On Moral Quizzing
Or, more accurately, quizzing about morality, I suppose. This is a victory for common sense. Helen and Joe Roberts have received £10,000 in compensation after they mishandled into comments made by the couple in a telephone conversation with a representative of Wyre Borough Council.
The representative contacted the police because the couple said things which he or she thought might constitute a homophobic incident. The police investigated the incident -- as they are required to do when they receive a report -- by interviewing the Roberts for an hour. What prompted this reaction? Helen and Joe Roberts has complained that council offices displayed literature from local gay groups but none from Christian groups, and had expressed their view that homosexuality is "morally wrong". They had also offered to pay for leaflets about Christianity to be placed in the council offices.
It seems obvious to outsiders -- including gay and lesbian campaign groups -- that this couple committed no crime. They are entitled to their moral views, just as gay people are entitled to the law's protection from homophobic attacks. The police and the council have now apologised to the couple.
The period of adjustment following the introduction of every new law or regulation throws up these kinds of incidents, where an overly-zealous official mis-applies the legislation (perhaps with the best intentions) or overreacts to circumstances. We may see some curious interpretations of the new goods, facilities and services regulations when they come into force on New Year's Day. Some officials may fail to recognise a valid exemption in a particular incident, which may have to be tested in court; and some individuals who have may believe, wrongly, that it places them or their busines in difficulties. Councils, the police, and everyone else with an interest in justice could do well to learn from the Wyre case: they law needs to be applied with a good measure of common sense.
Comments
William,
Absolutely right - this is a victory for common sense ... and for freedom of speech.
I wonder if this will open the door for others who have been investigated for similar comments to take the authorities to court...
Will
I wonder if you are giving out mixed messages on this subject..
Previously you have suggested that homophobia was behaviour or language that might be perceived to disparage a homosexual person in any way (I hope that paraphrase is about right).
And in this would be quite typical compared to many opinion and community leaders.
This couple's biblical comments would certainly have come into this category
so it would certainly seem that unless you qualify what you think should be the legal definition of homophobia, sooner or later the legal standard will catch up with the values you are setting and couples like this could end up with criminal records. (It remains to be seen of the SOR will catch these type of people. The four main churches in NI have gone on record to say they think the courts will decide this on a case by case basis, which is not good for civil liberties).
Where are you going to draw the legal line between freedom of speech and conduct on grounds of faith and the rights of homosexual people not to be harrassed?
PB
Pbs missing the point (sorry pb). It's one thing to regard a view or statement as homophobic (or racist or sexist), it's another thing to get the police to question someone because of their view. This couple have anti-gay views and I regard their views as shameful, homophobic, intolerant, abusive and nasty. I wish they would join the modern world. I would defend their right to hold and state those views without arrest or intimidation from teh authorities. As this case shows, the law supports their right to hold and state their views too.
Have a titter of wit pb!
The definition of homophobia is not relevant - it's not illegal!
You are qute right Hellenica
Racism, sectarianism, holocaust denial, homophobia and all sexual and gender antagonisms are irrational and not worthy of an enlightened and humanitarian society. To hold, express or condone them is disgusting to most people but is not, in the main, illegal and never likely to be.
The law should only be involved when these beliefs are put into action causing or inciting harassment, discrimination or violence to these groups - or indeed where there are conflicts between rights and protections.
These laws are, or just about to be, in place and it will be up to the courts to decide, as was quite rightly pre-empted this week by the out of court settlement in the case of the Christian couple.
But in the final analysis self-selected religious belief is not in the same class as sex, gender or race which are intrinsic to an individual person.
sory guys I am not missing the point at all.
legislation follows public opinion and public opinion is set by opinion leaders.
Have you never heard the expression that the true legislators of a country are actually the novelists? This would also apply to films etc too.
Well how did you think it worked guys, what planet are you living on? Why do you think so many secualrists get alarmed when Christian films come out eg The passion, lion witch and wardrobe etc.
That is why so many novels/films strive to convince and push a particualr agenda for example, Brokeback Mountain, which misses the minor detail that sexuality is not fixed (sources: Alfred Kinsey, Peter Tatchell, Andy Comiskey).
And certainly the four main churches of Northern Ireland are on record ref their concerns that the SOR will leave the courts to decide what is and what is not "discrimination/harrassment" without actually defining it in law.
Anyway, obviously there is a world of actual difference between what opinion Will is pushing on what is "homophobic" and what is actual legislation. But my question to Will is simply where he thinks the dividing line should be between the two.
It is a perfectly valid question, especially in light of the fact that an English police force and council have already proven they are willing and ready to enforce/overenforce such legislation, if it were in place.
PB
What does it say that it took a pending court case to force an apology and policy revisions from the police and council?
why could they not have done all this after a simple complaint from the couple?
And I wonder how, if at all, this case may focus minds regarding any action under the sexual orientation regulations.
