Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Lords vote again for ‘free speech’ protection in homophobic hate bill

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Stewart Cowan 12 Nov 2009, 11:10am

    Let’s be completely logical and consistent here. Are we to ban criticism of environmentalists in case someone grabs their Aran jumper, or criticism of the police lest anyone tells them they are out of order, or make it illegal to express an opinion about anything under the sun just in case it ‘incites’ stupid people to break the law?

    As has been said a million times before, there are already laws to deal with real crime. People who choose to engage in homosexual behaviour really need to understand that others have a right to criticise their behaviour and anything else they choose.

  2. George Orwell warned us in 1984 of the kind of world we can expect when thought itself is criminalized. I cannot believe so many on here are so short-sighted not to see that today could see a major stepping stone to that world. Wake up. People are being arrested for the pettiest of offences because laws brought in on the pretext of fighting terrorism have been seized upon by local councils to snoop in us, yes, US. We are being used as an excuse to advance a totalitarian agenda by the Marxist control freaks who have destroyed the infrastructure of this country and flooded it with multiculturalism to dilute our identity so that we do not know who we are anymore. I would gladly be called any name under the sun to preserve our right to free thought; those who can’t take a cheap jibe are nothing less than cowards!

  3. Mihangel apYrs 12 Nov 2009, 11:33am

    Criticism is OK, but when you claim to have “god” on your side you’re trying to give your views extra authority. And anyone subscribing to that particular superstition may decide that their “spiritual leaders” have given support to further, physical, action. And those thugs who don’t necessarily subscribe to the superstition will still claim that it validates their queer-bashing.

    And being gay and living honestly isn’t a choice any more than being black is. Therefore your comments are particularly offensive, especially in view of the fact that being religious and indulging in religious behaviour IS a life-style choice.

  4. Stewart Cowan 12 Nov 2009, 12:12pm

    Mihangel,

    There are laws to deal with thugs; we’re talking about the freedom to hold and express an opinion without harassment from the police.

    All behaviour is a choice. Sorry if that fact is offensive. I am interested to know if you think I should be prevented by law from publicly expressing a view you find offensive.

  5. Frankly I think more effort should be put into getting the Equality Bill right. See this –

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/10/02/tatchell-ignored-over-equality-bill-concerns/

  6. The Halcyon 12 Nov 2009, 12:16pm

    Why do the House of Lords insist on giving the general population more arguments for their immediate dissolution and replacement with an elected upper chamber, assuming we still want a Bicameral system?

    I’ve made this argument many times before – the existence of any God/supreme religious being is dubious at best and lacks tangible and credible evidence. The existence of lesbian, gay and bisexual people is fact. We need protection under the law from those who seek to oppress us using a 2000 year old recycled Hebrew soap-opera.

  7. Stewart Cowan 12 Nov 2009, 12:21pm

    The Halcyon,

    Don’t kid yourself that it’s only religious people who are opposed to homosexual behaviour and its promotion. Brian Souter’s poll of over a million Scots showed that 7 out of 8 people supported Section 28. This in a country which, spiritually, should be on life-support.

  8. Mihangel apYrs 12 Nov 2009, 12:29pm

    Stewart COwan: a question for you – have you the freedom to state:
    “all niggers are evil and should be burned at the stake. God says that this is right”? Would you do it, just to see how free you are in THAT area.

    If I say something that gives comfort and support to thugs I can’t distance myself from a responsibility for their actions: incitement to terrorism, and subversion are crimes that rest in statute: should they be repealed?

    I hold that you can say anything you like, right to the point where it threatens me, or limits my right to live my legitimate life free from interference.

    You are of course right: all behaviour is a choice. However, since acting gay is no less natural that acting straight, either BOTH are acceptable, or neither are. You have a right to dislike gays being normal, in which case bring on the ban on heterosexual snogging and hand-holding!

  9. sexuality isn’t choice Stewart and what you falsely claim is criticism is normally homophobic hatred and lies
    this amendment is homophobic

  10. Stewart Cowan 12 Nov 2009, 12:37pm

    Mihangel,

    Your comparison is not valid for two reasons. a) People of different skin tones were born that way and b) I have never argued that: all homosexuals are evil and should be burned at the stake.

    We are talking about the right to express an opinion, that’s all.

  11. Simon Murphy 12 Nov 2009, 12:38pm

    The refusal by the Lords is hypocritical considering that there is no free speech opt-out clause for incitement to racial hatred. Why the double standard.

