Here is an advert from a local
newspaper. "Retired couple wanted to look after
large country home while owners abroad. Small
salary payable. Married quarters available."
As of yesterday, the potential
employer has committed an offence. Under the new
EU age discrimination rules, it is unlawful to
restrict a job to older people, or to younger for
that matter. However, you may be surprised to
learn that, under separate legislation, the final
sentence of this advert will also soon be illegal
because it implies that the applicants should be
married, and could, therefore, be considered
discriminatory against homosexuals.
advertisement
The Sexual Orientation
Regulations, to be introduced at the EU's
insistence within the next few months by the
Equality Act 2006, make it an offence for anyone
providing goods, services, facilities, education
or public functions to discriminate on the grounds
that someone is heterosexual, homosexual or
bisexual.
And nor should they, I hear you
say. But what happens when one person's liberty
not to be discriminated against conflicts with
another's to express a contrary opinion that is
profoundly held and religious in origin. Take the
case of Stephen Green, the head of a Christian
lobby group accused of breaching public order at a
gay festival. He was charged by South Wales police
- the case was dropped last week - for handing out
leaflets entitled Same-Sex Love, Same-Sex Sex:
What Does The Bible Say? Now, you may or may not
agree with Mr Green's stance on this matter, but
it hardly warranted detaining him for four hours
or charging him with "threatening behaviour". Who
was he threatening? Indeed, Mr Green could argue
that, as a Christian who believes that
homosexuality is wrong, he should be allowed to
exercise his rights to say so, even at the risk of
offending people. After all, the Equality Act also
outlaws discrimination on the grounds of religion
or belief.
It gets more complicated with the
new Sexual Orientation Regulations. This week, the
Government is due to respond to the mountain of
replies it has received to the consultation it
launched earlier this year. Officials were taken
aback by the reaction, particularly from faith
groups who consider the regulations to be an
infringement of their liberty to observe the
convictions of their faith.
The scale of the response may mean
that ministers will have to postpone the
introduction of the regulations, which should have
taken effect this month; but they probably wish
they could dispense with them altogether. The
Government has already signalled that it is
prepared to grant an exception from the
regulations for what it calls "organised
religion", presumably for when churches, mosques
or synagogues are actually meeting.
But what happens outside this
context? Faith groups say they will face
prosecution if they fail to promote or encourage
homosexual practices. For instance, teachers may
fall foul of the law if they do not give
homosexuality equal prominence in sex education
lessons to heterosexuality. A Muslim printer could
be charged for declining to publish a flyer for a
gay pride march. An IT consultant with strong
Christian convictions may be prosecuted for
refusing to build a website designed for same-sex
dating. It would be illegal for Christian
conference and retreat centres to refuse bookings
from gay and lesbian groups, or for Christian
hostels to refuse beds to same-sex couples.
Lord Mackay, a former Lord
Chancellor, said: "For people of religious faith
who believe that the practice of homosexuality is
wrong, these proposals carry a serious threat to
their freedom in their voluntary and charitable
work and in relation to earning their livelihood
in a number of occupations."
It is tempting to say that they
will all just have to adapt to the new order, as
did those who once considered it perfectly
acceptable to refuse to let black people stay in
their guest houses. But there is a difference.
Discriminating on the grounds of race is pure
bigotry. Doing so by declining to promote
homosexuality is an article of faith for many
millions of people, even though there are obvious
disagreements on this within religions.
Whose rights are to take
precedence, and who is to decide? The Government
has established a new super-quango to police these
matters. Trevor Phillips, currently the chairman
of the Commission of Racial Equality, will become
the rights supremo, overseeing the laws against
all forms of discrimination. He will have an
extremely difficult task if he is being asked to
judge one form of intolerance over another.
An individual's sexual
predilections are a private matter and one
imagined, perhaps naively, that the era where gays
were refused a drink in a hotel bar had long gone.
But the problem with using the sledgehammer of
legislation here is that the view of homosexuality
held by many people is driven by their faith.
Are we to insist that they abandon
it? This is not the creation of equality, but
merely the transfer of discrimination from one
group to another, this time with religiously
inclined heterosexuals on the wrong end, their
rights given less weight than those of sexual
minorities. It is even more bizarre when you
consider that private clubs, like a lesbians-only
bar, will still be allowed to specify a particular
sexual orientation as a membership condition.
We may learn this week how the
Government's Women and Equality Unit intends to
solve this conundrum. The Lawyers Christian
Fellowship has proposed an amendment to guarantee
in law that adherents to Christianity, Judaism and
Islam would not be forced to "promote, assist,
encourage or facilitate homosexual practices".
But if they are made an exception,
there will be an almighty row because the
responsible minister is Ruth Kelly, a committed
Roman Catholic with strongly held convictions on
this subject. Why should she give the churches the
right to do something for which the rest of us
would face prosecution? Is religious opposition to
homosexual behaviour any more reasonable than an
atheist's objection?
