Anglican Mainstream

By Ann Widdecombe, Daily Express

IT'S said the devil is in the detail and on Monday night the true agenda of the Government’s drive for gay marriage became clear for all to see, for there were three amendments to protect the exercise of conscience, each very moderate in intent and the frontbench guidance was to reject all of them.

In short this Bill is not about liberty and equality but about oppression and state orthodoxy, about Soviet-style persecution in the work place for an opinion given in a private context, about compelling conformity even where conformity is not necessary.

In all 170 Conservative MPs, more than half David Cameron’s party, voted for one or more of these amendments in the course of the evening. One was the so-called Adrian Smith amendment. Adrian Smith, readers may recall, was the official at Trafford Housing Trust who was demoted at work and given a 40 per cent pay cut because he wrote on his private Facebook site that he opposed gay marriage.

The proposed change to the Bill safeguarded the free expression of conscience but ministers opposed it.

They could hardly argue, after the Adrian Smith case, that such protection was unnecessary.

One hundred and twenty seven Conservative MPs, including a Cabinet Minister who had supported the Bill, voted for it in vain.

Read here

From Hansard May 20

I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), and I want particularly to home in on two issues: education and the armed forces. First, on education, I think that there is complete confusion. To a certain extent, the right hon. Member for Tottenham put his finger on the point: those who have a view contrary to his will not be allowed to express it in our schools, without being punished for so doing.

Richard Drax May I confirm that the view stated by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) is, in essence, a direct attack on free speech in this country, which has been held dear for hundreds, nay thousands, of years?

Sir Gerald Howarth With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is attacking free speech, but he is professing a view of which ordinary people out there will take note. That is what is leading to the chilling effect, the intimidation—[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) looking in astonishment; she should talk to some of the staff in this place and find out how intimidated they feel about expressing a view on these matters. Surely Opposition Members have also had the experience of expressing a forthright view when talking to constituents —I am not politically correct, and given my certain age, I tend to express a forthright view—and of being told that we may say such things but that they cannot do so. They tell me in words of one syllable that they fear they will lose their jobs if they articulate the same view as I express.

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab) Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Gerald Howarth No, I will not give way yet.

The House ignores at its peril the chilling effect that already exists out there—although it is now okay for us to discuss immigration, thanks to the Leader of the Opposition, who has recognised that there is huge public concern and has graciously sanctioned our speaking about it in terms that, in previous times, he might have dismissed as being racist.

There are people out there who will be intimidated by this legislation. I have to say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who made the point that, at the end of the day, his assurances, and those of his Front-Bench colleagues, are utterly worthless.

Read here

by J Matt Barber, LifeSite News

Under President Obama, “justice” is anything but blind. Neither is it deaf. In fact, based on recent revelations, it appears to be watching your every move and listening to your every word. Still, if you happen to be a federal employee, now it’s even listening for your silence.

• “DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.” (Italics mine)

By Michael Cook, MercatorNet

Why is the media frothing over criticism of a long-dead homosexual economist?

By Peter Baklinski, LifeSite News

An independent contractor was fired by RE/MAX on Thursday after the media took note of a real estate flyer he had distributed that included an excerpt of an article on the back about how children do best in a household with their married mother and father.

Andrew Ciastek, who immigrated to Canada years ago and speaks with a heavy Polish accent, came under fire after some Mississauga area residents complained to RE/MAX, Peel Regional Police, and the Ontario Human Rights Commission about the flyer he had handed out in April.
 
The realtor has frequently sent market-related flyers to the community, filling the reverse side with interesting trivia. Previous flyers had included information about how trans-fat intake increases the risk of depression, how to choose quality paint, how to maintain an air conditioning unit, and why a home owner should insulate the attic.

But it appears his latest flyer hit a nerve.

“[They’re] trying to destroy an innocent person,” Ciastek told LifeSiteNews.com. “I want to have the same life I was having a week ago, with small pleasures and small troubles. This is what I want. I don’t want nothing more, nothing less.”

