We’ve been saying it for years…all communities and minorities can unite in saying: “never trust a Tory”…
Thanks a bunch, Alex.
I have been a very trustworthy person throughout my life, and since David Cameron declared his unqualified support for LGBT rights and for LGBT civil marriage, I have been able to identify myself as a Conservative.
I don’t agree with all areas of Conservative policy, like most people who support or vote for a party. I have spent many years campagning for LGBT rights, and for social justice in other areas. I believe in everybody being entitled to basic welfare benefits and housing benefits, regardless of whether they have been sacked or left a job voluntarily, and regardless of whether they turn down jobs, or don’t apply for them. That’s how it used to be, pre-Thatcher.
It is painful to see you tarring all Conservatives with the same brush. There are still the nasty ones around, but progressive, liberal Tories like me challenge them and argue with them. People don’t fit into neat boxes.
I imagine that my comment above might eventually disappear soon under a succession of “thumbs down”.
It would be very interesting to know, if you have clicked on “thumbs down”, what I have said that makes my comment a bad one.
If it is simply that I have said something positive about elements of the Conservative Party, and you think that any pro-Tory comment in a post deserves an automatic thumbs-down, then that would be interesting to know as well.
Not if I and many others have anything to do with it.
The lefty grow-your-own-yoghurt brigade can complain all they like, but I’d still trust a Tory over some bunch of champagne socialists like the last Labour government.
I’d be interested what you agree with when it comes to the tories then? Saying as they are cutting welfare and benefits, and as a rule are anti equality. They’re only other real aim is privatisation of services required for all?
So you’re trustworthy, you believe in equality and the welfare state, and yet you call your self a conservative.
Assuming you mean what you say then you are the opposite of everything the Tories stand for, which parts of the tory position do you actually agree with? tax cuts for the rich? unethical foreign policies? equally true of labour why not support them instead?
Because Labour will promise you the same thing but still fck you over behind your back.
Not all Tories are trustworthy, but at least they tell you what they are going to do first, rather than promise you the Earth and then connive, steal and revoke all their promises later whilst feathering their own nests and telling you it’s for your own good.
Yes Alex- Everybody ask yourselves this question: Why is this anti-equal marriage conference taking place at the CONSERVATIVE party conference?
Although I voted for the Tory party for the first time in 2010, I’m sad to say that it will never be able to shake its reputation as the nasty party, no matter the minority of them who support equal marriage. Not one among them has taken a stand against the bigotry and lies and I suspect nobody will. My goodness, we had Nick Clegg recently apologising for something he never said, so how on earth can we expect any Tory to go against one of their own in retaliation?
It is NOT taking place at the Conservative Conferance. It just happenes to be in the same city. It is nothing to do with the Conservative Party
‘It is nothing to do with the Conservative Party’. yeah, right. In a building a few yards from the Tory conference venue at the same time as the Tory conference with Tory Widdecombe speaking. Get real.
We want equality like everyone else and we are entitled to equality. The Churches are the bigots and they need to take a closer look at the bible.
if they did take a closer look at the bible they’d probably want to stone us to death or sell us into slavery instead of just trying to stop us getting married and encouraging us to commit suicide. Be careful what you wish for!
Far from being a “national treasure” and “cuddly” – this is the REAL face of Anne Widdecombe. No wonder Paul O’Grady refused to have her on his chat show!
She is a treasure…………………..she should have been buried a long time ago!
You mean she’s a ruin.
Just finished reading her insane dribblings over how the BBC can never criticise the RCC again for covering up child abuse. To exploit the story in such a way as a gotcha moment just demonstrated to me – yet again – how putrid she is.
What she has failed to notice is that the BBC have done what the RC Church have never done – called in the police and offered full co-operation.
How perceptively put!
These “Christians” should get their own house in order before jumping on bandwagons.
Tory scum , can’t wait to see the nasty party annihilated at the next election. Well i guess cameron can always go on celebrity big brother , he has already worked the celebrity chatshows.
And all of them will offer no argument other than their personal interpretation of the assumed wishes of an unproven supernatural entity.
