Action: please lobby the Lords who voted in favour of the clarification of the hate-crimes clause last time around. All they need to do is vote the same way again. To see the list of Peers’ votes, please click here.
From Christian Concern for our Nation: The ‘Chilling Effect’ on Free Speech of the Coroners and Justice Bill and How You can Help to Stop It
The offence of ‘inciting hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation’ is part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (‘CJI Act’). Lord Waddington successfully inserted a free speech clause into that Act, which clause 61 (formerly clause 58) of the Coroners and Justice Bill now seeks to remove. Clause 61 has been passed by the Commons. It reads as follows:
61 Hatred against persons on grounds of sexual orientation
In Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64) (hatred against persons on grounds of sexual orientation etc), omit section 29JA (protection for discussion or criticism of sexual conduct etc).
Section 29JA (which clause 61 seeks to omit) reads as follows:
29JA Protection of freedom of expression (sexual orientation)
In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.
The provisions of the Bill are likely to be considered in the House of Lords shortly after its Second Reading on 18th May.
‘Stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation’ carries a sentence of up to seven years’ imprisonment. Without highlighting the legal distinction between ‘discussion’ on one hand and the ‘stirring up’ of ‘hatred’ on the other, ordinary people will be frightened into silence, unsure whether they can challenge the new morality that seeks to normalise and promote homosexual practice.
Nobody supports the stirring up of hatred, but equally no reasonable person should object to peaceful criticism and discussion of sexual behaviour. Repealing this clause would remove the clear legal protection for such criticism and discussion from the face of the statute. Issuing Guidelines to police and prosecutors cannot hope to undo the damage this will cause. If clause 61 is passed, the consequences would include a climate of fear surrounding the mere discussion of sexual ethics and potentially the silencing of the Christian view.
Let us stand as Christians for our freedom to make a peaceful and reasonable case for biblical sexual ethics.
Attempts to amend this same Bill to allow assisted suicide, including a
high-profile bid by former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, have so far
failed. However, we can expect further attempts by the pro-euthanasia lobby to
decriminalise assistance with suicide abroad during its Committee Stage, which
follows Second Reading. This would render the existing law inconsistent. People
would ask why it is acceptable to assist with a suicide abroad, but not at
home. The consequences are plain for all to see.
A concerted campaign is growing in the media to normalise the idea of legalising
assistance with suicide: Dr Philip Nitschke is in the UK once again promoting
different methods for committing suicide and this month Chris Woodhead, former
chief of OFSTED, has made known his desire to commit suicide in the Daily Mail.
Pray that the Lord would hold the line and that the sanctity of life would be
preserved in our law. For further information, read the latest newsletter from
Care Not Killing by clicking here and visit the website by clicking here.
Please use the list of Peers’ votes at the link below to find out which Peers
voted for the free speech clause in May 2008. Please write to as many as you
can, asking them to attend Parliament to vote for any amendment that would
remove clause 61. If you have any personal contact with a Peer, please seek to
persuade them of the necessity of voting for the free speech clause.
Please join our campaign to protect free speech and to prevent assisted suicide
by writing to Peers. Our updated Information and Action pack provides the
resources you need to do this quickly and effectively. Please click on the icon
on the right and take action as soon as you can. Remember, the date for the
Second Reading is Monday, 18th May, after which the Bill will be discussed in
Committee, when clauses are debated and amendments tabled.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Homophobic hate crimes: in the Lords
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Talking about your faith can cost your job - in a 'Christian' charity
Briefing. This is one of the things which happen to charities founded by Christians.
An employee at a Christian ‘homeless’ charity, whose Patron is the Archbishop of Canterbury, has been suspended for answering questions about his faith to a colleague at work.
David Booker, aged 44, a Christian from Southampton, has worked for the English Churches Housing Group for almost four years .On 26 March, whilst working an evening shift, he had a 35 minute conversation with female colleague Fiona Vardy. Ms Vardy asked him about his faith and beliefs. During the conversation he was asked the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and same-sex marriages, which Mr Booker explained. The conversation was free-flowing and Mr Booker clearly explained that he had homosexual friends and that he was not homophobic.
The following day he was summoned by his employers and told that he was
suspended for “events that happened last night”. On March 30, he was given a
formal suspension notice alleging that: “ On 26 March 09, whilst on shift with
Fiona Vardy, you seriously breached ECHG’s (English churches House group) Code
of conduct by promoting your religious views which contained discriminatory
comments regarding a person’s sexual orientation.”
Threatened with the sack for ‘gross misconduct’ under the charity’s Culture and
Diversity Code of Conduct, Mr Booker has sought the advice of the Christian
Legal Centre (CLC), who in turn have instructed Paul Diamond, the leading
human rights lawyer to represent him.
Andrea Minichiello Williams, barrister and director of CLC said: “Mr Booker has
been suspended since 27 March for two weeks pending investigation. No date has
been set for the investigation and disciplinary hearing. This case shows that
in today’s politically correct, increasingly secularized society, even
consenting reasonable discussion on religion between two employees is being
twisted by employers to discriminate and silence the Christian voice and
freedom of expression.
“To date, the English Churches Housing Group is funded largely by churches
throughout Hampshire, who we are sure will be shocked at the attitude and
action taken by a Christian organisation towards a Christian employee. The
Archbishop of Canterbury, as Patron, has confirmed the Church’s teaching on
marriage, same-sex relationships and homosexuality and that is in the public
domain. We are interested to know whether his Patronage is now under threat
under the charity’s Culture and Diversity Code of Conduct?”.
ECHG (English Churches House Group) has recently been taken over by Society of
St James ( a charity providing homes for the homeless).
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Free speech ammendment to homosexual rights bill fails
The Sexual Orientation Hatred Offence was originally proposed because homosexual lobby groups convinced the Government that there was a need to give homosexuals this particular protection. We are opposed to incitement to hatred against anyone, but existing legislation provides sufficient protection for every member of society. In 2008, Lord Waddington successfully tabled a free speech amendment to allow ‘discussion or criticism’ of sexual practices. The free speech clause deals with the chilling effect that arises when restrictions are placed on freedom to express biblical views on sexual practice. Although the Government has indicated that written Guidance will be provided to Prosecutors and Police Officers on this matter, this leaves Joe Public in a vulnerable position with no certainty about what he is free to say. This is why free speech protection needs to be stated clearly on the face of the law. Without it those wishing to express legitimate and biblical views about sexual practice could face frightening police investigation for an offence that may carry up to seven years in prison. Unless the Church wakes up and stands against this law it will find itself silenced on this matter as so many Christian Legal Centre cases demonstrate with ordinary folk dismissed and bullied for voicing their beliefs in work and every aspect of life.