    By the way isn’t it wildly embarrassing that the unelected House of Lords (who are answerable to the unelected ‘queen’) can behave in this manner.

    Those old farts need to be forcibly retired and a democratic upper house (answerable to the democratically elected head of state) put in its place.

  12. Stewart Cowan, people like you who want to spout nonsense are already protected under the law. The fact that the police or council workers don’t understand the law is their problem. If there has to be a clause in this, lets see clauses specifically allowing racist jokes for instance. Let’s have it for all minorities or none.

    If you can’t keep your nose out of my business Stewart, we’ll have to interfere in yours. Homosexuality is a form of love – a term you seem to have zero experience of – not behaviour.

  13. Stewart Cowan 12 Nov 2009, 12:41pm

    Chester,

    Homosexuals have become heterosexual and vice versa. Nobody holds a gun to your head and tells you to have sex. It’s a CHOICE!

    Therefore it is as open to criticism as any other kind of behaviour.

    I don’t understand why you think you are so precious.

  14. Simon Murphy 12 Nov 2009, 12:43pm

    10: Stewart: “Your comparison is not valid for two reasons. a) People of different skin tones were born that way”.

    Are you insinuating that gay people choose to be that way?

    People CHOOSE their religion – it is entirely a choice.

    Race and sexual orientation are not choices.

    The House of Lords needs to be abolished and replaced with a democratic upper house.

  15. @ Stewart Cowan, Is it fair that if I criticize Christianity publicly I can get locked up for incitement to religious hatred. Yet the Christians can turn up to a Pride events and other LGBT related events or on TV and in newspapers calling us perverts, sodomites and fags ect.. and we should have no protection in law from this harassment by these rabid dogs. But I guess its OK for them to do it because it written in that book.

    We do not have the right to stand outside churches and protest that would be incitement on our part. Yet you support their right to do it to the LGBT community in the name of free speech? that’s a bit unequal is it not Stewart Cowan?

    They can say what they want in the churches, among themselves, at home in private. But when they step across the divide from what they are saying in private and go over into to public life then they must obey by a secular societies rules.

  16. “all niggers are evil and should be burned at the stake. God says that this is right”? Would you do it, just to see how free you are in THAT area.

    I think the point is that under this type of legislation YOU could in theory now be prosecuted for even writing the above sentence (assume that this website is hosted in the UK) – any defence resorting to an acedemic use of the N word during a discussion of the law would be irrelevant – in the eyes of the law the context could be deemed irrelevent if required.

    If we must have such poor legislation then there is some weight to the argument that it should be equally poor with regards to race and sexuality, but the law in itself is open to frightening abuse.

  17. Stewart Cowan 12 Nov 2009, 12:45pm

    Simon Murphy,

    As it happens, I didn’t want a ‘religious hatred’ bill. There are laws to deal with real crime.

    Hi Adrian,

    “The fact that the police or council workers don’t understand the law is their problem.”

    “If you can’t keep your nose out of my business Stewart, we’ll have to interfere in yours.”

    Make my day, punk!
    So why are you against a clarification that will avoid criminalising innocent people? Do you perchance perceive criticism as a crime?

  18. Simon Murphy 12 Nov 2009, 12:46pm

    13: Stuart: “Homosexuals have become heterosexual and vice versa.”

    Evidence?

    Please provide a link to the scientific study that proves this statement.

    Michael Jackson had his skin bleached.

    Are you saying he chose to be white?

    Or are you just ignorant?

  19. Simon Murphy 12 Nov 2009, 12:48pm

    10: Stewart: “Your comparison is not valid for two reasons. a) People of different skin tones were born that way”.

    Are you insinuating that gay people choose to be that way?

  20. Stewart Cowan 12 Nov 2009, 12:48pm

    The thing muddled my last post…

    Simon Murphy,

    As it happens, I didn’t want a ‘religious hatred’ bill. There are laws to deal with real crime.

    Hi Adrian,

    “The fact that the police or council workers don’t understand the law is their problem.”

    So why are you against a clarification that will avoid criminalising innocent people? Do you perchance perceive criticism as a crime?

    “If you can’t keep your nose out of my business Stewart, we’ll have to interfere in yours.”

    Make my day, punk!

  21. Simon Murphy 12 Nov 2009, 12:48pm

    13: Stuart: “Homosexuals have become heterosexual and vice versa.”

    Evidence?

    Please provide a link to the scientific study that proves this statement.