These are the murky waters that we
enter when we seek to enshrine more and more
"rights" in legislation. The lawyers are about to
have a field day.
Im a lezbian and i think that homosexuals
should be able to be marrried, one reason its its not
your life and cristians arnt suppose to judge people
because in the bible it says not to judge others for
they will be judged and if you judge us by our sexuality
then you will be judged when your day comes.... God
knows what you have done and God will judge you for
it Posted by Melinda on October 4, 2006 12:11
AM Report
this comment
I'm not ashamed to say I'm prejudiced
against a particular sector of society. I shall continue
to regard politicians with contempt and loathing, even
when they set the police dogs on me. Why in the world do
we tolerate these buffoons? Posted by Lee Williams
on October 3, 2006 1:46 PM Report
this comment
Thank you for bringing this matter to the
public notice. It is a very scary thought that people
who believe that homosexuality is wrong on ground of
their faith could be forced to promote it or face
prosecution. The regulations must not become
law Posted by Donna Olive on October 3, 2006 1:33
PM Report
this comment
"Why on earth is the Government making
these ridiculous laws? The majority of people don't
want them"
Because a free democratic society
is about acceding to the demands of the majority
provided the minority are protected from
oppression. It's why we have human rights
legislation and why the US has had a constitution
since the beginning. If you don't have these
protections then the baying majority get to burn
witches, murder paedophiles (or paediatricians),
expel Jews, enslave black people and countless
other acts of injustice. Posted by Kay Tie on
October 3, 2006 12:15 AM Report
this comment
Under the new EU age discrimination
rules...
I say to HELL with their Rules and
Laws. I have had a belly full of these foreigners
telling US what is right or wrong - we have managed fine
for a thousand years and fought and won TWO world wars
proving it. Posted by Captain Bryn Wayt on October
2, 2006 11:47 PM Report
this comment
Well done Philip Johnston, for once again
highlighting the absurdities inherent in much of the
currently fashionable "rights" legislation. Posted
by sandy on October 2, 2006 9:51 PM Report
this comment
This is stupid legislation and should be
ignored by the police. Posted by d.jones on
October 2, 2006 8:48 PM Report
this comment
Homosexuality is not a matter of choice
or lifestyle -- it is what people are, just like some
people are black or disabled, to name just a few human
traits that we all might be born with.
There
isn't much christian about the so-called christian view
that homosexuals are an abomination, and Jesus himself
would be disgusted at those folks. As for the other
religions that think they can openly hate and
discriminate, well, religion is a lifestyle which can be
changed, but race, homosexuality and gender are not. So,
make religion yield here, and make religious bigotry
illegal.
I thought freedom was one of the pillars
of democracy: freedom of speech, freedom of opinion and
freedom to stand up for that opinion. In the same way,
homosexual people have the freedom to live the lifestyle
they do, yet so have we. In other words, we shouldn't be
forced to accept their way of living when, in our
opinion, it is unbiblical and unnatural. Forcing the
homosexual lifestyle to be socially acceptable through
legislation is completely unacceptable. Posted by
Dries De Coster on October 2, 2006 6:24 PM Report
this comment
I object to having tolerance forced on
me. It's political correctness gone mad.
The
government are so concerned about protecting a minority
group that they've failed to notice they are encroaching
on the rights of the general population.
Employers will be so worried about potential
discrimination lawsuits they'll employ a homosexual over
a hetrosexual (even though the hetrosexual might be
better qualified). Where's the anti-discrimination
legislation protecting the majority? Posted by
Katherine on October 2, 2006 5:49 PM Report
this comment
I am a member of a minority with specific
problems I face every day due to discrimination against
me and others like me. I'm Left- Handed! Where are the
left -handed can openers, left-handed scissors and other
implements that today's life demands? Why are exit doors
always designed to be pushed with the right hand? I
could give a million examples but only fellow
left-handers will fully understand, especially about the
school teachers who felt that everybody was meant to be
right handed and tried their hardest to "correct" us.
But by melting into the background and not making too
much fuss, we have survived. Posted by Bert
Salter on October 2, 2006 5:43 PM Report
this comment
The main reason these ridiculous laws are
passed is because the a sizeable minority of our
politicians are homosexual or bisexual.
In the
end I think this new law will just promote an anti-gay
backlash. Posted by Gervas Douglas on October 2,
2006 4:56 PM Report
this comment
If, when entering my particulars in a
form, I am asked to name my partner. I carefully draw a
line through that word and enter - wife. I could not
care less what other people do but upon the conclusion
of our marriage ceremony we were informed "you are now
husband and wife". We have been so for 57 years and this
is what we will remain. After birth, I was given a
Christian name, whenever possible I draw a line through
fore or first and replace them with Christian. Not all
that long ago my religion was shown in my passport. Who
was it that decided I know longer wanted it recorded?
