Michael Henderson suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value events

Click here for exclusive articles, offers, tasting notes and discussion

Another voice

I oppose a ‘gay-hate’ law because that is not what criminal legislation is for

Matthew Parris

Wednesday, 5th December 2007

A gay hate law would be nothing more than a gimmick

I hope that considerations like this will embolden the House of Lords to head off these new clauses for very practical reasons. The law cannot be made to work, except as a totem. But it would not be brave or honest to oppose it on grounds of practicality alone. Imagine we were (per impossibile) able to define incitement to homophobic hatred sufficiently tightly to make the law work. Should we?

I would still argue that we should not. The comedian Rowan Atkinson has remarked, most penetratingly, that the band of territory to whose south lies opinion which is prohibited, and to whose north lies opinion which is universally approved, seems to be narrowing. Among many who would call themselves progressive, tolerance of an opinion seems to be confused with accepting it, or warming to it, or having an open mind about it.

I hate homophobia and have no doubt that it is stupid and wrong. I feel the same about racism, and about the demeaning of the disabled, or of women. My mind is made up and my opposition ferocious. Yet in no way does this incline me to legislate. Stonewall should beware. The idea that it should be against the law to promote undesirable beliefs has a pedigree. It was called Section 28.

Matthew Parris writes for the Times.