Is it possible a same sex couple could sue a Christian group or individual on grounds of alleged discrimination or harrassment under SOR only to find their litigation runs aground on the Human Rights Act clauses for freeom of religion and expression?
PB
Hellenica,
I'm confused - You state that the views expressed by the Roberts are "shameful, homophobic, intolerant, abusive and nasty".
Surely if they are homophobic they would have lost the case?
If they are not homophobic in the eyes of the law then perhaps you need to adjust your own definition of the word to match the law.
rd - homophobia may be disgusting but it is not and never will be a crime - see my post #4
Alan
I dont know how you can be so certain what will and what will not be a crime in the future...
got a crystal ball?
It seems just about all the churches in NI would consider the SOR pose a very serious risk of making "practical homophobia" an offence, judging by their court actions, lobbying and public statements.
I really dont understand where you are
coming from on this Alan?????
PB
I was answering rd's question in post 7!!
You say
I dont know how you can be so certain what will and what will not be a crime in the future...
Neither do you... For goodness sake think before you post pb!! You been at the communion wine a bit early?
and PRACTICAL homophobia WILL be an offence in a few days.
So the police may have acted inconsiderately, fine. But do we really need £10,000 of the taxpayers' money to be spent on this couple by way of apology? Especially bearing in mind that it is being donated to the Christian group that fought their corner in advocating homophobia and disharmony. I resent my tax money going to such a cause, but who do I complain to about it? I think that in the 21st century it is a disgrace that such an amount of compensation was even considered over such a matter. And no, I am not gay, nor am I a raving liberal.
Alan, Podwanlger
Alan; In post 8 and 10 you totally contradict yourself;-
will "homophobia" be a crime or not? make up your mind.
And are you going to defend your assertion that sexuality is fixed? That is not the story I get from sexologist Alfred Kinsey, gay rights leader Peter Tatchell and ex-gay Christian leader Andy Comiskey.
Podwangler; I am heterosexual and Christian and I agree with you, What a waste of public money.
As I said in post 6, it is a disgrace that the council and police had to face legal action before they apologised. They should have done so immediately and saved veryone all the hassle and expense.
But I have to correct you, the police did not act inconsiderately; they told the couple they were walking on eggshells and were in danger of being prosecuted, as I recall.
That is intimidation and gross professional misconduct. And the subsequent behaviour of the force amounted to an attempted cover-up.
SO you are not a liberal. But what do you mean the couple were guilty of "homophobia and disharmony".
What is homophobia? I have not fear of sameness or homosexual people.
Do you have any respect for freedom of expression and religion? where would you draw the line legally?
PB
pb - how many times!!!!!
homophobia (and all the other ism's)are not and never will be illegal - ie they are mental problems
practical homophobia ie harrassment and discrimination, may be illegal esp. by companies and public bodies
where are the contradictions?
sexuality is 95% fixed - but even if it isn't, what your particular ancient holy book says is not important - and the law now agrees with me!
Alan
Can you provide me any authorities to support your assertions. They fly in the face of alot of evidence from my own reading.
1) That sexuality is 95 per cent fixed.
2) Homophobia is a mental problem?
PB
Pb:
Psychologists are seriously considering the mental illness basis of homophobia
See:
Why does this man PB want to protect homophobes? It's very odd.
Racists aren't being put in prison for their beliefs, Mr PB, so I think you may relax. You are not likely to be jailed for your medieval delusions anytime soon.
Why does it matter whether homosexiality is in the genes or socially produced? The key thing is that gay people are with us and should be respected and treated equally.
Helen
the reason liberals are so keen to prove it is fixed is that absolves gays from the responsibility to change which is called for by traditional views if several faiths.
you may not like that, but that is curently a huge dynamic in the culture war over this.
that is how public opinion is molded and how it then frames new laws.
pb
Christine
I think gay people should have all the protections the rest of us have in society. If someone assaults attacks or threatens a gay person then they should have the same protection as you or I.
If society democratically elects to go further and legislate for specific gay rights, as a democrat I will live with that.
Note however, that in NI the Government imposed civil partnerships and now SOR against the will of the people though.
Now, I wouldnt say I have a desire to protect "homophobes". But I do think we have pretty good laws for freedom of religion and expression, and those I do think should be protected.
AT present the SOR threatens to for example land teachers in trouble who may have religious objections to portraying civil partnserships as equal to marriage, in the classroom; is that a homophobic attitude from such a teacher or a desire for religious freedom and to adhere to their conscience?
The term homophobic is of course propaganda. The Judeo Christian tradition has opposed homosexuality for 6000 years and it is only the latest wave of fashionable thought that is describing is thus. It is not irrational fear [phobia] of homosexuality [like arachnophobia] it is a theological position of Christians and Islam for centuries.
WHy should such religious views be demonised so easily now against the will of the people? is there a hierarchy of rights here and who decides what gos on top and how?
PB