+FREEDOM OF SPEECH. (British style)


Last week world leaders gathered in Paris to express solidarity in the right for freedom of speech. Amongst those was the arch-hypocrite David Cameron representing of course the United Kingdom, that ‘so called’ bastion of free speech.

There could be not justification for the murderous attack on the Paris newspaper; or for the action in burning down over 45 Churches in Africa; but at the same time the action in mocking religion was deliberate provocation.

Christianity is daily the subject of vile mockery and ridicule, but nowhere in the world would Christians even consider violence against the perpetrators.

What does offend Christians is the fact that criticising us is perfectly acceptable to the present government in this country, but not a word nay be uttered even in a mild way against same sex marriage, homosexuality, race or gender without the threat of prosecution.

A few weeks ago whilst answering questions in the House of Commons, Cameron was asked by a Northern Ireland member, if in view of the fact that a devout Christian baker who refused to bake a cake with the words ‘support gay marriage’ engraved on was threatened with prosecution, he would allow a conscience clause to be added to the law, to allow this man to express his view. Cameron replied that he was not aware of the case, but no.

Last week the Chief Judge and Chris Grayling the Cabinet Justice Minister ordered a magistrate should undergo diversity training because he had expressed a view, privately in a magistrates’ room, that he felt it was in the best interest for a child who was to be placed for adoption, to be raised by a father and mother. This was a man who had been a magistrate for 15 years, with a lot of experience of real life.

When the Mail on Sunday tried to enquire about the case, they were warned by the Clerk of the Court not to pursue their enquiries.

In fact, the real cause for complaint about prejudice and discrimination relates to those who are constantly striving to involve same sex couples on ideological grounds. Research by eminent sociologists and medical experts
All suggest that a child needs, and benefits, from being raised by male and female parents.

The Cabinet Minister had himself at one time expressed the view that a person should be allowed to express their conscience concerns when he sympathised with a couple who refused to allow a homosexual couple to occupy a double room in their B&B.

Why can't the voice of Christians be heard? One voice which you can rely on not to be heard is that of the Church establishment.

The Archbishop of York has just published a book of essays compiled by various left wing writers (naturally), criticising the government’s economic policy. The Archbishop of Canterbury has thrown in his contribution, suggesting the cities and towns are being ignored at the expense of middle England, despite all the evidence being to the contrary. All this timed of course to be released just prior to the general election

Notice how silent the Archbishops are when such cases outlined above are revealed, and I could quote numerous others in similar vein. They would prefer to play at politics instead of leading the Christian and moral protest at the way the government aided by the judiciary are forcing Christianity out of the public domain.

However, there was one voice we can always count on for Christian support, and that is from the man who should have been our Archbishop, and I include his writing on the 'MAil on Sunday' newspaper.

Michael Nazir-Ali, former Bishop of Rochester, said the Lord Chancellor had 'declared war on faith'

By MICHAEL NAZIR-ALI, FORMER BISHOP OF ROCHESTER
So, it has come to this!

For more than 1,500 years, Christianity has formed and undergirded the public law of this land. Now, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, by disciplining Richard Page JP, have declared war on even residual notions of the faith having any place in our legal processes.

Until the recent ‘equality’ legislation, the teaching of the Book of Common Prayer was reflected in the law on marriage. Now, even to allow such teaching to be taken into account, in reaching a legal decision, is said to be ‘bigoted’ and ‘prejudiced’.

This is but the latest in a long line of cases having the effect of excluding Christians from public service and holding public office.

Both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention guarantee not only freedom of belief and conscience but also the right to manifest such belief in public or in private.

In spite of subscribing to the UN Declaration and the European Convention, and contrary to our own Human Rights Act, the Government and law officers, it seems, are intent on preventing Christians from manifesting their belief in the public sphere.
The implications are wider than that for what is said about Mr Page could apply equally to Jews, Muslims and others.

The chief law officers of the Crown allege that Mr Page has improperly allowed his religious beliefs to influence his decision.

It is true that Mr Page cannot exclude what his faith teaches from his consideration of these matters but, as he says, his decision was not based solely on his religious beliefs, or, indeed, simply because of the sexual orientation of the couple involved.
It was taken for objective reasons in the interests of the child and for the common good.

The highest law officers of the land have not only issued a reprimand to Mr Page but require him to receive remedial training. This smacks to me of the ‘re-education’ camps so beloved of totalitarian Marxist states.

Is this the way to promote liberty or is freedom of speech and belief only for a liberal elite with politically correct views?