The Government and the Liberal Democrats, particularly, opposed the free speech
clause and deemed it either ‘useless or dangerous’. However, David Taylor, MP,
(Labour) argued for free speech specifying that the real issue must be the
protection of human liberties according to the Human Rights Act.
When Christians campaigned the Lord miraculously (by one vote) allowed a free
speech provision to be included in the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006
(RRH Act 2006) regarding incitement to hatred on the grounds of religion. We
should not forget this. The incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual
orientation offence is modelled on the religious hatred offence. This is why it
would have been consistent and coherent to maintain a free speech provision for
this offence. The desirability of there being a free speech clause in the
sexual orientation hatred offence is imperative for a working democracy which
requires the tolerance of individual opinions. Tom Harris, MP, (Labour)
highlighted ‘public concern that a person who voices an opinion that is not
considered to be politically correct could end up being questioned by police’.
The debate on the free speech provision was won though the vote was lost. See
column 188 to column 204 if you would like to read the debate.
The Coroners and Justice Bill will now be considered by the House of Lords in
May. Please prayerfully consider contacting Peers to ask them to support the
free speech provision and to vote against any attempt to legalise assisted
suicide. See CCFON Action Pack for example letters.
Please pray for a miracle that God will restore the free speech provision to
allow for freedom to discuss sexual ethics and biblical truths. A free speech
clause is essential to defend orthodox, Christian beliefs on sexual morality.
The rights of freedom of religion and of conscience with freedom of speech in a
democratic society should allow for criticisms of different types of sexual
conduct or practices.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
New teachers' code threatens Christian teachers
Action: please take a few minutes to complete the survey - the new code is undergoing consultation by the General Teaching Council. The key point here is that instead of being fair to pupils and not demeaning them (as the old code demands), the proposed code expects teachers to promote a particular political agenda, that of 'equality and diversity'. As we have learnt to our cost, promoting (as opposed to tolerating it or respecting it etc.) 'diversity' means encouraging non-traditional lifestyles and so on - a totally inappropriate thing for a teacher to do, even according to the government: he Government’s own Sex and Relationship Education Guidance says that it is “inappropriate teaching” to promote a sexual orientation.
From Christian Concern for our Nation: The General Teaching Council for England published their new draft Code of Conduct and Practice for teachers in England in November 2008. Teachers are required to sign a clause saying that they will adhere to the Code before they can be registered and the Code is used as a standard by which teachers are judged by the GTC or by Employment Tribunals, as well as by schools and Local Education Authorities.
It is of concern that the Code requires teachers to “promote equality and diversity in all their professional relationships” in Principle 4. This implies that teachers will be required to promote other religions and/or sexual practices outside marriage and it could lead to censorship. We believe that teachers should be required to respect pupils, parents and colleagues from other backgrounds, but should not be required to promote other religions and sexual orientations such as homosexuality that are contrary to their beliefs. The ordinary meanings of the words “equality” and “diversity” should not cause a problem, but recent cases have shown how these terms have been interpreted to require promotion of values contrary to Christian beliefs. For example, a nurse, Caroline Petrie, was suspended for offering to pray for a patient and a registrar, Lillian Ladele, was dismissed for refusing to carry out civil partnership ceremonies. It is important to respond to this survey because as a result of this draft Code, Christian teachers could face disciplinary action or even dismissal for practising their faith.
Please take a few minutes to defend the freedoms of Christian teachers by responding to the survey.
Responding to the Survey Anyone can respond to the General Teaching Council for
England’s survey on their draft Code of Conduct for teachers. Before you respond, you need to read the draft Code of Conduct and practice, which can be accessed here: http://www.opm.co.uk/gtc/GTCE_draft_code.pdf.
Replies are needed by Friday 27th February 2009.
The questionnaire is anonymous. Answers can be changed by going backwards and
forwards between questions and only once the ‘submit’ button is clicked will
the entire survey be sent. The website estimates that users should be able to
complete the survey in 15 minutes.
The survey’s website advises you that if you experience technical difficulties
completing the survey you can contact Jo Sloman on 020 7239 7823 and that if
you wish to talk to someone about the survey you can contact Kate Willcocks at
OPM by e-mail: kwillcocks@opm.co.uk or by phone: 020 7239 0875.
interest in the survey. You will therefore be asked whether you are a teacher,
a parent, a governor, a pupil and so on. You will also be asked what your
length of service is, or the age of your children as appropriate. All
participants are required to state whether they are responding from within
England and from which region.
Section B asks questions about the Code itself and offers the opportunity for
general comments regarding the introduction to the Code (box B2); the content
of the Code (box B5) and the language or tone of the code (box B7).
Section C gives you an opportunity to make general comments.
You can see our responses to the questions that ask for comments if you click on
this link http://www.ccfon.org/docs/CCFON_Response_to_the_GTCE_Survey.pdf .
Please answer the questions as you see fit, including a selection of our points
if you wish, but it is best if you try and put them in your own words. You may
forward this e-mail to others who may wish to respond to the survey, but please
do not post it on any website. You will need to fill in the survey at the
following link: http://www.opmsurveys.co.uk/gtcsurvey.htm.
We suggest that you use some of the following points in your answers:
All teachers need to be registered, so this means that Christian teachers, who
have to agree to abide by the Code, will be signing up for an equality and
diversity agenda that is contrary to their core beliefs.
A teacher’s job is to teach, it is not to be an equality and diversity officer.
The Government’s own Sex and Relationship Education Guidance says that it is
“inappropriate teaching” to promote a sexual orientation, it is therefore
doubly inappropriate to be disciplined for not doing so.
The new draft Code should take the approach of the current Code in setting down
minimum standards only.
Much of what is in the new draft Code (when compared to the current Code) should
be contained in non-disciplinary guidance. Teachers should not be disciplined
for acting on their values, but only when they bring the profession into
disrepute, such as by acquiring a criminal conviction or by demeaning a pupil.
