Gay rights groups attack Tories for protecting right to make "temperate criticism" of homosexuality

Dominic Grieve - now the party's Justice spokesman - has this afternoon defended the amendment put down by former Home Secretary Lord Waddington .  The Waddington amendment - passed last year - states “for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred”.  Gay rights groups are up in arms, however.  Ben Summerskill of Stonewall accused the Conservatives of throwing "a bit of red meat for the Tory Right."

This was what Dominic Grieve said in the Commons earlier today:

"Mr Speaker, it wouldn’t be a New Labour justice Bill without some attempt to curtail freedom of speech. The balance between protecting society from incitement to homophobic hatred … and preserving legitimate public debate is a delicate one.

Agreement was reached on this particular question after prolonged debate in the other place last year. Words that incite violent hatred have no place in civilised society; temperate criticism should be permitted. I would remind the Secretary of State that he and his ministerial colleagues voted to accept the amendment that he now seeks to strike out.

That amendment came at the end of lengthy debate, in both houses, in which a variety of safeguards were put forward to try to achieve consensus in a difficult area. What can possibly have changed since we last debated, and settled, this matter?  There is not a shred of evidence to support the view that the saving clause introduced by Lord Waddington will prevent the new offence from being prosecuted successfully in those cases where it is justified.

After all, if the Government were really concerned about protecting gay people, they wouldn’t be amending last year’s legislation, they’d be implementing it.

Again all talk, no action. The only conceivable motivation for revisiting the question now … is the cheapest kind of party political posturing. We will resist this amendment."

Comments

[James Burdett]

Oh dear me. Surely it is right that if I as a gay man expect society to be tolerant of me that I am tolerant of those that hold an alternate point of view. The Law should protect me from being the victim of abuse, or violence resulting from incitement it should not protect me from any and every view that I simply do not like.

[Hugh Oxford]

It's not enough for some people that you tolerate their genital activity, you now have to not only refrain from criticising it, you actually have to applaud it.

The gay agenda, now in schools of all places, is a warning sign to those countries in the world contemplating decriminalising homosexuality of the consequences. It doesn't stop at staying out of the bedroom.

Thank goodness we have conservatives to stand up to the homosexual lobby.

[Norm Brainer]

Seems reasonable, although I'm sure if labour get their way then it'd be one rule for some and punishment for others, ie. Criticising straight people would be ok but not homosexuals, again making them appear like a segregated group of ab-normals that need protecting.
Stonewall aren't doing themselves any favours as they're feeding that image.

It also would mean you aren't allowed to be critical of your own actions which surely you must be able to do, whatever your actions or conclusions.

[comstock]

Just when I thought you were making progress on this issue.

Come on Tory people,don't let me down, please stand up to the homophoblic minority in your party.

Please?

You know you want to.....

[James Burdett]

Hugh Oxford - I find your comments to be bordering on the outrageous. There is a debate to be had about where the law should end and personal judgement begin in respect of homophobia and incitement. There are very very few people who would, as you seem to, suggest that homosexual practice should still be illegal and I find it somewhat offensive.

[A Cllr]

I'm gay. I'm a conservative. I'm a cllr.

Yet none of them define who I am.

I believe that if the government was really interested it would focus on implementing their legislation. Instead it is trying to cause rows that don't exist.

[T. England]

Hugh Oxford
Well said, & what more needs to be said?
I suppose something about the religious lot wanting to criticize, maybe!!!!

[Hugh Oxford]

There are very very few people who would, as you seem to, suggest that homosexual practice should still be illegal and I find it somewhat offensive.

Sarkozy and others have recently been trying to make the decriminalisation of homosexual acts a universal human right. They have met fierce resistance.

I am trying to point out what happens when you do. I was perfectly happy with the status quo ante the repeal of Section 28. Homosexuality was a private matter between individuals - the state only held an opinion on homosexuality insofar as to protect minors from it.

But it didn't stay in that box. This is quite probably why many states are reluctant to decriminalise it, for fear of where it might lead.

Conservatives have a fight on their hands to get it back in that box, to return it to the point where the balance between protecting the public good and the private sphere is correctly struck, to show the world that you can decriminalise homosexuality without normalising it.

[Julian Melford]

Thank God for a bit of common sense. We need a bill of rights ecouraging free speech. If some oversensitive little hitlers don't like it, then they should just develop a little tolerance?

