Within yesterday's Queen'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, responding to an intervention from Labour's Chris Bryant, David Cameron promised to "table an amendment to make sure that any such approach is about stopping people inciting violence and is not an infringement of free speech." The Conservative leader said more in last weekend's Observer in an exchange with Henry Porter 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 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 interest but that don't incite violence, that doesn't mean I want to legislate against them. This is a crucial part of my political philosophy and my belief in social responsibility. As Burke said, politicians should know when to give 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 restrict the freedom of Christians to say that, from their interpretation of the Bible, homosexual acts are sinful. The Christian Institute has produced a briefing setting out its concerns.
Matthew Parris has already raised doubts about the need for legislation. He recently wrote: We gays are not so weedy that we can’t take insults. 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 a letter to today's Times he writes:
"This “tick 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, will be in the detail, but the casual ease 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."
Handling the issue for the Conservatives will be our new Justice team. That includes Nick Herbert and David Burrowes. Nick is gay and David is an evangelical Christian. Between them we can hope that they will produce a response that protects gay people from hateful violence but also protects the freedom of Christians to follow traditional biblical teaching as they see it.
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 wrong time, why should the beaters of my third son be punished less than those of my first?
We can't legislate against hate 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."
Hate may usually be wrong (though we should presumably hate wickedness), but it would be horrifically oppressive to outlaw it.
Posted by: Andrew Lilico | November 07, 2007 at 09:25
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.
This law smacks of New Labour - pointless and ineffective legislation which gives the impression of solving a problem.
Posted by: Robert McIlveen | November 07, 2007 at 09:32
I thought David Cameron handled Chris Bryant's intervention very well. Although he was wise not to say so at that point, his desire to prevent incitement of violence against gays (or any other group for that matter) is already met by existing law.
This is yet another example of gesture legislation.
Posted by: Martin Wright | November 07, 2007 at 09:59
Assault is assault regardless of the excuses made and should be punished accordingly.
The whole "hate" industry seems to stem from some kind of middle class guilt about poking fun at people and is just used as an excuse to stop free speech and discourse in this country, typical of the stalinist nature of the nuLab project.
Posted by: Bexie | November 07, 2007 at 10:03
In some ways it is a pity that Labour's absurd religious hatred bill was dropped. It was clearly intended as a sop to Islam and would have forbidden an angry critique of that faith's sincerely-held belief that gays should be killed.
Now: to fantasy politics. If that bill were to be revived and the gay hatred provisions enacted, it would be delicious to watch the CPS flap in the event of a public spat between, say, the MCB and Outrage.
Posted by: Paul Oakley | November 07, 2007 at 10:23
I would like to see all "incitement to hatred" legislation repealed. Such laws are both ineffectual (successful prosecutions are rare - and the people who are prosecuted usually welcome prosecution), yet, paradoxically, oppressive, as the police can harass people for saying things that pressure groups find offensive, while stopping short of prosecution.
We have laws against the incitement of specific crimes, and they should be enforced, where necessary. Nothing more is needed.
Posted by: Sean Fear | November 07, 2007 at 10:44
Responding to Paul Oakley-there was a spat between Iqbal Sacrinie and a gay lobby group, which lead to both of them being investigated for homophobia and Islamophobia.
We ought to recognise that gays, like 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 patrol the streets and actually arrest criminals, the courts punish the criminals the police catch and the jails actually keep them in, we don't need token laws.
Posted by: Rob D | November 07, 2007 at 10:53
Quite right, Sean. Another of New Labour's crude attempts at "soft censorship" in its authoritarian quest to return this country to pre-Enlightenment. David Cameron put his points well: the left will always attempt to criminalise differences of opinion.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | November 07, 2007 at 10:58
If someone incites people to "kill 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 people from violence, so long as it does not impinge too heavily upon civil liberties and freedom of speech. Even 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.
Posted by: IRJMilne | November 07, 2007 at 10:59
David Cameron let the churches down very badly by choosing to force Catholic adoption agencies to close or put children in same-sex-headed families. I don't trust him on these issues. He'll toe the metropolitan line if things get difficult.
