How long can it be before the government want to start changing the Bible and Christians have to meet in secret?

I cannot agree more strongly. It is essential that people stand up and be counted against the thoughtless, conformist consensus of so much of the commentariat and cowardly politicians, who must surely be able to see where state intolerance is leading us.

This government seems oblivious to the parallels to last century's totalitarian nightmares. The knee-jerk actions of David Blunkett, the mindless mouthing of PC rhetoric, and the actions of crawlingly sycophantic 'public servants' are seriously undermining the essential values of our society.

We do not become more liberal and tolerant by proscribing legal organisations, nor by subjecting whole areas of proper public debate to a primitive taboo culture. It would be a denial of the church's role if bishops did not start to speak out . 'Racism', 'homophobia' and other strictures from the PC canon are slogans (and increasingly threatening accusations with potentially dire legal consequences), not badges of enlightenment or answers to age-old phenomena. If a free press is to deserve the title it must take a much sharper intellectual knife to the strident harpies who are flourishing as our emasculated democracy decays.

Too many of the present generation seem to be more at home with the gossiping, tale-telling, hole-in-corner conspiratorial culture reminiscent of a Machiavelleian court than the demands of the world's second most important democracy. Perhaps they reflect only too well Tony Blair's 'New Britain'. Why can't more people see what a threat as well as a disaster this shallow demogogue is, malleable as he is by groups with truly vicious agendas?

I agree wholeheartedly. The next time my boyfriend and I are threatened on a train in the middle of London with a knife for sitting next to each other and being "queer" I won't report it to the police as a homophobic crime.

For, of course, these people aren't homophobic. Homophobia is only a slogan.

Why not report it as assault? It's certainly possible (my case) to think homosexual behaviour is disgusting but also believe threatening someone with a knife is unlawful and wrong.

This story is frightening. However much others might disagree with him, how the blazes could the Bishop's words possibly be construed as criminal - literally criminal, not in some metaphorical sense - in a country that persists in calling itself a free and tolerant democracy? How can they constitute an incitement to violence in any meaningful sense of the phrase? Indeed, the police don't seem to know either and yet, bizarrely, they've written to the CPS - just to make sure. An oddly scrupulous approach, surely, given the shortage of police man-hours which has contributed to our culture of "tolerance" towards the genuinely criminal.

Modern "liberalism" is, as Melanie says, profoundly intolerant. Its apostles actually tolerate precisely nothing, for to tolerate something you must actually disagree or disapprove of it in the first place. Otherwise one is not tolerant, but at worst indifferent and at best actually enthusiastic. For these moral revisionists to claim they are "tolerant" towards homosexuality is as self-servingly false as my claiming to "tolerate" chocolate ice-cream.

The only thing towards which they could still show tolerance are expressions of disagreement with their own radical moral relativism. And yet when they have the opportunity - as confronted with the Bishop of Chester's remarks, for example - they show their true colours in their readiness to use any possible lever, including the force of the state, to put a stop to it - and scruples about free-speech and liberalism will not get in their way.

If ever there was an incident which shows the ghastly logical conclusion to which "political correctness" - that often-used phrase - tends, this is surely it. No one, I don't think, is accusing the Bishop of deliberately or directly inciting violence towards gays; he also clearly distinguishes the sin from the sinner, and is decently dismissive of his own fitness to comment on matters of "psychiatric health". The potential charge made against him is that his remarks will have that effect nonetheless. But if the Bishop's words, assuming in any case that they're wrong, are deemed as inciting violence on these grounds, then the same could be said of ANY opinion with which we disagree - error is always "dangerous" by it's very nature. It's hard to see if there are any more principled "lines in the sand" for free-speech left.

There is no difference of principle, only of degree, between criminalising the Bishop's remarks and criminalising, say: objections to the EU constitution (fermenting hatred, intended or otherwise, toward the peoples of Europe perhaps?), or opposing abortion (offensive to some women, and inciteful of violence against abortion's practitioners?). How about arguing for an interest rate hike (offensive to mortgage-holders, and likely to provoke violence against lenders?). These may sound like absurd examples, but then so would the notion that suggesting homosexuality is "curable" ought to be a criminal offence as recently as five or ten years ago.

This can't be the England our grandparents fought and died for - those men and women whom we'll remember tomorrow morning, and for whose sacrifices in the name of freedom we give thanks. For freedom itself depends on our willingness to agree to disagree, to win our argument (or not) by debate and the democratic process rather than by the forcible suppression of dissent - which is what the attempt to criminalise the Bishop amounts to. That is what "tolerance" is about.

