Same punishment at school for homophobia and racism

Why is there no punishment at schools for using 'gay' in the wrong context?

Or using the word 'Faggot'. How and why is it possible for someone of 16 or any age to get away with using 'faggot' to describe someone whereas if anyone used the word 'ni**a' they would be fined or kicked out of class or worse?

I want to know why there is not a suitable punishment for homophobia compared the punishment of racism? 

There is already a lot more homophobic bullying in schools and i want to know what this new government is going to do to try and change that.

Why is this idea important?

Why is there no punishment at schools for using 'gay' in the wrong context?

Or using the word 'Faggot'. How and why is it possible for someone of 16 or any age to get away with using 'faggot' to describe someone whereas if anyone used the word 'ni**a' they would be fined or kicked out of class or worse?

I want to know why there is not a suitable punishment for homophobia compared the punishment of racism? 

There is already a lot more homophobic bullying in schools and i want to know what this new government is going to do to try and change that.

Repeal blasphemy laws

Unlike many proposals this is pure principal. There are almost no prosecutions or pratical problems caused by these predujical relics. But why should Christians be able to have thier nutty ideas rendered unassailable when all the other nutters have to put up with it. (Ooops am I guilty already? of blasphemy not poor spelling!)

Why is this idea important?

Unlike many proposals this is pure principal. There are almost no prosecutions or pratical problems caused by these predujical relics. But why should Christians be able to have thier nutty ideas rendered unassailable when all the other nutters have to put up with it. (Ooops am I guilty already? of blasphemy not poor spelling!)

Defend the principle of religious tolerance

Preserve the right of all people to live by any law-abiding creed or religion they choose, without restraint or penalty. Protect faith schools, and the rights of parents to bring up their children without undue interference. Repeal all laws infringing freedom of speech, for both religious and non-religious people. In other words, stop this country's collapse into mutual hatred and intolerance.

Why is this idea important?

Preserve the right of all people to live by any law-abiding creed or religion they choose, without restraint or penalty. Protect faith schools, and the rights of parents to bring up their children without undue interference. Repeal all laws infringing freedom of speech, for both religious and non-religious people. In other words, stop this country's collapse into mutual hatred and intolerance.

Abolish Thought Crime

There has been an increasing trend over the years for people expressing reasonable thoughts to be investigated by the police and fall into the criminal justice system where there is patently no threat or incitement to hatred or violence toward the supposed victims. The worst example for me was the police in Scotland recently visited an HMV store to warn them because they displayed a poster stating "Anyone But England." It may have even just been ABE.This phrase arose from comments made by Andy Murray during the 2006 World Cup, when asked who he supported. As an Englishman I uphold the right of any Scotsman to support whoever they want in the football even if it is ABE. It is a legitimate opinion and choice. That's all.

Even Peter Tatchell, a prominent gay rights activist thought Christians merely expressing opinions and views about the Bible and homosexuality should not fall foul of the law.

Similarly the black councillor in Bristol who called an Asian colleague a coconut should not have been prosecuted. It might have been offensive but it was not inciting violence or threatening. Had she said you were black on the outside but white on the inside there would have been no prosecution. The use of the word coconut merely is a short way of expressing this opinion; it is a word with no inherent bad meaning.

It is about time we adopt the views of Voltaire who stated although he might disagree with someone's opinion he defended their right to say it.

Why is this idea important?

There has been an increasing trend over the years for people expressing reasonable thoughts to be investigated by the police and fall into the criminal justice system where there is patently no threat or incitement to hatred or violence toward the supposed victims. The worst example for me was the police in Scotland recently visited an HMV store to warn them because they displayed a poster stating "Anyone But England." It may have even just been ABE.This phrase arose from comments made by Andy Murray during the 2006 World Cup, when asked who he supported. As an Englishman I uphold the right of any Scotsman to support whoever they want in the football even if it is ABE. It is a legitimate opinion and choice. That's all.

Even Peter Tatchell, a prominent gay rights activist thought Christians merely expressing opinions and views about the Bible and homosexuality should not fall foul of the law.

Similarly the black councillor in Bristol who called an Asian colleague a coconut should not have been prosecuted. It might have been offensive but it was not inciting violence or threatening. Had she said you were black on the outside but white on the inside there would have been no prosecution. The use of the word coconut merely is a short way of expressing this opinion; it is a word with no inherent bad meaning.

It is about time we adopt the views of Voltaire who stated although he might disagree with someone's opinion he defended their right to say it.

Review of Human Rights Act

Review the act to make it fair to all and simple.

Remove the tendency to over react and be allowed to reflect the standards and morality of the majority as opposed to now pandering to the vocal minority.

Why is this idea important?

Review the act to make it fair to all and simple.

Remove the tendency to over react and be allowed to reflect the standards and morality of the majority as opposed to now pandering to the vocal minority.

Ban faith schools

 Britain should lead the world in stamping out superstition and mumbo jumbo. It should be illegal for religion to be taught to children as fact, and lessons in religious matters should concentrate only on tolerance of other cultures.

Why is this idea important?

 Britain should lead the world in stamping out superstition and mumbo jumbo. It should be illegal for religion to be taught to children as fact, and lessons in religious matters should concentrate only on tolerance of other cultures.

Repeal of the Hunting Act 2004

The Hunting Act 2004 has no practical purpose. The Chairman of the Government Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs, Lord Burns, told Parliament that there was no evidence that hunting was cruel and the last Government did not even try to measure the impact of the Hunting Act. Wild mammals are still being managed to exactly the same extent as they were before the Hunting Act with no benefit to animal welfare and very possibly an increase of suffering especially where alternative methods are less effective in dealing with sick and injured mammals.

The Better Government Initiative described the unting Act as a 'notorious example of bad Government' and a Crown Court Judge has said that it is "far from simple to inerpret or to apply". Thousands of hours of police time are being wasted trying to enforce an unworkable law whilst hundreds of ordinary people face potential criminal charges every time they attempt to carry out legal hunting activity. The Hunting Act should be repealed and hunting controlled by independent regulation.

Why is this idea important?

The Hunting Act 2004 has no practical purpose. The Chairman of the Government Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs, Lord Burns, told Parliament that there was no evidence that hunting was cruel and the last Government did not even try to measure the impact of the Hunting Act. Wild mammals are still being managed to exactly the same extent as they were before the Hunting Act with no benefit to animal welfare and very possibly an increase of suffering especially where alternative methods are less effective in dealing with sick and injured mammals.

The Better Government Initiative described the unting Act as a 'notorious example of bad Government' and a Crown Court Judge has said that it is "far from simple to inerpret or to apply". Thousands of hours of police time are being wasted trying to enforce an unworkable law whilst hundreds of ordinary people face potential criminal charges every time they attempt to carry out legal hunting activity. The Hunting Act should be repealed and hunting controlled by independent regulation.