Another Thought Police Incident

Sadly, we have yet another frightening case of government thought police activity regarding someone giving anti-gay opinions, this time in Great Britain. Lynette Burrows, the British equivalent of what we would (misaptly) call a "family values" lobbyist here, went on a talk show to discuss Britain's new civil partnerships act. She is opposed to gay adoptions and said so on the show:

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."

Now, I find her opinion ridiculous and totally unsupported by the evidence. Under British law, however, it requires a criminal investigation:

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."

I do too. Burrows' opinion may be idiotic, but it isn't criminal to hold an idiotic opinion regardless of who might take offense at it. Even more chilling is what Scotland Yard had to say about the incident:

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".

It is standard practice for all parties to be spoken to, even if the incident is not strictly seen as a crime. "It is all about reassuring the community," said the spokesman. "We can confirm that a member of the public brought to our attention an incident which he believed to be homophobic.

"All parties have been spoken to by the police. No allegation of crime has been made. A report has been taken but is now closed."

Saying something others don't like is a "priority crime" in England? Good lord, one has to wonder what the non-priority crimes are if the priority crimes are no crime at all. As far as "reassuring the community", reassuring them of what? That having a dissenting opinion will get you visited by the police and become a permanent part of your record? Gee, that won't have a chilling effect on free speech or anything, would it? And this goes on despite the admission that not even an allegation of a crime has been made! If that doesn't send a chill down your spine, nothing will.

Those of us who strongly support gay rights must be the ones to stand up against this sort of oppressive policy. It will do more to discredit our cause than anything else. It feeds directly into the paranoia of the religious right and distracts attention from the real issues. If you allow your opponents the chance of martyrdom, you undermine the credibility of your own position. More importantly, by not standing up for the inalienable right of our opponents to speak their mind - that is, not standing up against the government's authority to harrass and coerce people for expressing dissenting opinions - we put our own freedom to dissent at far greater risk. If the government has the authority to punish anti-gay speech, then it also has the authority to punish pro-gay speech. Neither is acceptable.