Believe me, Britain is way behind the US in succumbing to the "victim" culture. Here, "victims" are more likely to use the lawsuit rather than the police to enforce their victimization, but it's the same thing. Fat people sue McDonald's for "forcing" them to eat three Big Macs a day and lung cancer patients sue tobacco companies for "forcing" them to smoke three packs a day. Next we will probably see lawsuits against Macy's (a big dept. store chain) for "forcing" people to become addicted to consumerism. A few years ago actor Michael Douglas went on TV to tell everybody about his victimization as a "sex addict." I can only shudder to think what kind of message our children are receiving from this growing refusal to acknowledge any kind of personal responsibility for anything, anywhere.

Simon,

You ask how can the bishop's words constitute an incitement to violence. The answer is: they don't have to. The bishop - and all of us along with him - will be that little bit more disposed not to speak our truths in future.

Political correctness is a cultural marxist strategy. As is widely known, it first came into being in the Soviet Union of the early 1920's where it was termed politcheskaya pravil'nost. Its function today is, I think, slightly different from then and serves a Gramscian revolutionary analysis. That function is to delegitimise the culture of the dominant social group. In our society that means white heterosexuals, most specifically males.

If this is all old hat I apologise for saying the obvious. If not, there are two good analyses by Sean Gabb at www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/index.htm
These are issue numbers 113 & 114.

if you cant hunt foxes or withces you have to hunt something - we all have to hate something for goodness sake - let's pick on the bishop - why not ?

That the Catholic church don't think in medical terms when it comes to Aids in Africa. Perhaps if they didn't tell people that condoms cause Aids there would be far less deaths as a result.

And they wonder why people are falling away from the Church. Anyone who lets their life be ruled by a hypothesis to that extent is clearly insane, and this mans comments prove it. His judgement is clouded by his religious mania. Most normal people couldn't give two hoots about someone else's sexual orientation. Why is this bloke making such an issue of it?

But he shouldnt be prosecuted. Are they bigoted? Yes. The usual drivel we've come to expect for the Church? Yes. but incitement to hatred no. The police have enough they should be getting on with, like arresting criminals.

We may not care two hoots which way X swings, but why are there so many Xs now? It might be of course that all the repressed and suppressed are finally emerging into the light of day. A more likely theory is that many of those declaring themselves 'gay' are simply responding to the feminisation of our society which is correspondingly prejudiced against the male. In which case psychiatric counselling might well be appropriate and the bishop is doing them - and all of us - a much needed service.

Hey chums, why not ease up a tad? Just turn the victim table arse over tit, (oh gawd thats me nicked), and have Deputy Big Cheese Plod nicked for wasting police time.
Just Blog the Plod

Should he be reported for incitement to hatred (or whatever he is being investigated for)?

No. Should he be condemned for talking absolute idiotic bollards? Definitely.

Message for the Bishop: please do not encourage any more homosexual men to burden the NHS for counselling sessions. It is already under the heavy burden of problems arising from homosexual behaviour such as AIDS, hepatitis C and many other exotic diseases resulting from penises being thrust into faecal exhaust systems.
Whether buggery is immoral or not is really not the point. It’s very unhygienic. There is also the problem of constant requests for the removal of three-piece suites and replacement with vinyl vaginas. Moreover, all the proctologists have a waiting list of many young men with torn anuses who were persuaded that buggery is a natural way of expressing affection. It’s not on Bishop! (as the actress once said to you).

Homosexuality is a choice, a behaviour and can be changed.
www.narth.org
Why does a behaviour that serves no purpose accept personal gratification and only 1% of people choose needs protection?

The real violence is that people would even think that the bishop should have no opinion.

Mike NZ

Mike:

"Why does a behaviour that serves no purpose accept personal gratification and only 1% of people choose needs protection?"

Er - because we live in a modern liberal democracy, and people should be able to make their own choices on how to live their lives? What if I wanted to persecute you for posting comments on blogs - something that less that 1% of people do and that serves no purpose except personal gratification?

Not that I'm saying that the priest should be arrested. Let them talk rubbish and fade away into obscure ranting, I say.

Everything the bishop said is perfectly reasonable. Psychiatrists and psychologists as a matter of course attempted to treat homosexuality until the 1970s, and there are some who still do. The poster who mentioned http://www.narth.org cited a website run by licenced American psychiatrists, some of whom have been in practice since the 1950s providing services to homosexuals who want to change. There is nothing outlandish about this. People leave the homosexual lifestyle all the time. Most people who have come into social contact with gays or lesbians will have observed that for many people, homosexuality is a phase. The "lesbian until graduation" phenomenon at American universities is a cliche precisely because it has been so often observed.

