A positive report about the Archbishop of Canterbury

In a recent post I reported on a number of people syaing very uncharitable things about the current Archbishop of Canterbury and said I would write something positive as soon as someone was willing to put forward a positive opinion.

Well I'm not sure this counts but it's kind of positive and there's a good report of it on the Ekklesia website titled Archbishop of Canterbury says churches must be 'safe' for gays.

There is also further discussion on the Thinking Anglicans (is there any other kind?) website.

Some of the quotes are quite interesting as he appears to say that apart from churches being safe places for "gay and lesbian people" he also appears to both criticise certain Provinces who are actively in support of oppressive measures, notably in Nigeria, although he underlines the presence of hate crimes even in Western countries.

His support for the "proper liberties [freedom of association, assembly and expression perhaps?] of homosexual people" is clearly very important. You can see his statement here.

Here's a chunk of the statement (I underlined some bits):

“ The commitments of the Communion are not only to certain theological positions on the question of sexual ethics but also to a manifest and credible respect for the proper liberties of homosexual people, a commitment again set out in successive Lambeth Conference Resolutions over many decades. I share the concerns expressed about situations where the Church is seen to be underwriting social or legal attitudes which threaten these proper liberties. It is impossible to read this report without being aware that in many places – including Western countries with supposedly ‘liberal’ attitudes – hate crimes against homosexual people have increased in recent years and have taken horrifying and disturbing forms."

Just timed right for the release of the Yogyakarta principles - let's hope he's willing to sign up.

And while on the subject of the Yogyakarta principles I was pleased to see this article on the Comment is free (Guardian) site - Righting wrongs with some interesting discussion of how in previous UN debates countries who do not exactly have a shining record of human rights managed to block and vote down the Brazilian resolution on sexual orientation.

Yogyakarta principles launched

The 'Yogyakarta' Principles have been launched on Monday, 26th March. The website relating to these principles can be accessed here. The principles were adopted unanimously by a number of human rights experts in 2006 and are due to be launched officially during the UN Human Rights Council session in Geneva.

This comes after 54 member states supported the Norway statement on sexual orientation and gender identity in 2006.

The Yogyakarta principles are summaried as follows:

The Yogyakarta Principles address a broad range of human rights standards and their application to issues of sexual orientation and gender identity. The Principles affirm the primary obligation of States to implement human rights. Each Principle is accompanied by detailed recommendations to States. The experts also emphasise, though, that all actors have responsibilities to promote and protect human rights. Additional recommendations are addressed to other actors, including the UN human rights system, national human rights institutions, the media, non-governmental organisations, and funders.

It will be very interesting to see how many churches and church organisations are able to sign up to these principles of international human rights law.

Ongoing turmoil in the Anglican Communion

Lots of things going on there and there's quite a pace to it all. I am only blogging about it here because some of it is very important and significant - other blogs give a more 'blow by blow' account.

Notably this excerpt as a resolution of The Episcopal Church (TEC - the American 'Anglicans'):

"We proclaim the Gospel of what God has done and is doing in Christ, of the dignity of every human being, and of justice, compassion, and peace. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no slave or free. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including women, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God. The Dar es Salaam Communiqué is distressingly silent on this subject. And, contrary to the way the Anglican Communion Network and the American Anglican Council have represented us, we proclaim a Gospel that welcomes diversity of thought and encourages free and open theological debate as a way of seeking God's truth. If that means that others reject us and communion with us, as some have already done, we must with great regret and sorrow accept their decision."

This quote is very significant and it's well worth reading it out loud a few times to get its full impact. (I am indebted to a variety of sources notably Ruth Gledhill and Andrew Sullivan for drawing attention to this passage, plus I added emphasis to some bits).

The full text of the resolutions carried can be found here.

The main decision by the US bishops is to decline the 'gracious offer' of the Primates meeting at Dar es Salaam recently to set up a committee to jointly run the US Episcopal Church (in effect and I am simplifying here as this isn't a blog destined to church experts).

The Telegraph has an interesting blog which reacts to this by slamming the Archbishop of Canterbury here, concluding with:

"For almost his entire period in office, the treacle-voiced Welsh Primate with the Fu Manchu eyebrows has been bending over backwards to appease people whose views he privately abhors.

I thought Rowan Williams was going to be the finest Archbishop of Canterbury for decades. Instead, he has been a disappointment on every level – even in his own area of expertise, theology.

He does not put his foot in it as often as his predecessor, George Carey – but, then, you can’t commit a gaffe if nobody has a bloody clue what you’re talking about. He is obviously afraid that he will go down in history as the Archbishop on whose watch the Anglican Communion fell into schism.

But that’s not how I, and many other people, will remember him. For us, he will always be the Archbishop who laid down his friend for his life."

I might blog a more positive view of the Archbishop of Canterbury later - when I find someone who's prepared to go public with one.

For excellent ongoing coverage of the ins and outs of the slow Anglican schism your best bet is Thinking Anglicans which has frequent updates from both sides of the divide and some interesting comment threads.

For a view of the Conservative side of things I recommend taking a look at Titusonenine (T19) - but be warned its like entering a parrallel Conservative and not very friendly world.

For the UK there is always the commically named 'Anglican Mainstream' which is actually on the extremist fringes of debate (just take a moment to look through their 'related links' section). Anglican Mainstream is something we should all be aware of. Forget Christian Voice, The Christian Insitute, CARE or even the Evangelical Alliance (which I think is trying to be more moderate these days),it's Anglican Mainstream that is at the heart of the political religious right in the UK (along with the Lawyers Christian Fellowship of course - who organised the Prayer Vigil outside Parliament - though it seems that they got other groups to do the publicity for this).