[Tommy]

I don't understand why "conduct and practices" are included in this amendment. Surely it is legitimate to criticise sexual conduct, but specific sexual practices between consenting adults is a matter for them. I comes down to definitions but I would have thought that to criticise someone's sexual conduct (say for example promiscuity or unsafe sex) is legitimate, whoever they like to have sex with, but to criticise specific sexual practices between consenting adults is not. I suppose this is about the right of some elements in the churches to keep harping on about sodomy! It's time for us to face them down and for society to move on.

[IRJMilne]

Labour have only resurrected this issue to try and cause a bit of petty disruption. Mr Grieve has taken the right line on the issue.

Does comstock really think that criticising homosexual acts should be illegal? How about banning criticism of heterosexual adultery on the grounds that it might incite hatred against heterosexual adulterers?

[James Burdett]

Hugh Oxford - You really are a throwback to an age whose passing is unlamented. I find the barely disguised inferences in your comment offensive.

[StevenAdams]

Hugh: your comments are deeply offensive. I am not gay, but I would stress that your comments do not represent me.

Of course people should be able to discuss homosexuality, I'm not suggesting some kind of black out. Gay communities have social, employment, health and other issues like many minority groups, and sensible discussion is necessary... however, and I say this with great respect for Dominic Grieve who I think does a very good job, I think this amendment goes too far when talking about "urging of persons to refrain"... I understand the religious motivations, but it does send the wrong message about the Bill to me.

[Henry Mayhew - agenda bender]

Conservatives are highly unlikely to be able to 'hold the dyke' on this until they 'come out' with a refutation of the concepts of homophobia, racism, sexism etc.

Piecemal effort is doomed to failure in the context of cultural and legal surrender to the ideas of irrational and unfair mass victimisation.

[StevenAdams]

We should refute the concepts if sexism, racism, homophobia etc??? I don't understand, are you saying they don't exist?

[Henry Mayhew - homosapien]

I genuinely didn't know you are not gay Steven! Congratulations for taking this issue so seriously when it absolutely does not affect you.

Of course, just as you say to Hugh Oxford, I am sure you have found that very few people agree with your comments. In fact, far less than agree with Hugh, I'll wager.

[Martin Coxall]

Good on you, Grieve.

I am a gay man, and yet, I consider liberty to be a *tiny* bit more important than trying to pander to my sense of victimhood based on with whom I sleep.

Of course, the entire notion of "incitement to hatred" is absurd New Labour thought crime, and has no place on the statute books in any form. This is, at best, a sticking plaster for one of its more egregious wounds.

[Cleethorpes Rock]

I'm glad Hugh Oxford's views are falling out of favour in the party (at least I hope they are) In fact, methinks Hugh protesteth too much. If you're overcompensating Hugh, we understand; it's a common coping mechanism for repressed gays.

That said, in a free society, people should be able to criticise other people's lifestyles and choices as long as they're not inciting violence or breaching the peace. That counts equally if you're criticising gay people, conservative people, Muslim people, Christian people or socialist people. Dominic Grieve has this right so it's a shame it's being turned into some "Tories revert to gay-bashing" position, which it clearly isn't.

I also think that the best way to counter backward views such as Hugh Oxford's is for them to be challenged in the court of public opinion and shown up for how ridiculous they are.

[Norm Brainer]

Conservatives have a fight on their hands to get it back in that box, to return it to the point where the balance between protecting the public good and the private sphere is correctly struck, to show the world that you can decriminalise homosexuality without normalising it.

Hugh, you seem to be saying that laws that are wrong should be kept as the act of legalising something could cause problems.

the right thing should always be done and the default position should be you're free to do what you want unless it causes harm etc.

If there are problems with putting something right (not that there is or isn't in this case) then you deal with that rather than just leaving things wrong.

[RichardJ]

"Come on Tory people,don't let me down, please stand up to the homophoblic minority in your party."

Comstock, do you honestly believe that criticism of homosexuality is incitement to hatred? By that measure many of the posters on Liberal Conspiracy should be arrested for insulting religion.

This is not a homophobia issue, it is a free speech issue i.e. where to draw the line.

[anne allan]

Will this amendment apply to Muslim preachers?

