UK government supports LGBT rights worldwide

Government Minister Ian McCartney has published (on IDAHO or should that be IDAHOBIT? - International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia) a really good statement on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website pledging to work against discrimnination worldwide, especially countries who criminalise same sex acts and use either the death penalty or life imprisonment.

Its an excellent statement which can be accessed here. But it's so good I include it in full....

On the International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO) Foreign Office Minister Ian McCartney today affirmed Britain’s commitment to the universal decriminalisation of homosexuality. Announcing the development of a new UK strategy on international LGBT rights he said:

'We have taken a lead in ending discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in the UK. But elsewhere the picture remains bleak. More than 70 countries totally prohibit consenting same-sex relations, and nine countries punish them with death, denying people their basic human rights. Every year hundreds of LGBT people are killed simply because of their sexual orientation. Some by State execution; many more while the State looks on indifferently. Many thousands more live in fear of persecution. Human rights belong to everyone. Sexual orientation cannot be a qualifying factor.

'The Foreign and Commonwealth is developing a strategy for promoting and protecting the human rights of LGBT people overseas. This year sees the 40th Anniversary of the Sexual Offences Act in the UK, which began the decriminalisation of homosexuality. We can mark this milestone by speaking up for those millions around the world who are branded as criminals simply for being who they are. I look forward to working in partnership with NGOs and other stakeholders to develop our strategy.

'LGBT people have struggled to gain recognition of their human rights internationally. Many states refuse even to consider these issues and strive to keep them off the international agenda. Millions of our fellow human beings live in societies still blighted by stigma, prejudice and shame. Their suffering is unseen and unheard. These will be difficult issues to raise, but we must speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves.'

In an addition to efforts on decriminalisation there are 5 other areas where UK action can make a difference:

• non-discrimination in the application of human rights;
• support for LGBT activists and human rights defenders;
• health and health education;
• raising LGBT issues at international / multilateral institutions;
• and bilateral engagement with key countries.

Equally Ian is due to speak at the Labour Campaign for Lesbian and Gay Rights AGM on Saturday 26th May at 3pm at an open meeting (the AGM business itself is from 1pm till 3pm for members and affiliates) and will address the issue of international LGBT issues as well as agreeing to answer questions.

If you're in London at the time, why not drop in? Its at the UNISON building, Mabledon PLace, London (by St Pancras/Euston).

Brown - Prime Minister elect

News just in. John McDonnell has finally conceded that it is mathematically impossible for him to obtain the magical 45 nominations needed to stand against Gordon Brown for leadership of the Labour Party. See the latest on BBC News

And Scotland?

Just a few thoughts on the Scottish results.

Apart from all the difficulties over the voting process (which has probably killed PR for UK elections) I have a few thoughts.

Firstly I think we shouldn't exaggerate the result. All this doom and gloom about the imminent demise of the Union ( see for instance this rather insulting peice in the Independent and this gloomy scenario in the Times), which I actually find to be in rude health.

I don't think we can realistically expect Scotland to elect the same Government in perpetuity - it needs to be able to throw out the current lot in favour of someone else - at some point that is going to happen and that's what democracy is all about and that party couldn't be the Lib Dems (they're a coalition partner and part of the Government with Labour) and can't be the Conservatives who have not been able to rebuild after being wiped out in the 1990's and are still seen as tainted as well as being traditionally anti-devolution.

So here we are with the SNP with a 1 seat advantage. The majority of parties and voters are against having a referendum on independence, so that's not likely to come close to rearing its head. They're not likely to get a bill through any of its Parliamentary stages.

Yes, Alex Salmond can posture and gesture against a London based Government. It will be an irritant, but the other parties can pull the rug on him when it suits them - as any minority Government is always vulnerable to a confidence vote or to a defeat on the budget.

Also - yes, there is the SNP as the biggest party. Yes, the Executive is likely to have no majority of its own. But that's not so bad. It means the budget gets passed and all other laws are voted on by their merits - including private members bills. Its not unlike the situation in the US where Congress doesn't necessarily pass the laws proposed by the President. They seem to get by reasonably well and if voters are unhappy they can vote differently in another election. Democracy - and voter choice - in action (well for those whose vote actually got counted).