The code should not cover matters of promoting higher professional standards,
which should be in a separate advisory non-disciplinary guide.
The code on equality and diversity could be used to victimise Christian
teachers, who do not wish to promote a sexual orientation and other religions
contrary to their beliefs.
The cases of the nurse Caroline Petrie and of Jennie Cain, a primary school
receptionist who is being investigated by her school after her 5 year-old
daughter spoke to friends about Jesus, show how the equality and diversity
agenda can be used to victimise Christians.
All current references to equality and diversity should be removed from the
draft Code and replaced by the wording on these issues in the current Code to
show that teachers’ duties amount to treating those from diverse backgrounds
with respect by refraining from demeaning them—the correct scope for
disciplinary matters.
The equality and diversity promotion aspects of the code could be used gradually
to remove from the teaching profession Christian teachers and prospective
Christian teachers, because they will be unable, in good conscience, to comply
with its requirements. The Christian ethos motivates many of the profession’s
most valued, loving, caring teachers. In short there is a danger that the
profession will lose many talented and experienced teachers who are currently
an asset to the profession.
Teachers should not be required to promote what may amount to a
politically-correct view that is contrary to their consciences and beliefs.
“Diversity” means respecting the diversity of staff as well as that of pupils
and/or parents.
The Code is used for the registration of all teachers and their discipline so it
is important to ensure that it is restricted to minimum standards only.
Christian teachers and prospective Christian teachers would have great
difficulty in agreeing to Principle 4 that requires the promotion of equality
and diversity; such issues should not be included.
There is already growing concern at the victimisation of Christian teachers in
schools in relation to diversity issues, including a head teacher who tried to
apply the statutory requirement for collective worship in assemblies, (see the
following article from The Daily Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4623783/Christianity
-in-schools-why-were-losing-our-religion.html) and this code will make such
matters much worse.
The code could result in those who wish to attack both Christian teachers and
Christianity in schools having the ammunition to do so using terms such as
“equality”, “diversity” and “inclusion” as a pretext. These terms are causing
the marginalisation of Christianity.
The effect of this code could be gradually to remove Christian teachers and
those of other faiths from the teaching profession.
There is a difference between teaching about other faiths and promoting them.
The new draft Code should be reformulated along the lines of the current Code,
which serves its purpose as a disciplinary code well, because it restricts
itself to disciplinary matters. Much of the material in the draft Code should
be in a separate code of advisory, non-disciplinary status, covering
professional standards. For example, teachers showing the core values of
“excellence and continual development” and “commitment and empathy” are
professional standards to strive to achieve, but failure to attain them should
not warrant disciplinary measures.
Andrea Minichiello Williams
Christian Concern for our Nation
http://www.ccfon.org
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Muslims and Secularists on collision course
Comment: ethnic minorities, of which Muslims form an important part, are a key part of the electoral coalition which underpins the Labour Party. The thinking is that it is easier to bribe them with economic and cultural goodies, and keep them voting for an intrusive government, than groups who are wealthier or more integrated. Islamic terrorism has put this relationship under strain. But a longer-term problem is that another key part of the Labour coalition is the liberal chattering classes, who, while happy to patronise ethnic minorities, also want to expunge traditional morality and all forms of religion.
From LifeSiteNews: The Guardian reports that a document known as Contest 2 reveals plans to widen the definition of 'extremist' as part of the antiterrorism effort to those who hold views that clash with what the government defines as shared British values. Under the plan Muslims who believe homosexuality is sinful could be considered as 'extremist,' by that fact alone.
The counter-terrorism strategy, reports the Guardian, would consider people as potential terrorists if they are in favour of a pan-Islamic state involving many countries and headed by a caliphate; promote the application of Sharia Law; believe in jihad or support the armed resistance of Palestinians against Israel; and perceive homosexuality as a sin and argue that it is banned by Islam.
The acid test of this counter-terrorism plan is reportedly not whether an individual promotes these views by means of violent action, but, while condemning violence, holds or even discusses these ideas.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, in a speech in December, had said that an effective anti-terror strategy required a mental dimension that includes challenging non-violent extremist groups that 'skirt the fringes of the law ... to promote hate-filled ideologies.'
Advocates of the proposed code say that rigid interpretation of the Qur'an forms the root cause of terrorism which threatens the British people; opponents claim that this strategy would brand the vast majority of British Muslims as extremists and would lead to further alienation of British Muslims from British society.
Homosexualists in Britain are praising the proposed plan. An article in PinkNews, a homosexualist news service in the UK, quoted a 2007 survey of Muslins living in London which revealed that 'less than 5% (of Muslims) thought homosexual acts are 'acceptable,' compared with more than 65% of the general population.'
As an example of the 'extreme' Muslim belief concerning homosexuality, PinkNews quotes Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, who called homosexuality, 'a practice that in terms of health, in terms of the moral issues that comes along in a society, it is not acceptable.'
'Each of our faiths tells us that it is harmful and, I think, if you look into the scientific evidence that has been available in terms of the forms of various illnesses and diseases that are there, surely it points out that where homosexuality is practised there is a greater concern in that area.'
The Guardian report has raised concerns for some that the movement to marginalize those who hold to traditional moral teachings on sexuality is gaining ground. In recent years U.K. law has become increasingly hostile to those who believe homosexual acts are immoral, particularly with the passage of the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SOR's) in 2007.
The SOR's specify that no one may 'discriminate' against homosexuals in the provision of goods and services, including in religious schools, adoption and social aid agencies, hotels or rental facilities. They have been used to force Catholic adoption agencies to deviate from their specifically Catholic nature and begin adopting children to homosexual couples, against Catholic teaching. There have also been cases of couples not being allowed to adopt children merely because they hold to tradition views of sexuality.
One interesting consequence of the new counter-terrorism strategy, however, is that it could see Rowan Williams, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, under suspicion as an extremist for his defence of the encroachment of Islamic Sharia law into the British legal system as 'unavoidable.'
The titular head of the Church of England said in an interview with BBC Radio 4's World at One program last year that Britain had to 'face up to the fact' that some accommodation for Sharia law would be implemented in Britain. He argued that since British law 'accommodates' the views of Catholics and some others on issues such as abortion, Sharia should be welcomed on the grounds of tolerance for religious viewpoints. 'And anyway,' he said, 'certain provisions of Sharia are already recognized ... So it's not as if we're bringing in an alien and rival system.'
