Should a public service accommodate belief?

Current UK law forces Christians to promote unchristian material contrary to their beliefs, but Virgin Trains has decided to stop selling the Daily Mail newspaper because it is not compatible with the Virgin Trains brand and its beliefs.  However, BBC Newsnight described it as ‘a culture war’.

What about Christian beliefs and the Christian brand?  Peter Tatchell, the homosexual activist, disagreed with the legal decision that forced Christian bakers to make and sell a cake promoting homosexual beliefs and practices.  He said that “the law should not compel businesses to aid political messages” adding that “in a free society, people should be able to discriminate against ideas they disagree with”.

When is a belief a brand or a political message?  When is an ideological position a brand, a belief or a culture?  The current law is sowing confusion into public life.

The inconsistency in the current law arises from a failure to understand that Christian toleration is very different from secular toleration.  Christians tolerate what they do not accept, but secularism wants to force acceptance of its views upon others, using the sanctions of the criminal law to do so.

Ever since the Macpherson Report re-defined racism in subjective terms –  “A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person” Recommendation 12 – subjective ‘taking offence’ has become the stick with which to beat and harass other people, and Christians in particular.  It undergirds political correctness.  Diversity training is used to enforce this subjective definition in the employment environment.

A private individual’s complaint can instigate a police investigation simply because a person has taken offence, when possibly no offence was intended.  Meanwhile Christians are offended every day with the use of Christian terms in swearing.

Subjective offence has worked its way through Equalities legislation and it will continue to stoke up charges and countercharges of being offended by each other’s speech and way of life. This will prove to be unworkable, and will itself contribute to louder and louder protests by disparate groups who are offended.  Those who can shout loudest and make most use of the judicial system will prevail.

Rather we need to introduce legislation to restore an objective definition of offence in order to restore free speech.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s