The British government returns to the nation’s bedrooms.
England decriminalized homosexuality in 1967, a move hailed by libertarians of the day as getting the government out of bedrooms.
The Archbishop of Canterbury of the day had earlier supported decriminalization, saying that “There is a sacred realm of privacy…into which the law, generally speaking, must not intrude. This is a principle of the utmost importance for the preservation of human freedom, self-respect, and responsibility.” It was very much in the tradition of English liberty, which had once led Queen Elizabeth I, in the context of religious belief, to say she would not make windows into men’s souls.
Under the present regime of politically correct soft totalitarianism and social transformism the government is back in bedrooms with a vengeance, policing not only sexual acts but attitudes on a way increasingly reminiscent of Cromwell or Savonarola.
Most recently at Brighton Pilgrim Homes, a charity that operates a care-home for elderly Christians, has been accused of institutional discrimination and has lost its grant from the Brighton and Hove Council because the residents refused to answer questions about their sexuality. Nothing could indicate more clearly that the side presently prosecuting and winning Britain’s culture war has no interest in supporting liberty or the individual’s privacy or dignity, or show up its own sometimes barely disguised viciousness.
A few years ago Home Office Minister Michael O’Brien found the Fire Service had an overly tough and masculine culture and that firemen were failing to come to terms with homosexuality. He stated: “It is time the Fire Service began to understand that society is changing, and it is time it began changing too.” The 6,750 London brigade firemen were then presented by a questionnaire from the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, seeking to know whether they were homosexual or not.
Back in November 2003, it was reported that police were investigating the Bishop of Chester, The Rt. Rev. Peter Forster, co-author of a church report on sexuality issues, who, writing in the Chester Chronicle, had encouraged homosexuals to reorient themselves, to see if his advice amounted to a criminal offense.
The bishop compounded this by stating that children raised in families by “a man and woman who have committed themselves to long-term marriage” fared better than those in single-parent families (a view since endorsed by the government’s own official reports). The Chief Constable of the area, Peter Fahy, actually said that the bishop needed to “justify himself.” The Crown Prosecution Service finally decided that no charges would be laid. However, Chief Constable Fahy administered a moral lecture to the bishop, stating he thought members of minority communities were often targeted and that “I think in a civilised society that’s totally unacceptable.”
It was a defining moment showing how far political correctness had come, when stating such views ran a risk of criminal prosecution, and when it appeared acceptable that the police had become the official guardians and arbitrators not of law but of opinion.
In October 2007, a Christian couple, Vincent and Pauline Matherick, who over the years had taken in 28 foster children, were forced by local authorities from Somerset County Council to give up being foster parents after they refused to promote homosexuality to children in their care if the children expressed an interest in it.
A spokesman for Somerset County Council was quoted as saying that the council was obliged to implement the government’s sexual orientation regulations, and that “I am not suggesting that it is not very difficult for some people, but there is still an obligation under the law.”
Snooping into ethnicity as well as sexual attitudes is a major industry. One soldier who quit the Royal Marines wrote: “The government’s obsession with political correctness has been applied to the military with such relish that at times it seems almost insane. I have lost count of the number of forms I have had to fill in giving details of my ethnic origin. These forms used to be anonymous, but the last one I had to complete carried my name, rank and service number.”
In the case of Pilgrim Homes the Daily Mail reported that the council circulated a questionnaire to the Pilgrim Home in Egremont Place, Brighton, which houses 39 single Christians aged over 80, including former missionaries and a minister.
The charity’s chief executive said: “People in their 90s are very vulnerable and shouldn’t be treated in this way.”
Phil Wainwright, director of human resources for Pilgrim Homes, said the council told him the home had to ask residents if they were lesbian, gay, bisexual, heterosexual or unsure. They were to answer even if they objected. Many of the elderly residents rebelled, however, and the home wrote to the council saying residents did not want to participate. Mr. Wainwright was quoted as saying: “There was a strong feeling among people in the home that the questions were inappropriate and intrusive. They felt they had come to Pilgrim Homes because of its Christian ethos and were upset they were not protected from such intrusions.”
Brighton & Hove Council complained about the home’s “negative response” and argued that because the home had a Christian ethos, homosexual people might be deterred from applying.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?