Reader comments · Ann Widdecombe says gay laws threaten Christian freedom of speech · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Ann Widdecombe says gay laws threaten Christian freedom of speech

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. because god forbid we treat christians like everybody elce…

  2. The trouble is that this dreadful woman has a point. The anti-hate-speech laws are vague, wide as a barn door, illiberal and make martyrs of her ilk. Open incitement to violence is all that should be outlawed. When she tried to argue that obliging religious adoption agencies to consider l&g couples was an unjust injury to their conscience she was wrong – a public service of public interest should not be delivered according to the arbitrary dictates of ‘conscience’, to which there can be no theoretical limit. But the anti-hate laws have given her kind some moral high ground. The expression ‘own goal’ comes to mind…

  3. Brian Burton 25 Jan 2010, 12:43pm

    Ann Widdercombe, ofcourse you Bigots should be sued if the new equality laws are brocken by Bigors like you. End of story!!

  4. Isn’t she dead yet?

  5. Christine Rourke 25 Jan 2010, 12:49pm

    Ryan asked. “Isn’t she dead yet?”

    Only her brain, Ryan.


  6. This is hysterical.

    It’s all to do with Articles 2(4), 4 and 9 of EC directive 2007/2008 which establishes a general framework for equal treatement in employment and occupation.

    Nu-Lab allowed the churches to continue their bigoted path
    however after a complaint from the Nationsal Secular Society, the European Court of Justice is threatening to prosecute the UK Govt, for not fully implementing the agreed criteria of the directive.

    Looks a bit like a rock and a hard place, because they either appease the bigots or get prosecuted by the EC.

    Fun for everyone…..

  7. We’re all entitled to express an opinion, but I don’t see why religious groups should be allowed to opt out of obeying the Law. Because of their beliefs? Ok, so let’s allow the BNP to be racist, shall we? And I know a few men who dislike women – OK for them to refuse to employ us, is it?

    Ann talks about a matter of conscience, but any decent human being’s conscience would tell them not to discriminate against other people just because they’re different to yourself.

  8. I think Ms. Widdecombe has got the wrong end of the stick here. I see no reason why one cannot have opinions on anything you want. George Orwell’s ‘Thought Police’ are still fortunately fictional.

    However, the problem comes when you wish to express those opinions. If you wish to say “I disapprove of homosexuality”, that is your right; but if you say “Homosexuals should be shot”, then you are forcing your opinions on others, and consequently likely to propagate hatred.

    “For the first time in this country we are being obliged as citizens to do things which are against our conscience.”
    I don’t think we are making anyone do anything, we are just preventing people from being vocal about their personal opinions.

    One just wonders how others would react if I said I would not allow Muslims in my hotel, or print prayer books for Christians.
    I suspect there would be people in foaming-mouthed apoplexy at the thought.

  9. I’m sure she wouldn’t agree that a white printer can refuse to print black cultural literature…….Look into the goods and services act. Personal religious “beliefs” (not truths) are one thing but refusing someone access to services is like apartheit. Sorry Anne can’t serve you..Mullet hair cuts are against my belief!!

  10. Again, it amazes me that these bigots still feel they have to judge a person by what they do in bed. We would be called perverted if we did the same to them. Think this maybe is Anne’s little bit of media attention before she leaves office after the election. Just a shame she didn’t choice to use her time a bit more productively!

  11. 25 Jan 2010, 1:07pm

    In the “Big Boys’ Bible Book” it says that I’m supposed to go out and preach and stuff. That’s why I do that at every opportunity. Of course, it does mean that nobody else is allowed to propagate their own view, but that’s just their bad luck, because they’re wrong and deserve to be suppressed. I like to display my beliefs because they prove that I’m a better person than *some* people who feel they must flaunt their lifestyles however degraded. Everybody is equal, it stands to reason, except of course for *some* people who aren’t. I cannot understand how even the simple-minded can’t grasp this elementary truth. Why can’t everybody be like me – humble, fair-minded, virtuous and tolerant?

  12. Omar Kuddus 25 Jan 2010, 1:14pm

    She has spewed her homophobic vile for long enough and tried to hide behind her position, religion and status.
    When are British politicians going to realise that Religion has NO place in politics and accept that despite the gay issue we are a multi faith nation and that most importantly Gay individuals are also citizens and have rights and Are entitled to equality and the same treatment and fairness and protection as any other individual, regardless of their faith.
    The Human Rights Charter guarantees us the and one has to acknowledge that this is the fundamental basis on which all laws are based.

