The Christian Right plans another torch-lit "rally"

You may have a sense of deja vu about this one.

The assorted ranks of the religious right have planned their next action which is to hold another prayer vigil outside the House fo Lords to coincide with tomorrow's debate and vote on the sexual orientation regulations.

Will these people never give up? Well, no - for one thing they're determined. For another they have got hold of a notion that the disparagement of LGBT people is the core of their faith by which they can gain God's approval.

Probably they will get a better seat in heaven if they push this to the end of the line.

Then again maybe not.

For info on the "rally" see the website for ....... Anglican Mainstream as well as the ever informative Zefrog blog.

Now, there is no counter demo planned or authorised but last time there were many people who kind of turned up on spec either to protest or engage the massed ranks of the religious or alternatively to attend the hearings in the House of Lords and see it all unfold live as it were.

If you are interested in turning up please feel free to do so. The last time Zefrog had a good write up (with pictures!!) of the event.

Commons approves the Sexual Orientaiton Regulations

From the BBC

The regulations were approved by 310 to 100 (majority of 210).

There will be a debate in the House of Lords on Wednesday where there appears to much more nervousness about the outcome, though their Lordships supported the NI regs by 3 to 1 (the BBC is speaking of a "likely defeat", though personally I would doubt that, but that remains to be seen - as I have said previously there are virulent conservative forces at work in our society so we have to wait and see).

If defeated by the unelected upper house it would be very interesting to see what happens next as well as interesting to see what those people who continually tell us of the value of the Lords because of the need for primacy of the Commons would say.

The voting lists are available here (scroll to the end). Soom there will be more analysis of the vote via the Public Whip (i.e. by party etc).

Also:

The House of Commons debate in Committee can be found here. It's well worth a read, as one Tory MP after another (and mostly not even members of the committee but allowed under the rules to just turn up and speak but not vote) posed repeated points of order to interrupt and delay the proceedings.

The recording of it can be found here.

There's very good coverage (as usual) on the Thinking Anglican website (here and here) and the Zefrog blog (here and here), with lots of other angles and other web links.

Anglican Mainstream goes into hyperdrive

I have already commented elsewhere that for Anglican Mainstream (along with the Lawyers Christian Fellowship - and in spite of their name and connections the core of the hard religious right in the UK) are whipping themselves up into a lather about the sexual orientation regulations.

As I say their site is well worth a visit if you want some gentle amusement.

Their latest entry is a blog from "an MP" saying how terrible is the lack of democracy in the House of Commons over the regulations.

Read on and you realise the MP is none other than (wait for it) ..... John Redwood, who always has a place in my heart as the Welsh Secretary under the Tories who didn't knwo the words to the Wlesh National Anthem, but thought he'd try to sing along anyway - with hilarious results. And their latest entry (a bit like the guest publication on 'Have I got news for you' is an excerpt from.......John Redwood's blog.....

So we can see who is working with whom and where the natural alliances are - Hard Right Christians = Hard Right Tories. No surprises there then.

Bearing in mind we had 18 years of Tory rule that brought us section 28, this is hardly surprising and also not surprising that during the progress of the Labour years (equal age of consent, gender recognition, civil partnership, scrapping of section 28 and the writing into law, at long last, of protection from discirmination in goods, facilities, premises and services) these are the groups that vowed unceasing opposition to all of them.

Who opposed them all? The Christian Hard Right and Tory Right every time, right on cue.

So it's political. Change doesn't just happen. You have to make it happen because there are huge forces out there that want (need?) to block progress towards an equal society.

And - if I can be forgiven for being a little party political here - change happened in this instance because we had a Labour Government, but also because the LGBT movement within the Labour Party (noting especially the role of the Labour Campaign for Lesbian and Gay Rights) and the Trade Union movement worked for that change (and for pensions equality and the removal of section 28 before that).


The lesson is that progress is never a given. It has to worked for every step of the way and against great resistence. That's true today as it always has been.

Government updates the regs - Christian groups gird their loins

For about 24 hours the regulations appear to have been removed from the website containing Government legislation. (It also appears that a Delegated Legislation Committee will consider the regulations tomorrow morning. A full vote in both Houses will follow).

