The government has now backed down on the attempt to remove the so called free speech amendment inserted into the legislation in a previous session.
I am sorry to say that, though I oppose the amendment, I think it was a mistake to try to reverse it as the Government did not have the votes in the House of Lords and it was never likely to win on the issue.
The 'free speech' amendment is not needed and is unhelpful. On the other hand there have been instances where people's misguided and no doubt intolerant speech has been investigated by the police, thus giving ammunition for the Christian right in Parliament (admittedly from a mere handful of unrepresentative instances).
And of course the Christian Right in the UK has not been in a rush to defend freedom of speech when under attack in Uganda, just to give one example so their attachment to the principle of freedom of expression is more synthetic and tactical than real.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Graduate entry nursing
This is a recent government announcement also announced by the NMC (Nursing and Midwifery Council) at the same time.
Press reaction has not been good.
The Royal College of Nursing has been pushing this agenda for some time, while UNISON has been much more cautious stressing difficulties in recruiting from diverse backgrounds and these concerns remain an issue.
But I think the time has now come to make this move. I think society has moved on and a degree is much more common than in the past where it was the preserve of a small elite. And I think the demands of nursing are much greater in terms of research, evidence as well as tasks such as organisation, management and critical autonomous thinking skills that tomorrow's nurses will need to be educated to a higher level.
I don't think that it's right to have two streams of entry (diploma and degree). There are two many inconsistencies between these two entry streams.
I don't agree with the false opposition between caring and developing a knowledge base - in today's nursing that's a thing of the past - all nurses are going to have to be able to work at the cutting edge.
The Diploma (which I did) takes 3 years to complete. All of the students I knew (including me) who had a previous degree found the Diploma harder than a Degree.
Of course, whenever entrance requirements are set, people who don't meet the standard are excluded but equally people are discouraged from entering the profession if the academic attainment doesn't match their abilities and so the profession loses out in that way as well.
Press reaction has not been good.
The Royal College of Nursing has been pushing this agenda for some time, while UNISON has been much more cautious stressing difficulties in recruiting from diverse backgrounds and these concerns remain an issue.
But I think the time has now come to make this move. I think society has moved on and a degree is much more common than in the past where it was the preserve of a small elite. And I think the demands of nursing are much greater in terms of research, evidence as well as tasks such as organisation, management and critical autonomous thinking skills that tomorrow's nurses will need to be educated to a higher level.
I don't think that it's right to have two streams of entry (diploma and degree). There are two many inconsistencies between these two entry streams.
I don't agree with the false opposition between caring and developing a knowledge base - in today's nursing that's a thing of the past - all nurses are going to have to be able to work at the cutting edge.
The Diploma (which I did) takes 3 years to complete. All of the students I knew (including me) who had a previous degree found the Diploma harder than a Degree.
Of course, whenever entrance requirements are set, people who don't meet the standard are excluded but equally people are discouraged from entering the profession if the academic attainment doesn't match their abilities and so the profession loses out in that way as well.
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Protesting the Anti-Homosexuality Bill
This is the Bill in Uganda, promoted by right wing Christian groups based in the US who want to make the law on homosexuality even more extreme than it already is (homosexuality is already a criminal offence) and introduce the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality", life imprisonment for other offences, an offence of "attempted homosexuality", including 'touching' as a homosexual act and introducing not so much an 'informers charter' but a virtually mandated constant state of with hunt and hysteria where you are at risk if you don't inform of criminal offences.
The original law against homosexuality was introduced under British colonial rule - as indeed wherever the British Empire existed, Justinian's ancient homophobia persists.
But there's another story. That of the true face of Christian homophobia. The same people who make easy use of Jesus' message of love and are happy to enter a holy unity to enact such a shameful peice of legislation.
Well now we know what lies behind the mask of this kind of religion. We see it exposed to the bright day light what kind of religion this is. No no more doubt, no more pretence.
This is a brutal throwing away of all pretence of civil and human rights which Christians have at some times dallied with when it suits them and then thrown away when the lure of homophobia or some other vindictive whim is greater than any principle of a commitment to human rights.
