|
Memorandum submitted by Mr and Mrs W A Lott (CJ&I 169)
Dear Members of The committee
We are writing because of concerns we have re the proposed amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill which would make it a criminal offence to incite hatred on the grounds of sexuality. We believe that all people should have the freedom to live a lifestyle they believe to be right for them. We would also believe individuals should be free to follow their own beliefs and sexual practices without being victimised in any way for this by others. However, we feel that the introduction of this proposed law is ill advised and posses a danger to something this country has been rightly proud of for many years, which is the freedom of speech and religion in this country. We feel this proposed law to be ill advised for several reasons: l
The proposed amendment is actually unnecessary since the current criminal law is perfectly adequate. Alongside this we also have the law concerning incitement to commit, a criminal offence would make it an offence for any person to incite an act of violence against another person, for whatever reason.
If a group of people, because of their faith, find certain lifestyle to be in contradiction of those beliefs than under the proposed amendment they would seemly not be able to share those beliefs with others in case of the reaction it may incur upon that person. Where does this leave freedom of speech and personal responsibility for our reactions?
We wonder if the committee are aware that there are examples in the media where people have been reported to the police, interviewed by police, taken to court and even prosecuted for speaking openly about sexuality? Important positions of authority, have even been lost regarding this issue. An example of this is that of a Christian magistrate, Andrew McClintock who has lost his case to have his freedom of conscience recognised when practising as a Justice of the Peace. The Sheffield Employment Tribunal handed down their judgment on 28th February.
The decision of the court means that Mr McClintock who became a Justice of the Peace in Sheffield in 1988, will not be able to serve on the Family Panel, even though the Tribunal recognised that "he has an unblemished record and is well regarded by fellow magistrates and by the Department of Constitutional Affairs".
Difficulties first arose for Mr McClintock when he considered the implications of same-sex adoption, arising from the Civil Partnerships Act 2002. He became concerned that a tension existed between his Christian beliefs in the Biblical model of the family and his work as a Magistrate sitting on the Family Panel. In March 2004, Mr McClintock raised his difficulties with the Chairman of the Family Panel at Sheffield. Mr McClintock was not asking for a change in the law, rather he was requesting that his religious conscience should be accommodated, and that he should be "screened" from cases which might require him to adopt children in to same-sex households. He also expressed his concern that children could be put at risk by the untried social experiment of same-sex adoption, in which vulnerable children were being used as "guinea pigs".
Other examples the committee may like consider can be found on: http://www.christianconcernforournation.co.uk/Other/other.php in particular cases numbers 2, 10, 11, 12, and 17. In closing we would like to also voice our concern that as a committee you will be hearing from Stonewall, the homosexual rights lobbyist group which is advocating a change in the law but at the time of writing no religious groups have announced to give evidence to the committee. If this is still the case, should a fair representation not be given?
November 2007
|