THREE emails await me this morning on this subject!
Does this indicate the suppression of freedom to think and speak for oneself, especially in proclaiming Biblical truths, is being ramped up?
Only on Monday had I had occasion too refer to that when inserting a reference to Rev Dr Mike Ovey’s well-informed warning into the copy from Wilberforce Publications’ on Magna Carta Unravelled.
His concern is now repeated by the Coalition for Marriage. (C4M is an umbrella group of many individuals and organisations supporting traditional marriage and opposed to its redefinition. Click link for more details.)
In his email circular of Tuesday their campaign director Colin Hart writes,
NEW LAW COULD BRAND MARRIAGE SUPPORTERS AS ‘EXTREMISTS’!
Since the introduction of same-sex marriage we have drawn attention to ordinary people around the UK who have found their reputations and livelihoods attacked for standing by their beliefs.
Sadly the Government is about to make the situation much worse. The Home Secretary is seeking sweeping new powers to silence ‘extremists’ and disrupt their activities. We strongly support the Government’s fight against terrorism, but we don’t support plans which put basic free speech in jeopardy.
Vague laws will catch law-abiding people
The proposed Extremism Disruption Orders (EDOs) are set to be contained in the new counter-extremism Bill.
We back stopping jihadists, but these vague EDOs appear to be so broadly defined that even supporters of traditional marriage could be branded ‘extremists’. See our short briefing for more information.
Conservative MPs Dominic Grieve and David Davis have voiced alarm about the plans.
Before he became Justice Minister, Dominic Raab MP also said: “The public should certainly expect the security services to track terrorists online, but the broad powers of proposed Extremism Disruption Orders (EDO) could be abused. Those engaged in passionate debates – such as Christians objecting to gay marriage – could find themselves slapped down.”
Home Secretary Theresa May was recently challenged on just this point when the BBC’s John Humphrys asked her whether the “woolly” plans would still allow people to say that gay marriage was damaging to society. We’re not convinced by her answer.
Free speech under threat
People can call us bigots and extremists for believing in traditional marriage – that’s their point of view. But they must not be given power to use the force of law against us.
We have good reason to be concerned. We will be asking you to make your views known to your MP.
As an aside, look at what I learned a month ago:
THE LESSON OF TUDOR HISTORY
A series of high-profile cases in recent years, where Christians have been penalised for expressing and living out their beliefs in public discussion, led a top judge, Sir Michael Tugenhadt, to compare secularists to ‘Tudor tyrants’. He commented as follows,
“Those who are hostile to belief in a superhuman being or to religious practices, I am afraid, sometimes exhibit an attitude to freedom of religion and freedom of speech which is as restrictive of that of Elizabeth I or Burghley.
“They seek to limit those freedoms to the private sphere, but that is a denial of the rights that these freedoms enshrine.
“The terrible story of the Tudor-Stuart religious divisions should be a reminder that freedom which is confined entirely to the privacy of a person’s home is a form of oppression.” (Emphases added)
He added: “The fact that states recognise human rights and natural rights and even the fact that they may enshrine them in their laws doesn’t mean they always respect them”.
Sir Michael retired from the High Court last year and reminisced about the beginning of his professional career when, “Lawsuits involving religion were absolutely unknown”. In respect of the past 10 to 15 years, however, “they had become increasingly frequent”.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The second email on this matter covers US Supreme Court’s rulings in America. In writing for The Legal Project, Johanna Markind outlines recent cases that potentially affect the right to discuss Islam openly and freely in The US Supreme Court, Speech Regulation and Islam.
The third email, Muting American Speech Through Politicised Television Theatre, was a brief note of RJ Dawson’s blog in which he lambasts TV broadcasters for brainwashing audiences into the fear of having or expressing an opinion, in contravention of the 1st Amendment.
His review of changes since the 60’s is informative for all who, in those days, were only twinkles in their mother’s (or grandmother’s) eyes. On this side of ‘the pond’, American TV was regarded as a very inferior product. RJ’s views make interesting reading and it’s noteworthy how our once, world-renowned but now Broadly Biased Corporation (BBC) has since descended to the moronic depths and spews out PC indoctrination.
So, RJ Dawson’s opinion is valid for Britain as well as the United States.
The ‘one-eyed god’ once resided in a box in the corner of the room but is now a window on a wall as well as a mirror on our knees, or even a spy in our pockets! It should come with a mental and spiritual health warning. So beware!
How to counter it will be covered in the next post…
[Hand With News Icon, credit Watcharakun at Freedigitalphotos.net]