I'm pleased to see that Islington Council has launched an appeal against the judgment that it has bullied and discriminated against Registrar Lilian Ladele, which I reported in this post. Let us hope that reason prevails and the appeal succeeds.
Meanwhile, the Telegraph reports a similar case of a "Christian policeman" taking action against Norfolk Police for alleged harassment over his religious objection to homosexuality. He was disciplined by the force after objecting to emails sent to officers encouraging them to wear a pink ribbon on their uniforms during Gay History Month. He believes the force are biased against him because he holds a faith, whereas the force say that they "will not tolerate any form of homophobic behaviour".
The answer is clear: religious beliefs must not trump the law of the land. If a homophobe was not religious then the law would not hesitate to act against them, so why should religion provide a shield against the law?
Monday, July 21, 2008
6 comments:
Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
At the risk of being called an **** again, I feel that this post is sailing close to the wind of totalitarianism. A policeman expresses his views to colleagues - in response to a round robin mail advocating an opinion that he disagreed with, and is disciplined and fined for doing so. As far as we know, this did not affect the way he carried out his duties (otherwise this would have been cited by Norfolk Police in its defence).
ReplyDeleteI am worried about the "thought police" tendency that I observe here - conscience is regarded as an expendable commodity, and it is suggested that people do not have a right to it, because it is an unnecessary luxury. History is full of examples of states which have demanded and rigidly enforced this sort of regime. Nazi Germany and Communist East Germany come to mind, as do a number of totalitarian regimes today.
Tolerance and respect are not a one-way street. In view of the rhetoric that I see here, I often wonder what is really meant when Christians are asked to be tolerant.
I really don't see the problem here. There are many practices set out in religious texts that are contrary to the law, such as stoning adulterers. People of reason do not carry out those practices any longer - why not do the same with homophobia? No one is trying to control your thoughts, only your actions towards others.
ReplyDeleteI don't feel that the term "homophobia" really does justice to the issue here. The very form of the word implies a clinical fear condition (i.e. a "phobia" which requires psychological treatment).
ReplyDeleteI feel there are two issues here.
One is hate rhetoric and violent action against the person of homosexuals, which I reject. (Here, I would accept the term "phobia" as appropriate.)
I would have had a problem with the words used by the policeman to express his views if they involved hateful rhetoric. But I fully support his right to express his opinion.
The second issue is a right to an opinion. Like the policeman and the registrar you recently wrote about, I believe that homosexuals are misguided. When I meet a homosexual, I try to be as friendly and respectful as possible, and I feel that their private behaviour is their own affair. I may express my opinion to them (depending on the quality of the relationship), but I would nevertheless make every effort to respect their right to decide for themselves.
I reserve the right to refrain from any action which involves me in their choices. I have refused freelance jobs on homosexual topics (and other topics which go against my religious views), and would do so again. If I were a registrar, I would probably act in the same way as the person you have criticised here. I would not take action to stop homosexual civil ceremonies from taking place (to me, that would be overstepping my position), but I would refuse to be actively involved in them.
To summarise: I believe that homosexuals are misguided. You believe that Christians are misguided. I believe that both of us have a right to express this opinion, but within the bounds of tolerance and respect.
Does this make me homophobic?
By the same yardstick, could you be described as Christophobic?
How much passion is involved in your anti-Christian rhetoric? To what extent do you believe that I should have basic human rights, including the right of free speech? Or do my very opinions somehow disqualify me, or give you reason to restrict my rights? In recent postings, you have definitely given the impression that you believe that my rights should be restricted.
Perhaps you could clarify things here.
Victor, no one is trying to restrict your human rights. You can hold any views you wish, you just may not act upon them if to do so would be contrary to the law.
ReplyDeleteWas the policeman acting contrary to the law in expressing his opinion to his colleagues?
ReplyDeleteWhether he acted contrary to the law will be a matter for the tribunal to decide.
ReplyDelete