I’m all for free speech even hateful speech, as long as gays are equally entitled to denigrate and dehumanise religious bigots and their cults in retaliation. Fair is fair. NO group should receive preferential treatment over another, least of all religious cults and their followers. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
What I find hypocritical though is that if this is adopted, why should we ban foreigners such as Geert Wilders or Michael Savage from entering the UK based on their bias towards minority groups? The government would have to rescind those bans if this becomes law, rightly so.
What Robert Ex-pat said… If they’re free to say those things about us, the same should apply to all minorities and social groups regardless of religion, race, gender etc.
It’s about consistancy, either it applies across the board or not at all. No favourites. If Lord Waddington only wants to request getout clauses when it comes to offending and denigrating the LGBT population that speaks volumes.
This is not on. It would be illegal to distribute leaflets at Notting Hill carnival calling the participants ‘niggers’ or worse. It’s the same thing. But of course this fear of cracking down on homophobes is probably because deep down the politicians ARE homophobes themselves.
My freedom of speech right??
Well, that’s what the House of Lords is saying, isn’t it!
Lord Waddington, David Taylor amd Domonic Grieve as well as Geraldine Smith( all supporters of this amendment) are seemingly serial right wing homophobes. The Bill does not cause any negative implications in the name of free speech. The amaendmant excuses those who wish to spread homophoboc views. There is no logical excuse to support this amendment.
There is no need for such an amendment. The free speech laws already give religious nutcases ample scope to insult and demean gays to their hearts’ content, without it needing to be spelt out in black and white.
If such a case must be made, then let’s see a specific clause affirming the right of non-believers to love the believer yet hate the faith. Let’s see special clauses allowing racist jokes – if he is consistent, why isn’t Rowan Atkinson calling for this?
This is unnecessary and just puts LRGT people on a lower legal footing. It sends a message out that bigotry is acceptable.
we should start useing abuse agenst them like: cu nt stabbers, disease breeders, flux munchers, tw at splitters and anything hetrophobic all in the name of freedom, fu ck them right up the ars with their own laws
how about minge monkeys. dirty hertys or dress lifters. i want the `freedom to be a twat too`.
I hate to quote Thatcher directly but “No, No, No, No”. A watered-down law is totally irrelevant and meaningless. Either all minorities are worthy of protection from hate-speech or nobody is.
Waddington was a useless Home Secretary and should never have been put in the Lords. But since that old witch Baroness Young had a house dropped on her, some senile turd needed to take her place from the Hate Party…er…Conservatives.
Anyone else notice that when we want a bill in the UK we get it
+ loads more free rights we didnt even ask for?
Whereas, in America their bills get watered down to the point of being useless and then get rejected in referendums anyway
sexuality isnt a choice, its like race. it should have the same level ofm protection
I totally agree with the amendment. As repulsive as many peoples’ views are, they’re as entitled to them as we are to ours.
If we want to be free to do what we want, they should be free to do what they want.
“If we want to be free to do what we want, they should be free to do what they want.”
It is not a question of gay people being “free to do what they want”. The real issue is that gay people want to be accepted as being the way they were made, a way they didn’t choose to be, just like straight people didn’t actually choose to be straight.
I don’t see why homophobes should be entitled to propagate hatred under the guise of discriminatory free-pass legislation masquerading as freedom of speech. The alternative is for everybody to be allowed to vilify everybody else as and when their whim, or prejudices, drive them. That’s not a recipe for a civilised society based on respect.
Robert Ex-Brit: “Why should we ban foreigners such as Geert Wilders or Michael Savage from entering the UK based on their bias towards minority groups?”
For the same reason why Fred Phelps and his bunch of f_ckwit “church” followers were also banned. You said it yourself, what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander.
I despise censorship, but I think there needs to be a line drawn in the sand. It’s very difficult to define exactly where that line should be though, but I think people are definitely becoming majorly over-sensitive about what people say, and should really learn to grow a thicker skin, rather than resort to legal action just because someone called them names. Had that happened even 30 years ago, they would have been laughed out of court.