  13. Well done Widdie! A big thanks for this timious reminder of the true face of Conservatism; Lest We Forget.

  14. Sister Mary clarence 25 Jan 2010, 1:52pm

    Rufus, I think the issue is more to do with her religious beliefs rather than her politics, although I fully admit it does rather play to those gay people who are happy to see the country go down the toilet in exchange for equality laws implemented by the EU, that NuLabour have successfully rebranded as their own.

    The woman has two loyalties, her political allegiances and her faith, and increasingly, with the changes in the Conservative Party, she is going to find they are at odds. Something will have to give and she will need to tow the new party line or she will be gone.

    Similarly the government has a conflict as well. Religious freedom and equality of sexual orientation are both protected but are often at odds. Again something is going to need to give, and the God botherers do have a point in that they have the right to religious expression. It is unfortunate that a number of religions have some extremely ungodly views on homosexuality.

  15. The only sensible thing ms widdyweb has ever said was to say there was something of the night about Michael Howard (a fellow homophobe as well!) Now she’ll be fawning all over His NastyNess the Arch Homophobe of Rome when he comes to the UK. This woman is sadly yet another homophobic religious nutty case in a long line (Iris Robinson for example)

  16. What always amazes me with these religous types given that they always try to come across as self-righteous, gooder than good and whiter than white, is that they just cannot see the hypocrisy of their argument.

    Or perhaps I have just always been wrong in thinking that religion was always sold as a force for good.

    All I can see spewing from it is hate, bitterness and brainwashing.

  17. She also jumped ship from the CofE to Roman Catholicism when the CofE wanted to ordain women.

    She must hate women also.

  18. theotherone 25 Jan 2010, 2:05pm

    and this coming from a woman who, at university, idolised Ingrid Pitt and looked like this…

  19. This claptrappy rot is what we should expect from widders. she is so concerned about being non pc her views are confused as ever. she loves to hide behind her christian beliefs which are a smokescreen for prejudice. there is something quite pathetic how she has become something of a media whore.

  20. 25 Jan 2010, 2:34pm

    (Sr. M. Clarence).

    Maybe that right should only be exercisable in assemblies of like-minded people, in semi-private events – a good day for that would be a Sunday. But as for spilling over into the public domain, well that’s a different matter. I have no grouse with their freedom to have opinions and values, but why do they have to flaunt them, and their chosen life-style, and force us to adopt them? Are my values of lesser value?

  21. Headline

    ‘Christian dogma threatens gay equality law’

  22. Bishop of Winchester was on Sky News saying more or less the same thing as Her Widdyness. when will Christians learn that Jesus Christ said nothing bad about Gay people; its all in the silly old testament which is worse than a fairy tale!

  23. Mumbo Jumbo 25 Jan 2010, 2:44pm

    Sister Mary Clarence said:

    “The woman has two loyalties, her political allegiances and her faith, and increasingly, with the changes in the Conservative Party, she is going to find they are at odds. Something will have to give and she will need to tow the new party line or she will be gone.”

    The Equalities Bill is being debated today in the House of Lords.

    This is, of course, a golden opportunity for you to show us all just how much Anne Widdecombe is at odds with the “changes” in the Conservative Party.

    Simply come back on here tomorrow and post the figures on how peers voted, broken down party by party, so we can all see how the new gay-affirming Conservatives you talk of voted in their droves for equality.

    No? Thought not.

  24. It is a truly sad day – and a damning endictment of our ignorane in the face of increasing Orwellian manouvres that are serving to advance a fully-fledged police state with the creeping advancement of thought crime – that I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with this dingbat. And this agenda is being nudged along by Stonewall, which exists as an extension of government with the overall aim of advancing perniciously oppressive legislation. Make no mistake, we are all complicit in a future not far off wherein any of us could easily wake up to a loud knock on the door in the middle of the night and disappeared for doing something quite outwardly ordinary and every day but which has been outlawed and classified as an “offence” punishable by indefinite detention, and tried by the kind of private courts we are now seeing dealing in the kidnapping of children from parents who have done nothing wrong bar make some innocent comment that has been leapt upon by callous drones operating within the social services industry. I hate to draw comparisons with the Holocaust here, but we are effectively aiding in the construction of a prison camp of our own making.

  25. Surprise,surprise that the old trout has trotted this out.She was an Anglican but she opposed the ordination of women so she became a Catholic just in time to enjoy the benefits of the Heil Hitler Pope.She is a caricature of herself….only the elderly demented regard her nonsense as relevant.She is in the same box as that fool Wadddington, the third-rate solicitor from Preston that Thatcher appointed as her poodle Home Secretary.

  26. theotherone 25 Jan 2010, 4:23pm

    you really, really don’t like catholics do you gendy?

