living difference house would penalise religious hate speech

Nobody is being forced to perform acts of violence by the words of another; it is their choice to do so. Equally, there are plenty of people who would hold views that could be considered homophobic but would be appalled by acts of violence. It is fundamental to the principles of respect for the individual that I cannot be held liable for the actions of others. There is no dividing line between the incitement Proposition claims exists and my jokingly suggesting to a broke friend that they rob a bank. Ironically, perhaps, the defence of “The Devil made me do it” is not one that is taken seriously by any credible framework of laws.

Because religion promotes certainty of belief, divinely inspired hatred is easy to use to justify and promote violent actions and discriminatory practices.  Free speech must come second when there is the potential for that speech to cause harm. The mantra of “With God on our side” has been used, and continues to be used, to justify massacre and barbarity throughout history. Although it is rarely the prelates and preachers who do the killing the certainty they promote gives surety to those who do.  The purpose of the Act [1] used in this particular case was an entirely practical one. It’s main role was to tidy up existing legislation on rioting and public disorder but one section recognised that homophobic and racist language do lead to violence. It is all well and good to talk of freedom of speech but the reality is that homophobic speeches, particularly those of a religious nature, may well lead to violence. For example in New York there were a series of homophobic attacks after anti-gay statements by republican politicians. [2] Preventing hate speech helps prevent that violence from occurring so justifying restrictions on freedom of speech.  [1] Legislation.gov.uk, ‘Public Order Act 1986’, The National Archives, 1986 c.64.  [2] Harris, Paul, ‘US shaken by sudden surge of violence against gay people’, The Observer, 17 October 2010 .

Homophobia should indeed be confronted but penalising it is not the solution – just as it wasn’t for racism and sexism. These views should be confronted and challenged, which doesn’t happen by banning their expression. Indeed using legislation in this way is more likely to make the homophobe feel justified. Freedom of speech and equality have generally worked hand in hand and will do so in the case of homophobia as well. Banning ideas doesn’t threaten bigotry; indeed historically it has tended to be the tool of the bigot, not the liberal.

Religion simply justifies reactionary views which many find offensive. There is no reason for vitriol to be tolerated just because it presents a mask of religion.  Views on issues such as abortion, women, and what constitutes an acceptable family expressed by those who are extremely religious are simply bigoted views which are given credibility by being wrapped in a cassock.  It is in the nature of religious belief that any set of views can adopt a religious justification and there is no objective measure against which to hold the views. For example the homophobic views which have common currency in many churches can be contrasted with a gay liberation trend discernible in others. In the light of this, it makes sense to judge the views on their own basis, regardless of the religiosity surrounding them.  The views expressed by Harry Hammond, and others [1] , need to be stripped of their religious veneer and shown that at their heart they are simply offensive. There is absolutely no reason why LGBT people should have to endure vitriol and condemnation as they go about their daily lives. It is a useful exercise to consider how we would respond to a secular speaker saying that the actions of two people who were in love with each other should condemn them to torment and suffering. Oddly however, the moment this is done in the name of God, it somehow becomes acceptable.  [1] Blake, Heidi. “Christian Preacher Arrested for Saying Homosexuality is a Sin”. The Daily Telegraph, 2 May 2010.

Religious belief is the most widely used and historically enduring framework for discussion of the universe around us and our place and role within it. Pretending that it not part of civic discourse is simply living in a fantasy world. The views expressed by Hammond are widely and genuinely held and deserve to be heard. Those who oppose them should, of course, be free to do so. Simply banning their expression doesn’t make the views go away. However impossible opposing sides in this argument may believe it to be, the other side could be right, that gives them the right to be heard [1] .  [1] Tatchell, Peter, ‘Lords are right to limit homophobic hatred law’, 10 July 2009.

Ill-informed prejudice has no place in society. The veneer of religion has been used to justify hatred, prejudice and division and should be confronted.  Homophobia is the last respectable prejudice [1] and should be tackled with the same passion and force that others have been, and continue to be, confronted. If the speaker had been condemning black people or women they would have been arrested for public disorder if they represented an organisation that was overtly racist, it would be quite likely to be banned.  For some reason Churches that hold views on homosexuality that are comparable in their vitriol to those on race held by neo-Nazi groups are not only tolerated but frequently supported by the state.  Hatred is hatred and there is no reason why homophobia should be given a free pass that would not be given to racism or sexism.  All of the Abrahamic faiths have, at their core, an authority focussed on maintaining ‘the natural order’. From the fourteenth century on – although interestingly less so before that point – homosexuality has been singled out as one of the gravest of sins [2] , with the Catechism identifying it as one of four sins that “calls out to Heaven for vengeance”. That is not merely offensive but dangerous in a modern society.  [1] Maguire, Daniel C., ‘Heterosexism in Contemporary World Religion’, The Religious Consultation.  [2] Boswell, John, The Marriage of Likeness, Harper Collins, Chapter Eight.