All of this has led Anglican Mainstream into some fevered speculation.

Slightly revised regulations have now been placed on the web site.

The only differences I could pick up were that the word "epidemiological" is now spelt correctly in the Memorandum to the regulations and that in regulation 33 "Crown application" it correctly refers to regulation 8 rather than 9 as well as a sentence defining a local authority not being included in the revised regs.

Whether it be that these minor changes alter the meaning, intent and scope of the law I leave to you to decide. Some people were speculating that the reason for the regulations being so delayed was that Ruth Kelly had stayed up all night typing them out and this may well be true....

Menawhile over in the bizarre and unusual place inhabited by the oddly named 'Anglican Mainstream' you can see some of the reaction to the planned procedures for the regulations to gain parliamentary approval.

Their site is worth a visit if you're feeling low in mood and need cheering up.

Their response can be seen here. You will see that the poor maligned "Christian printer" gets another outing as he battles against the onslaught of people asking him to "promote gay sex"....... and so on and so on. These people never really give up and they are a little like a broken record that keeps repeating the same few lines. (Most of their silliness has already been debunked by the House of Lords debate but that isn't stopping them from churning out this nonsense).

Truly there is something of the swivel-eyed about these people who can only be pitied that their lives are so preoccupied by thinking about homosexuality.

Worryingly homosexuality seems to be sending them slightly mad and they're not even doing it (at least I hope for all our sakes they aren't)!

More on the Sexual Orientation Regulations

Here is the full suite of documents relating to these:

The draft regulations

The Government's response to the "Getting Equal" Consultation

The Government's Regulatory Impact Assessment

The Government's Equality Impact Assessment.


In addition, and for ease of reference see also:

The Northern Ireland Regulations, the OFMDFM response (including analysis of responses) to the NI Consultation

Here you can get access to the individual responses to the NI consultation and here, the response from the Northern Ireland Equality Commission.

The report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, relating ot the human rights dimension of the regulations.

What differences are there between the NI and GB regulations?

The NI regs include harassment and there are no references to the clauses on blood donation and insurance (see below). The NI regs aren't explicit about treating civil partners the same as married couples.

Hrassment will still be covered by the GB regs but by an indirect route due to being subjected to detriment and therefore constituting direct discrimination.

What exemptions are there in the regulations for religious organisations?

Religious organisations are exempted provided (a) if it is necessary to comply with the doctrine of the organisation; or(b) so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion's followers.

This does not apply where the activity concerned is commercial, in relation to the provision of education or where a service is provided on behalf of a public authority.

There is a time limited exemption for adoption and fostering agencies until December 2008 (as previously announced).

This is a wider exemption than that proposed in Getting Equal which restricted the proposed exemption to purely doctrinal matters.

What other exemptions are there?

There are exemptions under both regulations to allow specific service provision that targets LGB groups; allows for associations that may cater for a specific sexual orientation; exemptions that apply with regard to accomodation where the person or a near relative lives on the property and it is limited in size; there is an exemption for charities where they act in accordance with their charitable instrument.

The GB regulations provide for an exemption for the insurance sector, provided that it is based on actuarial evidence (whilst the Government has indicated it expects this exemption to be phased out in 2008) and a provision that outlaws discrimination in the treatment of blood donors except that they may refuse a person's blood when based on a risk assessment based on clinical and epidemiological data.

Ruth Kelly announces the regulations

Regulations covering sexual orientation discrimination in the area of goods, facilities and services have been announced here by Ruth Kelly.

The text of the regulations can be read here.

The press release confirms the previous statements about the extent of exemptions.

The full title of the regulations is "The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007"

They need to be agreed by Parliament and are due to come into force on the 30th April - a little later than originally anticipated.

Joint Committee on Human Rights Report into Sexual Orientation Regulations

The Joint Committee on Human Rights (members both of Commons and Lords) was set up at the time of the passing of the Human Rights Act to seek to ensure that provisions of UK law were consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The 6th report of this session scrutinises the Northern Ireland Sexual Orientation Regulations from the point of view of compliance with human rights law.