  27. What she fails to realize is that yes everyone can have their own opinion, take me for example I never liked chili because it made me sick.

    Now its my personal opinion that that food kinda sucks, HOW EVER does that mean I can run around with a megaphone and protest that other people are eating something I personally don’t like? Does that mean that I can walk up to them and rag on them that their food is disgusting and I hate it?

    NO. and ya know why, because we call that being an asshole. and if you do that enough then yes someone is gonna do something about it, be it the police, or the person you just whined at.

  28. equality laws are there for a reason and Christians and any religion need to be following the law

    Ann and her ild stir up hatred and violence yet lie that they don’t

  29. The Halcyon 25 Jan 2010, 5:04pm

    I don’t think a 62 year old virgin (and proud, allegedally) is a particularly good source for talking about what is natural and what is not.

  30. The Menstruator 25 Jan 2010, 5:12pm

    I wonder if she knows how brainwashed by men she is, sad.

  31. vicious old hag. How dare she express an opinion on my love being second class when this demented old fundi hasn’t even experienced love except the one between herself and her pussy…cat.. mr. pugwash. She believes in traitional family values? well maybe if she had a family I’d take more notice.

    should be quite interesting over the next years to watch this bigot become more and more frantic and fat as we gain full equality. Cant wait untill gay marriage comes up on the cards, which one day it will, perhaps it will be the last nail in the coffin for her and she will just wither away and die alone. peace anni x

  32. Well, there she goes again. As I understand it, she isn’t planning on standing again at the next election, which will be nice. I wonder just how much of this is connected with keeping her in the public eye so any books, bits of journalism can keep her in the luxury to which she become accustomed. Which would make the foul mouthed hag even worse in my view.
    I’d say it’s a 50/50 split between her “faith” and her politics, she isn’t alone in the tory party for her homophobic views and while some may say that other parties have MPs of the same ilk, they appear to do a better job of keeping their mouths shut. With tory lords and baronesses all trying to amend the Equality laws so they can keep on being homophobic under the law, it’s hard to see the argument that it plays into the hands of folk who would rather see the country go down the toilet than lose their rights. I think many of them don’t want to see both happen, which it will if people like this have their own way and there is no cast iron guarantee that it won’t. I see the reasoning as, it’s taken a hell of a long time and many battles to get where we are now. People don’t want to lose those rights even if the country does go down the tube because, as usual, without protection, minorities will suffer, be blamed for anything that doesn’t sit right with the masses. Straight folk, in whatever state the country is in, will still have their rights, protected in law. The LGBT community run the risk of losing them. So we run the risk of losing our rights just at the same time as people, feeling hardship, feel the need to cast around, for someone to blame.

  33. Robert, ex pat Brit 25 Jan 2010, 6:55pm

    In a true democracy, NOBODY should be above the laws of the land, without exception. Its too bad that these cultists are offended. How many times do the offend us everytime equality issues are raised by claiming their beliefs prevent them from implementing the law. If they want to discriminate against us because of their beliefs, then we too should have the same right to discriminate against them, such as the delivery of goods and services. Gay owned businesses should be exempt from the law if it involves providing services to clerics and other cultists wearing their beliefs on their sleeves simply because we find their refusal to abide by the law as equally offensive. Enough said.

  34. John(Derbyshire) 25 Jan 2010, 6:59pm

    Rob-the society you describes already exists today for some gay men. As far as the police are concerned-gay men are criminals if they associate with other gay men in a public place. The can (and have) been stopped and searched and cross-examined as “why they are there”.

  35. who someone is, such as their sexuality, deserves far more respect than a religious which is an optional choice. these backward looking people, usually the backward looking ‘all loving’ Christians are are the least loving! I know not all Christians are this messed up, but only a few (in this case a lot) are needed to give a group a bad name!

    This MP is stuck in the past, If she thinks this, then I wouldn’t put it past her to be racist to!

    people who discriminate are the scum of the earth, people who use their power to discriminate then they need to be fired from their role1

  36. Dave North 25 Jan 2010, 7:09pm

    I spy with my likkle eye, a self loathing closet case…

  37. An Cat Dubh 25 Jan 2010, 7:43pm

    *Claps hands* Brava. But why stop there? I mean, outlawing hate speech hurts Nazis too…

  38. Barry, Northampton 25 Jan 2010, 7:51pm

    … Just off to burn Anne Widdecombe book given to me at Christmas…

  39. Oh, grow up a bit, “sister” Mary Clarence. No good having a snide pop at me and in presuming that disliking homophobia means I must vote for NuLabour (I never have; I live in Spain with my Spanish husband since we can’t marry in the UK) But neither am I young enough not to remember how bloody vile the Tories were in power last time, nor fool enough not to learn from that experience. No, I’m not happy to see the UK go down the toilet as you sneeringly say of me, and those of us who refuse to listen to the siren Tories again. I agree with Mumbo Jumbo’s comment about voting records. Do as he or she suggests on the Lords’ vote and see what, if anything, has changed in Tory thinking during the time this woman has been one of their MPs.

