A woman dares to question gay 採択 and the police move in...George Orwell would be proud of them

When The new Civil 共同 行為／法令／行動する （機の）カム into 軍隊 last week, family values 選挙運動者 Lynette Burrows took part in a discussion on BBC 無線で通信する Five Live about its 関わりあい／含蓄s.

During the programme, Ms Burrows said she did not believe homosexuals should be 許すd to 可決する・採択する. Placing boys with two homosexuals for 採択, she said, was as obvious a 危険 as placing a girl with two 異性愛の men who 申し込む／申し出d themselves as parents.

To her astonishment, the に引き続いて day she was 接触するd by the police who said a "homophobic 出来事/事件" had been 報告（する）／憶測d against her. She had committed no 罪，犯罪 but, said the police, it was 政策 to 調査／捜査する homophobic, 人種差別主義者 and 国内の 出来事/事件s because these were "優先 罪，犯罪s". Such 活動／戦闘 was "all about 安心させるing the community".

Far from 存在 thus 安心させるd, it is difficult adequately to 表明する one's shock and abhorrence - not at Ms Burrows, but at the 活動／戦闘s and 態度s of the police. What 肉親，親類d of a society has this become where if someone 表明するs an opinion which 落ちるs foul of the 政治上 認可するd doctrines of the day, the police start feeling their collar?

Prejudice

Freedom of speech is supposed to be the bedrock value of a 自由主義の society. It should be constrained only in extreme circumstances where a 罪，犯罪 might be committed, such as incitement to 暴力／激しさ or encouraging テロ行為.

In the 事例／患者 of Ms Burrows, no 罪，犯罪 had been committed. It was 簡単に that her 見解（をとる）s fell foul of the doctrine that to criticise the behaviour of self-指定するd 犠牲者 groups is to be pronounced 有罪の of prejudice.

But Ms Burrows' 見解（をとる）s are 株d by many people, maybe even the 大多数. While most are - thankfully - tolerant of gay people, they draw the line at gay 採択 because they do not think it is in the best 利益／興味s of children to be brought up by two partners of the same sex.

Ms Burrows, however, was raising the incendiary 問題／発行する of the 危険 of paedophilia. She was careful to say that this was a 危険 の中で 異性愛のs 同様に as の中で gay men.

But the 問題／発行する of paedophilia is a troubling one in the 状況 of gay 採択. The 広大な 大多数 of homosexuals are not paedophiles, any more than are the 広大な 大多数 of 異性愛の men.

But a small 少数，小数派 of both groups are.

Within those small numbers, however, academic 熟考する／考慮するs show that paedophilia is proportionately more ありふれた の中で gay men. What's more, a number of gay 行動主義者s talk it up - redefining it en 大勝する as "の間の-generational sex" - arguing that it is 許容できる and even central to male homosexual life.

明確に, it is a factor to be considered when it comes to 採択. It is 簡単に outrageous if such 完全に 合法的 and necessary discussion is now to be made impossible.

But then, the gay 権利s 協議事項 is all about 事業／計画（する）ing gay lifestyles as no different from those of 異性愛のs, so that any difference in the way gay people are 扱う／治療するd can be ascribed to 差別.

その結果, it is not enough for gay people not to be stigmatised on account of 性の preferences which deviate from the norm. Instead, the very idea of moral norms has to be destroyed, and anyone who tries to 支持する them can be vilified as a bigot and 脅迫してさせるd into silence.

That has now happened. To disapprove of gay lifestyles is to 招待する 確かな ostracism as a "homophobe". But if this isn't bad enough, we now find that 発言する／表明するing such opinions has become - incredibly - a 事柄 for the police, who are putting 明言する／公表する 力／強力にする behind such 脅迫.

Although an offence has not been committed, the police now believe they should 調査／捜査する the giving of offence. In any sane moral universe, a person making such a （民事の）告訴 would be （刑事）被告 of wasting police time.

脅迫的な

But now - and remember, this is in the absence of any 罪，犯罪 - it seems the police 返答 is to make a 脅迫的な approach to the person who has 発言する／表明するd that opinion, to 警告する them off 発言する／表明するing it again.

How have we descended to this, that while 罪，犯罪 and disorder 激怒（する） unattended in our streets, the police are making a 優先 of 悩ますing people because of the lawful opinions they 持つ／拘留する?

The 推論する／理由 is that the police are now in helpless thrall to the "犠牲者 culture" 協議事項 in which self-指定するd 犠牲者 groups cannot ever be みなすd to have done anything wrong, and so anyone who disapproves of them is by 鮮明度／定義 prejudiced. This is nothing いっそう少なく than a 道具 for destroying the 根底となる values of this society by 取って代わるing its moral norms with values which transgress those norms. This is 存在 達成するd by portraying transgressive behaviour as normal, and anyone who dares say that it is transgressive is therefore by 鮮明度／定義 a bigot.

Such いじめ（る）ing is bad enough in the informal sphere where 評判s are made and lost. When the police get 伴う／関わるd, however, it becomes something very much more 悪意のある.

We have already seen worrying 証拠 of this in the 事例／患者 of the evangelical preacher Harry Hammond. After he held up a poster calling for an end to homosexuality, lesbianism and immorality, a （人が）群がる threw water and 国／地域 over him.

Even though he was attacked, it was he who was 起訴するd and 罪人／有罪を宣告するd of a public order offence on the grounds that his behaviour "went beyond 合法的 抗議する". Yet the only thing that seemed to be 非合法の was his opinion.

The 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 "警察国家" is much 乱用d. But when the police start 脅迫してさせるing people 簡単に because their opinions don't fit the 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing orthodoxy, that begins to look uncomfortably like a drift に向かって just such a 状況／情勢.

土台を崩す

The police are supposed to be the thin blue line that 保護するs our society. But when they 施行する an 協議事項 which 直接／まっすぐに 土台を崩すs our basic values, they turn from society's defenders into the スパイ／執行官s of its nemesis.

The 見解（をとる）s 表明するd by Ms Burrows are commonplace の中で mainstream Christians a nd other 約束s. We appear to have reached a 状況／情勢 where the 表現 of such mainstream 宗教的な 見解（をとる）s will now get the police breathing 負かす／撃墜する one's neck. What is even more astounding is that 試みる／企てるs by the 政府 to criminalise utterances which "glorify テロ行為" - and thus 脅す our 安全 - are 存在 shouted 負かす／撃墜する on the grounds that 解放する／自由な speech has to be 保護するd. But not, it seems, when it comes to Ms Burrows.

Look, for example, at the craven reaction of the BBC to the 影響 of its interview. Was it 乱暴／暴力を加えるd by the fact that one of its contributors had been thus 脅迫してさせるd? It was not. Instead, it 述べるd her 見解（をとる）s as "challenging and unpleasant" and distanced itself from her as 急速な／放蕩な as it could.

Some of us would defend to the death the 権利s of gay people to live their lives 解放する／自由な of 圧迫 and 害（を与える）.

But some of us would also defend to the hilt the 根底となる values of our society against those who wish to destroy them to その上の an 協議事項 of licence, 甚だしい／１２ダース irresponsibility and nihilism.

Those values to be defended 含む the freedom to 発言する／表明する an opinion and the freedom to tell the truth.

If the police are now to be 雇うd in 否定するing such freedoms, we have reached George Orwell's nightmare of the boot stamping on the human 直面する - and we can kiss goodbye to our 自由主義の society.