Another Thought Police Incident

Sadly, we have yet another frightening case of government thought police activity regarding someone giving anti-gay opinions, this time in Great Britain. Lynette Burrows, the British equivalent of what we would (misaptly) call a "family values" lobbyist here, went on a talk show to discuss Britain's new civil partnerships act. She is opposed to gay adoptions and said so on the show:

During the programme, she said she did not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. She added that placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption was as obvious a risk as placing a girl with two heterosexual men who offered themselves as parents. "It is a risk," she said. "You would not give a small girl to two men."

Now, I find her opinion ridiculous and totally unsupported by the evidence. Under British law, however, it requires a criminal investigation:

A member of the public complained to the police and an officer contacted Mrs Burrows the following day to say a "homophobic incident" had been reported against her.

"I was astounded," she said. "I told her this was a free country and we are allowed to express opinions on matters of public interest. She told me it was not a crime but that she had to record these incidents.

"They were leaning on me, letting me know that the police had an interest in my views. I think it is sinister and completely unacceptable."

I do too. Burrows' opinion may be idiotic, but it isn't criminal to hold an idiotic opinion regardless of who might take offense at it. Even more chilling is what Scotland Yard had to say about the incident:

Scotland Yard confirmed last night that Fulham police had investigated a complaint over the radio programme.

A spokesman said it was policy for community safety units to investigate homophobic, racist and domestic incidents because these were "priority crimes".

It is standard practice for all parties to be spoken to, even if the incident is not strictly seen as a crime. "It is all about reassuring the community," said the spokesman. "We can confirm that a member of the public brought to our attention an incident which he believed to be homophobic.

"All parties have been spoken to by the police. No allegation of crime has been made. A report has been taken but is now closed."

Saying something others don't like is a "priority crime" in England? Good lord, one has to wonder what the non-priority crimes are if the priority crimes are no crime at all. As far as "reassuring the community", reassuring them of what? That having a dissenting opinion will get you visited by the police and become a permanent part of your record? Gee, that won't have a chilling effect on free speech or anything, would it? And this goes on despite the admission that not even an allegation of a crime has been made! If that doesn't send a chill down your spine, nothing will.

Those of us who strongly support gay rights must be the ones to stand up against this sort of oppressive policy. It will do more to discredit our cause than anything else. It feeds directly into the paranoia of the religious right and distracts attention from the real issues. If you allow your opponents the chance of martyrdom, you undermine the credibility of your own position. More importantly, by not standing up for the inalienable right of our opponents to speak their mind - that is, not standing up against the government's authority to harrass and coerce people for expressing dissenting opinions - we put our own freedom to dissent at far greater risk. If the government has the authority to punish anti-gay speech, then it also has the authority to punish pro-gay speech. Neither is acceptable.

Tags

More like this

This story illustrates perfectly the problem at the core of hate speech laws of the type that so many of our Western allies have. I've documented many times what goes on in England whenever anyone reports an anti-gay statement made there. Scotland Yard sends out detectives to investigate. Now I…
I've written before about the 9th circuit case Harper v Poway Unified School District, which I think the court got wrong. The case involved a student who wore a t-shirt to school on the day after the pro-gay Day of Silence event that said "Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned" and…
I swear, England is trying their damnedest to make anti-gay rhetoric sound rational and accurate. They're prosecuting a minister for handing out leaflets with Bible verses on them at a gay Mardi Gras event, for nothing other than handing them out: A police force was caught up in a freedom of speech…
Here's another case of the British police "investigating" someone for making mildly anti-gay comments: Joe Roberts 73, and his wife Helen, 68, of Fleetwood, Lancashire, wrote to Wyre Borough Council complaining at their bid to promote awareness of gay issues. The devout Christians said the council…

In this country, the reported person could have told the police that if there had been no allegation of a crime, they could kindly remove themselves from the premises and not return unless they had a warrant.

It reminds me of an incident that happened to a friend in Denver a couple of years ago. Some neighbors had complained about their having their recreational vehicle parked on the street. Since many neighbors did the same thing, she walked around with her baby girl and took some pictures. Someone reported it to the police and the police showed up at her door asking questions. They were investigating some kind of possible terrorist activity. I would have tried to be polite as I directed them to leave.

Good to hear British police have already solved all of the murders and robberies and such.