Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

Part of the debate – in the House of Lords at 7:00 pm on 3rd March 2008.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden Labour 7:00 pm, 3rd March 2008

I hope that the Government will not feel disposed to accept the amendment. I support the Bill as it stands because there is, regrettably, a great deal of homophobia. I have received a number of letters, as I am sure all Members of the Committee have, about this section of the Bill. I received a letter from a woman yesterday in which she described how her son had been shadowed and eventually kicked to death. Everybody concerned, including the police, agreed that it was because of his sexual orientation. That is clearly unacceptable. It is unacceptable that people should be put in fear of their lives because of their sexual orientation.

I do not support the wording of the amendment. The last sentence in particular—

"urging persons of a particular sexual orientation to refrain from or modify conduct related to that orientation"— seems to run against the established law in this country, which allows people to have civil partnerships. It is their right by law to have civil partnerships, but under the wording of the amendment it would be perfectly all right to urge them—perhaps even threaten them—that they should not participate in one.

You cannot describe this situation in terms of the provisions on religious hatred. We are in a different environment here. We are not talking about a belief, but a state in which people have a certain sexual orientation whether they want it or not: that is what they are like. That is why they ought to have protection and be able to live their lives in accordance with what the law has laid down and made arrangements for.

I understand what has been said about freedom of speech. If I were to choose between the two amendments, I would prefer that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, which seems very reasonable. This one, however, I do not accept at all. It contains a threat, particularly in the last sentence, which the Government should not be prepared to accept. The Bill as it stands should be supported because it attempts to deal with a genuine problem and give protection to those who deserve it. They do not deserve to be harassed and threatened. I therefore hope that the Government will not be prepared to accept the amendment.

Annotations

david skinner
Posted on 27 Mar 2008 7:33 pm (Report this annotation)

Baroness Turner if I may be so bold as to say that the mother of this new bill is the Sexual Orientation Regulations which have always been predicated not by what the homosexual is denied by way of marriage and adoption rights - raising a family is not exactly high on their list - but rather by what they claim they receive, but don’t want - namely bullying, abuse and violence. For the last ten years they have been successfully cultivating their victim status, culminating in an ad that appeared in Independent Newspaper that claimed that Christians were responsible for a 74% increase in violence and homophobic incidence: http://www.christian.org.uk/issues/2006/gay_rights/gpa/adver...

No details were given of what, where, when or how these incidences occurred. Homophobic bullying has been a brilliant PR tool used by Stonewall, the gay rights lobby for at least the last ten years. And it has paid off.

Even though , Ben Summerskill, who sits on the board of Sir Trevor Phillip’s Commissioners for Equality and Human Rights (EHRC) would like to think that 90% of the population have bought the homophobic myth and that they feel comfortable with homosexual practices, he is realistic in the belief that any opposition will come from parents, and particularly from Christians. The Christians concern for upholding truth and compassion, for justice and mercy, he rightly perceives to be their strength and weakness. Ben will attempt to destroy the strength by inflating the need for the weakness. The strength of the Christians, the truth, the righteousness and the justice is a real and potent threat to him; but the Christians tender conscience can be pushed to the extreme and encouraged into confessing not just a lack of love, compassion and care, but all manner of hidden hatred. He pushes the tender conscience of the church in the direction that it will naturally fall. And like the show trials in Stalin’s reign of terror, in Russia, he will find the hatred - and they will confess. Having shamed them into silence, Christians will allow the homosexual to invade our sitting rooms, homes, schools, youth clubs, churches and communities.

He has therefore determined that after softening up the public with propaganda about homophobic bullying and violence, to crush any dissent and close off any avenues of escape by pressing for legislation that will make it easier to accuse dissenters of inciting homophobic hatred. If bullying can be shown to be taking place there must surely be hatred and he will find it and root it out with witch hunts, public humiliations and public confessions Stalin would be green with envy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6904057.stm
( Ben wins compensation for homosexual youth worker from Bishop of Hereford),

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6184.html ( Gay Police to reach the remotest corners of the UK)

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-3050.html ( Even the Police protect Gaydar. Com, a notorious gay dating agency

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.htm... age_id=1770 (Stonewall involvement in this case of Bishop of Hereford)

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-5946.html ( bigot of the year)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article624010.ece (Firemen).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2585372.ece (Firemen Fined and disciplined for uncovering homosexual orgy in public space).

As for your assumption that we should obey every law in the land even if goes against our consciences shows that you place the state at a level beyond which nothing greater can be thought. What presumption to think that everyone in Britain goes along with civil partnerships; even if they did, just because there is consensus does not make it necessarily right. May I remind you that when William Wilberforce was fighting for the end of slavery he was hopelessly outnumbered. Great reformers are generally going against the public consensus . My belief is that civil partnerships undermine marriage, which is what they were intended to do in the first place. Lady Hale (who ,for many years ,was the key person driving the Law Commission’s anti-marriage agenda ) said back in 1980: “Logically, we have already reached a point at which we should be considering whether the legal institution of marriage continues to serve any useful purpose.” And yet, apparently denying that she said this, she was only too ready to extend the rights of civil partnerships to homosexuals, knowing fully well the impact this would have on an institution she feels is male dominated.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11...