  22. Stewart Cowan 12 Nov 2009, 12:59pm

    Simon,

    “Race and sexual orientation are not choices.”

    We are all one race. Behaviour is a choice, unless it’s something like an involuntary tic.

    “The House of Lords needs to be abolished and replaced with a democratic upper house.”

    But the HoL is representing the will of the people here, even comedians and some ‘gay’ rights activists agree. Across the board, people want freedom of expression. It’s the Commons (Lab/Lib) who are tyrannical

  23. Abi75 seems to think that anyone who critises him / her should be prosecuted because they are “rabid dogs” but he / she should be able to say whatever they like about anyone else because we are a special case.

    Do you not see how this fits into the “some pigs are more equal than others” mould? I can’t believe so many people are so casual about removing the power of people to think, speak and demonstrate.

    Freedonm of speech should be just that – free. I personally have never encountered a Christian group advocating violence against me, and I reckon Abi hasn’t either.

    we must be careful we do not enter a Faustian pact with the agents of the state. Just look at the police, who have now succeeded in getting a law imposed enabling them to arrest anyone who films them now, and now the power to spy on everyone’s email going through Parliament.

  24. “Make my day, punk!
    So why are you against a clarification that will avoid criminalising innocent people? Do you perchance perceive criticism as a crime? ”

    Really, get over yourself Stewart, desperate as always to play the poor persecuted role, desperate to have a share in Calvary like your imaginary saviour.

    You’re welcome to spout any gibberish you want, so long as it doesn’t incite hatred, or have any implications for me, and so long as it isn’t taught as truth anywhere outside your crackpot religious sect. I’m happy to defend your right to speak your mind, as I wrote in the Guardian last week.

    I want people like you to get on the street and look like fools so we can show our contempt, our hatred, and ridicule and mock you, as prophesised in Matt 5:11; Matt 10:22 (you are a Creationist, after all). Expect protests at your door. Expect bibles to be ripped in your faces. Expect plays depicting religious fanatics as murderers on the TV. Criticism is a 2-way street. Churches, like mosques, are not immune from the law, and we will be monitoring what these pastors are saying just as much as hate spouting imams.

    But of course, Stewart, ‘he who holds out to the end will be saved’. Surely, if you really do long for this world to end, as all you religious nutcases do, you should be welcoming persecution in this world?

    By standing for your free speech, I’m denying you an easy route to your so-called salvation. That actually gives me some satisfaction.

  25. Stewart Cowan 12 Nov 2009, 1:03pm

    Simon,

    “”Homosexuals have become heterosexual and vice versa.”

    Evidence?”

    Equal rights for ex-gays! – former homosexuals needed protection from current homosexuals for leaving the tribe, as it were: http://www.realstreet.co.uk/2009/08/equal-rights-for-ex-gays/

  26. That is no peer reviewed scientific evidence. There is no such study, Stewart. The Yarhouse studies were the closest atempt and they reported something abysmal like 1-2% – in other words, statistically not possible.

    Provide real figures from a peer reviewed scientific journal or don’t make wild claims you cannot support. You are dealing with people who think critically here, not brainwashed creationists who need to be told what to believe

  27. Hello, if you’re talkin about ex-gay conversion therapy, let me tell ya, this is a huge hoax. Medical professionals have publicly opposed it.

    http://www.apa.org/releases/therapeutic.html

  28. Stewart Cowan 12 Nov 2009, 1:12pm

    Adrian,

    You wrote in the Guardian? Moving on up.

    “You’re welcome to spout any gibberish you want”

    Thank you. You’ll be for the free speech amendment, then?

    “I want people like you to get on the street and look like fools so we can show our contempt, our hatred, and ridicule and mock you”

    Well, Adrian, I’m disappointed. Your ‘hatred’. I don’t hate, but you do. Well, it’s your right to hate me. I don’t want the law to protect me from your hatred. I just feel sorry for the discomfort and pain that hatred brings to the human heart.

    “you should be welcoming persecution in this world?”

    So you want to persecute me? You want me locked up for having an opinion?

  29. You can change a behavior, but not an orientation.

  30. Stewart Cowan 12 Nov 2009, 1:19pm

    Adrian,

    You’re being very bad today.

    The fact that some people have changed is evidence. It’s not evidence with a precise ‘figure’ attached, but it’s still evidence.

    “You are dealing with people who think critically here…”

    Really? When are they going to turn up?