Ooops ... that should be http://www.narth.com. Mea culpa.

As for Narth and the opinion that homosexuality is a 'choice. That is complete and utter bollards. Homosexuality is common amongst most parts of the animal kingsom, humans included. It is pefectly natural. The idea that it is a 'choice' is down there in the dregs of untruthness along with creationism, flat-earthy and holocaust denial.

Only 31% of the Psychiatrists in APA who voted homosexuality out of the mental disease book in the 70's actually voted.
one of the artchitects of that movement, now treats homeosexuals who want to go straight,to do so having come round full circle from the genetic viewpoint based on evidence and experience.

go to www.narth.org and look for yourself.
as for liberal democracy, you might be able to spell it, but you don't know what it means, because the west definately isn't democratic.
ask any Jew or Christian living in the secular west.

you might try white male, over 30, divorced too while you're at it.

you also might take a look at www.drjudithreisman.com another professional who's article on the QV should be required reading for anyone who wants to debate worldviews.
One's personal and cultural Language is very revealing about the values and worldview of the individual and sub-culture.

making your own choice is all and well but when you force it down everyone else's throat as normal and acceptable and then go and get legal protection for a behaviour. That's not democracy.
least of all for only 1-3% of the population.
by that count homosexuality is deviant from the norm mathmatically.
every study so far that has claimed homosexuality is genetic was flawed.
don't trust me go to www.narth.org

Mike NZ

I agree with Ms. Phillips, but only partly. It's true that an immediate resort to "victim culture" could engender a heavy-handed dogmatism and witch hunt from the left. But one should not overlook cases in which bias does play a role. After all, an attack that reflects persistent or growing bigotry does have a different significance from that of a simple mugging.

A growth in bias attacks against a particular group can be a useful barometer measuring the persistance of prejudice. Oftentimes, minority groups will overinterpret incidents, attributing prejudice where it doesn't exist. But just as often, I think, others will underestimate the prejudice that some groups face.

In an odd sort of way, Ms. Phillips' argument reminds me of statements by Chirac and other French politicians to the effect that the increasing attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions in France are due to hooliganism, not to a rise in anti-Semitism. Certainly, Ms. Phillips wouldn't agree with them.

This talk of homosexuality representing only 1-3% of the population is a red herring.

Firstly, whose population? The UK's? London's? New Zealand's? If statistics are going to be bandied about to cloud the issues please at least use them accurately.

Secondly, the proportion of the population who are gay is irrelevant to the issue of whether they deserve legal protection; in precisely the same way that the proportion of the population who are from ethnic minorities is of no relevance as to the benefits or not of a law of incitement to racial hatred.

By all means, one is entitled to hold the view that homosexuality is wrong and, indeed, that it should be a criminal offence. Lawmakers in the UK would, however, disagree with these deeply held views.

They would disagree firstly because it is believed that no-one chooses to be gay (in the same way that no-one chooses to be Asian, Afro-Carribean, etc): it is something that one is born with (and I can testify to that).

Secondly, and fortunately, most people nowadays believe that a person's sexual orientation is of no relevance to their worth within society and the role they can play in shaping it.

Once these tenets are accepted by the majority of people there should be no discrimination allowed on the basis of sexual orientation, in the same way that judgements on the basis of race or religion are held to be wholly unacceptable within a civilised society. A person's sexual orientation should not be used as a ground for discrimination.

By the same token, it should not be a basis for physical violence. As Joanne sensibly pointed out, an attack reflecting bigotry is more serious than an attack for simple pecuniary gain. Racist attacks are dealt with more seriously than other attacks; as should homophobic attacks.

The development of society's views on homosexuality may be pictured thus:

acceptance->irrelevance->abhorrence of discrimination->detestation of homophobic attacks

PS: Those in this forum may be interested to note that at present there is no specific offence of incitement to homophobic hatred or incitement to commit violence against homosexuals. Under the law as it presently stands, the bishop may be investigated only to discover if he is guilty of incitement to commit violence against persons in general. This curious lacuna in the law is currently under review.

PPS:

> "Why not report it as assault? It's certainly possible (my case) to think homosexual behaviour is disgusting but also believe threatening someone with a knife is unlawful and wrong."