Anglican Mainstream is also the main proponent in the UK of the largely discredited ex-gay movement. It's obvious that are using the ex-gay movement as a battering ram to oppose LGBT equality in the political sphere, though as I have pointed out elsewhere the idea that "innate and immutable" characteristics are the only reason or justification for civil rights protections is not sustainable - even for areas such as race where such a restriction appears to have actually been introduced from within the US debates over desegregation and the racism that was rife within the US at that time.

Blair proud of his gay rights record

BBC report here about a speech that Tony Blair made at a fundraising dinner for Stonewall.

The speech can be seen on Pink News.

It's quite interesting to read in full.

Here's a quote:

And I really just wanted to say two things about the changes that have happened over the past ten years, which you will know very well.

There are a lot of important things, but I think civil partnerships is really the thing � as I was saying to people earlier, it doesn�t just give you a lot of pride, but it actually brought real joy.

I don�t know whether you remember the very first day, and it was quite a bizarre circumstance that the first ceremonies were actually in Northern Ireland.

Laughter

I was so struck by it, it was so alive, I remember actually seeing the pictures on television. It is not often that you sort of skip around in my job, I can assure you, But it really the fact that that the people were so happy and the fact that you felt just one major, major change had happened, of which everyone can feel really proud.

I think it is genuinely one of the records of achievement that this Government does have to have removed all of the discriminatory laws as well as introducing civil partnerships, employment protection and now goods and services protections.

More on the House of Lords debate - the bishops' speeches

The speeches of the Bishops of Southwell and Nottingham, the Bishop of Winchester and the Archbishop of York can be accessed on Theyworkforyou.com by clicking on the hyperlinks.

They make very interesting reading and deserve very close attention.

First of the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham. His speech on the Northern Ireland regulations highlighted the perceived lack of consultation and paid warm tribute to the listening and co-operative approach that the Secretary of State (Ruth Kelly) was showing in allowing further dialogue and consultation over the GB regs.

His principal concerns over the GB regs were summed up as relating to the balance between the freedom of religion and the freedom from discrimination:

"It is hard to escape the conclusion that the right to freedom of religion is being treated as of lesser weight than other human rights. The sixth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights appears to suggest precisely that, on the grounds that religion and belief are matters of choice and therefore less deserving of protection than sexual orientation, race or sex. If that is indeed the committee's analysis, it is certainly not one that we share."

And closed with:

"For now, it gives me no satisfaction to say that the present regulations represent a disturbing erosion of religious liberty."

This seems to be related to schools which he didn't dwell on and adoption agencies which he referred to at a little more length.

In his speech he seems to reflect the approach suggested by the Archbishop of Canterbury that where you find a genuine doctrinal reason for discrimination (even if in a publicly funded service) then that should be left alone.

The obvious critique of that is that you end up with a set of regulations with so many exemptions it basically absolves Christians from obeying the law.

The Archbishop of York gave an odd speech, very much laden with metaphor and imagery which was never entirely explained. The included references to spider's webs, sausage machines and umbrellas versus bus shelters.

He must have been quite proud of his oration as he immediatley released it on the web and it has since been posted by Anglican Mainstream.

He started his speech with a quote of Wlberforce about the passing of Christianity from the public sphere and went on to bemoan a dogmatic secularism alongside a 'new' hierarchy of rights.

In a bizarre quotation he stated

"The whole concept of human rights is one that is alien to rabbinic jurisprudence ..." and "For the Torah is a golfing umbrella, not an infinitely extensible bus shelter".

In summary then:

- we are no longer a Christian country if we grant equal status to LGB people
- human rights are alien to the rabbinic (and therefore Chhristian?) tradition (amazing to find that Christian authorities are now willing to quote rabbinic authorities - we might do better with 26 rabbis in the House of Lords)
- LGB people don't fit under the golfing umbrella of Torah based rights

Following his golfing umbrella analogy (the meaning of which we may have to speculate a little) he stated:

"This freedom of thought may help us to get out of the quagmire of the human rights debate."

So for John Sentamu, human rights which under most human rights intruments are seem as 'universal' are actually a 'quagmire', to which a specifically religious 'freedom of thought' and presumably expression is called for (i.e. the one about to be denied to Nigerian LGBT associations - they are about to be helped out of their 'quagmire' of human rights to free assembly, association and assembly by a religious freedom of thought that is ranged against them - they're no doubt outside God's 'golfing umbrella' of rights)

This is (I presume) to avoid us having a 'bus shelter' approach where "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights - The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which makes Christians uncomfortable because they can only practice as Christians if they are able to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation (and the duty of a Christian nation is to make positive provision for Christian worship and discipleship).

I find it interesting that a specifically religious freedom of thought (one that is denied to its opponents) views the universal application of human rights as a quagmire.

Prior to the bit about the golfing umbrella we had this:

"We must keep in mind the epigram of Montesquieu, that great, great jurist, who said that if mankind was of one mind, and only one man was of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified to silence him than he, if he had the power, to silence mankind."

Which reminds us that Montesquieu was indeed a great liberal of his time - but the relevance to the sexual orientation regulations? And was Montesquieu a Christian in any traditional sense (that is any more than Goethe, whom he also quotes?). [I am advised that in fact this "epigram" is in fact part of JS Mill's On Liberty - the world would no doubt be a much better place if JS Mill was used more often as an authority by Church leaders].

