Mrs Pauline Howe, a committed Christian, who complained to the Norwich City Council that a homosexual event had been allowed to go ahead in the city centre, was equated by Channel 4 News with murderers who killed Ian Baynham, a homosexual man, in September 2009.
Channel 4 News reported yesterday:
‘According to police figures, Liverpool is among several large cities, which has seen a rise of ‘hate crimes’. Reports ranging from the homophobic murder of 62-year-old Ian Baynham in Trafalgar Square in September to elderly women complaining about gay marches through towns. Figures are rising.’
(Click here to watch the video)
Mrs Howe wrote her letter to the council blaming homosexuals for ‘their perverted sexual practice’ and sexually transmitting diseases as well as the ‘downfall of every Empire’. She added:
‘It is shameful that this small, but vociferous lobby should be allowed such a display unwarranted by the minimal number of homosexuals.’
Two officers later turned up at the frightened grandmother’s home and informed her that she may have committed a crime. After lecturing her about the choice of words, they told her that she will not be prosecuted.
Mrs Howe spoke of her shock at the visit and accused police of 'wasting resources' on her case rather than fighting criminals.
(See the CCFON report for the background of the story)
Mark Mullins, on behalf of CCFON, said:
‘This is an extraordinary example of the police and media equating good with evil. It is good to speak out against a person’s immoral behaviour. It is evil to murder. A society is in serious trouble when the two are confused.’
Mike Judge, a spokesman for The Christian Institute, also condemned the reporting. He said:
‘I hope those who killed Mr Baynham in that vicious attack are brought to justice for their horrific crime. But to associate Mrs Howe’s objection to a gay pride parade with this violent attack is an outrageous slur. On national TV, Channel 4 stated that she had committed a crime. She has not.
‘Disagreement with someone’s behaviour is not hatred, it is not a crime, and it is certainly not the same thing as murder. I think Channel 4 News should apologise for their error and make clear to viewers that Mrs Howe has not committed a criminal offence.’
Earlier this month, Lord Waddington wrote an article in The Guardian explaining why the law on ‘inciting hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation’ must contain a free speech clause allowing ‘the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices’ without fear of prosecution. He wrote:
‘Civil liberty surely implies the freedom to express your own views, and with it a readiness to defend the right of others to express their views about you. To stir up hatred can never be right, but it would be a sad world in which every comment and criticism was assumed to have been made with evil intent.
‘It is therefore vital’, he continued, ‘to ensure that the new law against inciting hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation protects people against such incitement without inhibiting free speech and what Matthew Parris has called the ‘rough-and-tumble’ of open debate.’
‘There have been cases of street preachers threatened by the police for reading from the Bible. Not so long ago five officers approached a church worker as he handed out invitations to an Easter service and seized them for examination, citing allegations of homophobia. Not surprisingly they contained no reference to sexuality and the police dropped the matter. But this case should set alarm bells ringing in the ears of all who care about free speech,’ he added.
Lord Waddington concluded:
‘... I hope those who consider themselves to be the allies of civil liberty will agree to let the safeguard stand. It will not make this new offence less effective in achieving what the government wants, but it will stop people who have no intention of stirring up hatred from being bullied and intimidated so they dare not exercise their right to free speech.’
(Click here to read the article)
The case of Mrs Howe resonated with the US media. Two days ago, the panel at the legal segment of American Fox News’s The O’Reilly Factor discussed the story of Mrs Howe and was concerned with the importance of the story in the US. The consensus was that no judge in their right mind would prosecute an old lady whose ‘intent’ was not to harm anyone.
(See the Examiner report)
This week, US Congress passed a controversial bill that would make it a federal crime to attack someone based on the person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The US Senate – in a 68-29 vote, with most Republicans opposed – also approved the measure that was attached to the $680 billion defence spending bill. It added ‘sexual orientation, gender, gender identity’ to the existing list of categories which include race, religion, colour or national origin.
On Wednesday, 28 October 2009, at 2.30pm, President Barack Obama signed it into law, which now authorises the federal government to intervene in violent crimes that appear motivated by hatred of homosexuals and apply stiffer penalties and sentences. The expanded hate crime legislation extends special protection to victims of crime who are targeted by perpetrators based on an actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.
Christian groups and those who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle fear the measure will infringe on their right to freedom of speech. Some Christian leaders have expressed serious concern that attempts to secure the right to speak against the homosexual lifestyle and its normalisation failed.
Michael Marcavage, director of Philadelphia-based Repent America, was one of 11 Christians who were jailed and charged with a hate crime for carrying Bible verse banners and preaching at a 2004 homosexual pride event in Philadelphia. Mr Marcavage said:
'What this bill does is [seek] to shut down those who dare to speak against the sin of homosexuality with the hope and freedom that is found in Jesus Christ.
'Having been charged under a hate crime, I'm definitely moved with compassion on those who the government is trying to silence us from reaching out to, but we're going to continue to do as we have been doing, and ministering to those trapped in the bondage of this lifestyle.'
Currently, President Obama is asking more than 100 Democratic members of the Congress and Senate to repudiate their votes for the Defense of Marriage Act within 12 months of next year’s midterm election in order to change the definition of marriage for the advancement of homosexual rights.