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.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
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)!
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)!
Sunday, March 11, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
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.
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 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:
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:
- Even as a revising chamber the House of Lords has considerable power over the laws that get passed.
- In a democracy laws should be made by the people through elected representatives - that is what democracy is.
- 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.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
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:
Regulations covering Great Britain are eagerly awaited.
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.
Regulations covering Great Britain are eagerly awaited.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, February 23, 2007
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.
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".
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".
Sunday, February 18, 2007
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).
~~~~~
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
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 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.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
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?
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?
Thursday, February 08, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, February 05, 2007
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:
I think there is some merit to this view. He concludes with these thoughts:
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).
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:
(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).
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.
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).
Saturday, February 03, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, February 02, 2007
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).
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!
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)
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)
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
