From what I can tell the Lords amendment to the incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation is being moved.
I say 'is being moved' because Hansard is 3 hours behind...
The results of the Lords vote should be up soon...
It will then have to go to the Commons
LATEST
Lords insist on their original amendment 178 - 164
In response to this the Government (somewhat regrettably) accepted the Lords amendment so as to get Royal Assent ahead of tomorrow.
Notwithstanding this disappointment there is much that is positive. We now have, finally, the outlawing (albeit with a high hurdle of proof) of the incitement of hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.
We also have, through this debate, reached some agreements about examples of overzealous policing (albeit no doubt well intentioned, but ended up making things a whole lot worse) and, hopefully achieved progress in this area while at the same time taking into some account the expressed fears of different sections of the community.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
It's over for Hilary
Out of cash, out of delegates and out of time - I think that she's coming to the end of the road.
Looking at the two 'victory' speeches last night there was a huge difference between the two candidates.
Obama striking and confident, giving his first speech of the General Election.
Hilary with bits and bobs all over the place but with pointed references to working with the Party's nominee..... She was unsure and unsteady and toward the end looked like she was reading out the words without meaning them.
The look on Bill and Chelsea's faces was an even clearer indicator. The reaction of her crowd of supporters was also an indicator they knew the end was close at hand.
Hilary has proved herself an able and dogged fighter with far more political skills than most thought she had. It's just that Obama is as well and has the edge in the campaign in terms of popular vote and more importantly delegates.
Hilary pulling out or at the least avoiding the use of her 'kitchen sink' /scorched earth approach for the next win or two would be good for the party, allow Hilary her role as Party No2 (but not probably running mate to Obama) and maximise the chances of Obama winning now that the Party has given him the advantage.
This would also settle the problem of the seating of Florida and Michigan. If Obama is designated as the Democratic Candidate the two delegations can be seated and vote for Hilary in the proportions that voted for her in that contest (hence I think the emphasis in Hilary's speech on seating the two delegations at the Convention).
Good coverage from Andrew Sullivan in his blog "The Daily Dish"
"Hilary, the time has come" from Kevin Naff of Washington Blade, previously a Clinton supporter.
From the BBC 'Clinton heading for the exit' by John Zogby (independent pollster)
.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill
The next piece of controversial legislation once the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill (incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation) has been resolved (Ping Pong taking place today) is the HFEB where the religious right get to have another outing (after the blasphemy debate when they could only muster 57 votes in a lost cause I think they are starting to enjoy this).
Debates here will include a number of free votes in the Commons on controversial issues in that Bill such as hybrid embryo's and the removal of the 'need for a father' with supportive parenthood in its place (which has already passed the Lords) as well as a big campaign to lower the abortion limit from 24 to 20 weeks - a move I oppose.
For the fullest reporting of the issues anywhere on the web I've seen go to Lou's blog where it is all covered in detail.
Debates here will include a number of free votes in the Commons on controversial issues in that Bill such as hybrid embryo's and the removal of the 'need for a father' with supportive parenthood in its place (which has already passed the Lords) as well as a big campaign to lower the abortion limit from 24 to 20 weeks - a move I oppose.
For the fullest reporting of the issues anywhere on the web I've seen go to Lou's blog where it is all covered in detail.
Ping Pong debates on the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Very interesting debates in the House of Commons last night on Lords amendments to aforementioned Bill.
These concerned Lords amendment to the very important provision covering the incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.
The reference to Hansard is here.
The Government majority (to disagree with the Lords amendment) was 202. Reports on how individual MP's voted here (Public Whip).
The next big debate with a lot of interesting and quite illuminating interventions from Conservative benches (much more than I expected) was on the repeal of the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel (I blogged previously on the debate on this in the Lords).
Hansard here.
The Lords amendment was carried by 321.
In both cases the Government majorities were very large. The ping pong now goes to the Lords where they have a chance to reinstate their earlier amendment. If they do so it will return again to the Commons and so on.
.
