Scotland: Thought Police Increasededitor
SCOTLAND, March 18, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Scottish police and homosexual advocacy groups are combining to train 60 officers as LGBT-hate crime specialists in an apparent effort to increase the number of hate crimes reported.
The move has raised concerns over the possible criminalization of any criticism of homosexuality. Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality told LifeSiteNews, “Everyone is against hate and violence against homosexuals or anybody else. But are they setting up a politically correct hierarchy of victims with homosexuals at the top?”
According to the Equality Network, which will be training LGBT liaison officers for the Scottish police, there were 841 “sexual orientation aggravate crimes” in 2015 and 21 “transphobic” crimes. The press release adds, “there is said to be evidence of significant under-reporting.”
In evidence, the charity reports on a survey of LGBT Scots indicating that half had seen or been victims of “prejudice or discrimination” within the past month, as had 97 % in the past year, though neither “prejudice” nor “discrimination” are as yet crimes.
Fergus McMillan, chief executive of LGBT Youth Scotland, admitted that the training of police was an effort to raise crime numbers. “We are currently working with a range of partners, including Equality Network, to increase the reporting of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic hate crimes and incidents and improve the support available to those targeted.”
He added that the majority of homophobic crimes did not get reported, explaining, “Around half of all LGBT respondents would not feel confident reporting a crime to the police.”
Superintendent Jim Baird of Police Scotland encouraged more reporting, saying, “If anyone feels they have been the victim of, or witness to, a crime which is motivated by malice or ill will because of sexual orientation or gender identity they should report it to us directly, online, or through a third party reporting site.”
Canadian data from 2010 indicates that 16% of hate crimes that year were motivated by sexual orientation, but 65% were violent, twice the level for racial crimes and four times that for religious hate crimes.
According to groups such as Focus on the Family and Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, stressing such hate crimes is part of the overall “homosexual agenda” designed to portray homosexuals as victims and restrict the free speech of their critics.
Anti-homosexuality activist LaBarbera said the term “hate” had been “bastardized” and turned into a weapon to suppress fair comment by groups such as his about the real social and personal dangers of homosexuality. “Just how far will the term go?” he asked.
Renew America states on its website “The push for federal ‘hate crimes’ legislation is another activist tool intended to silence traditional views on human sexuality and sexual morality. Similar laws have already been used around the world, and even right here at home, to persecute Christians and other traditionalists.”
One Catholic crusader against homosexual behavior, Brother Damon Kelly, has been repeatedly arrested by police under suspicion of committing hate crimes by handing out fliers condemning homosexual relations. Commenting on the case, Andrea Williams, executive director of the Christian Legal Centre in London, said the British government and police were trying to maintain harmony in a multicultural state. “The police feel a responsibility to protect diversity, but they do not understand what is protected by free speech in public space.”
Brother Damon himself dismisses the idea that homosexuals are victimized in Great Britain, noting that “there are 37 openly professed Gay MPs in Parliament.” He told LifeSiteNews, “The most discriminated against in Britain are the unborn, Muslims (especially since the ISIS threat), Romanians, and Gypsies[.] … So it begs the question: where are the specially trained police for these groups?”
Brother Damon added, “The LGBT’s insistence that they are vulnerable and targeted is not from fear of persecution, but is a well thought-out strategy to increase their perceived importance and their power in being able to shape Government policies.”
Am I alone in feeling increasingly nervous about voicing an opinion on LGBT “issues” – in Scotland or anywhere else?
No Ed your definitely not . Personally having had words in the past with a Homosexual who in Public Swimming Baths made remarks of which I was certainly not amused, had I gone to the Police am sure I would have been told in no uncertain terms where to go. This so called LGBT rubbish has now gone right to the Top of so called Scottish Politics. That [MSP] Patrick Harvie (a self confessed Homosexual Bisexual might want gender equality) as in there is now no sex as in a boy is a boy and a girl is a girl. They don’t fool us as we know it’s the Children their after. Also can someone please tell me why a person who chooses to be Homosexual says their proud to be Homosexual but they don’t want to be called Homosexual. Personally it sickens me as am sure you feel the same, so since when did not agreeing with someone become a crime and if they are so discriminated why are there so many Homosexuals on TV especially the BBC.
The police certainly seem to be unable to differentiate between the fact that nobody should break the law by mistreating any other human being, homosexual or not, and making a particular way of life, group or individual above criticism. That’s the core of the matter.
