Michael Overd, 47, from Creech St Michael in Somerset, had been accused of telling Craig Manning and Craig Nichol that they were “evil” and would “burn in hell”.

But the Christian Legal Centre-funded defence said Mr Overd was simply reading from the Bible as they passed.

Taunton Deane Magistrates’ Court had heard that the preacher had previously singled the gay couple out when he saw them holding hands in 2010.

The BBC reports him saying: “Even these two dear men whom I have met before, caught in the sin of homosexuality, can have the forgiveness of the sin should they so repent.

“I was not trying to draw to the public the fact that they were homosexuals, I was drawing the public to the fact that they were sinners.

“If I heard someone preaching the things I am accused of preaching I would talk to them about it.”

After the verdict, he said: “This is a case that should never have been brought. Christians like me are being harassed. Thankfully the Magistrates saw the truth of what happened and is happening on a wider scale in our country.”

Andrea Minichiello Williams, CEO of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “This is an important victory for freedom of speech, which is under attack on all fronts. We are determined to fight for the freedom to speak and preach the gospel.

“The Lord Jesus himself spoke directly to sinners; religious speech needs protection as people do not want to hear about ‘sin’ and they try to shut down freedom of speech.”

Dean Lampard, CPS District Crown Prosecutor said: “We take allegations of this nature very seriously and when we reviewed the case in line with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, we determined it was appropriate to charge Mr Overd with harassment. We examined the evidence and were satisfied that there was a realistic prospect of conviction and that it was in the public interest to bring criminal proceedings. We respect the Magistrates’ decision today.

“Everyone has the right to live their life free from harassment and distress and we will continue to work closely with Avon and Somerset Constabulary to investigate any allegations of hate crime of any sort, be it homophobic, racist, religious or disability hate crime.”

Mr Overd was cleared of the charge under Section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986 of using “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour [...] thereby causing [...] harassment, alarm or distress”.

The Christian Legal Centre had funded Lesley Pilkington’s failed defence against a malpractice charge by the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy last year after offering ‘gay cure’ therapy, currently being appealed.

In another verdict today, the Court of Appeal has upheld a landmark court ruling in favour of a gay couple refused a room by the religious owners of Cornwall hotel.

Three Muslim men have been jailed for handing out a leaftlet outside their mosque in Derby inciting hatred against gays.

Ihjaz Ali, Kabir Ahmed and Razwan Javed were found guilty of stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation at Derby Crown Court.

Ali was jailed for two years. Ahmed and Javed have both been given 15-month sentences.

The men had distributed a leaflet entitled ‘The Death Penalty?’ outside their mosque ahead of a gay Pride parade.

The BBC reports Judge John Burgess saying: “You have been convicted of intending to stir up hatred.

“It follows that your intention was to do great harm in a peaceful community.”

“Much has been said during the course of this trial about freedom of expression, and the freedom to preach strongly held beliefs; beliefs, which may have some foundation in scripture.

“Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy and a basic ingredient of any free society.

“Parliament clearly had this very much in mind when this legislation was passed.”

Ben Summerskill, Stonewall Chief Executive, said: “Gay people in Derby – and their friends and families – will feel relieved to see these extremists kept away from the community that they terrified with their deeply offensive and threatening leaflets.

“This whole case vindicates Stonewall’s long fight to secure specific legal protection for gay people against incitement to hatred.”

The ‘Death Penalty?’ leaflet contained an image of a mannequin hanging from a noose and quoted Muslim texts suggesting death was the way to rid society of homosexuality.

The Public Order Act 1986 was amended by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to create the offence of intentionally stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation, and this was the first-ever trial under the offence.

In order to convict, the jury had to be convinced the leaflets were not just insulting or abusive, but were “threatening”, and were distributed with the intention of stirring up hatred.

Ahmed had told Derby Crown Court: “We are living in a society and if we don’t stop it something like a tsunami will happen here, something on that scale.”

He added: “We are trying to stand and voice on these issues. I am part of this country – I was born here.

“You can think of it as a little vigilante thing.”

Michael Overd, 47, from Creech St Michael in Somerset, allegedly told Craig Manning and Craig Nichol that they were “evil” and would “burn in hell”.

The defence reportedly claims Overd, of Creech St Michael in Somerset, was exercising freedom of expression, reading from the Bible as they passed.

The court has heard that the preacher had previously singled the gay couple out when he saw them holding hands in 2010.

According to the Press Association, Mr Nichol said: “He said ‘I have already told these two sinners over here that they are going to burn in Hell’.

“He looked at us and pointed at us when he said it. His voice was quite loud and very clear.

