Should people have a "right" to speak out against gays?

[madape]

Here is a controversial story about an English Bishop who may be prosecuted for basically saying that homosexual relationships are immoral. Now, I know that Brtain doesn't have the same free-speech rights as we do here in America, but I wonder if such a case is soon to be heard in an American courtroom.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bishop's anti-gay comments spark legal investigation
By Richard Alleyne
(Filed: 10/11/2003)

A bishop who angered homosexuals by suggesting they seek a psychiatric cure is to be investigated by police to see if his outspoken views amount to a criminal offence, it emerged yesterday.

The Rt Rev Dr Peter Forster, the Bishop of Chester, infuriated homosexuals both in and out of the Church of England when he said last week that they could and should seek medical help to "reorientate" themselves.

The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (the LGCM) accused him of putting forward an "offensive" and "scandalous" argument from a bygone age.

Cheshire Police have said that they are to investigate his comments, made in the local paper, the Chester Chronicle, after receiving a complaint that his views may incite people to turn against homosexuals.

In a statement released by the force, Assistant Chief Constable Graeme Gerrard said: "We are aware of the article in the Chester Chronicle and have received a complaint.

"We will examine the issues raised in the complaint and will speak to the reporter and the Bishop of Chester before considering any further action." A spokesman for the force added that it would send a copy of the article to the Crown Prosecution Service to see if any offence had been committed.

The bishop, who has in the past attacked the immorality of Britain and the ordination of homosexual bishops, spoke out after spending 18 months helping to write the Church of England report Some Issues in Human Sexuality - A Guide to Debate.

He told the newspaper that his research had led him to believe that homosexuals should seek medical help.

He said: "Some people who are primarily homosexual can reorientate themselves. I would encourage them to consider that as an option, but I would not set myself up as a medical specialist on the subject - that's in the area of psychiatric health."

Yesterday he refused to add to his views, but his spokesman said he would fully co-operate with any police inquiry.

Martin Reynolds, the communication director of the LGCM, welcomed the investigation into what he described as "scandalous" views. "These are irresponsible remarks that could inflame latent homophobia," he said.

"I am sure that the bishop is a very gentle man and his views are sincere. But many people in history who are gentle and sincere have said things that are evil.

"If he wants to say that homosexuality is a sin then he is entitled to his views but to say it is a psychiatric disorder is wrong.

"What is particularly worrying is that this man has spent 18 months researching this issue. We welcome the police investigation."

Mr Reynolds denied that the group had made the complaint but said it could have been one of their members.

It is not the first time that Dr Forster, 53, who is married with four children, has expressed strong views about sexuality.

He is part of the All Souls Day Group which has declared war on what it sees as a tide of liberalism engulfing the Church.

As a response it has called for all Anglican Church leaders to back the 1998 Lambeth conference, which condemned sexual activity outside marriage.

The group also fiercely opposed the appointment of the openly homosexual Gene Robinson as the Bishop of New Hampshire, in America, which took place earlier this month.

Dr Forster was one of nine bishops who signed a letter opposing the appointment of Dr Jeffrey John, a non-practising homosexual, as Bishop of Reading. Dr John later decided not to take up his appointment.

The Public Order Act 1986 covers so called hate crimes, which the Metropolitan Police define as "abusing people because of their race, faith, religion or disability - or because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transsexual".

[MavsFanatik33]

What ever happened to freedom of speech?
Everyody is entitled to their opinion...

[LRB]

I think it would be a travesty to label this a crime unless he was advocating violence or other actions which would be a crime.

[sturm und drang]

Now let's be totally honest here. Not all speech is protected. When it has the potential to inflame hatred or action against a certain group, it becomes akin to a hate crime. Look no further than the KKK and their ongoing legal battles to uphold their right to march, speak out - heck, even to adopt-a-highway - to see that America has issues with speech that incites hatred. Our much-ballyhooed "freedom of speech" certainly doesn't cover everyone or every opinion.

I think the nuance here that no one has mentioned is that the bishop said that homosexuality is a disorder in the area of psychiatric help, and should seek medical treatment to reorient themselves. That's quite different than saying homosexual relationships are immoral.

Until homosexuals are covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this won't be even be an issue here. Right? I'm not a lawyer, but that's my understanding.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: madape
The Public Order Act 1986 covers so called hate crimes, which the Metropolitan Police define as "abusing people because of their race, faith, religion or disability - or because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transsexual".

First, expect this kind of thing in the media here, but never in court. As far as I know, here in the US, you can still have the holy church of all encompassing racist misogyny if you want to.

But this case seems to pivot on the above Public Order Act, and whether or not "suggesting they seek a psychiatric cure" is considered "abusing people". That seems like a stretch to say the least. Of course, if you fine somebody for speaking their religious beliefes, wouldn't that have to be abuse, too?

[LRB]

Of course, if you fine somebody for speaking their religious beliefes, wouldn't that have to be abuse, too?

Simply just through everyone in jail. That way you can be sure to eliminate any chance of abuse. [img]i/expressions/rolleye.gif[/img]

[madape]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Now let's be totally honest here. Not all speech is protected. When it has the potential to inflame hatred or action against a certain group, it becomes akin to a hate crime. Look no further than the KKK and their ongoing legal battles to uphold their right to march, speak out - heck, even to adopt-a-highway - to see that America has issues with speech that incites hatred. Our much-ballyhooed "freedom of speech" certainly doesn't cover everyone or every opinion.

I think the nuance here that no one has mentioned is that the bishop said that homosexuality is a disorder in the area of psychiatric help, and should seek medical treatment to reorient themselves. That's quite different than saying homosexual relationships are immoral.

Until homosexuals are covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this won't be even be an issue here. Right? I'm not a lawyer, but that's my understanding.

Of course, the last time I checked, it was not against the law to be wrong about certain things. The constitution protects us from government organizations limiting what we can or cannot say. That includes saying things that most people think are incorrect. There should be no law to prevent a man from saying that he thinks homosexuality is a disorder - to do so would be to infringe upon his right to free speech. If he were promoting violence against gays, that would be another thing. But he's not. He's just stating his opinion - an opinion central to his moral, political, and ideological values. This is exaclty the type of opinion that the founders of this nation sought to protect when they formed the Bill of Rights. Criminalization of opinions, no matter how unpopular they might be, should not be tolerated. To suggest so is to be a detractor of liberty.

Yes, the KKK should be given a forum to speak. As should muslim extremists, flag burners, black-power advocates, and any other fringe group who wants their voice heard. I'm not a lawyer either, but my understanding of the The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is that it would not apply in this case. It is intended to ensure that all people be treated equally in employement opportunities, voting, housing, etc... It does not stifle free speech, or opinions against a certain religion/ethnicity/gender. As long as no criminal activity is being advocated, there is no crime. Period.

[MavKikiNYC]

IMO, the LGCM would've done better to show some patience (dare I say 'tolerance') and simply speak out in opposition to the bishop's views (which are easily refuted and discredited by the majority of mainstream psychiatric views), rather than over-reacting with a request for criminal prosecution. As sad as it is for a person in the bishop's position to hold and espouse this view, it's difficult to reconcile this as a criminal 'offence', which is why hate crime legistlation is such a thorny issue.

And yet....

What is the appropriate civic response to such an event? One would hope that the members of his faith (heterosexual or homosexual) who hold a principled opposing view would speak out in opposition to the bishop, and would raise the question as to whether his voicing his views in this manner affects his suitability to serve in such a position of responsibility; whether the bishops's views are consonant with those of the church, and if so, whether the church's view is consistent with members' beliefs and values.

The current case is rather extreme, with the circumstances here seemingly favoring the bishop's 'right' to speak his opinion.

But there are similar yet distinct cases in the United States, where the "ministers" themselves seemingly overstep the boundary of clearcut free speech, and come perilously close to absuing their positions, and leaving themselves open to civic reprobation, if not civil litigation.

