Reader comments · Gay Labour group calls for government to return to gay hate laws · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Gay Labour group calls for government to return to gay hate laws

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Why are they being so idiotic? There are now laws to “protect gays from homophobic hatred” – they just got passed today!

    What they mean is there should be laws to protect gays from “discussion or criticism of sexual conduct”, and, “the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices” … i.e. normal things in a democratic society!

    Why has this become such a big issue? Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!

  2. The Amendment
    “In this Part, 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.”

    . . . . . . . .

    Evan, gay cure therapies are now legitimised rather than stigmatised.

  3. gay labour people. get it through your thick skulls. they dont care about you. they think your a guarenteed vote and thats all. they dont want us to have equality and they dont want our issues dealt with.

  4. @JohnK(2) – I don’t agree with the leap of reasoning you & lots of others seem to be making. Are you trying to tell me that currently gay cure therapies are stigmatised but as a result of this they won’t be any more? And is it true that there has been a damn of homophobic hatred that has been restrained by the lack of a homophobic hate law, but now there is one it’ll all come pouring out?!

    As I see it, the amendment’s clarifying that people who criticise LGBT sexual behaviour aren’t necessarily hateful, in exactly the same way that people who criticise or insult religious behaviour or beliefs aren’t necessarily being hateful. Surely, for people who love civil liberties, that is a good thing.

    Secondly, faulty beliefs should be exposed, debated, stigmatised or even ridiculed but NOT CRIMINALISED. We seem to live in a political climate where the only solution to things we don’t like is by legislating against it. Labour have introduced 3,605 new criminal offences (that’s a year out of date now actually), the vast majority of which haven’t even been debated but introduced by Statutory Instrument. Silencing people & criminalising people is actually counter productive. And I don’t want to be part of a nation where people are criminalised for their opinions or beliefs no matter how noxious they are to me, and I don’t want to be locked up by those who think my opinions or beliefs are noxious to them.

    If people think the new homophobic hate laws don’t go far enough, that’s a fault of the original law, not the clarifying amendment.

    Think you’ll be surprised by how unspectacularly nothing has changed!

  5. I’m not sure I fully understand this issue. On the one hand I don’t like restrictions on what people can say or believe, but I don’t know how far this can be pushed or if it can get out of hand. Also, if these extra provisions are felt to be necessary, why only for sexual orientation? Why can’t people be equally criticised for their religion? Why don’t atheists get an exception to be able to tell religious people to refrain from or otherwise modify their religious practices?

  6. Evan . . . in a nutshell, it is about sending out messages.

    The ammendment does not send out a helpfull message when the it enables people with religous or unfounded beliefs to support and legitmizes bigotry . . .

  7. Pumpkin Pie 13 Nov 2009, 12:50am

    Valerio, you’re exactly right, but sexuality shouldn’t get the same protections as religion. It should get the same protections as race. Religion is a choice, after all.

    Evan, this is why this amendment is so insidious: it denies us equality with other biological minorities. It singles us out specifically. I don’t mind debating the merits of freedom of speech, but first we must have equality. Only when these laws affect us all equally should we consider that debate.

  8. Pete & Michael 13 Nov 2009, 8:23am

    So. it will be OK for people to say hurtful comments toward gay people resulting in further bigotry and violence, if we were Irish, Muslim, etc, this would not be tolerated. We are agreed that free speech is necessary in the UK but incite to hatred and violence is not. This is only ‘the thin edge of the wedge’, in our opinion, note how many Conservative MP’s voted for discrimination, if the Conservatives win the forthcoming general election, expect more.

  9. Well just wait till Waddington gets mistaken for a gay man and gets bashed. That is the kind of thing that might get through his egotistical self-satisfied homophobia. Masquerading under the guise of “Christian witness” is what we hear from him and his supporters at the Christian Institute. Surprising, isn’t it, that they, don’t have anything to say against the wickedness going on in Uganda? – death penalty for “aggravated” homosexuality.

  10. andrew flynn 13 Nov 2009, 11:27am

    I’m all for free speech as long as it is applied equally. By the logic of Waddington surely there should be a free speech clause in all anti-discrimination legislation.
    This is the Lords yet again flouting the will of the commons. Also why havent Labour invoked the Parliament Act?

  11. Valerio (5) – there is already an exception to the protections against incitement to religious hatred – the Act states “Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”

    Pumpkin Pie (7) – in principle, I agree with you, but would hate to think we’d reject all protection simply because it’s not everything we want; if this turns out to be inadequate to protect people, there are stronger grounds for going back and saying that something needs to be done about it.

    But it seems pointless arguing about how we can make the 2008 Act better, when it isn’t even in force yet. Surely that’s what our focus should be on today???

  12. This is not about “Free Speech”, this is about religous people wanting an opt out clause so that they can discriminate.

    The whole idea of an opt out clause in discrimination law is ridiculous to the extreme.

    As in all areas of life . . . You cannot have your cake and eat it.

  13. “the amendment’s clarifying that people who criticise LGBT sexual behaviour aren’t necessarily hateful, in exactly the same way that people who criticise or insult religious behaviour or beliefs aren’t necessarily being hateful.”

    Evan, religion is a choice. Sexual orientation, like race and eye colour, is not.

    What religious organisation want to do is actively suppress the rights and freedoms of others, this is not free speech. I assume you think its okay to condemn the colour of someone’s skin as wrong?

    And putting this on the SAME level as criticising a religion that cannot provide one shred of fact backing up its belief system to condemn another human being as “wrong”?

    I think not.

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.