I think that we used to be there, but are slowly dragging ourselves away from the 18th century, and rapidly losing the concept of ‘free speech’.

“Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.”

From the preamble to the same statute, the thinking behind it:

“That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

That it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.”

I wonder when the UK will finally drag itself into the 18th century, and fully grasp the concept of ‘free speech’?

llater,

llamas

Mr Mcalpine was charged with breaching section 5 of the Public Order Act by allegedly using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

Now then, the words Homosexuality is a sin, is…
Threatening? Hardly. Abusive? not by any definition of the word I know. Insulting? give it a rest!
Now then, Or behaviour likely to cause harassment? (nope), alarm (huh?) or distress???

The original complainant was not a member of the public, but the Righteous Plastic Plod himself, a person who’s job it is to confront wrongdoers in our society, and as such is deemed to have a higher threshold for Harassment, alarm and distress that that of us ordinary citizens, because if not then he is in the wrong job!
So that is why they would have lost in court, because they didn’t have a leg to stand on legally.

But like Natalie so succinctly put it, The process is the punishment.

My oft repeated advice by the way, is never ever plead guilty. If the powers that be want to fuck you around and intimidate you, expose them to the fresh air of a court and a jury, your punishment will be no worse even if found guilty, by some malfunction of Justice.

I believe Islam regards homosexuality as sinful, but I’m not 100% sure.

But what is homophobia?

Is it a fear of a certain class of person? Is it a dislike of a certain class of person? Is it a dislike of a certain type of activity? Is it a belief that a certain type of activity is wrong?

While some people may think think that these four things are all the same, it seems to me that they are not. Hence the need for definition.

I don’t think homophobic statements should be illegal, but if they are I don’t understand why the police think they would lose this case.

I tend to get the impression that the ratchet is being applied all around us so that groups have “permission” to be. The rub being, that that permission can be withdrawn or redrawn by the State. Once the current “focus groups” are sandboxed, they will move on to another IMHO. All the time we see more fenceposts put in place.

Yes, but not surprising. Peter Tatchell, with his long history of involvement with the Labour Party and the Greens, could hardly be expected to be enthusiastic about something as capitalist as property rights.

Freedom of expression, on the other hand, is something he has good reason to value; he was himself arrested and charged in regard to the speech he made (or attempted to make) from the pulpit of Canterbury Cathedral during the service on Easter Sunday, 1998.

IanB, you often illuminate our world with flashes of brilliant insight. This was not one of those.

If ‘all religions are the same’, then why will the craven press gaily (like it?) publish photgraphs of something like the infamous “Piss Christ”, but refuse to reprint the cartoons of Big Mo that caused Muslim angst in Denmark?

No, your Neo-Puritans do not regards all religions as being the same. They distinguish very carefully between those who will tolerate being pushed around and those who will brook no nonsense. Like a school-yard bully. Which is what your big government NuLabLibCons really are.

It’s interesting to compare the case of Dale McAlpine to that of Shawn Holes(Link), an American Baptist arrested in Glasgow for “uttering homophobic remarks.” Obviously, the cases are not identical, but the differences were fairly minor.

Holes, whose sentence was later criticised by Peter Tatchell, pleaded guilty, saying that “he had no choice but to admit the charge at Glasgow Sheriff Court because he was desperate to fly home to see his wife, and his father, who is in a hospice.”

It would have been interesting to see whether the charges would have been dropped if he had, like Mr. McAlpine, fought the case.