Are civil liberties attrocities like this something we will see here in the USA in the near future if the radical homosexualists (the gay equivalent of al-Qaeda) have their way? After all, if merely stating an opinion on homosexuality that contradicts the orthodoxy of the Left is going to bring a police response, is it really fair to say that freedom of expression exists in a country?

Lynette Burrows, an author on children's rights and a family campaigner, took part in a discussion on the Victoria Derbyshire show on Radio Five Live about the new civil partnerships act.

During the programme, she said she did not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. She added that placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption was as obvious a risk as placing a girl with two heterosexual men who offered themselves as parents. "It is a risk," she said. "You would not give a small girl to two men."

A member of the public complained to the police and an officer contacted Mrs Burrows the following day to say a "homophobic incident" had been reported against her.

"I was astounded," she said. "I told her this was a free country and we are allowed to express opinions on matters of public interest. She told me it was not a crime but that she had to record these incidents.

"They were leaning on me, letting me know that the police had an interest in my views. I think it is sinister and completely unacceptable."

Scotland Yard confirmed last night that Fulham police had investigated a complaint over the radio programme.

A spokesman said it was policy for community safety units to investigate homophobic, racist and domestic incidents because these were "priority crimes".

So expressing an unacceptable opinion is now a "priority crime" in the UK. I guess that the "rights of Englishmen" aren't waht they used to be.

Telegraph commentator Philip Johnston seems to think that they are not, and lays the blame at the feet of the Blair government, which has been steadily criminalizing the public expression of opinions it finds unfashionable.

Then, an author taking part in a broadcast discussion about gay adoptions was telephoned by a policewoman and informed that her name had been noted following a complaint that she had made a "homophobic" remark on air. Lynette Burrows had offered her opinion that two homosexual men should not be allowed to adopt a boy, which is a view with which you may agree or disagree, but does not warrant a call from the local constabulary.

She was told that, although a crime had not been committed, it was policy to record details of such complaints, so Mrs Burrows is now, presumably, on some sinister register of people who express views that are not considered acceptable. Needless to say, she was flabbergasted to receive such a call. "This is a free country and we are entitled to express opinions on matters of public interest," she said.

But this is no longer true, though it is not the fault of the police. It is the fault of the Government for promoting laws that criminalise opinions judged unfashionable or objectionable, and of Parliament for passing them.

When will the people of Great Britain return to their heritage of liberty that stretches back to the days of the Magna Carta and before, and demand that their fundamental human rights be respected by their government? Or will the toxin of PC censorship be allowed to continue spreading through the free world -- eventually killing the liberties of Americans as well?

Posted by: Greg at 12:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 611 words, total size 4 kb.