An example of the former would be when 'Ministers' Falwell and Robertson (who, in my opinion, are nothing more than small-time false-prophet wannabes) attributed the 9/11 attacks to God's displeasure with the climate of permissiveness that had permeated American society (in particular the ALCU, pro-choice proponents, and those tolerant of equal rights for gays). Those two charlatans had to backtrack when they saw their donations (i.e. spiritual 'shakedowns') fall off.

Even worse, would be the psychotic hate-filled rantings of a bigoted anti-christ minion such as Fred Phelps (cf the Mepham, NY sexual assault thread Fred Phelps ), whose followers aggressively spew their views and come close to inciting violence. If I were a jury member in a civil trial, I would be inclined to award $$$$ignificant damages to the family of Matthew Sheppard, for intentional infliction of emotional cruelty by the members of Phelps' organization, who go to great lengths to abuse and defame Sheppard and exploit the tragedy of his murder to support their own bigoted impulses.

But that's just me.

[cin]

This might help explain why the British are overreacting. They are very protective of their royals.

PRINCE AND FAWCETT WEREN'T LOVERS

Nov 9 2003




By Mike Hamilton & Susie Boniface


PRINCE Charles and former aide Michael Fawcett are NOT and NEVER have been lovers, close friends of the heir to the throne insisted last night.

They rallied to his defence amid a welter of wild speculation about his relationship with his loyal former valet.

Rumours and lurid tales swept the internet, and more foreign publications ran allegations about Charles.

His closest allies said the truth was that Charles and Fawcett are extremely close and many people in royal circles found that hard to deal with.

"They don't like the bond between the royal and the servant - particularly when the servant has developed royal mannerisms," said one courtier.

"Just to see them together is a little unnerving at first, simply because Charles is almost deferential in Michael's presence.

"It is almost a role reversal of master and servant. Charles seeks his re-assurance and advice, which considering Fawcett is an ill-educated servant is quite remarkable and unprecedented.

"Camilla uses Michael too. If there is a difference of opinion with Charles, then Michael will act as a go-between to sort it out. A lot of the rumours have started because of this closeness."

Another royal aide said: "Michael has huge zest and energy for life. He has always been intensely loyal to Charles. He is the epitome of efficiency and that has made him grow over the years in Charles's estimation.

"Now he is simply Charles's fixer, confidant and friend. As Diana had Paul Burrell, Charles has Michael Fawcett. But to suggest their relationship might be sexual is absurd.

"It is certainly true they have been extremely close for 20 years and that Charles leant on Michael a great deal. But it never went further than that.

"Neither of them are gay. Michael is married and Charles is obviously with Camilla. Charles is a very sexual man, you only have to see the interaction between him and women - they simply adore him."

Clarence House was poised last night to deal with more scandalous claims about Prince Charles. His Private Secretary, Sir Michael Peat, has already publicly denied an unspecified allegation.

The denial came after Fawcett was granted an injunction against a newspaper to stop it printing details. But, another newspaper then won a High Court appeal allowing it to name Fawcett as the person who brought the court action.

Another senior royal aide said last night: "A lot of the stuff said and written about the two of them like Michael putting toothpaste on Charles's toothbrush has aroused suspicions.

"However, it has provided amusement in royal circles, but that is because everyone knows the idea of them being lovers is simply a non-starter."

Fawcett, from Orpington, Kent, began his royal career as a footman to The Queen in 1981 and rose to become Charles's personal assistant. His job, as Charles's favourite aide, included organising the Prince's social diary and entertaining. But his influence stretched far wider, prompting false stories about him preparing the royal toothbrush. However, the Prince did once say: "I can manage with just about anyone, except for Michael." Royal observers commented that as Fawcett grew closer to the Prince over the years he began aping his master.

The two were constantly pictured side-by-side. And Fawcett was spotted picking up Charles's mannerisms - including holding his hands together behind his back as he spoke - and copying his wardrobe.

When the Prince almost lost his closest aide in 1998 after three staff member complained of his "bullying" both men wept. Fawcett - accused by other servants of "throwing his weight around" - apparently had his job saved by Camilla. A week later he was promoted to the Prince's personal assistant. And Charles struggled to cope when Fawcett was forced to resign earlier this year over the royal gifts-for-sale scandal.

