Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Government may back abolition of blasphemy laws

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Good, they should be banged up in jail for making homophobic comments and spreading hatred, as should members of all religions.Sexuality isn’t a lifestyle choice, religion is.

  2. Gene Touchet 8 Oct 2007, 2:42pm

    A quick read of this article indicates that, rather than stifle debate, this law would insist on civil discourse. That concept should be supported by everyone.

  3. Dominick J. Di Noto 8 Oct 2007, 4:44pm

    Good luck to you in getting this bill passed as it rightly should! It’s about time people took responsibilty for what they say AND do to create an atmosphere Hate to make minority groups uncomfortable especially when the crap they say are lies and misinformation. Most of the time they spew the hate through their words and ignorant people do there dirty work!

  4. “Fundamentalist religious groups are claiming their members could face seven years in jail for expressing their views about homosexuality under proposed new legislation.”One can but hope!

  5. Councillor Warren Morgan 8 Oct 2007, 11:02pm

    I’m really pleased that the campaign by Labour in Brighton and Hove and by LGBT Labour nationally has resulted in this move by the Government to outlaw incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexuality. Following our successful campaign on banning discrimination in goods and services it shows that the Government really does listen and act.

  6. Oh Joy, I can hardly wait to see what the Tories have to say about this one; no doubt Tebbit will do his “Sodomite” routine and Widdecombe will cook up some story about it upsetting elderly spinsters.

  7. Sean Shalor 9 Oct 2007, 12:25pm

    “preachers being prosecuted for emotionally expressing their firmly-held beliefs”Great news. Time for Christianity to rid itself of its many unchristian bigots.

  8. Vauxhalldave 9 Oct 2007, 2:08pm

    Islamic human rights organisation? Oxymoron if ever I heard one. Their concern with human rights seems very partisan indeed if they would suggest the protection of religion to incite violence against and denigrate gay people over the right of gay people to be protected from such behaviour.

  9. Allah Loadabollocks 9 Oct 2007, 2:13pm

    This is a further indication that Muslims don’t give a shit about Human Rights, they only care about Muslim Rights and squeal like pigs everytime we get anything to help us. Perhaps we should form a gay religion and claim that Graham Norton is the last true prophet.

  10. Robert, ex-pat Brit 9 Oct 2007, 2:35pm

    Why don’t Muslims in the UK, whether born there or not migrate to the middle east where they can practice their bigotry and hypocrisy, surely they’d be a lot happier. If they move to the west, assimilate or go back from whence you came. They should not be forcing their religion down our throats just because you don’t want us to have equal rights that they’ve always taken for granted. If they want to denigrate us just because their koran says we’re an abomination, then they’ll have to brace themselves when we start calling them names and denigrating their religion and their superstitious beliefs. What’s good for the goose is definitely good for the gander.

  11. I am all in favour of those who make religious “lifestyle choices” being called to task about their hypocritical “beliefs”.I was born the way I am, I did not become a transsexual by reading a book. Why should I be hidden away and subject to attack because “the book says so”

  12. “preachers being prosecuted for emotionally expressing their firmly-held beliefs”Oh, like the firmly held belief that witches, heretics, blasphemers and nonbelievers should be burned at the stake. Or the firmly held belief of many Christians in the American South through the years that black people were not human; that God ordained slavery (I was taught this IN CHURCH growing up in Mississippi in the 60’s); that the races should be segregated (I was taught this IN CHURCH), that African-Americans should be denied human and civil rights (I was taught this IN CHURCH.What about the historically deeply held religious beliefs that women should be subservient (I was also taught this IN CHURCH), that gay people should be killed or emprisoned (I was also taught this IN CHURCH).Let’s face it, neither the Christians nor the Muslims have a really good record on human or civil rights.And I can’t help but notice the sick irony that a group of people who riot in the streets and call for death to anyone who publishes a cartoon depiction of Muhamed, and who murder Dutch politicians in the street for exposing the mysoginy of radical Islam are bitching and moaning about THEIR freedoms of speech being limited.

  13. Tricky one for ken livingstone this. What’s he going to chat about to his islamic “moderate scholar” pal Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi who openly advocates killing us?I hope this law gets passed and we see some of those backward idiots banged up for 7 years.

  14. The Tories will really hate this and do everything they can to water it down or destroy it completely. Given half the chance, they’d ship us off to the gas chambers as they’re nothing short of modern day Nazis.

  15. Dominick J. Di Noto 9 Oct 2007, 5:56pm

    I am so happy to see that you now have a “New” offence of incitment to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.I’m also very happy to se that disabled and Transexual will be addd to the wording!! Good for you!Dominick

  16. “preachers being prosecuted for emotionally expressing their firmly-held beliefs”I have firmly held beliefs about 54 year old men who have sex with 9 year old girls. Shame we can’t criticise him without someone threatening to chop off our heads.I have firm beliefs about idiots who riot over a few cartoons or want to kill Salman Rushdie for writing a book.ROPMA.

  17. Irene in California 9 Oct 2007, 7:10pm

    Repression leads to violenceAllowing people to express feelings, including anger, is healthy. Criminalizing people for expressing anger is psychologically abusive. People like people who like themselves. Why don’t people like themselves, instead of forcing other people to, through penal threats? Is that intimidation or liberation? Respect can be encouraged, but not forced. Repression leads to violence. Pent-up energy erupts. Every force creates a counter-force. Why force free-speakers underground, into the closet? Why not welcome them into the broad daylight with healthy debate?

  18. Irene. Are you really proposing that we debate the issue of our right to be treated with civility with such people? And what of gay and lesbian people’s anger? Has this not been pushed aside for long enough? There is only one truth: the religious bigots find that the shoe is on the other foot and they don’t like it!!I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: this debate isn’t about morality, it’s about power! End of!

  19. Normally I would be all in favour of making sure that freedom of speech remains intact but when listening to these “Christians” moan about how they could get 7 years for expressing their beliefs I can’t help but scream “and what? Change your beliefs and you won’t”

  20. Robert, ex-pat Brit 9 Oct 2007, 8:51pm

    If the Tories try to water down the proposed new hate crimes legislation to appease religious bigots, then we’ll know that they’re not for our equality. In a democracy, a genuine democracy, all citizens are treated equally and fairly under the law, no exceptions. Religion has no place in politics, ever. For centuries, they’ve been villifying us, killing us, denying us our rights, its about time the tables are turned on them, give them a dose of their own medicine. Let the muslims move to the middle east if they don’t respect the rights of others in the UK.

