Ian Boyne The British House of Lords and the House of Commons has released a bombshell human rights report which says religious institutions should not have the right even in their private schools to teach that homosexuality is sinful. This has lit a flame of controversy burning all the way into Jamaica.
The vocal anti-homosexual Lawyers Christian Fellowship has been circulating the report to raise consternation among Christians here as to the severity of the fight which is on their hands, and no doubt the possible influence of the British view on Jamaican legislation. In the report titled 'Legislative Scrutiny: Sexual Orientation Regulations', the Joint Committee on Human Rights of both the House of Lords and the House of Commons opine that, "we do not consider that the right to freedom of conscience and religion requires the school curriculum to be exempted from the scope of sexual orientation regulations".
Should not discriminate
The committee says not only should religious institutions not discriminate against admitting homosexual students to their schools and not discriminate against them in services offered at their schools, but non-discrimination must extend to not stigmatising them through religious instruction.
Says the committee in its report published on February 26: In our view, the regulations prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination should clearly applyto the curriculum so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching as part of the religious education, or other curriculum that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong. Applying the regulations to the curriculum would not prevent pupils from being taught, as part of their religious education, the fact that certain religions view homosexuality as sinful. In our view, there is an important difference between this factual information being imparted in a descriptive way as part of a wide-ranging syllabus about different religions, and a curriculum which teaches a particular religion's beliefs as if they were objectively true. The latter is likely to lead to unjustifiable discrimination against homosexual pupils".
No sacrosanct area
This is not talking about state-sponsored schools, but is directly and frontally challenging the right of religious institutions to teach their religious prohibition of homosexuality in their own private schools. In the view of the legislators, there can be no sacrosanct area where "discrimination" is allowed, no privileged sector which is free to "deny the human rights of people", in their view.
You can see why this would throw Shirley Richards and her fellow conservative Christians in a tizzy. But it should not only be conservative or fundamentalist religious people who should be concerned. Let's examine the implicit anti-religious prejudice and bigotry contained in the above-quoted statement. The esteemed ladies and gentlemen make a sharp distinction between "factual information" about various religions? teaching on homosexuality and "a curriculum which teaches a particular religion?s doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true". But why can schools be justified in teaching other things as objectively true and not teach matters of religion as objectively true? This is philosophical arrogance which ignores the whole revolution in post-modernist philosophy.
As Jurgen Habermas, one of the world"s leading thinkers, says in the essay, 'Religion in the Public Sphere" in the April 2006 issue of the European Journal of Philosophy, "As long as secular citizens are convinced that religious traditions and religious communities are to a certain extent archaic relics of pre-modern societies that continue to exist in the present, they will understand freedom of religion as the cultural version of the conservation of a species in danger of becoming extinct. From their viewpoint, religion no longer has any intrinsic justification to exist".
neat distinction
The Joint Committee on Human Rights makes a neat distinction between the right to freedom of thought and freedom of conscience and the right to manifest one's religion or belief in practice. The former is absolute, they grant, but the latter is restricted. For example, a Christian who is principal of a school, the administrator of a health centre or the executive director of a social welfare agency should not be allowed to discriminate against gay people in the provision of services. I agree. I believe it is wrong to deny gay people right to social services and the right to employment. It is time that Christians speak out clearly and unequivocally on these matters and affirm the human rights and civil liberties of gay people.
We should not be on the side of those bigots who would deny gay people the right to employment, housing, health care and educational opportunities. There is nothing in the Christian scriptures which would justify any discrimination against gay people in terms of services. If Christians invoke the death penalty prescribed in the Old Testament, then I remind that the same penalty be applied in the Old Testament equally to fornicators, adulterers, sorcerers " and Sabbath-breakers!
Double standards
If you are not prepared to apply it against all " or against the fornicators and adulterers " then why single out the homosexual" The double standards and rank prejudice of Christians against gay people have prejudiced their own case against extremists, such as those on the U.K.?s Joint Committee on Human Rights. We should agree with the committee that ?the right not to be discriminated against on the ground of sexual orientation? is a "fundamental human right".
The committee uses the liberal Northern Ireland legislation as a guide and is pressing the British Government to adopt its provisions. The British Government has already accepted the position that non-discrimination of gays in schools should apply not only to public schools but to schools in the independent religious sector (though they have not accepted that the curriculum should not teach against the gay lifestyle. This is one matter the committee is lobbying them to do).
A sensitive and fluid area is that of "harassment" against gay people. What constitutes "harassment" The committee admits that "the potential interference with freedom of speech arises because people may feel inhibited from saying something if they fear that a person may perceive it as a violation of their dignity or as creating an offensive environment. The potential interference with freedom of religion and belief arises because explanations of sincerely held doctrinal beliefs might be perceived as violating a person's dignity or creating an offensive environment".
The Northern Ireland regulations see harassment as where on the ground of sexual orientation? a person engages in unwanted conduct which has the purpose of "violating a person?s dignity, creating an intimidating, hostile degrading and offensive environment?. Further and equally disturbing the perception of the person being harassed is taken into consideration. So Christians calling homosexuality an "abomination" and saying that people who engage in it are engaging in "degrading behaviour", as the Bible posits could be termed harassment and causing emotional harm, with legal consequences. This is dangerous and does affect freedom of speech. But homosexuality has now joined race and gender as major issues where so-called hate speech is applied and where you are not free to use certain words to describe gay people. Can you imagine what that would do the preaching of fundamentalists in Jamaica! (My mentor John Maxwell would say that restriction would be a good thing.)
Insightful objection
The Joint Committee on Human Rights notes what I consider the insightful objection of Lord Lester who moved to delete the harassment section from the new British regulation, explaining that its inclusion would have negative implications for freedom of speech. (It is also mired in subjectivity). But the committee objects to the deletion saying that in "relation to sexual orientation, race and sex, these are inherent characteristics". Putting sexual orientation in the same category as race and gender as "inherent characteristics" is absolutely unwarranted and unscientific and merely gives into the unscientific and intuitive propaganda of the gay lobby which sees sexual orientation as genetically-based and fixed.
The report not only lacks philosophical sophistication but also misrepresents the scientific evidence. But it reflects growing international human rights consensus which puts gay rights on par with racial and gender rights. Soon countries like Jamaica which still have a buggery law will be pressured through the lack of aid and other kinds of diplomatic coercion for their "human rights violations".
■ Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist who may be reached at ianboyne1@yahoo.co.
