Sunday 22 October 2006
telegraph.co.uk

Home front


By Philip Johnston
(Filed: 02/10/2006)

 Comment on this story      Read comments

How long before marriage is illegal?

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.

philip.johnston@telegraph.co.uk

 Comment on this story    

Post this story to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Comments

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.


Posted by Imli on October 2, 2006 6:33 PM
Report this comment

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.


Posted by Donald Ward on October 2, 2006 3:43 PM
Report this comment

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.


Posted by NotSaussure on October 2, 2006 3:09 PM
Report this comment

"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.

Posted by Jag on October 2, 2006 1:17 PM
Report this comment

Here is an example from South Africa

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.

Posted by John Murphy on October 2, 2006 11:22 AM
Report this comment

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’.

Posted by Thomas Cordrey on October 2, 2006 10:10 AM
Report this comment

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.


Posted by simon coulter on October 2, 2006 9:18 AM
Report this comment

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.

Posted by Robert Henderson on October 2, 2006 8:53 AM
Report this comment

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 ???

Posted by Leonard Colquhoun on October 2, 2006 7:59 AM
Report this comment

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?"



Posted by Tom Lockwood on October 2, 2006 6:56 AM
Report this comment

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.


Posted by Gail Brown on October 2, 2006 4:40 AM
Report this comment

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

Post a comment

Your comment: * (All comments must meet our rules and guidelines outlined here.)

Your name: *

Your email address: * (We won't publish this.)

Your site's URL: (If you have one.)



Please click the post button only once - your comment will not be published immediately.

* = Required information


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