If the regulations "silenced" anyone they would be easily struck down by the Courts - they're regulations and therefore secondary to the Human Rights Act and there's a broad religious exemption. But again to refer to Nigeria - here is a real threat of silencing one small group of people who are "of a contrary mind".

He also appeared to be in a bit of a muddle over the EU Equal Treatment Directive and the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (2003), claiming a wide religious exemption - it is actually much narrower than the Goods and Services Regulations and only really covers ministers of religion.

After many erudite but not necessarily aposite quotations the Archbishop of York sat down, with a lot more to say but I think he'd run out of his allotted time.

Last but certainly not least we have the Bishop of Winchester who I think it's fair to say has form on this kind of debate and I don't think could be accused of having said anything positive about LGB people ever in his life.

The Bishop of Winchester made a number of points but ended up on education (as previewed by the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham - they'd obviously read each others' speeches before hand).

His beef was twofold. First of all that the regulations covering education were for the most part welcome, but that they were drafted too widely and would inevtably end up covering the curriculum.

Now at this point I need to break off my analysis to say that I partly agree with him on this. I think an LGB school student could take a case if the curriculum subjected them to direct discrimination. Now I think that's actually inevitable over time. On this point and (probably) on this point alone I have some agreement with the religious right. This is not though the same as saying that certain things will have to be taught because of the regulations (equally race relations law doesn't mean that a school has to, for instance, celebrate 'Black History Month') so there is no objective duty to do anything different. But if a pupil is subjected to a curriculum, that for instance had the effect of undermining his or her self confidence and/or exposed them to bullying which disrupted their studies then I think there could be a challenge. That is though unlikely to happen if the school takes action against homophobic bullying and follows the guidelines already in force.

The Bishop concludes with this utterly chilling paragraph:

"I greatly regret the fact that the Government chose not to do so, but, rather, chose to legislate to coerce the churches and others to accept as the norm for this society—the regulations ask us to accept this and to collude in the Government's promotion—alternative patterns of living and of family life that many people conscientiously believe are less than the best, less than the most healthy, and less than God's will for humankind."

Remember those words. And if you are reading them as an LGB person this is what he thinks of you - less than the best, less than the most healthy, and less than God's will for humankind.

He wants an exemption so that children can be told they are "less than the best", that they are "less than healthy" that their lives are "less than God's will for humankind".

So the mask slips - we are "less than the best, less than healthy and less than God's will for humankind" and that ultimately makes us a kind of enemy because we see ourselves to be equal and not less than the best.

And the Government "chose to legislate to coerce the churches and others to accept as the norm for this society—the regulations ask us to accept this and to collude in the Government's promotion—alternative patterns of living and of family life".

This really is the nub (I think) to this whole debate.

The Sexual Orientation regulations are fundamentally about equality for LGB people. Religious people may still speak freely, hold teachings that we may or may not approve of. They may even adopt discriminatory practices within their own spheres.

The real nub of this is that the original "homophobic" doctrine goes something like this:

a) To be gay is at the very least to be less than the best (may as well use the phrase now)
b) All Christians have a duty to treat LGB people as their inferiors and to ensure inequality of treatment (for example in marriage and discrimination law and in parenting and family life)
c) Failure to allow Christians an accomodation to create an inferior social status for LGB people means they are being stopped from practicing thir religion, which on closer analysis appears more of a socio-political doctrine of power and control over others than a genuinely religious belief.

In trying to make the manifestation of religion (including discriminatory practice) they are attempting to do that which they accuse the Government of - create a hierarchy of rights with themselves at the top, immune from the law on equality. Well, you can't blame them for trying.

The exemptions provided for religious organisations are, in fact, broad. The bishops appear to have swallowed rather uncritically the line put out by the Lawyers Christian Fellowship and Anglican Mainstream early on in the debate over the Northern Ireland regulations.

Their Lordships did not agree.

As Faithworks have always diligently pointed out, the hysterical reaction to the sexual orientaiton regulations does no-one any good.

Praise be

Just to let everyone know the news reported below and also reported on the BBC, with a vote of 168 to 122 an inspite of several impassioned speeches in opposition by the Anglican hierarchy.

The regulations have now been approved by both Houses and enter into force on the 30th April.

I will blog about the debate later.

For now I will simply say "Praise be".

I, along with many other colleagues in the Labour Party and union movement (especially noting UNISON's LGBT committee which has been camapigning almost solidly on this for a year and a half, as has the Labour Campaign for Lesbian and Gay Rights).

We argued our case, campaigned, lobbied and argued. It was never easy, never a given and we never gave up even when we were told there was no hope.

We faced huge opposition from the religious right, that has now become an entrenched force in our political life (sadly). We have now acquired vicious and determined enemies that include no less than the entire hierarchy of the Church of England (no bother - they also opposed an equal age of consent and the removal of section 28). Yet the record will reflect who our enemies and this hatred of us will not melt away immediately, though no doubt will do so with time.

So I will be raising a glass (or two .....) to a great piece of work including many, many people and - all in all - a job well done.

Now for the next challenge.

Really good coverage (as always) - especially about the 'rally' on the Zefrog blogsite.

More comment to be added later. Bye for now.

House of Lords debate underway

The debate on the sexual orientation regulations is now underway in the House of Lords.

They have already been opposed by the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Winchester.