Actions that were against the law of the land until recent years, are now not only permitted in law, but any criticism of those same actions is itself fast becoming actionable in law, classed as “hate crime”.
Yet, it’s perfectly possible to criticise someone, or a group without “hating” them – who, in this world, hasn’t criticised politicians, bankers and other scoundrels, like those engaged in professional robbery and other dishonesty!
It’s just crazy to accuse those of us who consider homosexual activity to be unhealthy, of being “homophobic” or guilty of “hating”. I don’t hate anyone. End of.
You are right that it’s the children they’re after because they are very active in schools right now. The LGBT have material and speakers in schools to make sure children are being indoctrinated with their philosophy, that they think homosexual activity and transgenderism are normal things. It’s utterly shameful that the police are supporting this.
Sorry, that reply was for Faith of our Fathers, but went into the wrong place.
This is disgraceful, using tax-payers money to fund a special unit to hunt out anyone who criticises the LGBT group.
It’s not going to stop me from saying what I think when I need to say it. If they are going to charge everyone with a hate crime who thinks homosexuality is immoral, the courts will be very busy places indeed, LOL!
As the Brother said, the idea that the homosexuals are victimized in Britain today is a joke. This is PC squandering of tax-payers money yet again, in the LGBT cause. It’s a downright disgrace.
Someone, who shall remain nameless, suggested to me that most Catholics, like everyone else these days, have accepted homosexuality as a “reality” of the modern world and that explains the lack of opposition to the setting up of this special “hate crime” task force.
Could explain so few comments on this thread so far.
I think you are right Editor, that Catholics today are accepting of homosexuality.
For decades now, Catholic schools have taught pupils to be accepting of persons who identify as homosexual. While of course people should be treated with respect, (as per the Catechism), this tolerance has not been balanced by teaching why the Church condemns homosexual behaviour.
And so pupils leave RE class understanding that the correct response to someone annoucing a homosexual orientation is to rush to affirm and support this decision. I think few modern Catholics are familiar with the Church teaching on homosexuality (or sexual ethics in general) and tend to understand it as being “old fashioned”.
I was formerly a member of a Catholic organisation and was criticised for referencing Church teaching in this area – it seemed to be understood by the members that anytime Catholic teaching disagreed with contemporary secular values, then our teaching was to be considered “old fashioned” and quietly dropped, if not repudiated. I have encountered similar sentiments from Catholic teachers, as well as ordinary lay Catholics.
As for these specially trained Police Officers, it seems to me that this is the Government casting its net to try to manufacture “evidence” / conditions to justify further railroading of “LGBT” agendas, such as the so-called “inclusive education” which the SNP is set to introduce to Scottish schools in the next Parliament (see my recent post about this in the General discussion thread).
It will be interesting to see how SCES and the Bishops respond to this, as it would essentially entail Catholic Schools giving a positive portrayal of lifestyles and behaviour which the Church condemns. It is difficult to see how Catholic Schools could mention Church teaching at all in this environment.
It would be interesting to know exactly what constituted a ‘hate crime’. If it was violence, verbal or physical, against a homosexual or lesbian person, then clearly that is criminal behavior and should be discouraged. If on the other hand, it is considered criminal to speak out against homosexual acts, marriage, adoption well that is another matter entirely. One would not want this country to be like say, Uganda, where homosexuals are in fear of their lives simply for being that way and are hunted down and even put to death.
As Gabriel points out it does seem to have become praiseworthy to ‘out’ oneself and here I find I am conflicted. In my extended family there are two people, one male and one female who have ‘come out’ as gay. (Sorry if that word offends some here). It was clear to all of us from his being a young teenager that C.was likely to be homosexual. Certainly my sons guessed it. It was also clear as he grew older that he was deeply unhappy and it was not until his thirties that he actually ‘came out’. No one guessed about the girl who had had boyfriends etc as a teenager until, again in her thirties, she admitted to being a lesbian with a long term partner and in the process nearly broke her parents’ heart.
Some years down the line, the older generation, all Catholics, would I believe still be very opposed to homosexual acts but nevertheless accept the couples and are welcoming to their partners. The younger generation, all of whom went to Catholic school seem to be completely accepting of the gay situation full stop and some even believe in gay marriage. It seems that most Catholics have drifted along in the same way to accepting this as a valid lifestyle.
