Scottish civil servants prohobited from saying "homosexual"

[Bill Whatcott]

THEIR GOVERNMENT AT WORK
Civil servants banned from saying this word
'Mumbo-jumbo completely counterproductive to good community relations'
Posted: June 30, 2011
11:15 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=317377

The Scottish government has issued new rules that forbid employees from using the word "homosexual."

According to a report from The Christian Institute, which deals with issues of faith, religion and rights in the United Kingdom, the new government rules explain:

It is not acceptable to use the word 'homosexual,' this term is offensive to many people as it is the term that was used in law to make same sex relationships illegal."

John Midgley, who founded the Campaign Against Political Correctness there, said the word should be as inoffensive as heterosexual.

Find out just exactly what's going on, in "HOW EVIL WORKS: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America"

"It is silly to claim they are loaded terms – they are neutral and simply describe sexual orientation," he said, according to the institute.

"This sort of mumbo-jumbo is completely counterproductive to good community relations," he said.

The recommended word? "Gay."

The regulations explain that they apply when civil servants are in discussions with members of the public, customers or others and have reason to raise the issue of sexual orientation.

A group that lobbies for homosexuality in the U.K., Stonewall, issued a statement that said, "We tend not to use the word homosexual because the word was applied primarily to men and also because it was a medical term as well as the legal term described in the Scottish government's guidance."

In the United States, the issue of homosexuality has manifested itself in President Obama's demand for federal "hate crimes" legislation that created the possibility of criminalizing thought by enhancing penalties for crimes in which "hate" is perceived a factor. Obama also is working now to install a new policy allowing acknowledged homosexuals to serve in the military, even though a report from a Department of Defense inspector general cites a survey showing servicemembers are. overwhelmingly worried that it would create a negative impact on the nation's defense.

The controversy has erupted previously in the U.K. in several instances, including when a government rejected a Christian couple who wanted to provide foster care for children because they might "infect" children with their beliefs.


Eunice and Owen Johns (Photo Christian Legal Centre)

WND reported on the court ruling that Christians who want to provide foster care for needy children must promote homosexuality to them and that there is only a "qualified" right to exercise their Christian beliefs.

The judgment came in a claim by Eunice and Owen Johns that their biblical beliefs in opposition to homosexual behavior were being used by the government to discriminate against them regarding their application to be foster parents.

The couple previously provided foster care and had applied to resume their work but suddenly were rejected because they expressed their Christian beliefs regarding homosexuality.

According to the Christian Legal Centre, which also posted online the decision in the landmark High Court case, the judges refused to say the Johns should be allowed to provide foster care.

"There now appears to be nothing to stop the increasing bar on Christians who wish to adopt or foster children but who are not willing to compromise their beliefs by promoting the practice of homosexuality to small children," the organization said.

According to the opinion authored by Lord Justice Munby and Mr. Justice Beatson, "the laws and usages of the realm do not include Christianity, in whatever form."

They said "the aphorism that 'Christianity is part of the common law of England' is mere rhetoric; at least since the decision of the House of Lords in Bowman v Secular Society Limited … it has been impossible to contend that it is law."

"It is important to realize that reliance upon religious belief, however conscientious the belief and however ancient and respectable the religion, can never of itself immunize the believer from the reach of the secular law. And invocation of religious belief does not necessarily provide a defense to what is otherwise a valid claim," they wrote.

Read more: Civil servants banned from saying this word http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=317377#ixzz1QrqMr6NM