[StevenAdams]

Henry: I make no comment about how many people agree (or not) with Hugh, merely that he doesn't represent me. Moreover, I'm genuinely interested to hear your justification for saying that the concepts of sexism, racism and homophobia don't exist... call it morbid fascination.

I largely agree with Cleethorpes, but there is a difference here, when discussing critisising/debating religion or political beliefs, in that homosexuality is not a belief system but instead is biological fact. Critisising homosexuality is no more valid than critisising blonde hair.

[David_at_Home]

Well, like it or not, I believe that homosexual acts are unnatural, unhealthy, undesirable and immoral. But, so also, is eating too much chocolate. In neither case are my views influenced by anything found in the Book of Leviticus.

So, my “Gay” friends, let us call a truce. You can do what you want behind closed doors and between consenting adults but please don’t seek or expect my approval. I should be equally free to express my disapproval of such behaviour and even to “discriminate” against you if I am so minded. So, for example, I should not be compelled to let a double bed to two men in my Highland B&B (if I have one) or be forced to hold receptions for “Gay Marriage” in my restaurant (if I have one). Acts of violence or incitement to violence against “Gays” or anyone else should of course be against the criminal law, as has been the case for centuries.

Now, please can we move onto something more important such as the economy, energy policy or the fourth Afghan war?

[StevenAdams]

(though that doesn't mean criticism should be illegal - it's just ludicrous)

[James Burdett]

StevenAdams - Indeed criticising homosexuality is a little silly, but I can understand the religious distinction that some would make in that they would say that homosexual activity is wrong whilst homosexuality is a biological fact.

[YMT]

What a daft thing to get up in "arms" about, surely the Gay lobby don't believe its OK to ban criticism? If so then they are totally out of order, the old adage "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." fully applies here.

I fully understand the laws against people who incite other to violence, murder etc as that's inexcusable and should be punished, but criticism? No.

[StevenAdams]

David at home:

I suppose that's valid, as long as you don't mind being refused entry to b&b's, restaurants and other businesses for supporting UKIP. I mean, you wouldn't mind being 'discriminated' against either, would you?

[resident leftie]

"His amendment to the offence of using threatening language with intent to stir up hatred on grounds of sexual orientation said that urging someone to change their sexuality should not count "of itself" as threatening or as intended to stir up hatred."

Should urging black people to have their skin whitened because God doesn't like their colour have a special opt out in the race relations bill?

The cases that this silly magazine have come up with are a tissue of nonsense. The law seems to have functioned adequately in every case. The racial hatred act has worked just fine without a Trojan horse packed with religious bigotry.

[Tony the Tory]

Why should someone who doesn't approve of homosexuality be denied the right to express their opinion?

This isn't a licence to hurl abuse or threaten anyone. It is simply a reasonable attempt to protect freedom of speech and the right to debate.

[StevenAdams]

James Burdett: I suspect that this all arises out of the necessity to give the church the room to teach as it always has, and I've no problem with that. Criticism, religious beliefs and so on will happen as part of free speech; however, I do find the insertion of a 'we're allowed to ask you to refrain' clause as a mixing of messages. Incitement if hatred has been illegal for a long time, and so what value is this Bill attempting to add?

Ps. I'm getting blummin annoyed by all this 'it's fine behind closed doors'... as if the authors believe themselves to be modern!

[Stewart]

A Cllr I agree with you in that the govt is using this as an issue to try and bring out the 'nasty' in the Conservatives to improve labour's poll ratings but the rows do exist. A couple of years ago a journalist appearing on a radio five live programme stated her belief that homosexual people should not be allowed to adopt children in a debate on that topic. A listener complained about the view that she expressed and the very next day the thought police (Two uniformed officers) were despatched to the journalist's home to interview her about the opinions she expressed on the show. If this isn't bullying and the repression of free speech at the behest of a vocal minority then I do not know what is. Dominic Grieve is displayiing the kind of attention to detail in reviewing labour legislation that has been sadly lacking in Parliament for a long time.

[James Burdett]

StevenAdams - Yeah I think the 'behind closed doors' thing is pretty grim. I get the impression that what they mean is that as long as they can't see it they can pretend it isn't happening.

[Strawberries and Bananas]

"...when discussing critisising/debating religion or political beliefs, in that homosexuality is not a belief system but instead is biological fact. Critisising homosexuality is no more valid than critisising blonde hair.

