In a victory for common sense, senior judges threw out appeals by five Muslims, who ranted at troops who were on parade after they had returned from Afghanistan. The High Court judges said the focus on minority rights “should not result in overlooking the rights of the majority” when it comes to freedom of speech. The five were appealing against convictions of public order offences, claiming they were entitled to protest under the European Convention on Human Rights. (Daily Express, 17 February 2011)
Newspapers today contained a story about a court judgment… and if Christian advocate groups don’t take it up as a strong precedent to reverse current ‘gay’ attacks on Christians, then I will eat my hat! (In law, a precedent is a ruling that can apply to many other cases, not necessarily of the same type).
In 2009, five Muslim fanatics stood on the side of the road during an army march-past in Luton. They held up banners and shouted at the troops, calling them ‘baby killers’, and ‘rapists’ and a whole lot more. As a result they were arrested for public order offences.
Yesterday, their appeal was dismissed. As the newspaper headline put it: “Muslim Ranters Are Out of Order”, with the sub-heading, ‘Gang’s Appeal is Laughed Out of Court’. And rightly so. The judges used common-sense.
So, how can I translate that into a precedent to stop ‘gays’ taking Christians to court? What makes it a precedent is the judges’ summation. Quoting the High Court judges, the Daily Express said: ‘The High Court judges said the focus on minority rights “should not result in overlooking the rights of the majority” when it comes to free speech.’ If I were still a law student practising a Moot Court case, I would definitely hotly use that one as a precedent against ‘gay’ rights as they now stand!
How can I justify that? Easily.
- Gay rights are supposed to be equal to religious rights, but they are always used against Christians as superior to religious rights.
- Gay rights apply to only 1% or less of the population. That definitely makes it a ‘minority-minority’! The majority are the 99% who are not ‘gay’.
- The majority of that majority still view homosexuality as disgusting, or just as plain wrong. Even more would think this way if the facts were made known. But the law is used against anyone who attempts to make those facts known.
- The judges said that minority rights must not overlook the rights of the majority… and that is a key statement. ‘Gay’ rights are used continually as an instrument with which to attack Christians. Therefore, this is a precedent to overturn and reject the inequality. It also means Christians have the right to express their views.
- If this precedent is put into practice it calls into question the way ALL pro-gay laws are constructed and used, because they are ALL used against Christians and the rest of the population.
The five Muslims were attempting to gain a reversal of their charges under Article Ten of the meddlesome and officious European Convention on Human Rights, a legal bill imposed on us by a foreign pseudo-government, and therefore acted-upon treasonously by the British government.
Gay activists run riot over all Christian freedoms and expressions of faith, not just about homosexuality. Everything said or done by Christians in defence or as part of normal Christian expression, is shouted-down as ‘hate speech’… common-sense alone should show that none of it is ‘hate speech’. And, in their own newspapers, websites and in the streets, homosexuals use abusive, foul, and threatening language against critics. Look at how many foul-mouthed abusive emails the Bull’s received for not offering a room to a ‘gay’ couple! Why are THEY not taken to court? Or ‘gay’ newspapers that print such awful lies and wickedness?
Thus, to refer back to the High Court judges – according to their precedent, homosexual rights may not supersede the rights of the majority. Even if we do not count the rest of society, the number of Christians far outnumbers the number of supposed homosexuals… where even the figure of 1% is too high, when we consider that homosexuals revert back to normal sex regularly, making the actual number of homosexuals at any one time even lower and impossible to calculate.
Will Christian-advocacy groups see this glaring precedent? If they do not – where are their legal experts! I urge readers to send reasons to use this precedent to all MPs, the PM, government, the media and to Christian advocacy groups. We MUST seize the opportunity to use it. Don’t lose the moment!
© 17 February 2011