Theodopoulos Pherecydes

When my boyfriend and I were attacked it was reported to the police as threats to kill. I was duly asked what the attackers had said. When I advised them that we had been called, "F*!%ing queers and f*!%ing fa%&!ts" it was then that the police may have guessed there was a homophobic bent to the crimes. Neither my boyfriend nor I stated this explicitly ourselves.

"The development of society's views on homosexuality may be pictured thus: acceptance ->irrelevance-> abhorrence of discrimination -> detestation of homophobic attacks."

Actually, that development could be described in a different order:

1. Detestation of homophobic attacks: "I don't like homosexuality but I don't believe in violence against gays, because I don't believe in violence against anyone."

2. Abhorrence of discrimination: "Gays are a visible minority in this society. As a matter of principle, I oppose discrimination against them."

3. Acceptance: "I now feel comfortable around gay people and feel that they should be treated exactly like everyone else."

4. Irrelevance: "If someone told me that he was gay, it would mean no more to me than if he had said he was Dutch or a Methodist."

How long before the writings of St. Paul are banned in Britain in order to ensure that nobody's feelings get hurt?

What would be most interesting is to know how many people are opposed to the bishop's treatment:

(1) because they think that he wasn't inciting violence

and (2) because they agree with what he said.

It's not clear how many people think this was just a silly arrest and how many think homosexuals do need "cured".

I personally subscribe to view (1).

The issue that no one discusses is why there are so many people these days who declare themselves as 'gay'. I don't believe for a moment that it is inevitable that they are so. Most people, regardless of sex, have both masculine and feminine qualities, and the degree to which they play up these qualities depends upon their environment and circumstances. I have no doubt at all that the (over) feminisation of our society has led to a surge in 'gayness'. This should be viewed as pathological response to our distorted society, not as a 'human rights' issue.

Curious...where to start in answering your questions!!!..(your handle is more apt than you perhaps imagine):

- there have always been homosexuals;
- it is impossible to quantify the exact number and percentage in any given society at any given time;
- under times of greater repression in western societies, homosexuals tended to hide their true natures much more than is generally the case nowadays (it was de-criminalised in 1967 in the UK);
- this de-criminalisation and a subsequently more tolerant society has made it easier for gay people to lead their lives more openly than in the past;
- this tendency has nothing to do with the so-called 'feminising'tendency of modern society (whatever that phrase means...is it something to do with more men embracing eachother these days...or less huntin', shootin' and fishin'...?? :-)

Just imagine, if you can, the constantly reinforced images of heterosexuality to which children are subject from their earliest years and ask yourself - how can it be that someone emerges gay from this socialisation process? the logical answer has to be that it is 'nature' more than 'nurture' that determines sexuality...by the way.
Finally, most attempts to purge homosexuals of their homosexuality (and in Britain it was commonplace until the 1960s for electric shock treatment to be used on homosexuals who had been sectioned in mental hospitals) fail. More recently, the EXODUS movement in the USA which offers 'conversion' for homosexuals who wish to become heterosexuals has lost one of its leading preachers who 'reverted' and absconded with another preacher who also 'reverted'. In fact many of EXODUS's converts have reverted to their homosexual behaviour.
This tells you something about how strong and intrinsic to his sexual being a homosexual's homosexuality is.

Free speech that is offensive to no one doesn’t need protection. It’s the offensive kind that does, and that will be the true measure of liberties. It’s time to wonder if by this circuitous route England hasn’t ended up on the Nazi track in the thirties, when prosecution Church clergy and theologians began. Only the quiet and the compliant survived.

The homo lobby invariably claims it’s absurd to assume homosexuality is a “choice”. They say it can’t possibly be because: Look at the consequences!!! Ostracism!!! Alienation from your family!!! AIDS ! Hepatitis! Ripped rectums!!! So it must be “inborn”, never mind that no biological proof for the proposition has ever been found. And I do wonder why someone hasn’t pointed out the contradiction between this argument and the Queens’ assertion that homosexuality is “natural and healthy”. No doubt, society’s benign view of homosexuality is the cause of its constant winking at this grand inconsistency. Sure is great to have it both ways.

Researchers have found consistent correlations between homosexual behavior and other rebellious, anti-social and criminal traits. Besides, it’s absurd to start from the premise that people will not engage in dangerous behavior if they are only told the consequences. Every day thousands of teenagers start smoking, never mind the numbing anti-smoking campaigns that have gone on since before they were born. Same with drinking, not wearing your seatbelt….