Posted by George Mahoney on October 2, 2006 4:55
PM Report
this comment
Philip Johnson - you're article reminded
me why I voted Labour in 1997, 2001 and 2006, and will
continue to do so until the main opposition party in
this country no longer takes the ignorance and bigotry
that passes as intelligent debate and comment in this
newspaper seriously. Posted by MCC on October 2,
2006 4:54 PM Report
this comment
RCF - why do genes for damaging diseases
like sickle cell anaemia and MS get passed on? Because
they provide an evolutionary benefit in the heterozygous
state.
This doesn't mean that the genetics
governing homosexuality is so straightforward, but men
with a few genes that involve an increased likelihood of
homosexuality probably have an increased likelihood of
reproductive success.
Any decent text on
evolution should clear that up for you better than I
can. Posted by Steve Henderson on October 2, 2006
4:43 PM Report
this comment
This is interesting stuff. I'm strongly
of the belief that if a person holds an irrational
prejudice, it's entirely up to him to express it in any
way he wants, as long as another person isn't hurt by
it. Nobody should be forced to like another person,
whether that person be Jewish, female, short, ugly,
poor, Muslim, old, young, handicapped or anything else.
We should have the right to be odd. If I don't want red
headed people in my boarding house, or Irish people
working for me, that should be my own silly problem, and
nothing to do with the government.
Minority
issues should be a general part of education, certainly.
Prejudice isn't a good thing at all. But forcing people
to "get along" does no good at all. If I don't like the
idea of homosexual neighbours, I can always move away.
But if I really don't like the idea of homosexual
empoloyees, or Muslim/blonde/female/tall club members, I
should have the right to that. Neither should I be
required to explain my motives. Posted by jack on
October 2, 2006 4:34 PM Report
this comment
The left calls it ending discrimination,
what actually is is positive discrimination in favour of
minorties. Problem is that no Government shall tell me
who I am to like or who I am to employ, nor will they
silence my right to free speech. Something this
Government has habitually tried to do, when opinion does
not fit in with this left wing driven
agenda. Posted by chris on October 2, 2006 4:08
PM Report
this comment
Wiil the long suffering British
Christians now begin to take the same kind of direct
action as the Muslims, when their faith is attacked or
challenged by officialdom? If so New Labour and the EU
will only have themselves to blame. Posted by
Elizabeth Ann Biddulph on October 2, 2006 3:50
PM Report
this comment
If homosexuality is against the doctrines
of the christian religions why are we always reading
about child sexual abuse in the catholic and anglican
churches and the lengths to which the bishops go to
protect those responsible for this evil practice.
Question is, how long before same sex
marriage is compulsary? Posted by John Walker on
October 2, 2006 3:36 PM Report
this comment
Would the last British person with enough
intelligence to get the hell out of the country please
put the light out and save the power as quite clearly
the remainder of the population are quite happy fumbling
around in the dark. Posted by John Korn on October
2, 2006 3:35 PM Report
this comment
Whatever happened to the government's Men
and Equality Unit? Or was that a blatant
contradiction? Posted by Philippa Pirie on October
2, 2006 3:32 PM Report
this comment
It is wrong for others to legislate their
preferences on us. If they have a sexual orientation
then that is their business, but legislating that all
children in schools, including faith schools, should be
taught their preference equally, it becomes my business.
I don't want my children taught what the Bible says is
wrong. I believe the Bible. I would not allow it to
happen to my children, no matter what laws Europe came
up with. There is a higher law, which is God's law.
Posted by Kent Hodge on October 2, 2006 3:30
PM Report
this comment
Pandering to the homosexual "agenda"
again ... this is getting quite, quite boring. This
"political correctness" train ought to be derailed
before society is corrupted beyond help. Posted by
Andy Price on October 2, 2006 3:25 PM Report
this comment
Try as I might, I cannot see what goods,
services, facilities and so on are referred to in the
advertisement. It's a job advert and, as such, is
covered under The Employment Equality (Sexual
Orientation) Regulations 2003, which came into force
December 1st of that year. That is, if adverts like the
one suggested by Mr Johnston were to be a problem, we'd
have known about it some time in the last three years.
Furthermore, nowhere could I find online a copy
of these regulations that so concern him. I found a
consultation document about them, issued in March of
this year, which gave examples of the sort of things
they might cover -- provision of goods and services, as
the title suggests, and nothing to do with job adverts.
Given that Mr Johnson's clearly so wildly
ill-informed about the nature and scope of the
regulations, I wonder whether we should take seriously
the rest of his column, in which he attacks what he
thinks might be their consquences, since he doesn't seem
to have read the document which he's discussing.
"richard" (October 2, 2006 6:03 AM)
claims "In the case of homosexuality, there is massive
evidence of a genetic determination of this....The genes
responsible are successful and have survived the crucial
test of evolution."