  21. Bill Perdue 9 Oct 2007, 9:04pm

    I can understand the Conservatives natural reluctance to call bigots to account. They’re accountable to totalitarian christian bigots and their own homophobic base and some of them would be liable for prosecution under the new statute. Whatever their hesitations though we have to demand their support for this measure. The provocations of bigoted rap and reggae artists, the Paisley klan, christian totalitarians and the BNP have a direct link to beatings and murders by thugs, who get encouragement and feel empowered by hate speech. The Conservatives will just have to suck it up and restrain their instincts to voice bigoted remarks in public.

  22. Evan Harris is wise to suggest the protection from homophobic hate should be on the same basis as that of religious hate – the theists can scarcely complain about having to treat others with the same level of respect that they have demanded they be given themselves!Though of course, they will…

  23. what I find so disapointing in all this is the doubt and wondering from some parties that such a law is needed.

  24. David in Brighton 9 Oct 2007, 10:36pm

    I agree with what others have said about the Tories. This legislation will be another test on just how much the Conservative Party has changed from the ‘Nasty Party’ and how much authority Cameron really has. My analysis, for what it’s worth, is that there is little support for the homophobic nutters from any mainstream political parties or from the population of this country.The Religious extremists are relatively few in number but very well organised and will blast a local MP with letters, emails and phone calls against gay equality laws (as happened when the Sexual Orientation Regulations were passed into law earlier this year).At the end of the day, homophobia is what thugs do, frankly they should be locked up.

  25. Sister Mary Clarance 9 Oct 2007, 10:50pm

    “Why not welcome them into the broad daylight with healthy debate?” I’m with Irene.Prejudice is borne out of ignorance. Talking and debating an issue is an opportunity to educate.Legislation alone is unlikely to convince anyone who currently doubts the validity of the arguement for equality. Having a frank and open discussion on the subject highlighting the effects and consequences of inequality and differential treatment is surely much more likely to do so.Lobby groups like Stonewall have already shown how effective this can be.

  26. Irene in California 9 Oct 2007, 11:07pm

    Yes, I agree this is about power. Many crimes are about power. True power is said to be knowing oneself. Strength is said to be knowing others. Many people substitute strength over other people for their own empowerment. Does imprisoning people for long periods add to the trauma and aggravated stress affecting everyone? Is jail good for people? Do people come out of it as better people who treat people more kindly? Or do they get humiliated, abused and traumatized so much that they can’t feel gentle feelings?Yes, I want all people to be treated with civility. The question is the long-term way of enabling society to become gentler. What kinds of conditions do forceful means create? How about treating other people like one would like to be treated? Loving other people as oneself? I’m not religious, because I think religions can be more about group politics. I think there have been wise teachers of peace and love who people incorporated into their view of religion. I’m more about a person’s openness to sense the way things work — the way one thing leads to another.

  27. Bill Perdue 10 Oct 2007, 1:24am

    Irene counter poses feel-good psychology for real world attempts to stop the violence. They only fit together on the question of traditional jails which aren’t good places to intensively reeducate compulsive gayhaters. Listening to lectures about the evils of homobigotry and then returning to your cell to get raped is probably counterproductive. The important question is how to stop the violence and harassment, particularly of younger gays and lesbians. England and Scotland, according to Gay.com have “seen a sharp increase in the reporting of anti-gay hate crime, according to a new poll, with an estimated rise of 90 percent across the country.” ‘These figures are still the tip of the iceberg. We know that just as many homophobic crimes go unreported…’” said Stonewall Scotland’s Ali Jarvis.Incarceration in jails or reeducation centers are a successful deterrent to criminality, and homobigotry is a crime, not just a mental illness. This law could have a very positive effect if used to stifle homobigots like a politician making false charge of child abuse, a roman cult priest calling us ‘evil’ or a reggae thug inciting murder. If it passes extremists will learn to choke off their instincts to act like pigs and priests, mullahs and like will have to concentrate on real evil for a change. Irene is correct in saying that prison doesn’t cure people; it takes sick people and turns them into depraved sociopaths. So for violent thugs the only appropriate sentences are death or life imprisonment. But she’s worng in saying we don’t need to punish them. We do.

  28. Sister Mary Clarance 10 Oct 2007, 9:27am

    “…. seen a sharp increase in the reporting of anti-gay hate crime, according to a new poll, with an estimated rise of 90 percent across the country.”This has been largely attributed to an increase in reporting rather than an increase in incidents and its nearer 74% not 90%.”Incarceration in jails or reeducation centers are a successful deterrent to criminality ….”However Labour’s own figures show MORE criminals are returning to a life of crime within months of serving jail or community sentences than at any time since Labour came to power.Not sure where you are getting your information but I don’t think its very helpful rabble rousing and fueling people’s insecurities with mis-information.Seemingly you have plucked this information out of thin air to make your point against Irene, whose postings seem to make a great deal more sense than some of yours – in my view of course!

  29. Bill Perdue 10 Oct 2007, 1:59pm

    Mother Superior Try to keep up. Irene raised some points about incarceration as a deterrent and I commented on them, disagreeing with some things she said and agreeing with others. It wasn’t about you or your beloved Conservative Party and no one yanked your chain. You reacted the same way you do to anyone not on the Conservative bandwagon and said that I’m a rabble rousing liar and a really, really pessimistic person. You forgot your pet theory that foreigners want you out of the way so we can get on with Subverting The English Way Of Life. Exactly who are the ‘rabble’ you refer to? Don’t you think that’s an offensive and reactionary way to talk about people? Obviously you don’t. I remember providing a source at (Gay.com) for the information I quoted. Check it and prove I made it up or we’ll all know your remarks are another feeble attempt to justify your role as a mouthpiece for the Conservative party line.It seems that your self-appointed task as supervisor of gay cheerleaders in the Conservatives Party’s noise machine obliges you to obsessively filter events and ideas according to their value as half truths. If they promote your goal to become the best little Thatcherite in the whole wide world then you exploit them. If not, you call them lies. Your unvarying attempts to commandeer a forum devoted to the needs of the GLBT communities and exploit it help elect Conservatives is deceitful. Not everything is about you, Mother Superior, or the reactionary Party politics you mechanically introduce into every dialogue. Give it a rest. Let people talk about being gay and lesbian, and how that impacts their lives. Leave your party line where it belongs, in the sewer.……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..I found the following sites very useful for general background on the subject. Both examine the data from the appropriate internationalist view which informs their discussion of how to fight the violence. The statistics change over time as reporting becomes better. Still, it’s likely they’re underreported. What I’d like to know is if there’s a non governmental group counting and analyzing beatings and deaths on a consistent basis.

