समलैंगिकता के खिलाफ धर्मोपदेशक

अक्तूबर 2001 में हैरी हैमंड नामक एक इवैंजेलिकल ईसाई धर्मोपदेशक ने एक पोस्टर आयोजित किया जिस पर कहावत थी “बंद करो अनैतिकता, बंद करो समलैंगिकता, बंद करो समलैंगिकता।” जब हैमंड ने रोकने से इनकार कर दिया, एक पुलिसकर्मी ने उसे गिरफ्तार कर लिया। टिमोथी गर्तोन ऐश इस शिक्षाप्रद मामले पर चर्चा करते है।

उदहारण

अक्तूबर 2001 में हैरी हैमंड नमक एक इवैंजेलिकल ईसाई धर्मोपदेशक ने बोर्नमाउथ, इंग्लैंड में एक वर्ग में उपदेश देना शुरू किया। उन्होंने एक पोस्टर आयोजित किया जिस पर  कहावत थी “बंद करो अनैतिकता, बंद करो समलैंगिकता, बंद करो समलैंगिकता.” यह शब्द, “जीसस प्रभु है” प्रत्येक कोने पर अंकित किये गए थे। एक उफनता हुई भीड़ उसके पास इकट्ठा हुई, बहस करती हुई, चिल्लाती हुई और उस पर मिट्टी भी फेंकती हुई। एक समय पर किसी ने उसके पोस्टर को खीचने की कोशिश की जिसकी वजह से वह पीछे की ओर गिर गया।

जब हैमंड ने रोकने से इनकार कर दिया एक पुलिसकर्मी ने उसे गिरफ्तार कर लिया। बाद में वह ब्रिटेन के पब्लिक डिसऑर्डर एक्ट 1986 के सेक्शन 5 के तहत अपराध के लिए दोषी पाया गया था, जो “कोई भी लेखन, संकेत या अन्य दृश्य प्रतिनिधित्व, जो धमकानेवाला, निन्दात्मक या अपमानजनक है एक व्यक्ति की सुनवाई या दृष्टि के भीतर, जिसके कारण उत्पीड़न अलार्म, या संकट होने की संभावना”  के किसी भी प्रदर्शन को वर्जित करता है। सजा अपील पर सही ठहराया गया इस  आधार पर कि हैमंड के शब्द “अपमानजनक” थे हालांकि अपील के अदालत ने कहा कि हस्ताक्षर का संदेश “व्यक्त असंयमी भाषा में नहीं था”.

लेखक की राय

यह दोषसिद्धि काफी गलत था। हैमंड अपने विश्वासों को व्यक्त कर रहा था। ये हम में से कई के लिए आक्रामक हैं, लेकिन एक स्वतंत्र और विविध समाज में किसी को भी नाराज़ ना होने का हक नहीं है। वह हिंसा को उकसा नहीं रहा था। पुलिसकर्मी को चेतावनी देनी चाहिए थी और अगर ज़रुरत थी तो धर्मोपदेशक से जो  व्यक्ति बल का उपयोग कर के पोस्टर खींच रहा था उसे गिरफ्तार करना चाहिए था – खुद धर्मोपदेशक को नहीं। गलत आदमी को पकड़ के पुलिस अधिकारी ने उसे प्रोत्साहित जिसे अमेरिका में “हेकलर वीटो” कहते है। काफ़ी जोर से चिल्लाऊँ, खतरे से, और आप वैध बहस को बंद कर सकते हो। यह कैसे कानून का इस्तेमाल नहीं किया जाना चाहिए, उसका एक पाठ्यपुस्तक उदाहरण है।

- टिमोथी गर्तोन ऐश

और पढ़ें:


Comments (10)

Google अनुवाद द्वारा स्वचालित मशीन अनुवाद प्रदान किया जाता हैं. यह आपको बताता है की योगदानकर्ता क्या कहना चाहता हैं, लेकिन इसका एक सटीक, सूक्ष्म अनुवाद की तरह भरोसा न करें.

  1. it is absurd that gay people demand equality because they are one of the most protected groups. there are so many people whose rights are even more treathened, who suffer various dictatorship and torture, hunger… and we are doomed to listen to those stupid sick ones who celebrate their sickness and emphasise it. had the story been reversed, straight huligans would be in jail, and a hero would be twisted and discriminated gay

    • IT IS A TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH OF ivonavolimarka COMMENT
      NOT MY OPINION!

