With the news that the government have conceded defeat over the amendment proposed by Conservative Lord Waddington, which claims that inciting hatred towards homosexuals is part of ‘free speech’,
the need for the House of Lords to be reformed has never been so great. Comedians worried about criminal prosecution also stirred up moral panics, as the government clearly stated that:
“The offence only covers words or behaviour that are threatening and intended to stir up hatred.”
We all know when a comedian is joking, and when someone is actually threatening violence. This homophobic, heteronormative attitude is symbolic of the backwards unrepresentative nature of the House of Lords. It shows the desperate need for a reform of the House of Lords. The House of Lords needs to become elected, as are the MPs. Why is it that those who are elected by the public, largely oppose the amendment, but it is those dinosaurs in the upper house that have the final say? Most of them are upper class, white, heterosexual males – hardly a representative sample. Interestingly, Lord Bach resonates with these concerns, as he seems to acknowledge the illegitimacy the House of Lords have when deciding important policy issues:
“There must come a point where this House, with all its great virtues, gives way to the House that has been elected by the people of this country.”
How true. The amendment conflicts with two central discourses that inform central values of our party. Firstly, our strong belief in equality is important here. Our “homophobia is gay” campaign helped show that we rightfully believe that whether you are a lesbian, gay man, straight, transsexual etc. everyone is equal. Secondly, civil liberty issues are very central to these discussions. We must state clearly that discriminating someone in a hateful way, because of the person they fall in love for, is not a ‘freedom of speech’. Freedom of speech is a contestable concept, however. I for example, defended the right for Geert Wilders to have been allowed back into our country. The difference here, is that the way he approached the matter was no different to how the BNP approach matters on a daily basis (in public). If he had been wanting to come to the country to do what the BNP do in private, which is to actively beat up and discriminate on the grounds of race and ethnicity, then it would have been a different situation. The same can be said for homosexuals. If someone has an opinion that homosexuality is wrong, whilst I profoundly disagree with them and would like them to read some books on Ancient Greece, they are still rightly able to hold that view. The difference is in the provision of protection against the action that may be taken to promote these views. If someone actively threatens someone with death threats for being gay for example, then this is something that should not be defended on the grounds of ‘free speech”.
The Conservatives may say that this is not what they meant by the amendment, however, if you look at what the amendment was replacing, the right to “only cover words or behaviour that are threatening and intended to stir up hatred“, then it seems like they are supporting this type of action with their screwed up view of civil liberty.
With homophobic violence still ever growing, the amendment is a worrying development for equality activists. With the news that the LGBT Labour group are calling for the Labour government to not give in and still fight for equality, it is disappointing to see that Delga, our own LGBT affiliation, has not yet commented on their website. For example, police claim that 90% of homophobic violence goes un reported, and is more un reported than racial violence, this development is hardly going to spur homosexuals to report homophobic violence. It is worrying to consider that Lord Smith, an openly gay peer, supports the assertion that as a result of this, there will be more homophobic violence, and this is especially worrying given the high level of under reporting by the homosexual community.
Overall, the amendments illustrates the desperate need for reform of the House of Lords. They are clearly out of touch with society, there needs to be representative elected individuals whose opinion will not be seen in the context of their backward minority opinions of equality.
November 13, 2009 at 10:48 am
“Comedians worried about criminal prosecution also stirred up moral panics, as the government clearly stated that:
“The offence only covers words or behaviour that are threatening and intended to stir up hatred.”
”
I disagree — I don’t think I trust the government’s analysis of the law. The point is not what it is *intended* for, but how it will be *used* — and the HoL rightly pointed out that it was legislatively vague. To my mind, they were only doing their job as a revising chamber.
November 13, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Thanks for the comment, however, I have to disagree. I think that legitimising hatred, in claims that it represents ‘free speech’ is so wrong, and shows how much homophobia there is in society. You have to listen to gay activists in this debate too, as they are the ones who are most likely to experience these laws, and know what the homosexual community feel would be best. I think that the elected opinion of the government, who support the law, should be approved above a wholly unrepresentative un elected chamber.