Memorandum submitted by Adam Nixon (CJ&I 23)

I am against the proposed amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill which would make it a criminal offence to (incite hatred on the grounds of sexuality).

A government cannot specific legislate morality, for that is the antithesis of democracy, and civilisations and regimes which have attempted this in the past have shot themselves in the foot; failed miserably, often with bitterly violent results which have damaged the stability and credibility of their nations' constitution for generations to come, sometimes to a final destruction.

In the same way that experimental medicine has recently entered a new era (genetic modification and the like) where the only way to proceed through the moral maze is to simply pull down the walls and proceed into unexplored territory with new, man-made moral codes and laws, in the same way, modern political thinking, in meddling with laws that were the bastion of our civilisation, is currently passing into a new land of unexplored morality, and in so doing, shaking the foundations that have protected us until now. No good lies that way.

The proposed sexual 'hate speech' law is unnecessary. All people are already protected from assault and threatening words or behaviour under the current criminal law. In addition, the law concerning incitement to commit a criminal offence would make it an offence for any person to incite an act of violence against another person, for whatever reason. But although it is not good to hate another person, it is not a criminal offence to hate somebody - for reason of their sexuality or for any other reason.

Christians and others are already living in an atmosphere of fear when it comes to being allowed to speak openly about their beliefs regarding sexuality. There have been a number of examples in the media where people have been reported to the police, interviewed by police, taken to court and even prosecuted for speaking openly about sexuality, and lost their positions at work.

Christians do not hate homosexuals, but we consider the act of homosexual coitus both sinful and dangerously, antisocially unhealthy, an act which, like any sin, can be understood, excused and forgiven, but never wholly condoned as a harmless human right on any moral, medical or logical grounds. Therefore, the Christian ministry to homosexuals is not one of hate, but of warning and healing. It is our right to hold this opinion and to proselytize it which defines the basis of democratic humanity. If you kill ideas, opinions, and the opportunity to spread them, you kill civilisation and are no better than the Burman junta.

We are not asking for current homosexual rights to be rescinded. Rather, we are simply asking that the door for public debate and opinion formulation on this subject be left open, as it always has been until now, with no consequent damage or discrediting to the health of the nation's constitution. Until now, the situation has historically been broadly 'live and let live', and it's worked. But it would be the end of a grand historical era of a thousand years to legislate to silence by force any voice of dissent or religious faith in England, and no good will come of it. Consider also this; We may both be wrong, but we can't both be right. If it turns out that I, in my beliefs, are the correct one, and you are wrong, then I can still tolerate your error. Correcting your error is not a matter for legislation, but for ministry. But if I am wrong and you are right, then you must tolerate my error and minister to it, not legislate against it, or else resign from government as unfit for service to a democracy, having demonstrably missed the point of government. We can learn from each other, but you cannot learn anything more from me if you silence me, and if you imprison me, then I will have no further wish to learn from you. Turn back then from this confrontational course.

In light of these above concerns I would urge the Committee to uphold freedom of speech and to recognise that the proposed amendment is not only an unnecessary measure, but that it would endanger the freedoms that we now enjoy.

October 2007