    “…not brainwashed creationists who need to be told what to believe”

    I was told throughout my life to believe that I was descended from pond slime via apes. Then I did think for myself and decided it was nonsense because evolution doesn’t work that way.

  31. No Stewart, to repeat – you’ll have to try harder than that. As I said, YOU should be welcoming YOUR persecution. You hanker after this as if it were some ghastly fetish.

    (I have no idea how to do italics on this so I use block capitals.)

    But *I* will not allow you that satisfaction. For your sake and for mine.

    I am not a Christian and I don’t love my enemies. Glad we didn’t on 9/11. It is hypocritical and extremely immoral to do so.

    PS Why loving enemies is wrong:

    Just read this story carefully, you can see why it is not always moral to piously forgive those who ‘trespass against us’ – in this case, a child rapist. The parents of the first child to be raped were devout Christians, who sought for a ‘corrective’, as opposed to punitive sentence, and thus a too lenient sentence for the rapist. After just a week following release, he went out and did the same thing to a 7 year old….

    http://news.aol.co.uk/teen-jailed-after-second-child-rape/article/20091111083100879455518?rsp=uk_mainnews

  32. Sorry Stewart but there have been studies about changing sexiality, and the tests are not good.

    Still I don’t deny people the right to seek quack therapy – I don’t deny the right of people to get advice from astrologers, clairvoyants or any number of fraudsters referred to on James Randi’s site. But don’t pass it of as effective or evidence, when it is nothing of the kind.

    You definition of leaving homosexuality is nothing more than suppressing sexuality. Celibacy is not a natural or normal state.

  33. Stewart Cowan 12 Nov 2009, 1:30pm

    Adrian,

    I love you. Whether you’re my enemy or not.

    Forgiveness is a tonic for the soul. Try it. The case you cite is unfortunate and extreme. All rapists should be locked away for a long time. They can still be forgiven, but locked out of harm’s way nonetheless.

  34. @ Julian

    I have a court injunction against my own parents because of their transphobia justified in their minds by their Christian beliefs. I suffered years of abuse at the hand of my parents and their evangelical church all because I am trans. I had acts of violence and torture committed against me in so called sessions of healing prayer and ‘Christian counselling’ aversion therapy. The attempt to made me hate myself and conform failed.

    Why did I suffer this at the hands of Christians all because I had a natural gender variance from birth just like 1 in every 11,000 people have.

    So don’t even dare try to speak for me Julian, you have not walked in my shoes. The fact you used the he/she insult against a trans person shows just what side of the fence your on Julian.

  35. “I was told throughout my life to believe that I was descended from pond slime via apes. Then I did think for myself and decided it was nonsense because evolution doesn’t work that way.”

    You’re right, it doesn’t work that way. It’s a difficult thing to get your head around, I can appreciate. But it’s how, not what you think. And the problem is clearly that you never thought in the first place. You just swapped mindlessly believing the truth, for mindlessly accepting a myth. Was it a bad teacher? You never listened? Who knows.

    There is hope even for people like you, Stewart. Others have walked away from superstition and I am sure you can too. Change is possible. It’s no use walking past the Science sections of bookshops and pretending it’s all not true, because the overwhelming weight of evidence is completely against you, from fossil record, DNA, radiometric dating, among others. Evidence, tonnes of it. It happened, it’s fact. deal with it.

    Even if a creation event actually happened billions of years ago, you shove the problem of how the creator evolved into an intelligent being, just one stage back. You are welcome to disprove the theory at any time of course.

  36. Stewart, I really don’t want your love.

    Justice is more important.

  37. Hi Stewart Cowan – are you a Bible literalist? If so, then why aren’t you campaigning for women who weren’t virgins on their wedding day to be stoned on their father’s doorstep? (just one example)

    What’s your obsession with gay people? If sexuality is a ‘behaviour’ then I presume you fight the urge to turn gay every day.

  38. And please cite the evidence for the New World Order that you believe in…

  39. Hello stew, i don’t believe anybody on this site hates you, rather what you interperate is hate is rather a frustrated pity for you. For some one with such an obsession with homosexuality your still doing well to grasp on to any straight straw you can get your hands on i see. If being gay is not a choice, do you honestly think there are millions of people across the world all conspiring together to propegate a lie that we are born like this just because one day we woke up and thought it would be nice to have a big cock up our bums. if you had any had an ounce of compassion within you then you would be able to understand the horrors that some homosexuals have to go through because of people such as yourself, who i may add, know how to spell words such as forgiveness and love but by golly have no concept of their meaning.
    Thankfully we live in a great age for gay rights, we are on the right side of the tide and within our life time a huge majority of people will see our truth and unless you grow up you’ll be left behind in the gutter with all the rest of the ignorant biggots.
    I’d be quite happy to accept a freedom of speech ammendment if it was included with regard of religious institutions, otherwise, hell no. The back and forth between the commons and the lords is ridiculous, the people have spoken, pass the bill.

