Comments on: MPs vote against ‘free speech’ protection in gay hate law

By: harry

harry — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:12:49 +0000

I am disappointed in the Conservatives on this. They are completely united in favour of the so called free speech defence. Though a natural conservative voter economically, I remain worried about my rights under a Tory administration and this adds to my worry.

As to the vote itself, the Government intends, it says, to reverse it but there is only a small amount of time left (can’t keep HM waiting to open the next session) and I fear the Government won’t want to lose the whole Bill.

By: Derek North

Derek North — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:32:34 +0000

My Flying Spaghetti Monster states that all gay people are an intrisicly disorded species.

They have no protection.

They are now legally allowed to be abused in the streets, verbally but not physically.

As long as it suits your religion and right to free speech.

By: Derek North

Derek North — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:23:51 +0000

The right to hatred remains:

“Peers voted by 179 to 135 to keep the defence – despite justice minister Lord Bach pointing out MPs had voted to overturn it on four occasions”

OK. Fine. I’m off out to straight bash. Do I get that right.

I’m allowed under the so called Law.

I think not.

Lets wait and see the voting record of these liars.

By: Matt B

Matt B — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:31:23 +0000

The conservatives seem united in this, let us be clear, to retain the right to condemn us. That is not free speech. Anne Widdecombe et al are NOT arguing for free speech, but to retain the right to prevent our equality. Will Sinister Mary and Yapping Rex tell us to shut up again?

By: Jay

Jay — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:38:23 +0000

Julian – you’re failing to understand what the Bill is about, and why is was important to stop this amendment.

People will still be able to say that they disagree with homosexuality, and the LGBT community having equal rights. They will still be entitled to their opinion, and to say it. BUT, they will no longer be able to stand up and say that the we should be taken out and shot, or stoned, or killed.

There is a difference. There is a marked distinction.

You say taking that right away damages our society. Allowing people to incite hatred, to condone murder, to suggest killing – you seriously see that as less damaging, than saying “no, we won’t tolerate people doing that anymore.”

However, as much as I disagree with your take on this, you’re entitled to it.

By: harry

harry — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:49:13 +0000

We’re not there yet. The House of Lords has to agree and has rejected the Commons’ position once already this session. The matter is back in the Lords today. Expect hysterical whinging from the Christians as ever.

The parliamentary session is nearly at an end. There will be severe temptation on the Government to drop this issue and let the rest of the Bill pass without it. If the house of Lords is stubborn again tonight then everyone who possibly can will need to lobby Labour and LibDem MPs (on this issue at any rate there is no hope with the Tories) not to give in.

By: Will

Will — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:26:50 +0000

“The argument here seems to be “we don’t care how totalitarian the sate becomes so long as we are on top”. It is chilling”

Again, Julian, like many people here, you do not understand the concept of free speech.

Free speech is the right to say “I think gays are wrong”, and even if the majority don’t agree with it, a person has every right to think and say that. This is free speech.

Saying “I think gays are wrong and should have no rights” is not free speech, it is oppression and discrimination by one belief system over a minority. Free speech is not the right to actively impose restrictions on the basic human rights of others, which is exactly what these religious institutions want.

See the difference?

By: Chester

Chester — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:59:09 +0000

Julian – inciting hatred is done by the ones who whine they don’t agree with LBG people
civil sanctions don’t seem effective when many get away with homophobia
homophobia is accepted by rubbish comedians and bigoted believers

By: Rose

Rose — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:54:02 +0000

well, I have a sick day off and sense prevails! What can I say. I notice my own local MP was in the sensible camp so he avoids a caustic note from me.

By: Julian

Julian — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:49:06 +0000

Free speech isn’t free. Do you people understand what you are saying? You want to criminalise someone who doesn’t like homosexuality and says they don’t like it? This is state run brain washing.

What is this hate everyone goes on about all the time anyway? Can someone please explain the term?

There is a civil sanction for libel which has been available for hundreds of years in this country, now that is being wiped away by judges and cerrtain celebrities with their “prior injunctions” and we now criminalise people for airing views.

