Tag Archives: Free Speech

News

UK Christians hammered by Harriet Harman’s anti-Christian laws

11 Comments
Map of the United Kingdom UK
Map of the United Kingdom UK

From the UK Daily Mail. (H/T Andrew)

Excerpt:

Equality laws introduced by the last Labour Government have been attacked by a group of MPs for promoting ‘unacceptable’ discrimination against Christians.

In a strongly worded report out tomorrow, they say the legal system now places the freedom of believers to express their faith below the rights of other groups, such as the gay community.

The report, by an all-party committee of MPs and peers, criticises Government, the courts, employers and police for ignorance over religion and unfairly curbing expressions of faith.

Calling for changes in the law,  it says there are ‘significant problems’ with the controversial Equality Act 2010, steered though Parliament by deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman.

Interpretation of the Act, the committee says, has resulted in religious belief being ‘relegated’ below the rights of other groups.

Referring to a series of cases highlighted by The Mail on Sunday, it says: ‘Critically, early indications from court judgments are that sexual orientation takes precedence and religious belief is required to adapt.’

The report cites registrar Lillian Ladele who lost her job at Islington town hall, North London, after refusing to officiate at civil partnerships, and Roman Catholic adoption agencies banned from turning away gay couples.

The report also refers to bed and breakfast owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull, who were fined for refusing a bed to a gay couple, even though they also barred unmarried heterosexual couples.

The committee says it is ‘clearly unfair’ for the gay couple’s rights to overrule those of the owners of the B&B.

Similar problems were faced by those who expressed their faith at work by displaying a religious symbol, the report said.

Electrician Colin Atkinson faced the sack from Wakefield District Housing after refusing to remove a cross from his van. The report concludes: ‘It is hard to conceive how this common and ancient tradition could have caused any offence. The case became a symbol of the excesses of political correctness.’

MPs and peers were also critical of the treatment of Cumbrian street preacher Dale McAlpine, arrested and charged for saying homosexuality was a ‘sin’.

In another case, Adrian Smith was demoted and had his pay slashed by Trafford Housing Trust after he criticised gay marriage on his Facebook site.

The committee says: ‘The cases show it is becoming increasingly difficult for Christians to speak out about their views on sexuality without fear of recrimination.’

I am trying to convince many of my apologetics-enabled British friends to think a second time about how they vote. I could have told you back then that Harriet Harman was a snake. But many good-natured, slightly naive Christians voted for her. They thought that it is the government’s job to “spread the wealth around” and make people feel better about themselves – regardless of what they do. “Is it really such a bad thing for children to be fatherless?” they asked. “What is so wrong with passing laws to make sure that no one is ever offended by mean, hateful bigots?” they wondered.

Wake up, Christians! To the secular left, you are the bigots. Next time, pick up a book on economics and get yourself straightened out before you pull the leaver. Stop voting for bigger government. If poverty vexes you, get a job and give your own money away to people you want to help. That’s what I do. Big government means less liberty.

UPDATE: Pat wrote this in a comment below:

When I was living and working in England a Muslim doctor and I used to compare and contrast the differences in our religion as we wound down on a Friday afternoon. Not argueing, just discussing. He got a new secretary.

First week she was there, we started out usual banter it always used to start this way. She started shouting ‘Don’t keep rowing about religion.’ He looked at her in surprise and said ‘We’re not rowing, we’re discussing.’ She then shouted ‘People start wars over religion.’ Again, he said we’re not rowing, we’re discussing.’

We still carried on every Friday afternoon. next thing I know I was called down to my manager and told off in no uncertain terms for trying to convert him. When he found out he stormed down to my manager’s office and really had a go at her slaming her desk with his fist. He asked why I had been called down, when it could just as easily have been that he was trying to convert me to Islam. (Neither of us were actually trying to convert the other, but for months had been comparing the Q’ran and the Bible). The secretary was, by the way, an athiest.

We still carried on our discussions, but he used to ring me and call me into his office. It was good actually, because the other doctor he shared with was also Muslim and he also started joining in.

This was at least 10 years ago, so it had already started then.

She is in the UK.

News

Conservative MP’s bill to repeal Section 13 moves to committee

3 Comments
Canada 2011 Federal Election Seats
Canada 2011 Federal Election Results

Andrew sent me this article from the Chronicle Herald.

Excerpt:

To protect freedom of expression in Canada, sometimes you need a majority government in Ottawa.