    I am curious to know, if the bill is passed will it become illegal to try and convert gay people? i really hope so as the practices these so called religious people use are so abhorant it actually makes me weese.

  40. Stewart, if you see homosexuality as a behaviour you’re probably suppressing it yourself, isn’t it? Be honest with us. You probably feel attracted to other people of your same gender, and for some motive of your own, you want other people to suppress their homosexual feelings as you do. You are seeking redemption by trying to attack other people’s feelings. Never mind what they’re going through. Your engagement in this forum is all about what you want. Have you ever thought that the real problem is inside yourself? Or is it too distressing to talk about it? Who told you homosexuality is wrong? Be honest. The anti-gay movement is eating itself from inside out because it doesn’t have any real basis to stand on. It’s about time you face reality, you are talking to your own peers here. Look at them and recognise that some of them are able to live their lifes despite the fear of harassment from anti-gay ideologies. Please stop inventing theories and embracing ideologies that seek to undermine your own feelings. Express them.

  41. As usual, a lot more heat than light in the comments section!

    There is a clause contained in the incitement to religious hatred bill that says almost exactly the same thing. It simply removes ambiguity and I believe we all welcomed it.

    The comparison between “Niggers are evil and should be burned at the stake” is blatantly fatuous. I happen to believe that people should be free to say “Negroes are evil” if they so wish, and then present their reasons. Similarly I believe we should all be free to say “Christians are deluded” or “Homosexuals are sinful”. I welcome any clause or law which makes that freedom explicit.

    Do we really want to live in a cosseted world where nobody is able to say nasty things about us? It seems people are able to give a vigorous enough response of their own on these comment sections without having to have recourse to the criminal law

  42. Stewart Cowen wrote:
    “Let’s be completely logical and consistent here.
    Are we to ban criticism of environmentalists in case someone grabs their Aran jumper, or criticism of the police lest anyone tells them they are out of order, or make it illegal to express an opinion about anything under the sun just in case it ‘incites’ stupid people to break the law?
    As has been said a million times before, there are already laws to deal with real crime.
    People who choose to engage in homosexual behaviour really need to understand that others have a right to criticise their behaviour and anything else they choose.”

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Firstly, there is nothing illogical or inconsistent about the governments current homophobic hate bill.

    Secondly, if environmentalist breaks the law they will be subject to punishment under the law.

    Thirdly, homophobic hate crimes are “Real Crimes” . . . You can think what ever you like about homosexuals, you can think of them as perverts or failed heterosexuals. However, if you start to promote these ideas in public you will be prosecuted for inciting homophobic hatred.

    Fourthly, you need to understand that “Homosexual Behaviour” as you so put it is not illegal. If you have issues with same sex relationship this is your problem. . . . not ours

    Deal with it, or end up with a criminal record.

  43. Mihangel apYrs 12 Nov 2009, 2:52pm

    @vulpus_rex
    context is everything – a statement that aligns with a sincerely held superstition that doesn’t call for hate or violence gets a pass.

    In this case I used an inflammatory statement as illustration of how by changing the receipient of the hate the law would be utilised differently.

    Any CPS lawyer would bin it after looking at it

  44. Stewart Cowan 12 Nov 2009, 2:57pm

    Adrian,

    Let’s get away from straw men and other distractions, but I have probably spent a lot more time on researching evolution than anyone else here.

    “Stewart, I really don’t want your love.”

    Only a madman shuns love.

    Iris,

    “why aren’t you campaigning for women who weren’t virgins on their wedding day to be stoned on their father’s doorstep?”

    Because Christ taught to forgive.

    “What’s your obsession with gay people?”

    I don’t want them to be punished eternally for their sins.

    “If sexuality is a ‘behaviour’ then I presume you fight the urge to turn gay every day.”

    Actually, every day is a fight against temptation of various kinds.

    “And please cite the evidence for the New World Order that you believe in”

    A bit O/T. Watch out for the upcoming agreements on climate change/carbon tax, etc.