“I felt angry, embarrassed and ashamed.

“It was a really busy day and I felt that everyone was looking at us when he was saying these things to us.

“I asked him who he was to judge me and he said ‘It’s God’s words, it is in the Bible’.

“He said I should repent and ask God for forgiveness.”

The defence said Mr Overd was reading 1 Corinthians, which says: “Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

The defence also asked Mr Nichol why he did not cross the road to avoid Mr Overd as he walked through Taunton last summer.

The trial continues.

John Smith, of Tunbridge Wells in Kent, shouted “I don’t care if you’re gay, I’m going to stab you,” as he climbed into the man’s home, the Kent and Sussex Courier reports.

The attack launched by Smith, an alcoholic, was described as unprovoked. He also spat at a police officer who attended the scene.

He was charged with common assault, the use of threatening words or behaviour and assaulting a police officer.

Smith, 28, climbed into Nicholas Thake’s bathroom on 16 September last year.

James Nichols, prosecuting at Sevenoaks Magistrate’s Court said: “Police received a call from the victim saying there was a man kicking his door and he was being threatened by the defendant telling him ‘I don’t care if you’re gay, I’m going to stab you and shoot you’.

“Before police officers arrived, the defendant climbed up the drain pipe, got inside a bathroom window and grabbed Mr Thake round the throat.”

Smith had also attempted burglary at Summerfield Lodge Veterinary Surgery and Durnell Marketing while he was on bail. He was charged with a total of five offences and plead guilty to all.

He has been jailed for 160 days.

Martin Hall and Steven Preddy, civil partners, had successfully sued devout Christians Peter and Hazelmary Bull for sexual orientation discrimination.

They had been turned away from the Chymorvah Hotel near Penzance in 2008 under the Bulls’ policy of not allowing unmarried couples to share rooms.

In January 2011 a judge at Bristol County Court ruled that the Bulls’ behaviour amounted to direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, and awarded a total of £3,600 damages to Mr Hall and Mr Preddy.

The hotel owners were given leave to appeal and the case was heard at the Court of Appeal in London by Sir Andrew Morritt, Chancellor of the High Court, Lord Justice Hooper and Lady Justice Rafferty.

Robin Allen QC argued on behalf of Mr Hall and Mr Preddy: “The restriction operates to confer a benefit only on married persons and no others”.

“For [the hoteliers'] purposes this only means heterosexual persons. For this reason alone it is directly discriminatory.”

The court upheld the Bristol judge’s decision today. Mr Hall and Mr Preddy were defended by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

John Wadham, Group Director Legal, Equality and Human Rights Commission, said: “I have genuine sympathy for Mr and Mrs Bull, as their beliefs are clearly strongly held. We believe that this case will help people to better understand the law around freedom of religion. When offering a service, people cannot use their beliefs – religious or otherwise – to discriminate against others.

“As the discrimination ruling has been upheld, Mr Preddy and Mr Hall are entitled to the compensation ordered by the County Court. However, the Commission has no intention of enforcing its entitlement to legal costs.”

Ben Summerskill, Stonewall Chief Executive, said: “We’re delighted that the Court upheld the judgment. The Court’s decision vindicates Stonewall’s hard lobbying to make it illegal to deny goods or services to someone just because they happen to be gay. That obviously includes hotel rooms for many gay holidaymakers, which can only be a good thing in a Jubilee year.

“I hope Mr and Mrs Bull will now feel content to go home to do God’s good work as Easter approaches, instead of relentlessly pursuing a happy couple through the courts.”

The Christian Institute had funded the Bulls’ appeal.

Spokesman Simon Calvert said: “Peter and Hazelmary have been penalised for their beliefs about marriage.

“Not everyone will agree with Peter and Hazelmary’s beliefs, but a lot of people will think it is shame that the law doesn’t let them live and work according to their own values under their own roof.

“Something has gone badly wrong with our equality laws when good, decent people like Peter and Hazelmary are penalised but extremist hate preachers are protected.”

Ihjaz Ali, Kabir Ahmed and Razwan Javed had distributed a leaflet entitled ‘The Death Penalty?’ outside their mosque ahead of a gay Pride parade.

They face a maximum sentence of seven years in prison and an unlimited fine.

In January, the men became the first to be convicted under the new offence.

Five Muslim men had stood trial at Derby Crown Court on the charges. Umer Javed, 38 and Mehboob Hassain, 45 were acquitted by the jury.

The ‘Death Penalty?’ leaflet contained an image of a mannequin hanging from a noose and quoted Muslim texts.

The Public Order Act 1986 was amended by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to create the offence of intentionally stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation, and this was the first-ever trial under the offence.