To quote Winchester at his vilest stating that same sex couples were "Less than the best, less than the most healthy and less than God's will".

Lords Alli and Smith have already spoken warmly in favour of the provisions to warm support from the Chamber.

The Vice President of the Humanist Society spoke in favour of freedom of religious viewpoints but of the need for the religious to not have the right to remove rights from others in pursuance of their beliefs.

Lord Lester spoke magisterially as he always does (and his stamp can be read in the Joint Committee on Human Rights report into the sexual orientation regulations) crititicising "misleading, homophobic and scurrilous statements" and "propaganda" used against the regulations, citing the Times advertisement placed by Coherent and Christian Voice, making completely "untrue statements", seeking to mislead people about the provisions.

He picked up on the Archbishop of York's attack, not just in the regulations, but even on the principle of human rights itself. He pointed out (completely correctly) that any provisions would have to read as being consistent with human rights provisions relating to the freedom of speech, conscience and religion.

Their Lordships are now in the process of voting on the hostile amendment to not approve the regulations. From the voice vote it sounded like the amendment would be defeated but I will update with the final vote on this when it comes.

THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT:

FOR 122

AGAINST 168

This means that the amendment opposing the regulations is defeated.

The regulations are now passed into law and take effect on the 30th April.

You can follow the debate live via the weblink here.

More later.

Do you want to be healed?

If so make your way to this Conference (at a cost of £85).

It's an event that is being promoted by ........Anglican Mainstream (if these lot are 'mainstream' I'd sure hate to meet the extremists), the Lawyers Christian Fellowship and CARE. Oh and 'Living Waters' - not sure what this is but I am sure we will find out at some point.

They are very anxious to get everyone thinking that you can heal people's sexual orientation, which is dubious at best and down right manipulative at its worst.

Strangely enough all of these groups are the shock troops of the religious right in the UK at the moment, vociferously opposing the sexual orientation regulations including the use of exaggeration and downright dishonesty in their portrayals (now I wonder why these two things are always linked together like that).

These are the groups we need protection from in the anti-discrimination laws that we are asking Parliament to approve tomorrow evening.

For those who want a more benign view of things see the press release from Faithworks in support of the sexual orientation regulations. It's very good, very sensible.

Faithworks stands by the statements we have previously made on the SORs and is confident that they do not pose a threat to Christians.

This is not an argument about Christian morality. It is rather a discussion about discrimination and prejudice, and ensuring that our services are delivered inclusively and in non-discriminatory ways.

While recognising that there are different Christian perspectives on the issue of human sexuality, we encourage the church to continue to ensure that our service of other people is driven by the inclusive example of Christ, who served all people, even if he disagreed with their lifestyle. The proposed SORs are an opportunity for Christians to demonstrate the love and grace of Christ. Acceptance does not equate with agreement.

The government has made it clear that it respects the conscience of people of faith. The proposed legislation does contain significant exemptions for religious organisations in appropriate circumstances.

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.

Commons backs a fully elected House of Lords

Full coverage on the BBC and on the e-politix site, with the latest divisions (easy to see the voting at a glance).

20% and 40% elected have been rejected without a counted vote.

A wholly appointed house opposed by 375 to 196.

50/50 opposed by 418 to 155.

60% elected opposed by 392 to 178.

80% elected supported by 305 to 267 - a majority of 38.

Fully elected chamber supported by 337 to 224 - a majority of 113.


More later.

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.

The House of Lords (again)

Start today of a two day debate in the Commons on the future composition of the Lords.

Actually the debate was quite interesting to watch (will definitely be rushing home early from work tomorrow to see the conclusion of the debate....)

I won't attempt here to summarise the arguments (maybe a future post?). Really good speeches by a number of MP's on both sides ofthe argument.

Here, though are my arguments for an elected house:

1. Even as a revising chamber the House of Lords has considerable power over the laws that get passed.
2. In a democracy laws should be made by the people through elected representatives - that is what democracy is.
   
3. Well, actually, that's kind of it - in a democracy both houses should be elected, because in a democracy laws are made by people not because they are the great and good but because they got there by submitting themselves to the democratic process.
   

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.

UN Special Rapporteurs call for the withdrawal of the Nigerian Bill

Important news from the UN.

Four of the Rapporteurs for the Special Procedures set up under the UN Human Rights procedures have criticised the Bill to outlaw the freedom of association for LGBT people.

The statement has been posted to the website of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights here.

The Special Procedures covered Human Rights Defenders; Contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; Violence against women, its causes and consequences, Right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

The item also has implications for any country which still criminalises homosexual acts.

The reports of Special Rapporteurs aren't binding on States but are important as part of the overall mechanism of human rights at the UN.

Some depressing news

First legislation introduced by Ireland's Labour Party failed in the Dail. However in spite of this the Government is saying that they will come forward with a Government version of the Bill.

Apparently they are saying that the Irish Constitution enshrines support for the institution of mariage though I would like someone to explain how exactly allowing same sex couples to marry undermines marriage. One would have thought that ensuring an institution to be inclusive and meet the needs of all people it would be all the better for that rather than people feeling it was undermined in some way.

Also why does it take 6 months to draft? Similarly in the UK we are still waiting for the Government to publish the goods and services regulations. Why on earth are we still waiting for these? How hard can it be to draft a law?

Second, the Italian Government appears to have fallen after losing an important foreign policy vote in the Senate (I can only say that I am glad that we do not have the Italian arrangement here and that this points up the dangers of having an Upper Chamber which can rival the supremacy of the lower house). The Government had, of course, recently published legislation recognising same sex and cohabiting partners.