Pathetic runts (a typo).
I hate the Tories almost as much as I hate the BNP and UKIP.
Let’s hope that David Davies never becomes the leader of the Tories too!
Well I’d been hoping for just that for a long time until today.
. . . and we are surprised because? . . .
You just have to look at the right-wing intake of MPs and their voting records . . .
So the master plan to “defend” marriage is to be led by an “unmarried” woman who cow tows to a bunch of unmarried priests.
Great plan guys.!!!!
“Kowtow” dear. It’s Chinese.
…If he was talking about the vile Widdecombe (Decompose) he was right to say ” cow tows ” I spelled her name wrong and I swear the word in brackets was suggested as the correct spelling.. Even an inanimate machine hates the cow…..
oh look,, its E.T.
People liked ET and were sad to see it go…
“The comments from George Osborne and William Hague came as a poll suggested most Tory local party chairmen want the prime minister to drop the plans.”
Had a bit of a closer look at this the other days to see how they were getting such skewed results at Comres.
The research is carried out with a panel, so its not a matter of cold calling and getting a random sample of views, its calling the same people over and over who have (generally) expressed an interest in being interviewed on a topic.
Comres have a professional reputation to maintain and I am extremely surprised that the researcher execs there are happy to put their name to (what I would consider) to be a very suspect methodology in view of the subject matter.
Its almost like a self selecting focus group …. the most likely people to come forward to talk about an issue are the ones that have a problem with it and therefore you are unlikely to get a balance.
I think it kind of explains the screwed up results
To this day, Comres has never divulged its methodology and it begs the question, why? It was once asked to do just that but a spokesperson mentioned something about the privacy of the client. Privacy from what I wonder? Obviously, there is something to hide. The same goes for the C4M petition.
I am sorely disappointed at the attitude of David Davis coming out with statements like “Gay marriage is an issue for the church, not the state.”
I really had high hopes for that man and thought he was a serious voice reason in a rather screwed up party.
It seems I was wrong.
If marriage equality was an issue for the churches then why doesn’t David Davis vote for a change in law to allow churches to decide whether to conduct same sex marriages because the law as of today states churches can not conduct a same sex marriage even if they wanted to – there is no religious freedom here.
My personal view is that marriage is a civil issue (hence why the state has a say in who can and can not marry) and religious institutions add their emphasis to it (which is perfectly reasonable for religious folk). What I object to is people objecting to me marrying the man I love – how this can have ‘unintended consequences’ is beyond me. As for Ann Widdecombe – she has never been in love so how would she know what it is like when you love someone… it is a human strait to want to marry – for me it is anyway.
The problem with state religion is that it is allowed to perform marriages, along with other denominations and is valid without any civil component. The UK should have followed France’s lead by regulating marriage to civil ceremonies only with an option for religious solemnisation for those who so choose. As for those ‘unintended consequences’, well, we all know what they are don’t we? Polygamy, incest, polyamory, bestiality etc. The first three having been quite common in the old testament, you know, the part where Widdecombe and Carey claim traditional marriage is based on.
Marriage (in the legal sense) is regulated by the state. The only role of the churches is that the law permits some religious bodies to officiate weddings that create legal marriages – provided the marriage meets the legal requirements.
If David Davis doesn’t like this arrangement then he is welcome to demand a situation such as that in Israel, where only religious bodies can officiate weddings and atheists can’t get married without holding their noses and going to synagogue.
Does David Davis wish to ban civil weddings in hotels, registry offices and the like? Is that his policy? If not, he should stop talking nonsense about marriage being a church issue.
Does he also think that the state should step away from administering divorce? Maybe he wants the local rector to decide whose marriages are allowed to break down, and who gets the kids etc. should permission be granted?
David Davis needs to leave his 16th Century way of thinking and join us in today’s world. Then his opinions on these things might actually be worth something.
Once a couple is married off, the church relinquishes itself of any responsibility. Maybe if they had to manage divorce cases they might be a little less precious about the honourable state of matrimony.
