News
Christian fundies ecstatic over Lord’s ruling
THERE’S so much glee over at the Christian Institute this week you’d think Jesus Christ himself had swept through its doors, sashayed around their offices, blown them all kisses … and turned their Lucozade into Lambrusco.
Nah. Didn’t actually happen – and it never will. But the loons who run the CI – and a bunch of their creepy bedfellows scattered throughout the land – got the next best thing: the all-clear from a clot of dinosaurs in the House of Lords who have said that it’s really, really OK for Christian zealots to tell gays that they are all miserable deviants who will have their sinful butts barbecued for all eternity in the flames of Hell.
Lord Waddington
Man, it was like having all their Xmasses come at once.
What happened to get the zealots moist around their gussets was this:
Yesterday the Government was forced to accept Tory Peer Lord Waddington’s “free speech” clause which says that criticising homosexual conduct is not, in itself, a crime.
An offence of inciting hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation was introduced by the Government last year, but the “free speech” defence, strongly opposed by the House of Commons, was inserted by former Home Secretary Waddington.
Simon Calvert, Deputy Director (Public Affairs) at the CI, called it a “victory for common sense”, which is rather rich coming from a representative of a religion that’s about as distant from common sense as I am from Uranus.
He said:
After many well known cases involving heavy handed policing of Christians, Parliament has decided to protect free speech. The free speech clause simply makes clear that which the Government has always accepted – that criticism of homosexual conduct is not, in itself, a crime. Surely that is a reasonable safeguard in any democratic society that cares about freedom of expression. This is a victory for common sense.
The free speech clause, first tabled by Lord Waddington, had been the subject of several to-and-fro votes in Parliament.
The Government had said the clause was not necessary but church leaders and others insisted that recent cases of police investigating Christians for criticising homosexual practices showed that the clause was needed.
The latest round of votes took place this week with MPs voting to delete the clause on Monday and Peers voting to keep it.
Peers supported the clause by 179 votes to 135. In the House of Commons yesterday the Justice Secretary Jack Straw accepted the Lords vote.
A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said the government was “very disappointed” at the Lords vote, adding:
There is no doubt about the threshold of this offence. No ‘freedom of expression’ section is needed to explain it. The threshold is a high one. The offence only covers words or behaviour that are threatening and intended to stir up hatred.
But she added the government could no longer delay the passage of the Coroners Bill.
It is with considerable disappointment, therefore, that the government has agreed not to remove the ‘freedom of expression’ section.
Frankly, I’m rather pleased too that the fundies won this battle. Their comical capers give us so much to giggle at – particularly when they’re off at full steam about homosexuality – and an absence of these twats would make this blog far less fun to maintain.
Incidentally, Waddington demonstrated his own clownishness, and with it a complete absence of biological nouse, when, in 2000, he asked the House of Lords in a debate about Section 28:
Who cannot see, from their knowledge of anatomy, that sodomy is an unnatural act?
Waddington immediately added:
Of course, it is wrong to be intolerant of homosexuality.
This, wrote the Guardian’s Simon Hoggart in a splendid piece, provoked:
That rarest of sounds in the peers’ chamber – sarcastic laughter.
30 responses to “Christian fundies ecstatic over Lord’s ruling”
Related
News Thu 21 May
Artist on trial for criticising politicians
It appears to me, that when religious groups start discussing human sexuality, it always seems to become a race to the bottom…
I am personally not a fan of legislating against speech.
Open debate hinges upon the ability to freely express one’s thoughts and ideas and in turn have them freely criticised in turn and exposed as hogwash.
If the intent on inhibiting free speech is to prevent attack on ANY minority group be it a minority by race, religion, sexual orientation etc then it is a natural redundancy.
As far as I understand it its already an offence to advocate physical assualt against another human being. Its already an offence to subject another human being to intimidation / threatening behaviour / assualt etc.
I can’t imagine the need for new legislation to do the job existing legislation should be doing.