In order to convict, the jury had to be convinced the leaflets were not just insulting or abusive, but were “threatening”, and were distributed with the intention of stirring up hatred.

Sue Hemming, head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division said at the time of conviction: “A court has heard for the first time from witnesses how they felt, as gay men, when they read a leaflet calling for the death penalty for homosexuals.

“The leaflet which led to this prosecution showed a manikin hanging from a noose and said gay people were destined to go to hell. The jury was told by one witness that he felt he was being targeted and he feared he would ‘be burned’.

“Everyone has a right to be protected by the law and we regard homophobic crimes, along with all hate crimes, as particularly serious because they undermine people’s right to feel safe.

“While people are entitled to hold extreme opinions which others may find unpleasant and obnoxious, they are not entitled to distribute those opinions in a threatening manner intending to stir up hatred against gay people.

“This case was not about curtailing people’s religious views or preventing them from educating others about those views; it was that any such views should be expressed in a lawful manner and not incite others to hatred.”

Ahmed, 28, had claimed the wording and images in the leaflets, handed out in Normanton ahead of a gay Pride march, were not threatening.

He had told the court: “We are living in a society and if we don’t stop it, something like a tsunami will happen here, something on that scale.”

He added: “We are trying to stand and voice on these issues. I am part of this country – I was born here.

“You can think of it as a little vigilante thing.”

Ahmed had also told the court he saw it as his “duty as a Muslim to spread what God says about homosexuality. The references on the leaflets are historical facts and quote from the Koran.”

Gay men appeared in Derby Crown Court to tell of their experience receiving the leaflets, which questioned whether gays should be executed.

One believed he was the victim of a hate campaign, and said: “They made me feel terrorised in my own home. Sometimes I wondered whether I would be getting a burning rag through the letterbox or if I would be attacked in the street.”

Ben Summerskill, Stonewall Chief Executive, said of the guilty verdict: “We’re satisfied to see these extremists convicted for distributing offensive and inflammatory leaflets that suggested gay people should be burnt or stoned to death.

“This case vindicates Stonewall’s long fight to secure specific legal protection for gay people against incitement to hatred. Witnesses told the court they felt threatened and deeply fearful in their own homes.

“People from all communities will feel safer knowing that the law now makes it harder to stir up hatred and violence against gay people.”

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) says it aims to “eliminate negative perceptions and discrimination against former homosexuals”.

A PFOX spokesperson said the official’s comments amounted to illegal discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

Montgomery School Superintendent Joshua Starr had been urged to stop the group from distributing the ‘ex-gay’ flyers which said such people “demonstrate that those with unwanted same-sex attractions can seek help and information on overcoming their feelings.”

Superintendent Starr said the school was legally bound to allow the group to spread their message, as it is with all non-profit organisations, even though the group’s message that sexuality can be changed is rejected by medical professional bodies.

He reportedly told students: “This group has figured out how to use that law to spread what I find to be a really, really disgusting message, frankly.”

The group distributed 8,000 flyers at five Montgomery County schools this week.

Regina Griggs, executive director of PFOX said: “We call on the Montgomery County Board of Education to enforce its Nondiscrimination Policy and censure Starr immediately.

“The Policy mandates that schools provide ‘an atmosphere where differences are understood and appreciated, and where all persons are treated fairly and with respect in an environment free of discrimination and … abuse.’ Clearly Superintendent Starr has violated the Board’s Policy.

“Starr’s verbal abuse, disrespectful behavior, and slurs against the ex-gay community amount to hate and illegal sexual orientation discrimination, which are all forbidden by the Policy.”

The group Truth Wins Out wrote an open letter to Starr saying: “While non-profit literature must not be blocked based on viewpoint, it can and should be prohibited if it contains blatant misinformation that jeopardizes the health and well being of students.

“The PFOX flier easily fits this description and the group has a dubious history that includes bizarre and bigoted practices that have no place in your public school system.”

Truth Wins Out is the group which infiltrated the clinic of former presidential candidacy hopeful Michele Bachmann’s husband, Marcus Bachmann.

The school board wrote back: “Although we cannot stop the distribution of such fliers, we in [Montgomery County Public Schools] are committed to promoting values of diversity and acceptance in our school system by teaching students how to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate information.

“Please rest assured that we in Montgomery County Public Schools are always extremely receptive to the community and towards promoting a culture of the twenty-first century.”

PFOX’s website says the “demonisation” of ex-gays “is a sad end to the long struggle for tolerance by the gay community. That ex-gays and their supporters are now oppressed by the same people who until recently were victimized themselves, demonstrates how far the gay rights movement has come.”