Well, all I can say is, if equal marriage is defeated in Parliament, it will be down to the majority of the Tories. I won’t be voting for them again if that becomes a reality.
As for Davis’ ludicrous, mendacious statement, how on earth is civil marriage the domain of the church or any other secular civil matter? Another reason why there must be strong movement to disestablish state religion once and for all. They are becoming more extreme as the equal marriage debate continues and getting far more coverage than those in support.
With so much indifference by the British public and to some extent, a certain number of gay people, this is not going to be an easy piece of legislation to pass when you consider that CPs only managed to get through with an extremely small majority. This one is going to be a lot harder now that the religious right, although in a minority, are upping the ante and getting a lot of media coverage with precious little retaliation from those in support.
I totally agree.
I know of many straight couples that chose to get married in registry offices, because although they loved all the pomp and ceremony of a church wedding felt it hypocritical to have one as they were agnostic or atheist and probably only went to church for the odd christening, wedding or funeral.
For somebody to state that civil weddings are a matter for the church is effectively sticking up two fingers to all those people that have already had secular marriage ceremonies for the express reason they do not support the church. Some religionists have claimed that somehow same-sex marriage will ‘devalue’ everybody else’s marriage, but I see this attitude as far worse, even before bringing gay people into the equation.
Exactly right. What bothers me is that nobody in any of the three parties is seriously taking them to task, please or offend. Simply repeating that religious denominations won’t be compelled to participate against their wishes or beliefs no longer holds credibility for them. It isn’t enough unless they get their way and make sure that the ban on equal marriage remains. The majority in the Tory party will defer to them, sadly. I just don’t see it passing unless the numbers are there to make it happen.
I’ve said it too many times before, and there is so much evidence to demonstrate it:
Politicians of all parties and persuasions are sh|t scared of the church, and they will do anything to avoid a confrontation.
I have yet to see a single MP anywhere confront a religious organisation and tell them where to stick their outdated, bigoted concepts. Never.
Mr Davis’s argument that activists might use the courts to force churches to hold weddings against their will is laughable.
Firstly, it’s a lousy argument. Since when do we discard a good law because someone might use a problematic law to bring a bad case? If the Human Rights Act is a problem, fix that. Don’t oppose marriage equality.
Secondly, the idea that the HRA could be used in this way is nonsense.
Judges have found against those wanting to bring faith-based opinions on homosexuality into commercial or secular public settings. You can’t foster kids if you want to tell them you hate gays, and you can’t wear a cross at work if it’s against the company dress code.
But no judge would compromise the right of religions to discriminate as much as they like in their rituals and faith.
Put simply, religions control their rites, but individuals have rights. My right to equality stops at the door of their churches. And their right to discriminate stops there too.
I’m not entirely sure on this one.
The church holds powerful sway in the courts, and even if the British law lords overruled them, I have this nasty feeling in my bones that the European courts may possibly side with the equal rights campaigners and insist on churches following the way of everything else.
I am most certainly not a supporter of any religionist establishments, but I do feel for everybody’s sakes that the churches are protected, otherwise it is going to make our life that much harder and set a lot of people against the same-sex marriage cause.
My worry is, as to how this can be achieved, I have absolutely no idea.
The idea that activists would “force” churches to marry same-sex couples is as believable as the idea that activists have been able to “force” churches to marry divorcees. It’s simple FUD spread by those that don’t want to see any change in the law at all. For those that want to marry in a church there will be churches that will welcome them. For everyone else there are a plethora of attractive venues licensed to use a registrar.
That’s not my point.
I am certain there are people out there bloody-minded enough to actually call their bluff and try it, and knowing the wishy-washy liberal twats running the ECHR, they would run with it.
Europe has already removed over half of UK’s legislature, so what is there to stop them doing this as well?
We need some kind of cast-in-stone guarantee, to protect us in fact, rather than them, because if it came down to a one-to-one battle, sorry, but we would lose.