Ergo, in my (fallible) opinion such legislation can only be designed to innoculate an intended group against criticism of any sort.
I’d rather see legislation pass to enable freedom to criticise ALL groups (particularly religious groups as it happens) who seem more and more to rely on playing the “I’m offended” card to prevent open discussion of an ideology with no evidencial substance behind it.
At least the homosexual community have scientific studies behind them to hold up and counter bigoted views that homosexuality is some sort of lifestyle choice or the result of an abused childhood.
Really the world needs to grow up.
p.s. nice gag rog, forgot to doff my cap in my original post!
Strange how the christians, and their chums in House of Lords, always complain about sex between two men, but are generally quiet about two women doing the same – do they protest too much?
I’m all for free speech even when bigoted religious groups moan about gays, but it is a fine line between “freedom of expression” and stirring up hatred. As long as freedom of expression cuts both ways and allows me the right to call religious belief a mental illness and the religious bigoted morons, that is OK with me.
Surely there have been few politicians who have attained high office in recent times who have proved as inept as Jack Straw. (That is, if you exclude the likes of Jacqui Smith, David Miliband, Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper, Alan Johnson – well, you get my drift, but Jack IS supposed to be an experienced MP!) What on earth was the point of this battle with the Lords? There is a “free speech” clause in the law covering religious hatred which allows “discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions (and) the beliefs or practices of their adherents”, yet this stupid government couldn’t see that it would be like a red rag to a bull to the barmpots not to allow them this same freedom of speech with regard to homosexuality! Words almost fail me (but not quite, as usual!!)
BTW Did you all watch Jack Straw squirming in his seat on Question Time, looking for all the world as if he’d rather be a million miles away, and also see the hilarious cartoon in Private Eye the following week: “Useless”: “Really shows up the party”: “Empty, hopeless”: “Poor old Jack Straw”!
BTW (Part the second): “Who cannot see, from their knowledge of anatomy, that the wearing of hearing aids is an unnatural act? Even a child knows that it is extremely dangerous, to say nothing (although I will) of being against the laws of nature to insert any object smaller than the elbow into one’s auditory orifice. Of course, I have nothing against those unfortunate people who feel obliged to abuse their bodies in this foul manner, but any reasonably intelligent person can see that the ear was clearly designed for the purpose of…” (continues in same vein until Parliament is dissolved, or the men in white coats appear, whichever is the sooner.)
In case it needs to be said, the following are natural acts:
Non-reproductive sex urges, including homosexuality, are a part of nature’s way of restricting population growth. But for the liberal application of fertility treatments and anti-gay pressures, including laws where they exist, the world’s population crisis might never have happenned.
Sadism is nature’s way of getting help to those in pain by making them more attractive to a specific subset of the human race who can assist them.
Masochism is a natural urge to find friends when in pain. For instance in nature an animal with a wounded leg might seek out a mate who could protect them until they were well enough to seduce.
All of these have recently been labelled as unnatural and dangerous by know-it-all lawmakers. Granted there is some suspension of disbelief involved in all of them, but that’s true for mainstream heterosexual sex also. Unless you actively intend to make a baby, sex is lying to yourself, in a way that’s a lot of fun.
Oh, and as for people who lambast homosexuality because anal sex is unsafe, well let’s just say that having anal sex does not make you gay and being gay does not mean you will ever engage in anal sex.
Anyway, I propose we respond by starting a movement to ban the missionary position because it encourages rape. Just look at it, the man pins the woman to the bed and gets on with things.
Is this basically about Christian Fundamentalists’ right to call homosexuality a sin? If so, I agree that they should have that right.
@Angela,
Is there not already legislation in place regarding “incitement to violence”?
Why stick a special label on it and put the same law in place 8 times over for every group that feels they need special representation?
Every individual is bound by the same laws not to intimidate / threaten / abuse or assault his fellow humans.
Seems there’s a lack of trust at a basic level that individuals can be responsible for their own actions.
