Ban on Anti-Gay Hate Speech Denounced as ’Thought Crimes’ in UK
A proposed law against hate speech in the U.K. has led to charges that a class of "thought crimes" would be created unless religiously motivated hate speech remained protected from the threat of prosecution.
Britain's Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, had pressed for a revision of the proposed legislation, which in its current form allows anti-gay speech from people of faith to be exempt from prosecution, reported The Daily Mail in a Nov. 12 article. The law is seen by GLBT advocates as needed to counter a rise in anti-gay hate crimes, but Christians fear that without specific protections from prosecution, they might be taken to court for expressing opposition to marriage equality or other issues involving gay equality.
Four attempts had been made during the latest legislative session to revise the proposed law and remove language protecting religiously-motivated anti-gay speech. However, all four attempts to remove those protections were rebuffed. A government spokesperson said that proponents of the change had intended no harm toward Christians; "The offense only covers words or behavior that are threatening and intended to stir up hatred."
Comedians, too, were worried that their humor might land them in legal trouble should they make jokes at gays' expense. But the main objection to the proposed change concerned the freedom of religious people to speak out against gays. American-born political commentator Janet Daley, in a Nov. 12 op-ed piece published in The Telegraph, wrote that some lawmakers "are determined to overturn repeated attempts by the House of Lords to insert a 'free speech' clause into the Bill which would distinguish between acts of discrimination or victimization, and the mere utterance of disapproval or condemnation.
"The distinction between words and acts is absolutely fundamental to a free society," continued the op-ed. "There is no question that the persecution of minority groups can and should be unlawful: to make it illegal to carry out actions of this kind is the prerogative of a democratic legislature. But to declare the expression of thoughts or feelings illegal is something else altogether."
Daley acknowledged that "there is an area where language and action overlap: we already outlaw speech when it is incitement to violence whether against groups or individuals," but opined that the new law would be unnecessary to protect GLBTs because existing law already protects gays and everyone else from bias-driven violence.
"Unfortunately, the government's proposed law against 'gay hate', is exactly that: it is an attempt to ban hatred itself or, at least, any perceptible manifestation of it," wrote Daley. "In effect, it creates a category of thought crime which is a breach of the fundamental principle of human liberty."
Added Daley, "In a democracy, you should be free to hate anyone or anything you want--providing that you do not act on that hatred."
Among the U.K.'s anti-gay Christians there is a fear that protections specific to GLBTs will inevitably lead to anti-religious persecution. Critics of such protections point to cases in which individuals who expressed anti-gay sentiment based on their assertion of Christianity were questioned by police.
In one incident, a grandmother, the wife of a revered, wrote to local authorities to protest a gay Pride event she had witnessed. 67-year-old Pauline Howe, who lives near Norwich, England, condemned the Pride parade as a "public display of indecency" and "offensive to God," in her letter, going on to make a number of broad claims, including the assertion that same-sex intimacy had "contributed to the downfall of every empire" and "was a major cause of sexually transmitted infections."
In her letter, Ms. Howe declared that, "It is shameful that this small but vociferous lobby should be allowed such a display unwarranted by the minimal number of homosexuals."
Local officials sent a pair of Norwich policemen to investigate, since the letter raised concerns about hate speech. In a letter to Ms. Howe, county official Bridget Buttinger explained that, "The content of your letter has been assessed as potentially being hate related because of the views you expressed towards people of a certain sexual orientation," and advised Mrs. Howe that, "Your details and details of the contents of your letter have been recorded as such and passed to the police."
The visit from two officers came later, and the policemen clarified for Ms. Howe that her choice of wording made her missive appear to be an example of hate speech.
However, Ms. Howe insists that her invective was not hate-based. "The officers told me that my letter was thought to be an intention of hate but I was expressing views as a Christian," she told the media. The Christian Institute saw the visit from local authorities as a possible example of religious freedoms and free expression being trampled.
A similar case in which a married couple in Lancashire professed their Christian beliefs in anti-gay language and were visited by the police resulted in a payout to the couple.
Christian Institute spokesperson Mike Judge told the press, "People must be free to express their beliefs--yes, even unpopular beliefs--to government bodies without fear of a knock at the door from police," and went on to assert that, "It's not a crime to be Christian but it increasingly feels like it."
The Norwich police said that they were simply doing their job in looking into the letter, stating, "We investigate all alleged hate incidents. In this instance the individual concerned was visited by officers, the comments discussed, and no further action was taken."
British GLBT equality advocate organization Stonewall saw the visit from police as having gone too far, given the letter's content. Said Stonewall executive director Ben Summerskill, "Clearly her views are pretty offensive but nevertheless this [response] is disproportionate."
In the United States and elsewhere, similar arguments are made that religious liberties and full legal equality for GLBT citizens are bound to clash. Religious individuals who believe that scripture condemns homosexuality chafe that anti-discrimination protections might mean that they are breaking the law when they speak out against gays. Such possible conflicts between faith and law are seen by some people of faith as further reason to deny GLBT individuals and families full equality before the law.