David Heath, the LibDem Justice Spokesman has outlined the LibDems stance on gay hatred legislation in an interview with Pink News. They're supporting the government hook, line and sinker. I'm not surprised, but bearing in mind their new leader keeps telling us he's a "Liberal by instinct", it's not exactly a very liberal stance, is it?
I remain implacably opposed to this unneeded legislation. All its for is to "send a signal" to the gay lobby that Labour supports it and Conservatives don't. They are trying to put the Tories on the spot, as I wrote in the Telegraph a couple of months back. If I have to choose between supporting freedom and liberty and supporting the gay lobby, it'll be freedom and liberty every time. There are plenty of laws on the Statute Book at the moment that protect gay people - just as they protect everyone else. We didn't need religious hatred laws and we don't need these.
11 comments:
Unity responded to your Telegraph article (in a typically voluminous fashion) and he did go some way towards convincing me you're wrong on this count:
"The presence of hatred as a motive for a criminal act is treated as increasing the severity of the offence because it has consequences over and above the ‘norm’ for a particular crime both for the victim and for society - it presents a greater threat to public safety and the preservation of public order, both of which are legitimate matters of concern for law and justice. This is the key justification for treating hatred as an aggravating factor in criminal offences and, equally, for treating the incitement of hatred as a criminal matter. It is not simply an expression of the state’s disagreement with individual views and opinions but a clear deterrent against actions and conduct (and the incitement of such) that are injurious to the individual, society and public safety and order on which both personal and collective liberty depends"
If, as you suggest, 'we didn't need religious hatred laws and we don't need these' then you need to explain why race hatred legislation is / was different. The reasoning is exactly as Unity set out and it largely holds true for the issue of sexuality today.
Cassilis - a lot of people, apparently including you, mix up hatred with distaste or dislike. I think we are entitled to dislike other people, or have a distaste for their habits - i.e., grossly overeating, wearing elasticised stretch trousers and wobbling when they walk, without being accused of "hating" them and being subjected to legal correction.
Well I don't mind telling you that I'm seriously disadvantaged, being left-handed. Any chance of any of the political parties taking up this very worthwhile cause? After all there's a whole left-handed electorate out here, and an as yet untapped source of legislation. God, the possibilities are almost limitless....
Whether you murder me because you want my money, or because I'm Jewish, or black or lesbian, I'm still dead and you have committed a crime.
This type of legislation seems to say it is more serious to murder someone because you hate their religion or sexual orientation than because the victim is a little old lady who is an easy target.
It is in fact 'gesture politics'.
Dislike ? Hatred ? What's the difference, exactly ? Aren't we entitled to these emotions anymore ? And why can't we be allowed to express them in ways that don't actually hurt or harm people ?
Bullets, bombs, sticks. stones and fists hurt people, words do not.
the gevernment's "anti-hatrd agenda is just an excuse to enforce its own poltical thinking on the mass population, and should be resisted on every count.
Verity - I'm not confusing 'hatred' and 'dislike', just pointing out that they can (and do) have very different social consequences.
The later is relatively passive and rarely has any cultural aspects, it operates at an individual level and has few if any ramifications for society. The former though can (and has) led to violence and social unrest not to mention horrific crimes.
You should read Unity's post - people remain entitled to dislike or even hate all they want, what they shouldn't be entitled to do is incite people to harm. That's central to this whole debate and it's routinely ignored - the scare stories about evangelical Christians not being able to preach against homosexuality are just that - nonsense. This is about incitement to violence...
whether or not this legislation is theoretically necessary it sends a very strong signal that homophobia, as a particular form of abuse, is unacceptable. It affects homoesexual people of all ages including very young people in their teens who are just realising that they are gay rather than straight. Not their fault. Do they need adults telling them that their unchosen feelings are wrong and unnatural? I guess some of you do but I think the only effect it has is to make their experience more difficult than it need be.
Cassilis - The problem with this type of legislation arises when some people confuse dislike, or what I should hope might be seen to be principled disagreement (even if the way in which that is expressed sometimes lacks the degree of cogency one might wish for), with 'hatred', and think that they have legal recourse in a statutory offence which criminalises the perpetrator of that to which they have merely taken personal offense.
It's all very well to make nice theoretical distinctions on a civilised blog like this, properly differentiating the definitional niceties set out above, and I'd trust you to get them right, but on the whole the real world isn't going to work like that. There seems to be adequate existing legislation already without adding this sort of potential confusion
Cassillis:
With all due respect, I'd like Unity to come around and fertilise my roses. Call me a naive old whoopsy, but I regard all crimes of violence against the person - all persons - as destrucitve of public safety and public order. I'm probably going to get spat on for paraphrasing the evil Dybya, but when does beating someone to death constitute a "love crime"?
And correct me if I'm wrong, cassilis, but doesn't the United Kingdom actually have laws on the books regarding genuine incitement? Personally, I'm rather relaxed (a Catholic) with Richard Dawkins telling anyone who cares to listen that my religious beliefs are a psychotic delusion that have brought nothing but misery and destruction to the world.
That's not the same thing as suggesting that Guardian readers might like to join him in burning down Westminster Cathedral, along with everyone inside.
The Libbies are only interested in 'gesture politics'. They certainly are not 'liberal', heck in Scotland (when they were in govt) they were forever banning things with Labour!
I agree Judith, much more time should be spent enforcing our existing laws. The constant drip, drip, drip telling us how intolerant we are needs to stop because for the most part it isn't true.
Post a Comment