Would he care to outline the
mechanism by which these successful genes are passed to
succeeding generations? Posted by RCF on October
2, 2006 2:58 PM Report
this comment
Why on earth is the Government making
these ridiculous laws? The majority of people don't want
them - these regulations could force nurseries, primary
schools and senior schools to teach homosexual texts to
kids. Most people in this country want traditional
Christian family values, and they don't want their kids
taught about two men sleeping in a bed together (see the
Government recommended reading list, which includes
"Daddy's Roommate"). Posted by Esther on October
2, 2006 2:54 PM Report
this comment
I do believe that most males are already
bisexual, (xy)except for the homosexual (xyy). Uh
duh. Posted by RAH on October 2, 2006 2:42
PM Report
this comment
Saturday's front page told us that many
"committed Anglicans" go to church less than once a
month. With "committment" like that, I am not surprised
that the views of Anglicans are ignored. Posted by
geoff wright on October 2, 2006 2:41 PM Report
this comment
It's not simply a matter of faith either.
To use your example of a hotel or guest house,
what of a place run by a husband and wife with two small
children? They may have absolutely no views one way or
the other regarding the "rightness" homosexuality, but
they may not wish to have to explain to their young
offspring just yet that sometimes men love men and
ladies love ladies.
Should their choice of when
and how to teach their children some of the facts of
life suddenly place them outside the law?
Doubtless this will be derided as a ridiculous
example, but I suspect that the month to come will
reveal many similar "silly" cases.
Sadly, none
of them will disuade the control freaks and pecksniffs
that actually trusting people is the best way to
go. Posted by The Remittance Man on October 2,
2006 2:28 PM Report
this comment
Sorry but.. I'll start a sentence that
way, when I've just read an article that I don't happen
to agree with. Politeness does not diminish an argument
or the belief in its truth anymore than shouting and
rudeness make a point more true. Confusing grammatical
approach and personal belief is a, sadly, stupid thing
to do. Posted by Al on October 2, 2006 2:25
PM Report
this comment
Geoffrey Smith you are 100 per cent
right! The worst days work this country ever did was
join the EU for reasons too numerous to mention, we are
now reaping the whirlwind. Posted by Matt Jones on
October 2, 2006 2:01 PM Report
this comment
Err, is Barry Holroyd having a laugh? I
can't work out if he's serious or being
sarcastic. Posted by Steve Henderson on October 2,
2006 1:44 PM Report
this comment
Sounds like some government idiot opened
Pandoras Box. Posted by Robert Boyd on October 2,
2006 1:24 PM Report
this comment
You won't hear me say "And nor should
you". How dare anyone tell me who I should prefer to
look after my house in my absence? How dare anyone tell
me what I should and should not tolerate in my own home?
The inference that the advertisement is offensive to
homosexuals highlights two particular issues.
Homosexuality remains a minority
practice/lifestyle, call it what you will, but tolerance
of it is enforced on the majority. Is that democracy at
work? No, it is not. I have only one problem with
homosexuality and that is that I am told I must accept
it. I will accept it if I choose to, not because I am
told I must. I also question the reason why it is
celebrated in quite the way it is. It doesn't matter to
me if someone is homosexual or not and I would not be
inclined to ask. Why is it so necessary that we must be
told?
The legislation requires that no obvious
discrimination be included and the inference is that the
houseowner will not be able to choose the individuals
they like, as that decision will be the result of
discrimination. Every choice is discrimination, if you
wish to accentuate the negative influence. Why must we
disclose what we like, so that non conformity, if
occurring, may be punished? Such legislation is a crass
insult to individuality and, as ever, ill-conceived. It
represents an attempt to remove choice and impose an
undemocratically-determined perspective.
The
preference of the houseowner is paramount, not the
rights of the potentially offended. This is a nonsense,
as so many rights-based legislation is. Posted by
Hamish on October 2, 2006 1:21 PM Report
this comment
There is a distinct difference between a
positive and a negative right. I cannot discriminate
against a person based on sex, religion, gender, age,
etc. etc. This ensures that people are treated equally.
ie. I may not do this or that (negative).
However to be forced to do something you would
rather not do is tyranny. I choose not to construct a
"same-sex" dating website. This is not discrimination.
This is being able to make a choice, living your life as
you choose (positive).
My uncle was a
conscientious objector to military service in South
Africa. He refused to lend a hand to oppression and
Apartheid. He faced jail time. Luckily he was only
followed and watched for a year by the security police.
What's the relevance? Question is how far are we
willing to go in forcing people to do what we think is
right?
Self-righteousness, based either on
Liberalism or Religious belief is a dangerous base from
which to operate. Posted by Dave on October 2,
2006 1:19 PM Report
this comment
For Barry Holroyd : A missing body does
not constitute evidence of Resurrection.
There is to be no discrimination on religious
grounds there is to be no discrimination on sexual
grounds so : a Muslim woman wished to be a presenter on
a Muslim radio station.
The owners say that
contravenes their religious belief; the lady that she is
being discriminated against on sexual grounds.
Two rights make an impasse
I believe
that I should have the right to decide with whom I mix;
if I own a business I should have the right to choose
whom to employ. If I do NOT own the business then I do
not have that right (so the civil service and
share-holder owned companies must not discriminate). If
I choose not to mix with people that is freedom of
expression - that includes who I invite into my home; or
where I choose to go; or whom I choose to carry out work
for me; or whom I work for. You - of course - have the
same right. It is called freedom of association. I
should also be able to express my beliefs (and whether
being homosexual is a good thing or a bad thing is just
a belief). If you disagree you have the right to argue.
