(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

Anti-gay people are just people ignorant of the gay way of life, 24/7, they are not tolerant, they feel disturbed by their ignorance that make them raise weird situations, weird up to disgusting, even for most gays. But it's so disgusting that they can't discuss about it, they are aware of it, aware that gays may ask them: "What do you base that situation on ?". Anti-gays won't dare saying: "On my sole imagination", they would be considered ridiculous and mocked.

But anti-gays (like anybody else) will necessarily need to sweep out of his/her mind such a weird illusion. If not by words, then by violence: Physical violence or by words.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

In other words, people do not trust those in charge to judge whether whatever was said was done so in jest or done so to incite hatred. I'm not talking about violence – I'm talking about words. There are so many examples of prominent personas whose whole careers revolve around lampooning various minorities – look at Little Britain, Catherine Tate or Al Murray. Are the British truly like that? Not at all. Comedy involves exaggeration.

Translate that to street level and you have ordinary people who say something in jest that someone, somewhere gets offended by. Should they be prosecuted? Of course not. It’s a joke. If you are offended, go elsewhere.

What people are worried about it not the use of the law, but the abuse thereof. Or if not conscious abuse, the simple misapplication of it. Many people simply don’t trust “the authorities” to get it right, And fear persecution from the media –and through the media the general public – because they said something a bit controversial.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

Thank you.

(Report comment to the moderator)

There are adequate protections already: an imam calling for the killing of gays (for example) is already inciting violence and can be punished for that.

Are we talking about punishing people far more harshly because of what they said at the time of committing a crime? Is this because we want to make an example of people? In which case, what are your opinions on cutting people's hands off for stealing; or killing them for murder?

If the purpose of the bill is about hateful speech, then society already generally disapproves of such actions anyway. Such behaviour, although detestable, is shown to be so by the attitudes of society towards it. Don't make people live in fear of saying the wrong thing. And remember, attitudes will not change because of the law. That takes time.

Having said all that, it would probably mean Chris Moyles getting locked up. In which case I'm going to change my stance and fully support this law!

(Report comment to the moderator)

That just sums up my entire point. If you want to be equal, you have to accept equal terms. By John Clark's logic, what happens if I attack someone screaming "Die you white, Anglo-Saxon, able-bodied, English heterosexual!!" ? What is all this crap about "Crime against the community"? Where the hell did that come from? I'm in a community of ONE. I expect anyone that committed a crime against me to be sentenced on the same grounds as anyone else. My first BF was Asian, Jewish *and* gay. Does that mean someone would get three times as much if they attacked him? Three communities affected?

Why should being in a minority group affect the outcome? The crime is the crime. Commit it and be prepared for the consequences, irrespective of motive.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

Lord Waddington – a former Tory Home Secretary under Margaret Thatcher was very clever to call his amendment a 'free speech' amendment because it looks like any one wanting to remove his amendment wants to remove free speech. Nothing can be further from the truth!

That amendment was nothing more than an attempt by Camerons Conservatives to wreck the protection that the govt was trying to give to LGBT people. It comepletely removes the protection because any person can now claim that they had a religious motivation for their words or action which led to incitement to homophobic hatred and therefore this makes it ok!

Well I'm sorry – inciting people to homophobic hatred is never ok! As a christian I believe that people have the right to make their position of faith clear, but never in a way which compromises another persons inate value in the eyes of God.

No one has the right to incite other people to *hate* (note how strong the emotion is) or be violent towards other people in a civilised society! Free speech is important but as the Noble Lord Bishop of Chester said in the House of Lords on 3 Mar 2008 “I entirely agree… about the importance of freedom of speech, but in any society free speech must be responsible speech, too; responsibility must be given an equal weighting.”

The govt has done the right thing removing this clause as he amendment laid down by Lord Waddington was nothing more than an attempt to wreck the Governments attempt to give LGB people the smae protection from incitement to hatred as Jewish, Black and ethnic minorities enjoy.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

For example, if a person assaults another for personal reasons – like an argument between two acquaintances which descends into a fight – then that person does not pose a huge risk to the public, because it was a personal matter that resulted in violence. That person should be punished, but based on the individual motivations of the crime.

However, if someone chooses to assault another based on an arbitrary factor, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, e.t.c., they pose a much greater risk to the public as anyone who that person is prejudiced against is a potential victim. Therefore, the justice system should protect communities and use harsher sentences.

It should also be said that similar laws are already in place to protect religious communities, yet there hasn't been any incidents of comedians being punished for making jokes about religion.

(Report comment to the moderator)

There needs to be a strict definition of what constitutes a 'hate-speech'. Saying that gay people should be executed (ie the Anjem Chauderys of this world), that all gay people are peadophiles or comparing homosexuality to bestiality and murder should be considered as a hate crime.

However we should not be criminilising those who say that homosexuality is a sin and 'a lifestyle-choice', however unpleasant we find this. To do so would be to relinquish the moral high-ground and therefore accept that we have lost the argument that gay people deserve to be treated just like everyone else in society.

The last few bastions in the UK of resistance to gay rights are to be found amongst an ever decreasing band of religious fundamentalists. It is precisely here where the gay community needs to win over the bulk of christians and muslims towards a more tolerant attitude, and isolating the few extremists. So far, in my opinion, this strategy has been a great success. However, if the hate laws went to far, it could undo decades of hard won gay rights and acceptance and become an enormous triumph for Stephen Green and his ever shrinking cohorts.

(Report comment to the moderator)

If a thug kicked a poor person to the ground, shouting… "You black bastard, you deserve to die!". They would be prosecuted for a hate crime and rightly so…

So what is different if they shout "You gay bastard, you deserve to die!".

NOTHING!!!!!

This is not a case of "special rights"; but a case of "equal rights".

There is also a fine line between comedy and hatered; when does comedy become hatered?

I don't know, every case must be judged on its own merits….
Someone on a public stage, telling gay jokes, may be offensive; but, two gays in a bar swapping the same jokes may not be…
When does "offensive" become "hatered"?

Aye: There's the rub!

Freedom of speech against the freedom to spout hatered…
When does the former become the latter?
A fine line, a very fine line!!!

(Report comment to the moderator)