But homosexuality is not consistent with God’s created order. Unlike race it is a not a genetic and irreversible trait. Try as the homosexual brigade will attempt to prove it, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever for supporting the view that they are some kind of sub- species or even an evolutionary development in the human tree. Homosexuality is an emotional and behavioural dysfunction. It is a learned response to early painful experiences, picked up in early childhood or even later through social conditioning, as happened in ancient Greece. The sexual orientation is anything but fixed and unalterable; rather, it shows that sexuality is fluid. However it does not exist in isolation but is greatly influenced by other instincts being brought into play during child hood development. People move around on the homosexual-heterosexual continuum to a surprising degree in both directions, but a far greater proportion of homosexuals become heterosexual than heterosexuals become homosexual. Some of the change is therapeutically assisted, but in most cases it appears to be circumstantial. If homosexuality were genetic it would show up in identical twins which clearly in the case of the MPs, Maria and Angela Eagle, it does not.
Neither is it a good yardstick for human behaviour for people to leap from saying if homosexuality is natural, it's morally and ethically desirable, . Rape, sodomy, necrophilia , promiscuity and homosexuality are all observable in about 10% of the species; Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly; should we be using that as a platform for closing down nursing homes. What the animal studies do show is that "sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think. And species do become extinct . The Christian must not forget that the Bible says that the fall of man effected all of nature and in Romans it describes how creation waits in eager expectation:……“ creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.” The whole natural realm will one day be resurrected from death and decay, not through evolution but through an act of God.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/im-not-gay-but-my-four-m...
(I'm not gay, but my four mums are. The article claims that the young man is unaffected by having four mothers and no father; but this could be in spite of his family background. We have to ask the question: How many other examples of children being reared in such fluid relationships are equally smart, articulate, well-balanced, socially aware, and just downright nice? This article is a classic piece of propaganda, written by feminist and familyphobe who in pursuit of anarchy is prepared to play fast and loose with the documented fact that children do best by being raised by a father and mother.)

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/585/print (Man marries two lesbians)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnew... (Transgender man pregnant and the implications of the embryology bill)

The evolutionary humanist philosophy that informs the comments of Rowan Williams, David Cameron and Alan Johnson has practical consequences. The Sexual Orientation Regulations have opened a damn which will develop into a gigantic flood of the most depraved and uninhibited, sexual behaviour. Homosexuality has a reputation for risk -taking and extremism. This in turn is already feeding back and encouraging heterosexuals to discard all restraints and to follow their natural instincts.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08031409.html ( legalising of sex in public parks).

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2356730,00.html (incest )

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10... (sex with bicycle )

…………and of course paedophila: http://www.tpuc.org/node/151 (Germany and EU to Legalise Paedophilia)

In a previous debate in the House of Lords, on the issue of gay adoption rights, the Honourable Baroness Howarth of Breckland said:

‘My Lords, I speak without a prepared speech but with a heavy heart. As a Christian woman, I find this an extraordinarily difficult and distressing debate. It is distressing because we are not really prepared to face the fundamental issue. I have listened to speeches in which noble Lords have said, “We respect gay people, but...”. The issue is not about rights; if it were, we would not be having this debate. It is about whether noble Lords accept gay people as equal human beings. Two hundred years ago, William Wilberforce made a speech in Parliament that freed black people to be equal human beings. I hope that this evening your Lordships will vote for these regulations. I have some quarrel with the way in which the regulations have been brought forward, but I hope that noble Lords will vote to underline that gay people are equal human beings with others. I say this as a Christian woman. I have listened to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, and I listened to the Catholic archbishop on the radio this morning, a very dear and wonderful man……..’

I have no idea whether the Honourable Baroness Howarth of Breckland is a Christian or not; only God can be the judge of that, but it seems to me that the whole of this statement is founded on a lie.

“William Wilberforce made a speech in Parliament that freed black people to be equal human beings.” is deceptively linked with “but I hope that noble Lords will vote to underline that gay people are equal human beings with others.”

Wilberforce did not work to make black people human; it was precisely because they were already fully human, made in the image of God - not determined by evolution to behave mechanistically but free to behave with dignity and responsibility - that he worked to free them from oppression, slavery and bondage. To suggest that the fundamentalist Christian is in some way denying the homosexual the freedom to become fully human is a disgraceful travesty of the beliefs and work of William Wilberforce, made worse because she is attempting to lead Christians astray. Probably I have misunderstood her comment about being burnt at the stake, but Jesus Christ said It would be better for someone to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than for them to cause children to be led astray, as is happening on an industrial scale with sex education programmes being promoted by this present government and which she no doubt would endorse.

Sodomy, buggery, fisting, rimming, water sports, felching, scats, coprophilia, sado- masochism, whipping, giving the gift and bondage are dehumanising homosexuals and lesbians. Such bestial acts reduce them to lumps of meat.. Such acts do indeed lead to slavery, bondage and addictions that sooner or later lead to an early death and are totally inconsistent with the aims of Jesus Christ and William Wilberforce.

http://www.davidmacd.com/web_pages/gay_testimony.htm ( classic case of a man healed from the slavery of homosexuality)

This law would make criminal those who attempted to change their orientation to the heterosexual default mode as homophobic; it would keep them in slavery.