  30. I am furious over this article about kids using the word ‘gay’. So we should just accept that it’s part of the culture that the word gay means something bad or uncool and it’s not homophobic? The fact that they don’t understand the consequences of using the word in such a negative way is down to lack of education and a general acceptance by straight adults that it’s ok. I am tired of people making excuses for homophobic behaviour or language – if it’s not the ultra religious we have to worry about then it’s innocent or should that be ignorant children.

  31. The term Nigger was once in everyday use but that didn’t make it right. It’s typical of the Daily Telegraph to pull a stunt like this but I thought that Kidscape would have more sense. Or, are their board Tories / Religious, as often happens with charities. Pompous old biddies with nothing better to do who think they’re “doing their bit”?

  32. Dominick J. Di Noto 10 Oct 2007, 4:53pm

    “Charity warns kids could be prosecuted under incitement lawA leading children’s charity has said that playground taunts may lead to arrests under a proposed new law.”Well you know it’s just too bad. NOW maybe parents will start to teach their kids that it’s NOT nice to bully and use horrid names and being stupid isn’t going to be an excuse!Dominick

  33. Bill, if you’ve been reading comments at PinkNews for any amount of time you know the Sister Mary Clarance is a Conservative shill who mysteriously showed up right about the time that PinkNews started placing ads for the Conservative Party.She/he is likely a paid staff person on the Tory payroll.You should be familiar with the game. America has its version of conservative shills who troll gay websites pushing Republican propaganda and attacking Democrats at every turn.Half of the time they’re not even gay.Don’t worry yourself too much with Sister Toriana Lova. You’d be just as effective trying to have a debate with a broken record (if you’re old enough to remember scratched LP’s).

  34. Sister Mary Clarance 10 Oct 2007, 5:46pm

    Bill – as previously posted ….You as you have a tendency leap on the first signs of smoke and create flames to fan wherever you can, playing on everyone’s fears and insecurities. You fill in gaps with fantasy and half truths so that those reading these comments become confused by what is actually fact and what is fiction.Repeatedly, in thread after thread you brow-beat and bully people that have a different opinion to your own, invariably accusing them of being the aggressor. You clearly have an axe (well, axes) to grind on many issues and are seemingly not content until you have poisoned everyone’s view of the world.I don’t live, and I don’t want to live, in a world where every straight person is my enemy. I don’t believe that there is an enormous straight conspiracy against the gay community. Sometimes bad things happen to us ‘and we are gay’, it is not always ‘because we are gay’. Equality is not just about other people seeing us as equals, but just as much about us seeing them as equals.It is clear from your postings that you know little about life in this country and rely heavily on outdated stereotypical beliefs. You continually argue similarities with a country that is moving in a different direction to us, the differences getting greater and greater all the time. It should be irrelevant where you come from when you post a comment on here, but you are the one that makes it relevant in your posting.It is understandable that people posting comments on here will have different opinions. It is a place for different opinions to be aired. People will often vote for different political parties. It is their right to do so. Everyone should be able to post comments on here without fear of attack from you and a small number of other people.Anyone is welcome to comment on articles on this site, but comment on the article and leave the personal attacks on others for another place.Sister Mary Clarance | 10.10.07 – 1:47 pm | #

  35. Sister Mary Clarance 10 Oct 2007, 6:34pm

    Check the date of the article Zeke, then the comments, and then check your facts.You and Bill wouldn’t happen to know each other by any chance would you? An alter ego maybe?Ditto everything I haver responded to Bill mate.

  36. Robert, ex-pat Brit 10 Oct 2007, 7:01pm

    Tough titty if a charity is getting hysterical over children being prosecuted for using “gay” as a slur. They DO know what gay means, if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be bullying their peers in schools. You see, straights don’t like it now the tables are turned on them. Maybe their parents will act like parents and teach their children what is right and wrong and that it is wrong to discriminate and utter slurs against a particular group they don’t like. In fact, why not fine the parents instead if their kids are involved in hate speech, violence and discrimination against gay boys and girls? Its about time they all learned a lesson.

  37. Not always necessarily the fault of the kids or the parents if they pick these things up:How many have picked it up from the likes of Mr Moyles?I also very much doubt some of the younger ones really do have any idea what the word means.

  38. Dominick J. Di Noto 10 Oct 2007, 10:58pm

    “Not always necessarily the fault of the kids or the parents if they pick these things up”Education starts at home, so before the kids pick it up on the streets the parents should be teaching their kids tolerance and acceptence at home.

  39. quote, Kidscape, who work with bullied and vulnerable children, said that the use of the word “gay” among children is so prevalent that many did not even understand what it means. Then its about time they did!!!!

  40. Kidscape have got this so wrong. How about their priority being gay kids living lives free from bullying?Email them at counsellor@kidscape.org.uk

  41. and the email for the Director of Kidscape is michele@kidscape.org.uk

  42. As a straight woman with a gay son (I go with him and his boyfriend to GAY and party all night!)Can I just say that the most vile, bigoted homophobic person I ever knew was a work colleague who was white, male,voted labour and was a complete atheist?

  43. I think some people are missing the point here. The word gay originally meant happy or carefree. Some time ago a new meaning was introduced (although I’ve no idea why), and the common usage of the word refers to homosexuals.However, the word has been hijacked again amongst young people and is used to indicate lame or rubbish. In the 19th century though the word meant slightly drunk.It is not used generally in reference to people but towards inanimate objects.Language has always changed through the ages and it is unlikely that with the number of young people using the word with its newest meaning that attempts through legisalation, education or otherwise are going to change things back again. Kidscape have quite rightly pointed out that there are potential problems on the horizon because of this. The numbers of people posting comments here show how great the potential is for problems and misunderstanding.