A leader of a group / sect / political body / reliogion or other congregation who advocates or condones violence against another human being in a public arena (regardless of provocation) is already guilty of incitement to violence – an existing offence.
As for this proposal re: sex between two men or two women, I’ve seen nothing to suggest there’s an issue of discrimination between gay men or gay women.
I suppose the only consolation is that if any fundamentalist manages to breed in the first place they’re fucking stupid
Personally, I think we win either way. In this day, age and nation, who does bigoted pulpit rants against people who happen to be exclusively or partly attracted to the same sex ultimately reflect badly on?
Mike ‘Lord be thy’ Judge has always struck me as amusingly frustrated and sensitive about the portrayal of Christians as anti-gay despite this being his group’s fervent stance on the subject. A near-perfect example was when the CI complained about Dot’s stiff-lipped reaction to seeing two men kiss on a bench in EastEnders. So, homosexuality is something to be condemned by Christians… only Christians mustn’t be portrayed as the condemning type!
Also, the more they applaud and push for these safeguards to protect abrasive freedom of speech that is likely to offend a certain body of people, the harder it will be for them to grizzle about another kind of controversial freedom of expression – blasphemy.
Opemind re discrimination between gay men or gay women.
OK this from the USA but do a search and you’ll find studies including this:- http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=14920
And this [American spelling]:-
2007: 1,460 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias were reported by law enforcement agencies. Of these offenses:
• 59.2 percent were classified as anti-male homosexual bias.
• 24.8 percent were reported as anti-homosexual bias.
• 12.6 percent were prompted by an anti-female homosexual bias.
• 1.8 percent were the result of an anti-heterosexual bias.
• 1.6 percent were classified as anti-bisexual bias.
Time to abolish the House of Lords as quickly as possible seeing as it’s full of the unelected Bishops and these old bigots like Lord Waddington.
As for the Christian Institute… they need to change their name to the Thought Police with a new motto “Thou shalt not think and follow the book of bronze age fairy tales written by goat molesting semitic baffoons”.
Yet again..but hopefully not for long…these christianoturds are allowed to carry on their hatred and promotion of violence to minorities.
Mikespeir… if you’re going to talk about sin and following the bibble (intentional spelling mistake) then I hope you don’t eat prawns and lock your wife up for 5 days every month when she’s unclean ? How much are you selling your daughter into slavery for ??
Better confess my ignorance first. Until I read this piece, and the splendid comments of Simon Hoggart, I had never heard of Lord Waddington and, on this basis, I don’t think I have missed much. I don’t know who Dale Winton is either.s
The sooner we get rid of this unelected bunch of self regarding, dressed up, ego maniacs the better. All this shite about “My noble Lord this and my noble Lord that.” And right there are the “bishops” sticking their noses into all kinds of festering foulness which they happen to support- e.g. keeping dying people alive and in agony to meet with some daft doctrinal superstition.
As for Waddos bit about anatomy you really have to wonder where he is living. Does he think hetero sexuals stick to the Missionary Position. No mention of the saddest perversion – enforced celibacy on young priests.
@ Angela,
Thanks for the stats however I was referring to the language used in this specific uk legislation proposal passing through the Lords at the moment.
There is no doubt in my mind that lesbianism is / has been regarded in a different light in general but as I say I was keeping my comment specific to the topic.
It seemed a bit of a non sequitur for you to have raised the point when it did not seem apparent in the article.
Broga. For your information David Waddington is a shit of the highest order.
It was his inept/dishonest handling of the Stefan Kiszko case that persuaded me to do a law degree.
I hope the fucker dies soon and that his grave is used as a dogs toilet!
@ remigius
hear hear !!! I didn’t realise it was him who was responsible for that miscarriage..I’m popping to Wikipedia now to read up on it !!!
remigius. Many thanks. I suppose I could add, “Why am I not surprised?”