Also not a bad idea for a precedent to be set in favour of having a minority administration - all this obsession with forming coalitions is a little unhealthy and means that the smallest parties have inordinate power over the biggest.

So overall I've decised to be relaxed about all of this. It's democracy in action and we should welcome it. There'll be no referendum, unless there is a majority in the Scottish Parliament for that, which I don't foresee happening anytime soon.

So let's all relax and just let them get on with it - and be proud of the fact it was a Labour Government which delievered devolution in the first place and be pleased that voters are making it work for them.

To use a fabled term from the past (with not entirely positive resonances I admit) "Crisis? What Crisis?".

ECHR ruling on freedom of assembly

A unanimous ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in favour of the organisers of Warsaw Pride event, upholding the right to the freedom of assembly.

The link can be found on the ILGA website. The ruling is not too long and is well worth a read.

It s a very interesting and forthright ruling and has made a ruling that has applicability for all countries of the Council of Europe (including EU countries such as Latvia and countries such as Russia) as well as strengthening an already impressive ECHR case law on issues of sexual orientation. I also anticipate it will have an impact on the law regarding peaceful assembly and freedom of expression in general, which Governments will have to adhere to.

On a similar note ILGA -Europe has launched a campaign on freedom of assembly, seeking wxpressions of support from , amongst others, mayors and leaders of councils.

Also on the ILGA website, news and links about recent European Resolutions on Homophobia in Europe.

Finally, this may be of some interest. Here is the website for 'GenderDoc-M', the LGBT organisation in Moldova where permission for a Pride event has been denied, in spite of a ruling from the Moldova Supreme Court. Also contains a link to an expression of support from Ken Livingstone.

Elections, elections, elections.....

First of all, good news from Nottingham where Labour won the election, gaining all 3 seats in my own ward (taking one from the Tories) and with a net gain of 4 seats overall.

That island of good news (as well as Labour retaking Leicester Council and gaining seats in York) was somewhat overcast by results elsewhere, especially in Scotland, Wales and the rest of England.

Hmmm

Well it certainly is true that Governments in power lose local elections. It happened under the Conservatives and under previous Labour administrations (including spectacular losses in the 60's and 70's - the BBC has a good page of recent local election reversals, which is quite instructive). A bad performance in local elections doesn't always mean losing the next General Election.

The Labour Party won in Nottingham for a number of reasons - first of all recognising that we would lose the election if we didn't do something radically different. Secondly by pulling out all the stops in the campaign. The Lib Dems complained that Labour won because of union support (I can't see it did much good any where else). The truth is that there was a well run campaign which started just after the 2005 election and a number of individuals putting in a phenomenal amount of work as well as a lot of people working hard on the day.

So I do not think that the next election is lost, but it will be a hard fight. The Scottish vote is very portentious of new developments and I will blog about that at some later point.

And to add to the general depression, tonight the French look likely to elect Sarkozy - if all of the opinion polls are correct (and I do mean all .... there will be some seriousl explaining to do if Segolene Royal wins, though I earnestly hope she does).

Day One of the Sexual Orientation Regulations

With little media coverage the Sexual Orientation Regulations covering the provision of goods and services enters into force today.

It is anticipated that the regulations will be incorporated into the new Single Equality Act, due later this year, with the proposals being worked up by the Discrimination Law Review and is due to report in May - no doubt their work has been much delayed by all of the controversy over the sexual orientation regulations....

The link to the regulations is http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/20071263.htm

First two days of the mental health bill

The Government is now proceeding apace with the reversal of the Lords' amendments to the Mental Health Bill.

The amendments were voted by Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in line with a campaigning organisation called Mental Health Alliance. The "Alliance" includes any organisation that matters, speaks for all professionals, all service users, all carers, has a complete harmony amongst its 80 organisations. Apparently. So there is no need for any mental health organisation to put any thought into mental health matters as the MHA speaks authoritatively on behalf of all its members at all times. All the thinking has been for you and all there is left for you is to agree.

Now I don't want to be over harsh. I certainly respect where the MHA (though probably not the Conservatives) are coming from, and on some of the issues they are either raising entirely legitimate concerns or have ideas that deserve to be taken seriously.