  44. Dominick J. Di Noto 11 Oct 2007, 3:48am

    STEVE:I think some people are missing the point here. The word gay originally meant happy or carefree.DOMINICK: Steve the word gay still means happy and carefree. Now here’s why and when the “new” meaning came into use. We use the word Gay today because many, many years ago the Matacheen(sp)Society coined the word for the Homosexual population because they were tired of having Gays called Fags, queers and other derragotory names. They picked the word because it was Up lifting, happy sounding and positive! It did gives us a good feeling about ourselves. It did then and it still does today. I love the initials GLBT-Q. It has a great meaning and gives us a great name for our movement In those long days gone bye any thing written about Gays was always sad and down as in many of Gay books, “Giovanis Room” comes to mind and other books by James Baldwin and other writters. So use the name proudly. Being Gay helps me to remember I’m Proud to be who I am and that’s what we need every young person to be who is fighting with his identity.

  45. Bill Perdue 11 Oct 2007, 7:03am

    On the question of using gay as a derogatory remark I think anyone can see that if people are made inferior by language or custom they’re wide open to victimization. If harassment or violence follows there’s no question about the direct linkage. That’s why I hope that if the law is passed it’s used primarily on religious or political groups that foster bigotry. Hopefully the proposed laws will make it easier to sue homobigots and crack down on schoolyard harassment; if it becomes known that encouraging bigotry costs money it’ll help stop it. ———————————————————————————————————————————————————Zeke, I don’t worry much about whether it’s paid work as an attack Chihuahua for the Thatcherites of if its volunteer work. Most people see though the whining and understand the class background that informs Mother Superiors politics. I occasionally reply to her more offensive comments but usually it’s redundant; there’s never a shortage of gays and lesbians who think Mother Superiors wrong.

  46. Sister Mary Clarance 11 Oct 2007, 8:45am

    Bill – what didn’t you understand?It is understandable that people posting comments on here will have different opinions. It is a place for different opinions to be aired. People will often vote for different political parties. It is their right to do so. Everyone should be able to post comments on here without fear of attack from you and a small number of other people.Anyone is welcome to comment on articles on this site, but comment on the article and leave the personal attacks on others for another place.Sister Mary Clarance | 10.10.07 – 1:47 pm | #

  47. children have been taught over the last few decades that racism is wrong and that certain words used in a certain context relating to those issues are wrong to use. They are taught the words are offensive and can incite. This is what should be happening now relating to gay issues. I have a 12 year old niece, and 14 year nephew, and if they use the word gay in the wrong context or any other word that relates to my being , my core that I deem as offensive. I correct them , explain why , and have the full support of their mothers, my sisters. Be it 4 to 16. Kids start their adult behavior in school, and take it in to adult life, and perhaps laws like this will educate, and will not only extend in to schools but bigoted households too. It will teach respect, and so it should.

  48. bill + zekesister mary clarence is absolutely right, you’re behaviour on this site is disgusting. time and again you launch personal attacks on people because of what you perceive to be their class or political persuasion – a nazi, a conservative shill, a chihuahua.it is all to easy to sit at home hurling insults at people, i suspect you would not be quite so free with them face to face. i’m sure if you were it would be too long before you ended up with a well deserved slap.so please, give it a rest

  49. Robert, ex-pat Brit 11 Oct 2007, 12:55pm

    Helena, what has being a complete atheist all about? So you’re equating atheism with homophobia and voting Labour? There are also conservative atheists, yes, in the Tory party. I for one am an atheist but it doesn’t make me anti-straight. Get a grip.

  50. Bill Perdue 11 Oct 2007, 7:07pm

    steveCan you read? Do you remember the scores of sordid remarks that Mother Superior hurls at anyone anyone who won’t kowtow to the Conservative Party line. Another Thatcherite heard from, and with threats. How very Conservative of you.

  51. Sister Mary Clarance 11 Oct 2007, 8:42pm

    Still not getting it Bill I see ….It is understandable that people posting comments on here will have different opinions. It is a place for different opinions to be aired. People will often vote for different political parties. It is their right to do so. Everyone should be able to post comments on here without fear of attack from you and a small number of other people.Anyone is welcome to comment on articles on this site, but comment on the article and leave the personal attacks on others for another place.

  52. Bill Perdue 12 Oct 2007, 6:37pm

    “In The Times Mathew Paris fears a similar blow to freedom of expression, questioning if homophobic insults were to become unlawful, “why should we remain free to sneer, in ways inciting hatred, at a person’s being Welsh, or Irish?”Why indeed. Except as Stonewall explains it, the bill is aimed at violence and if they incite violence they deserve to be punished. The law shouldn’t protect just the wealthy and powerful. It should protect those who can’t afford bodyguards and bulletproof limos and unless you want a police station on every corner that means deterrence.If the law passes, gets enforced, and begins to deter violence then we can talk about the effects of bigotry in a less violent context. Then a public discussion with racist islamophobes, homobigots like Elephant Man and Vybz Kartel, jihadist terror bombers and DUP sponsored paramilitary murderers might have some effect. Especially If people KNEW that inciting violence would land them in jail. But as it is, with beatings and killings continuing such a discussion would probably just inflame the thugs.

  53. Malcolm Lidbury 13 Oct 2007, 11:44am

    Police officers are the FIRST people this new “incitement to hatred against gay people” should be used AGAINST…or is that just a homophobic police problem in Cornwall?

  54. Andy Armitage 4 Dec 2007, 2:25pm

    While the Christian churches are yampy in the extreme for believing that there is a god who knows each of our hearts, they should nonetheless be able to say what they will, provided it doesn’t incite hatred. However, there is an argument here for stronger opposition to their barmy beliefs than there is to, say, a nutter on an orange box in Hyde Park. While we shouldn’t bar free speech (it’ll be our turn to be silenced soon if we do, and don’t believe this power-crazy, control-freak government wouldn’t do that), we ought to put up a more powerful opposition to what the churches say in whatever form we can, because they wield a lot of influence, and there are vulnerable people (I’m thinking mainly of young people) who find it hard enough to cope with their sexuality in what is still a fairly homophobic world, without having men in frocks (frocks that given them influence) telling them they’re filth (OK, they don’t say that, but that’s what I believe of myself, and that is what many others will, too). No, these illogical, unreasonable, irrational morons should be challenged with ridicule and good argument, as publicly as possible, and if that means some believers have to go against their beloved church then so be it..