Subsequently, the Sunday Times reported that the government had officially accepted the existence of Sharia law courts to officiate in Muslim civil cases. Since August 2007 the courts have dealt with more than 100 cases, ranging from Muslim divorce and inheritance cases as well as six cases of domestic violence, normally a criminal procedure under British law. [LSN]
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Another case of Christianophobia
Briefing. Christians have no right of religious self-expression: this is the attitude which is being drummed into the functionaries of the state, and it is increasingly having an effect on ordinary people.
From the Christian Institute (and Daily Telegraph): The Daily Telegraph reports today that a primary school receptionist, Jennie Cain, whose five-year-old daughter was told off for talking about Jesus in class is being investigated for professional misconduct after seeking support from her church. Her daughter Jasmine had been overheard by a teacher discussing heaven and God with a friend and had been taken to one side and told off.
Mrs Cain contacted 10 close friends from her church by email but the message came to the attention of Gary Read, the headmaster of Landscore Primary School, Crediton, Devon, where she works as a receptionist.
The 38-year-old mother of two is now being investigated for professional misconduct for allegedly making claims against the school and its staff.
Mrs Cain has been told she may be disciplined and was warned she could face dismissal.
Mrs Cain, who has worked part-time at the school for two and a half years, describes herself as a "quiet Christian" who would never force her beliefs on others.
But she said she was angry about the way she had been treated: "I felt embarrassed that a private prayer email was read by the school – it felt like someone had gone through my personal prayer diary.
"I feel my beliefs are so central to who I am, are such a part of my children's life.
"I do feel our beliefs haven't been respected and I don't feel I have been treated fairly. I don't know what I am supposed to have done wrong."
On January 22, Mrs Cain went to pick up her children from Landscore Primary School
"My daughter burst into tears, her face was all red and she was clearly upset.
"She said 'my teacher told me I couldn't talk about Jesus' – I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
"She said she was taken aside in the classroom and told she couldn't say that. I was so shocked, I didn't know what to do."
Mrs Cain said she decided to wait until she wasn't working to discuss the issue with the teacher Sharon Gottelier as a parent rather than an employee.
But she was called into Mr Read's office the next day over another matter before he started discussing Jasmine.
"He started talking about my daughter about how he wasn't happy about her making statements about her faith.
"At that point I froze, I felt very small and I felt trapped as I was a junior member of staff."
That weekend, she emailed a prayer request from her personal computer at home to 10 trusted friends from her church.
"I asked them to please pray for us, please pray for Jasmine, please pray for the school and pray for the church."
A few days later she was called back into Mr Read's office.
"I didn't think at this point I could be more stunned. He had in his hand a copy of my private, personal email and it was highlighted all the way through.
"He said that he was going to investigate me for professional misconduct because I had been making allegations about the school and staff to members of the public."
"He said the investigation could be followed by disciplinary action up to and including dismissal because of this private email."
Mr Read said: "An investigation by the governors of the school is being held into the conduct of a member of staff and at this stage I cannot comment any further."
Her case is being supported by the Christian Institute who said Mrs Cain was the latest example of a Christian being persecuted by society.
The Christian Institute’s Mike Judge said: “I thought I had heard it all when I learned a nurse had been suspended for offering to pray for a patient.
“But now a five-year-old girl and her mother have been slammed for nothing more than expressing their Christian faith.
“I am particularly concerned about the way in which Mrs Cain’s private email to her church friends ended up in the hands of the head teacher.
“This is the latest in a series of cases where Christians are being persecuted for their religious beliefs. It is really getting to a point where it has to stop.”
Monday, February 02, 2009
Nurse suspended for offering a prayer for a patient
Briefing. See also John Smeaton's post on this.
From CFnews: Caroline Petrie, from Weston-super-Mare, a committed Christian, has been suspended from her job for offering to pray for an elderly patient's recover, reports today's Sunday Telegraph. Mrs Petrie has been accused by her employers of failing to demonstrate a 'personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity'.
She faces disciplinary action and could lose her job over the incident. Mrs Petrie, a married mother of two, says she has been left shocked and upset by the action taken against her.
She insists she has never forced her own religious beliefs on anyone but politely inquired if the elderly patient wanted her to pray for her - either in the woman's presence or after the nurse had left the patient's home.
'I simply couldn't believe that I have been suspended over this. I knew I hadn't done anything wrong. All I am trying to do is help my patients, many of whom want me to pray for them,' she said.
Mrs Petrie, 45, is a community nurse employed by North Somerset Primary Care Trust to carry out home visits to sick and elderly patients. The incident which led to her suspension took place at the home of a woman patient in Winscombe, North Somerset.
'It was around lunchtime and I had spent about 20 to 25 minutes with her. I had applied dressings to her legs and shortly before I left I said to her: 'Would you like me to pray for you?'.
'She said 'No, thank you.' And I said: 'OK.' I only offered to pray for her because I was concerned about her welfare and wanted her to get better.'
However, after the incident on December 15, she was contacted by the trust and asked to explain her actions.
The woman patient, who is believed to be in her late 70s, is understood to have complained to the trust.
Mrs Petrie will not disclose the woman's name or reveal the precise nature of her ailment because it would breach patient confidentiality.
Mrs Petrie, who lives in Weston-super-Mare, North Somerset, said she was initially confronted the next day by a nursing sister who said the patient had been taken aback by her question about prayer.
'I said: 'I am sorry. Did I offend or upset her?' The sister said: 'No, no. She was just a bit taken back. You must be aware of your professional code of conduct. I would be careful.'
'But the next day my coordinator left a message on my home phone and I realised this had been taken further.'
Mrs Petrie said that she often offers to pray for her patients and that many take her up on it.
She either prays with them or after she has left their home. The nurse has been a committed Christian since she was ten - after her mother died of breast cancer.
Initially, she was Church of England but she switched to the Baptist faith nine years ago. 'My faith is very important to me,' she said.
Mrs Petrie had previously been reprimanded for an incident in Clevedon last October when she offered to give a small, home-made prayer card to an elderly, male patient, who had happily accepted it.