The UK was full of crappy laws long before we hooked up with Strasbourg, and if we were to leave the EU that circus of clowns at Westminster would keep the crappy laws coming. Waving a pointy finger in the vague direction of “Europe” and blaming Johnny Foreigner for all evils is rather over-simplifying things.
The EHCR’s rulings have historically marked it on the side of the freedom of religious organisations to pretty much discriminate however they want on their own premises anyway. Even in the unlikely event a discrimination claim got to the ECHR it would most likely be voted down, especially if other more liberal churches were willing to accommodate the same-sex couple in question.
There’s a big legal difference between a religious establishment and a business run by religious people (a B&B for instance).
Ah, what antics from the modernised Tory party….
David Davis is a right-winger whose politics I detest but he usually makes some sort of sense and comes across as reasonably intelligent. The utter drivel he is quoted as coming out with here suggests he has been infected with the rabid madness of the anti-equal marriage lobby.
Well, as a right winger myself, I think his politics to date are brilliant, and he would have made a considerably better Prime Minister than that clown Cameron. I just cannot understand why he has chosen to take this path, and I really think he has done himself and the party a major disservice.
I hope you are telling this to the party as well as us, Spanner.
Why on earth the unmarried virgin Anne Widdecombe commenting on marriage.
She knows nothing about it.
Never trust a Tory
I very much doubt she is a virgin as she has one of those live-in ‘travel companions’, just like Sir Cliff has ….. she protests far too much.
Always trust a socialist to smile in your face as they stab you in the back instead.
Now now ladies. No need to get all Italian about it ;-)
Wow, 900 people out of the whole UK. As opposed to the thousands and thousands who lined the streets for protests about the Tories’ cuts and reforms. Boy, you really showed them how many people are on your side.
You obviously have all the answers.
How do you suggest Britain pays back the £1,200bn+ that we owe?
The money has to come from somewhere.
Getting the hell out of the EU would be my first suggestion, but it seems no current politician wants to stand up and point out that particular pachyderm in the parlour.
Personally I’d legislate that The City has to stop wasting all its time being the world’s bankers and get them to give British industry some much overdue attention. It’s shocking that the likes of Branson, Dyson etc. have to get their investment loans from Asia because the British banks simply aren’t interested in building up British business. When you look at the successful balanced exporting economies they all have one thing in common, their banks and companies work closely together.
Our workers, designers, engineers etc. are amongst the best in the world, yet Westminster and London between them completely neglect their potential. There is no reason why we shouldn’t have world beating industrial companies in the same way Germany has. If we build up our own export activity the increased tax income would negate the deficit and start getting our national debt heading back in the right direction, and for that we need to start creating things to sell.
Unfortunately, we lost all our manufacturing back in the 80′s and we’ve never recovered. We really are a nation of shopkeepers now.
We haven’t completely lost our manufacturing base, it’s more like what’s there is owned by foreign companies now. British managers were, and to a large extent still are, utterly rubbish, but British thinkers, designers, engineers etc. are actually top grade. Our creative industries are stronger than ever too. We could build it back quite easily if the will was there amongst the financial sector, and 30 years down the line we’d be a much better country for it.
What a joke. The party of “small government” and “individualism”. Hardly.
Why are our equal rights a matter of conscious. equal rights do not need to be voted on. why do we continue to put up with this crap in the 21st century.
As is not untypical with right wing religious fundamentals, this ‘get together’ was rather more hot air than action.
It’s being reported that the venue was half full when… don’t hold your breath… Colin Hart of the coalition for Marriage claimed that “they could have filled it three times over.”
A fine example of hubris if one were required..
David Davis: “Gay marriage is an issue for the church, not the state.”
Really? A civil issue should be determined by biased religious leaders? I only need 9 letters to describe that: THEOCRACY.
I wonder what civil fuunction these people will be wanting to delegate to religion next. Taxation? defence policy? judicial authority?
Indeed – and look at the arrogance of Carey’s statement:
“Now, politicians in some Western countries have declared their intention to redefine marriage and have muscled in on areas of practice, theology and thought that have been the preserve of religious communities.”