And as Voltaire put it - I will defend your right to say
something I dislike. Would all of you who yammer on
about YOUR rights please note that you should be
protecting MY rights..... I have never understood
the bigots from either side of any argument - why on
earth would you want to mix with someone whom you so
obviously cannot get on with ? Posted by pete on
October 2, 2006 1:09 PM Report
this comment
Quite a number of posters here are
talking about rights/values in a context distinct from
religion, but if there is no God then we are just matter
in motion and the idea of rights is
meaningless. Posted by Arbee on October 2, 2006
1:05 PM Report
this comment
The column and the comments all beg the
question. Why should a private individual or business
not employ or serve whomsoever they like? And what right
has the State to impose tolerance on us? If we are
forced to be tolerant, then the virtue of tolerance is
not ours - you cannot be good if you are forced to be
good. I hope that I would not discriminate based on
race, colour, sex or sexual orientation, but that is my
choice as to what I believe to be right. Take away my
free will to bad, and I have no free will to be
good. Posted by Tim on October 2, 2006 12:57
PM Report
this comment
Barry Holroyd's response ("The evidence
for the resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ
could not be better") simply confirms my point. I
endorse absolutely the right of anyone to believe
whatever they choose, but there is no obligation on
anyone else to respect their beliefs or to employ
those who choose to believe non-rational things. You
would not want to employ a Flat-Earther in NASA, for
example... Posted by Rupert Stubbs on October
2, 2006 12:50 PM Report
this comment
Mr Johnston is accurate in his
assessment. It's going to be a minefield, and if the law
is applied, Christians will be persecuted simply for
saying and communicating what they believe. So if a
practising homosexual applies for a job in a Christian
organisation and he does not get it it will be so easy
to conclude that he was denied the job because he is
contrary to the organisation's beliefs. So the Christian
organisation has to abandon its principles, turning
itself into nothing? The reality looks as though
Christians are going to be persecuted in England for
what they believe and espouse, yet have a Christian head
of state who believes just as they do. The lunatics are
running the ayslum, except that it is so much more
serious and destructive. No more discourse, no more
debates, no more expressions of belief. Maybe the
universities will have to close too because freedom of
thought and expression makes you liable to an offence.
All because a minority group with its victim attitude,
is not big enough to accept that others believe other
things. Madness. Posted by J Gardner on October 2,
2006 12:49 PM Report
this comment
Here over the water in America there is a
difference between speaking your mind (as in a pamphlet)
and in taking action, such as refusing a hotel room.
What religious zealots fail to understand is
that their kingdom of God is not the same of the
kingdoms of the world. The kingdoms of the world depend
on force (in the end) and the kingdom of God on love. To
try to bring precepts of God's kingdom to an earthly
kingdom and have them enforced by force is wrong.
Those who believe homosexuality to be wrong may
try with love to change individuals, but when they
endeavor to enlist the sanctions of the state they are
no longer acting under God.
I hope you-all over
there can better sort this out than we over
here. Posted by Raymond Firehock on October 2,
2006 12:45 PM Report
this comment
The lawyers will of course have a field
day. Why should it be assumed that a "retired couple"
necessarily belongs to any particular age group? And
"married quarters" is merely a description of the type
of accommodation available - there is no express
requirement that the occupants should be
married. Posted by Peter Johnson on October 2,
2006 12:31 PM Report
this comment
With the collapse of organised religion
in Britain the Government has eagerly taken upon itself
the role of moral arbiter and source of all moral
authority. This has historical parallels. A similar
situation occured after the Reformation. The Catholic
Church had previously commanded its adherents to observe
Sunday worship and reception of the sacraments under
pain of committing serious sin. This was replaced by
civil laws commanding adherence to the new religion,
(Sunday worship and reception of communion) complete
with civil punishments for lack of compliance in an
effort to stamp out the old religion. Make no
mistake "diversity" is the new religion and it is being
imposed on an unwilling public. If it were true that,
"no one believes all that any more," there would be no
need for legislation to stamp out the "old religion". I
might add that together with the collpase of organised
religion has gone a collapse in the confidence to govern
ourselves which has made room for the EU's dominating
role in government, (source of 80 per cent of our laws).
A powerful Church protects the individual from the
encroachment of the Executive in to the realm of the
conscience. It is the natural enemy of totalitarianism.