Keeping a Government together with 9 coalition parties and a Senate majority if only 1 is of course far from easy.

Dar es Salaam

It's actually incredibly difficult to blog about the recent meeting of Primates of the Anglican Communion in Dar es Salaam. It's difficult to know whether to write it up as a victory or a defeat or even for whom. Comprehensive review and pointers to many other blogs can be found on the ever comprehensive Thinking Anglican blog. Blogs I have found helpful on this have included the Inclusive Church Blog and Anglican Scotist.

Opinion on the pro-LGBT side veers between the deepest depression and a kind of mindless optimism - I favour mindless optimism every time!

The short version is that the Anglcian Communion is going to stay together (for the time being at least) but that the US and Canadian branches will have to refrain from appointing openly gay partnered bishops and from publishing same sex blessing liturgies - though of course many existing bishops are gay (of course, how could it be otherwise?) and many relationships and Civil Partnerships are being blessed already.

Whether it's a victory or a defeat is, I suspect, less important than the fact that there is now a strong force within the Anglican Communion - including of course former Archbishop Tutu as well as his successor Archbishop Ndungane, and of course we know that while other countries in Africa may not be so positive, South Africa has already legislated for marriage equality.

There are other examples too, like the remarkable Lambda LGBT group at the American Cathedral in Paris (but part of the American Episcopal Church), or Changing Attitude in the UK and Nigeria, Inclusive Church, Affirming Catholicism and many other examples. Already in England (usually far behind other Provinces) we have Changing Attitude groups in many dioceses, includign my own of Southwell and Nottingham.

By the way I should say that the American Cathedral is a wonderful place, with absolutely beautiful worship and music. They had a special service last year following Pride (itself an amazing event with 800,000 people....) Suffice to say the bilingual service was incredibly moving with beautiful hymns and the use of a specially devised liturgy. It's a memory I don't think I'll ever forget.

In another parish I visited in England there were pictures of one of the couples of the parish having a blessing of their Civil Partnership, my own parish has adopted an equality statement which includes sexual orientation and other things like the message sent by the Baltic and Nordic Countries Deanery Synod to the Archbishop of Latvia - text here - in support of the Pride event in Riga and of the freedom of assembly in the face of some very unpleasant scenes.

It's a process and of course I would like it if it went a lot faster or was over before I arrived at the scene (even better). But alas it's not going to be like that and will take some time and the chance to dialogue about the meaning of sexuality for people who practice a religion, such as Christianity, and promote a more positive and inclusive view of things. To take a phrase from another context "Another world is possible" but probably not without a lot of work and a fair degree of patience.

As I said in a post somewhere else "The Chrch is on a journey - let's stay together".

Just back from Germany

Just got back from Germany where I was able to attend the Ver.di LGBT Conference in Berlin.

By way of explanation Ver.di dtands for Die Vereinigte Dienstleistungsgewerkshaft - the united (public ) services union - and equivalent of UNISON in Germany.

I should also say that I had never been to Berlin before but didn't get really enough time to exlpore the place - will need to go back to do that.

Needless to say the Ver.di LGBT Conference was an amazing vocabulary builder for all sorts of terms relating to unions and human rights issues but my German still has a long way to go before impressing anyone (apart from me just for trying .....) !!

Although the structure was very different from what we are used to in the UK union movement (where we usually have, certainly in UNISON, a motion based decision making process) I really learned a lot from the day and it opened up a lot of my perspectives on international working on LGBT issues. (The Ver.di LGBT website is here and well worth a look).

The things they discussed via a series of speakers followed by open questions and discussions were really interesting and thought provoking. These included some really interesting stuff on the role of trade unions in promoting LGBT rights worldwide, including a contribution from a representative of the Dutch union Abvakabo, which has also been prominent in promoting LGBT international work, with both unions taking an active role (along with UNISON) in the PSI-EI LGBT Forum - link via PSI (Public Services International) here.