Whilst our human rights law derives from the European Convention the International Covenant on Civil and Political (ICCPR) rights and other human rights instruments cover the same ground, in addition, for example, to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (text here ).

The 6th report can be found here and its summary and recommendations here.

The Joint Committee:

• expresses its support for the regulations, stating they are substantively part of human rights obligations
• support limited exemptions on doctrinal grounds for religious bodies but don't support wider exemptions
• support the inclusion of harassment (though with narrower definitions of harassment)
• support the inclusion of both the education sector as well as the school curriculum, asking the Government to clarify this with respect to the Northern Ireland regulations.

This is an important act of parliamentary scrutiny and goes to considerable lengths to derail the use by the religious right to seek to use human rights arguments to carve out exemptions the size of a bus within the regulations.

Regulations covering Great Britain are eagerly awaited.

Gay opposition to the regs

Report here on the BBC of a hotel owner complaining that the regulations will outlaw his business which is gay and bi only.

Odd. Well there was a 3 month consultation period about a year ago and plenty of opportunity since then to make his voice heard.

Now (a week or so before the finalised regulations are published) is not the time to start protesting what has been the major political effort of the LGBT community.

People on all sides are catastrophising about the regulations. I imagine it is quite easy to make clear that a place is particularly aimed at gay and bisexual men so that no straight man would stay there (unless he really wanted to - and that's the point - the regs are there so that our lives don't become totally segregated).

Faithworks article

An excellent and concise article on why biblically minded christians ought to welcome the Sexual Orientation Regulations. (I am indebted for the link to the ever comprehensive Thinking Anglicans site).

Malcom Duncan and Faithworks are startiung to prove themselves to be quietly impressive as an alternative vision of what Christianity could mean to the wider society. What a refreshing change!

Exchanges in Parliament

An insteresting and sustained exchange in the House of Lords here concerning the effect of the Sexual Orientation Regulations and adoption agencies (31st January)

Also a written answer here (31st January)

Finally an interesting procedural exchange here in the House of Commons referring to alleged failings in the Northern Ireland regulations under a point of order to the Speaker (30th January)

Bishop launches a blistering attack on the Government

Link here.

The Bishop of Durham enters the political fray as he rubbishes the entire political policy of the United Kingdom's democratically elected Government as he spits in rage over the failure of the Government to carve out a special interest exemption for the Roman Catholic Church, saying

“This completely fails to take into account the views and beliefs of all those involved. The idea that new Labour — which has got every second thing wrong and is back-tracking on extended drinking hours, is in a mess over this cash-for-peerages business, cannot keep all its prisons under control — the idea that new Labour can come up with a new morality which it forces on the Catholic Church after 2,000 years; I am sorry, this is amazing arrogance on the part of the Government.”

I have one word for the Bishop - and it's from a book he ought to listen to "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers" (it's from the Bible....), Jeus may have said something abou rendering unto Caesar....

Of course, bishops are free to attack our elected Government if they wish. If doing so in the partisan way as is happening now they should have the decency to join an opposition party and be honest and open about it and then we can clear the whole lot of them out of the House of Lords and be governed by people elected to be there.

No exemptions - No 10 statement

Press release from No 10 here outlining there will be a transitional arrangement for 21 months for faith based adoption agencies.

BBC report here

365gay report here

Well done to all who have campaigned so hard for this change!

Adoption letter in today's Independent

Really interesting letter about faith based adoption agencies, arguing they should be phased out arguing from the perspective of the well being of Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual adoptees.

You can read it here.

Exchange in the House of Commons

During today's business questions ....

John Bercow (Buckingham) (Con): Given that many of us support early, full and undiluted implementation of the sexual orientation regulations, please may we have a statement next week to confirm that the Cabinet majority has asserted itself in favour of that proposition, to be followed by the speediest possible passage of the regulations, so that gay, lesbian and bisexual people can enjoy equality before the law in the provision of goods, services and facilities, which they have been too long denied?

Mr. Straw: That remains a proud commitment of the Government. Without commenting on the current considerations—

John Bercow: Oh go on, Jack.

Mr. Straw: I wondered whether the hon. Gentleman would be able to make just a standing intervention; he cannot.

On the issue of an announcement, I cannot promise that there will be an oral statement, but I shall take full account of what the hon. Gentleman has asked for, as I always do.

See hansard

Petition on Goods and Services

Please feel free to sign the petition on goods and services on the Prime Minister's No 10 website. To date 2,600 have signed which is a good start.

In spite of the good news today this has yet to be officially confirmed and there will be a vociferous campaign against the proposed regulations from the Religious Right.

Here is the link http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/GSFRegs/

If you support the regulations make sure your voice is heard!

The petition

Exemptions for religious organisations from the Goods, Services and Facilities regulations, are of great concern and entirely unjust. The use of services, goods and facilities that heterosexuals take for granted, should be allowed to those from the lesbian, gay and bisexual communities; the protections that minorities and religious groups have in law should be granted to the lesbian gay and bisexual communities also; the end of a two-tier system which denies justice in the provision of goods, services and facilities to the lesbian, gay and bisexual communities should be implemented with no further delay and at the earliest point possible throughout the entirety of the UK.

The true face of the Church

We now see, in the words of the Philip Larkin poem "what's really there, what's really always been there" in the reaction of the RC and Anglican Churches to seeking exemptions based on the fact we are supposedly evil and intrisically disordered.

Such an exemption at this time would be deeply damaging politically and morally.

And of course the fact that Churches who have helped to cover up child abusing clergy have some nerve in lecturing the rest of us about their supposed moral superiority.

Lots of ceverage in the media so no need for links.

However some interesting blog reactions:

Zefrog
Recce Homo
Thinking Anglicans

And an interesting comment piece in todays Times - though I don't necessarily agree with the idea that Ruth Kelly should resign and think she'd have done it by now if she wanted to.

And you can always rely on the Telegraph to do the bidding of the Religious Right - they don't disappoint. No surprise there.

Overall my view is that the Church's campaign (of a price with the earlier lobbying and campaigning) has forced the Government into a position where any degree of compromise would be unconscionable. We'll see.

Hansard, latest developments and LCF ramblings

The link to the House of Commons Committee on Delegated Legislation here scrutinizing the Northern Ireland Sexual Orientation Regulations - here.

The content seems to be a mini rerun of the arguments in the House of Lords debate on the regulations. The committee finally agreed it had considered the regulations by a vote of 15 to 3 with the Conservative Party revealing it had no firmal view on it at all but was leaving it to individual MP's to decide - hardly a sensible way of approaching discrimination issues.

Meanwhile the Pinknews website has this story relating to a reported discussion in the PLP meeting on the matter. Angela Eagle is reported to be saying she can neither confirm nor deny such a report.

You may or may not be acquainted with this turn of phrase - I couldn't possibly comment.......

The formulation the Government is using (so it seems) is ~ as quoted in the Guardian today is as follows:

"The debate around better protection on the basis of sexual orientation has been beset by wild speculation on all sides," she said. "There have been absurd claims, for example, that ministers of religion will be forced to bless same-sex couples. Equally there is no question of preferential treatment for an individual faith."

Using the plain meaning of words this leads me to believe the Government is not intending to exempt religious adoption agencies - but maybe I am misinterpreting the words being used - we can certainly hope and pray this is the case. Maybe we won't have to wait that long - I gather that Ruth Kelly is intending to put forward her proposals in the next week or so. Watch this space.

Meanwhile on a recent posting on the Lawyers Christian Fellowship (sic) there is a rather odd update on the situation, starting off with a rather odd quote from Martin Luther:

‘If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.’ (Luther’s Works. Weimar Edition. Briefwechsel [Correspondence], vol. 3, pp. 81f.).


I must say it does gladden my heart when Christians engage in a deep reading of the Reformers (so rare these days) - especially when it's Martin Luther's 'Briefwechsel' not sure if the Reformers' writings have attained canonical status yet.

I may be wrong but that was probably in the context of Martin Luther taking a stand either in favour of a rigorist view of predestination or, more likely, in the context of Martin Luther condemning fellow Protestants and refusing communion with them because - they didn't conform to Luther's exact view of the world - not because of their views on homosexuality, but because they each had a slightly differing interpretation of the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper..... This worldview is, in part, what led to the mass persecution of the Anabaptists inthe time of the Reformation (though by followers of Zwingli, Calvin, Bucer and Melancthon as well as Lutherans it must be said).