Posted by: Alan S | November 07, 2007 at 11:15
Wise words. What needs to be changed is societal attitudes and that cannot be achieved by legislation. As IRJMilne says, inciting murder or serious violence is already enough for a crime.
I can't help but think that these sorts of laws just create a "them and us" situation.
Mind you, I think it's indicative of Labour attitudes in general. Don't change anything, but bring in legislation and re-organise something to suggest something is being done.
Posted by: Michael Rutherford | November 07, 2007 at 11:16
Quite clearly we are seeing the Stalinite side of The Great Gordo. As the people have failed to support his project with the proper enthusiasm, failed to hail 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 commission? 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 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 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 Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
Or perhaps the last should be inverted, and we should reclaim government from the idiots and reinstall them back in the asylum.
Posted by: George Hinton | November 07, 2007 at 11:20
Existing legislation does cover these matters very well....provided that it is enforced of course. 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 debate 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 reintroduce the medieval blasphemy laws, although it is most unlikely that that legislation would have been enforced against critics of Christianity.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | November 07, 2007 at 11:24
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 school 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 backlash.
Why do they need to parade at all?
Posted by: Tony Makara | November 07, 2007 at 11:46
Rather than talk about political philosophy in the abstract sense, this post is a very good example of the key differential between a Modern Conservative Party and the Labour Government. Labour believe that to combat an issue of minor prejudice (major levels are already protected under law) they are willing to criminalise behaviour, curb individual rights and threaten 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 order 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.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | November 07, 2007 at 16:58
Oberon Houston, yes, you are right. Labour's inability to fine-tune any type of criminal legislation says much about their approach to politics in general. The fact is that Labour see the world in two dimensions, in black or white. There is never any room for interpretation.
Posted by: Tony Makara | November 07, 2007 at 17:23
It is actually more sinister than that. Labour (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 deem "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 flow of ideas: I hate what you say but I defend your right to say it (not to mention my right to disagree...vocally). This approach is entirely alien to the modern left and to some Tories.....which is why they are not and never have been liberal, for all their pretensions.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | November 07, 2007 at 17:32
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.
btw, which Tories do you think are anti-liberal? Widdecombe immediately springs to mind, but interested in other examples.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | November 07, 2007 at 17:56
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 have worked like termites in creating a social infrastructure within establish tiers of society. An intellectual fifth column, ready and primed to subvert at any given opportunity.
Posted by: Tony Makara | November 07, 2007 at 18:31
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, 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 attack then I will conside they point they make.
Instead, as with the goods and services bill, they raise hypotheticals to try and derail legislation even when their own behinds are covered by the law.
Posted by: Afleitch | November 07, 2007 at 19:52
I'm not a religous body and I oppose this bill. And I oppose all of these "special treatment" bills.
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 believe 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 position that we're in.
Posted by: IRJMilne | November 07, 2007 at 21:44
Handling the issue for the Conservatives will be our new Justice team. That includes Nick Herbert and David Burrowes. Nick is gay and David is an evangelical Christian. Between them we can hope that they will produce 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 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 Labour regulations that sought to force 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’ Will Mr Cameron promise to repeal or amend all such intolerant legislation to restore freedom of speech and conscience?
Posted by: Philip | November 08, 2007 at 00:33
It's good to see much general agreement on this issue. However Cameron's words belie his past actions, most notably in the field of 'gay' adoption.
This week Ann Widdecombe, talking about her forthcoming retirement from the Commons, expressed her concern about an increasing tendency within the Conservatiev hierarchy to insist on members toeing a Politically Correct 'party line'.
I might add that what is also obnoxious is that today's 'party line' is frequently the absolute reverse of the norm which prevailed in the past.
When I was active in the party 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 profile.
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.
If any Tory expresses disapproval of homosexual 'rights' his own right to free speech should receive full support from the party.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | November 08, 2007 at 07:50
When I was active in the party 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 profile.
Why should they have to? Would you expect left handed people to keep a 'low profile' in the party? Red-heads? People with grey eyes?