“Why am I the most hated person in Ontario today?”

On the backside of the offending flyer, Ciastek had posted an article from a Polish news source, which said: “Traditional family is the best for the future of the kids.”

Read here

From 2-in-2-1

Spring sunshine is beaming through my window as I gaze over our pond to the fields beyond – yet this morning I feel an uneasy chill down my neck…..

New Zealand is a small country – it’s people are (in all that I have met) a friendly welcoming easy-going bunch – that is apart from their Rugby and Cricket teams who of course are fiercely competitive! It’s systems of government, moral frameworks etc look remarkably like our own – even it’s climate seems to be a bit like here only back to front!

And that’s why it is chilling to see what is happening to organisations like Family First. They are a very small, though highly effective, charity that has campaigned tirelessly (and exclusively) on issues like reigning back the over zealous anti-smacking laws, fighting against legalising prostitution, and other moves which in their view, and in the view of the general populous, would undermine the shape and fabric of family life in NZ.

They also opposed the introduction of Gay Marriage – and within days of its approval by parliament Family First was stripped of its charity status.

Their “crime”? – to publish factual information, holding conferences etc which highlight the benefit to society of hetero-sexual marriage. Such activities are deemed to of “no public benefit” and as such they are to be deregistered as a charity.

They have already indicated that being deregistered won’t make them go quiet – it will simply mean that their finances are more stretched.

Read the rest of this entry »

by Philip Johnston, Telegraph

[...]  Wilkes fought for the right to publish an opinion, however outrageous or erroneous it might be, without being told by people in power what to say or prevented from saying what they did not want to hear. Until relatively recently in this country, this was the accepted state of affairs. By and large, people were free to say what they thought, provided they did not incite violence; state regulation of newspapers was considered anathema.

Yet today, neither is true. People have been arrested and sent to prison for making “hateful” statements that were not physically threatening. And Parliament, for the first time in 300 years, wants to force the press to subscribe to a set of regulatory structures set up by the state.

The hate laws introduced in recent years are, in reality, the attempted prohibition of ideas that are considered inappropriate because they do not conform to the views we expect to hear expressed in a civilised society. But as long as there is no attempt or intention to provoke violence, should that be a matter for the criminal law? Some take the view that we need laws to protect minority groups from abuse; but the problem is that such laws can also be used to shut down perfectly legitimate opinion, for instance on the rights and wrongs of gay marriage.

There have been attempts to stop this slide. In January, Theresa May announced that it would no longer be an offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 to insult someone. Yet at the same time, the Home Secretary acknowledged that this would make no difference, because the word “insulting” could safely be removed from the Act without undermining the ability to bring prosecutions.

In other words, this was not a victory for free speech at all, since the various cases that triggered the campaign to repeal this provision (like the arrest of a preacher for saying homosexuality was a sin) would still have gone ahead and will do so in future. The amended statute will allow the police to arrest people on the same basis as before – for expressing views that might be considered offensive, but which in a free country they should be allowed to say. That is why, as I argue in my new report for the think-tank Civitas, the relevant section of the Act should be scrapped in its entirety.

Read here

From The Christian Institute

A free speech reform to the public order law has cleared Parliament and achieved royal assent today.

The word “insulting” has been deleted from Section 5 of the Public Order Act, still leaving police with power to deal with “abusive” and “threatening” conduct.

Supporters of the reform say “insulting” was wide open to misinterpretation, and it had led to many unjust incidents of police interfering in free speech.
 
One protestor had been arrested for calling Scientology a “cult”, someone else had been arrested for saying “woof” to a dog, another for calling a police horse “gay”.

Several Christians had been arrested for peaceful and lawful street preaching, and one Christian couple were put on trial for criticising Islam.

The Government had initially resisted reform of the law, but gave way in January after the Lords voted for it and the Director of Public Prosecutions said he had no objection.