Now would things have been different if the families concerned had risen up and condemned these two people as in “do not darken my door again and never ever bring your “partner” with you!”
It is difficult although I suspect that most, if not all the people on this blog will respond that the hard line is the only right one to take.
Although things have gone far too far in the opposite direction, I think that the current push to normalize homosexuality is perhaps a reaction to the time when to be homosexual was to be a criminal (such as Oscar Wilde) and this led to persecution, imprisonment and suicide in many cases. All the hysteria around such horrors as the Gay Pride movement all stem from a determination to just be accepted.
What should Catholics do? Well hate the sin and love the sinner I suppose is the easy answer but it is never that simple. I have just finished reading a book about the “homosexualisation” of seminaries in the USA and I was completely appalled by what I read, please God it is not the same here? If it is the same, then heaven help all those would be priests who come up against that situation. If I came in contact with any of those militant gay priests I would soon be guilty of a hate crime myself!
“It is difficult although I suspect that most, if not all the people on this blog will respond that the hard line is the only right one to take.”
These are really difficult times and we are all confronted with situations within our families which make it problematic for us in personal relationships with siblings, cousins, nephews, nieces, to know what is the right way to deal with the immorality around us, especially when it visits us within our own families.
I’m in the lucky position (so to speak) of not having to say anything to anyone in my own family, as they all know what I think via the newsletter!
With some naughty young relatives “in the beginning” (so to speak) when the rot was setting in, I did take the “hard line” and said I wouldn’t visit them while they were cohabiting. When they married, that would be different. Then one of them married in the Protestant church and so it went on from bad to worse.
In the end, for the sake of not causing an irreparable disruption within the family, and in the hope of being able to encourage their return to the Faith, I’ve taken a different line. Never, not remotely, supporting their wrong choices, and always speaking the truth without apology when the subjects arise naturally, I find it is better to maintain a friendliness (who else will put up with my sense of humour?) and, as you say, never lose sight of the fact that we must love the sinner while hating the sin – and not being afraid to say that we hate the sin, when the subject arises.
I think that’s the best any of us can do these days – although I’m open to correction if anyone thinks I’m wrong on this. Just choose your words carefully, bearing in my that while I may not always be right, I’m never EVER wrong!
One more thing about the “hard line” – it may be that there is occasion for that route, but everyone has to weigh up what that means in their own situation, what form it takes, etc.
Think of the heroic souls who have been at the mercy of terrorists like the ISIS group. I missed it, but friends told me about a young Syrian man who was given the option of converting to Islam or facing death (and the ISIS killings are gruesome in the extreme). He said – and apparently this was reported on the news here – that he couldn’t do that because Christ said “If you deny Me in the presence of men, I will deny you in the presence of My Father in Heaven”. He was then killed. Now, there’s a true martyr. Not a martyr because he was killed, not even because he was known to be a Christian and killed – but because he refused to deny Christ.
That was a “hard line” response that would without doubt take that soul to God in Heaven. A “hard line” response that, please God, will not be asked of any of us although there may be occasions when something less, if yet “hard line” would be in the best interests of our family members and friends. We need to pray for the grace to make the correct distinctions. But I don’t think there is any need to use a one-size-fits-all approach – there may have been at one time, but we are too far down the line now, for that, in my view. With the Pope, and many bishops, priests and teachers taking the worldly view and the false mercy view, it may only confuse those we seek to help. We need to think “smart” as they say in the world of business and enterprise these days so, I suggest you
Point your relatives to this blog!
Editor, thank you for your compassionate wisdom.
The 1961 Vatican instruction, approved by Pope John XXIII http://www.papalencyclicals.net/John23/j23religios.htm states:- “Advantage to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.”
The 2005 Vatican instruction, approved by Pope Benedict XVI http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben16/Instructions.htm states:- “In the light of such teaching, this dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture.” Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.”
Yet in spite of all this, I have seen evidence – of which those with responsibility in these matters are aware – that these teachings are not always being upheld in the UK. More than that I will not say.
catholic man of the year,
I think it is crystal clear that the seminaries (what’s left of them) are totally ignoring the rules about homosexual men not being suitable candidates. I, too, have seen the evidence of which you speak, but even without it, I would know that from the public statements of the likes of Cardinal Nichols, and from his support of the Soho Masses as were, there is no way he has any problem with accepting homosexuals into the priesthood. I’d be amazed if it weren’t an entry requirement these days!
