|
Further Memorandum submitted by David Skinner (CJ&I 380)
1. FREEDOM OR COMPULSION I wish to add further comments to what I have previously made concerning the inclusion of homophobic hatred in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. Indeed this a sensitive matter and the Lord Chancellor has said that Parliament "must be extremely careful to ensure that the law strikes a proper balance." To me it all depends on what the aim of that balance is. If it is to bring about a just and righteous society based upon Biblical principles that have underpinned our civilisation for the last two thousand years then that is one thing but if that balance is in the furtherance of evolutionary humanists ideology where there are no fixed absolutes concerning truth, morality and existence, then that is quite another. Where morality and acceptable behaviour forever fluctuate according to public consensus, then law and order, simply to maintain that fine" balance " of competing rights and to keep society running on the tracks, has to be enforced by increasing amounts of oppressive legislation - which is exactly what is happening now. By contrast, the best societies are those where its citizens exercise self-control without the need for exterior threats and coercion. It is where a government has given the highest respect and support for the family, knowing that this is where basic morality is internalised by its children. I and many others would argue that it was only the Judeo-Christian model of heterosexual, monogamous and enduring family that is best fit for the purpose of giving children a sense of identity, belonging, responsibility, value, security, stability, solidarity and unity This results in a society that sacrificially puts the needs of others in front of its own. The rational basis for all this is reinforced by only ten bits of legislation called the Ten Commandments. May I remind you respectfully that nominally at least, Christians make up the largest of the world's religious/ ideological groupings, ie. 33%. By contrast, the evolutionary humanist government of Britain is drafting more and more pieces of legislation of which the man in street is completely ignorant. Many have never heard of the Sexual Orientation Regulations and of those who have, only a tiny number would even be able to quote chapter and verse. This combination of ignorance and fear of heading towards the only intelligible part of the Regulations i.e. a prison sentence of seven years, will have the effect of paralysing all freedom of thought and expression. Naturally this will have an adverse effect on education which is dependent on open dialogue. If Ben Summerskill truly believes, as the humanist does, in the essential goodness of human nature why does he require the iron fist of oppression to enforce his opinions on the British people?
2. THE OPPRESSION OF ONE IDEOLOGY OVER ANOTHER. Ben Summerskill has managed to circumvent proper debate by convincing many that race and homosexuality are the same, when in fact I can neither change the DNA of my race or gender, but I am free, God forbid, with a bit of conditioning, to change my sexual preference. Simultaneously he has managed to disguise the fact that the statements below (made by the Joint Council of Human Rights and of which he is one of the commissioners) are established by an ideology that, though claiming to be objectively and self evidently true, is as much an article of faith as that of the Christian. Giving his own evolutionary humanist ideology the officious title, "the Regulations" gives it the illusion and weight of authority, whereas that of Christians is dismissed as mere "religion" .i.e. myth. The so -called Sexual Orientation Regulations are not universally accepted truths but creedal statements. Paragraphs 44, 65 and 67 begin with " In our view..." Why should the view of these un elected commissioners, who are not exactly household names, assume an authority that overrides all others? CREED OF THE JCHR ."In our view, the prohibitions on discrimination in the Regulations limit the manifestations of religious beliefs and limitation is justifiable in a democratic society for the protection of the right of gay people not to be discriminated against" (paragraph 44). "Where the manifestation of a belief conflicts with the right of gay people not to be discriminated against in their access to services as important as adoption services, it is in our view necessary and justifiable to limit the right to manifest the belief" (paragraph 52 ."During the passage of the Equality Act, the House of Lords removed harassment on the grounds of religion or belief from the Bill [...] In our view, however, different considerations apply in relation to sexual orientation, race and sex, because these are inherent characteristics. We therefore welcome the inclusion of harassment [...] within the Northern Ireland Regulations and we recommend that it also be included in the forthcoming Regulations for the rest of Great Britain" (paragraph 56).
"In our view the Regulations should clearly apply to the curriculum, so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching, as part of their religious education or other curriculum, that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong", and "We welcome the Government's acceptance that [the Regulations] should apply to all schools [...] without any exemption for particular types of school such as faith schools" (paragraphs 65 and 67). "In our view there is an important difference between this factual information [about sexual morality] being imparted in a descriptive way as part of a wide-ranging syllabus about different religions, and a curriculum which teaches a particular religion's doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true. The latter is likely to lead to unjustifiable discrimination" (paragraph 67).
The last paragraph (67) is an attempt to hide the fact that Mr Summerskill's own doctrinal beliefs, that must have been informed by some philosophical view- perhaps based on the thoughts of Darwin, Nietzsche, Huxley, Russell and Marx etc. are taught as if they were objectively true and do indeed inform every aspect of sexual morality being imparted in a descriptive way , especially in the glossy, colourful little books that the Family Planning Association still continue to flood into our schools, with catastrophic consequences for the sexual health of our children. The attempt to hide the fact that the philosophical presuppositions of evolutionary humanism, of which the SORs are the Trojan horse, are also statements of personal belief is a blatant attempt to discriminate against Christian presuppositions. In other words Four legs are good ; two legs are bad. 3. INDIVIDUALISTIC AND SELF - SEEKING OF THE HOMOSEXUAL LOBBY THAT RESULTS IN THE DESTRUCTION OF FAMILIES , COMMUNITIES ,SOCIETY, EDUCATION, HEALTH AND THE ECONOMY Lady Hale (who ,for many years, was the key person driving the Law Commission's anti-marriage agenda ) said back in 1980: "'Logically, we have already reached a point at which we should be considering whether the legal institution of marriage continues to serve any useful purpose." The Sexual Orientation Regulations were drafted in the Womens' Equality Unit, a department of the then Trade and Industry of which Meg Munn was the head. Angela Mason, a lesbian and ex -anarchist, who had been head of Stonewall was employed in that Unit and must have had quite an impute into their wording. Is it pure co- incidence that The European Union commissioner for Trade and Industry Peter Mandelson, is a homosexual gentleman who I believe is on his second sexual partnership?. My personal opinion is that this legislation has not descended from heaven but is the brain child of personalities who have only their own interests at heart. The gay lobby are a single- issue and self -promoting minority whose only interest in marriage and family is to possess such a "trophy" and thereby- after it begins to morph into all sorts of shapes and sizes, to destroy it altogether. 4. WHO IS DOING ALL THE VIOLENCE, ABUSE AND THREATENING? Up till now , as with the Religious Hatred Bill , the Homosexual Bill is being pushed by groups that are doing all the threats, abuse and violence. It was factions of the Muslim community who had been attempting to bring a reign of terror into Britain who were the ones pushing for the Religious Hatred Bill. Likewise it is militant factions of the gay community who over the last few years have been threatening the Christian with physical violence, verbal abuse and an abuse of the legal system, starting with Harry Hammond. If either the Muslims or Homosexuals do come under attack it is invariably from outfits like the BNP. However, what militant and fundamentalist of both parties fear is not the BNP because their attacks only reinforce the claim that they are victimised minorities( which is obviously to their advantage), but the Christians who are more than capable of exposing their life-styles for what they are and so they divert the blame of such attacks onto the Christians. The advert in the Independent last year entitled "In the Name of the Father" was just such a case. To take the words of Will Durant, The journey that our civilisation took "from barbarism to civilisation required centuries but the journey from civilisation to barbarism needs but a day." . "Tony Blair has given us 20 months to adapt 2,000 years of Christian
teaching. It's unacceptable." "We felt six or twelve months would be a reasonable period for agencies to
retrain their( adoption) staff but if it takes eighteen months to reverse a
thousand years of prejudice, we can probably live with that." October 2007
|