  55. Andy Armitage 4 Dec 2007, 2:27pm

    Hmm, I should have said “that’s what I believed of myself” in that last post below. I don’t now. Typo. Naughty fingers!

  56. Robert, ex-pat Brit 4 Dec 2007, 3:51pm

    “This tradition teaches that human sexuality is a gift of God which finds its proper expression in marriage, the exclusive, freely-accepted and permanent bond between a man and a woman, and that sexual relations outside marriage fall short of God’s purpose.”I’ve not seen anything written in the bible about this. Where do these bigots get off interpreting a socalled “god’s” purpose? Where does it say that about marriage? They should all take a look at the link below wherein they’ll find that all of them are in violation of their god’s purpose and do not live up to anything the bible dictates except of course when it comes to Leviticus. So transparent.www.fallwell.com

  57. Robert, ex-pat Brit 4 Dec 2007, 3:56pm

    Andy, what we should be doing is going after the C of E, RC church and all the other mainstream religions and ask them why they deliberately omit many of the references in the bible which put straight people in a bad light. They all claim they believe in scripture when it comes to that very questionable reference in Leviticus, but they’re damn well silent when it comes to all of the other mumbo jumbo. I use the following link to give it right back to them. We should be crashing their websites and bombard them will this stuff just as nutters like Hank et al do on this one. http://www.fallwell.com

  58. What we should not be doing is “going after” and challenging established religion. As I have said before, it’s a bit like arguing that the earth is flat with an astronaut.I feel sure that most GLBT people have enough self-confidence and self-esteem not to feel it necessary to justify their existence anyway, so why engage with their debates, on their terms?What we need is the collective maturity to allow people the space to believe what they want to believe, and for the rest of us to mind our own business, and get on with the task that remains: using our energies to help change the lot of LGBT people around the world who don’t have the luxury of self-indulgent point scoring on forums such as these!

  59. Mr P Cowling 4 Dec 2007, 5:49pm

    Practice what you preach then christians! You are in danger of Blatant Hypocrasy

  60. Robert, ex-pat Brit 4 Dec 2007, 5:54pm

    David, that was my intent when I said going after them. Meaning, we should be constantly challenging them and holding them accountable. They can’t cherry pick one verse to use against us to the exclusion of others that apply to them, if they say they believe in the scripture based on Leviticus alone. They either believe all of it, or they believe in none of it. They can’t have it both ways.

  61. Anonymous 4 Dec 2007, 6:27pm

    Holding them accountable? Why? Are they in positions of power, elected by the masses? No! They are not. They are now a tiny minority of extremists in existence who have no influence on public policy in this country. Even a majority of people of faith, even in the RC church, are at variance on gay issues with the “powers that be.” Let them be, I say, and let us ensure that they do not influence public policy to our detriment. And if they use their religious texts selectively, then why worry about it. Let them be!

  62. Sorry, I am responsible for the last post. Forgot to enter my name

  63. The country needs this legislation, another well placed nail in religions coffin, as fundamentalism gets more extreme (weird how something that’s supposed to be concrete can get worse) the law should get more vigilant, and religions are only going to get more extreme, it’s a natural reaction to its decline, and its decline will only continue as we progress through modernity, what’s a better representation of modern liberal values than gay people, and as for marriage that was only created so the rich could say “That’s my child when I die he gets my money!”

  64. Robert, ex-pat Brit 4 Dec 2007, 8:50pm

    Anonymous, to an extent they are in power in the House of Lords, an unelected, undemocratic body that is allowed to legislate against us, some are C of E dignitaries. That entire institution should be abolished once and for all. Its anachronistic and unnecessary. They have no business in government, ever.

  65. this bloody lot always want there cake and eat it

  66. Vauxhalldave 5 Dec 2007, 10:44am

    Just Vile. This weasaly differentiation between sexual orientation and sexual expression is so miserable. Especially with something as fundamental as sexuality and sexual desire. It’s like saying it’s Ok for people to be hungry but not OK for them to eat. How cruel to acknowledge our sexual orientation and desire and deny any expression of it. This piece of legislation does not make these religious leaders think well maybe we are being unreasonable and that our actions of denigrating gay people and encouraging our followers and others to discriminate, disrespect and dissaprove of them has consequences for them. Who drives hate against homosexuals? Who gives the haters the persmission? If it is not organised religion. They were perfectly happy to have protection against incitement provision on the grounds of religion even though it could more easily be argued that religion is entirely a lifestyle choice. What hypocricy and what a poor reflection on these church leaders. They are not concerned at the negative consequences of their “criticism” and “evaluation” of gay people and their “lifestyle” choice which I would say is my natural sexual expression, they are only concerned that they can continue to do it. They have learnt nothing, have no conscience or humanity. Disgusting!

  67. Robert, ex-pat Brit 5 Dec 2007, 1:15pm

    VauxhallDave, I’m in total agreement with you. Belief systems are definitely choices,whereas sexuality is not. To digress, regarding the “blasphemy” laws why on earth in the 21st century are we still using such antiquated terminology? It makes us sound like a nation of right wing fundamentalists of all persuasions. It should be abolished along with the House of Lords.

  68. Robert – yeah, lets abolish the house of lords completely, that way the labour government will have no safety check at all and run through whatever bills it dreams up. Stop being so bloody naive.

  69. Robert, ex-pat Brit 5 Dec 2007, 7:44pm

    Rob Neal, so you believe that unelected people have the right to pass legislation that could negatively effect you and others and you call that democratic? I don’t.

  70. I’m not particularly bothered about the Lord’s one way or the other, but they do provide a facilty for further debate. They have a wealth of political experience (from all sides) and those politicians that end up in the Lords, do tend to be less party political than they were in the Commons.And there is an argument that since they are not beholden to anyone, they don’t have to be intimidated by party whips.Also I’m not sure that someone who is there by right of birth is really any less valid than some jobsworth who brown nosed the Prime Minister of the day or made sufficient donations to buy his seat.It’s very existence seems to annoy certain groups on the far Left and that is another point in its favour.That said, there have been some right twats in there in recent years. I remember some bigotted old gits who were against legislation on the age of consent.

