleazy House of Commons to legislate on matters of morlity is negligible.

[Liberal conservative]

Editor - please explain how Christian groups arguing for an exemption from the law are different from Muslim groups arguing for the same thing (i.e. to be allowed to practice Sharia law).

If we are against one should we also not be against the other?

[Michael McGowan]

Liberal Conservative, what an odd argument. All you are saying is that we have either to be utterly uniform or totally divergent, which is of course nonsense. You wouldn't accept this argument for five seconds in relation to sexual conduct. So why is it any more robust in relation to other aspects of human behvaiour? The whole human experience is about dealing with shades of grey.

[Andrew Lilico]

Malcolm,

The question of whether public service delivery is to be via homogeneous government-ordered mechanisms or via heterogeneous, including faith-based mechanisms is a policy matter, not a matter of conscience.

Furthermore, some matters that involve conscience are not given free votes, because to have the "wrong" opinion on the matter and unwilling to vote against oneself would place one outside Conservatism. For example, perhaps there are Conservative MPs that are opposed to nuclear weapons - should there be a free vote on that? Some MPs are in favour of ID cards - should there be a free vote on that?

There are many reasons Conservatives should oppose the over-riding of the Catholic adoption agencies. I disagree with the Editor that the protection of religious liberty is central in the case of the adoption agencies (though it may well be important in other parts of the Bill) - it is a pure policy judgement how we deliver public services, and a Socialist is entitled to believe in monolithic provision without being an opponent of religious liberty. But, by the same token, since we disagree with him about how public services are to be delivered, we must vote against this Bill - and do so on a whipped vote.

[Sean Fear]

"Editor - please explain how Christian groups arguing for an exemption from the law are different from Muslim groups arguing for the same thing (i.e. to be allowed to practice Sharia law)."

I'm willing to be corrected by someone with greater knowledge of Islam than I have, but I don't think there's anything in English law that positively requires Muslims to act against their religious teachings.

Islamic law does not *require* Muslims to practice polygamy, nor does it require the secular State to prescribe the punishments laid down in the Koran.

But Muslims are quite at liberty to submit personal disputes to the arbitration of Islamic courts, and to leave their property in accordance with Islamic custom.

[Deborah]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I understand that Catholic agencies refer gays to other agencies at the moment. It they were required by law to do so, would that still be a problem?

[TomTom]

Under this regulation can a church refuse to have in its membership homosexual couples?

If not then the RC could just create a membership system and use that to exclude who it did not want.

You really are mad....the EU Directive has exemptions for religious associations

The British Govt has gold-plated yet another EU Directive.

As for Sharia Law whatever that might be....elements of it are currently in use in England for settlement of many disputes coming under the heading of mediation services

[Sean Fear]

I don't think there's any realistic option but to have a free vote on this.

On the merits of this, as far as I'm concerned, Simon Newman, Andrew Lilico, and Tory T say all that needs to be said.

The wider issue though is much more important. Namely, whether equality legislation, as currently drafted, does more harm than good.

[TomTom]

So if I read these "Conservatives" correctly there is no higher law than conformity with the laws enacted by Parliament ?

There is no morality higher than the written law ?

There is no other possibility than the Order of a Court or a Quango in implementing an EU Directive ?

It is good that we have established the Moral Code of the Conservative Party 2007

[Henry Cook]

Perhaps the editor would do well to point out that while this is indeed a very important issue, Cameron has taken a far more constructive view than the previous leader to be faced with it.

When Duncan Smith confronted the adoption issue, he imposed a three-line whip, leading to the humiliating 'unite or die' press conference. Cameron has on the other hand promised a free vote, so that MPs such as Duncan Smith and Widdecombe can vote as they please. Equally, those who have strong views on gay rights can vote with their consciences. How is this a contentious position? There is no reason for this to be a party political issue - after all, even a Lib Dem backing the Catholic Church.

At least Cameron is allowing his MPs to vote according to their consciences rather than trying to dictate the line on an issue where many people have strong views.

[changetowin]

Exactly, Henry. But then the Editor of this site may well have been advising IDS at the terrible time you refer to. What a shame he seems to have learned nothing from it.

Michael, I've read the texts you're referring to. Perhaps you should read Barry's Culture and Equality, which is an eloquent liberal plea for equality under the law against multicultural arguments for group-based exclusions from laws.

[Denis Cooper]

Liberal conservative @ 10:46 - more correctly, Christian groups are arguing for an exemption UNDER the law, an exemption incorporated WITHIN the law, not an exemption FROM the law. Changetowin also seems to have difficulty grasping that while one law may be intentionally drafted to apply to all and not allow any exceptions from its provisions, another law may still apply to all but allow certain exceptions for specified individuals or groups. Take two contrasting examples.

The law to prevent the solicitation of murder was obviously deliberately written to be comprehensive. Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Section 4:

"Whosoever shall solicit, encourage, persuade or endeavour to persuade, or shall propose to any person, to murder any other person, whether he be a subject of her Majesty or not, and whether he be within the Queen's dominions or not, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for life."

There were no legal exemptions built into this law - nothing like:

"provided only that those who are of the Mohammedan or Moslem faith shall not be subject to prosecution or any other legal proceedings under this Section"

added on at the end - and if the police and CPS turn a blind eye to Muslims who solicit murder then they are being given an illegal exemption.

On the other hand, the police are allowed to break the speed limit if necessary not because they are above the law, or because they can act outside of the law, or because "there's one law for the police and another for the rest of us", or even because they have an exemption FROM the relevant law, but because they are specifically exempted UNDER that law:

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 - Section 87:

“No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for which it is being used on that occasion”

I don't see the problem with deliberately and transparently allowing exceptions within the law when there's a good case for doing so; I can see a lot of problems with the idea that there should never be any legal exemptions.