THE PRAYER CARD
Prayer of Salvation. Good News. John, Chapter 3 v16. 'For God so loved the world . . .' I am sorry for what I have done wrong in my life and I ask for forgiveness. Thank you for dying on the cross for me to set me free from my sins. Please come into my liufe and fill me with your Holy Spirit and be with me forever. Thank you Lord Jesus. Amen
On this occasion, the patient's carer, who was with him, raised concerns over the incident.
Alison Withers, Mrs Petrie's boss at the time, wrote to her at the end of November saying: 'As a nurse you are required to uphold the reputation of your profession.
'Your NMC [Nursing Midwifery Council] code states that 'you must demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity' and 'you must not use your professional status to promote causes that are not related to health'.'
In the letter, Mrs Petrie, who qualified as a nurse in 1985, was asked to attend an equality and diversity course and warned: 'If there is any further similar incident it may be treated as potential misconduct and the formal disciplinary procedure could be instigated.'
Mrs Petrie said: 'I stopped handing out prayer cards after that but I found it more and more difficult [not to offer them]. My concern is for the person as a whole, not just their health.
'I was told not to force my faith on anyone but I could respond if patients themselves brought up the subject [of religion].'
It is the second incident - the offer to pray for a patient - that led to the disciplinary action. She was suspended from her part-time job, without pay, on December 17.
She faced an internal disciplinary meeting last Wednesday and expects to learn the outcome this week.
At last week's hour-long meeting, Mrs Petrie says she was told the patient had said she was not offended by the prayer offer but the woman argued that someone else might have been.
The nurse had her representative from the Royal College of Nursing present Mrs Petrie's husband, Stewart, 48, works as a BT engineer and they have two sons, aged 14 and ten.
The couple attend Milton Baptist Church every Sunday and Mrs Petrie said: 'Stuart and I have decided to put God first in our lives.'
Mrs Petrie, who has worked for the trust since February last year, has already taken legal advice from the Christian Legal Centre, which seeks to promote religious freedom and, particularly, to protect Christians and Christianity.
The centre, in turn, has instructed Paul Diamond, the leading religious rights barrister. Andrea Williams, the founder and director of the centre, said: 'We are backing this case all the way.'
A spokesman for North Somerset Primary Care Trust said: 'Caroline Petrie has been suspended pending an investigation into the matter.
'She is a bank nurse and she has been told we will not be using her in this capacity until the outcome of our investigation is known.
'We always take any concerns raised by our patients most seriously and conscientiously investigate any matter of this nature brought to our attention. We are always keen to be respectful of our patients' views and sensitivity as well as those of our staff.' [Sunday Telegraph]
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Fireman wins case on Gay Pride march
Briefing: very good news.
Mr Mitchell took his case to an employment tribunal but has reached an out-of-court settlement. The firefighters, who had been based at the Cowcaddens station, claimed it would be embarrassing to attend the rally in uniform, while others claimed it would contradict their moral beliefs. Mr Mitchell began employment tribunal proceedings after exhausting Strathclyde Fire and Rescue Service's internal appeals procedure.
It is understood that Mr Mitchell, a Catholic, has received damages and an apology from his employer as part of the settlement, and is prevented from discussing the case.
Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, condemned the agreement. He said: 'The Strathclyde Fire Service should have seen this through. The case would have set an important precedent - that public service workers cannot pick and choose which section of the public they will and won't serve. Although no life was threatened because this man refused to hand out safety leaflets, what if he, or his colleagues, now decide that they don't want to deal with homosexuals at all? Who is to tell them they can't now?' [BBC]
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Christianity 'socially unacceptable'
Briefing.
From CFNews: BBC presenter Jeremy Vine has claimed that it is becoming 'socially unacceptable' to be a Christian in Britain. The Radio 2 host said that he feels unable to talk about his faith on his show because he fears how people would react. He argues that society has become increasingly intolerant of the freedom to express religious views. 'You can't express views that were common currency 30 or 40 years ago,' he said.
'Arguably, the parameters of what you might call 'right thinking' are probably closing. Sadly, along with that has come the fact that it's almost socially unacceptable to say you believe in God.'
His comments follow the claim from Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor that Britain is an 'unfriendly' place for religious people to live. Mr Vine, 43, is a practising Anglican, but says he would be compromised by being more open about his faith on air. 'Just blurting it out would be destructive,' he said.
In an interview with Reform, a magazine published by the United Reformed Church, Mr Vine says that he is forced to separate his personal beliefs from his role as a presenter. [Sunday Telegraph]
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Bid to end free-speech exception to Homophobia law
Briefing.
From the Christian Institute: The Government is planning to overturn a crucial free speech protection added last year to a controversial 'gay hate' law. The free speech protection was added last May to the new offence of 'incitement to homophobic hatred' after a late night victory in the House of Lords.
It makes it clear that criticising homosexual practice or urging people to refrain from such conduct will not, in itself, be a crime. But in clause 58 of its new Coroners and Justice Bill, the Government is attempting to remove the protection.
The offence of inciting homophobic hatred catches any words or behaviour which are threatening and intended to stir up hatred. It carries a maximum seven year prison sentence. At the time, campaigners argued that no genuine Christian would do anything to fall within that definition. However, there was strong concern that the new law could be used as an excuse to silence religious views about sexual behaviour.
The protection, which was added by former Home Secretary Lord Waddington, reads: 'for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred'. These are the words the Government is seeking to delete from the law.
In 2006, a free speech amendment was added to a similar law against inciting religious hatred, despite Government attempts to block it. This amendment is much more wide-ranging than the one attached to the homophobic hatred law, but no attempt has been made by the Government to remove it.
During the parliamentary debates on the homophobic hatred offence, a number of cases were highlighted to show the importance of a free speech protection.
Miguel Hayworth, 2008
A Christian street preacher in Manchester was silenced, taken into the back of a police van, questioned and detained for over an hour following a complaint of 'homophobia'.
Miguel Hayworth had been publicly reading from the Bible, from Romans 1:17-32, when a member of the public complained. The officers later released Mr Hayworth and he was permitted to continue preaching.
Stephen Green, 2006
Stephen Green, a Christian campaigner, was arrested for handing out evangelistic tracts at a gay pride festival in Cardiff. Police admitted that he had not behaved in a violent or aggressive manner, but confirmed that officers arrested him because the leaflets contained biblical quotes about homosexuality.
Mr Green was held at a police station for four hours, questioned, charged and eventually committed for trial. The case against Mr Green was subsequently dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service.
