Lords Reinsert Free Speech Clause in U.K. Gay Hate Crimes Bill: Gov't Admits Defeat

LifeSiteNews ^ | Thursday November 12, 2009 | Hilary White

[GonzoII]

Thursday November 12, 2009

---

Lords Reinsert Free Speech Clause in U.K. Gay Hate Crimes Bill: Gov't Admits Defeat

By Hilary White

WESTMINSTER, November 12, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An amendment to protect freedom of expression that was voted down earlier this week in the House of Commons, has once again been reinserted by the House of Lords into the UK's homosexual hate crimes bill. The Labour government has indicated that it has finally accepted the free speech clause in the Coroners and Justice Bill after the Lords voted for it 179 to 135 last night.

The Christian Institute, the lobby organization that organized opposition to the bill, said that the government's "gay hate crime" law will now include a protection for the free speech of those who wish to express their religious or ethical beliefs about sexual conduct.

The clause reads, "For the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred."

Labour ministers had objected that the clause was unnecessary, saying that the offence "only covers words or behavior that are threatening and intended to stir up hatred." But critics have pointed to the numerous cases in which mere religiously-founded criticism, public and private, of homosexual activity and political activism have already brought the police to the door.

But after last night's vote, a Ministry of Justice spokesman said, "As this parliamentary session ends today we can no longer delay the passage of this Bill. It is with considerable disappointment, therefore, that the government has agreed not to remove the 'freedom of expression' section.

"There is no doubt about the threshold of this offence. No 'freedom of expression' section is needed to explain it. The threshold is a high one. The offence only covers words or behavior that are threatening and intended to stir up hatred."

The clause has been voted out of the bill by the House of Commons four times and been put back by the Lords each time. David Lord Waddington, the amendment's principal sponsor, has said that perseverance was the key.

Lord Waddington said, "Well, we are living in a time when Christian beliefs are under attack. It's something that I never thought I would see during my lifetime."

For the first time, he said, Christians are "compelled to state our beliefs very very clearly." "When issues arise which clearly are matters which affect our faith, we have got to be prepared to state our case before the public."

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Free Speech Clause in U.K. Gay Hate Crimes Bill Defeated in House of Commons 

URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09111204.html

---

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

[MNJohnnie]

Sad day when the Lords get it but the Commons do not.

[RonF]

That statement became necessary when judges started substituting their own biases and predjudices for common sense when determining what “hatred” means.

[Talisker]

a Ministry of Justice spokesman said, "It is with considerable disappointment, therefore, that the government has agreed not to remove the 'freedom of expression' section. There is no doubt about the threshold of this offence. No 'freedom of expression' section is needed to explain it. The threshold is a high one. The offence only covers words or behavior that are threatening and intended to stir up hatred."

Then why does he care if it stays, if it's merely redundant?

[bronxville]

Good point.

[Oratam]

This is the house that Labour seeks/sought to destroy.

[Publius6961]

"There is no doubt about the threshold of this offence. No 'freedom of expression' section is needed to explain it. The threshold is a high one. The offence only covers words or behavior that are threatening and intended to stir up hatred."

This unholy alliance of islam and the pervert lobby must be stopped somewhere.

It is intellectual fraud, and dishonest in the extreme to keep repeating that mantra emphasized above.

It is not simply disingenuous, but consciously fraudulent to expect "intended to stir up hatred" to be interpreted rationally by the "victims," who have demonstrated, without exception, their unwillingness or inability to do so; and perplexingly, the courts have allowed it.

Therefore, the language is absolutely necessary, in a society which professes to protect free speech; the "obvious" must be made explicit.

[Peter Libra]

To quote your post

This unholy alliance of islam and the pervert lobby must be stopped somewhere.

Unholy Alliance it is, which reminds me I must order the book of that title name. The very perverts that Islam would likely sunder,are getting an evil joy out of what they do. I do not refer to those who keep their sex lives private and do interfere with anybody else. This in the use of the word "pervert".

An unlikely source of defence of freedom,as far as George Orwell was concerned is the House of Lords.

Perhaps that good man can sleep a little more lightly in his resting place.

[Peter Libra]

Whoops! My mistake.

I do not refer to those who keep their sex lives private and do NOT interfere with anybody else.

[Wuli]

A “hate crime” is a THOUGHT crime and the establishment of such so-called crimes on current pretexts is INTENTIONALLY a slippery slope from which many opinions (thoughts) can later, by the same logic, be considered “criminal”.

That fact, that slippery slope in logic is the purpose to which the radical legal agenda is working. They could care less about “rights” or “race” or “homophobia” or “bias”. These are mere rhetorical hooks with which they ensnare the ignorant and the gullible into believing there is some benevolent purpose in defining such “hate crimes”. The truth is their purpose is another nail in the coffin of liberty.

What is a difference between the “hate” a husband felt for the wife he just murdered, and the “hate” someone felt for the “black/gay/etc./etc./etc.” they just attacked, besides the pretense that one “hate” is not a “crime” and one is. Was the husband less guilty? Was the wife less of a victim, less deserving of justice, equal justice?

The real crime is the so-called “hate crime” itself.

The only legitimate inquiry about the thoughts that such “hate crimes” wrongly criminalize is in the exposition of possibly demonstrating motive in an actual criminal offense (assault, murder, etc), not in assessing an altogether separate criminal charge.

As it is, to imply that without such laws certain people are not “protected” is a lie, and false; for like anyone else, a crime against them is equally capable of being prosecuted, regardless of motive. It does not matter what the motive was, assault is assault. One motive is not worse than another. We may think less of someone, for their motive, but the justice the victim deserves does not - the guilty one is guilty, period.

If the case was that without such laws the guilty escape being prosecuted for their offense, using their hatred as an excuse (which is not the case today), the correction would be the removal of that motive as a legitimate defense, not the additional prosecution of the motive itself as a separate charge.