Ann Widdecombe writes about the conference that our own Brian Brown spoke at, which was denied access to two venues because organizers wishes to silence the pro-marriage speeches:
It is reported that a large conference centre in London, much used by government, is facing being sued after it refused to allow a pro-marriage conference to take place despite having already allowed a similar gathering in favour of gay marriage.
The arguments in favour or against gay marriage are not important in this context.
The issue is a simple one: freedom of speech.
I would never seek to prevent a conference taking place just because I did not share the views of the organisers.
I hold passionate views on abortion and hunting but those who take the opposite stand also have passionate views and in a true democracy both sides of any argument must be equally free to voice their beliefs.
A society where only those who agree with the state's view about something are free to be heard does not even begin to offer liberty of expression and nor does one where freedom of assembly is restricted to those of prevailing orthodoxy. -- The UK Express
15 Comments
So when a venue denies a same-sex couple from using their space or a pro-marriage equality group from using their space it's ok becuase it's a stand for religious freedom and concius choice.
When a venue denies a Pro-Traditional marriage group from using their space it's silenceing Free Speech, a threat to free thought, and an attack on Religious Freedom.
Thanks for clairify that for me.
@Vast,
I believe the bone of contention here is that the site in question is frequently used by the British government and therefore lends an appearance of state disapproval to the historic understanding of what constitutes a marriage.
They crossed the line that divided public from private. I would hold this same position for any private company that received public funds.
SILENCE! ... there are powers at work
Why doesn't NOM decry the loss of freedom of speech in places like St Petersburg, where saying anything positive about gays and lesbians is against the law? Seems is the only "freedom of speech" that NOM worries about is the freedom of anti-gay speech. As always, if it weren't for situational ethics, the poor NOMies would have no ethics at all.
Ms Widdecombe is right here. I am a socialist and have no problem with same sex marriage being made legal in my country, but when the other side, the 'liberal' left refuse to allow the antis have their say, that is wrong.
I shall go further; If same sex marriage is made legal in this country places of worship which in all conscience don't agree with two men or two women making a life time commitment to one another in their premises should be allowed to opt out without being sued or the vicar arrested for a hate crime or whatever.
As the pigs say, in "Animal Farm," everyone is equal, but some are MORE EQUAL than others."
in the U.K., those who support conservative values are less equal than those looking to stand common sense on its head.
You cannot seriously compare Britain's constitutional framework with ours. Yes, ours is derived from British heritage but the lack of a written constitution in the UK with Parliament able to change laws as it sees fit is a BIG difference. Disestablish the Church of England, in part to protect their religious freedom, and think seriously about a UK Constitution with a First Amendment-like clause. Done. Governments will ALWAYS try to step over the line regardless of the partisans running it at any particular time. Funny, I don't recall you guys saying anything when government was actively persecuting gays in the name of your religion.
Thank you ST. PETER!
For your respect toward children's education and growth. And your help toward the adults that raise them.
__________
- Lets keep sex in the bedroom as much as possible.
- Alcohol in the bar.
- Drugs in the closet.
- And pornography severely censored and limited.
Not for the glory of our own liberties, but for the care of our children, and the strength of our being.
(And as for the economy, it will adapt, no worries, money is made of air, really. And man is creative. On that we can but agree.)
__________
The Law Society is a private U.K. organization with a function similar to the American Bar Association, i.e. the promotion of the practice of law. The Law Society is not a governmental body and while they may allow the U.K. Government to use their space, that does not make it a public forum. I can see that NOM and the Hon. Ann Widdecombe may be upset that The Law Society didn't let them use the space, but really it is a matter of private concern and is not a "free speech issue". You are free to say whatever you want without government interference, but private societies are not required to suffer your presence, or provide you with a forum. The Law Society's right to free speech would be harmed if they were required to associate themselves intimately with speech with which the Society disagreed.
The location was not in any way related to or with the slightest affliation to the UK govt. It is an entirely private organisation (The Law Society) fully entitled to regluate what does and does not happen on their own premises.
You cry 'censorship' but the truth is that fewer and fewer accept the position that NOM holds and this is a global trend. It is not The Law Society that is out of whack - it is Ann Widdecombe, The UK Express (a tabloid rag) and Brian Brown.
Check out what this UK conservative policy group thinks about gay marriage after studying the impact in the growing number of states that allow it. Answer: None.
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/item/what-s-in-a-name-is-there-a-case-for-equal-marriage?category_id=24
Paul, the fact that that website uses misleading terms like "marriage equality" demonstrates just how biased they are.
SofA - so even UK right wing newspapers admit that this is an issue of equality.
We've come a long way.
Paul Mc,
Nothing you have said actually justifies the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics and yet all that you have said amounts to such an assertion.
"even UK right wing newspapers admit that this is an issue of equality."
It's not. This is a moral issue in which a wealthy and influential special interest group gets favored government recognition of their sexual preference over all others like polyamory and incest. In other words, homosexuality is the only sexuality you can favor and defend without being called a bigot or a pariah.
Even a fraction of the articles posted on this blog proves just how inaccurate these "conservatives" are.
"We've come a long way."
A long way from where? To where? Are there no students of history? Has no one learned the lessons of ancient Rome and Greece? Countries that play fast and loose with sexual morality never last.