Other issues discussed included some data on historical trends in workplace discrimination and harassment (including effects of stress and ill-health) as well as the flaws in the German Equality law which seems to have been watered down prior, with for instance no provision for pensions equality between registered partners and married couples and a few other significant shortcomings, some of which may contravene the EU Directives.

~~~~~

I was also reminded of this speech by Louise Arbour at the Montreal LGBT Conference.

The speech is well worth the read and can also be read here (Women's Rights in Development - http://www.awid.org).

There is a really good Wikipedia page on the Montreal Declaration can also be seen here.

Freedom of Assembly developments

Firstly this from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (which is connected to the European Convention on Human Rights) has issued this statement entitled "Ban on a Moscow demonstration by homosexuals - Written question No 497 to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers" which is a question (as I understand it) to the Russian representative and thier reply. This is in relation to the violent suppression of the Moscow Pride event last year.

The clear involvement of the Parliamentary Assembly is particularly helpful givebn the ongoing difficulties facing Pride events in Latvia (a member of the EU) as well as Russia.

Second this in relation to the holding of Pride events in Moldova, also in relation to the obligations to allow freedom of assembly under the European Convention, upholding the right to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression.

Again it is a welcome sign that national courts are making it clear that freedom of assembly cannot be curtailed in order to prevent Pride events from taking place.

Similarly proposed legislation in Nigeria would have as a consequence, not only the banning of any Pride event, but the banning of LGB people meeting together in a house or setting up a campaign organisation of any kind, in addition ot making a criminal offence with 5 years imprisonment for any positive portrayal of gay people in any media whatever or any same sex religious ceremony - a breech of freedom of assembly, freedomof expressiona nd freedom of religion, guaranteed under the African Charter on Human and People's Rights see arts 8, 9, 10 together with arts 1, 2 and 3.

The need for democracy

My views are becoming clearer on House of Lords Reform.

Seems to me that the inherent argument against electing legislators is dangerous and I'm indebted to Nick Cohen for articulating this in today's Observer.

'Democracy' means that you agree for your society to be governed by people who are elected.

The attitude of people who defend the Lords as an appointed or semi-appointed body is "we need to be saved from having too much democracy" and "democracy is a good thing provided it is tempered with an anti-democratic element".

In fact this constitutional set up is profoundly corrosive because the Lords do occasionally thwart the Government on either controversial or unpopular legislation. What happens then is everybody starts saying "Thank God for the unelected laws for saving us from the tyranny of being governed by elected representatives". As a consequence the elected part of our constitution gets done down which inevitably trivialises our deomcratic set up.

Any one who wields power over laws (and ultimately the Lords do have the power to make the Government 'think again' and change many aspects of laws being passed) just has to do so by virtue of being elected. To do anyting other just exacerbates the problem of the lack of confidence in elected politicians.

Yes there's lots of experience in the Lords. They'll make all the more attractive candidates in an upper house. Don't want to put yourself through an election? Then you don't deserve to be runnign the country. There are, after all, many other ways of contributing to debate withotu obtruding yourself on one half of the legislature.

Finally it does come down to this. Jacques Ranciere wrote a book called "La haine de la democratie" - the hatred of democracy. Although my French is fairly good I can't claim to have understood it in its entirety, but one aspect of his book is imply to point out that people find the concept of democracy hateful because they think government belongs to the wise, the old, the experienced, whereas democracy gives it to eveyone and makes people equal.

To have your upper chamber non-elected debases the very life blood of democratic government, denigrating the very principle of democracy.

Are we really to believe that our country couldn't make decent laws if, like virtually all countries the world over (Canada being a notable exeption) our legislature was founded on democracy - that people elect representative who make and unmake laws?

Straw gets a rough ride over Lords reform

For anyone watching the statement from Jack Straw yesterday there will be a certain sense of foreboding about the upcoming Lords reform. Read the debate here as well as the House of Lords discussion here. Also see an article by Jack Straw in today's Guardian.


There was significant opposition coming from virtually everwhere. The Tories are promising no help whatever. I think they want an 80% elected chamber based on ...... counties as opposed to population. Well, well, what a surprise. The reason they aren't happy is because they don't have the huge inbuilt majority the Lords had and have found a way to get it back - by proposing the most undemocratic form of election possible - one that distorts the representationof population and is permanently skewed in favour of their party.

This is absolutley ideal for them. It gives them the luxury of campaigning for a predominantly elected chamber but also the chance to rubbish any other proposals (and I do mean any other proposals - even if the Commons were to vote for an 80% elected upper chamber they would find something to balk and quibble about).

If reform fails we will have a 100% appointed chamber. The only alternative in my view would be for a more precise plan to be introduced into party manifestos and then simply legislated for in the normal way, using the Parliament Act if the Lords are unreasonably obstructive (as they nearly usually are on these matters).

The Tory Lords are already giving fair notice that they will do all they can to obstruct the will of the democratically elected chamber with no legitimacy whatever.

Is a second chamber really worth all of this hassle?

For the moment though, the best of luck to the Government. Let this at least be achieved - that the House of Commons expresses itself on the issue.

Hobson's choice

Actually an interesting article by Theo Hobson (A pink reformation) in the Guardian's "Comment is Free".

He makes an interesting case that there are several material reasons why the Christian churches are making heavy going of the sexuality debate and fidning it difficult to adapt. Broadly speaking the reasons given include:

• the either/or nature of the debate - either same sex relationships are equally valid or they are not - not much scope for middle ground
• the speed of change in society's attitudes and legislation leaving little time for faith groups to adapt (I might add - especially in churches which are in a global configuration including countries where these kind of changes are only just beginning to occur)
  
• the cause of LGBT equality has taken on the form of a moral crusade, again making it difficult for churches to adapt well
  

I think there is some merit to this view. He concludes with these thoughts:

The crisis over homosexuality is reawakening us to the question that inspired Paul and Luther. The real question is not whether homosexuality is against "Christian morality" but whether moralism is against the Christian gospel. It seems to be - but how can a church adapt to this insight? All religious groups seem to unite around a holy moral code. Can Christianity jettison the whole idea of the moral law - and remain an organised religion? The debate about homosexuality is ushering us into strange new religious territory; making us contemporary with Paul. God works in truly mysterious ways.

(For another interesting article by Theo Hobson on the Church of England and its current predicament see here -Bid a fond farewell to the English way of religion).

Some other items of interest within the debate include a letter in the Times (Face of secular intolerance...), arguing that whereas once only Christianity was tolerated (in the form of authorised Anglicanism) very soon we will end up with a similar system but in reverse i.e. whereas you used to have to sign up to Anglicanism to be able to be an MP, you'll have to sign up to secularism or else be excluded from Parliament - I think these thoughts are exaggerated to say the least, designed to show that unless you grant exemptions to allow people of faith to circumvent the law on discrimination they will portray themselves as victims to say they are being discriminated against, when in fact they are protected both in employment and in the provision of goods and services as well as being protected under the Human Rights Act.

Actually the position is this - equality before the law for all, freedom of religious practice - except where the rights of others are infringed.

One can link this to this article by John Allen in his weekly column in the National Catholic Reporter. It's al of a piece with this idea that now religious based discriminatory laws are being removed that we in this terrible slide to compulsory secularism and so on and so on (ironically it is actually this particular line of reasoning which does the most to threaten the place of faith in society).

The article is worth a read to get an insight in to what some religious folk are thinking these days:

It's not much of a stretch, for example, to imagine pastors being fined or even imprisoned for statements opposing the rights of homosexuals to marry or adopt. (As noted above, this almost happened in Sweden). States might refuse to recognize the validity of any marriage carried out by a church that refuses to marry same-sex couples. Catholic schools could face investigations for what they teach on homosexuality. The potential for conflict is virtually unlimited, once the state decides that rejecting gay marriage and gay adoption is ipso facto a form of illegal discrimination.

All of this ignores the fact that the Human Rights Act (passed by a Labour Government incidentally) preserves the freedom of speech, freedom of coscience and freedom of religion, though not of course the right to discriminate against others on the basis of your beliefs and no-one is proposig to create a criminal offence on the basis of an act of discrimination (speech amounting to the incitement to hatred of a class of citizens is, of course, an antirely different matter. The Swedish pastor mentioned had stated "that homosexuals were 'a deep cancer tumour on all of society' and that gays were more likely than other people to rape children and animals", though he was eventually acquitted (wrongly in my view) under the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights - imagine that this had been said about Jews, Muslims or any other minority group - however sincerely held or divinely inspired the prejudice in question).

Just get on with it.....

The task of creating a modern upper chamber in our legislature is one that has spanned several lifetimes and should have been resolved a long time ago.

For some media coverage see the BBC and an interesting Observer article.

The problem as ever is that people aren't agreed on what should replace it.

Personnally I favour a wholly elected chamber - it's much simpler, easy to understand and has democratic legitimacy. The whole issue of so called "cash for peerages" (they've managed to drag out the investigation for 11 whole months, with previous investigations covering "Who wants to be a millionaire?" ~ the police investigation costed more than the amount the contestant had allegedly sought to defraud, but wasn't even handed over - don't they have any serious criminals in London they need to be looking for?) means we should just seize this opportunity for a wholly elected chamber.

So they just need to get on with it.

Of course, the House of Commons needs to retain its supremacy. We don't want either Italian or US style gridlock. The House of Commons is elected at the time of the general election on the basis of a manifesto. They need to be clearly held to account on the basis of the manisfesto they stood on, which you can't do if you if you have (for example) to negotiate all your policies with a combined Tory/Lib Dem opposition entrenched in the "other place". Or vice versa.

As regards powers I do not, for reasons given above, favour extending the Lords powers in any way over ordinary legislation. After a General Election has taken place the upper house should not systematically block the will of the House of Commons, but should allow for more in depth debate and scrutiny and the chance to ask the Government to think again while being able to use the more substantive blocking powers (for instance) with the approval of delegated legislation such as regulations etc.

Some areas should be subject to approval from both Houses - changes to the Human Rights Act, changes to the term of a Parliament, the revision of a reformed "Parliament Act". I would also like to see us go down the Canadian path of the 'notwithstanding' clause, where the assent of both Houses is needed to override the provisions of the Human Rights Act (as well as any Bill of Rights we may end up with).

But the main business of the day should flow from the majority in the House of Commons, which sustains a Government elected by a General Election.

But above all they should just get on and do it.

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

Contradictions of "conscience"

Good article here in Pink News pointing out some of the contradictions in the "rights of conscience" argument put forwards by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York as well as a report on germane comments by John Reid.

And I do think it needs unpicking because of course freedom of conscience is an important doctrine on which Western democracy is built and forms part of the political landscape of political liberties (freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of association) to protect us from an authoritarian state (or an over bearing church).

Of course it is worth stating that the Church hasn't always believed that the conscience is free and the Roman Catholic Church still isn't totally convinced of that (see an article here in the Guardian on the very point). Notably the Church developed the theology of compulsion evidenced in such atrocities as the Inquisition (nobody expects the Inquisition!), the burning of Michel Servetus in John Calvin's Geneva and the persecution of the Anabaptists - not to mention the (in some countries still ongoing) compulsion of the consciences of LGBT people.

Taking a very simplified overview, talk of freedom of conscience started surfacing in Europe at the time when there was a move away from the principle of each country adopting the religion of the prince (referred to as cujus regio, ejus religio). This obviously resulted in catastrophic persecutions (eg the massacre of French Protestants and persecutions in England, Scotland and Ireland), the legacy of which still scars today.

Freedom of conscience started therefore as a concept that the State didn't have to force people to adopt a religion and didn't have to force people to worship in a certain way and ironically some of the key players were the English Puritains (e.g. John Owen and even Cromwell) who developed the idea all Christians didn't need to agree on everything and most people agreed that burning someone at the stake because they saw the doctrine of the Trinity differently was not a good thing.

Notably the Protestant Reformation introduced the concepts of 'Christian Liberty' and the phrases toleration and freedom of religion came to be used for the first time and it came to be seen that maybe this was the best way for us all to be able to live together peacably. Later picked up by secular voices such as John Locke, Voltaire and Spinoza and in more recent times Bentham and J.S. Mill (good wikipedia sites on all of these).

After the horrors of the second world war the idea that a humane state had limits and that citizens had human rights that needed protecting came to be widely shared.

So (in modern times) the human right of freedom of conscience and religion is described by the European Convention on Human Rights as follows:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Which in my way of interpreting it means everyone can have a religion, have no religion or change religion. The state can't outlaw a religion or try to settle disputes internal to the religious community (and that does of course include some rather - to me at least - odd ideas like 'the sole purpose of sex is procreation' or 'the Bible is a set of laws sent by God').

A limitation on how a religion is manifested is however allowed (most of the rights in the Convention are balanced in some way) by measures prescribed by law that meet the test of being necessary for a number of things including public safety, public order, health, morals and "the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".

And of course a religious view that LGB people are not equal in dignity and rights does lead to a society where their fundamental freedoms are infringed - the broader freedom of living an open life without violence, without fear and without discrimination. And it seems that the reduction of stigma where it is shown how toxic (as opposed to merely the trivial exchange of ideas) discrimination really is for young people for instance that the state has a positive burden to reduce it.

It seems to me that the state may lawfully respect a person having a view about homosexuality being wrong, respect the right of their church conmmunity to hold such a doctrine and make decisions about membership on that basis but to state that publicly funded services and services open to all members of the public should do so without discriminating on any grounds including sexual orientation.

No-one is forcing churches to accept public money or do charitable work - that's not the essence of the religion and that's the point at which equality law should intervene. It seems to me that if the state were to agree to exempt religious adoption agencies but only provide public funding where they serve all communities then we would be interesting territory, because these are (in part at least) publicly funded services and would vanish even if an exemption were allowed, because they are publicly funded (in part at least).

To accept the logic put forward by the Archbishop of Canterbury, any and all acts of discrimination are acceptable whatever the context - including in the public sector. You would not be able to prevent nurses and doctors discriminating because according to the Archbishops "you can't legislate over the conscience of the individual". I'm a GP and my conscience is telling me not to have patients or provide support for patients who may be LGB. My conscience tells me to tell homosexuals to reprent if they come to my surgery with depression or anxiety and the individual conscience is supreme.

Well of course it isn't supreme in the many other countries where homosexuality is still illegal not to mention the countries where the death penalty applies, so far is the reign of 'freedom of conscience' such a universally important thing.

Yes, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said:

“It is imperative to give the strongest support to the defence of homosexual people against violence, bigotry and legal disadvantage..."

In spite of this very little work has been undertaken to deal with the issue of respect of LGB people's freedom of conscience (or indeed in some cases freedom of religion when there are attempts to outlaw same sex ceremonies).

In summary whilst religious folk can always avail themselves of the European Convention on Human Rights under the Human Rights Act, little is done to promote freedom of conscience from the religious sphere - where it gets attacked the most often in today's world.

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.

Praise Be (2)

Early indications are that the Government has now recognised that equality law can't provide an exemption to allow rank discrimination to continue merely because a group of people with pointy hats (several of whom represent an organisation which has actively covered up child abuse) try to bully us into it.

So good news if you believe (unlike the official representatives of the "gospel" i.e. good news but if you're gay often ends up being "The Bad News According to ...")in an open tolrant and respectful society.

There are a number of exemptions the Government could have made but none, absolutely none would have been more viscerally and profoundly damaging than this which should never have been considered as an option for that very reason.

The idea of a law which is there to promote more equal treatment gives open permission to the Catholic Church (of all people) to make insinuations about us being a risk to children (which the Anglican Archbisops shamefully colluded with in their letter) would have simply created more inequality and prejudice not less.

The Church (in its various manifestations) needs to take a long hard look at its behaviour and develop a sense of shame at its conduct.

For references to media coverage you can see all of the references on the Thinking Anglicans Blog here.

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.

The view from the US ....

Interesting quote about evangelicals lying with statistics which seems very relevant to the UK scene from Pam's House Blend US LGBT blog (always steamin!):

The real question is not whether evangelicals can clean up their statistical act. The deeper question is whether American evangelicals can learn to live without the alarmism that is so comfortably familiar to them. Evangelicals, by my observation, thrive on fear of impending catastrophe, accelerating decay, apocalyptic crises that demand immediate action (and maybe money). All of that can be energizing and mobilizing. The problem is, it also often distorts, misrepresents, or falsifies what actually happens to be true about reality. And to sacrifice what is actually true for the sake of immediate attention and action is plain wrong. It should be redefined as a very un-evangelical thing to do.

Too true, too true. And of course the US know a thing or two about facing up to an energised religious right we are starting to see in the UK.

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.

Big Brother Racism

I'd like to take a few moments to reflect on the story about Racism in Big Brother.

No need (I think) for any web references as it's all around the web and the print news.

My view - the comments made against Shilpa were racist in nature.

To say otherwise is to endorse and allow any such behaviour in school, playground, workplace where you can have an argument with someone and then say all sorts of things and say "well it's not racism is it?". Answer yes it is racism.

We always need to be reminded that a lack of intention to racially harass doesn't justify whatever you might say and then turn round and say "I didn't mean any harm - so it's alright then".

The bigger part of the blame lies with Channel 4 and Endemol. They knew what was happening and could have intervened (when they eventually did it brought about an apology and some kind of reconcilaiation between the contestants). The fact they didn't means that the Channel 4 is using racism as a form of entertainment, which is utterly despicable for a public broadcaster.

Channel 4's behaviour is uncoscionable, expoitative and debasing of our culture and society.