Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Matt 24 Watch, 140: As the new Montserrat Constitution Order (2010) comes into effect, yet another UK case of homosexualisation of law, law enforcement, and anti-Christian bigotry surfaces

In recent months this blog has noted on the Bull and Johns cases of homosexualisation of law and courts in the UK, whereby a bed and breakfast was fined and a successful foster parenting couple were barred from further foster parenting through the legal impact of radical homosexualist activism.

Watchword DVD --
banned in Lancashire, UK!
Sadly, as a UK case just this past weekend -- coming days before a new controversial Constitution Order goes into effect in Montserrat -- underscores, such matters are now not irrelevant to us in the Caribbean. 

In summary, a Christian Coffee Shop in Lancashire, UK,  was just threatened with prosecution for the thought crime of playing a DVD of the New Testament, which homosexualists seem to find to be inherently offensive. 

(One wonders why?)

For, the serious issues and questionable agendas connected to such cases are pounding on our own shores like surges from the de-Christianising tidal wave from the North: 

The two tidal waves hitting our region demand a sound and informed response
(Cf, here, here, here, and here [Wave I] as well as here, here and here etc. [Wave II].)
For instance, in recent months there has been a strong and insistent push to homosexualise the proposed Bill of Rights for the Jamaican Constitution, and here in Montserrat, TODAY, a new UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office [FCO] pushed Constitution Order in Council (2010) comes into effect. 

In that newly imposed law, we may read as follows, in Section 16 of the Bill of Rights:
 Protection from discrimination
16.—(1) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), no law shall make any provision which is discriminatory either of itself or in its effect . . . . 
(3) In this section, the expression “discriminatory” means affording different treatment to different persons on any ground such as sex, sexual orientation, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
[P. 13 in the just linked, cf. also Section 10, and Section 2. It is arguable that the celebrated "victory" of getting a UK concession that marriage is between a man and a woman, is fatally undermined by the "fair exchange" of inserting sexual orientation as a protected class. For instance, so-called "civil unions," being marriages in all but name, will be possible under the principle of non-discimination. And, this has profound influences beyond the proverbial closed doors of the bedroom: stifling of freedom of conscience and religion, restrictions on freedom of speech, outright censorship of "objectionable" and "offensive"  literature like the Bible (cf. below and here) and signs like the cross, warping of education policy, what is taught to pupils in school as acceptable behaviour, or even as "rights," and more easily come to mind.]
The very order of the examples cites tells us this is an imposition. In a culture and community where the historically dominant challenge has been racist oppression and resulting colour prejudice, those issues have been pushed onto the back-burner. Instead, in pride of place we now see the prioritisation of "sex" and "sexual orientation." 

This -- as was warned of in submissions from the public, but was arrogantly ignored in the rush to push through a dangerously flawed document at least one major revision short of being ready for prime time -- plainly reflects a blatantly alien mindset and radical triumphalism. 

See, we can push through what we want, take that!

In turn, that points to a dangerous radical agenda for law, community order and culture.

But, someone may ask, how can you object to banning prejudice and discrimination against people because of their sex or sexual orientation? 

Surely, we must be tolerant!

There, however, are excellent reasons to be quite concerned on this matter:
 a --> First and foremost, "sexual orientation" is not primarily a legal term of art. Despite the many soothing politically correct assertions one may find on a Google search, it is a psychological term that covers a wide array of possible forms of emotional and sexual attraction, many of which are blatantly pathological or even dangerous. 

b --> It thus can cover not only opposite sex and same sex attractions, but attractions for young boys or girls [the next "orientation" on the agenda that is being pushed to be perceived as "legitimate" and "harmless"], sadism and the like, animals, and worse, stomach-churningly much worse. (On the iconic case, so-called Gay Rights, we may want to read here on -- WARNING, and here on for a breakthrough scientific review of the actual state of the evidence.)

c --> This sort of concern is why in 2009, the Holy See [i.e. the Vatican] warned the UN's notorious Human Rights Council in a submission, as follows; something that the UK must have known about when it pushed through this dangerously flawed term on us here in Montserrat:
The Holy See takes this opportunity to affirm the inherent dignity and worth of all human beings, and to condemn all violence that is targeted against people because of their sexual feelings and thoughts, or sexual behaviours.

