Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Tory MP Richard Bacon’s motion to repeal Human Rights Act defeated

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Oh, their bloody freedom to believe twaddle!

    You can believe whatever you like, you grinning lunkhead! Nobody’s trying to stop you. Now, go die in a hole!

  2. Why are they always so afraid gay people will FORCE churches to marry them? A lot of the gay people who will want to marry aren’t even church goers, and certainly wouldn’t want to be married by uncooperative, bigoted homophobe reverends.

    I just don’t get their logic.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Dec 2012, 5:01pm

      That’s just it. They are illogical, irrational. What it boils down to is they really have no valid argument to ban equal civil marriage. The new legislation will enshrine that no religious cult will be forced to participate, just as they aren’t for CPs. They all said the same thing when CPs were introduced.

      Interesting that Conor Burns said he would not support equal marriage all the time the Human Rights Act remains. He wouldn’t support equal marriage anyway so who is he deluding? Just like Bacon, an idiot and isn’t it interesting that it’s almost always a bloody Tory in opposition to equal marriage?

    2. They aren’t afraid, they are just using it as a pretext to oppose equality. To some appearing to be “religious” and being able to use your religiosity to camouflage your tendency to control and bully will have a great appeal.

      You can be very unpleasant but at the same time claim you are being holy.

      1. I think you have totally nailed it Ray.

    3. They must have become accustomed to making demands and dictating how other people should live their lives, they cannot comprehend the idea that any other attitude exists. When new legislation is proposed, they instantly go in to ‘dictator mode’ and assume a new law will be applied to everyone by force.
      Laissez-faire is an alien concept.

  3. And MPs thinking it’ll force churches to perform same-sex marriages are “mistaken” too (I’d love to think they weren’t lying but….)

    They’ve never presented a legal opinion backing up their claims.

    http://jaekaygoesforth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/will-religions-organisations-be-forced.html

  4. Well, one thing is for sure. There will be legal challenges to the churches who continue to discriminate once the equality legislation is passed. They may win but it will be fun to see how hot they get under the dog collar.

    1. But part of the equality legislation will be drafted so that they are not required to participate against their wishes so they can not be legally challenged?

      This is precisely the sort of “challenge” they are using to delay equality?

      If we say that they will be “challenged” , that’s just what they want to hear?

      1. I understand that. I will not be challenging them myself but i think this will happen. If they want to use my comment on this site as evidence of a plot they are welcome too. Not sure how effective it will be.

        1. Spanner1960 5 Dec 2012, 11:23am

          It won’t happen because the European courts have already stated on many occasions before that they will not interfere in religious matters.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Dec 2012, 7:25pm

      Cal, there have been NO legal challenges by heterosexual divorced people to force a church to marry them, neither will there be from gays. Can you point to any evidence of that happening in the eleven countries where we can marry? That same nonsense has been banded about in all of them prior to their legalising it and no such thing has happened. It’s the lamest red-herring opponents are able to come up with because they really have no other excuse or are able to provide the factual evidence. They thrive on fear-mongering when they can’t get their way. Who in their right mind would want to bother engaging the services of a lawyer, paying an exorbitant amount of money on something that will not be allowed to happen? Makes absolutely NO sense. No lawyer in his or her right mind either would bother taking such a frivolous case because that’s just what it would be. Nobody had tried to sue a church for failing to perform a CP, so I see no difference with equal marriage.

  5. How is it “undemocratic” for a democratically-elected Parliament to require the government and courts to act in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights?

    1. Spanner1960 5 Dec 2012, 1:30am

      Because nobody voted the fcking European courts to tell us how to run our own damn country, that’s how.

      1. British Lawyers wrote the ECHR … We are imposing it on the rest of the signatories

        1. Spanner1960 5 Dec 2012, 11:14am

          That’s still irrelevant. It is not part of our law.

          1. yes it is it is incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998 – although interesting it is not entrenched and technically has no more significance then any other piece of legislation.

      2. The European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU and was set up after the war by mainly us in the UK. Signed into being by 8 countries. It was to protect all human rights like the ones that had been abused in the war.

        British MP and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, the Chair of the Assembly’s Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions, guided the drafting of the Convention. (wikipedia)

        The judges are not elected but then judges in the british legal system are also not elected so are you saying all judges should be elected?