  45. Stewart Cowan 12 Nov 2009, 3:01pm

    Zephs,

    The Lords are actually speaking for the majority.

    “I am curious to know, if the bill is passed will it become illegal to try and convert gay people?”

    It won’t be illegal, it will just mean innocent people will be detained until the police understand what the law is.

  46. Stewart Cowen . . . you appear to be growing more and more desperate and disparate by the hour.

  47. Stewart Cowan 12 Nov 2009, 3:06pm

    Bob #40,

    “You are seeking redemption by trying to attack other people’s feelings.”

    Redemption cannot come that way.

    “Your engagement in this forum is all about what you want.”

    Yes it is: sinners saved. It’s what everyone wants.

    “Have you ever thought that the real problem is inside yourself?”

    No.

    “Who told you homosexuality is wrong?”

    You don’t have to be told when certain things are wrong.

  48. Stewart Cowen wrote
    “The Lords are actually speaking for the majority.”

    No Stewart . . . The Lords speak for the largely homophobic minority

  49. Stewart Cowan 12 Nov 2009, 3:09pm

    Evan,

    I bit of reality at last. Thank you.

    John K,

    Not sure you know where I’m coming from.

  50. Stewart Cowan 12 Nov 2009, 3:10pm

    John K,

    Wrong. Few people want this anti-freedom legislation. They’re sick of it.

  51. “”why aren’t you campaigning for women who weren’t virgins on their wedding day to be stoned on their father’s doorstep?”

    Because Christ taught to forgive.”

    OK, so why campaign against gay people? And didn’t Christ also say “Judge not, that you be not judged”? Live your life as you see proper, but stop interfering with other law-abiding citizens.

    “”What’s your obsession with gay people?”

    I don’t want them to be punished eternally for their sins.”

    Cop out. Since when did you become God’s right-hand man? We all live our lives as we think right and your only concern should be with yourself.

    “”If sexuality is a ‘behaviour’ then I presume you fight the urge to turn gay every day.”

    Actually, every day is a fight against temptation of various kinds.”

    Not for me, Stewart. If you have problems with resisiting temptation, that’s for you to sort out. I’d also add that homosexuality is NOT a ‘behaviour’. Electrodes attached to a person’s brain (and elsewhere…) can clearly show one’s sexual attraction even if the subject attempts to conceal it. People are born gay – but I know you don’t like hearing that.

    “”And please cite the evidence for the New World Order that you believe in”

    A bit O/T. Watch out for the upcoming agreements on climate change/carbon tax, etc.”

    No, it’s not OTT. If you genuinely believe some of the NWO ideas, I feel sorry for you (genuinely). Why does your life have to be a fight? Why do you think people are ‘out to get you’? Why don’t you like rights for women or rights for LGBT people? What harm would it do you if other people have rights?

  52. Stewart Cowen wrote
    “Wrong. Few people want this anti-freedom legislation. They’re sick of it.”

    . . . . . . .

    * The only thing that is clear is that you are sick of it
    * The only thing that is clear is that you think it is ok to incite homophobic hatred
    * The only thing that is clear is that you are becoming more desprate and disparate to get accross you message of hate.

  53. vulpus_rex 12 Nov 2009, 3:41pm

    “Any CPS lawyer would bin it after looking at it”

    Then why are old ladies in Norwich getting visits from the police for writing letters, and why are pished up students arrested for suggesting a horse might be gay? Both under current legislation and this legislation increases that power.

    Neither of these got to court and you are correct that this week, this year and probably next the CPS would throw them out (though probably only through fear of what the daily mail would make of them). However that context can be manipulated very easily especially by an authoritarian government like this one.

  54. stewart #47,

    “Redemption cannot come that way.”

    But it can certainly make you feel that way, doesn’t it? That’s why you are here. You come here to try to make other people feel guilty for something you yourself are feeling guilty about. Your concept of sin and salvation is not of everybody’s concerns. If you cannot provide real reasons, not imaginary ones, on why homosexuality is wrong, you are not any different than a screaming child banging its own head against the wall because it wants something so dearly.

  55. And Stewart, c’mon, men are their worst enemy. That only means you should look for your own answers inside yourself. You will find them. At the moment when I read you posts I can see a person feeling guilty and probably ashamed, and trying to make others feel the same. That’s what’s lacking your own attention and examination. You should look at your own mirror and let others look at theirs.