The Archbishop of Glasgow, 2006
A Member of the Scottish Parliament asked Strathclyde Police to investigate remarks made by the Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow.
The Archbishop had defended the institution of marriage and criticised civil partnerships in a church service.
Lynette Burrows, 2005
Lynette Burrows, an author and family-values campaigner, took part in a radio talk show about civil partnerships for homosexuals. Mrs Burrows said she did not believe that adoption by two gay men would be best for a child. Subsequently, a policewoman telephoned Mrs Burrows to speak to her about her comments.
The police officer said a 'homophobic incident' had been reported against her and that record of it would be kept by police. Mrs Burrows felt that the policewoman was pressurising her even though she had committed no crime.
Joe and Helen Roberts, 2005
Christian pensioners, Joe and Helen Roberts, were interrogated by police in 2005 because they had expressed their opposition to their local council spending public money on 'gay rights' projects.
After launching legal action, the couple eventually won an apology and damages from Lancashire Police and Wyre Borough Council. The police and the council also changed their procedures to avoid making the same mistake again.
Cambridge Christian Union, 2004
The Christian Union of the University of Cambridge was reported to the police following its distribution of St John's gospel to students and hosting an evangelistic meeting where the Dean of Sydney Cathedral put forward 'a traditional biblical view on homosexuality'.
The Bishop of Chester, 2003
In November 2003 the Bishop of Chester, the Rt Rev Dr Peter Forster, was investigated by Cheshire Constabulary after he told his local newspaper that some homosexuals re-orientated to heterosexuality with the help of therapy.
A complaint was made to the police that his remarks were a 'hate crime', and the Bishop was berated in the media by the Chief Constable. The police passed a file to the Crown Prosecution Service, who decided not to prosecute because the Bishop had not broken any 'current' laws. [Christian Institute]
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Policeman loses disciplinary case for believing sodomy a sin
Briefing.
From the Christian Legal Centre: A Christian policeman who objected to the aggressive promotion of homosexual rights within the Norfolk Constabulary has lost a disciplinary hearing brought
against him by his police force. Mr Cogman refutes any allegation that he is 'homophobic' as they have attempted to label him, but only sought equal space for the Christian viewpoint in the Police.
He is currently seeking further advice regarding what action to take next from CLC and we expect to announce further details early next week. Mr Cogman will not be giving any interviews to the press until then.
See also Fr Finnigan.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Christian counsellor sacked by Relate
Briefing.
From CFNews: Gary McFarlane, a Christian counsellor from Bristol, has been dismissed from his position at Relate after raising concerns about advising same sex couples on directive sexual therapy. Mr McFarlane had counseled same sex partnerships, but when it came to directive sex therapy, he felt that he would be directly encouraging sexual sin For several years he has been able to successfully counsel couples, helping them to restore their relationships. He has always received positive feedback from supervisors and clients. In 2007 Mr McFarlane, whilst training as a sex therapist, discussed the potential conflict with his supervisor. However managers at Relate did not offer to accommodate Mr McFarlane's position but instead suspended him in December 2007 for what they believed was a breach of the equal opportunities policy. As a result, Mr McFarlane lost all his clients and was unable to continue counselling. In January 2008 he was reinstated on the basis that he would conform to the equal opportunities policy with the proviso that he could mention his concerns about sexual counselling in the future. However, a short time after returning to his job, complaints were made by employees and Mr McFarlane was called into a disciplinary meeting and eventually dismissed in March 2008 after his employers concluded that he had failed to adhere to the equal opportunities policy. Mr McFarlane was not given an opportunity to discuss his views and no attempt was made to acccommodate his beliefs, despite his success as a couple's counsellor.
Mr McFarlane also feels that the relationship of trust he shared with fellow employees was broken down after he discovered that details of his confidential discussions with his supervisor were leaked to other members of staff. Mr McFarlane became aware of a petition signed by twelve members of staff, demanding that he be removed from his position because of his views on sexual ethics. He was labelled 'homophobic' by fellow members of staff and treated in an increasingly hostile manner in the weeks before he was dismissed.
The Christian Legal Centre is supporting Mr McFarlane as he brings a claim at the Bristol Employment Tribunal.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Christian Policeman to fight persecution
Briefing.
From the Christian Legal Centre: PC Graham Cogman, has taken his police force to an Employment Tribunal on grounds of harassment because of his traditional Christian values. PC Cogman, 49, from Sea Palling in North Norfolk, has been an officer with the
Norfolk Police for 15 years, having previously served in the RAF for 12 years.
PC Cogman is taking the unprecedented action as a serving policeman after a
series of complaints and investigations suggesting he is ‘homophobic’ –
something he strenuously denies. He says that the ‘over the top’ promotion of
homosexual rights within Norfolk Police makes being a Christian policeman, or
an officer with traditional family values, extremely difficult, unless a person
is prepared to ignore his or her conscience.
In 2006, PC Cogman was working at the force’s Great Yarmouth headquarters when
gay liaison officers put ‘politically correct’ pressure on all colleagues to
wear a pink ribbon supporting Gay History Month. PC Cogman claims police
stations were flooded with homosexual literature and posters, including the
promotion of a gay quiz night in pubs. As a member of the Police force, an
organisation which he feels is charged with upholding traditional standards of
freedom of speech and association, he emailed colleagues with an alternative
view on the subject, stating his Christian views and reminding them that
Christians, and other members of society, whom they serve as officers, believed
homosexual acts were wrong in God’s eyes.
PC Cogman was subsequently accused of failing to be tolerant and banned from
using the force’s internal email system. When the event re-occurred 12 months
later, PC Cogman again protested, especially when the promoters wanted to use
the Rainbow Symbol, which has special significance for many Christians. The
officer was summoned to a full disciplinary hearing. On the advice of lawyers,
and because he was told he would lose his job otherwise, he pleaded guilty to a
breach of the police code of practice and was fined the maximum, £1,200. When
PC Cogman then added a Christian text to his computer screen saver, he was
questioned again and in April 2008, he was interviewed about his faith and
beliefs. He now faces a further full disciplinary hearing and is in fear of
losing his job.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Policeman faces charges of homophobia
Briefing.
From CWNews, via CFNews: A decorated British police officer has filed a complaint before a local employment tribunal, charging that he has been harassed by his superiors because of his Christian beliefs.