I once saw Waddington when he was still Thatcher’s Home Secretary sitting in International Departures at Manchester Airport with his flies wide open..it rather typified the man as a little extreme right-wing jumped up provincial solicitor who would do Madame’s bidding.
we have no right not to be offended; we have every right to be protected from speech that incites violence and prejudice against us.
The preachings of the Xian Church and the interpretations of the Imams can lead to our injury and death: that needs quashing.
Rowan Atkinson and actor Christopher Biggins are worried about gay jokes?!? Oh, silly me, that is much more important that the discussion about the rights of religious institutions to enshrine discrimination into law. Next week, we’ll ask Timmy Mallet to audit amendments to the Health and Safety at Work Act due to hammer related injuries….
Hate speech & incitement to hatred is an ugly twisting of free speech. People who use free speech to spout forth such vitriolic views are taking advantage of free speech for their own selfish ends, its not “in the spirit” of free speech.
hate speech is never free. Everyone pays the price for it in some way.
I don’t get why it’s ok to make jokes about gays, lesbians or bisexuals when similar jokes would be racist if against blacks
this free speech BS is only so homophobes can keep being homophobic – it’s possible to be funny without abusing or attacking gays, lesbians and bisexuals
being a fanatic muslim is a choice, being gay or straight or black is not.
homophopia exists – islamophobia does not exist. neither does christianophobia or buddhismphobia. Islam is the second largest religon on earth and therefore an enormous power which it uses to oppress women and gays. But islamists cleverly use the language of the oppressed when claiming that islamophobia exists.
“I don’t get why it’s ok to make jokes about gays, lesbians or bisexuals when similar jokes would be racist if against blacks”
Exactly. What this amendment would do is send out the message that being LGBT is a ‘lifestyle choice’ as those offensive idiots in some ‘christian’ groups keep trying to insist. That’s why it’s an abhorrent amendment.
Maybe it’s just my reading of it, but the views expressed in that letter as quoted in this article don’t sound very tolerant to me.
“The recent case of the Christian grandmother interrogated in her living room about a letter she wrote to her local council is just the latest example ”
Oh, yes, poor old innocent Granny, victimised by those nasty police. What next, eh? Soon they’ll be warning dear old pensioners that they mustn’t call their black neighbours n*ggers.
If people are allowed to say derogatory things about LGBT people then racism should be allowed too. But it won’t be – because we are STILL being treated as somehow less than any other minority.
LAW, LAW, LAW WHY? WHY? WHY? These Freedom crushing Laws every psychopathic, Vallium consuming, dundaheads who have never done a good days work in their drab, wretchet lives. Want free speach of any kind banned…Poppycock and Balderdash I say with Knobs on!!!
The usual bilge on this post I observe!
I think the worry of the house of Lords is that this law will be used as a tool of oppression rather than protection.
When the police resort to arresting a half-cut student for suggesting a horse might be gay then there is something clearly wrong with their application of that law.
In the absence of a common sense approach to policing hate crime it is inevitable that something like this would happen.
Only explicit incitement to violence against defined groups should be criminalised. Attacks on free expression martyr the bigots and stifle public challenge to their views.
Such laws are also impossible to enforce in many contexts that matter – in the home, pub, street and around the water-cooler, where people feel a sense of righteous refuge from an intrusive state. Oppressed minorities should know better than to encourage the precedent of legal repression of unpopular views. It very easily turns around and bites them.
Riondo, Any luck yet me Lad?
As long as people have just comments on me or groups I may belong to, they can have their say, even though I might feel ridiculed, humiliated or insulted. But as what goes round, comes round, we all get our turn. This of course means that not even our religious friends have the right to whine, when their turn is up.
I don’t get it either. What happened to Jim Davidson’s ‘Chalkie’ jokes? They were not insulting or offensive, yet because they stereotyped black people, some sensitive little liberal soul had those sort of jokes, er, blacklisted.
If they ban gay jokes, drag queens may as well give up and go home.