These concerned Lords amendment to the very important provision covering the incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.
The reference to Hansard is here.
The Government majority (to disagree with the Lords amendment) was 202. Reports on how individual MP's voted here (Public Whip).
The next big debate with a lot of interesting and quite illuminating interventions from Conservative benches (much more than I expected) was on the repeal of the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel (I blogged previously on the debate on this in the Lords).
Hansard here.
The Lords amendment was carried by 321.
In both cases the Government majorities were very large. The ping pong now goes to the Lords where they have a chance to reinstate their earlier amendment. If they do so it will return again to the Commons and so on.
.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Evangelicals - where do they fit in?
This post is prompted by moves afoot to protest the appointment of Joel Edwards to the post of Commissioner with the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
At the time of his appointment there was a big and predictable broohaha, especially from the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement who produced this diatribe against his appointment. I say diatribe (defined as meaning "a bitter critical attack") as it goes on and on about the personal evils of afore mentioned Joel Edwards as if he has been personally directing the whole show. Of course, that is not likely to be the case. In many particulars the quotes are taken somewhat out of context and some things are attributed to Joel Edwards and the Evangelical Alliance when they oughtn't to be. This is unfair.
Again at the time there was a wait and see approach from Ekklesia who saw a significant potential for evangelicals to address equality, human rights and discrimination issues through bodies such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission stating
I must say I tend to agree.
My reading of Joel Edwards is of him being moderate whilst at the same time being true to his evangelical beliefs (which I personally have no objection to although I don't personally share them). I could of course be wrong on this but the politics of systematic suspicion leads to a bad place for all of us.
Of course, the Commission as a whole are open to public scrutiny as are its appointees as members of public bodies.
The Commission has broad duties laid upon it to promote equality and human rights (set out in the Equality Act) , including on the grounds of sexual orientation and has published an Equality Scheme laying out its approach to equality work in different areas as well as having as its role the support of different strands of equality legislation.
We all have a responsibility to hold the Commission to be effective in its role and also to make it clear that we oppose any hierarchy of discrimination. We also have a role to play in scrutinising the activities of Commission members and highlighting any thing that raises concerns.
One of the principal problems that we face now is the problem of alienationa and paranoia as a propaganda tool.
We definitely saw this is the debate over Goods and Services (and Joel Edwards was one of the very few evangelical voices to ward against this trend - especially in his 'Letter to leaders of Alliance member churches' on the subject).
Getting non-paranoid evangelical leaders onto the EHRC can be very valuable in ensuring that the more outlandish statements don't in the future get credance. We have also seen exaggeration and paranoia being out to good use in the debates over the Mental Health Bill - it's now a well recognised political tool.
In addition to this, religious communities do have (sometimes legitimate) concerns about human rights like freedom of religion and belief, freedom of expression and so on where there is a tension between equality provisions and human rights and it is probably better to have some faith representatives on the EHRC to be part of the solution as well as being part of a clear analysis that can address their concerns (which I acknowldege) in a realistic way and also calm down the more exaggerated claims of organisations in the 'Religious Right' such as Anglican Mainstream and so on that I have added to my blog lists as being 'ones to watch'.
Finally I believe in tolerance, pluralism and social dialogue in a way that not everyone does. This means accepting diversity of views and being political about them, not demonising your opponents.
For me this is part of our multicutluralism whilst balancing this with provision for human rights for all and making sure they are an indispensable part of our national culture.
Christian communities in the UK are not (in my view) under threat. The protection of gay people from discrimination is in my view a core right that crosses all communities and all communities have a role in ensuring that that happens.
On balance I think that we'll make further progress with the likes of Joel Edwards (who has expressed support for the principle of protecting gay people from discriminaiton through the law) on board.
I am sure that this is the right way to go but I welcome comments of dissent.
.
