Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

Part of the debate – in the House of Lords at 6:30 pm on 3rd March 2008.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice 6:30 pm, 3rd March 2008

In a sense, this is a prelude to our next debate. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in raising this matter, where allegations have been made by organisations and papers suggesting that homosexuals must all be paedophiles and therefore should be treated as criminals. The noble Lord is right to raise that as a matter of concern and to understand that for the gay community that can be very divisive and can generate fear and hostility. Where I do not agree with him is on the necessity for his amendment, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, suggested.

The question is whether the Bill is capable of catching the circumstances raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, if an allegation is made in a threatening way. We do not think that we should expand the offence automatically to cover all suggestions that homosexuals are paedophiles, even if those suggestions are made in a way that would not otherwise be threatening. That would be a small but significant extra incursion into free speech. We have determined that the right place to draw the line in this case is for the offence to catch only material that is really threatening in the ordinary sense of the word. If we extend the offence specifically to cover allegations of a propensity for child sexual abuse, what about other allegations that might be made against homosexuals? What about allegations, for instance, that all gay people have AIDS and intend to infect everyone else, which has been the subject of some material in the past?

If we specify, it leads to the old problem of criminalising one specific aspect of homophobic hatred. There is also the danger that perpetrators will simply shift their line of attack to some other suggestion that is threatening and will stir up hatred. The noble Lord raises a matter of very real concern, but I rest my case in the wording of the Bill under which, when an allegation is considered to be threatening and with intent to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation, it would already be caught.


david skinner
Posted on 27 Mar 2008 5:58 pm (Report this annotation)

Lord Hunt you are absolutely right and why should we not talk about these other aspects of homosexual behaviour that mark them out from the heterosexual- not that the heterosexual since the 60's hasn't got us to this point anyway. The homosexual camp pride themselves on being at the cutting edge of sexual experience and in particular of taking risks.
“Madam would you like your little boy or girl to grow up and become a homosexual or lesbian?”

Is it likely that she will respond with,

“ Oh yes, I just want!”


The National Blood Service (hardly an extremist organisation) refuses to accept blood from practising homosexuals as nearly half of HIV and STIs are attributed to homosexuals who represent only 1-2% of the population:

Discretion, parental concern, love and common sense can in no way be misinterpreted as bigotry or homophobic hatred. Indeed there is growing evidence that the Gay scene is not only contemptuous of the dangers of HIV and AIDs but plays “Russian Roulette” with “Bare Backing.” It is often Christian organisations, like Care, who attempt to pick up the pieces of such reckless behaviour. This goes beyond a concern for freedom of speech to a matter of life and death.

Ben Summerskill, who is the chief executive of the gay rights lobby group, Stonewall, would make the reading of “intemperate” (whatever that means) passages of the Bible that condemn homosexual practice, to be classed as a criminal offence. For a Christian to warn a proud and practicing homosexual of the dangers of hell fire is not motivated by a desire to whip up hatred against that person but out of a genuine concern for their safety. Who in their right mind would wish for their child to be led into a world of drug addiction, bi-polar depression, HIV, AIDs, Gift giving , suicide and ultimately a lost eternity ? Only someone who was already set on that road to destruction themselves and wanted to take others with them. (negative side effects of homosexuality) (negative side effects of homosexuality) (negative side effects of homosexuality) ( bi-polar depression) ( Gay infections at highest rate ever) (Top "Gay" Organization Comes Clean: "HIV is a gay disease." (New Strain of MRSA Spreads Among Gay Men) ( Gift givers)
SUICIDE ( death wish of homosexuals) (Kevin greening -risks and drugs and the face of homosexuality ) (suicide of Garry Frisch, founder of

Those who advocate full acceptance of homosexual behaviour choose to downplay the growing and incontrovertible evidence regarding the serious, life-threatening health effects associated with the homosexual lifestyle. Homosexual advocacy groups have a moral duty to disseminate medical information that might dissuade individuals from entering or continuing in an inherently unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle. Education officials in particular have a duty to provide information regarding the negative health effects of homosexuality to students in their charge, whose very lives are put at risk by engaging in such behavior. Above all, civil society itself has an obligation to institute policies that promote the health and well-being of its citizens.

I could go on and describe not only the sexually violent practices of homosexuals, like sodomy, sado masochism, fisting and all the rest of it. I could talk about the violence of homosexual serial killers and we could also talk about promiscuity.