Well as luck would have it, I happen be gay and have also been blessed with ginger hair, both of which have been criticised in equal measure. Not that it particularly bothers me however.
My personal view is the typical case of "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it." I'm capable of ignoring people who don't particularly 'agree' with homosexuality, but if people are forcibly restricted in what they can and can not criticise, then doesn't this just make things worse? It stifles genuine debate.

British society and civility is built up on the social function which is debate. We shouldn't cower behind a fear that we may not like what we hear. We should stand up and counter the argument, we are British after all. It's what we do.

Gordon Brown tries to come up with ways of unifying the nation, "British Day" and the like just doesn't work. The one thing that does unify us as British people is debate and freedom of speech, yet ironically it is this which is being taken away.

[Stewart]

Correction to previous post: Should read
"supression of free speech"

[Tom FD]

Anne, are there currently laws against inciting violence towards homosexuals? If there are, then I don't suppose so.

[David_at_Home]

Well, Steven Adams, Michael Howard called us Gadflies and Mr Cameron accused us of being fruitcakes and closet racists. Also the Tory party would not let my join if I wished to do so since I belong to a rival party.

I care not!

[StevenAdams]

James: absolutely.

Strawberries: absolutely. However, I wasn't aware there was an issue with discussing peoples' beliefs and where they come from... my gripe is with the urging people to refrain bit... I treasure free speech, and wouldn't agree with much of this Justice Bill, but I just don't understand this particular clause.

[Terry]

Encouraging signs here of Conservative backbone and standing up against political correctness, and for the freedom to stand up for traditional moral codes.

[Adam in London]

I'm a bit torn over this to be honest. One on the one hand I can't help but feel that the Waddington amendment feels deliberately wide, but in so doing creates a loophole in the law. On the other hand, maybe that's necessary when your writing hate-speech legislation.

Ho hum. Ultimately though I think it matters more that such things being said be political and social suicide rather than a criminal offence.

And so to the comments received so far. I don't really understand what Hugh Oxford's problem with 'normalisation' is? Are we to believe that there are thousands (or maybe millions) of Britons who would live happy heterosexual lives if only we could hide all the homosexuals from them? Are we gay men and women suspected of recruiting 'new members'? Would any heterosexuals on here like to take a guess at how much exposure to homosexuals it would take for them to alter their own sexual orientation?

Maybe the normalisation is actually a good thing, and a healthy thing. I have in mind the historically high suicide rates of young gays and lesbians attributed to their (at times very justifiable) fears of ostricisation and rejection by their families.

I happen to think that we were right not to stop at simply legalising homosexuality and equalising the age of consent. Service in the military, adoption and marriage (called civil partnership) were good things to adopt for homosexuals, because they are good things for everyone. The military needs good men and women; children need good homes and parents; and people and society need good stable partnerships. The world is not a heterosexuals only club.

[Afleitch]

I find it alarming that religion, with it's 'wall of protection' in law extended by the current government, can still, at least disretely get in the way when it comes to protecting the rights of others. I'll be prepared to sit and talk about freedom of expression the day blasphemy and other laws that protect religion from criticism are overturned.

[David_at_Home]

I find myself in total agreement with the views expressed by Strawberries and Bananas @ 23.46. Maybe I could be friends with him/her even if I did not agree with everything he/she does, as is almost universally the case between friends.

I am now bored with this issue. Please can we retain our freedom of speech and stop trying to introduce ever more thought crimes? It is so un-British!

[Will S]

Where I come from about half of the Conservative association is gay. I'd rather we didn't lose the support of half of our active members thank you very much.

Having said that, there must be a level of free speech in this country. Not only for homosexuality, but also for immigration and other more controversial topics. I just wish that we could associate the right to say something with a responsibility not to do so.

[RichardJ]

"Should urging black people to have their skin whitened because God doesn't like their colour have a special opt out in the race relations bill?"

Is saying that illegal? It's a nasty thing to say but it's hardly incitement to violence.

[Tom FD]

Afleitch, I seem to recall the Tories opposed the almost identical "incitement of religious hatred" bill which pertained to criticism of religion. The blasphemy laws have not been enforced in decades and should probably be formally chucked out.

[Mr Angry]

What is right and proper is that Gay people should be protected from violence, hatred and active discrimination due to their sexuality. What is also right and proper is that free speech should also be protected and that so long as it does not actively solicit violence, hatred or abuse people must be left free to voice their views whether the Labour party or any pressure group agree with those views or not.

