« OFF THE RAILS | Main | BIRDBRAINS »

February 28, 2005

Comments

Emily

David,
You have to admit at least some pleasure in seeing the PC Brigades try and reconcile their reflex to poo eggrolls when a Western religious leader that simply suggests homosexuality is a sin with their condescending habit of lecturing the rest of us to be tolerant towards people that consider it to be a capital offense?

Colm

"reflex to poo eggrolls" - EH! ????????????

Emily

Poo eggrolls. You know, sh*t bricks, go crazy, get angry...

Colm


Thanks Emily, it's always good to learn about different colloquial expressions.

Don't you think it's also hypocritical for Muslims to demand protection against unfair treatment but on the other hand for them to oppose that protection being offered to other sections of the population that they feel shouldn't deserve the same fair treatment.

Emily

Colm,
In a word, yes. Though to be fair, it doesn't look like Muslims have so much demanded this as the touchie-feelies at Downing Street have.

David Vance

It's the weak-at-the-knees invertebrates at Downing Street that sicken me.

Colm

Emily

Oh undeniably there is a concerted attempt by No 10 to woo back the Muslim vote which they lost over Iraq, and one of the ways is with this new incitement to religous hatred laws which has been welcomed by the Muslim community.

However if that new law were to be applied strictly and without discrimination it could backfire badly on the Muslim community as arguably the most potent religous hatred in the UK today actually comes from muslims themselves and is directed fiercely at members of their own community who reject the strictures of their faith , for example women who reject arranged marraiges and those who (worst of all) convert to Christianity or another religion. There has been a case in the northern town of Bradford recently about an ex-moslem family who have been subjected to the most horrific abuse for daring to convert to being Christians.

I don't agree with this proposed new law, I feel it is an unnecessary form of censorship but if it brought in will it apply across the board. Don't hold your breath.

mairin

This bill merely sets up a new umbrella body — the Equality and Human Rights Commission — to police all discrimination. I think the blurb from Civitas is a bit misleading in this way. (In actuality, gays are covered under the bill--just not specifically mentioned.) There's a difference between refusing services, Colm, and inciting hatred. Case in point would be a B&B refusing to allow Muslims to rent a room.

Colm

mairin

I am not confusing the two separate laws and in fact I support the non-discrimination laws. However the bill to set up the all - encompassing equality commision is not the same as the proposed act which will set out the rules on non-discrimination which will extend full protection currently accorded to sex and race, towards peoples religion . The commision will act to enforce all equality laws but while race,religion and gender will be specifically protected both in employment practises and the provision of and access to services , sexual orientation protection will only apply to employment law.

mairin

I must not be understanding your posts above then. My interpretation of the laws are different from yours apparently. Hewitt's speech should be available soon--I await her clarification of the script changes to the law.

Colm

mairin

What is there not to understand in my posts. They are as clear as mud ;)

There are two separate pieces of legislation going through parliament. One is to extend the current equal opportunities legislation which comprehensively covers all forms of discrimination in the public arena according to race and sex to provide for religion too. The other is extend the current law against promoting hatred on the basis of race to include religous belief too. Last December an EU directive which specifically outlawed discrimination in the workplace on grounds of religous belief sexual orientation and age came into force. The government intends to create a single equality body which will police all these laws , however my understanding is that the new equal opportunities act which extends current comprehensive UK law to cover religion will not now apply to sexual orientation. Only the EU directive on employment law applies there. Of course I am only going by what I read in the press and there are gasp! shock! horror! the odd occasions when they get it wrong. So let's see what the government actually says in the detail.

mairin

I didn't mean to imply that my lack of understanding rested solely on your shoulders, Colm. ;o)~ I guess it was your reference to Muslims and how the laws "could backfire badly on the Muslim community as arguably the most potent religous hatred in the UK today actually comes from muslims themselves and is directed fiercely at members of their own community who reject the strictures of their faith"...that threw me off track. It's a little hectic here today because of the whimps who didn't show up to work today because of a minor blizzard last night...or maybe they're just smart...

Colm

mairin

Oh bit that's a whole separate argument completely different from the non-discrimination laws. I haven't got time to clarify now as I have to go , but I will explain tomorrow - hopw you survive the weather, even if the rest of the wimps in your workplace don't.

MIchael

I think that these laws should not be needed but when you have people exploiting the gaps in the law only encourages those who wish laws like this to come into place. I'll give an example to explain what I mean....

In a local school parents (those who could) were allowed to visit at lunchtime to eat lunch and be with their children (4 to 7 yr olds)out in the playground. On one day a parent came up and started shouting at his wife for whatever reason and because of that blazing argument no parents have been allowed to see their children at lunchtime any more.

Another example would be the atheist in the US who wants all references of God taken of the money and out of the Oath of Alliegence.

So like I said the laws should not be needed but when people exploit they only make the case that these laws are needed.

The comments to this entry are closed.