At the time of his appointment there was a big and predictable broohaha, especially from the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement who produced this diatribe against his appointment. I say diatribe (defined as meaning "a bitter critical attack") as it goes on and on about the personal evils of afore mentioned Joel Edwards as if he has been personally directing the whole show. Of course, that is not likely to be the case. In many particulars the quotes are taken somewhat out of context and some things are attributed to Joel Edwards and the Evangelical Alliance when they oughtn't to be. This is unfair.
Again at the time there was a wait and see approach from Ekklesia who saw a significant potential for evangelicals to address equality, human rights and discrimination issues through bodies such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission stating
Evangelicals who recognise that equality ought to be a key part of the Christian
message have been slowly coming out of the closet, and even the Evangelical
Alliance's sceptical opinions on this issue have been expressed much more
temperately of late.
I must say I tend to agree.
My reading of Joel Edwards is of him being moderate whilst at the same time being true to his evangelical beliefs (which I personally have no objection to although I don't personally share them). I could of course be wrong on this but the politics of systematic suspicion leads to a bad place for all of us.
Of course, the Commission as a whole are open to public scrutiny as are its appointees as members of public bodies.
The Commission has broad duties laid upon it to promote equality and human rights (set out in the Equality Act) , including on the grounds of sexual orientation and has published an Equality Scheme laying out its approach to equality work in different areas as well as having as its role the support of different strands of equality legislation.
We all have a responsibility to hold the Commission to be effective in its role and also to make it clear that we oppose any hierarchy of discrimination. We also have a role to play in scrutinising the activities of Commission members and highlighting any thing that raises concerns.
One of the principal problems that we face now is the problem of alienationa and paranoia as a propaganda tool.
We definitely saw this is the debate over Goods and Services (and Joel Edwards was one of the very few evangelical voices to ward against this trend - especially in his 'Letter to leaders of Alliance member churches' on the subject).
Getting non-paranoid evangelical leaders onto the EHRC can be very valuable in ensuring that the more outlandish statements don't in the future get credance. We have also seen exaggeration and paranoia being out to good use in the debates over the Mental Health Bill - it's now a well recognised political tool.
In addition to this, religious communities do have (sometimes legitimate) concerns about human rights like freedom of religion and belief, freedom of expression and so on where there is a tension between equality provisions and human rights and it is probably better to have some faith representatives on the EHRC to be part of the solution as well as being part of a clear analysis that can address their concerns (which I acknowldege) in a realistic way and also calm down the more exaggerated claims of organisations in the 'Religious Right' such as Anglican Mainstream and so on that I have added to my blog lists as being 'ones to watch'.
Finally I believe in tolerance, pluralism and social dialogue in a way that not everyone does. This means accepting diversity of views and being political about them, not demonising your opponents.
For me this is part of our multicutluralism whilst balancing this with provision for human rights for all and making sure they are an indispensable part of our national culture.
Christian communities in the UK are not (in my view) under threat. The protection of gay people from discrimination is in my view a core right that crosses all communities and all communities have a role in ensuring that that happens.
On balance I think that we'll make further progress with the likes of Joel Edwards (who has expressed support for the principle of protecting gay people from discriminaiton through the law) on board.
I am sure that this is the right way to go but I welcome comments of dissent.
.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Save the Horizontal Directive
Now is an urgent time for action to save the so-called horizontal Directive on discrimination in areas outside employment (i.e. in goods and services).
This would therefore cover race, gender (already covered through separate Directives), disability, age, religious belief and sexual orientation.
These seems to be being blocked by Germany and, seeing they actually have a General Discrimination Law covering sexual discrimination it seems somewhat perverse to oppose a new Directive on these grounds.
Many other EU countries enjoy a high level of protection from discrimination in areas outside employment and the development of piecemeal discrimination law is prfoundly harmful, especially as new countries join the EU - there needs to be a clear common standard to protect citizens of EU countries from discrimination.
This move is supported by many EU countries of different political colours as well as being supported by the ETUC and ILGA-Europe.
Also see the website of the Lesbian and Gay Intergroup at the Europan Parliament.
.
This would therefore cover race, gender (already covered through separate Directives), disability, age, religious belief and sexual orientation.