Read here

From Christian Concern

Threats, Coercion, and Bullying at Missouri State

This short documentary covers FIREs case at Missouri State University, where social work student Emily Brooker was threatened with expulsion after she refused (as a matter of personal belief) to send a signed letter to the Missouri state legislature in favor of homosexual foster parenting and adoption. This violation resulted not only in a federal lawsuit (which the school settled) but also in an official report that found that a culture of intimidation rife in the schools School of Social Work. For instance, many students and faculty stated a fear of voicing differing opinions from the instructor or colleague, and bullying was used by both students and faculty to characterize specific faculty. The 12-minute documentary features interviews with Brooker, faculty at MSU involved in the case, and Missouri state legislator Jane Cunningham.

By Shiv Malik,Guardian

Judge says mayor of London did not abuse position by blocking bus advertisement that could have led to homophobic attacks

By David Green, Civitas

In the great struggle now taking place over press freedom, the choice is not between self-regulation and political regulation. It is between regulation open to manipulation by ruling politicians; and regulation that is independent of both the newspaper industry and the political class.

The royal-charter solution to press regulation might have been workable, but the calibre of the political class today is such that it is best not to add in any way to the temptations it faces. Ruling parties want to keep power and, in pursuit of their goal, have shown themselves willing to fiddle all manner of public information, including the crime statistics, school exam results, and NHS death rates. Without a free press, we would never have found out. Under the proposed regime, any excuse to suppress valid press criticism will be seized on.

Read here

Read also:  Announcing OfBlog – the mother of all quangos from Cranmer

Backlash grows over press curbs: Cracks start to show after just one day as newspapers refuse to sign up by James Chapman, Mailonline

By David Landrum, EA

Why is it that, the more freedoms we are given, the more laws we seem to need? The Leveson Inquiry and the accompanying public debate has not got to the root of this core problem: you won't improve ethics if you ignore morality. Recommendations on the future of press regulation are evidently needed and the focus of much attention, after all, the press is interested in what concerns their future.

But it is vitally important to step back from the frenzy surrounding the media scandals, corruption, inquiry and now the report and ask more foundational questions about the place of ethics in our media. This crisis echoes a broader crisis of public leadership across all of society, whether it's politics, banking, finance, even our education system. Albert Camus once observed that: "A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world." There is a lot of talk about ethics in public life, but little acknowledgement that ethics flow from a moral framework. If we don't accept the indispensability of morality, no number of new laws and regulators will make men and women good.

The Leveson Inquiry has exposed how truth and transparency are vital for a healthy society – and how our media has shown a frequent disregard for its value. Too often we seem to be trying to cultivate public ethics in a vacuum: how can we expect honesty without a high regard for truth? It's (literally) impossible to have honesty in the media without having truth as an objective for reporting. With media outlets competing for power and profits, each one seeks to present its own worldview at the expense of the other. Fuelled by a pervasive myth of secular neutrality, the outcome is a subtle but apparent manipulation of facts and reality to suit a particular agenda – all of which has the effect of reducing public trust.

Read here

By Julian Mann, Heresy Corner

A broadcaster on the BBC, which is regulated by statute, abuses a Conservative cabinet minister on a comedy show in disgusting terms and gets away with it. But how would a traditionalist Christian who in a press article criticised abortion, sex outside heterosexual marriage, the use of cannabis or religions that deny the Trinity – without resorting to personal abuse – fare under a regulated press regime?

One suspects that he or she would have a much harder time than the leftist comedienne who abused Michael Gove.

The way in which any new UK press law would be enforced would inevitably reflect the values of the 'progressive' metropolitan elite in the political, media and legal establishment. That establishment intensely hates the so-called 'right-wing' press, which continues to provides a platform for the articulation of traditional Judaeo-Christian values.

Surely such hatred does not give much ground for optimism that freedom of Judaeo-Christian speech will flourish if the press becomes regulated by law. Even if the statutory regulator were to come down on the side of freedom of speech in a particular case, editors could become overly cautious about publishing views that offend against political correctness. The threat of legalised censorship could lead to unnecessary self-censorship.