So-called gay cure treatments have been making headlines on both sides of the Atlantic.

In her column in the Daily Express last week, Ann Widdecombe questioned the lack of availability of therapy for “gays who do not want to be gay”.

She argued that if a gay person wants to change their sexuality, professional help should be available to them, despite there being no scientific evidence for it and numerous medical bodies’ warnings against it.

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, backed the appeal by Lesley Pilkington, who was found guilty of malpractice by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy last year.

He wrote to the BACP, which is hearing the appeal, with other bishops to say that ‘gay cure’ attempts do not “produce harm despite the Royal College of Psychiatrists and others maintaining the contrary”.

A regional Jewish paper prompted outrage after publishing an opinion piece on the issue which said while ‘gay cures’ may not always work, medical procedures fail and “patients are still encouraged to try them”.

It said democratic processes required that it be debated, but that it was not part of the country’s legislative agenda to pass it.

Uganda already criminalises gay acts with a penalty of life imprisonment, but it is understood the bill would expand the range of punishable offences.

David Bahati’s bill, described by Barack Obama a “odious”, originally called for the death penalty for “aggravated”, or continued, homosexuality.

AP reports the death penalty clause has now been removed. In its place is life imprisonment for a person convicted of a gay act more than once.

The bill further required the death sentence for anyone convicted of homosexuality who is living with HIV or who has been convicted of homosexuality before.

Attempted homosexuality would carry a seven year prison sentence, as would aiding or abetting acts of homosexuality.

A fine of up to 500,000 shillings (£135) or a prison sentence up to three years are included for people who are aware of any gay offence but do not report it within 24 hours.

The Ugandan government statement said: “As a parliamentary democracy the process of debate will continue.

“Whilst the government of Uganda does not support this bill, it is required under our constitution to facilitate this debate.

“The facilitation of this debate should not be confused for the government’s support for this bill.”

The applicants lost their case after the court found Sweden had not violated their rights to free speech.

The National Youth leaflets said homosexuality was a “deviant sexual proclivity”, had “a morally destructive effect” on society and was responsible for the spread of HIV and AIDS.

They also claimed the “homosexual lobby” was trying to play down paedophilia.

In 2004, Tor Fredrik Vejdeland, Mattias Harlin, Björn Täng and Niklas Lundström had handed out about a hundred leaflets or left them in the lockers of pupils at a school in Söderhamn.

They were asked to leave by the principal and later convicted under Swedish law of agitation against a national or ethnic group.

Exhausting domestic courts, they appealed to the ECHR on Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, that their rights to free speech were infringed and, under Article 7, that they were therefore unjustly punished. The court rejected both claims.

It found the statements constituted serious and prejudicial allegations about gays and that the group had effectively forced them on students by leaving them in personal lockers.

The first three applicants were given suspended sentences and fines ranging from approximately €200 to €2,000 and the fourth applicant was sentenced to probation.

In January, three British men were found guilty of distributing leaflets intended to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Five Muslim men had stood trial at Derby Crown Court on the newly-created charges, which carry a maximum sentence of seven years in prison and an unlimited fine.

Ihjaz Ali, Kabir Ahmed and Razwan Javed had distributed a leaflet entitled ‘The Death Penalty?’ outside their mosque ahead of a gay Pride parade. It contained an image of a mannequin hanging from a noose and quoted Muslim texts. They are due to be sentenced tomorrow.

Two men were left with severe burns by the attack after they were doused with flammable liquid and set on fire.

Police described the injuries of one as “life-changing”.

A 21-year-old man was charged with two counts of grievous bodily harm with intent at the Rainbow & Dove, the Leicester Mercury reports.

The man is due to appear at Basildon Magistrates’ Court, Essex.

​Russell Banks, 21, and Robert Laszewsk, 20, suffered severe burns in the Charles Street pub’s beer garden.

Mr Banks was hospitalised for six weeks under sedation. The Leicester Mercury reported that he required a number of skin grafts. Mr Laszewsk was discharged from hospital after a week.

Mr Hughes joined former footballer Paul Gascoigne, comedian Steve Coogan and football agent Sky Andrew in agreeing a settlement.

After a hearing, Mr Hughes said: “the evidence in my case clearly demonstrates that the practice of hacking was widespread. It was criminal behaviour on an industrial scale.”

He added: “Sadly, the deficiencies of the original police inquiries, which failed to investigate the clear evidence of much of the criminal behaviour at one of the most important businesses in our country, are also all too apparent.

“We must now make sure that nothing like this can ever happen again.

“Anyone involved in criminal activity at the News of the World must be brought to justice, and all those who allowed a large company to behave in this way must be held to account.