However they have tended to exaggerate and over simplify making it very difficult to have a sensible debate at all.

Day one of the committee saw the Government reverse the amendment on exclusions from mental disorder (including sexual orientation, political and cultural views etc). The Government's argument is that as these are not mental disorders it would be strange to exclude them as if they were and would muddy the waters considerably.

I am sure the Government are right in this. In particular I note contributions from Chris Bryant:

I can see several reasons, therefore, why it might seem intrinsically a good idea for the Bill to contain the proposed exclusions. However, on sexual orientation in particular, it seems bizarre that we would want to cover it in the Bill. We should assume that nobody believes that somebody’s homosexuality is a reason for them to be sectioned. We should make that assumption, together with the assumption that nobody should be sectioned for their political, religious or cultural views [.....]

That is why, despite understanding the reasons why people might wish to include them, I find the exclusions patronising and therefore inappropriate. I also believe that they would be a legal nightmare. The person who does not want to be sectioned, and whose lawyer says that his claim to be God is a religious belief, will be able to advance that argument before the courts. That gives a much more complicated set of decisions to the courts than would be appropriate.

And the Minister (Rosie Winterton) put it very well when she stated:

As I said, including something that is not a mental disorder in a list of exclusions of mental disorders is not only unnecessary but, particularly in matters such as sexual orientation, gives the impression that we do think that it is a mental disorder and therefore must be excluded. It is stigmatising in that respect.

Day Two of the committee saw debate over the 'imparied decision making' test that the Conservatives want inserted. The debates were very revealing as there seemed a lot of confusion on the Tory and Lib Dem side as to what exactly they were proposing and what such a test would mean.

As a mental health worker myself I have to admit that it isn't immediatley clear what they are wanting to propose. Some state (and I think that this is the guidance given in Scotland, where they have adopted such a test) that if you are suicidal or posing a risk to others then, by definition, your decision making is impaired. Well - that seems to make the test hopelessly circular and subjective rather than a clear and genuine test.

Others said it was similar to the test for capacity (if not identical to it) and therefore if you met the test and wanted to commit suicide you should be allowed to do so; if you were a risk to others you could not intervene to stop them.

So the Tory/Lib Dem position lacks the benefit of being thoroughly worked out.

Again the sentiments are good but this is no way to make law. Legislation should aim at relative clarity and tests should be just that, not completley open to divers and contradictory interpretation.

The committee went on to debate that vexed question of 'treatbility' or 'therapeutic benefit' test for detention, but that debate continues in the next session.

The link to the committee debates can be seen here, though the exchanges are quite in depth and occasionally technical, as well as quite argumentative on occasion.

Second Reading of the Mental Health Bill

After this Bill (amending the Mental Health Act 1983, covering England and Wales - Scotland has its own Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act 2003), has been seriously mauled by the Lords the Government has announced it is going to valiantly seek to overturn the Lords' amendments.

In the second reading debate many Labour MP's expressed some sympathy for some of the Lords' positions so we shall see. The really interesting part will come in the ping pong that might follow by way of getting the same version of the Bill passed in both Houses.

I managed to watch the whole second reading. There were some interesting comments made by members but ulitmately many of the comments were a little superficial in nature.

I was moved though to hear many first hand accounts of people experiencing mental illness and remembered that in fact many MP's do have quite a lot of contact with service users and their families. The Government seemed very confident of their case and I think are going to reverse as many of the amendments as they possibly can and compromise only at the ping pong stage - if at all.

On many I think the Lords' amendments may be well intentioned but probably shouldn't be retained.

I do think that principles should be included in the Bill (bizarrely and for reasons I don't entirely grasp you can't put 'principles' in an amending Bill......). This is something I think the Government should think again on as I think it would satisfy a lot of people and give much needed reassurance.

Other areas I think the Government should think again are the choice of Nearest Relative and the provision of advocacy.

I definitley do not agree that the Government should accept the Lords' amendment on exclusions, which in my view is mischievous and misbegotten.

Yes it says you can't be detained solely because of your sexual orientation (as well as other things such as culture and religious beliefs etc).