  40. peter roberts 25 Jan 2010, 10:02pm

    Christian churches challenging requests for equal human rights for all is one of the most chilling things I’ve ever heard. They should try reading the bible they are always rabbiting on about.
    If widdecombe is going to be in heaven then I’m booking my seat in the other place now.

  41. Did it never occur to these “self-proclaimed ‘Christians'” that they just might be plain WRONG! The Ann Widdecombes of this world are just NOT qualified to give moral (or any other) guidance to anyone!
    This is a WOMAN who was quite content to be an Anglican for the vast majority of her 62 [+] years and then jumped ship and became a Roman Catholic when Anglicans allowed woman priests … this does not make her a credible commentator.
    To paraphrase … Oh Ann, we thee implore – just GO AWAY and speak no more!”

  42. George Atkinson 25 Jan 2010, 10:23pm

    Saw a hilarious vid of her – in speech and mannerism, she might be imitating a John Cleese drag role.

  43. BrazilBoysBlog 25 Jan 2010, 10:25pm

    Oh no, Whacky-Widdecombe strikes again. Another sorry excuse for a human who cannot accept that her (and her views) days are numbered.

  44. I shall be consulting “Which” Magazine for further news . . . you know . . . the one which deals with black cats, broomsticks and pointed hats.

  45. Justin Hafey 26 Jan 2010, 1:13am

    It’s another example of the crazy merry go round religion has had the weak on for thousands of years. It doesn’t take very much intelligence to see their ‘faith’ for what it is, a method for the minority to control the majority. It has always been this way, the babble is not the word of God, but the words of crazy old men who created the first ideology and decided amongst themselves how everybody should live. This depravity is so evil and low that it even believes that the ‘messiah’s’ role is to suffer and die just to perpetuate their lies and deception. Religion is the true enemy of mankind, Gays are just the scapegoats being used to perpetuate it’s hate.


  47. Widdy should take a leaf out of Iris’ book and go and get herself well and truly rogered…a good stiff talking to is what she needs.
    Real good stuffing sweetens the oldest of boilers; “Paxo” rules..!


    (Sorry for laffin’ at me own jokes, peeps!)


  48. Dave- Doris is in danger of becoming a media whore? I thought she had succeeded already. It was only a couple of years ago that you couldn’t switch on an ITV “current affairs” programme without being confronted by her chasing drunken teenage girls through shopping centres to chide them about their wanton hussiness

  49. A true blue Tory speaks her mind. Remember this at election time.

  50. 21stCenturySpirituality 29 Jan 2010, 3:02am

    This is actually about more than a right to express an opinion. What we are actually talking about here is that certain religions bar women from entering service as ministers and leaders and also continue to exclude and discriminate unfairly against people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered.

    To my mind, unfair discrimination foundationed on prejudice against people and unreasonable exclusion of certain sections of the population, is an inappropriate use of religious convictions and beliefs. Religion should not be seen or used as a reason to foster and promote intolerance and unfair discrimination but rather as a means to outgrow and transcend such things.

    I do not support the inclusion of the religious opt outs in the Equality Bill. The religious opt outs are nothing more than a licence for erroneous prejudices and unfair discrimination to remain unchallenged. As a Unitarian I fully support the General Assemblys decision to give its support to the Cutting Edge Consortium, the parliamentary panel of human rights groups, secular organisations, and progressive and liberal faith and religious bodies, who have voiced their opposition to the religious opt outs being included in the proposed Equality Bill.

    Rick George
    Publicity & Programs Committee Chair
    Library Acquisitions & Administration Supervisor
    Edmund Kell Unitarian Church
    Bellevue Road

  51. Sister Mary clarence 29 Jan 2010, 5:59am

    “No good having a snide pop at me and in presuming that disliking homophobia means I must vote for NuLabour”

    A little bit defensive their Rufus – perhaps you want to read my posting again I don’t thin I actually suggested you did vote NuLabour.]

    Any you may well be old enough to remember the last Tory government, but some of us are a little older and remember the Labour one before it. Funnily enough, then just like now they bankrupted us.

    To be honest as well, I’m always a bit dismissive of people living overseas purporting to understand British politics, although to be fair your understanding of European politics is a little bit shot if you think Labour are to thank for recent equalities legislation here.

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.