  71. Robert, ex-pat Brit 5 Dec 2007, 8:56pm

    Luke, I hear you, but I just feel uncomfortable that they’re there unelected and not representative of the people. It just smacks of those totalitarian regimes in the middle east and elsewhere who appoint whom they wish without the people having any say in who gets to represent them. What I do object to are religious dignitaries who are among them. I’m also for the disestablishment of state religion. Is the C of E tax-exempt I wonder? If it is, then it should stay out of politics.

  72. Robert, ex-pat Brit 21 Dec 2007, 2:44pm

    I find it quite rich that these christo-fascist hypocrites and bigots want an new amendment to the hate crimes law to satisfy their right to denigrate us by uttering questionable references in the bible regarding same sex orientation something that Jesus Christ never mentioned, then it should be our right to denigrate their religious beliefs with impunity even if it incites hatred which is what they’re doing to us regardless. Let them get a dose of their own medicine and then they’ll see what it means to be on the receiving end of slurs.

  73. World of Twist 21 Dec 2007, 3:17pm

    I’ll tell you what’s bloody rich,Christians with a persecution complex bleating on about secularists and the politically correct trying to ban Christmas (and therefore Christianity) while at the same time trying to force the Government to allow them to continue to persecute gay people.Is there no end to Christiban hypocrisy?If I hear one more Christian talk about God is love …I shall screeeeeeeam.(exept for Bishop Tutu, he is a sweetie)

  74. What can one expect from the mentally-ill Ann Widdlebum and the other sufferers of religious mania1

  75. Vauxhalldave 21 Dec 2007, 3:50pm

    Why didn’t these disgusting bigots demand this clause was put in the legislation relating to incitement on religious grounds. I’ll can’t describe the antipathy I feel to religious bigots. Merry xmas

  76. Omar Kuddus 21 Dec 2007, 4:29pm

    The cross-party group of MPs are reminded that supporting such action would be in violation of Article 14 of the Human Rights Act: Prohibition on Discrimination.The MPs that has tabled an amendment designed to ensure that homophobic Christians can continue to express their views on gay people, are reminded that as representatives of the “people” and their duties come first and religious beliefs second. If they find their belief conflicting, RESIGN.The Christian Concern for our Nation, a pressure group that may be attempting to “stand up against a tide of unchristian legal and political changes in the United Kingdom,” is urging its supporters to pressure MPs into supporting the new amendmentThe new amendment from Christian MPs may read as:”Nothing in this part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion of, criticism of or expressions of antipathy towards, conduct relating to a particular sexual orientation, or urging persons of a particular sexual orientation to refrain from or modify conduct relating to that orientation.”But may one remind them and the supporting MP’s that such action would be in direct violation of Article 14 of the Human Rights Act: Prohibition on discrimination, that is part of British statutory law.”the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this convention shall be secured without discrimination on any grounds such as sex, race, colour, language religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”Among the MPs asking for the right to show antipathy towards their gay constituents are: Lib Dems Colin Breed (South East Cornwall) and Alan Beith (Berwick Upon Tweed); Conservatives Philip Hollobone (Kettering) and Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and the Weald); and Labour MPs David Taylor (North West Leicestershire) and Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) an I hope that gay constituents show their disapproval and complain to their relevant Mps regarding their stance and we are their constituents and they are only in office to Serve ALL of the population.

  77. World of Twist 21 Dec 2007, 6:50pm

    Robert, ex-pat BritMy apologies I re-read your post and can see now that I have said the same thing you have posted. only yours was more eloquent than mine and you posted it first. Good point about Jesus not actually mentioning homosexuality at all. (had plenty to say about divorce though,funny we don’t hear much about that isn’t it)Note to self- Must allow red haze derived from hearing of Christian hypocrisy, double-standards and all round ghastliness to dissipate first before I post.Personally I think they need homos to rail against in order to rally their dwindling numbers. It’s a right wing trick also perpetrated by the Republican party, appeal to people’s most base fears and get all conspiratorial with them. Works for the Daily mail.What also burns my onion is when the very same Christiban say things like :you can’t cherry pick the bible” and then conveniently ignore Leviticus.Oh yes then there are the homophobic bloggers who rant on about :the gay “lobby”….what is that, a heavily draped foyer?

  78. Robert, ex-pat Brit 21 Dec 2007, 9:50pm

    World of Twist, thank you. I throw the following link at all the religious nutjobs and fanatics, http://www.fallwell.com. There is a lot of stuff that they conveniently omit when they’re on a tirade against us. They can rant about Leviticus all they want, there’s much more against them in the bible. Versus 10 and 16 of Leviticus also forbid adultery and blasphemy, both punishable by death. They’re all mentally ill, lets face it, you have to be to believe in some fairytale imaginary being flying around in the sky. People like George Bush et al actually say that it speaks to them. Its insane and also sick!

  79. Omar Kuddus 22 Dec 2007, 4:22pm

    Why not send your disgust and complaint to the Homophobic MP’s that want to amend the hate crime legislation?(I have even added their email addresses for your convince).Dear Sir,In regards to your recent comments and proposals published in pinknews.co.uk (http://pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-640) under the heading Christian MPs want to amend hate crime legislationMay I bring to you, as a Member of Parliament, the following significant points? Yours Sincerely “ The cross-party group of MPs are reminded that supporting such action would be in violation of Article 14 of the Human Rights Act: Prohibition on Discrimination.The MPs that have tabled an amendment designed to ensure that homophobic Christians can continue to express their views on gay people, are reminded that as representatives of the “people” and their duties come first and religious beliefs second.If they find their belief conflicting, then RESIGN, irrespective of their religious dominations/ faiths.The Christian Concern for our Nation, a pressure group that may be attempting to “stand up against a tide of unchristian legal and political changes in the United Kingdom,” is urging its supporters to pressure MPs into supporting the new amendment. The new amendment from Christian MPs may read as: “Nothing in this part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion of, criticism of or expressions of antipathy towards, conduct relating to a particular sexual orientation, or urging persons of a particular sexual orientation to refrain from or modify conduct relating to that orientation.”But may one remind them and the supporting MP’s that such action would be in direct violation of Article 14 of the Human Rights Act: Prohibition on discrimination that is part of British statutory law. “the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this convention shall be secured without discrimination on any grounds such as sex, race, colour, language religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”Among the MPs asking for the right to show antipathy towards their gay constituents are: Lib Dems Colin Breed (South East Cornwall) and Alan Beith (Berwick Upon Tweed); Conservatives Philip Hollobone (Kettering) and Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and the Weald); and Labour MPs David Taylor (North West Leicestershire) and Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton)And I hope that gay constituents show their disapproval and complain to their relevant Mps regarding their stance and we are their constituents and they are only in office to Serve ALL of the population.”So send them an email showing your disgust and beliefs and stand up and be counted.For after all, they are OUR representatives and only in office to serve our interests.PARTY LEADER Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown Address:10 Downing Street, London Conservative David Cameron Email address: Cameron@parliament.uk Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg Email address: nickclegg@sheffieldhallam.org.ukMPs asking for the right to show antipathy towards their gay constituents are: Lib Dems Colin Breed (South East Cornwall) breedc@parliament.ukAlan Beith (Berwick Upon Tweed); berwicklibdems@yahoo.co.ukConservatives Philip Hollobone (Kettering) hollobonep@parliament.ukAnn Widdecombe (Maidstone and the Weald); widdecombea@parliamentLabour MPs David Taylor (North West Leicestershire) taylordl@parliament.ukJim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) dobbinj@parliament.uk