“There must also be answers to the serious questions about how the police managed to fail so badly in their original investigation.

“I will now pursue this matter through my participation in the Leveson Inquiry, an inquiry which I fully support.”

Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator hired by the paper had already pleaded guilty to hacking into Mr Hughes’s messages, along with seven other people’s voicemails in 2006.

Mr Hughes was forced to come out as bisexual by the News of the World’s sister newspaper The Sun in 2005, in an interview to respond to claims to be made by the newspaper that he had contacted men using a gay telephone chat service.

News Group Newspapers is a subsidiary of News International, itself a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.

But reports say the city legislature has now approved the delayed second reading of the bill 31 to 6 and reportedly increased fines tenfold.

St Petersburg would join other Russian regions including Ryazan and Arkhangelsk in hindering the promotion of homosexuality in public.

The region of Kostroma recently approved a similar law and Moscow is rumoured to be considering such a move.

Russian activist Nikolay Alekseev was fined by the authorities in Arkhangelsk this week under that region’s rules forbidding the public “promotion” of homosexuality to minors.

Russia’s second largest city came under international condemnation last year for plans which would “silence” the gay community, and to treat the offence of public promotion of being gay in the same was as it punishes the promotion of paedophilia.

263,000 people have now signed All Out’s petition against the city law, a petition which drew attention to similar laws in other regions of the world’s largest country.

A second reading of the bill was indefinitely postponed in November 2011 but has now gone ahead, passing with overwhelming support.

Ria Novosti reports that the law now makes the offence punishable by fines of up to 500,000 roubles, ten times the amount tabled in November.

After a third and final reading, the bill would be signed into law by the city’s governor.

In November, Konstantin Dolgov, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, said he was “perplexed” by a US statement condemning the proposed law.

He said the US State Department’s comments were “incorrect”.

Interfax reported him as saying: “We are perplexed by the American side’s attempts to interfere in the legislative process in Russia, especially publicly.

“We consider these attempts inappropriate and inconsistent with the practice of interstate relations.”

The UK’s Foreign Office had described the draft law as “wrong” and “mistaken”.

Conservative MEP for London Marina Yannakoudakis MEP had written to Turkish Cypriot leader Dr. Derviş Eroğlu condemning the arrests, calling for charges to be dropped and asking for a moratorium on further arrests.

A challenge at the European Court of Human Rights of the anti-gay laws in the unrecognised state was announced yesterday.

Marina Yannakoudakis’s office said Dr. Hasan Güngör, an advisor to Dr. Eroğlu, had responded to her today saying the men had not yet been charged and the leader is not able to impose a moratorium on arrests.

In Dr. Güngör’s letter, the advisor states: “Contrary to what has been insinuated in the media, no charges have so far been brought against the two men with respect to same sexual relations.”

He continues: “The police investigation on that incident is ongoing and once the investigation is completed, the Attorney General’s Office will make the necessary legal evaluation and decide on the charges to be brought against the accused.”

On forbidding any future arrests under the law, Dr. Güngör wrote: “The legislation in force does not authorize (Dr. Eroğlu) to impose a moratorium on arrests under section 171 of the Criminal Code, or to ‘suspend’ the implementation of any law.”

However, Dr. Güngör stated that measures to repeal the anti-gay law were before the relevant committee and were awaiting assessment by the relevant authorities.

Dr. Güngör also made clear that “The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) prevails over domestic law”.

The letter also says Dr. Eroğlu “stands by his promise that, once the legislative process is completed he will sign the amending law that will repeal the relevant sections of the Criminal Code to end the criminalization of unnatural offences”.

Northern Cyprus declared itself an independent state in 1983 but has not had international recognition.

Marina Yannakoudakis MEP said today: “I am pleased to receive such a speedy reply to my letter to Dr. Eroğlu’s office. Recognition by the authorities that the European Convention of Human Rights applies in the north part of Cyprus means that by prohibiting private consensual homosexual acts the north is in violation of Article 8.

“I am also pleased to note that Dr. Eroğlu intends to ‘stand by his promise’ to repeal the ban, although I am disappointed that an immediate moratorium has been rejected.

“Nevertheless I am concerned that, while no official charges have been brought against the two men detained on 29 January, that these men remain under investigation.

“Also I was informed by the north-based Initiative Against Homophobia that they are currently being held in punishment cells in Nicosia Central prison. I hope that if the north part of Cyprus is to demonstrate its commitment to human rights, that no further charges will be brought for homosexual acts.”

Libya dominated the headlines last year, but the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender population of the country received very little attention internationally.