Ask any Chinese Cuban or North Korean. And yet it does
all this with persuasion and love. Pope Benedict was
right when he called for a new age of reason in religion
and an end to violence, violence against peoples'
conciences too. Posted by Joe on October 2, 2006
12:10 PM Report
this comment
Can anyone else see the writing on the
wall, or am I the only one who recognises the
obvious? This country is heading right into a civil
war, and violent social conflict is the logical
outcome of this crass EU stupidity. We have got
to leave the EU before it is too late, and return to our
former status as a member of the E.E.C.- with no
legal shackles. If the EU wont wear this, then
good-bye to the EU, and good riddance! Posted by
Geoffrey Smith on October 2, 2006 12:08 PM Report
this comment
Why is it only people who hold faith in
one of the "organised religions" - whatever that means,
would I have to register the number of times that I
attend a religious ceremony? - may be able to
discriminate against a section of society? Faith is a
personal thing. What if I disagree with a particular
discriminatory principle of my chosen religion: would I
then no longer be allowed to discriminate, or does
"belonging to a religion" override the personal
doctrine? Further, what if I am not a member of an
organised religion but do hold discriminatory views? Is
that not holding the religious above atheists, in law?
These "rights" must inevitably clash and resolution
requires one article of rights to be more important than
another, and therefore any system of "rights" is, of
itself, discriminatory in making some rights more
valuable than others. Posted by Mark on October 2,
2006 11:58 AM Report
this comment
The flaw in liberalism is, as it has
always been, that rights can conflict. Liberalism has
always drawn an obfuscating veil over this by
determining a precedence of rights or, in emergencies,
denying that rights exist. For instance, "freedom of
speech" collides with "the right not to be subjected to
racial hatred" when the speaker is a neo-Nazi. So a
precedence of rights is created, whereby freedom of
speech is limited.
What is interesting is that
so many limitations are now being placed on freedom of
speech and expression that we may find ourselves in a
situation where those freedoms, like the population of
the passenger pigeon, become unsustainably weak before
anyone notices, doomed to extinction. The way to avoid
this, in my opinion, is to divert our course urgently
away from the culture of giving-no-offence, and towards
a culture of not-taking-offence. Taking offence is,
after all, a choice, even if people delude themselves
that it is a reflex. Posted by Duncan on October
2, 2006 11:33 AM Report
this comment
I think pretty soon it will be impossible
for anyone to break any law, because there will be a law
making it illegal.
Sorry, but... Can people stop apologising
in their contributions? If you have a statement that you
believe in, make it unapologetically. This is just
another example of how insidiously political correctness
is undermining any debate in the UK. Sorry, but I don't
agree with gay rights. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Get a grip
for goodness sake, there's more conviction in readers'
contributions to The Sun. Posted by tim on October
2, 2006 10:47 AM Report
this comment
Whatever religious persuasion or sexual
orientation, some of the previous comments left in
response to Philip’s article miss his most insightful
point: unchecked ‘rights’ legislation leads to an
insuperable problem for the Government and judiciary
trying to balance inconsistent rights.
In this
case, an unchecked right to freedom from discrimination
on the grounds of sexual orientation does indeed
infringe on the right of Christians, orthodox Jews and
Muslims to live out the doctrinal teaching of their
respective faiths. So what response should we have?
Irrespective of sexual orientation or religious view,
the starting point must surely be that the Government
cannot and must not force people to live against their
conscience. If the Government are given the licence to
do this, then it could well come back to haunt those who
call for it now: giving the executive such authority
will cut both ways.
I do not think that anyone
who reflects carefully on the issue should want to
oppose an amendment to this proposed law which states
‘these Regulations will not force anyone to promote,
assist, encourage or facilitate homosexual practice if
this is contrary to the longstanding religious doctrine
of their faith’.
In response to Rupert Stubbs, I assert
that Christianity is very much evidence-based, supremely
staking its claim to validity on the resurrection from
the dead of Jesus Christ, following His crucifixion.
I don't like calling men "Lords" but I have to,
in referring to Lord Chief Justice Darling, a former
Lord Chief Justice of England, who said "The evidence
for the resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ could
not be better."
I don't have the madness, or
your faith, to reject such evidence with integrity Mr
Stubbs. Posted by Barry Holroyd on October 2, 2006
9:26 AM Report
this comment
Now that the 'law' intervenes so much in
personal belief and practice ,the only sensible reaction
is to ignore it.I have not the slightest intention of
altering my beliefs or attitudes to homosexuality or
whatever just because of politicians'
prejudices. Posted by Joe Crilly on October 2,
2006 9:20 AM Report
this comment
Why do we need regulations in such detail
- whatever happened to common sense & people
instinctively knowing how to do the right thing?
This sort of legislation is akin to using a
sledgehammer to crack a nut and is the nanny state
taking command of yet another area of our lives in order
to eliminate isolated problems.
All this kind of
regulation needs to be gathered in a single place,
reviewed, fine tuned and then all the excess should be
cut away.
We cannot go on marginalising the
mainstream in every area of life - religion, ethnnicity,
sexuality and disability - we are almost at the point
where to be the 'norm' singles you out as having the
fewest rights of all.