[Adrian Butterworth]

In any proper, free country it would be the homosexual groups being attacked for their disgusting totalitarianism. But not here. Not in ex-Great Britain.

[Jono]

Nonsense.

I admit. Freely: I'm nearly gay

(more a bit of both, technically. You know, girls and boys - not always together).

And aside from my irregular heavy drinking, though always unwisely heavy, it's had absolutely no impact on my political awareness whatsoever.

I have always been capable of making a serious choice when the time comes, regardless of my rounded sexuality, between one party and...the other one.

I will always vote.

[Lib Dem Member]

Apart from being a thought crime its also a desperate attempt at bringing a wedge issue into British politics. Labour know the game is up so they are falling back on the worst sort of identity politics in hope a few nutters will foam at the mouth.

From the look of some fo these comments they have got what they wanted.

[TomTom]

Ben Summerskill of Stonewall

A little more editorial accuracy is in order

Ben Jeffrey Peter Summerskill OBE (born 6 October 1961) is the Chief Executive of the UK-based Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual equality organisation Stonewall, now the largest gay equality body in Europe. He has a lesbian twin sister, Clare, who is a performer.[1]

Educated at Cobden Road Infants School, Amherst County Primary School, Sevenoaks School and Merton College, Oxford, where he was an Exhibitioner (holder of a junior scholarship) but which he left after two years without taking a degree, just like his future employer and journalistic mentor Sir Max Hastings. (Hastings was also an Oxford Exhibitioner, at University College, for two years until he left "to get on with life".) Summerskill evidently disliked Oxford. He later wrote in the Guardian: "I still recall being struck dumb on being shown, as an undergraduate, a note from an Oxford tutor to a successful candidate's father: 'Many thanks for lunch, and the trip in the Rolls.' "

He first went into the restaurant trade. He was Operations Director from 1987 to 1990 with Kennedy Brookes, a publicly-quoted hospitality company, responsible for 300 staff and an £18m turnover at the age of 26. Becoming a journalist in 1990, he rose to the position of Assistant Editor of The Observer newspaper which he joined in 2000 after having worked for the Daily Express under editor Rosie Boycott, the London Evening Standard under editor Max Hastings, and other magazines.

Summerskill was a Labour councillor for the Westbourne Ward of Westminster City Council from 1994 to 1998.

His grandmother (Baroness) Edith Summerskill and his aunt (Dr) Shirley Summerskill were both Labour Members of Parliament and government ministers. Edith Summerskill, a former Chairman of the UK Labour Party

[Bishop Hill]

One minor criticism. Intemperate criticism of homosexuality is also acceptable. Ranting and raving and screaming of abuse at homosexuals is acceptable.

Stupid, I grant you. But still acceptable.

[pp]

Are homosexual campaining organisations allowed to criticise Tories - surely they would do no such thing -- oh they just did...

I don't think it is anyones elses business what consenting adults do among themselves -however, I do expect the same level of respect to be extended back to what I do/think.

So what always gets up my nose is campaining organisations telling *me* what I can and cant do/think, and trying to get laws past to enforce their own prejudice.

[DCMX]

Thanks for that bio on Summerskill TomTom. Illuminating.

[Conspiracy]

Personaly I oppose the right of gay men to sodomise 16 year old schoolboys; should I be allowed to express that or not?

[Peter Ould]

Clause 29JA of the CJA (1986 - amended) exists at the moment partially as a recognition of the position of several faiths towards homosexual activity. If you take a conservative reading of the Bible then you cannot come away with an understanding that Scripture has not a lot of good things to say about *all* sex outside of marriage of a man and a woman.

What 29JA does is allow myself as a Church of England Priest to teach openly that sex outside of marriage, including the particular case of sex between two people of the same sex, is sinful. It permits me when having pastoral conversations to do the same, and it permits me to do so in a wide range of public media. It does *not* permit me to say that homosexually oriented are evil or intrinsically bad. It does not permit me to incite any form of violence against someone just because they commit a certain sexual act which I disapprove of, and nor should it.