I interviewed Khaleed, a 31-year-old LGBT activist about his life in the North African country. In this first part he talks about his life before the overthrow of Muammar el-Gadaffi. Later this week he’ll be speaking about what has changed and what hasn’t since the revolution.

“There are absolutely no groups, organisations or even individuals in Libya that speak publicly about gay rights, the subject itself is a social and religious taboo. But this doesn’t mean that LGBT people do not exist, on the contrary some people are known and recognised as gay within their communities,” he tells me.

“Libyan law has a penal code against ‘men having sex with each other’ which could lead to a 5-years imprisonment [Section 407.4 of the Libyan Constitution]. However, I never heard of publicly documented cases of men being charged under this penal code, and, to my disappointment no efforts were made by any human rights or LGBT rights organisations either to investigate potential cases, nor discuss LGBT rights in Libya.”

In fact the only documented case to my knowledge was one I reported on 25.12.2010 when two men were arrested for “indecent acts,” with minimal information and despite many efforts no further information regarding this case was obtained.

Most LGBT people use the internet in Libya to socialise, exchange ideas and arrange to meet – especially through the gay social networking site Manjam, its one of the few ways available for them to explore their identities and sexuality. Yet even here, in virtual cyberspace, they are not safe.

“My personal experience as a gay man in Libya hasn’t been easy. I was investigated by policemen for having an online profile on manjam. Officers from the internal security agency during Qaddafi’s regime came to my home and outed me to my family which caused huge problems. I took me over two long years before I managed to work things out with them.”

For Khaleed the whole episode was terrible and frightening: “I was interrogated by the criminal investigation bureau for thirty long minutes, but which seemed like eternity. I was then ‘ordered’ to stop meeting people through manjam because ‘there are people there who have contacts with foreign intelligence networks’.”

“After the investigation I removed my previous profile but stayed in touch with all the contacts I have made before. But to my horror I found out that the government’s security agency was monitoring my calls and online activities. Furthermore, they hacked into my personal email and showed all my correspondence to my mother, which made me refrain from accessing any LGBT and political online sites for a while.”

For all the pious talking by politicians in the West about liberating Libya, Khaleed wants to underline the following: “I just want to say something to readers in Europe and North America:” he stresses; “The technology to monitor the internet and entrap people like me fighting for Human Rights unfortunately comes from governments and companies in the West.”

Khaleed is not entirely sure why his internet accounts were hacked and investigated but he has his suspicion: “It seems to me as a police response to previous commentary I made about human rights in Libya, and because of my participation with several liberal and secular discussions on websites that were considered to by anti-regime. The reason I feel this way is because I have heard of no similar investigation been or being made against some of my friends or acquaintances.”

In part two, I speak with Khaleed about the revolution as well as his hopes and fears for the new Libya.

David Bahati, the original sponsor of the legislation that would see gays imprisoned for life and executed for repeat offences, has tabled the draft law again, reports say.

Clauses call for the death penalty for “aggravated” or continued homosexuality, while those who fail to report incidences to police would be jailed.

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill is designed to “protect the traditional family” and also requires Uganda to not ratify any international treaty that would run contrary to its provisions.

It provides for life imprisonment for people who have gay sex, “touch another person with the intention” of having gay sex or have an illegal “gay marriage”.

The bill further requires the death sentence for anyone convicted of homosexuality who is living with HIV or who has been convicted of homosexuality before.

Attempted homosexuality carries a seven year prison sentence, as does aiding or abetting acts of homosexuality.

A fine of up to 500,000 shillings (£135) or a prison sentence up to three years are included for people who are aware of any gay offence but do not report it within 24 hours.

The bill received worldwide condemnation from countries, gay rights campaigners and human rights groups.

Last month, the former president of South Africa, Thabo MBeki, criticised the anti-gay bill, saying it “doesn’t make sense” to intervene in people’s private lives.

Mr Mbeki was taking questions at the Makerere Institute of Social Research (MISR) in Kampala when he was asked about the draft legislation and specifically what he would say to its sponsor.

Mbeki, who served as deputy President and President of South Africa following the abolition of apartheid, said: “I would say to the MP; sexual preferences are a private matter. I don’t think it is a matter of the state to intervene.”

“I mean what would you want? It doesn’t make sense at all. That is what I would say to the MP. What two consenting adults do is really not the matter of law.”

US President Barack Obama described it as “odious”.

The move, by the Human Dignity Trust, follows reports that Northern Cyprus’s anti-gay law continues to be employed despite assurances given by its leader that it would be repealed.

Cyprus was required by the ECHR to decriminalise consensual sex between consenting adults in 1993, but in the Turkish-occupied part of Northern Cyprus, homosexual acts are still illegal.