I heartily agree that no-one should be
forced actively to promote somthing that they feel or
believe is wrong. I also believe in a tolerant and open
society, but I fail to understand why we should be
forced to give equal time to homosexuality in sex
education lessons until such time as homosexuals make up
50 per cent of the population; encouraged by government
and legislators alike, but so far not representative of
the nation as a whole. Posted by Jon Browne on
October 2, 2006 9:15 AM Report
this comment
The objection to this type of legislation
is simple: it is the imposition of a political ideology
- Liberal Internationalism which is expressed at the
micro-level through political correctness - on society
at large. That is literally totalitarian.
Mr
Johnston unfortunately does not go the whole hog and
condemn all such laws. Indeed, he defends some by
implication viz: "Discriminating on the grounds of race
is pure bigotry. Doing so by declining to promote
homosexuality is an article of faith for many millions
of people, even though there are obvious disagreements
on this within religions."
Why exactly is it
"pure bigotry" to discriminate on grounds of race? After
all, this is precisely what the vast majority of people
do when choosing a partner to have children with, the
overwhelming majority of such choices being for a person
of the same racial type. It is noteworthy that the
higher up the social scale, the less likely someone is
to take a partner, ergo when people have a free choice
they almost invariably go for someone of the same racial
type. That is obviously nature at work. To call such a
preference "pure bigotry" is nonsensical.
Sorry, I just can't spot the difference
between race discrimination as "bigotry" and
anti-homosexual prejudice as "an article of faith". Just
because something is said to be a religous truth,
doesn't make it any less bigoted and wrong. Posted
by Al on October 2, 2006 8:43 AM Report
this comment
As an employer, I find it bizarre that I
may be forced to employ someone who is demonstrably
mad (since those with strong religious convictions
have no evidence at all for their
delusions). Posted by Rupert Stubbs on October 2,
2006 8:24 AM Report
this comment
Unbelievable stupidity - no, make that
entirely credible stupidity these days.
When
your country's NHS is sucking zillions into several
black holes, your people's dental health is a routine
one-liner at comedy stand-ups, would-be terrorists want
to blow others of you to bits (Will specifically
targeting one sect to blow up become a new offence under
these regulations ?), you get this sort of Victor
"I-don't-belieeeeeve-it" Meldrew nonsense.
Still, we can't laugh too loudly - look at this
letter from today's Sydney Morning Herald:
Cross
purposes
About four weeks ago at our school,
Mount Annan Primary, the crossing guard was sick for a
week. The first day, there was some confusion. The
second day, teachers assisted children and parents at
the crossing. The crossing guard is employed and trained
by the Roads and Traffic Authority but it could not
supply a replacement. I was surprised on Friday of
that week to see a police car out the front of the
school. Because of the litigation-fearing bureaucracy
that runs our governments, the police were there to warn
the teachers they would be fined if they persisted in
helping with the road crossing, because they are not
trained crossing guards.
The police stayed there
until the children went into school, to make sure no
teachers assisted at the crossing but didn't get out of
the car to assist the children. I guess the police
weren't trained as crossing guards, either.
It
seems the value of a child's life is not equal to the
risk of litigation.
Steven Cull Mount Annan
(NSW, Australia) -
presumably NOT named after Mr
Kofi. Perhaps what we need is a Commonwealth or Olympic
Games in moronic stupidity ???
I see the evil, yes evil, hand of
Brussels ie the EU, behind this - another attempt to
limit (eliminate?) our freedom of speech. There is only
one sure remedy: leave the EU and repeal the raft of
ridiculous laws and regulations foisted on the UK.
Posted by Gordon Brown on October 2, 2006 7:45
AM Report
this comment
Surely the solution is to let gays marry?
(Rather than the current semi-marriage thing.)
Oh, and repeal all anti-discrimination laws.
They may be trying to enforce a good outcome, but they
result in creating privileged classes - never a good
thing. Posted by Julian Morrison on October 2,
2006 7:43 AM Report
this comment
Joshnston's arguments are tendentious.
Perhaps he's exaggerated merely to make his point.
One glaringly obvious example was his comments
about an IT consultant being charged for refusing to
build a same-sex dating website. The whole point about
being a consultant and not an employee is that it frees
you to chose the work you do. I doubt that a consultant
who had strongly negative views would have even looked
at taking the work.
Stephen Green is, in some
eyes, a Christian dogmatist. To others he is nothing
more than an intolerant bigot. I can't see much
difference between him and the Islamofascist bigots.
Both are preachers of hate whilst trying to maintain
that there religions are based on love and
peace. Posted by Chris Palmer on October 2, 2006
7:32 AM Report
this comment
yes, well, how long would Mr Green have
been arrested for if he was handing out a 'biblically
based' leaflet about why Jewish people should convert to
Christianity? Sorry, but attacking queers is still too
easy, so silly-seeming laws like this are needed (much
as generally the EU's legislation fetish drives me
nuts). Posted by Spacy Sunday on October 2, 2006
7:12 AM Report
this comment
"These are the murky waters that we enter
when we seek to enshrine more and more "rights" in
legislation."