These seems to be being blocked by Germany and, seeing they actually have a General Discrimination Law covering sexual discrimination it seems somewhat perverse to oppose a new Directive on these grounds.
Many other EU countries enjoy a high level of protection from discrimination in areas outside employment and the development of piecemeal discrimination law is prfoundly harmful, especially as new countries join the EU - there needs to be a clear common standard to protect citizens of EU countries from discrimination.
This move is supported by many EU countries of different political colours as well as being supported by the ETUC and ILGA-Europe.
Also see the website of the Lesbian and Gay Intergroup at the Europan Parliament.
.
Those election results
What a catastrophic night (two nights actually) for Labour. There is such a thing as mid term blues but here we are reaching a new level.
No amount of gloss can hide that the electorate (or part of it - though last year's results were no better) is serving notice on the Labour Party.
The loss of London caps it all.
Yet now is not the time for panic or dismay, though this advice is paradoxical and may not find much favour in politics 'out there'.
Political parties are functioning entities. They don't die (although the Liberals might be an exception to that, though even they have come back from the dead, rather proving the point). They go on and carry on achieving things that are important to them whether in government or opposition.
Panic will only make things get worse and of course it is difficult to resist the temptation to "go off on one" as the Tories and Labour have done in their time in Opposition, making it all the more difficult to win again.
Our policies are what got us elected 3 times in a row and scrabbling about now isn't going to turn the tide. Now is not the time for fiddling and fudging.
It may be that the country has tired of the current Government and wants to "let the other guys have a go - What's the worst that can happen?". That sentiment is in any case hard wired after three terms in a country like ours where we don't have either a Conservative or Social Democratic consensus which sustains one party rule for extended periods (even Sweden has elected a Centre Right Government).
So - unlike Zimbabwe - what the French call the 'alternance', the surest sign of a country actually being a healthy democracy may be about to happen (already has happened in Scotland and London).
There is only one thing we can do for the remaining two years and unusually this is entirely in our own power and that is to carry on governing and govern well.
Those kind of governments are the ones that miraculously escape come election time, coming through at the very last minute and actually after three terms in office those are the only victories on offer.
It may come down to the economy righting itself and the Tories being unable to produce a coherent Manifesto (which they certainly can't). But we should be reconciled to being completely written off by all commentators and if we win we will do so by our stamina and ability to just get on with the job. If we don't win we will have governed well and be ready to return to power when the Tories' promises (like the rather odd promises to bring back the Routemaster and make the lights stay on green for longer) turn to dust.
As Peter Hyman said on Newsnight lastnight - the last thing Gordon Brown needs to do is to go around listening to people. We need to govern and govern well.
It comes down to panic v. governing and the real test is which one of those two the Labour party chooses in the coming months. It's a test which is momentous, partly about leadership, partly collective but one that will define the future of the country over the next 15 - 20 years.
Our response to these testing times lies entirely in our own hands.
No amount of gloss can hide that the electorate (or part of it - though last year's results were no better) is serving notice on the Labour Party.
The loss of London caps it all.
Yet now is not the time for panic or dismay, though this advice is paradoxical and may not find much favour in politics 'out there'.
Political parties are functioning entities. They don't die (although the Liberals might be an exception to that, though even they have come back from the dead, rather proving the point). They go on and carry on achieving things that are important to them whether in government or opposition.
Panic will only make things get worse and of course it is difficult to resist the temptation to "go off on one" as the Tories and Labour have done in their time in Opposition, making it all the more difficult to win again.
Our policies are what got us elected 3 times in a row and scrabbling about now isn't going to turn the tide. Now is not the time for fiddling and fudging.
It may be that the country has tired of the current Government and wants to "let the other guys have a go - What's the worst that can happen?". That sentiment is in any case hard wired after three terms in a country like ours where we don't have either a Conservative or Social Democratic consensus which sustains one party rule for extended periods (even Sweden has elected a Centre Right Government).
So - unlike Zimbabwe - what the French call the 'alternance', the surest sign of a country actually being a healthy democracy may be about to happen (already has happened in Scotland and London).
There is only one thing we can do for the remaining two years and unusually this is entirely in our own power and that is to carry on governing and govern well.
Those kind of governments are the ones that miraculously escape come election time, coming through at the very last minute and actually after three terms in office those are the only victories on offer.
It may come down to the economy righting itself and the Tories being unable to produce a coherent Manifesto (which they certainly can't). But we should be reconciled to being completely written off by all commentators and if we win we will do so by our stamina and ability to just get on with the job. If we don't win we will have governed well and be ready to return to power when the Tories' promises (like the rather odd promises to bring back the Routemaster and make the lights stay on green for longer) turn to dust.
As Peter Hyman said on Newsnight lastnight - the last thing Gordon Brown needs to do is to go around listening to people. We need to govern and govern well.
It comes down to panic v. governing and the real test is which one of those two the Labour party chooses in the coming months. It's a test which is momentous, partly about leadership, partly collective but one that will define the future of the country over the next 15 - 20 years.
Our response to these testing times lies entirely in our own hands.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Recent European Court decisions
Thought I'd include some links about a few recent important cases from European Courts.
There are of course two different European Courts which often get confused.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the Court that decides on the application of EU law, whereas the European Court of Human Rights (as the name implies) is a Court which rules on the European Convention on Human Rights for states who have ratified it.
The ECJ sits in Luxembourg and the ECHR sits in Strasbourg.
The recent ECJ case was a ruling against Germany for failure to respect non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation as regards pension rights (where these relate to pay and therefore the sphere of employment) for same sex couples. Good link on the ILGA-Europe site.
Summary of judgment here.
The most recent ECHR case was a ruling against two UK sisters who claimed they should be given the same treatment as Civil Partners in the exemption from inheritance tax.
I blogged about the case at an earlier level where there was a 4-3 judgment against. The hearing of the full court found against them 15-2. BBC report here.Also summary of the case on the ECHR website here.
This case cuts two ways. One cannot, looking at the case, avoid there being a sense of unfair treatment that ought to be remedied. To do so by a Human Rights ruling would have had massive implications for tax law in particular the ability of siblings and other relatives to evade inheritance tax.
But it would also have meant that there was a broader Human rights protection for all couples (inlcuding same sex couples without formal legal protections) in the case fo death of one of the 'partners'.
Although the ruling was massively against the two sisters I do think there is a potential argument there that a future Court might want to return to and in the meantime something that Parliament should try to remedy in some way.
In the mean time it is interesting that the European Court of Human Rights is continuing to develop its thinking on the topic of same sex partnership which will be important in future rulings on same sex partnership rights.
.
There are of course two different European Courts which often get confused.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the Court that decides on the application of EU law, whereas the European Court of Human Rights (as the name implies) is a Court which rules on the European Convention on Human Rights for states who have ratified it.
The ECJ sits in Luxembourg and the ECHR sits in Strasbourg.
The recent ECJ case was a ruling against Germany for failure to respect non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation as regards pension rights (where these relate to pay and therefore the sphere of employment) for same sex couples. Good link on the ILGA-Europe site.
Summary of judgment here.
The most recent ECHR case was a ruling against two UK sisters who claimed they should be given the same treatment as Civil Partners in the exemption from inheritance tax.
I blogged about the case at an earlier level where there was a 4-3 judgment against. The hearing of the full court found against them 15-2. BBC report here.Also summary of the case on the ECHR website here.
This case cuts two ways. One cannot, looking at the case, avoid there being a sense of unfair treatment that ought to be remedied. To do so by a Human Rights ruling would have had massive implications for tax law in particular the ability of siblings and other relatives to evade inheritance tax.
But it would also have meant that there was a broader Human rights protection for all couples (inlcuding same sex couples without formal legal protections) in the case fo death of one of the 'partners'.
Although the ruling was massively against the two sisters I do think there is a potential argument there that a future Court might want to return to and in the meantime something that Parliament should try to remedy in some way.
In the mean time it is interesting that the European Court of Human Rights is continuing to develop its thinking on the topic of same sex partnership which will be important in future rulings on same sex partnership rights.
.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Johnson for Mayor?
As a colleague of mine has said somewhere else - I wouldn't support Johnson as Mayor of Trumpton, let alone London.
Now I don't want to get into personal abuse, tempting though that is. So without straying into any consideration of daft ideas on resurrecting the Routemaster I think it's well worth our time considering just how homophobic he has been in the recent past.
Some of them are helpfully posted on Ken Livingstone's campaign pages and include:
He has obviously had to tack his views somewhat for this electorate but his utter contempt for LGBT people is clear and he has refused to apologise for them.
Ken Livingstone's record however is clear, supporting same sex partnerships ahead of the Civil Partnership Act, tackling homophobic bullying ahead of the Government and giving support to a free Pride event in London amongst other things. See also Ken Livingstone's LGBT Manifesto.
It is therefore of the utmost importance that LGBT people mobilise to ensure someone with Boris Johnson's reactionary views is not elected as Mayor of London.
For a flavour of Boris in full flow on his previous support for Section 28 you can see some video footage of the LGBT husting here.
.
Now I don't want to get into personal abuse, tempting though that is. So without straying into any consideration of daft ideas on resurrecting the Routemaster I think it's well worth our time considering just how homophobic he has been in the recent past.
Some of them are helpfully posted on Ken Livingstone's campaign pages and include:
'Labour's appalling agenda, encouraging the teaching of homosexuality in schools, and all the rest of it.' (The Spectator 15 April 2000)‘The essence of that Tory case is unchanged... it is more sensitive to spare parents' anxieties, than to allow Leftwing local authorities to waste taxpayers' money on idiotic and irrelevant homosexual instruction.'
(Daily Telegraph 3 August 2000)
‘Slowly Labour is winning the battle it really cares about, the Kulturkampf, adjusting what can be said, and what cannot be said... Homosexuality is to be taught in schools.'
(The Spectator 29 April 2000)
‘I first met the Bishop [of Liverpool] a few weeks ago at a gloomy convocation of top clergy and journalists in Windsor Castle. The hacks were thin on the ground... I can say that the clerics gave us a wigging for being so mean to the Church of England... Why did we draw attention to tricky subjects like homosexuality, aka the Pulpit Poofs issue?' (The Spectator 16 December 2000)
'If gay marriage was OK - and I was uncertain on the issue - then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog.'
(Friends, Voters, Countrymen p96)
‘When the [hunting] ban is blocked in the Lords, as it surely will be, Blair will have his excuse for another attack on the Upper House. If Labour wins the election, Blair will invoke the Parliament Act to sweep aside the opinion of the peers, as he did over homosexual sex at 16, making a mockery of the Lords and consolidating his elective dictatorship.
(Daily Telegraph 18 January 2001)
‘More important, I am not sure how widespread this new right-on mood really is. Metropolitan opinion was wrong-footed over Section 28, where the public thought differently from New Labour; and three days after the event it was clear that the country did not agree with the editorialists on the verdict passed on Tony Martin. You can say that William Hague is opportunist to see the gap between the polite view and the public view. But you can't deny that he is right to go for it.'
(The Spectator 29 April 2000)
He has obviously had to tack his views somewhat for this electorate but his utter contempt for LGBT people is clear and he has refused to apologise for them.
Ken Livingstone's record however is clear, supporting same sex partnerships ahead of the Civil Partnership Act, tackling homophobic bullying ahead of the Government and giving support to a free Pride event in London amongst other things. See also Ken Livingstone's LGBT Manifesto.
It is therefore of the utmost importance that LGBT people mobilise to ensure someone with Boris Johnson's reactionary views is not elected as Mayor of London.
For a flavour of Boris in full flow on his previous support for Section 28 you can see some video footage of the LGBT husting here.
.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Zimbabwe - how long?
How long does it take to add up and release votes from the different polling stations?
We are now into the second week of counting/tabulating/verifying the votes and it's obviously a little more than fishy.
I was hoping by now to be blogging about a new, democratic start for Zimbabwe but now we see that Zanu PF are requesting a recount before the official figures have been announced and are reported to be unleashing a widespread campaign of intimidation to win any second round.
Needless to say this is the antithesis of what is meant by democracy.
Democracy means being able to kick people out. Yes Mugabe started out as a liberator, unfortunately he didn't end up as one. He didn't work to maintain democratic traditions and didn't make provision for a stable post Mugabe era.
That work will fall to others.
We are now into the second week of counting/tabulating/verifying the votes and it's obviously a little more than fishy.
I was hoping by now to be blogging about a new, democratic start for Zimbabwe but now we see that Zanu PF are requesting a recount before the official figures have been announced and are reported to be unleashing a widespread campaign of intimidation to win any second round.
Needless to say this is the antithesis of what is meant by democracy.
Democracy means being able to kick people out. Yes Mugabe started out as a liberator, unfortunately he didn't end up as one. He didn't work to maintain democratic traditions and didn't make provision for a stable post Mugabe era.
That work will fall to others.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Paranoid Homophobia
I was very struck by two recent reports where some good old fashioned fear mongering seemed to be going on.
The one is from the Roman Catholic Bishop of Glasgow, the other from a prominent State level politician in the US. Similarities are striking.
First Representative Sally Kern from Oaklahoma (or should that be Oaklahomo).
She thought she was speaking before 50 people only but in fact her words were captured by You Tube.
Here's a flavour:
There's a great conspiracy out there where gay people are a greater danger to the US than terrorism and (apparently) history demonstrates that any country that embraces equality for gay people will eventually meet its end.
You can see the actual talk on You Tube and its really worth watching if you want a laugh.
There's quite a few of them that have different presentations. Some have been put to music, made into a poem, one has a version where the word gay is replaced with the word 'troll' for effect and so on.
Here are the links to a selection.
Victory Fund version (with excerpts from the talk in its full paranoid glory and pictures and captions from the Victory Fund).
Troll version. Very funny, you'll love this one.
The Ballad of Sally Kern - a worthy effort at poetry. It ends with some references to Hitler and the Nazi time. A helpful and sobering reminder to where can head when some people are referred to as a cancer and the greatest threat to our society by their mere existence.
Ellen de Generes does a good turn on her show - it's quite funny and she tries to contact Sally to try to put her right on a few issues.....
Finally 'Stop Hate' which links up the words of hate that Sally Kern uses to the strings of murders of LGBT people in recent times in the US.
The second example is that of Roman Catholic Bishop Joseph Devine. He's also seeing a plot, a conspiracy perpetrated by gays to do untold harm to society and our common values. Here's Pink News' report.
Gays even sink so low as to want to remember the gay people held in concentration camps in Hitler's Germany. Apparently. Really it verges on a form of selective holocaust denial.
There is a common thread to all of this and I think that some of the references to Hitler are apposite, if a little stretched.
We are seeing a phenomenon of denial of the humanity of one section of the community. We know where this leads if unchallenged.
Thankfully there are people who are willing to stand up. Some of them are to be seen in the You Tube links above.
I include in this Pastor Wright, longtime preacher at Barack Obama whose sermons are a little surprising in their anti-American content.
(It's easy to decry his sermons except for the fact that he is actually slap bang in the middle of the Old Testament prophetic tradition of lambasting your cultural safety zones. And - it is reported - that he also supported equality for LGBT people and preached this within the milieu of the Christian Church).
The last word is a very eloquent, unadorned You Tube piece on the dangers of Homophobia in Government.
.
The one is from the Roman Catholic Bishop of Glasgow, the other from a prominent State level politician in the US. Similarities are striking.
First Representative Sally Kern from Oaklahoma (or should that be Oaklahomo).
She thought she was speaking before 50 people only but in fact her words were captured by You Tube.