The case has been filed against Turkey, which the Trust said is responsible for protecting and promoting human rights in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

Gay acts in Turkey have been legal since the Ottoman Empire of the 19th century.

The challenge, brought on behalf of an anonymous plaintiff, asserts that the laws violate his private and family life and that the resulting discrimination he suffers amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment.

Commenting today, human rights barrister and Chief Executive of the Human Dignity Trust Jonathan Cooper said: “The fact that homosexual relations remain criminalised in Northern Cyprus is a violation of international law and the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.

“Criminalisation of identity puts people beyond protection of the law. This is not an issue of gay rights but one of upholding universal human rights. More than 80 legal systems across the globe continue to criminalise homosexuality – almost half the countries in the world.”

The Human Dignity Trust, an international organisation which uses law to decriminalise homosexuality across the globe.

The case is supported by the Northern Cyprus LGBTI organisation, the Homofobiye Karsi Inisiyatif (Initiative Against Homophobia).

The legal team, led by Nigel Pleming QC, includes Northern Cyprus lawyer Oncel Polili and Tom Mountford.

Instructing solicitors are international law firm Taylor Wessing LLP, who will be working pro bono.

Paul Callaghan, partner at Taylor Wessing LLP, said: “We are delighted to work on a pro bono basis with the Human Dignity Trust for such an important cause. This case highlights a clear breach of the international human rights law and we hope to see the legal, as well as moral, obligations addressed in the judgment.”

The Homofobiye Karsi Inisiyatif added: “All of our efforts to amend the law have been futile and Turkish Cypriot authorities are reluctant to show any good will. Despite the promises to amend the law authorities still charge people with this archaic law. The situation shows that Turkish Cypriot authorities have no courage to defend human rights.

“We are very pleased to show a good example of international solidarity with our work together with the Human Dignity Trust.”

Earlier this month, Conservative MEP Marina Yannakoudakis criticised the arrests in Northern Cyprus after the region’s leader Derviş Eroğlu had told her draft repeal legislation had been drawn up.

She said: “Dr. Eroğlu has twice promised me that the northern part of Cyprus would repeal the ban on homosexuality. I have so far taken him at his word, but now he needs to back up these words with deeds.

“There must be an immediate moratorium on arrests under Section 171 and the men arrested last month must be released without delay. Draft legislation submitted by the Communal Democratic Party must be fast-tracked through the assembly to ensure that there are no further miscarriages of justice and Dr. Eroğlu must keep his promise to sign the repeal into law.”

Dacre said it “could have benefited from a little judicious sub-editing” but added he had been at the opera for his wife’s birthday the evening the column was filed.

He added that he would “die in a ditch to defend a columnist’s right to have her views. There isn’t a homophobic bone in Jan Moir’s body”.

More than 20,000 people wrote to the Press Complaints Commission after Moir’s piece, which won her the Stonwall Bigot of the Year Award.

The column, which was described by Stonewall Chief Executive Ben Summerskill as a “spasm of hatred”, followed the untimely death of Stephen Gately in Mallorca in October 2009.

It was originally titled “Why there was nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gately’s death” but appeared in print as “A strange, lonely and troubling death”.

Moir wrote: “Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again.

“And I think if we are going to be honest, we would have to admit that the circumstances surrounding his death are more than a little sleazy.”

She also drew comparisons between Gately and Kevin McGee, the former civil partner of Matt Lucas, despite Gately dying of natural causes and McGee committing suicide after months of depression and addiction.

She wrote: “Another real sadness about Gately’s death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships. Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael.

“Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately’s last night raise troubling questions about what happened. It is important that the truth comes out about the exact circumstances of his strange and lonely death.”

The PCC ultimately rejected complains over Moir’s column saying that although it could “understand how the column had generated wide anger”, it did not police matters of offence and decency.

It said: “The commission considered that it should be slow to prevent columnists from expressing their views, however controversial they might be.

“The price of freedom of expression is that often commentators and columnists say things with which other people may not agree, may find offensive or may consider to be inappropriate.”

PCC director Stephen Abell said the case had been “difficult but important”.

He added that the PCC recognised the “flaws” in the article but ruled it “would not be proportionate to rule against the columnist’s right to offer freely-expressed views about something that was the focus of public attention”.

In a column later the same month, she wrote: “I am not – unlike those close to Stephen Gately – mourning for the loss of a much-loved partner, son, family member and close friend. To them, I would like to say sorry if I have caused distress by the insensitive timing of the column, published so close to the funeral.”