  80. Tom Forrest 25 Dec 2007, 9:16am

    Police officers are the FIRST people this new “incitement to hatred against gay people” should be used AGAINST…or is that just a homophobic police problem in Cornwall?Having watched the You tube video my impression is one not of homophobic bullying but rather homosexual grooming.

  81. William - Dublin 26 Dec 2007, 12:45am

    “homosexual grooming”??? Why thank you Tom, I do make sure I am groomed well. Hygiene is important, and good grooming is essential to make a good impression, don’t you agree?Although given your draconian and hateful little comments, one can be forgiven for assuming you wash in a swamp.Why is an uneducated cretin like you in a gay site for Christmas, your wife out turning tricks for your drink money?

  82. World of Twist 28 Dec 2007, 11:57am

    William,DublinDo we get Trolls on here (in the form of Tom Forrest) ?? Excellent riposte at him btw, although the irony of discussing personal hygiene with a straight boy is not lost.I think it’s very dodgy indeed for a supposed straight man to troll on a gay forum like this. I do hope he can find peace within himself.Tom ForrestKeep a wide stance ranger.Robert ex-pat BritAgree totally, it IS insane and sick.How those that believe in the supernatural can bully the rest of us in going along with their deranged programme is beyond belief.Hope you all had a good Christmas all.

  83. Can we now leave Ruth Kelly alone? There was a lot of hype about her last year which suggested, sans evidence, she was a bigot when, in fact, she has a pretty good record on these things.

  84. Andy Armitage 10 Jan 2008, 3:15pm

    “However, the government has given repeated assurances that religious people will continue to have the right to express their homophobic views.”Hmm, so why bother with this silly amendment, then? Let the buggers say what they will – because you can bet your bottom that other freedoms to express opinion will be stamped on before long. I have no objection whatever if some man in a frock and a dog collar wants to tell me I’m vile. I’ll defeat him with argument and ridicule. I may not agree with what he says but, to cite Voltaire, will fight to let him say it. I think the gay community can handle what bloody priests and prelates want to hand out. What do they think we are – a load of poofs?

  85. Why does the headline focus on 12 Labour MP’s when something in the region of 150 (that’s more than 10 times 12) TORY MP’s voted in favour of the amendment?The vast majority of Tory MP’s voted for this amendment.TORY = EVIL and don’t forget it.

  86. To answer Simon’s point: It should not be possible for gay people to ever vote for the Tory party. It is still very largely, with a few honourable exceptions, a homophobic party.

  87. Robert, ex-pat Brit 10 Jan 2008, 5:25pm

    Andy, it needs to be abolished so that they can’t take legal action for frivolous claims (blasphemy) against us. Having said that, I hope they’re not under the impression that we will not bash them. What’s good for the goose is also good for the gander. We can give it right back in abundance. Of course, none of us like what they say about us, but they have a right to do so, just as we do when we bash them. Sooner or later, they run out of excuses, they lose credibility, people are sophisticated enough to see through most of it. We’re not a religious society as America is so I don’t think its going to be such a big issue anyway. Every society has its right wing conservative nutjobs, they are no exception. These people don’t like change so they react negatively, its a natural reflex, but we can handle it and we can handle them.

  88. World of Twist 10 Jan 2008, 5:28pm

    Yet unbelievably there are right wing gays in the world. I know I nearly dated one,actually two. May sound daft but I just couldn’t take it to the next level with them.It would make me feel so dirty. Besides they tend to be wankers (goes with the territory)

  89. World of Twist 10 Jan 2008, 5:37pm

    Personally I don’t think we should grant them any concessions whatsoever. One cannpt appease right wingers.With them it’s just the thin end of the wedge. What next? Any success they have is considered by them to be a stepping stone,they should not be encouraged as they won’t relent until they have what they want, and what they want is to our detriment.This is war.A war they declared on us, not the other way around. Be vigilant!By the way I started watching Jesus camp last night and after I saw five minutes of how they brain washed those kids I just couldn’t watch any more.

  90. Robert, ex-pat Brit 10 Jan 2008, 5:38pm

    Neville, I only wish that were possible. In the U.S. we have more than one million Log Cabiners (conservative gay men and women) voting for and supporting right wing candidates, candidates who do not believe in equality and who would rather see us remain silent, stay in the closet and just shut up or go away, all the while taking financial contributions to their campaigns. All that conservative gay voters in the U.S. care about is the preservation of their wealth, their second homes, cars, two international vacations a year, tax loopholes and maintaining their lives of privilege while the rest of us can go to hell. Equality is not high on their list of priorities, never was, never will be. These gay conservative voters support a party that also swiftly enacted amendments in 27 states out of 50 to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying and/or having a civil union (partnership). Go figure. Sounds like self-loathing to me, but then its a party that engenders this kind of behaviour.Lets not forget, Cameron defended and supported section 28 as did the majority in his party. I don’t trust anyone who could support a pernicious piece of legislation like that. A leopard never changes its spots.

