Why does a Christian who opposes gay marriage face prosecution while radical Muslim preachers are allowed to rant against homosexuality?

Mark Spencer, Conservative MP for Sherwood, Nottinghamshire, said people could still express their opinions, but teachers will not be permitted to tell pupils same-sex weddings are wrong

Christians who oppose gay marriage face prosecution for 'hate crime' under new anti-terrorism laws.

I'm sorry, just run that by me again.

So the Government introduces legislation to tackle Islamist hate preachers and the next thing you know it's Christians being put in the dock because they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman?

In a letter to one of his constituents, Mark Spencer, Conservative MP for Sherwood, Nottinghamshire, said that people would still be free to express their opinions, but teachers will not be permitted to tell pupils that same-sex weddings are 'wrong'.

How did that happen?

Here's how. The Government is planning to create Extremism Disruption Orders to curb the activities of those attempting to radicalise young Muslims in Britain.

 Not before time.

For more than 15 years, so-called 'clerics' have been allowed to get away with preaching death and destruction.

This week's long overdue arrest of the appalling Ram Jam Choudary is a welcome signal that finally the authorities are waking up to the enemy within.

The Prime Minister said recently: 'For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.

And that's helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance. This Government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach.'

Home Secretary Theresa May said: 'The twisted narrative of extremism cannot be ignored or wished away.

This Government will challenge those who seek to spread hatred and intolerance by forming a new partnership of every person and organisation in this country that wants to defeat the extremists.'

Amen to that.

Extremism Disruption Orders are designed to catch those, like Ram Jam, who have skated on the boundaries of legality until now.

 But like so much hastily drawn legislation (think the Dangerous Dogs Act, etc), the law of unintended consequences inevitably kicks in.

Well, I say 'unintended', but these days you never know.

Cameron also said that the law was aimed at reinforcing 'British values' and supporting 'free speech'. 

But 'free speech' doesn't extend to those who dissent from the new orthodoxy of 'diversity'. Which brings us back to teachers being nicked for opposing gay marriage.

In a letter to one of his constituents, Spencer wrote: 'I believe that everybody in society has a right to express their views without fear of persecution.'

But he added that Extremism Orders would apply to any teacher who told pupils that same-sex marriage was 'wrong'. In that case they would be guilty of 'hate speech'.

When the Government was drawing up the law, was this really what they had in mind? Probably, yes.

In order to appear even-handed, politicians bend over backwards not to be seen to be discriminating against the 'vast majority of peace-loving Muslims'.

 That's why the crackdown on so-called 'Trojan Horse' schools, which indoctrinate children in Islamic extremism, has been extended to Jewish, Catholic and Church of England schools.

And that's also how you end up with some kind of warped moral equivalence between headbangers who are trying to persuade impressionable young children to become terrorists, and devout Christians who object to gay marriage.

If there's one thing I hate, it's the whole concept of 'hate crime'. 

A crime is a crime is a crime and should be punished accordingly.

 Why should some offences be considered more heinous than others simply because the perpetrator is said to have been motivated by 'hate'?

All crimes are hateful. Yet if a skinhead beats up a homosexual, or someone from an ethnic minority, he will be sentenced more harshly than if he'd mugged an elderly white woman.

Absurdly, his crime will be judged to have been 'aggravated' by hatred of racial or sexual minorities.

 It doesn't matter if the crime really was motivated by bigotry, just so long as someone, somewhere thinks it was.

 Muslim preachers appear free to rail against homosexuality with impunity 

One of the worst developments in recent years has been the admission of third-party complaints, which have empowered the embittered and the vexatious.

Justice is supposed to be blind, based on fact, not opinion.

 The punishment should fit the crime, not the prejudices of the accuser and fashionable society. 

And we should all be free to express ourselves, provided we're not inciting violence.

When did any form of criticism, no matter how harsh and unjustified, become a 'hate crime'?

As regular readers are well aware, I couldn't care less about gay marriage, one way or the other. But I do object to it being forced down the throats of those who beg to differ.

Why should someone be prosecuted for saying they think same-sex weddings are 'wrong'? People shouldn't be criminalised for their sincerely held beliefs.

So-called 'hate crime' laws are routinely abused by self-righteous, single-issue maniacs to persecute those who have the audacity to hold a different point of view.

Look at the way in which Christian bakers and B&B owners have been singled out by militant gay rights groups. 

Funny how they never go after 'homophobic' Muslim businesses, isn't it?

All major religions oppose gay marriage, but it's only the Christians who are ever dragged before the courts for 'hate crime'. 

Muslim preachers appear free to rail against homosexuality with impunity.

Who do you think will be the first person to be hit by an Extremism Disruption Order — an Islamist firebrand encouraging children to become suicide bombers or a Catholic Sunday School teacher opposed to gay marriage?

Don't bother. The right answer is probably a hate crime.