It appears that we live in a land of great inconsistencies. Laws and rights only are enforced when it suits those in power and status. We speak of a democratically elected country where the people are those in power. However in recent years that power has been slowly eroding. Thus leaving the people with no ground to stand on and thereby falling into the mercy of those political strategists who intend to implement another means to dictatorship. Take for example; if a group/person rejects the statement that, “homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle.” Such groups are classified as narrow-minded and inciting to hatred. Muslims, Christians and Jews will definitely not believe that homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle based upon conscience and doctrine. Yet they are forced to tolerate the strangeness of same sex couples adopting children, pouncing as if normal on our television channels, and even kissing in public; all in the name of equality and freedom of expression. In addition, Christians or Jews; they are not given the same treatment, for to say that homosexuals are an abomination to their God would be intolerant, inciting hatred and even imprisonment. So my simple and yet profound question is: “Why do Muslims, Christians and Jews do not have equal freedom of expression in comparison to our Homosexuals mismatches?” Such religious groups are not homophobic but the society we live are Theo-phobic!
We should be given equal rights to say what we believe and not be marginalised. It is religion that is the victim and those following will be the “casualties of war”
Article 10 protects your right to freedom of expression. This includes the right to hold and express opinions yourself as well as to receive and impart information and ideas to others.
Article 10: Right to freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by a public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent states from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for the maintaining of the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