Also in the LCF page we find this rant:

Interviewer: “So why are you opposing this law”

LCF Response: “Let me first make it clear that as Christians we oppose all forms of unjustified discrimination in society, including on the grounds of sexual orientation. Thousands of years before anyone had thought of human rights legislation or non-discrimination legislation, the Bible gave a far more powerful pronouncement against discrimination by commanding us to love our neighbours as ourselves. Following the Bible will achieve more than any Regulation could at eliminating unfair discrimination” [Yeah right]

“However, what these Regulation do is they go beyond outlawing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation by requiring Christians, in certain circumstances, to go against the Bible’s fundamental teaching about sexual morality”

“Let me tell you why it is a problem that these Regulations deny this fundamental freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Firstly, we do not think that the Government should legislate to force Christians to act against their fundamental beliefs. Secondly, this law subverts the message of Christianity, which is of God’s love for all people and his desire for all people to turn from their sins and know the joy of being reconciled with Him. This message to repent and believe makes no sense if Christians are forced to condone sinful behaviour.” [Unless we discriminate against gay people we can't proclaim God's love to them].

So, I think we really see the true agenda of these people, which is in fact to normalise discrimination of LGB people within society whilst bizarrely claiming that if we all followed the Bible that there would be no need for an equality law. An amazing claim since most of the clamour to be able to discriminate seems to come from this section of society.

Hence the need for the Government to stand firm and not give in to people who are no doubt sincere in their beliefs but are clearly slightly unhinged.

Ruth Kelly trying to create loopholes

According to this account in the Independent, which I must say seems quite well informed that Ruth Kelly (with the connivance of Tony Blair) is minded to exempt religious adoption agencies from the forthcoming sexual orientation regulations - "it's wrong to discriminate unless you really want to do it and are powerful enough to get your prejudices written into law, in which case it's fine and dandy".

To create a major loophole in legislation designed to deal with discrimination, not for the purpose of making the legislation work better or to deal with equality issues, but simply to create a publicly justified area where LGB people can be legally discriminated against, which ijn fact drives a horse and cart through the spirit and intention of the legislation (which is to create equality) not perpetuate discrimination.

The story in the Independent states that many within the Parliamentary Labour Party see that giving in to bigotry and prejudice in this way is deeply repugnant and a poltical disaster in the making.

The Labour Campaign for Lesbian and Gay Rights (LCLGR), the TUC and individual trade unions have told the Government in no uncertain terms that they should quite simply do the right thing and implement proper, robust laws on equality that do what they say on the tin - outlaw discrimination and make people equal before the law.

According to the Independent Ruth Kelly intends to finalise her proposals and submit them next week - time for some last minute lobbying.

How to lobby your MP:

Simply go to www.writetothem.com put in your post code and send a message via the website.

You can also sign the petition on the No 10 website

UPDATE BBC report about above topic indicating the breadth of opposition to Ruth Kelly's proposed exemption, including Ben Bradshaw and Lord Faulkener, who is reported to have told the BBC:

"We have introduced laws which prevent discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation; those laws should be given full effect. We do take the view in this country that you shouldn't be discriminated against on that basis and think that applies to everybody, whatever your religion."

And while we're on the topic - here (as cited by Thinking Anglicans) is a perceptive article in the Church Times by Giles Fraser.

Guest houses, printers and schools

OK, let's cut to the chase - the debate about the sexual orientation regulations (one of the most vicious and homophobic debates in recent times) comes down - after you've sifted through the lies, exaggerations and misrepresentations (including some senior and - one might have thought/hoped - intelligent people) to 3 main areas of concern.

Guesthouses Same sex couples might sleep in the same bed. Woopy-do! Notice how a certain religious mind gets drawn immediately into sex. Who's doing it, how often and with whom - their lives must be so boring that they can't stop obsessing and filling every waking hour with the thought someone might be having moments of closeness and tenderness (which may or not invovle sex). They can't conceive of the fact that the two people concerned may be experiencing some degree of closeness and maybe they went to Bournemouth (Filey, Harrogate, Swansea, Eastbourne .....) to attend a wedding/funeral/Civil Partnership/ visit relatives/have a short weekend break.