  91. Robert, ex-pat Brit 10 Jan 2008, 5:46pm

    World of Twist, I concur with that. Actually, conservatives are far more closeted with far more hangups than those of us who are progressives. They’ll even deny who they are if they’re back is up against the wall. I could NEVER get involved with any conservative, poles apart on most issues, definitely not compatible. Who needs the grief?

  92. World of Twist 10 Jan 2008, 6:15pm

    Robert Ex-patAmen to that brother,Loved your comment about conservative gays in America btw. Spot on analysis.

  93. AM in two minds about this bill. For one thing, yes, anyone who incides violence against another person should be dealt with severely by the law. But the bill won’t do anything to change or challenge opinion.Thomas Paine’s 1794 introduction to The Age of Reason sums up my opinion: “…I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it. The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall….” If religious groups feel they should make their homophobic views heard, they must do so. Otherwise my right to mock and ridicule their crackpot beliefs is taken away. What I fear, with all these laws against “religious hatred” as well, we may have a situation where no-one can argue with anyone. We have “gated-ghettos” of opinions, ringfenced from criticism, and this is very dangerous for society. And reasonable criticism is labelled as “hatespeech”. (What is actually wrong with ‘hate’ ?? – I definitely do hate religious beliefs. Sometimes, e.g. when a critically ill daughter of a jehova’s witness is dying through lack of blood in the operating theatre, it is reasonable, morally justifiable, even essential, to express this.). People should be free to express opinion. Religious beliefs should be open to scrutiny, and this talk of ‘respect for religious belief’ be eradicated. It would help greatly if children were not indoctrinated by schools, but exposed to as many religions / creation myths as possible from an early age. and taught how to think critically, and learn what ‘evidence’ is. Fat chance on that score.Of course Christians, Jews and Muslims people are going to make dangerous infantile, homophobic remarks; the Bible, Pentateuch, Hadith and Koran all say you have to hate gays. The orthodox, fundamental religious people are being logical, rather than picking and choosing the ‘nice’ verses like moderates do. (such selection shows we don’t need religion to decide right from wrong)People who believe in anything without evidence need to be seen as stupid and deluded and made to be held accountable for their ridiculous beliefs. That would be a far greater achievement than stopping homophobic speech.After all, first century theology combined with 21st century technology is probably the biggest threat to the human race, after global warming.

  94. William - Dublin 10 Jan 2008, 6:43pm

    Robert, you are quiet right. I have always felt that our biggest enemy are not balanced straight people, but closeted gays who are so full of self loathing, or need to cover their identity, that they become obsessed with oppressing the rest of us to feel better, or hide their tracks. I am always fascinated that these same people tend to be in gay bars or saunas after midnight after leaving their “wife” behind and putting their wedding ring in their pocket.

  95. Robert, ex-pat Brit 10 Jan 2008, 7:03pm

    Adrian, I so agree with you. The French have a very good system wherein religious instruction in schools is not permitted as part of the curriculum, but for any parent who wants their children to receive religious instruction, then they can do so after school hours, and France surprisingly has no state religion except that it is unofficially, overwhelmingly Catholic. State schools should not be teaching about one faith but all faiths if they have to and church schools should not be receiving government subsidies either. Its time to separate government from any ties to religion once and for all. It should not be forced on any child since religious belief systems are choices. Getting back to the issue at hand, I am in support for laws protecting any group if they are the target of hate speech whose intent is to incite violence or death against that group or persons without exception.

  96. Robert, ex-pat Brit 10 Jan 2008, 7:12pm

    William, thank you. Its a sad commentary but a fact that these people are so full of shame, guilt and totally in denial. These are the same people who vote for and support inequality. They denigrate our lives, tell us that we are a threat to marriage yet it is they who are the biggest hypocrites and bigots who happen to be the real threat to marriage. They cheat on their spouses with opposite and same sex people but assume the moral high ground professing their religious beliefs when it comes to our lives, our rights, our dignity and pass amendments to discriminate against us. Absolutely despicable people who deserve to be outed, one of the things I’ve always supported.

  97. William - dublin 10 Jan 2008, 8:36pm

    Yeah, Robert, I like the reference to “threat to marriage”. How true. God forbid we gays ruin the sanctity of Britany Spears 55 hour “just for a laugh” marriage with that muppet, simply by wanting to be in a loving and legally recognised stable relationship… yes how dare we gays threaten marriage with our monogamy! It always amuses me that gays who want marriage are being opposed by so called “traditionalists”… for being “traditional”. Is that the definition of irony or what?

  98. This article: concerning teenage suicide due to homophobia is one reson why this protection is needed. Hatred based on and validated by religion is more difficult to counter than general bigotry. Though they won’t/can’t admit it, priests condemning homosexuality as “intrinsically evil” have a degree of responsibility when one of their flock take the matter beyond words, or even just start a campaign of verbal hatred and bullying. Young people especially aren’t equipped to defend themselves against it, and why should they, or even adults, have to deal with it. Some of us feel strong enough, but whether we would be in the face of day on day nastiness…..

  99. Robert, ex-pat Brit 11 Jan 2008, 1:46pm

    William, I would love it if the five countries who offer marraige to us would do a social study to find out if there is any evidence or poof that we are a threat to anybody’s marriage? I bet they would come up with zero when you consider that marriages fail overwhelmingly because of financial or infidelity issues, hardly the fault of anyone’s sexual orientation. Its truly amazing how these people think. They’re running out of scapegoats, wedge issues during political campaigns especially. The tide is slowly turning against them and they know they’re losing the cultural war, people are beginning to see through it though not as fast as I would like. We will win, it is inevitable.

  100. Cornwall police will just carry on homophobically victimising gay people regardless of any new law. Cornwall Police Officer DC Magnus Scott stated in Civil Crown Court in 2006 that “anal sex was ALWAYS an act of sexual violence”. GT magazine in 2002 survey established that between 70-80% of gay men participate in anal sex. QED. According to Devon Cornwall police 70-80% of gay men commit acts of sexual violence!Then there was Crown Court Judge Rucker in 2006 who stated that the equal age of consent for gay men came into effect 1st May 2004 (sexual offences act 2003). He was wrong! It was 1st Jan 2001.The same judge Rucker CONDEMNED gay equality HIV/AIDS awarenes campaigning as “Evangelical Prosletising”.What’s the point of NEW LAWS if the judicary police are so homophobically corrupt like they are in Cornwall?

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all