Now we are going to get headlines saying 'Govt removed protection from homophobia'. This illustrates how mischevous the amendment is, in that it creates fear that it seeks to address - that it is possible detain people 'solely because of their sexual orientation'. This is clearly ridiculous (it's not possible to detain someone solely on the grounds of anything, actually - even a serious mental disorder), and therefore would be bad legislation and should be removed so there is a much simpler definition of mental disorder.

The other big issues are 'treatability' - where you have to demonstrate 'therapeutiv benefit' in order to detain someone and a restriction on the use of Community Treatment Orders. This is really the nub of the debate and it will be interesting to see how it proceeds.

It is of ocurse important to get it right and will be interesting to watch.

PS I should add that much of the media coverage is grossly distorted and really beside the point to the current debates.

One example is the BBC which has been asking:

Should the mentally ill be detained against their will?

MPs will be debating controversial plans in the Mental Health Bill that would allow the government to detain the mentally ill, even if they have not committed a crime.

All of this is of course grossly misleading as well as being unfortunate because it is designed to make many people who have a mental health problem fearful of mental health services in a way that is completely groundless.

Lawyers Christian Fellowship on the regs

LCF has now published guidance advice on the sexual orientation regulations. On the whole it is much more balanced and dare I say truthful than we have come to expect.

There are still some exaggerations and deliberate scare (expressed as "there's a possiblity that") which you kind of expect, coming from LCF.

Also an actual lawyer has put his name to it, which is good.

Funny that they weren't able to release this before the vote - then it was all scare stories and exaggeration. Now the regs have been voted through they are eble to portray more honesty (they seem to be able to turn that on and off at will).

The link to the advice is here.

Of course, there are aspects to the regs that they don't like. That's to be expected. The LCF has been opposed to any measure of legal equality for LGBT people and of course that's their democratic right.

I do, though, have a few quibbles.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, and I could be wrong but I tend to disagree with the item dealing with the perennial 'Christian printer' being obliged to print books that they don't agree with. Actually the printing of books is more like publishing than printing.

In my untrained view, I think that a printer (or a publisher) can not be forced to print something he doesn't agree with (i.e. to promulgate ideational content he disagrees with), and so, in my view the question doesn't arise.

I personally think that in any case wouldn't be upheld by the Courts under the Human Rights Act.

There is of course the famous Canadian case but that wasn't about printing a book or a 'flyer promoting gay sex' it was about the printing of a letterhead and business cards for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives (for a reference to this by now famous case see here, for a summary of the original ruling itself see here). And I do anticipate that a similar case would have a similar outcome in the UK under the sexual orientation regulations.

Apart from that and a few minor quibbles it's quite well researched and even includes the reference to the landmark ruling from the High Court on the Employment Equality regulations where they quite correctly state:

Is it a defence to argue “I am not treating this person differently (discriminating) because of their sexualorientation but because of their sexual practices”?

No. The Government have never accepted this distinction in law and neither (to date) have the courts.

The reference in the ruling itself can be seen here:

"29. Part of the background to the wording of regulation 7(3), and one of the matters that will need to be considered in examining the challenge to that provision, is a distinction drawn between sexual orientation and sexual behaviour. As regards the protection conferred by the Convention, however, I do not consider there to be any material difference between them. Sexual orientation and its manifestation in sexual behaviour are both inextricably connected with a person's private life and identity."

But this is a digression, though one that the Bishop of Hereford might have benefited from having had prior to the Employment Tribunal case.

I would also quibble with any suggestion that preaching and membership might potentially be covered under the regulations under a variety of scenarios. This is a failure to read in the provisions of the Human Rights Act and also the no doubt forthcoming Belfast High Court case on the Northern Ireland regulations which will no doubt say the same thing.

Any way, all of this apart, what they're putting out now is much more balanced than the scare stories they were putting forth before the regulations were passed by Parliament.

Bishops' madness

Well Easter is well and truly over isn't it?

Bizarre opinions being expressed by various Bishops expressing a favourable comparison between....... Iran (of all places) and our own society in the UK and presumably the terribly corrupt Western World.

Apparently Iran is a superior kind of country to ours. They have clearly defined religouse based values whereas we don't.

I think Al Qaida thinks exactly the same and that's why they would like to install a similar regime in the UK to the one which the bishops so clearly value in Iran.