Once agin, if david is happy to be prosecuted for calling a religious nut a bigot, then let’s prosecute people for saying they don’t agree with gays or gay sex. You are confusing incitement to violence with “incitement to not agree with me”.

The arguement here seems to be “we don’t care how totalitarian the sate becomes so long as we are on top”. It is chilling

By: 21stCenturySpirituality

21stCenturySpirituality — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:06:25 +0000

This legislation is also being discussed on the Christian Institutes Facebook Page.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/notes/the-christian-institute/free-speech-shield-voted-down-by-mps/170461627513

By: Coemgenus

Coemgenus — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:21:22 +0000

Hurray – I was wondering when someone would drag Hitler into the argument ! Sorry folks, just as a racist can’t claim “free speech” when abusing someone because of the ethnicity, a religious nutter should not have the right to quote life threatening verses from Leviticus because of their sexuality without being prepared to to stand up in court and defend whatthey say. Free speech is not being denied, abolished, crushed trashed – just the right for bigots to say things without having to justify themselves in a court of law…… how terrible, they will actually have to justify their poisonous words elsewhere than in a free ride pulpit. How awful. Maybe we’ll get a few of them thinking hard before they open their traps and spew forth more murderous bile.

By: Eagle the militant American Indian-Jew

Eagle the militant American Indian-Jew — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:46:46 +0000

Any free speech that condemns homosexuality most always leads to violence against gays and any moron knows that. People that put some prunes in power are prunes themselves. If you put in jackass in with well bred race horses its still going to remain a jackass.
A thin line exists between freedom and oppression. Some free speech needs to be controlled whereas such speech takes away certain freedoms from others.

By: Joe Johnston

Joe Johnston — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:43:31 +0000

No wonder there is homophobia. The people posting on here who cannot see the difference between legitimate comment and incitement to hatred do us more harm than good. Taking away the right of someone who wants to say that they disapprove of my homosexual lifestyle is disgraceful. Freedom of speech MUST apply to EVERYONE – incitement to hatred MUST NOT be available to ANYONE and only the unintelligent (like some of the posters on here) cannot tell the difference.

By: Mumbo Jumbo

Mumbo Jumbo — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:21:24 +0000

Thanks for the (second) link Dave. As I indicated earlier, that was the real story in this vote and it was sloppy reporting on Pink News’s part not to have it included in the article.

By: dave

dave — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:22:47 +0000

I have come to realise that free speech in relation to hate is never free. There is always a cost!
bless the labour party for they are without sin. and may the evil tories be damned in eternal whatever!

By: Neville

Neville — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:21:42 +0000

It is obvious from looking at the names of those voting against the Waddington amendment, why no gay person should vote conservative. Not one conservative appears to have voted in favour of removing the amendment! I fear for gay equality under a Tory government! The only liberal democrat to vote against was the bigot Beith from Berwick.

By: Paul Mc

Paul Mc — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:54:03 +0000

Julian, removal of this amendment just means that the same wording is used for protection of gay people as religious people. Are you saying we are less worthy of protection? These laws are rarely used in practice. The message they send out however, is a powerful one. The Waddington amendment devalues this message completely.

By: Julian

Julian — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:49:36 +0000

If David North is quite happy to be prosecuted by the police for what he has written at the top of this piece, then let’s all go ahead.
This Bill is ludicrous and dangerous, freedom of speech and even thought is being destroyed bit by bit by people who believe “some pigs are more equal than others”. Newspeak, Thought Police, Unwords – truly Orwellian indeed.
Every gay person who believes they have been persecuted in the past should shun these dreadful legislators. can you not see that more and more power is being sucked up by the state?

It is cruelly ironic that on the 20th anniversery of the falling of the Berlin Wall that these powers are being driven through (and an unelected European President is being given the nod by a group of Politburo-types “leaders”). I wonder if we see ourselves when we wonder how a democratic Germany voted Hitler in and allowed the Third Reich to take hold.

By: David

David — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:49:21 +0000

WOW it is now pretty obvious which party we should support!!!!