A new law criminalising stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation comes into effect today.
This from Pink News:
A new law criminalising stirring up homophobic hatred comes into effect today.
The law, which covers England and Wales, will punish offenders with up to seven years in jail or a fine. It brings protections for gay people in line with laws against racial and religious hatred.
Stonewall claimed that a new offence was necessary after it discovered a range of “extreme” websites with anti-gay material. Homophobic song lyrics could also be covered by the law.
[.....]
It is unlikely the new law will be used frequently. Similar laws against inciting racial hatred have only been used around 20 times in the 30 years since they came into force.
And this from Cranmer:
The Torah says:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination (Lev 18:22).
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them (Lev 20:13).
The New Testament says:
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor 6:9f).
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another (Rom 1:24).
The Qur’an says:
Lut: he said to his people: “Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? “For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds” (7:80-81).
Of all the creatures in the world will ye approach males. And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay ye are a people transgressing all limits!” (26:165-166)
Please note, this is not a post about the theological divergences between Hasidic/Orthodox/Haredi/Masorti and Reform/Reconstructionist Judiasm; or between Orthodox/Protestant/Roman Catholic and Liberal Christianity, or between Sunni/Shi’a and Sufi Islam. And Cranmer is fully aware of the hermeneutic complexities, exegetical difficulties and socio-theo-political debates over the Sitz im Leben of all of these passages. Sexual ethics is not the point.
We are concerned here with the religious conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and the perception of ‘hatred’.
Whatever one’s interpretation of the above scriptures, as of today it would be a bold preacher who so much as jokes about homosexuality.
Today is the appointed time by our wonderful Government for Section 74 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to come into force. It creates the new offence of intentionally stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.
What is ‘hatred’?
OED: ‘intense dislike’.
It is not a matter of inciting violence or grievous bodily harm: there are already laws against that.
So it is now a crime to ‘intensely dislike’ homosexuality.
Or to ‘intensely dislike’ homosexuals.
Because the two are so easily confused in the mind of the victim (if not the perpetrator) that the mildest disapproval of the behaviour might be mistaken (or purposely distorted or misinterpreted) as vehement disapprobation to the extent that it becomes an irrational attack upon the person.
It is true that the Lords won an important ‘freedom of speech’ amendment, but it will exist only on paper. In practice, the culture will shift towards an auto-self-censorship: people will be so afraid of transgressing the law (or, worse still, of merely being accused of transgressing the law) that the jokes will subside, humour will diminish, drama will avoid the subject and real life will consequently be impoverished. Debates on sexuality will become taboo, not because of a statutory prohibition but because of an impediment to negativity, questioning, accusation and allegation.
Further Internet Link:
Christian Institute – ‘Homophobic hatred’ law comes into force today
Tags: Law Moral Ethical, News
March 23rd, 2010 at 3:07 pm
I had not realised this evil law had passed. Now I know why the BBC was trumpeting yesterday about a B&B owner who had dared to turn away a couple of perverts. Let the burnings commence!
But to the main issue. It is depressing how much blatant has become part of politics today. When did the state decide how people feel? What’s the betting that “hate” is merely a weasel word for “disagreement”? Let’s run a couple of scenarios.
I break into a house and start throwing the owner’s property on the street. I’m caught; but because the laws don’t punish criminals, I’m sentenced to some “community punishment” which I probably won’t bother to complete.
I break into a house owned by a homosexual, and start throwing the owner’s property on the street. I’m caught; but because the victim was a member of a privileged group, of whom I disapprove, my actions are now “hate”, and I go to prison for seven years.
Equality before the law? Not any more. Some are more equal than others. Orwell would laugh.
Of course the seven years sentence for actions that would merit a slap on the wrist is not intended to be carried out, although the first people accused will get savage sentences to spread fear. No, this reminds me of Bishop Burnet’s “History of my own times”, describing the legislation of Charles II against dissenters: the laws were passed, “not to be put in force, but for terror.” So it is here; the intent is to intimidate people who mostly disagree. It is an evil act, purely from that alone.
In a free country, everyone faces the same penalties for the same crime. Feelings are not crimes, in any normal society. Words are not crimes, unless they are threats. Actions can be crimes. It is with actions that we are concerned. But now actions are punished differently if the culprit happens to disagree, on political, religious, or moral grounds, of a member of a favoured group. What a blessing to the busybody! “Look! He’s a hater!” and the joke is that you have to hate someone pretty badly to pass laws to throw people in jail for simply living their lives.
This law can now be used by these aggressive, campaigning groups, to persecute ordinary people, to drag people into court who are perfectly law-abiding but are not politically correct. You and I have no access to the law. We don’t belong to any group with powerful lawyers. So we are at the mercy of such people. As one government minister gloatingly jeered a while ago, “the churches had better start instructing their lawyers”. This is intentional, not accidental. It’s a tool for gaining power. Ezra Levant has documented how “lawfare” of this kind is a mechanism used to silence political or religious foes in Canada.
But we can all analyse this. What do we do? We need to find a legal way to subvert all this, to make it impossible, and to bring it to an end. After all, we all pay taxes. Why should we allow our taxes to be used to institute a persecution in England?