Firstly, no-one’s said they’re going to “redefine” marriage – that’s just cr*p spread around by anti-equality people; and secondly, how dare he claim that religion owns marriage? People like him make me sick.
Iris, the last time marriage was ‘redefined” was in the 19th century when civil marriage was introduced allowing heterosexual adulterers to remarry, removing any religious component or impediment. Equal marriage in eleven countries hasn’t produced any negative results that the likes of bigots Carey and Widdecome and their ilk have alluded to. I do wish someone would demand the factual evidence. Widdecome and Carey should contact the governments of those countries where equal marriage is legal and bring us their official report. That’s the problem with the right wingers, nobody seriously takes them on. They’ve galvanised like never before because nobody comes forward to challenge their spurious claims that are often offensive and just not true. Spreading false information last time I checked is a violation of the 8th commandment, bearing false witness against one’s neighbour. Psychopathic liars, all of them.
“I do wish someone would demand the factual evidence.”
Me too! It enrages me that they’re allowed to spout such poisonous lies without being challenged, or without anyone standing up and saying “Hang on a minute…” and pointing out things like you’ve pointed out in your comment above. It seems like ‘religion’ gives them carte blanche to say what they want however stupid and no-one must challenge them and their precious ‘beliefs’ – a.k.a spiteful, ignorant prejudice and a desire to mark out a group of other human beings as ‘inferior’.
I find it so amusing that people find the idea of same-sex marriage so awful that they will take time out of their lives to actually protest against it.
The lengths that people are going to in opposing an issue that has no affect on them is just amazing.
That’s why they have to pretend it WILL affect them. They wouldn’t have a chance to spew their nasty prejudices otherwise.
It IS awful!!
I have been married to my wife (a woman) for the last 380 years and to imagine that some poove can just waltz in and devalue our marriage just makes me seeth! How very DARE they!
(Just check out the Daily Telegraph boards – there really are people like that.)
She has been the laughing stock of the Tory party for years.
The rally wasn’t part of the Conservative Party Conference. Get your facts right people. It wasn’t even organised by the party
Funny, there was nothing like this at the Labour Party Conference last week or the LibDems’ the week before.
This is the outcome of the effect of dogmatic religionists historically having hijacked the Conservative Party, as the Religious Right have hijacked the US Republicans.
The difference between the Conservative Party and the Republicans is that people arrogant enough to think they have a right to impose their religious prejudices on the rest of society are being shown the door by the new Tory leadership, supported by the new pro-gay Tory MP intake of 2010.
But as the comments here show, a lot of damage has been done in the past by the Conservative Party’s historical homophobia. It needs to continue to work very hard for LGBT equality to make amends for some appalling things that have happened in the past.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that those in support of equal marriage in the Tory party, are a small minority. Unless we get sufficient numbers of them by the time legislation comes up for a first vote, it will fail. A huge victory it will be for the many Tory religious bigots and other right wing extremists, not just in the Commons but in the House of Lords.. I see no reason to introduce legislation if the votes aren’t there to guarantee safe passage. CPs weren’t easy to get through and only with a very small majority. Equal marriage faces a far more difficult hurdle to overcome. I only hope I am pleasantly surprised.
If my understanding is correct that the Lib Dems and Labour will have a three-line whip, then that will mean 256 Labour MPs and 57 Lib Dem MPs. There are likely to be a few rebels, so let’s say this amounts to 290 votes in total. There will be pro- votes from minor parties and independents as well, and I think about 4 have been declared so far. Then, so far, 73 Tory MPs have declared support. Intentions of 170 Tories are unknown. At least some of them will vote for the bill, and perhaps many. But let’s assume none do. That makes a total of 367 out of 649, which is a majority. Any Tory pro- MPs who don’t bother to vote are likely to be offset by the undeclared ones who vote in favour.
The numbers look very good from where I’m sitting. Even if it didn’t happen, despite David Cameron’s best efforts, it is still a dead cert for the near future. And there would be such an outcry if it wasn’t passed, it would produce massive campaigning momentum and pro-LGBT publicity. A win-win.