And the Anglican Communion? Well. Where are the big, calming words now?
So far as I can see they are now completely absent. Principles for some people are very cheap but they purloin the name of Christ to hide their own lack of moral purpose for whom the spoliation of other's (and indeed of the Other - the Same Old Story) humanity.
The one advantage is that we now no the big words mean nothing, nothing at all and we're back to what some religionists do best.
And by the way I do here hold the Church in the West to a higher standard of accountability that so far seems completely lacking. Their account is now well and truly in and is not to be gainsaid.
The original law against homosexuality was introduced under British colonial rule - as indeed wherever the British Empire existed, Justinian's ancient homophobia persists.
But there's another story. That of the true face of Christian homophobia. The same people who make easy use of Jesus' message of love and are happy to enter a holy unity to enact such a shameful peice of legislation.
Well now we know what lies behind the mask of this kind of religion. We see it exposed to the bright day light what kind of religion this is. No no more doubt, no more pretence.
This is a brutal throwing away of all pretence of civil and human rights which Christians have at some times dallied with when it suits them and then thrown away when the lure of homophobia or some other vindictive whim is greater than any principle of a commitment to human rights.
And the Anglican Communion? Well. Where are the big, calming words now?
So far as I can see they are now completely absent. Principles for some people are very cheap but they purloin the name of Christ to hide their own lack of moral purpose for whom the spoliation of other's (and indeed of the Other - the Same Old Story) humanity.
The one advantage is that we now no the big words mean nothing, nothing at all and we're back to what some religionists do best.
And by the way I do here hold the Church in the West to a higher standard of accountability that so far seems completely lacking. Their account is now well and truly in and is not to be gainsaid.
Disappointment in Maine
Disappointment because it was a battle we might have won and came close to winning but didn't.
But at least we tried and came close.
I consider that the vote of 47% was a good floor on which to build. In life, in this kind of campaign, you need to start somewhere.
It will take a few years to come back at this in Maine, but I am convinced we will come back in both Maine and California.
There was also a success, albeit slim, in Washington State.
By degrees we will get to where we need to be. Little by little, step by step, we'll get there.
But at least we tried and came close.
I consider that the vote of 47% was a good floor on which to build. In life, in this kind of campaign, you need to start somewhere.
It will take a few years to come back at this in Maine, but I am convinced we will come back in both Maine and California.
There was also a success, albeit slim, in Washington State.
By degrees we will get to where we need to be. Little by little, step by step, we'll get there.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Not tonight
Seems like tonight isn't the night for marriage equality by referendum in Maine. Results are being predicted at 52-48%.
Again this is incredibly close and actually a great achievement although winning would have been a better one.
We can still come back in Maine as in California
Again this is incredibly close and actually a great achievement although winning would have been a better one.
We can still come back in Maine as in California
Voting over
That exciting time when polls close and there's no more you can do win or lose.
I am watching the live feed of the Maine election night party after the vote for or against the proposal to reject the law on same sex marriage.
The party looks good! But no results yet so probably best to get the partying in now!
First results here (initial returns not good at 3% count).
Whatever the result I think we can celebrate as even if lost it will be close and shows we've come an awful long way even if we aren't there yet.
5% count - we're up and I might not get to sleep now
17% count - No is at 51.3% - I must say I fear that that lead isn't enough as rural votes usually come in later due to counting and geography - of course I don't know what districts haven't reported yet.
Different percentages given. Very. very close. We are down on some tallies. This may go down to the wire....... and absentee ballots
Following this also
I am watching the live feed of the Maine election night party after the vote for or against the proposal to reject the law on same sex marriage.
The party looks good! But no results yet so probably best to get the partying in now!
First results here (initial returns not good at 3% count).
Whatever the result I think we can celebrate as even if lost it will be close and shows we've come an awful long way even if we aren't there yet.
5% count - we're up and I might not get to sleep now
17% count - No is at 51.3% - I must say I fear that that lead isn't enough as rural votes usually come in later due to counting and geography - of course I don't know what districts haven't reported yet.