Posted by: Comstock | November 08, 2007 at 08:48
Why should they have to? Would you expect left handed people to keep a 'low profile' in the party? Red-heads? People with grey eyes?
I think you know the answer to that.
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 express 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 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.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | November 08, 2007 at 09:43
The reason that Labour are introducing this lind of legislative interference with our freedom may be (apart from their radical humanism) that they have so little scope to justify the existence of Westminster, after surrendering so much to Brussels & Holyrood.
Posted by: DAVID S FRASER | November 08, 2007 at 12:20
Traditional Tory said "Homosexual acts are sins"
They are indeed, TT, as stated in Lev. 18:22 .... thanks for reminding me, you are right and I was wrong.
Just a quick couple of others while you are here...
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 verse 2? That verse says he should be put to death. What type of execution should be used in a modern, compassionate society?
Finally Leviticus 19 verse 23-25 clearly forbids you from eating any fruit from trees planted less than 5 years ago. Does this include tomatoes?
Posted by: Comstock | November 08, 2007 at 13:48
"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 point they make."
Very many religious organisations did indeed oppose 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 level playing field", and that is all the protection that anyone merits.
This proposal does not create a level 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 race or religious belief (or sexual orientation or disability etc).
Thus individuals receive no special protection under this legislation, but only members of groups who claim victim status.
Posted by: Sean Fear | November 08, 2007 at 18:05
"Finally Leviticus 19 verse 23-25 clearly forbids you from eating any fruit from trees planted less than 5 years ago. Does this include tomatoes?"
No. Tomatoes aren't fruit.
"As this is an island nation, could you tell me which nations I can get my slaves from?"
Literally, it is "the nations around you". They don't have to form part of the same land mass. So France would be okay, as a source of slaves. Ireland would also qualify, although in that case, it does form part of the same land mass as part of the UK.
"That verse says he should be put to death. What type of execution should be used in a modern, compassionate society?"
Blogging wouldn't have been contemplated as a form of work when Exodus was written, so I think the Editor's okay.
Posted by: Sean Fear | November 08, 2007 at 18:17
"Literally, it is "the nations around you". They don't have to form part of the same land mass"
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 work 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.
"Blogging wouldn't have been contemplated as a form of work when Exodus was written, so I think the Editor's okay."
Good news for Tim. Much as we have our differences, I really didn't want to have to kill him.
Mind you I've just noticed the next verse of Exdous clearly states
"Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day".
I'm OK because I'm on electricity, but I fear for the soul of anyone with an open grate. Presumably this also precludes gas heating..........
Remember the word of the Lord is constant and unchanging. Amen.
Posted by: Comstock | November 08, 2007 at 19:05
“Remember the word of the Lord 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 like those in the posts above show God hates sin (not just one sin), but don’t we need 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 need. I wonder if the danger is only seeing the texts that condemn sin, while missing the Bible’s whole point: 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 agree the Ed is safe for blogging on Sundays!
Posted by: Philip | November 08, 2007 at 23:52
Thank God.
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 second 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.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | November 09, 2007 at 07:32
I wonder if the danger is only seeing the texts that condemn sin, while missing the Bible’s whole point: to show God’s mercy to all those who turn to Christ.
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 repent 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.
For a specifically Christian condemnation of homosexual practices one need only turn to Paul (Romans 1).
Posted by: Traditional Tory | November 09, 2007 at 08:21
(final one from me on homosexuality and religion)
For a specifically Christian condemnation of homosexual practices one need only turn to Paul (Romans 1).
Since when have Christians believed Paul to be the son of God?
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 turn out to be summat dead obscure like Zoroastainism. Leaving me not only facing eternal damnation, but having to share it with the god-bothers. :(
Posted by: Comstock | November 09, 2007 at 09:15
One does not have to be religious at all to find certain sexual practices, heterosexual as well as homosexual, personally distasteful.
And as I have said, in a free society one must be free to speak 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 fringe issue, very much the concern of the far left.
It seems that far left values have prevailed.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | November 09, 2007 at 09:51