Maybe - if attending a "Chrsitian" B+B they will experience the warmth and kindness of the proprietors and start thinking about the gospels and think about things like prayer and going to church. Maybe the proprietor is surprise to find they quite like the people they're recieving as paying guests and find that God is saying something to them and letting them think again about some of their pre-conceptions about life (always one of life's richest rewards).

Instead they want to be allowed to put up a sign saying "No gays" or "No same sex couples". A 16 year old boy walks past the sign on his way back from school after experiencing homophobic abuse and learns a lesson about society - from Christians.

Printers Does anyone know any Christian printers? [There may be Christians who work in printing, but a specifically Christian printer.....] If you're arranging a Gay Pride event (or anythign for that matter) you want a printer you can rely on. Someone who will deliver on time and do a good quality of work. You are not going to seek out, deliberatly, a printer who finds it difficult to do the work.

Back in the real world - maybe a Christian would be glad of the work. In any case, printers can always turn down work or recommend another printer.

Schools People might be forced to teach that Civil Partnerships exist for same sex couples.... Well, excuse me but they do exist. What kind of education is it that spends about 10 years shielding young people from what exists. Well, they know that LGB people exist, that Civil Partnerships are possible (why not inform young citizens of their rights under the law?). What they learn is not the ignorance aimed at - they know these things - but a very important lesson - there's an unspoken law about talking about Civil Partnerships and being gay or lesbian.

Isn't it time we broke out of this?

The view opposing the regulations on sexual orientation - apart from being incredibly crude and exaggerated want a kind of society where love and tenderness between two people is despised, where a culture of fear is cultivated and where the law of silence reigns.

The Equality Act passed in 2006 and the promised Single Equality Act (can't come soon enough) are about, must be about, making people equal, doing away with inequality.

Religions may lag behind - let them have freedom of religion, conscience, speech and association, but we are surely coming to a time when wanton and unchecked discrimination and all the misery that brings, whether disablism, racism, sexism or homophobia get to be honestly tackled and thos who would perpetrate it are told - politely - that equality is the birthright of all citizens.

The regulations - a political view

A few more things -

Here is a link to the breakdown of the voting in the House of Lords as well as a link to the Hansard report of speakers.

Of particular note are speeches by Lord Smith, Lord Alli and Lord Lester.

Interesting that the majority of the votes against are from Conservative peers and that a large majority of Conservative voting Lords were against. Clear and uncontrovertible evidence, if any were needed, of the probability of any Tory Government (even with Cameron at the helm) enacting any socially progressive legislation at all.

All of the Labour and Lib Dem peers who voted were in favour.

After watching the debate on the Parliament channel I was struck by several facts:

- the motion to annul was moved by someone who sounded like Ian Paisley
- Lord Tebbit started by being nice to Chris Smith to show he really was a nice person, then procedded to talk about 'sodomy', rather spoiling the effect
- there was genuine warmth in the Chamber for Lords Smith and Alli, with lots of 'hear, hear's' and silence greating those speaking in support of annullment
- a really warm reaction of the Chamber to the announcement of the result.

Overall a very positive experience (if you could manage to sit through the Tory and DUP speeches).

There has been some really interesting articles which are well worth a read on the Guardian comment is free site:

Peter Tatchell (Take a bow your Lorships), AC Grayling (Halting Progress), Inayat Bunglawala and Abdurahman Jafar (None are more equal than others) and Dave Hill (Hate the sin, not the sinner). All good articles and well worth a read.

To summarise in sketch form, Peter Tatchell argues the vote in the House of Lords is a body blow to US style religious right being introduced into the UK; Bungwala and Jafar make a cogent argument for Muslims to support the regulations, A C Grayling makes a powerful argument against religious forces foisting discrimination upon society; meanwhile Dave Hill's piece makes a subtle and interesting argument that we apply the phrase 'Hate the sin, not the sinner' to religious communities, also emphasising, rightly, that many of the religious (including myself) were campaigning in support of the regulations.