Sensitive horses across the pond.
I was wondering who had the Gay Police Horse Pinglist this week.
I'm glad the CPS realised how stupid this was.
I'm also glad I live in a part of England so conservative there's a Bible shop in the centre of town.
Regards, Ivan
Did anyone consider whether or not the horse WAS really gay? If the horse was, than what is the offense? Outing the Horse? And if the horse wasn't, does that make the officer and horse homophobic for being upset about being called gay?
Canterbury Tales, Prologue:
He was a very perfect gentle knight.
But for to telle you of his array,
His horse was good, but yet he was not gay.
No double standards in UK department comment ...
(Did Her Majesty actually utter "Arise Sir Iqbal?")
Muslim leader faces police questioning about 'homophobic' remarks
By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor
(Filed: 12/01/2006)
A British Muslim leader is being investigated by the police for allegedly homophobic remarks made during a radio interview.
Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said that homosexual practices were "harmful" and civil partnerships "not acceptable" last week.
Interviewed on BBC Radio Four's PM programme on Jan 3, Sir Iqbal said: "If you look into the scientific evidence that has been available in terms of the various forms of other illnesses and diseases that are there, surely it points out that, where homosexuality is practised, there is a greater concern in that area."
Asked if homosexuality was harmful to society, he said: "Certainly it is a practice that doesn't, in terms of health, in terms of the moral issues that comes along in a society - it is. It is not acceptable."
Peter Rippon, the programme's editor, was telephoned by an officer at West End Central police station in London yesterday, who said that he was investigating a homophobic incident under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
This makes it an offence for a person to use "threatening, abusive or insulting words" within the hearing of "a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress" as a result.
The prosecution must also establish that the defendant intended his words to be threatening, abusive or insulting or that he was aware that they may be.
It is a defence for the accused to prove that his conduct was reasonable. The maximum penalty is a fine of £1,000.
There is no suggestion that the BBC is facing prosecution and it rebroadcast Sir Iqbal's remarks in full on yesterday's PM programme.
Sir Iqbal declined to comment further, saying he had not yet been contacted by the police.
The investigation follows a letter in The Daily Telegraph on Jan 6, pointing out that Christians who expressed negative views of homosexuality had previously been contacted by the police and warned against their behaviour.
Neil Addison, who wrote the letter, argued that if the police took no action against Sir Iqbal the Churches would be entitled to ask why Muslims were being treated differently from Christians.
Sir Iqbal defended his comments in a statement on his website last week. "What I said was only to reiterate the well-known Islamic position that the practice of homosexuality is not acceptable," he wrote.
"It is a sin. This view is shared in other scriptures, such as those of Christianity and Judaism."
Do you have special knowledge or experience of these issues? The Daily Telegraph's letters page welcomes your views: dtletters@telegraph.co.uk
6 January 2006[Opinion]: Letters, 6 January '05
13 December 2005[Opinion]: What is a crime? It's a matter of opinion
Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=NIJC4YQOLAUJTQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/01/12/nsacr12.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/01/12/ixportal.html