  56. Stewart, I’ll leave you with another clue: internalised homophobia. Somehow you have learnt somewhere that homosexuality is wrong. You should watch the following video, which clearly shows that some black kids have learnt somewhere that their colour is wrong:
    .
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG7U1QsUd1g
    .
    If you want, you can find ideologies that allegedly provide “evidence” of homosexuality or blackness as being in the wrong side of humanity. But look at the mirror and repeat it to yourself: I love you, no matter what. You can do that. If you need help, seek it.

  57. Poor Stewart Cowan is seriously mentally ill. He suffers from religious mania which is treatable. It is important to remember that religious faith is a mental illness.

  58. Stewart Cowen . . . you seem to think by hijacking this thread by impact, you can some how get across you message of hate by stealth.

    I think you will find that you cannot !!!

  59. Stewart Cowan 12 Nov 2009, 8:03pm

    Iris,

    “We all live our lives as we think right and your only concern should be with yourself.”

    Not so. We are accountable to a Higher Power and to each other. Nobody benefits from the selfishness you have described.

    “Why does your life have to be a fight?”

    This life is a fight. A fight to come out on the side of good over evil. It is a fallen world where many bad things happen. Do you not think it’s a fight sometimes? Do you just give into temptation every time it rears its ugly head?

    “Why do you think people are ‘out to get you’?”

    People are out to get us all. Thousands of New Labour laws and extra taxation! Wait until the globalisation really begins. It’s a whole other subject.

    “Why don’t you like rights for women or rights for LGBT people?”

    I am in favour of real (sensible) rights for everyone and that includes my right to disagree with any other human being on earth, as I have said already, without fear of prosecution. Can’t you see how ridiculous things have become that we should even be discussing someone’s right to express their opinion?

  60. Stewart Cowen . . .

    * Hijacking this thread again!
    * Desparate to get your message across again!
    * Persistant in your hatered of LGBT people again!

    Are you an

    Exgay Fundamentalitist Christain crackpot
    or just a
    Fundamentalitist Christain crackpot

  61. Stewart Cowan 12 Nov 2009, 8:18pm

    JohnK,

    You still don’t understand.

    vulpus_rex,

    You’re right. Lord W’s amendment simply clarifies the law. It doesn’t add anything or subtract anything, it clarifies. You have to wonder why most of these comments are against it. I guess they want innocent people locked up for not breaking the law.

    Dear Bob,

    I’ve already said that skin colour is not a valid comparison to any sort of behaviour.

    I am not here because I have guilt or shame, only because the consequences of unrepented of sin are worse than death itself. I’m self-employed, so while I’m spending time writing here and elsewhere on the subject, I am losing money. Quite a lot. I don’t do this out of hatred! If I hated you I’d be making money instead of taking time out to warn you of the Judgment to come for sin.

  62. Stewart Cowen . . . you have not answered my question.

    Your website maps you out clearly as a crackpot, but are you a

    Exgay Fundamentalitist Christain crackpot

    or just a

    Fundamentalitist Christain crackpot

  63. Stewart, do you defend racist “freedoms of speech and expressions” with the same maniqueistic fervour? Or should those kids in the video I showed you be left to the whims of the majority of society? What according to you should happen to someone who feels so strongly against people of a different colour, that they feel compelled to approach them only to tell them they were born with the wrong colour? Or refer to them as niggers? Surely you must have an opinion other than saying race and sexuality are different matters, or that people don’t choose their colour.

  64. Stewart Cowen Wrote
    “You’re right. Lord W’s amendment simply clarifies the law. It doesn’t add anything or subtract anything, it clarifies. You have to wonder why most of these comments are against it. I guess they want innocent people locked up for not breaking the law.

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Again Stewart you fail to understand the issue.

    The issue is about the following:

    * Preventing people like you from sending out a message that LGBT people are second class citizens who should convert to heterosexuality.

    * Preventing people like you from using religion as a weapon to incite homophobic hatred

    * Preventing people like you from propagating homophobic attitudes which will inspire others to abuse, assault and murder LGBT people.

  65. Stwart, I haven’t given you any reason to hate me, or have I? You are probably spending time here because this is a matter closer to your heart. I’ve told you before you are among peers. The difference between you and some others here is that you seem to believe in the concept of sin regarding homosexuality. Some others may disagree. This amendment does not clarify anything. If anything it only confuses things further. So people who feel compelled to approach any gay person or couple anywhere to tell them their behaviour is a sin and what they are doing is is wrong should be viewed as a matter of “free speech”. Which I disagree. For me this is a matter of offense and harassment, if the gay person or couple are not asking about what you think about them. And even if they asked, somethings must not be said. The same should apply to those who feel strongly about matters of race.