        1. Spanner1960 5 Dec 2012, 11:21am

          Who said it was anything to do with the EU?
          I am well aware of that fact.

          We have a completely functional and operational legal system within this this country that allows for numerous options to appeal, yet it seems to be constantly and continually overruled by courts outside our remit. What started as a humanitarian means of allowing the atrocities of two world wars to be heard has now become a bolt-hole for every no-gooder that uses it to protect themselves from the real courts. It has become a total farce and is not fit for purpose.

  6. Human rights have always been a threat to freedom. In the tory party that is.

  7. IT IS AN HONORABLE THING , THAT THE MPS PUT A STOP TO THE RACIST CONSEVERITIVES UNCONSTUTIONAL ATTACKS ON LGBT FAMILIES, , YOU MUST ARREST THESE PEOPLE FOR THE HATE CRIMES THEY KEEP TRYING TO INACT THIS WILL PUT A STOP TO THEIR HARRASMENT QUICKER AND THIER MEDDLEING OF THE GAY FIAMILIES , IF THEY NO THEYAT THESE BAD ACTIONS MUST BE TAKEN ON BEHLALFF OF THE SES RACIST TERRORIST, THE OLY THING THEY UNDERSTAND IS IF YOU ARREST THEM, ANT THAT WHAT NEED TO BE DONE , FOR THEIR HIGH CRIMES AND SNOOPING AROND STALKING AGY FAMILIES ALL DAY , WHEN DO THESE PEOPLE EVERY SPEND TIME WITH THEIR OWN HETERSEEXUAL FAMIEISES , THESESE RACISST AND BIGOTS, OBSSESS WITH THE GAY COMMUNITY EVERY SINGLE DAY, SESPECIALLY THE WHITE AROSN NAIONS , AND A AFRICAN GANSTER GROUP AND PEDIHOKLLE BAD PASTORES THAT ARE AALLO OVE R OUR NATIONS WITH THIER PEDEPHILIEAL , LIKE EDDIL LONG AND HAGARD, ,

    1. vversatile 4 Dec 2012, 10:48pm

      Carrie dear – don’t shout.
      It’s much easier to read posts if you post in upper and lower case.

    2. Spanner1960 5 Dec 2012, 1:29am

      Carrie, put a fcking sock in it please.

    1. How dare teh gays are allowed to sit on the front of the bus?

      She has been making the rounds in BBC newsrooms recently… not because of her gay-friendly views, but because of the close interest she has on the plebs … go figure …

  8. Spanner1960 5 Dec 2012, 1:28am

    I don’t agree with the man’s reasons, but nevertheless, I do agree it is undemocratic and unconstitutional that a bunch of faceless bureaucrats in Brussels can dictate our laws.

    And before someone jumps on me saying it is protecting us, just bear in mind this is the same court that allows terrorists like Abu Quatada to walk free whilst costing the British taxpayer millions in court fees, lawyers and police protection.

    This thing works both ways.
    Better we have own laws and we stand or fall by them than allow some other bunch of chinless wonders we have no electoral control over to decide.

  9. Someone who doesn’t understand what the Human Rights Act actually says or does …

    The rights do not stem from the HRA they come from the ECHR and are simply referred to in the act. The Act is an attempt of keeping the rights culture contained and heard in BRITISH COURTS so that people need to attempt to get a remedy in BRITAIN and NOT FOREIGN JUDGES.

  10. Mr Bacon, the fact that you have the freedom to practice your brand of Christianity and the right for your church leaders to not want to marry same-sex couples is your human rights! You’re benefitting from the HR Act! So stop being a hypocrite trying to repeal it just because these rights are used to support same-sex marriage! Loser!

  11. GingerlyColors 5 Dec 2012, 7:20am

    I personally feel that the Human Rights Act is skewed in favour of criminals and terror suspects who bleat about own rights being violated while not giving two hoots about the rights of the people they have offended. If the Human Rights Act is to survive then we need a ‘Human Responsibilities Act’ to go with it. We cannot have rights without responsibilities.

  12. Another hideous Tory bigot then.

    he is toxic scum – like about 50% of the Tory Party and its extremist supporters.

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.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all