I’ve been searching for a particular cartoon on a completely different subject, but stumbled across this one and I think you will agree, it fits perfectly here…
Yes, apart from the on-going situation I referred to in my previous post (of which I know you have full knowledge), I can think of other situations I’m aware of, of homosexual / sexually confused men who have been ordained, which have all ended in public scandal to a greater or lesser degree:-
a priest of my locality who ‘came out’ and is now laicised and is openly ‘gay’
a priest of a neighbouring diocese who was done for possessing child pornography and publicly blamed this on his homosexuality and trawling ‘gay’ websites
a priest of a neighbouring diocese who left the priesthood and was seen shortly afterwards masquerading as a female in public. I will never forget the shock and embarrassment of a devout Catholic elderly lady friend, now deceased, who told me that she bumped into him dressed as a woman at a bus stop and that she wished the ground would have swallowed her up
a priest who died of AIDS related illness due to homosexual activity. This matter became a national scandal and according to public reports – never refuted – it was known that he was homosexual (although no longer sexually active) and HIV+ when he was ordained
While it seems nigh on impossible at present to halt the acceptance and promotion of homosexual activity in the world, there can be no such excuse in the Church, given the 1961 and 2005 Vatican documents. I’m sure all of the above cases could have been discerned and stopped before ordination, thus avoiding the scandal. It seems that there just isn’t the will to do so. And as homosexual men are still being put forward to the seminaries, we can expect to see more of the same in the future.
Perhaps the thought police ought to take these latest available statistics on board – and this from a ‘gay-friendly’ AIDS website:- http://www.nat.org.uk/HIV-in-the-UK/HIV-Statistics/Latest-UK-statistics/Men-who-have-sex-with-men.aspx “Significant numbers of men who have sex with men are being diagnosed with HIV each year in the UK. In the last decade the number newly diagnosed has increased from 2,423 in 2004 to 3,360 in 2014. Increased number of diagnoses amongst this group reflects both on-going high levels of HIV transmission and an increase in HIV Testing. There is no indication that HIV incidence among MSM is decreasing”.
Catholic Man Of The Year,
Those are terrible statistics. How shocking that they are not being broadcast in the mainstream media. Thank you for posting – I will make good use of that information. It helps that it is from a “gay friendly” website.
To be fair, these statistics about the continual rise in HIV and other STD’s among homosexuals are quite often reported in the mainstream media – which makes it even more incomprehensible that people continue to put themselves at risk. I’ve often seen reports in the press and on TV about this problem – there was something on the ITV London evening news (just before the national news) not so long ago about the spiralling rates of HIV among homosexuals in the capital. But, as ever, the media continues to take a schizophrenic approach – glamorising and supporting the ‘gay lifestyle’, while having to admit the devastating physical consequences. The spiritual devastation is never mentioned, of course, and the ‘answer’ to this problem seems now to focus on so-called ‘pre-exposure’ drugs, which have to be taken regularly by healthy non-infected individuals in order to lessen the risk of HIV infection. There was a recent furore when the NHS (quite rightly, in my opinion) did a u-turn and refused to fund these drugs. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/21/nhs-england-hiv-prevention-drug-truvada-prep
Catholic Man of the Year,
Thank you for those posts (I think!) I am only amazed at the woman who wished the ground would open up and swallow her, as I’d have been wishing it would open up and swallow HIM – the priest dressed as a woman. Horrendous.
Or perhaps Fr Arthur doesn’t think so? I’m surprised, given the volume of his comments on this blog, that he hasn’t remarked on this topic. Very curious, indeed.
He’s probably looking for some off-the-beaten-track quote to cherry-pick, so he can pursue his usual strategy of claiming that we’re attacking the Pope (criticism = attack, don’t you know) and distorting the topic. I have to wonder, though, given the frequency of his comments here, how it is that he attends to the needs of his parishioners….not to mention his own spiritual duties….or perhaps his Bishop has given him a sabbatical with the mission of discrediting this thorn in the side of the Modernist hierarchy?
I must say I, too, an surprised that Fr Arthur has not posted here, since it would be a good chance for him to show that he agrees with us all on homosexuality – that the Church is right on this important moral truth. I have to admit that seeing how quick he is to post on every other thread, I did notice his absence here.
Yes, who’d have thought that Fr Arthur would ever go shy on us.