We would also like to make several observations about the debates regarding “sexual orientation”.

First, there has been some unnecessary confusion about the meaning of the term “sexual orientation,” as found in resolutions and other texts adopted within the UN human rights system. The confusion is unnecessary because, in international law, a term must be interpreted in accordance with its ordinary meaning, unless the document has given it a different meaning.[1] The ordinary meaning of “sexual orientation” refers to feelings and thoughts, not to behaviour.[2]

Second, for the purposes of human rights law, there is a critical difference between feelings and thoughts, on the one hand, and behaviour, on the other. A state should never punish a person, or deprive a person of the enjoyment of any human right, based just on the person’s feelings and thoughts, including sexual thoughts and feelings. But states can, and must, regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours. Throughout the world, there is a consensus between societies that certain kinds of sexual behaviours must be forbidden by law. Paedophilia and incest are two examples.

Third, the Holy See wishes to affirm its deeply held belief that human sexuality is a gift that is genuinely expressed in the complete and lifelong mutual devotion of a man and a woman in marriage. Human sexuality, like any voluntary activity, possesses a moral dimension : it is an activity which puts the individual will at the service of a finality; it is not an “identity”. In other words, it comes from the action and not from the being, even though some tendencies or “sexual orientations” may have deep roots in the personality. Denying the moral dimension of sexuality leads to denying the freedom of the person in this matter, and undermines ultimately his/her ontological dignity.  This belief about human nature is also shared by many other faith communities, and by other persons of conscience.

And finally, Mr. President, we wish to call attention to a disturbing trend in some of these social debates: People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex. When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature, which may also be expressions of religious convictions, or state opinions about scientific claims, they are stigmatised, and worse -- they are vilified, and prosecuted. These attacks contradict the fundamental principles announced in three of the Council’s resolutions of this session.[3] The truth is, these attacks are violations of fundamental human rights, and cannot be justified under any circumstances.
d --> No wonder, then, that regional Christian thinker, the Rev Clinton Chisholm, has recently observed:

There is a general belief that conceptual clarity exists re the terms ‘sexual orientation, homosexuality and homophobia’. This belief is dead wrong as I hope to show now.

According to the therapeutic manual of the American Psychiatric Association there are upwards of at least twenty distinctive sexual variations of ‘sexual orientation’. This goes way beyond the traditional orientations of heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and bestiality and includes the ‘paraphilias’ like incest, necrophilia, etc. Would all of these more than twenty sexual orientations qualify for protection in our charter of rights [--> i.e. in Jamaica]? And after all what really is sexual orientation, predominant inclination, predominant sexual desire, practice or what?

More importantly because of the seeming fluidity of sexual orientation (people’s sexual appetites can and do change over time) how defensible is it as a protected right within a nation’s charter of rights? The criterion of immutability usually associated with protected rights is not applicable to sexual orientation at all.
e --> Rev Chisholm then puts his finger on a linked term, much loved by advocates and often used as a hammer against their critics, "homophobia": 
What really is homophobia? As a student of languages I find this coinage very weird, etymologically and conceptually. As the word is popularly used it seems to mean at least dislike or disgust for homosexuals. If this is the dominant ethos of the word it is a poor coinage etymologically. Phobia is Greek for fear and the homo part of the word (similarly for homosexual) is not Latin-derived but is drawn from the Greek word homoios, meaning same. Nobody really fears homosexuals but a goodly number of us are repulsed at some of the practices associated with homosexuality.

I know homosexuals for whom I have the profoundest respect as persons and as talented professionals be they lecturers, journalists, musicians, politicians or parsons but I maintain that the act of eating a person’s faeces or showering in a person’s urine, even once, is downright sick, pathological and disgusting. Indeed such practices pose public health challenges.
f --> In short, we here see a highly questionable and patently destructive agenda at work, and using corruption of language -- and of law -- to advance its cause. We must not unwarily traipse into a legal minefield, simply to please those who strongly promote profound changes in the name of "freedom." In that context, let me again underscore the pivotal difference between liberty and license, per the classic 1828 Webster's Dictionary:
LIBERTY: 1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind . . . 2. Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government. 3. Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.
LICENSE2. Excess of liberty; exorbitant freedom; freedom abused, or used in contempt of law or decorum. [E.g.] License they mean, when they cry liberty.