  66. Stewart Cowen

    Your religous beliefs are a “Life style Choice”

    If you choose to fashion your life in the style of hatred and bigotry then thats your choice.

  67. “Can’t you see how ridiculous things have become that we should even be discussing someone’s right to express their opinion? ”

    Express your opinion, but don’t state as ‘facts’ things that aren’t. And don’t couch your language in offensive terms. Do you agree with that?

    You say we’re all answerable to a higher power – maybe and maybe not. But that higher power isn’t you, so don’t set yourself up as a judge. The higher power that you talk about – the Christian God I presume in your case? – isn’t the one that other religions would say exists. What if you’re wrong…?

  68. This amendment is of little legal effect. The courts are not going to sanction a prosecution of someone for calmly and non-threateningly criticising homosexual conduct, with or without this amendment. The original Act would only ever be used where the conduct is intended to incite violence or hatred. Discussion and debate were always out of its remit, this amendment is simply symbolic and further emphasises that.

    And that is right. Imagine a law which forbade criticism of somebody for their ‘religious orientation’? Half of the contributors to this discussion board would be in jail!

  69. @ David 68:

    What constitute “calm non-threatening criticisms of homosexual conduct”? Examples should be welcomed, otherwise some police officers will be left wondering if they should act on or ignore reported complaints. Have you noticed that when Lord Waddington mentioned Ms Pauline Howe during his speech in the House of Lords, he conveniently forgot to mention that she described gay people as sodomites in her letter? I wonder what he would do if her letter to the council contained words such as niggers/pakis/yids/dirty jews etc. Would he paint her as a saint who’s being vilified by the system or suddenly jump to other side of the argument? What do you think?

  70. Abi, I used he / she because I didn’t what gender you were. The same would occur if you were called Chris or Les. Can you please tell me how I was supposed to know your gender? An insult? I think you are being a bit too precious there.

    You seem to want a law imposed for you because you didn;t get on with your parents. Can you not see how ridiculous that is, and would you have wanted to prosecuted your parents then? Send the cops round to take your parents away? You should go to the torture museum in Pnem Penn to see the results of that.

    If you were abused and people were being violent against you, there has always been criminal recourse.

    We need to stop being so hysterical and childish – wanting to bring in a law becasue “he over there doesn’t like me and I don’t like what he is thinking”. Grow up!

  71. Jean-Paul Bentham 15 Nov 2009, 9:33am

    Get the bishops out of the House of lords and legalize pepper spray.

  72. The issue of Freedom of speech has been heated, and so it should be.

    However, why is it that those who argue the freedom of speech stance ignore the “Massive Anarchism and Anomaly” here?

    How can an unelected “House of Lords” ever represent or purport to represent freedom of speech.

    I rest my case; a chamber which has a right to include a representative figure head from all the major religions does not represent the predominantly secular UK society.
    Consequently, any proscribed amendment will automatically have a element which serves to protect, preserve and propagate religious sensibilities.

    I find it a little odd that the massive anarchism and anomaly is some what ignored by some.

    Does the archaic really have a place in 21st century UK.

  73. “Wait until the globalisation really begins. It’s a whole other subject.”

    Ah, yes. The paranoid delusions that is the “New World Order”. Again. When logical argument fails, go for the global conspiracy theories, that’ll make you sound sane, won’t it Stewart? As Iris quite rightly pointed out, you rarely use facts, and your understanding of what constitutes free speech with reference to this law is grossly uninformed and quite frankly stupid. Can’s see past your bias and your bigotry, eh, Steward? God forbid, people like you would be prevented from advocating the forceful suppression of the rights of others!

    As for “not here because I have guilt or shame”, I find you protest that line too much to be anything but the truth.

    Why is it, the more fundamentally perverse these so called christians get, the more they turn their backs on reality and wallow in these stupid conspiracy theories and extreme judgemental, like they are an authority? Religion fuels the damaged mind of the paranoid delusions perhaps? Steward is very similar to that other madman, Hank, that comes in here with almost identical modus operandi.

    Ever get diagnosed with Schizophrenia, Stewart? You seem to be exhibiting a lot of the symptoms, and statistically you match the profile.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all