November 10, 2003
SPEAKING OF BRITISH MULTICULTURALISM AND THE ATTACK ON RIGHTS (via Matthew Cohen):
Bishop's anti-gay comments spark legal investigation (Richard Alleyne, 10/11/2003, Daily Telegraph)
A bishop who angered homosexuals by suggesting they seek a psychiatric cure is to be investigated by police to see if his outspoken views amount to a criminal offence, it emerged yesterday.The Rt Rev Dr Peter Forster, the Bishop of Chester, infuriated homosexuals both in and out of the Church of England when he said last week that they could and should seek medical help to "reorientate" themselves.
The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (the LGCM) accused him of putting forward an "offensive" and "scandalous" argument from a bygone age.
Cheshire Police have said that they are to investigate his comments, made in the local paper, the Chester Chronicle, after receiving a complaint that his views may incite people to turn against homosexuals. [...]
He told the newspaper that his research had led him to believe that homosexuals should seek medical help.
He said: "Some people who are primarily homosexual can reorientate themselves. I would encourage them to consider that as an option, but I would not set myself up as a medical specialist on the subject - that's in the area of psychiatric health."
Talk about the inmates running the Asylum... Posted by Orrin Judd at November 10, 2003 2:07 PM
Presumably scientists researching this question would also be guilty of a "criminal offense" if they get the wrong answers, and assert those answers in scientific papers. I hope the rationalists who defend Darwin and Galileo against opponents who disagree as a matter of faith will also step forward to defend the Rt. Rev.
Posted by: pj at November 10, 2003 2:15 PMHe's not going to be charged with anything according to the police.
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at November 10, 2003 2:49 PMHe may not be charged, but he probably will be ten years from now. It is important not to take stories like this too flippantly or incredulously--a common conservative mistake. This is where judicial activism (a.k.a. judicial power grab)leads to. I have no doubt the chattering classes of London found the question of whether he should be charged a serious and difficult one, worthy of lengthy, focussed debate between canapes. The fact that he wasn't charged because public opinion came down 10-9 with two absentions is NOT a triumph for common sense or anything. It is a frightening near-miss and a harbinger of the coming era of barbarity with an empathetic smile. Aux Barricades!
Posted by: Peter B at November 10, 2003 6:21 PMI doubt anyone who's gay would take kindly to being characterised as being mentally ill much like anyone of a religious nature would resent the same implication.
And weren't gays being given electroshock therapy not too recently in order to "cure" them?
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at November 10, 2003 6:32 PMAli:
C'mon. Religious people have been accused by mainstream journalists of every kind of emotional disorder imaginable for several generations, but they don't call the police.
Posted by: Peter B at November 10, 2003 7:44 PMSo are hemopheliacs
Posted by: at November 10, 2003 9:12 PMWould we not treat hemophiliacs if we could?
Posted by: oj at November 10, 2003 9:20 PM