““We cannot allow politicians to plunder something as sacred as the institution of marriage.”
Really? Well, you’ll be galloping off to the nearest registry office to strongly protest against all the civil marriages taking place there then, won’t you, Carey? I mean how very dare they steal the so-obviously-religious institution of marriage from you, eh?
Has anyone told him that about 2/3rds of marriages take place in locations other than church?
Surprised that the local council allowed their town hall to be used for this rally. Don’t they ask what the premises is used for? Would they allow a racist group equal access?
Yes shocking, Birmingham council obviously support discrimination and prejudice against Lgbt .
A homophobic local council OMG!!
Sadly I do not find it surprising at all. Perhaps I’m growing cynical.
But with such prominent Torys like David Cameron. William Hague, Teresa May George Osborne and Boris Johnson all rooting for gay marriage, aren’t these religious crackpots fighting a losing battle?
Right now, no George. We still don’t know if there are enough Tory MPs voting yes to guarantee passage. Without that, it can’t succeed without their votes.
Pretty much yes. I just wish the Tory leadership would get on with it and introduce a bill. Labour and the Lib Dems have already said they’d support it. It would be a sure fire slamdunk, in the Commons at least, and there are probably enough anti-Tebbits in the Lords to get it through there too. It would even cut bureaucratic red tape if they removed CPs altogether and just had one legal category for marriage, meaning it goes towards their deficit cutting priority. Win-win-win for everyone.
It’s the right time. They just need to get on with it.
“The real bigots are those who believe that those who dissent have no right to do so, and that the state should silence them”.
No one has said they have no right to dissent! We have simply asked them to stop spewing such fallacious nonsense!
If just one sensible objection to marriage equality were offered we could debate the merits of each side. Unfortunately that has yet to happen so we have no choice to ignore any and everything they say.
Glad I was able to get to the protest! Rather brought back memories of Section 28. As Nick Clegg said, if you don’t like the LibDems (who are wholly in favour of marriage equality), then vote Labour. After that, I went to another very odd event, about leaving Europe.
What’s odd about leaving Europe?
Probably the best thing this country could do in the last 75 years.
I’d rather we stayed in and kept trying to shape it how we want it. If we leave we run the risk of ending up like Norway, effectively subject to EU law whilst having no say in what those laws are.
I’m also convinced that the UK leaving the EU would very quickly result in the UK itself breaking up. Sometimes it’s better to think a few steps ahead of the action you’re contemplating and thinking about the consequences.
I was at the meeting and there wasn’t a ‘protest’ I counted about five ugly people, who got put some cross on the law, which later fall over and were not noticed by anyone. They must of got tired as they were not there at the end when everyone left.
It was far better on the inside. The meeting was very successfully and well attended and good points were made.
Liar, Liar, pants on fire.
About as sensible as their comments.
“No society can be free without the freedom to dissent, and no democracy real without the recognition of plurality of views.”
You are entitled to your views but no society can be free if it cannot ignore those who seek to restrict the freedoms of others on the basis of personal religious fantasies and no evidence whatsoever.
The religious own marriage? We need your permission to get married in a civil ceremony? You want the right to tell another religion it cannot marry those it wants to?
How can a (former) Archbishop of Canterbury to held speech at the conference of political party? Even in United States this people can speak only ‘blessing’ at the beginning, but nothing more.
My Engrish better getting, yes?
How many languages do you speak Spanner?
Commenting on English Language forums is a great way for people to practice English. Stop putting people down and being an ass. You could at least be constructive.
English, German and French fluently and another couple to get by with.
Next question? :p
Well then you should really know better.
And Greek, both ancient and modern, yes? Of course.
It wasn’t at the Conservative Party Conferance but at a seperate event in the same city. Nothing to do with the Conservatives at all
Oh give it a rest Katherine. Repeating it doesn’t make it true.
….If that is so why was the “patron saint” of the Tories speaking at it then? Coincidence?…I think not; do wake up and smell the coffee!