Issues of sexuality tend to raise great passion but to accept that people should be harangued, threatened or intimidated for just getting on with their lives, quite legally and posing no threat to others is absurd. A liberal society should be free to defend that liberalism, if people wish to change that reality then there are democratic ways of doing so that do not incite hatred on the streets. Homosexuality has been legal in the UK for over forty years; it is absurd that gay people should still have to face this kind of barracking on a regular basis.

It is simply unfair to ask people to be the victims in a societal experiment on the basis that it will all be okay in the end. In a context like this the language used is not only offensive but also threatening. This legislation may not be great constitutional theory but provides very real protection of people’s safety and quality of life.  In addition to which, homophobia long enjoyed the sanction and protection of the state it is interesting that when that is reversed just a little it becomes an assault on free speech.

There is no right not to be offended, enforcing what is acceptable to be thought or said places far too much power in the hands of the state.  It is impossible to ensure that nobody is ever offended and it is questionable as to whether it is even desirable [1] . There is simply no way of protecting against offence. The state clearly has a role in protecting the physical safety of citizens and in other relevant areas such as preventing dismissal from employment on the grounds of sexuality but this is not the case with speech that may cause offense.  Governments that attempt to lead, ahead of public opinion, on matters such as this do little to resolve the problem. In doing so in this manner, they may well pour fuel on the fire of the very prejudice they are aiming to combat as well as creating additional problems by justifying the idea that it is okay to silence views simply because you happen to disagree with them.  Banning the expression of ideas has, historically, be the recourse of those who have run out of arguments to defeat them; doing so is an acknowledgement that the proposal is a weak one. Admitting that – or appearing to do so – for the principle of equality set a dangerous precedent.  [1] Harris, Mike, “It shouldn’t be a crime to insult someone”. Guardian.co.uk, 18 January 2012.

Silencing views that are considered offensive is self-defeating and would be detrimental to those attempting to advance gay rights.  If freedom of speech is to mean anything then it needs to be a principle that is universally applied. Unless speech represents a direct and immediate threat to public safety then it should not be curtailed. The overwhelming majority of the world would agree with Hammond. Globally this is a significant, possibly a majority, view. Certainly the 24% of people in the UK who believe that homosexual sex should be illegal [1] could be assumed to be sympathetic. These people might well consider gay pride marches to be offensive and a threat to public order but these are allowed to go ahead and so should Hammond’s protest and those like it. The freedom of expression must be allowed equally in both cases.  [1] The Guardian. “Sex uncovered poll: Homosexuality”. 28 August 2008.

Regardless of the views expressed, freedom of speech means that all opinions should be heard.  Allowing politicians to regulate what it is acceptable to say – or think – is not something that has a happy history. This isn’t the result of a purely intellectual construct but one of altruistic self-interest; once people start banning ideas, they tend not to stop at one.  Voltaire’s comment that “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is a statement of the very same principle that that demands equality for all groups in society.  In exactly the same way that all views are, at the very least, worthy of a hearing, so are all lifestyles acceptable. Locking people up in the name of liberty makes no sense at all. Equally, banning statements on the basis that it might be offensive to some people has been used as an excuse to prevent social and cultural developments, the process of being offended usually made society and culture stronger for it. We tend to fear or hate that which is hidden or unspoken. The emancipation and liberation of other groups has tended to suggest that open debate is a more productive answer than trying to ban opinions and views.

This is simply a myth. Society routinely legislates to prevent offence with restrictions on what can be said or done within a broadcast or in print. This particular case does not relate to a private conversation between friends but to a public address. As such the response of the police officers was not some Orwellian nightmare but a responsible protection of public order and a show of respect for those who, quite rightly, had taken offence at the remarks. We are rightly cautious of the state intervening too far into the private sphere but this was a public event – by the speakers own choice.