Graham Cogman, a 15-year veteran of the Norfolk police force, says that he has been subjected to complaints and investigations because he strongly resisted a campaign to encourage support for 'Gay History Month' among the members of that force. Cogman has already been forced to pay a fine of £1,200 for alleged violations of department regulations, because he encouraged colleagues to resist the department's pro-homosexual campaign. He now faces further disciplinary hearings on charges that he has promoted 'homophobic' viewpoints.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Sacrilege compulsory in Stoke school
Briefing: a teacher told her pupils to pray to Allah, in Arabic, as part of a lesson on Islam, and punished those who refused or did it wrong. Either this is play-acting (an insult to Islam) or it is an attempt to coerce insincere religious acts (sacrilege).
From the Daily Mail, in part: Two schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and 'pray to Allah' during a religious education lesson. Parents were outraged that the two boys from year seven (11 to 12-year-olds) were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped. They said forcing their children to take part in the exercise at Alsager High School, near Stoke-on-Trent - which included wearing Muslim headgear - was a breach of their human rights.
Full story here.
Friday, June 13, 2008
NI Unionists investigated for 'homophobia'
Briefing.
From LifeSite, via CFNess: Almost exactly a year after Irish Democrat Ian Paisley Jr. was investigated and censured for a 'breach of his ministerial pledge of office' over statements against homosexuality, Britain's homosexualist lobby has unleashed its fury against Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party MP Iris Robinson. Robinson made the remarks that put her on the wrong side of the homosexualist movement during a radio interview when she was asked about a violent attack that had recently taken place in Belfast. Stephen Scott, 27, was attacked last Wednesday and suffered head and leg injuries. Police have said that the attack was 'homophobic' in nature.
The MP responded by condemning the attack against Scott. She also, however, condemned homosexuality as being immoral and suggested that Scott should seek therapy for his sexual preferences. 'I have a very lovely psychiatrist who works with me in my offices and his Christian background is that he tries to help homosexuals trying to turn away from what they are engaged in,' said Robinson. 'And I have met people who have turned around to become heterosexual. ' 'Homosexuality is not natural. My Christian beliefs tell me that it is an abomination and that is very clear. 'It is an offence to God, an offensive act and something that God abhors.'
She concluded, 'My Christian beliefs tell me to love the sinner but hate the sin, so I condemn the people who went out and kicked that gay man. 'I am clearly not saying that I want people to thrash the living daylights out of a homosexual man or women, because I don't. '
Homosexual rights activists in Northern Ireland responded by making a complaint to the police, which police confirm they are following up on. John O'Doherty, a member of the South Belfast District Policing Partnership, filed the official complaint. 'People like Mrs. Robinson need to learn that their comments have consequences,' said O'Doherty.
The Guardian also reported that the extremist homosexual activist group OutRage! has issued a call for homosexuals to publicly 'out' any homosexual members of the Democratic Unionist party that they may have had sex with as revenge for Robinson's remarks. According to The Guardian, OutRage! said it would be 'entirely justified' to publicly 'out' closet homosexuals in the party. 'We have always supported the protection of people's privacy who lead a double life, where they are gay but maybe still have a family,' said David Allison, a spokesman for OutRage! 'However in circumstances where you are a member of a political party which openly espouses homophobia than we think it is entirely justifiable that members of that party be outed. '
Jeffrey Donaldson, also a member of the Democratic Unionist Party, defended Robinson's right to speak her beliefs. 'This is a country where people have freedom of speech,' said Donaldson. 'If someone has made a complaint then the matter will be investigated. I don't believe that Iris has broken any law so I don't believe the police investigation will lead to anything. ' Robinson, a Christian, is the wife of Northern Ireland's new First Minister Peter Robinson, who has come to his wife's defense, while reaffirming his commitment to ensuring that Northern Ireland remains discrimination free. 'As far as the equality issues are concerned there is a legal obligation within the office of First and Deputy First Minister to ensure that no-one in our society is discriminated against,' First Minister Robinson said in response to a question from Naomi Long of the Alliance Party . 'I have to say even if there was no legal obligation I would be at the forefront defending anyone who was being discriminated against and I know my colleague, the member for Strangford (Mrs Robinson), would be alongside me in that. 'It is absolutely essential as far as this community is concerned that there is equality for people. 'Equality of opportunity should be at the forefront of all of our minds on all of these issues. '
A year ago Ian Paisley Jr. was investigated in Norther Ireland after he told HotPress magazine, 'I am pretty repulsed by gay and lesbianism. I think it is wrong. I think that those people harm themselves and - without caring about it - harm society. ' He continued, 'That doesn't mean to say that I hate them. I mean, I hate what they do. ' [LifeSiteNews]
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Lords Victory on homophobic hate-crime bill
Update: the Commons have accepted this ammendment. Well done to Lord Waddington and his supporters! See the story here.
Briefing, 22/04/08
From Christian Concern for our Nation: In the House of Lords last night Lord Waddington succeeded in amending the incitement to "homophobic hatred" offence to include a free speech provision. Just before midnight Peers voted 81 to 57 in favour of this amendment.
Thank you to all those who prayed for this and/or who contacted Peers to attend this crucial vote. We thank God for answered prayer.
Though the Government seems to have tried to wrong foot Peers who wanted to vote for the free speech clause by unexpectedly extending the debate into late last night and switching the vote from Wednesday 23 April (when it was anticipated) to yesterday, sufficient Peers felt strongly enough to attend and stayed late to support Lord Waddington's amendment to maintain freedom of speech.
This is the amendment:
'In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.'
This is the link to last night's debate - the relevant part starts at Column 1365
This is the link for how Peers voted from Column 1377
The amendment still needs to be approved by the House of Commons. The Government
may try to overturn it there. Let's continue to pray.
The amendment is an important protection for free speech and religious liberty.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
'Gay/Paedophilia' hate crime amendment fails
Briefing.