Hah! Where are the cock sucking tory loving MF?s
Page 14 of the Tories’ ‘A Contract for Equalities’ , forming part of the Conservative Party manifesto for the 2010 general election states: We will also consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage. It’s in black and white and if Widdicombe, Carey and other Tories don’t want equal marriage, why did they support a party that was contemplating it?
Old crone Widdecombe and superstitious deluded idiot Carey led this rally in Birmingham’s Town Hall. Says it all really, doesn’t it.
All the slippery ones, who like to hate in private, kept their noses out of the limelight, no doubt, but they’ll be voting against Equal Marriage, you can bet on it.
The Land of Hope and Glory is a land for English gentlemen and their good God-fearing wives, so they think.
Of course you’re a bigot, you stupid old woman – what else do you call it when you think you’re desire to discriminate against a group of people is more important than their right to be treated equally?
I believe in freedom of speech, however, it is clear that the views of the people that support the anti-marriage campaign all over the world are becoming increasingly terrified as their little worlds become increasingly smaller. They are coming to terms with the fact that they no longer share the views of the majority anymore and will continue to act as cornered animals by lashing out any way they can.
The most difficult thing for the LGB community is that we still have to continue to put up with the distressing, increasingly desperate and often fictitious rhetoric that they treat as fact and which affect the day to day lives of us all.
It is important that the rational voices of reason and truth are heard above theirs.
They remind me of the ku klux klan. Just missing the pointy hats.
Don’t the Abrahamic cult leaders like the demented Carey also wear pointy hats. I don’t think it is a coincidence that the KKK also wear pointy hats…
Free speech and Christian tradition in England:
“The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were abolished by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
The offence of blasphemy was originally part of canon law. In the 17th century, blasphemy was declared a common law offence by the Court of King’s Bench, punishable by the common law courts.
In 1656, the Quaker James Naylor was sentenced to flogging, branding and the piercing of his tongue by a red-hot poker by the Second Protectorate Parliament.
From the 16th century to the mid-19th century, blasphemy against Christianity was held as an offence against common law. Blasphemy was also used as a legal instrument to persecute atheists, Unitarians, and others. The Methodist Church and the BBC said it appeared to apply only to beliefs of the Church of England.” – wiki
Can they not give their time to more worthy causes.
Cant believe the church is spending all this money to stop this happen and then have the nerve to announce a prayer for starving children etc
If they really believe in free speech, then why didn’t they invite any supporters of equal marriage, such as nobel prizewinner Archbishop Demond Tutu, to speak?
Ann Widdecombe voted against the free speech of non Christians in 2008.
“On 6th May 2008, Ann Widdecombe voted (as a teller) against a Lords amendment to abolish the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel. The amendment was nonetheless passed by a vote of 378 to 57.
During the debate on the amendment, Widdecombe spoke in favour of keeping the blasphemy laws. Talking about the use or non-use of the laws, she stated that ‘”Jerry Springer: The Opera” could and should have been prosecuted because it was so extreme.” She also opined that “We have an established Church, and when I asked whether the Government wanted to abolish it, the Minister shook her head. If we call such protection discrimination, there is already discrimination built into our law. If we have an established Church, we need laws that reflect that.” and “I fear that if it is taken away, the inevitable result will be a huge outpouring of what we consider blasphemy”.
I had to laugh at one of the comments. If gay marriage is passed, it will lead to gay activists storming local churches, demanding they perform weddings against their will and then taking them to court if they refuse to do so.
Like me and my partner would go and ask the permission of a bigoted, archaic, corrupt organisation like the Catholic Church. They are nothing to do with me and I am nothing to do with them. So I take offense to them involving itself in things that affect my life, but has nothing to do with them.
Indeed. They are oblivious to the fact that some people are atheists too, and don’t want to have anything to do with them. It reminds me of Russia. Pussy Riot were locked up for ‘inciting religious hatred’. I just know Ann would LOVE to have a law like that. Mind you, if she was such a good christian, she would have succumbed to a man and become an obedient wife, as the bible would prefer.