Different percentages given. Very. very close. We are down on some tallies. This may go down to the wire....... and absentee ballots
Following this also
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Church of Sweden endorses same sex marriage
After already performing same sex blessings and supporting the country's recent gender neutral marriage law Sweden's national Church (Lutheran) adopted a decision to permit same sex marriages in its churches.
This is a positive and natural progression for that Church which has also elected a partnered Lesbian as Bishop of Stockholm and comes after pressure from the Church of England not to proceed in this way.
The Church of England is in communion with the Church of Sweden as part of the Porvoo agreement.
The vote was 176 in favour, 62 against and 11 abstentions.
This is a positive and natural progression for that Church which has also elected a partnered Lesbian as Bishop of Stockholm and comes after pressure from the Church of England not to proceed in this way.
The Church of England is in communion with the Church of Sweden as part of the Porvoo agreement.
The vote was 176 in favour, 62 against and 11 abstentions.
Labels:
religion,
same sex marriage
Has Rowan Williams made mistakes?
I'm not - as said in an earlier post - sure what will become of the opening of Rome to Anglicans. I think for some fully formed Anglican entities they will very speedily be absorbed as they may already wish to be.
For the rest of us we may see realities stretch and evolve over decades of slow accretion to Rome, parish by parish as negotiations over assets proceed and the pathway gets 'opened up' as it were.
Which leads to two sets of interventions Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, may come to regret.
Number one is his expression of support for dissenting dioceses and parishes within the US Episcopal Church to a) secede and b) take their property with them. This is already being used to put pressure on for the churches moving to Rome to take their assets with them. The boot is now well and truly on the other foot and we can fully enter into TEC's pain.
Number two is Rowan Williams' articulation of a Catholic decision making. The idea that a Province should indefinitely not move forward or even articulate their views (of course the two are in reality interlinked - if TEC espouses a pro LGBT position it cannot indefinitely fail to move on such convictions as this would be unjust, ludicrous and illogical).
Of course Roman Catholics already act under this and it their ecclesiastical modus operandi - never move until we all move. Rowan Williams has articulated Roman Catholicism (so far as I can see) and articulated that the Anglican Communion mimic it in so far as it is able. And many Anglicans may be so convinced by this articulation of Catholic Universalism that they go the whole hog and move over to Rome - did the Reformers wait till their Reform was adopted by the entire Western Church? Self evidently not, no matter how good their ideas may have been they were not endorsed by the Church Catholic, either of the time or since.
From what I can see the Church of England is becoming progressively narrower in its internal life and I can see that a narrow church will lead increasing numbers to see little disadvantage to joining with Rome. For England, a progressive ecclesiastical reality appears to have been taken away from us whatever option we take.
For the rest of us we may see realities stretch and evolve over decades of slow accretion to Rome, parish by parish as negotiations over assets proceed and the pathway gets 'opened up' as it were.
Which leads to two sets of interventions Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, may come to regret.
Number one is his expression of support for dissenting dioceses and parishes within the US Episcopal Church to a) secede and b) take their property with them. This is already being used to put pressure on for the churches moving to Rome to take their assets with them. The boot is now well and truly on the other foot and we can fully enter into TEC's pain.
Number two is Rowan Williams' articulation of a Catholic decision making. The idea that a Province should indefinitely not move forward or even articulate their views (of course the two are in reality interlinked - if TEC espouses a pro LGBT position it cannot indefinitely fail to move on such convictions as this would be unjust, ludicrous and illogical).
Of course Roman Catholics already act under this and it their ecclesiastical modus operandi - never move until we all move. Rowan Williams has articulated Roman Catholicism (so far as I can see) and articulated that the Anglican Communion mimic it in so far as it is able. And many Anglicans may be so convinced by this articulation of Catholic Universalism that they go the whole hog and move over to Rome - did the Reformers wait till their Reform was adopted by the entire Western Church? Self evidently not, no matter how good their ideas may have been they were not endorsed by the Church Catholic, either of the time or since.
From what I can see the Church of England is becoming progressively narrower in its internal life and I can see that a narrow church will lead increasing numbers to see little disadvantage to joining with Rome. For England, a progressive ecclesiastical reality appears to have been taken away from us whatever option we take.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