Some of these shits make my flesh crawl: the mixture of patronising, sanctimonious, self righteousness allied to the airs and graces they give themselves really is gut churning.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8358629.stm
Off-topic, I only mention it because it seems to have annoyed Spanish Catholics.
Have I missed a trick? Surely free speech means the right to criticise those eith stupid beliefs. Otherwise its called censorship. But i guess thats what religeon does.
Catholics are insane.
Mormons are stupid.
Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses are contract killers.
Scientologists would have P. T. Barnum beating a path to their doors.
Rugbutters are terrorists.
Jews are Manchurian Candidates.
Indoctrinating children in religion is child abuse.
Self-inflicted celibacy is a masochistic perversion.
Boxing and fox-hunting are institutionalized sadism.
The House of Lords, like Canada’s unelected Senate, has no place outside of a comic opera.
If Joseph Ratzinazi was 1,000 years more evolved, he would be Adolf Hitler.
A law that upholds my right to publish those conclusions cannot be all bad.
Freedom of speech means that these homophobic fools should be free to make their ill informed comments [as long as it is not incitement to violence] & in return gay people are free to give them a gentle prodding whenever the mood takes them, seems fair to me.
I think you are actually on the wrong side of this one. As much as religious hate speech against gays makes me sick, as does any hate speech for that matter, I don’t think any speech short of direct incitement to violence should be banned.
I would rather these people said what they think and exposed themselves as hateful than were repressed and instead kept it as a secret agenda. Only by hearing what these people actually think can we say how wrong they are and express our disgust at them. There should be no ‘forbidden thoughts’.
Generally love your stuff so keep up the good work…
Hmmm… you know what else is ‘unnatural’? Wearing dead ermine.
Christ, what is the point of the House of Lords? They’re a bunch of over rich, head-up-the-arse, wig wearing, posh numpties.
Put a penis in a bottom with permission and it’s a sin against nature. Put it in without permission and it’s the priesthood.
Could we maybe get some clarification on the law here?
I have to go with the free speech argument. It was precisely this argument that many of us used when religious hate laws were going through parliament.
@ remigius
I’d never heard of the Stefan Kiszko case. The fact that Waddington put up such an incompetent defence, and then stalled any subsequent appeal when he became Home Secretary is truly disgusting. The destruction of that innocent person’s life is a terrible tragedy, worse it’s a crime that Waddington and those corrupt police officers should pay for.
I am on the side of free speech too. As far as I’m concerned being hated by religious bigots means I’m getting it right.
I also want the freedom to call it as I see it with their bullshit.
We shouldn’t have laws that prohibit people from offending others, whoever they are.
There are laws against incitement to violence etc. which should be enough.
Hatred is an emotion. You can’t legislate on how humans feel or think, only on how they act upon their thoughts and feelings.
After growing up in Ireland I hate Catholicism with a passion. I have yet to punch a priest in the mouth, though.
As far as Lord Waddington, obsessing about the sex others have is probably the closest he gets to it himself.
I too come down on the side of free speech. Homophobic Christians would have no ammunition to claim persecution when they themselves were criticised if we allowed them to have their say. Let them state their crass opinions and let those opinions be refuted. Reference to the countless idiotic rules in the bronze age book of tripe is always a good start, you know the ones that they ignore because they don’t get to persecute anyone.
Everyone should have the right to say their piece but bigots should be made fully aware that in order to have their say they need to allow everyone who disagrees with them to have their say also. That way those who have an opinion that can be rationally supported are most likely to prevail.
We should also bear in mind that historically some people have been in a minority of one and have had a very unpopular opinion but have turned out to be right.
Why does it matter what religionist say or think. While I do not suffer fools gladly, I am willing to humour the insane.
Instead, should we not fear what they would do if they ever got into power again? Totally free speech is all that stands between our current freedoms and religious persecution. This is already being undermined by the islamic politicals – we atheists should instead rejoice and shout – voice your crazy opinions as we will voice ours!
[…] on article from freethinker.co.uk See also People must be free to hold intolerant views about homosexuality […]