From CFNews: A bill that was being examined in the House of Lords that proposes to make it a crime to draw any connection between homosexuality and paedophilia, has been ruled unnecessary and dropped. An amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill sought to create a new offence of incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. The amendment was withdrawn after the Lords decided that current provisions of the hate crimes laws are sufficient.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, concluded, 'When an allegation is considered to be threatening and with intent to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation, the existing rules would support a conviction that this renders the amendment unnecessary.' Earl Ferrers described the amendment as, 'rather alarming'. He said, 'I find it frightening because you will end up with people being too frightened to say anything. To accept the amendment would be a retrograde step.' Lord Monson said, 'Is it not the case that as many boys as girls are victims of paedophiles, if not more so, and yet the overwhelming majority of those who perpetrate paedophile crimes are men?'
'Does this not suggest that there is a tendency among paedophiles towards homosexuality, compared with the proportion in the population as a whole?' Defending the amendment, Liberal Democrat peer Lord Thomas of Gresford told the House, 'We are concerned about the suggestion very frequently made by the British National Party and others that homosexuality and paedophilia are directly connected and that a person who is homosexual has a propensity to be a paedophile.'
Most of the research into homosexual behavior, however, shows a strong connection in the homosexual subculture with homosexual activity and paedophilia, as a simple glance through the personal classified advertisements in most homosexual magazines can show. A short search through the Google internet search engine using the words, 'gay', 'sex' and 'boys' reveals 2,900,000 hits with at least the first 550 websites being homosexual pornography featuring men having sex with young men, adolescents and boys. A pro-gay website reporting on the connection between homosexuality and youth suicide, quoted studies that show that the preference of gay men for younger men and boys is a commonly accepted part of the homosexual 'lifestyle' and is particularly accepted in Britain and Europe.
Pierre J. Tremblay, a researcher and author of The Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Factor in the Youth Suicide Problem, wrote a paper titled, 'A Highly Neglected Issue: Boys Who Have Sex With Men'. Tremblay wrote that the fact that many homosexual males start their sexual experiences as under age teens having encounters with older men, 'is not a fact of life that 'politically correct' gay / lesbian community leaders have wanted to be known and some of them (maybe many) have worked to make sure such knowledge remains generally unknown (often by denials), or that it is not talked about (via censorship).'
Tremblay writes, 'Some of their tactics to maintain this silence has also been quite vicious, even toward researchers who have dared to speak on this subject...' A representative of Stonewall, Britain's foremost homosexual activist organization, told the gay website, PinkNews, that the group has 'no problem with people talking openly of their temperate religious views', but he declined to specify what religious views the organization would accept as 'temperate'. Ben Summerskill, head of Stonewall, said, 'Some of the language used in the debate in the Lords gives us a stark reminder of kind of the kind of homophobia that we still face.'
Thursday, February 07, 2008
ASA rules against 'Gay aim: abolish the family'
Briefing.
From CFNews:
Philip Whealy, a representative of the Christian Congress for Traditional Values (CCTV) has been interviewed this week both on BBC News 24 and on the BBC Asian Network and 119 Sky Digital, talking about the CCTV's poster campaign which carried the words, 'Gay Aim: Abolish the Family'. Many CCTV members exercised their legal right to peaceful protests in January and March 2007 outside Parliament when both Houses were voting on the Sexual Orientation Regulations. At the second rally the CCTV displayed a mobile bill board on a vehicle driving around London stating, 'Gay Aim: Abolish the Family', and showing a picture of a man, woman and two children. One person raised an ASA complaint against the CCTV. The CCTV fought for its right to use this poster and the rights of all people to have freedom of expression in a democratic society. The ASA found the CCTV to be in breach of its Code. Nevertheless, the CCTV continue to campaign for traditional family values. The following quote, they remind us, is taken directly from the London Gay Liberation Front Manifesto
'The long-term goal of the London Gay Liberation Front, which inevitably brings us into fundamental conflict with the institutionalised sexism of this society, is to rid society of the gender-role system which is at the root of our oppression. This can only be achieved by the abolition of the family as the unit in which children are brought up. We intend to work for the replacement of the family unit, with its rigid gender-role pattern, by new organic units such as the commune, where the development of children becomes the shared responsibility of a larger group of people who live together.'
Don't be misled by government reassurances that the SORs will not cover the curriculum, says the CCTV. One of the primary GLF campaign aims was 'that sex education in schools stop being exclusively heterosexual'. The Manifesto also criticises schools for ignoring homosexuality in education and criticised the sex education of the 70s as being 'little more than an extension of Christian morality'. Unless critical exemptions for schools and people of faith are included in the SORs, there is no doubt that we will soon see this legislation being used as a tool to force homosexuality onto our children in the classroom'. [Christian Congress for Traditional Values]
Friday, January 11, 2008
Ammendment to Homophobic Hatred Bill
Update: From CCfoN: Last night the House of Commons voted on whether to accept an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill which would ensure that freedom of speech and freedom of religion were protected. The Bill introduces a new offence of incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation, but the proposed amendment was designed to give extra protection to freedom of speech. The amendment would give extra reassurance to Christians that the teaching of biblical views on marriage, sexuality and relationships would not be prevented.
Sadly, the vote was lost and therefore the amendment failed. However, 169 MPs voted in favour of the amendment, which shows it does have considerable support, despite being unsuccessful on this occasion. The Bill must still make its way through the House of Lords, and it was in the Lords that the Religious Hatred Act was first amended to protect freedom of speech in this way. Please continue to pray for this Bill as we anticipate its next stage.
Action 18/12/07: lobby your MP
From Christian Concern for Our Nation: Incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexuality
MPs have tabled an amendment to the proposed incitement to homophobic hatred law. The amendment reads:
“Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion of, criticism of or expressions of antipathy towards, conduct relating to a particular sexual orientation, or urging persons of a particular sexual orientation to refrain from or modify conduct relating to that orientation.”
This amendment is an attempt to ensure that freedom of speech is protected, so that Christians can continue to promote and protect a biblical stance on marriage, sexuality and relationships. This amendment is similar to the amendment which was passed as part of the incitement to religious hatred law.
The amendment has been signed by a cross-party group of MPs, consisting of Jim Dobbin, Ann Widdecombe, Alan Beith, David Taylor, Philip Hollobone and Colin Breed. It is in reaction to both Christians and others who are concerned about the effect this proposed law would have on freedom of speech.
The amendment is expected to be voted upon on Wednesday 9th January. We would encourage you in the meantime to write to your MP urging them to attend and support this amendment.
Our submission on the proposed law here.
If you don’t know who your MP is, you can find out by using either of these links: here and here.