And this is all particularly pertinent to me because as a former homosexual, talking about sex and sexual identity and God's will for people's lives is an increasing part of my daily work. The removal of 29JA has serious consequences for free speech and the ability to express deeply held convictions, and even to simply share one's own personal story. I have received legal advice that were Clause 29JA removed, there is a danger that I could be prosecuted simply for telling my life story, because someone in the audience might take offence at what I say on the grounds of their homosexual orientation.

Surely we are a society where we can tolerate the opinions of others, even if we think they are wrong? Unlike many of my socially conservative colleagues, I'm not trying to fight the culture wars of the 80s. I have no wish to bring back Section 28 or repeal Civil Partnerships. But for some that seems not to be good enough. For some they will only be satisfied when it becomes illegal for me to even dare to suggest that how they choose to live their lives is not how God wants them to.

Surely such a state of affairs would have nothing to do with being a liberal society and everything to do with the enforcement of a particular world view, the very thing this nation has fought against in two bloody world wars?

Peter+

[Conspiracy]

Remember we are living in Labour's Animal Farm where all men are equal but some are are more equal than others.

[The Bishop swine]

Despite all of the "progress" that has been made in the area of Gay rights, a very few still want to force their life style choice on us and remove our right to comment. I have always been supportive of the right of others to "do what they will", but that has also never stopped me pointing out the pit falls of their behaviour were appropriate.

I do note that despite all of Labours and the Gay communities efforts to change the deep seated prejudices against the Homosexual that our Children are still very vocal in their teasing of the gay. Of course most of these jokes are now good natured. As an example my son asked me this the other day
Q :
"what do gay children do in the evening"
A:
"Their Homo-work"

Do we really want to gag everyone? Is it still OK for a church Pastor (as an example) to suggest that homosexuality is a sin?

Adrian Butterworth is absolutely right when he says: "In any proper, free country it would be the homosexual groups being attacked for their disgusting totalitarianism. But not here. Not in ex-Great Britain."

We really do need to rid ourselves of the PC straitjacket, and return to our Fair minded and Liberal British way of doing things. These attacks on freedom of speech and conscience must be ended.

[Hugh Oxford]

I'm glad Hugh Oxford's views are falling out of favour in the party (at least I hope they are) In fact, methinks Hugh protesteth too much. If you're overcompensating Hugh, we understand; it's a common coping mechanism for repressed gays.

No, I'm just a conservative. I believe in marriage and the family. I believe in opposing the demoralisation of society through transgressive and counter-cultural agendas. That's all. That's what conservatives do. That's what conservatism IS.

[resident leftie]

Posted by: RichardJ | January 27, 2009 at 00:58

"Should urging black people to have their skin whitened because God doesn't like their colour have a special opt out in the race relations bill?"

Is saying that illegal? It's a nasty thing to say but it's hardly incitement to violence.

Under certain circumstances it could be, but no, I'm saying you do not need a special opt out in order to be able to say it.

The homophobic special pleading about free speech is a shibboleth. The Human Rights Act (which you no doubt oppose) guarantees freedom of expression. The Bill is designed to protect gay people, not stop people making homophobic comments.

There have been

Posted by: Conspiracy | January 27, 2009 at 09:19

Personaly I oppose the right of gay men to sodomise 16 year old schoolboys; should I be allowed to express that or not?

Yes. You and thousands of other bigots did so, unsuccesfully. Presumably, you don't mind straight men "sodomosing" 16-year-old school girls?

As Summerskill said, there have been 30 prosecutions in 20 years for incitement to racial hatred. These include a man calling for the murder of American and Danish people during a demonstration in London and Abu Hamza. There was also an unsuccesful attempt to prosecute Nick Griffin, that BNP idiot.

The most important proection is that you have to have intention to be prosecuted for hate crimes.

[Julian L Hawksworth]

A predictable response from the so-called, "gay" lobby. Just another self-interest group, with no worthy aims!

[David Bouvier]

Lets move away from various peoples views of homosexuality, and look at the amendment.

This is not abstract. You may recall that some chap who I personally would probably not like very much made a short comment about homosexuality being "wrong" on the Today Programme and for that was subject to a police investigation.

The candle of liberty gutters and dims a little more

The key phrase is "of itself" - there is no further protection for speech, it merely prevents the expression of a thought itself being criminalised.

That to me is the right boundary, it is a grey one in practice, like all incitement/hatred laws - but that is what courts are for.

Does anyone here actually want to argue that the quiet and polite expression of a unpleasant viewpoint should criminalised?