The incident comes amid public discussion on the island over the introduction of hate crime laws to protect gay and transgender citizens.

Driver Marco Borg, 43, was charged on Saturday with causing injury and disrupting public order.

While there is no further penalty for homophobic motivation under current laws, the Times of Malta reports that Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi has instructed Justice Minister Chris Said to work on amendments to laws to prevent hate crimes.

In footage of the incident filmed by another passenger, the driver in charge of the bus at the time is seen restraining Borg after he attacked the two women, aged 21 and 17, last Friday.

In the UK, it was reported this week that two lesbians were attacked on a train after kissing.

Bus company Arriva said he had been let go, adding that is had “a zero tolerance policy when it comes to violence of any sort and would like to make it very clear that it condemns categorically and without reserve not only this incident but indeed any bullish, violent and other such reproachable and anti-social behaviour”.

“Moreover, the bus operator wants to make it absolutely clear that it has a very clear and open diversity policy which all employees are bound to respect.”

Malta continues to debate new hate crime laws after two girls were the victims of a homophobic attack last month.

In an interview with Malta’s Sunday Times, the girl said two men, who were later arrested, had called her and her girlfriend “twisted” before attacking them, leaving her with bruises and facial injuries.

Cyrus Engerer, a spokesman for LGBT Labour in Malta said state intervention would be necessary to tackle anti-gay incidents.

He told Malta Today: “It’s not possible for a mentality of a country to change if the laws of that same country remain unchanged.”

But the introduction of special hate crime laws are opposed by some.

Lawyer and opinion writer Claire Bonello told the Times of Malta: “It makes little sense to punish the different motives of a crime when the end result is the same – injury to the victim …

“If a person is attacked because the aggressor feels some sort of personal animosity towards the victim, why should that attack be punished less severely than one where the aggressor hates the victim because of the latter’s religious affiliation or belonging to a minority group?

“The whole notion of hate crimes does away with the concept of equality in the eyes of the law.”

At a press conference today, Malta Today reports Prime Minister Gonzi saying the government will include homophobia in hate crime laws in future: “We are sending a message to society in general, not to pass judgement of people, and that we expect the forces of law to enforce laws and eliminate all forms of discrimination.”

Prop 8, the 2008 voter initiative that banned gay and lesbian marriages has been the subject of constant legal battles.

In 2010, Judge Vaughn Walker in August, which ruled that the ban on gay marriage in California was wrong. The decision came after a lengthy “trial” of the arguments for and against allowing gay couples to marry. “The evidence presented at trial and the position of the representatives of the State of California show that an injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8 is in the public’s interest,” Judge Walker wrote at the time. He initially ordered for gay marriages to resume in the state with almost immediate effect.

An appeal to his decision was immediately launched but
unusually, the official ‘defendants’ of that appeal, then governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney-General Jerry Brown, refused to defend the ban.

It is likely that regardless of tomorrow’s ruling, there will be an appeal of the judgement of some kind. 40 states have some sort of ban on gay marriage.

Organisers have called for supporters to bring a positive attitude to the event to show the government their passion for equality.

The Love Equally March is being promoted by the Scottish Youth Parliament, the Equality Network, LGBT Youth Scotland, Stonewall Scotland and NUS Scotland.

Grant Costello MSYP, SYP Chair said: “All the evidence shows the majority of Scots support marriage equality, and the historic response to the Government’s consultation on same sex marriage demonstrates they are prepared to speak out for equality.

“Scotland’s young people are determined that the consultation is not the end, but just the beginning of the journey to a better nation with equality at its heart. We need all those supporters of marriage equality to march with us, be our Valentines and Love Equally on February 14th!”

Nathan Sparling, NUS Scotland LGBT Officer, said: “This Valentine’s Day, students from across Scotland will be taking part in the Love Equally march to show our unwavering support for Equal Marriage in Scotland. We’ll be marching on the streets of Edinburgh celebrating love, and asking for the Scottish Government to give us another reason to celebrate by making same-sex marriage legal in Scotland.”

Tom French, Policy Coordinator for the Equality Network, said; “We know that the majority of Scots support full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, but we cannot afford to just sit back and assume our politicians will lift the ban on same-sex marriage.

“Our opponents are running a well-funded campaign to pressure the Scottish Government to ditch their proposals, so it is vital that everyone who supports equal marriage speaks out. We urge equal marriage supporters to turn out for the Love Equally march on Valentines day and make our voice heard.”

Marchers will assemble at 2:30pm in Bristo Square and walk to the Scottish Parliament, arriving at 3.45pm. A Facebook event page can be found here.

A range of supporters for marriage equality will address the rally outside the Scottish Parliament.