Do they have any inclination of what kind of country Iran is? Do they really believe that their religious inspired dictatorship is superior to our democracy just because, having taken UK forces hostage, they then cite the Prophet when releasing them?

Whilst I don't want to use the phraseology of Axis of Evil, it's clearly not the most wonderful of places to live.

I can't help but wonder though whether the bishops views mean they regard Iran with a certain amount of envy. Nobody is allowed to question the dominant religion. Religious law runs the country and no need to lobby the Government over the Sexual Orientation regulations and suffer the humiliation of being rebuffed - you are the Government and if people disagree they tend to meet a sticky end. Is that secretly what they would like for us with our 'free floating' values?

I shudder to think.

Easter time

Most of my blogs are securely from a secular perspective (that is to say that I blog secular and even from time to time refer to 'Christians' in the 3rd person...), which is kind of funny when I spend so much time in churches....

So I thought (the thought came to me during the Maundy Thursday Vigil last night) that I might blog a few words about how I'm experiencing Easter.

I should say that this is now my 4th Easter observed in the Anglo-Catholic way and of course the liturgy is by and large the same but the experience and how it changes you is different each time.

The service is very striking but the Vigil allows for a mental discipline of just remaining in the side chappel with little other than you thoughts, the candles on the altar and some flowers. The stilling of the mind lingers on and makes you think you should pray like that more often....

The Good Friday service is one of simplicity and quiet and the remembering of the sufferings of our Lord.

Saturday - Easter Vigil - a long service, starting off with a bonfire and with the renewal of baptismal vows. The strong points for me are the procession in near darkness into the Church, the procession down to the font and trying not to be covered in hot wax from the Paschal candle; Gloria in Latin for the first time after Lent with the ringing of bells, the first Regina Caeli.

Followed by the Easter Sunday service itself (the first service I attended my conversion as a young teenager was an Easter Sunday Mehodist service so it has a special resonance), followed by a service of benediction of the Blessed Sacrament in the evening.

Christmas is a very strong time for celebrating the faith but for me it's Easter that is the strongest time and when you are most open to reflection and introspection.

We are only at the mid point at the moment of the Triduum and I feel very differntly to the experience compared to how I thought I would. The Maundy Thursday never fails to be a full stop to all the thoughts that are swirling around in your head and hopefully reorienting towards the things that are in fact important.

The sense of being taken out of time by an ageless liturgy that is being celebrated all over the globe. And a special sense of grace after recent disputes that I've blogged about (extensively) elsewhere.

For now'll just leave my favourite verses from today's hymn:

The strife is o'er, the battle done,
the victory of life is won;
the song of triumph has begun.
Alleluia!

The powers of death have done their worst,
but Christ their legions hath dispersed:
let shout of holy joy outburst.
Alleluia!

He closed the yawning gates of hell,
the bars from heaven's high portals fell;
let hymns of praise his triumphs tell!
Alleluia!

Not an April Fool; but still foolish

Well seems I was wrong (though thses days every story in the Observer seems equally improbable, whether published on April 1st or not - does that mean I'm getting older?).

Covered by the BBC here.

Anyway it seems that the Church of England (or parts of it) is practicising (allegedly) discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation and placing itself above the law.

I await the outcome of the case with interest.

A catalogue of this year's crop can be found on this BBC page - though I must say I thought the one about Tony Blair becoming an actor was genuine....

Brilliant April Fool in today's Observer ....

Todays Observer (bearing in mind the date is April 1st) has this hilarious report about a Bishop Priddis (obviously a made up name) who is being taken to an Employment Tribunal for refusing (allegedly) to employ someone on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Well I must congratulate the Observer on a really funny and ingenious April fool which really had me going for a few minutes until I remembered the date.

Of course it has to be made up. We do in fact know that while "there is a range of opinion amongst the Christian Churches over the issues of Human Sexuality [presumably they're completely agreed about non-human sexuality.....] we would oppose all forms of discrimination based on a person's sexual orientaiton" as is so often repeated to us ad nauseum.

I for one chide myself for not taking the Church of England at face value when giving such clear assurances. Who could be more honest and straight forward than a Christian?

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.