[Bexie]

I am a conservative, and gay.

The choice of bed partner does not preclude me from wanting free speech, freedom of choice of employment, home and company or of a liberal free market economy. Guess that explains why I am a conservative.

Incidently, Gay Rights organisations should be wary of confusing lewd behaviour with the right to be gay.

[comstock]

Comstock, do you honestly believe that criticism of homosexuality is incitement to hatred?

Yes, I do.

"Does comstock really think that criticising homosexual acts should be illegal?"

Yes, he does.

"How about banning criticism of heterosexual adultery on the grounds that it might incite hatred against heterosexual adulterers?"

Totally irrelevant. Fidelity has nothing to do with sexuality, there are homosexual adulterers, and homosexuals who are faithful to their civil partners, just as in the hetro world......

[resident leftie]

Comstock's personal views are not in any way reflected in this law.

[Mary O'Boyle]

I,ve no problem with sexual orientation Just wish everybody would shut up about and keep it to themselves

[Sally Roberts]

The great Edwardian actress Mrs Patrick Campbell put it beautifully when she said that she didn't care what anyone did - just so long as they didn't do it in the street and frighten the horses! That is my view too.

[Julian L Hawksworth]

I understand what you mean, Sally. However, we all know what certain people get up to in public parks at night etc. Is that not sufficient to, "frighten the horses!", as you put it?

[Sally Roberts]

Yes, Julian it would "frighten the horses" but that is irrespective of whether it is two chaps or a chap and a girl. Makes no iota of difference who the "Dramatis Personae" are - only the actions of the Play!

[comstock]

Final thoughts on this thread from me-

You might be surprised to find I agree with the socially conservative wing of your party on a fair bit, more so than the Thatcherite free market faction. On crime, on traditional education, on families.

However I want to see a world where homophobia is as unacceptable as racism.

A man cannot choose his sexuality anymore than he can choose the colour of his skin- indeed it's no better to be straight than gay than it is better to be white than black.

To your credit, you kick racists out of your party Isn't it time you did the same with homophobes?

[Adam in London]

Julian,

do you mean those celebrity footballers who go 'dogging' with the girlfriends?

Actually, incidence of cottaging and looking for sex in public parks is a rather old-fashioned view of gay life, associated with men who are hiding their sexuality (remember Larry Craig the Senator from Idaho, or Ron Davies the Welsh Secretary) - ie the ones who are so desperate to keep it out of your face. It's a symptom of repression, not a reason for it. Those of us who are more open about ourselves prefer to meet people in more conventional ways.

[The Bishop swine]

"I,ve no problem with sexual orientation Just wish everybody would shut up about and keep it to themselves"

Exactly right, let the good Lord sort out the "issue's". Heterosexuals tend to multiply, whilst the Gay's do not. That's a fair assessment of natural law.

[John Marsh]

"If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear" George Orwell in his unused Preface to Animal Farm, later printed as "The Freedom of the Press".

[The Bishop swine]

We should be free to debate what we like there should be no "out of bounds" issues.As long as the fundamental human right to do as you will remains in place, nobody has anything to fear from discussion. What I want is an end to is this stiffeling PC mindset that attempts to criminalises some viewpoints. As long as it is simply words we should be able to thrash it out among ourselves. The emergence of thought crimes is a very worrying trend of the left wing.

[resident leftie]

Posted by: comstock | January 27, 2009 at 17:31

A man cannot choose his sexuality anymore than he can choose the colour of his skin- indeed it's no better to be straight than gay than it is better to be white than black.

To your credit, you kick racists out of your party Isn't it time you did the same with homophobes?

"They can't help it" is not an argument for homosexuals to be recognised. Even if it were a choice, it should make no difference to anyone else what a person's sexuality is.

[Steve Foley]

We have sold the pass too far in preventing people from expressing an honest opinion in reasonable language. I hate to say this but Orwell's Thought Police seem to be as active amongst some so-called Conservatives as they are in Labour - where one would expect them given the dirigist and authoritarian nature of that party.

Now if someone says "I consider homosexual acts to be unnatural or sinful" that is a fair opinion. Whether some consider this opinion offensive or not is neither here nor there.

However of someone were to incite violence against homosexuals or use deliberately insulting words, that is a different matter.

Lord Waddington (one of the better Tory Home Secretaries unfortunately axed by Major) is merely trying to redress the balance and to my mind standing up for some Conservative Principles that have been conveniently ditched by the Cameroons and their dilettante friends in their all things to all men approach.

[Martin Wright]

Resident leftie @11.11

"The most important proection is that you have to have intention to be prosecuted for hate crimes."

Not true at least for racial hatred. There are two possibilities for the CPS. They either prove intention (as you said). But this is difficult in the abscence of a confession OR if they can't prove intention, they can argue that the statement etc "was likely in all the circumstances to incite hatred".

So unlike most criminal cases, which turn on facts, hate crime can often depend on opinion. One set of jurors might think "likely therefore guilty" another set might, on the same facts, come to the opposite conclusion.

[Martin Wright]

I generally agree with those supporting Lord Waddington's amendment. I certainly don't want homosexuals to be insulted or attacked, but Labour's laws are just gesture politics. The existing law has a balance between allowing free criticism and deterring violence. Cricism is not hatred.

Comstock and others before him have argued that a homosexual cannot change his nature any more than a preson can change his race.And that equivalent protection against hatred is needed as in the case of race. I'm not sure that that is logically correct.

Clearly a black person cannot change his race. Therefore it is wrong to criticise, insult or disadvantage him because of it.

But human beings have free will, therefore they can control their behaviour. They can choose whether to do anything whether it be alcohol consumption, food consumption or following their own sexual inclinations. I know it is extremely difficult, but Catholic teaching was (is still?) that a homosexual is called to celebacy. Yes extremely difficult to resist one's inclinations,but it is not impossible. Old fashioned gay-inclined celebate Christians do exist. I've met a few over the years.

Most gays won't welcome this traditional religious message and it's their right to ignore it. But I don't think it's their right to ban it, simply on the grounds that it is an unwelcome message

I mention other behaviours above, such as over-eating. Why will it be criminal to criticise homosexual behaviour but not-criminal to criticise or mock fat people?

Where will it all end?

When will we all grow up and accept that sometimes people will say things that are offensive to us?

[Adam in London]

You are free to state your opinion, but remember that I am free to denounce you for it.

[Cllr Alexa Michael]

This is essentially an issue of freedom of speech, which is under attack in New Labour's Britain as never before.

The corollary of free speech is that sometimes people will express views that other people will find offensive. You cannot legislate this out of existence, nor should you try.

From the comments made by some sensitive individuals on this blog, you would think that Lord Waddington is saying that homosexuals should be burned to death (as declared by a certain individual whom Ken Livingstone embraced not so long ago). It merely says that people should have the right to make 'temperate criticism' of homosexuality without fear of prosecution.

However, I will say that homosexuality can never be considered to be the 'norm'. If it was, the human race would have died out long ago. I am probably not the best person to say this as I have no children myself, but it is a FACT.

[Martin Wright]

Adam in London @ 22.58

Interesting that you don't say "disagree", "criticise" or "argue with" but rather "denounce".

Shades of the worst excesses of the French Revolution or Stalin's Russia.

I don't know whether your comment was addressed to me. If so would you care to explain where I was wrong?

[Hugh Oxford]

When will we all grow up and accept that sometimes people will say things that are offensive to us?

But surely when people have come to expect the state to do everything for them, it's only a matter of time before stopping hurt feelings joins that list?

There are people who genuinely want the offending of homosexuals to be a crime. Incredible but true.

[Prentiz]

Is it just me, or does there seem to be a correlation between supporting UKIP and not liking gay people?

[Robert Eve]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN

[The bishops wife]

"Is it just me, or does there seem to be a correlation between supporting UKIP and not liking gay people?" There are plenty of gay people in ukip. Of course they do tend to be the celibate gay type more often than the active. This is becuse UKIP members tend to be butt ugly. :-) (wink)

[dp damato]

Freedom of speech is the essential right - no other right comes close. Once a society places limits on speech it is no longer a free society. Once limits on speech are accepted, then the point of no return has been crossed. The argument should always be in favor of more speech. You do not have a right to not be offended. If a person engages in hate speech - that is his burden. If someone is the object of that speech, then it is incumbent upon that person to use more speech to counter his message. A grown up, mature society will soon get used to extreme speech and pay it no mind. Great Britain of all places should never give in to this Stalinist impulse to regulate speech. The Conservatives should fiercely resist this.