g --> In that context, on right of fair and free comment: "sexual orientation" is a dangerously vague term that covers a multitude of sexual pathologies that we the peoples of the Caribbean need to protect the community from, instead of enshrining as a Constitutionally protected right. 

h --> We therefore need to ask sharply pointed, even  barbed, questions about (i) why "sexual orientation" was pushed without adequate safeguards, into the list of exemplary classes to be constitutionally protected here in Montserrat, (ii) why it comes so close to the head of that list, and (iii) why submitted concerns on this matter were clearly brushed aside and ignored, not only by the FCO but by the local Government.
Nor are the sorts of concerns raised by the Holy See as cited above, a matter of mere empty alarmism.

In the most recent development, the Murray Restaurant case, we see where (just this weekend) a busybody made a report against a Christian restaurant for the hate-crime of showing Bible verses in public -- yes, showing Bible verses through a DVD connected to a TV -- and the police officers who show up based on the busybody's report threatened prosecution:
The controversy developed over the weekend in Blackpool, England, where police officers told Jamie Murray, the owner of the Salt & Light Coffee House on Layton Road, that displaying "offensive" or "insulting" words was a violation of Section 5 of the Public Order Act. The officers warned Murray that if he didn't stop, he could be prosecuted.

Murray had a DVD player connected to a television hanging on the wall that was playing the "Watchword Bible," which potrays the complete New Testament on 12 DVDs.
A woman who had been in the restaurant complained to police. A statement from the Lancashire department said officers were "duty bound" to investigate, and they concluded the business could be in breach of the law. The law warns "people who play images or sounds that stir up hatred again homosexuals could be guilty of an offense," according to a London Daily Mail report . . . . 

"The constabulary is respectful of all religious views. However, we do have a responsibility to make sure that material that communities may find deeply offensive or inflammatory is not being displayed in public," the station told the newspaper . . .  
This last is a blatant, plainly and willfully, mischievously defamatory falsehood. 

The projection of the slander that the Christian Scriptures are inherently hate-speech and/or inherently offensive similar to pornography or obscene matter, is utterly disrespectful and denigratory, indeed it is patently mischievous. And, that mischief is being aggressively promoted by the new atheists and the radical homosexualists, now causing the increasing perception that Christians are a threat to good social order. It has led to at least one pastor being sentenced to gaol in Sweden for the awful crime of preaching from Rom 1 and related scriptures, to the discomfiture of the local homosexualist lobby, and it has led to a public commenter being censored by in effect court order in Canada.

When, the abundant and obvious, undeniable evidence is just the opposite.

Legal action is in train, and the Officers who threatened prosecution could face trouble. 

However, this is not the first time for the Lancashire, UK, police:
[T]he Christian Institute reports that the officers could face another legal battle.
The organization, which is offering advice to the restaurant owner, confirmed that in 2005 the same police department paid compensation of what now would be about $15,000 to Joe and Helen Roberts, a Christian couple investigated by police for telling their local council they didn't agree with homosexuality

"I'd have thought Lancashire constabulary would have learned their lesson after paying out 10,000 [British pounds] to a pair of Christian pensioners who they had interrogated over their views on gay rights," said Mike Judge, a spokesman for the institute. 

"We will be advising Mr. Murray of his legal options. He may well have grounds for a legal action against the police for infringing his rights to free speech and religious liberty," said Sam Webster, the Christian Institute's solicitor-advocate. 

"It ought to go without saying that reading the Bible out loud in a public place, or displaying Bible texts in a Christian café, is not of itself a criminal offense. I am alarmed that I even have to point that out," he continued. "On the face of it, officers of Lancashire Constabulary appear to have said that such behavior may fall within the scope of Section 5 of the Public Order Act. As a lawyer and a Christian, I find that deeply disturbing."
Sadly, given what is now enshrined in the new Montserrat Constitution Order (2010), this case is not irrelevant to us in the Caribbean.

The question, is whether we have the wisdom and courage to demand our right of self-determination, and ensure the correction of such dangerous flaws in the new Montserrat Constitution (and those of other UK overseas territories where similar wordings may have been slipped in).

Welcome to The Brave New Apostate World Order, mein Herr! END

No comments: