 |
|
Today, I have been driven from my self-imposed rest from blogging by yesterday’s announcement within the Queen’s Speech that the government intends to pass further legislation to “protect” homosexuals, and possibly also the disabled and trans-sexuals, by outlawing incitement of hatred against them. This law (yet another from this law-crazy government) is to be part of a new Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill to be introduced by the Justice Minister, Jack Straw MP.
In response to this proposed Act Rowan Atkinson has penned a thoughtful letter to The Times. On first appearances, any legislation that seeks to protect minority groups might appear admirable. The problem with this type of law is, however, in what constitutes threatening language. How does one assess the degree of incitement to hatred a particular statement (or novel, stageplay, etc.) constitutes? I am reminded of a scene from the first series of Blackadder when Baldrick walks in to find Percy and Blackadder apparently engaged in a homosexual act. Was that scene (watch from 5 mins) constructed to get a laugh from the audience because of its homosexual content, and if so, did it constitute an attempt to incite the contempt and ridicule of homosexuals? I remember laughing heartily at the scene and, yet, I do not recall then having developed a prejudice against gay men. My fear is that poorly drafted legislation could in effect outlaw this type of scene from a future situation comedy. Would support for equality for gay people then be strengthened? Answer: No. Prejudice against homosexuals is not acceptable in British society, however, jokes that are deemed offensive to some should not necessarily be criminal acts. Poorly-drafted legislation such as that propsed by this government will not help eradicate gay prejudice. Sadly, it will more likely exacerbate the problem. Ignorant Acts can often lead to more ignorance.