That’s the moral of the story of a Conservative backbencher’s private member’s bill — which has now cleared second reading in the House of Commons and gone to committee — seeking to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Let’s recall the exact wording of that infamous clause. Hate messages, according to Section 13 (1), are communications “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”

In other words, if I were to write something critical about Islam, for example, and someone reading my column felt it “likely” that my words could provoke “contempt” towards Muslims, they could lodge a complaint against me with one of Canada’s government-created human rights commissions.

Truth would not be a defence. Neither would my intent. And the person complaining wouldn’t even have to be a Muslim.

That’s because, on top of the appallingly loose wording of this section of federal human rights law — a clause echoed in its provincial counterparts — any complaints are adjudicated by government-appointed tribunals, where the standard protections afforded any accused in a court of law don’t necessarily apply.

When complainants’ cases go forward, taxpayers pick up the tab. Meanwhile, those accused must pay to defend themselves out of their own pockets.

It’s a system ripe for abuse. And that’s exactly what has happened. We’ve seen comics fined for insulting hecklers (B.C. human rights tribunal), former publishers spend $100,000 in legal fees over three years to defend themselves for printing “offensive” cartoons (Alberta human rights commission), and Maclean’s magazine investigated by three human rights bodies (federal, Ontario and B.C.) for running an article on Muslim demographics in Europe.

The Conservatives have long opposed Section 13, but didn’t feel they had the support they needed from the other parties, as a minority government, to push the issue legislatively.

They also were concerned, with good reason, that some opponents might twist the issue for political advantage, slamming the Tories for being soft on hate.

Yes, Bill C-304, which aims to repeal Sections 13 and 54 (dealing with penalties under S.13), was put forward by Alberta MP Brian Storseth (Westlock-St. Paul) and is a private member’s bill, but the legislation has the justice minister’s endorsement. So there’s a good chance the bill will be back in the Commons this spring for final reading, then on to the Senate and, hopefully, passage and royal assent.

The bill, if made law, would take effect a year after receiving royal assent.

Canada does not protect free speech right now. Repealing Section 13 would be good, but Canada is not a good place for families to raise children. Even if they get Section 13 repealed, there is still the recent unanimous Supreme Court decision affirming that the provincial governments have a right to decide what children will believe – not parents. The Supreme Court was mostly selected by the previous Liberal governments.

News

How the left uses “bullying” to restrict free speech that offends them

2 Comments

From Hans Bader at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Full text: (links removed)

A school superintendant has labeled a column in a school newspaper thatcriticized homosexuality as “bullying.” (The Shawano High School newspaper decided to run dueling student opinion pieces on whether same-sex couples should be able to adopt children; the student article that was labeled as “bullying” answered the question “no.” The school district also publicly apologized for the column, and said that it is “taking steps to prevent items of this nature from happening in the future.”)

Whatever the wisdom (or lack thereof) of featuring something like that in a school newspaper, it seems strange to argue that a viewpoint in a student newspaper is “bullying.” (The Shawano School District’s bullying policy provides that “bullying” may lead to “warning, suspension,” “expulsion,” etc.) A conservative Christian who thought that homosexuality was immoral successfully challenged a school “harassment” code that punished students with such viewpoints in Saxe v. State College Area School District(2001), a case in which a federal appeals court ruled that there is no “harassment” exception to the First Amendment for speech which offends members of minority groups. Speech cannot be banned simply by labeling it as violence, either: for example, in Bauer v.Sampson, another federal appeals court ruled that a campus newspaper’s illustration depicting a college official’s imaginary death was protected by the First Amendment, even though the college declared it a violation of its policy against “workplace violence.”

But schools and anti-bullying activists have adopted incredibly overbroad definitions of bullying. The anti-bullying website NoBully.com, and schools like Fox Hill and Alvarado Elementary, define even “eye rolling” and other expressions of displeasure or hostility as bullying, even though doing so raises First Amendment problems.

The Obama administration claims bullying is an “epidemic” and a “pandemic.” But in reality, bullying and violence have steadily gone down in the nation’s schools, as studies funded by the Justice Department have shown. The Obama administration’s StopBullying.gov website defines a vast array of speech and conduct as bullying: it classifies “teasing” as a form of “bullying,” and “rude” or “hurtful” “text messages” as “cyberbullying.” Since “creating web sites” that “make fun of others” also is deemed “cyberbullying,” conservative websites that poke fun at the president are presumably guilty of cyberbullying under this strange definition. (Law professors such as UCLA’s Eugene Volokh have criticized bills by liberal lawmakers like Congresswoman Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) that would ban some criticism of politicians as cyberbullying.)

It’s very important to understand what liberals mean when they say “bullying” and how they use it to silence those who might offend them. It’s using government power to force individuals to accept the morality of the state. There’s a word for that.