I notice that on the Jiggery blog, Fr Arthur excuses himself from blogging here because, well, he’s blogged other places but not always, e.g. he didn’t comment on the Bishop Fellay video because (my words not his) he would only annoy us all. We would find his comments challenging, something like that – you can read it yourself (but please don’t respond on that thread as I do not want to mix the topics.)
Thus, having NOT commented on the Bishop Fellay thread, it makes perfect sense not to comment on this thread. Hmmmm…..
Make of that what you will; what do I make of it? I make of it that he has no problem with tax-payers’ money being spent to create a special police task force to hunt down critics of the “gay” lifestyle. Ergo, there’s not a lot wrong with said “gay” lifestyle.
If I’m wrong, he is welcome to correct me.
Fr Arthur said on that thread: “It is also true I watched The Bishop Fellay interview on the day Rorate Caeli posted it. On it, I have much to say but I have not done so as it would be precisely to challenge the thinking of some.” But hasn’t that been his raison d’etre to date – to challenge the thinking of all who post on this blog? So why hold his tongue on this thread? Most odd.
But I’m sure that Fr Arthur will be able to allay any concerns and fully and unequivocally state that he accepts Catholic teaching on homosexuality, as given in Holy Scripture; the Catechism of the Catholic Church; the 1986 Vatican instruction on the pastoral care of homosexual persons; http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html and
the 2003 Vatican document on homosexual unions; http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html – of such unions the Vatican stated that “clear and emphatic opposition is a duty” – a DUTY, Fr Arthur, did you read that? CLEAR and EMPHATIC opposition? Not silence?
If Fr Arthur can’t state a simple ‘yes I fully and unequivocally accept’ to these things, well, join the dots up for yourselves.
The concept of “hate crime” is utterly false from its very inception, because it is an attempt to punish not only the crime, but the motivation behind it. Thus a hate crime is really a THOUGHT crime, and yet more evidence that the “errors of Russia” are destroying the once-free, once Christian West. It is a Stalinist tactic through and through.
The concept actually began, I believe, in the 1980s and was initially applied only to race violence. The homosexual militants, however, soon addressed that deficiency and are using it to force their disorder and sin down everyone’s throats, and, they hope, to destroy the Church in the process.
As for the teaching of the Church on homosexuality being a “hard line,” I would think that as long as the hard line is the truth, and as long as it is offered in charity, there is, spiritually speaking, nothing “hard” about it. In fact, our own sanctification requires that we embrace truth. The hard part is living in a society in which truth has become the enemy, and those who embrace it are pariahs and even criminals. (I admit that this is easy for me to say, since I have no homosexuals in my family.)
Brace yourselves before you read this:-
Not surprisingly, the likes of Dr Paul Cameron gets demonised big time by the LGBT lobby. He ‘had a parking fine back in 1983’, so he’s ‘clearly of homophobic and dubious character’ and we should therefore ‘disregard and dismiss all his bigoted research out of hand’…etc.
I liked Dr Cameron’s answer to those who rubbished his work – he said…’go spend your nickel and time doing some research of your own’….
It’s incredible how the facts are ignored and any criticism of homosexual activity labelled “bigoted” and “homophobic”. Truly strange.
Clearly the security guard is bigoted and hate filled.
Perhaps that isn’t a very fair comment to make. I could have misunderstood you but it suggests that you’ve made up your mind that the guard is telling the truth, simply because the accused is a well-known homosexual. Believe me – I am no Elton John fan – far from it – but to be scrupulously fair, it wouldn’t be the first time that a falsehood had been uttered against a well-known public figure in order to gain money or some other advantage. Recent events in this country have clearly shown us that while some are guilty, some are entirely innocent of accusations of criminal behaviour. I still believe in innocent until proven guilty.
I agree – “innocent until proven guilty” must be our position. Anything less is unjust.
No it is a fair comment and I am not saying that the man’s claims are true either. . If you check other media sources in the USA, you will see that his followers are screaming its made through hatred, no other motive.Which is the point I made. I have no doubt some of accusations in this country are false, but the bulk of them are proving to be true. And of course there those that will never see the light of day.The claim made that accusers are only trying to get money does not always stand up, nor does “why did they wait until now to come forward” Given the level of corruption and degeneracy that exists in both countries (at present) I doubt if the guard will get anywhere with his claim
Comments are closed.