Read here

Read also:  The press has been the last bastion of freedom — until now by Melanie Phillips, Mailonline

By Peter Baklinski, LifeSite News

Read here

From EFC

This morning, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released a unanimous decision in the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. William Whatcott case, which challenged the right to expression of religious comment, however controversial and unpopular, in public policy dialogue.
 
[...] “To clarify the objective understanding of hate speech, the court struck out terms used in the hate speech provision in the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code (Code) that concerned something more akin to hurt feelings. The standard is clearer, from the legal perspective, that speech may only be deemed hateful when assessed to be so objectively from the perspective of a reasonable person, with full consideration of the circumstances, and when the expression is likely to expose a person to detestation and vilification on the basis of prohibited grounds of discrimination that are attributable to an identifiable group in the speech at issue. The test essentially begins to boil down to publicly stating that a whole group of people should be marginalized from participating as members of Canadian society.”

Read here

Read also:  Supreme Court muzzles free speech in Canada, rules against Catholic pro-family activist by Peter Baklinski, LifeSite News

Canada’s top court has released an unanimous decision today that critics say has struck a monumental blow against freedom of speech, opinion, and religion across the country. The court ordered the defendant, a Catholic pro-family activist with a reputation for intense activism, not only to pay a fine, but also to pay court costs which could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“It’s a bad day,” said Bill Whatcott to LifeSiteNews.com in an interview. “The ruling and the reasoning [behind it] is terrible. They actually used the concept that truth is not a defense.”

Read here

By Cristina Odone, Telegraph

By Rod Dreher, The American Conservative

• Sherif Girgis, Yale University
• Professor Lynn Wardle, Brigham Young Law
• Professor W. Bradford Wilcox, University of Virginia
• Professor Paul Kerry, Brigham Young Law
• Dr. Robert Lerman, Urban Institute
• Dawn Eden, Author

The lectures were thoughtful and incisive—so much so that I quickly discarded my original plan of staying for a few sessions before returning to work. The speakers, to a T, were academics who based their arguments and presentations on facts and reason, not on bigotry or prejudice. Only one speaker, author Dawn Eden, made an argument based on religious grounds, and her lecture, “Everything is Tolerated and Nothing is Forgiven,” was about chastity and dealing with the excesses of permissiveness, not about the LGBT community. Only three speakers broached the issue of same-sex relationships, and only two of those three explicitly passed judgment on these relationships.

 

Even then, the arguments were made on strictly rational grounds. Lynn Wardle outlined the case for traditional marriage on the notion that the family was the original, fundamental building block of society as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Disagree as I may, this was not the rambling of a bigot. This was a reasoned, principled argument based on a fundamental respect for the LGBT community coupled with a specific interpretation of American history.

 

As I listened to the issues—both agreeing and disagreeing at times—I felt a particular sense of excitement, picking up viewpoints I have seldom heard since coming to Columbia.

By Patrick Daly, Plymouth Herald

CHRISTIANS could be forced out of job roles in the future because of their beliefs, said a former Conservative minister during a speech in Plymouth.

Politician, novelist and Strictly Come Dancing star Ann Widdecombe told an audience  of around 100 people at Plymouth University that she fears for religious freedom in the UK and that Christians are increasingly being marginalised for holding to their faith.

The Roman Catholic convert said: "If you are a Christian then I believe that in the future there will be things that you just will not be able to do.

"It will be nearly impossible to be a registrar as a Christian due to the new gay marriage legislation. And a Christian won't be able to be a teacher in a secular school if they refuse to promote gay marriage and nor can they work as a gynaecologist if they disagree with abortion."

And Ms Widdecombe believes that there could be severe consequences for those believers who hold firm to their faith convictions.

"I think it could be quite possible that at some stage in the future someone in Britain will be imprisoned for preferring Church dogma to the way of the state."

The 65-year-old said she that she was opposed to the attempt to pass gay marriage into law but knew that some Conservative MPs had voted for the legislation in the Commons despite being personally against it.

Read here