As Sir Michael Peat was preparing his report into Charles's household, the Prince was said by friends to be phoning his servant twice a day. And after his valet - dubbed Fawcett The Fence because he sold unwanted royal gifts - quit his post, the Prince retained him as a freelance organiser.

Fawcett, who was given a £500,000 pay-off, still lives with wife Debbie and their two children in a £450,000 grace-and- favour home in West London. After his aide's resignation, Charles said: "I am enormously grateful to Mr Fawcett for all he has done for me over the years and I wish him well in his new business." The Prince's loyalty to disgraced Fawcett was further shown when the former valet was given a key role in the refurbishment of Clarence House - the former home of the Queen Mother, now used by Charles.

The Sunday Mirror has also learned that Fawcett is still so involved in arranging Charles's life he has an office within the prince's new London home, Clarence House.

Fawcett also has the freedom to come and go at the Queen Mother's former residence, even when Charles is not there.

"The space he's been allocated is not called 'Michael Fawcett's office' but it's there for his use and his use alone, and he's there a lot of the time," said a Palace source. "You can hardly miss him. He's a big man with a big booming voice. You can see him with the phone pressed to his ear and his feet on the desk." Fawcett also recently handled Prince Charles's party to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Queen's Coronation, and organised Prince William's 21st birthday bash at Windsor Castle earlier this year.

In return, Charles has been backing Fawcett's efforts to win a £1million contract in Greece to organise catering for the Athens Olympics next summer.

As controversy raged back home last week, Fawcett was staying at a £4million hideaway in Athens owned by one of Prince Charles's closest friends, Gianna Angelopoulos.

Fawcett has used his close links to the Prince, his former boss, to form a bond with Gianna, the fiery leader of the Games' organising committee which makes sure the city is prepared for the massive sports event next year.

Fawcett, 41, is bidding to provide food for scores of VIPs attending a spectacular opening ceremony.

He is also staging a string of private parties and banquets for Gianna, 47, and her husband Theodore, a shipping tycoon worth £200million.

The well-known Greek couple - often seen at celebrity parties - invited Prince Charles and Camilla to their £4million home in Chelsea, West London, when they lived in the UK three years ago.

But when Gianna was appointed head of ATHOC 2004 - the group responsible for building new stadiums - they moved back to Athens.

The insider revealed: "He has made a formal bid for a contract likely to be worth up to £1million with the catering department of the Olympic Games 2004.

"He's bound to stand a great chance with his distinguished background."

After flying back to London, Fawcett yesterday refused to comment as left the family's grace-and-favour home in Hampton Hill, West London.

The former valet - dressed all in black - said: "My position is the same as it was yesterday. I've got nothing to say."


http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/n...name_page.html

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
As sad as it is for a person in the bishop's position to hold and espouse this view, it's difficult to reconcile this as a criminal 'offence', which is why hate crime legistlation is such a thorny issue.

It's not sad because (and you miss the point that) a church shouldn't follow the whims of the people (or some very political (and commercial) psychiatric association) when defining what is right and wrong.

[edited to remove some longwinded uselessness]

[MavKikiNYC]

Careful, UL. I saw your post pre-edit.

Don't give yourself away with disingenuous rhetorical questions, loaded semantics, and willful distortion.

Perhaps you miss the point that a church IS just as much what its members value and believe as what some out-of-touch, and/or corrupt, and/or bigoted titular head or functionary may parrot in perpetuity, in furtherance of some religious institution's own quasi-commerical interests.

Or hadn't you heard of Protestantism?

The bishop's own ability to marry and create children (without being in violation of his church's values and beliefs) is itself the result of a socio-politico-religio evolution. Ironic that he (and others) misses that point.