No. These are the murky waters
that we enter when we seek to discriminate against those
not like us, those we don't understand and, in many
cases, those who have nothing to do with our lives. In
the words of Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?"
As a gay man I say that people should not
be forced to promote homosexuality. However, it is
absolutely right that schools should be forced to give
equal time to homosexuality, and also with-in sexual
education. This should include all schools, state,
private and faith. Also, it is completely right that it
should be illegal for a hotel, or guest house to refuse
a couple booking into that establishment because they
are same sex.
There is a difference to
"promoting" something, or treating something "equally".
Posted by John on October 2, 2006 6:22
AM Report
this comment
It's all very well saying that groups are
able to discriminate against minority groups such as
homosexuals because they hold religious beliefs but it
just doesn't wash. They also hold particular views on
other matters as well and to take this arguement to a
stupid conclusion would mean that the holding of a
specific religious belief would give the person carte
blanche to discriminate against almost anybody else.
The new legislation does not of course require
believers to have to support minority groups, just to
accept them.
The tragedy of religion is that it
has completely failed to adapt as the world adapted.
There are views and attitudes preached daily that are
completely out of touch with reality and this no doubt
mostly explains why so many educated people regard
religion today as meaningless.
In the case of
homosexuality, there is massive evidence of a genetic
determination of this. To punish and segregate people on
matters not in their control is shameful.
Like
it or not, homosexuality is as old as mankind. The genes
responsible are successful and have survived the crucial
test of evolution. The society benefits from having
homosexuals.
We now recognise that epilepsy is
not a royal disease nor a visitation of the devil so we
no longer burn these people on stakes. Discrimination of
homosexuality is no different.
It's all a
question of removing ignorance. Posted by richard
on October 2, 2006 6:03 AM Report
this comment
I have absolutely no problem with the
rights of homosexuals/lesbians being protected against
discrimination in many areas of everyday life ,but my
Catholic (Christian )belief is that there can be no such
thing as " marriage" between same sex couples, although
a civil partnership can (and should)protect property
rights of people who have lived together for many years
,be they homosexual or not.It is not the person but the
act that is contrary to Christian beliefs ,just as sex
should be between two people who are commited to each
other in marriage.I will continue to hold these beliefs
and will not be deterred from expressing them, even if
this Government goes completely off it`s head and takes
us yet furthur down the road to a "Big Brother"
Dictatorship.
Equality before the law and society is a
sincere goal for everyone. This must include bigots,who
hide within the religions of the world. If they have
to be forced to change,modernise their narrow beliefs,
then so be it. Why should equality be denied into
the 21st century ? Have not gay people suffered long
enough at the hands and deeds of the religious types ?
What if you were/are personally denied equality under
the guise of so called religious rights ? Posted
by Peter Starkey on October 2, 2006 4:29 AM Report
this comment
This story is exactly why I no longer
wish to be part of the social experiment which is
the British way of life. Get a grip people, I am all
for equality of opportunity but to outlaw simple
preferences seems to me to be dumb, petty and
stupid. I remember being told as a kid you can
please some of the people some of the time but not
all of the people all of the time. This statement
clearly applies to this situation. I am happy, no
very happy to be living in Illinois, away from the
craziness of the UK and EU. Posted by Paul
Barrett on October 2, 2006 3:41 AM Report
this comment
In this matter of so-called 'rights',
Philip Johnston sees murky waters ahead and a field day
for lawyers. He puts it, I think, very mildly.
When we get to the stage of committing crimes if
we advertise work as suited to a retired married couple,
we cannot be far from still more lurches into this swamp
of idiocy.
If this madness of politically
correctness continues, it will soon be made a crime to
fail to buy goods from homosexual shop assistants or to
decline solicitations from prostitutes - or even to
neglect to watch BBC television. Posted by Herbert
Thornton on October 2, 2006 3:14 AM Report
this comment
If we are to accept sincerely held
interpretaions of the Bible as requiring an opposition
to homosexuality, then we shall equally have to accept
sincerely held interpretations of the Koran as requiring
the murder of infidels ( Surah 9, verse 29 ).
Bigotry excused by religion has today become not
merely objectionable but actually a threat to the
survival of our civilisation.
This government
and the EU have trampled all over our freedoms but the
freedom to object to someone on the basis of the way
they are made is not one I am keen to
defend. Posted by Alan Bowman on October 2, 2006
2:59 AM Report
this comment
Well, I'm Gay, but even I can see that
these regulations, if they are as described, are quite
malign. Every time this idiot Government tampers with
the Law, it leaves a trail of unintended side-effects,
selective enforcement, and exemptions for this that and
the other. Can't they see that any law that is as
complicated a mess as this one can't possible improve
the situation. Posted by jon livesey on October
2, 2006 2:50 AM Report
this comment
Warning: include(../../../google.php): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /web/westerfunk/archives/christianity/New Form of Persecution/index.php on line 1702
Warning: include(): Failed opening '../../../google.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/share/php') in /web/westerfunk/archives/christianity/New Form of Persecution/index.php on line 1702