  2. Apsurdno i beskrupulozno je da se gejevi zale i zahtevaju neku ravnopravnost,dok su oni evidentno najzasticeniji. Toliko je ljudi koji su svakodnevno diskriminisani,cija su ljudska prava zaista ugrozena,koji trpe razne diktature,glad i nasilje. A mi konstantno slusamo o izopacenim ljudima koji svoju bolest slave i stavljaju na pijedastal.
    Da je prica bila obrnuta,uhapseni bi bili strejt huligani,a heroj nezasticeni i diskriminisani gej.

  3. Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    I agree with the author’s opinion. It is true that everyone can have opinion and make a choice,and I think that Harry had every right to do that. Homosexuality is one of the biggest problems today,and we should be against it. Would you like to live in a world where it will be COMPLETELY approved? I would not. And that is a reason,’cuz Harry should not to be arrested. Even more,violence is not emphasized.

  4. As much as I disagree with his sentiment, he was expressing his opinion in a non-violent manner. He should not have been convicted for exercising his right to free speech.

  5. In my humble opnion I think they’re doing the right thing , because we should like animals respect for once how the nature is .

  6. I am neither for homosexuality, nor against it. In my opinion, it’s the choice of every person how to behave. There is freedom of speech, that’s why the preacher has his own right to write on a placard, what he wanted, moreover, the phrase which was written was rather neutral and the words were not so insulting, as policeman thought. To my mind, if sexual minorities feel better and more happy being together, then why not? As for me, it would be better for policemen to discuss and solve more vital and serious problems than accuse a person in expressing his point of view.

  7. As a man of science rather than a man of religion, I find any allusions to the ‘Lord’ and his opposition to homosexuality offending and provoking. But, in this case, I believe that the preacher had the right to express his beliefs and to call for opposition to homosexuality. Free speech is free speech and this conviction makes me think that recently there has been a growth of double standards in the judicial branch.

  8. What if a priest was holding up a sign “Stop Blacks, Jews and Muslims”? If that were the case, I highly doubt that this would even be contoversial in the least. Of course some might argue (like the priest) that that is different between the two since homosexuality is a choice whereas race is not, however as many homosexuals will argue the choice was not theirs. Therefore I do no see a distinction between the two.
    Moreover, the priest was calling to “stop” homosexuality. And although he did not specifically incite violence he did so indirectly. What does is mean to “stop” homosexuality? I have yet to read of a case when a man or a woman were civilly taught how to not be homosexual. Therefore what the priest was actually calling for was for the persecution of gays or outlawing homosexuality in Britain, both of which would infringe the Human Rights of those with the “wrong” sexual orientation.
    His conviction in my opinon should not be criticized, but rather celebrated as a victory FOR the human rights and the freedom of speech as it was merely another step towards achieving the world where one will not be judged for being different.

    • Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      If the man cannot tell the difference between an act or a choice, viz. homosexuality, and a state of nature or religion, he has no business entering into the debate.
      Jack Dixon

  9. I believe that anyone is free to express themselves, but freedom of speech also means confronting those who think differently from us and, more importantly, predict the impact that words have on the hearer, free to participate. Secondly, the message that I send, as the vehicle? Phrases such as “Stop this” or “That banish” when impacting with a way of being, automatically lead to a strong reaction and dangerous. That is, in my opinion strikes against the rejection or acceptance of the onlookers find? This GAP is the key to the problem. That is, a communication management will be aware from the outset the success of the posts … and then, the fundamental error that has engulfed the poor priest is as follows: If I propose a censure, I will come to 99% censored.

  10. This is undoubtedly correct. The preacher was pacifically exercising his right of free speech. The court was wrong in yielding to the mob. The case is at odds with Beatty v Gillbanks, and Redmond-Bate v DPP.

    More importantly, this case opens the way to the tyranny of the mob.

अपनी भाषा में टिप्पणी दीजिये

सुर्खियाँ

Swipe left to browse all of the highlights.


'वाक्-स्वतंत्रता पर चर्चा' ऑक्सफोर्ड विश्वविद्यालय के सेंट एंटनी कॉलेज में स्वतंत्रता के अध्ययन पर आधारित दह्रेंदोर्फ़ कार्यक्रम के अंतर्गत एक अनुसन्धान परियोजना है www.freespeechdebate.com

ऑक्सफ़ोर्ड विश्वविद्यालय