[Usually Lurkin]

I would paste it back in if I had copied it. I thought this was simpler.
There is no willful distortion. I still read your post with the same questions.
The heart of the matter as I see it is who defines what church leadership can teach, which leaves these issues conserning your post:
1) Why do you think it "sad" for church leadership to hold such a position?
2) Why is it that in the first case, the church should act to change church leadership?
3) but in the second case, the ministers are bad for changing in response to church members?
4) and in the third case, the minister who does not change, but resonates with his congregation, should be sued?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

Perhaps you miss the point that a church IS just as much what its members value and believe as what some out-of-touch, and/or corrupt, and/or bigoted titular head or functionary may parrot in perpetuity, in furtherance of some religious institution's own quasi-commerical interests.

That can be your church if you want. Are you the church of england?

Or hadn't you heard of Protestantism?

Yes, I am Baptist, and feel that the Bible is my guide. What have you heard of protestantism?

from dictionary.com:
A member of a Western Christian church whose faith and practice are founded on the principles of the Reformation, especially in the acceptance of the Bible as the sole source of revelation, in justification by faith alone, and in the universal priesthood of all the believers.

"Bible as the sole source of revelation" would be the source of disagreement, unless you've got another definition you like better.

[MavKikiNYC]

Falwell and Robertson didn't 'change' their view--they merely (cynically, hypocritically, and self-interestedly) toned down the infliction of said view on an already suffering citizenry.

And no, I didn't suggest that Phelps (or his ilk) be sued (let alone prosecuted) for stating their view on morality. But when words (stating their opinion) become deeds (protesting in Wyoming, New York) in such a way and to such an extent that their ACTIONS represent cruelty and/or result in violence, then I believe they themselves open the question of litigation.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
Falwell and Robertson didn't 'change' their view--they merely (cynically, hypocritically, and self-interestedly) toned down the infliction of said view on an already suffering citizenry.

ok. A misreading of "backtrack". So how do you know they didn't change their views, and do you think it would have been better if they had?

And no, I didn't suggest that Phelps (or his ilk) be sued (let alone prosecuted) for stating their view on morality. But when words (stating their opinion) become deeds (protesting in Wyoming, New York) in such a way and to such an extent that their ACTIONS represent cruelty and/or result in violence, then I believe they themselves open the question of litigation.

ok. A misreading of "I would be inclined to award $$$$ignificant damages . . ." Why so accusatory? There's no "willful distortion".

The bishop's own ability to marry and create children (without being in violation of his church's values and beliefs) is itself the result of a socio-politico-religio evolution. Ironic that he (and others) misses that point.

Did you know that Peter (the first Pope, Peter) had a mother in law? I'm not sure if he had children - point being that the bible doesn't specify that leadership of the church should or shouldn't be married or have children. Social change has enacted different policies in different churches, but that enactment does not make the policies more right or wrong. Rightness or wrongness of a church policy, I am assuming, would be a solid basis for the sadness of a church leader accepting or rejecting that policy.

[madape]

Here's a pretty poignant opinion on the subject from noted gay conservative, Andrew Sullivan:

I guess I don't need to stress my support for gay legal equality. So I hope I won't be misconstrued when I say that the notion that someone can actually be prosecuted for offensive ideas about gays is truly noxious. There's no real free speech in Britain, alas, so this case can happen there. A recent U.S. case that forbade a parent from indoctrinating a child with homophobia also struck me as a hideous precedent. There can and must be legal equality for gay citizens. But there can and must also be space for those who dissent to have their say.

A free society will have space for both fundamentalists and homosexuals. An unfree society is one in which either group suffers from legal, criminal or civil restrictions. Our freedom is their freedom, which is why I'm also against hate crimes laws and attempts to coerce the Boy Scouts into doing the right thing by not discriminating against gays. It's also vital for people of good will to understand that civil rights for gay people in no way should affect the rights of others, especially in religious denominations of all kinds, to loathe, disdain, pity or malign homosexuality. These people couldn't be more wrong, but in a free society, you have the right to be wrong. That goes for religious groups hiring gays as well, in my book. They shouldn't have to. There has to be space for all of us. Now, if only fundamentalists would live up to the same civic principles, this debate would be over.