Here's a flavour:
There's a great conspiracy out there where gay people are a greater danger to the US than terrorism and (apparently) history demonstrates that any country that embraces equality for gay people will eventually meet its end.
You can see the actual talk on You Tube and its really worth watching if you want a laugh.
There's quite a few of them that have different presentations. Some have been put to music, made into a poem, one has a version where the word gay is replaced with the word 'troll' for effect and so on.
Here are the links to a selection.
Victory Fund version (with excerpts from the talk in its full paranoid glory and pictures and captions from the Victory Fund).
Troll version. Very funny, you'll love this one.
The Ballad of Sally Kern - a worthy effort at poetry. It ends with some references to Hitler and the Nazi time. A helpful and sobering reminder to where can head when some people are referred to as a cancer and the greatest threat to our society by their mere existence.
Ellen de Generes does a good turn on her show - it's quite funny and she tries to contact Sally to try to put her right on a few issues.....
Finally 'Stop Hate' which links up the words of hate that Sally Kern uses to the strings of murders of LGBT people in recent times in the US.
The second example is that of Roman Catholic Bishop Joseph Devine. He's also seeing a plot, a conspiracy perpetrated by gays to do untold harm to society and our common values. Here's Pink News' report.
Gays even sink so low as to want to remember the gay people held in concentration camps in Hitler's Germany. Apparently. Really it verges on a form of selective holocaust denial.
There is a common thread to all of this and I think that some of the references to Hitler are apposite, if a little stretched.
We are seeing a phenomenon of denial of the humanity of one section of the community. We know where this leads if unchallenged.
Thankfully there are people who are willing to stand up. Some of them are to be seen in the You Tube links above.
I include in this Pastor Wright, longtime preacher at Barack Obama whose sermons are a little surprising in their anti-American content.
(It's easy to decry his sermons except for the fact that he is actually slap bang in the middle of the Old Testament prophetic tradition of lambasting your cultural safety zones. And - it is reported - that he also supported equality for LGBT people and preached this within the milieu of the Christian Church).
The last word is a very eloquent, unadorned You Tube piece on the dangers of Homophobia in Government.
.
House of Commons Free Vote on Embryology
Just a quick link to Lou's Blog where there is plenty of information about the decision of the Government to allow a free vote on several aspects of the embryology and human fertilisation bill. DoH site for the Bill here.
I think that the Bill has been very widely debated and scrutinised, including extensive pre-legislative scrutiny by a committee of both Houses. Plus I think that there have been some rather cheap shots and distortions of the aims of the Bill and what it will allow which I do not feel reflect grown up poitics or a political intervention of honesty - but then we saw that with the exaggerated debate over the Sexual Orientation Regulations, so there is nothing new in the use of such irresponsible scare tactics (we also saw the use of such tactics by more responsible organisations in the campaigning against the Mental Health Act - we must now get used to this form of campaigning as a means of igniting the media).
Thinking Anglicans also carries some interesting links and reactions, including this one:
I think that the Bill has been very widely debated and scrutinised, including extensive pre-legislative scrutiny by a committee of both Houses. Plus I think that there have been some rather cheap shots and distortions of the aims of the Bill and what it will allow which I do not feel reflect grown up poitics or a political intervention of honesty - but then we saw that with the exaggerated debate over the Sexual Orientation Regulations, so there is nothing new in the use of such irresponsible scare tactics (we also saw the use of such tactics by more responsible organisations in the campaigning against the Mental Health Act - we must now get used to this form of campaigning as a means of igniting the media).
Thinking Anglicans also carries some interesting links and reactions, including this one:
Wow, the slimy, slippery slope - from carefully planned empirical research
- with ethical and methodological restraints or parameters - to outright
cannabalism.
Goodness knows, if conservative religious beliefs didn't stand
vigorously in the way, we might have got up to any number of other slippery
slope downhill things - like torturing our neighbors for their beliefs (or
unbeliefs), stealing their property when they died from our rough
interrogations, and generally claiming that we always know best because we know
God and God especially loves us for being so strict that a pagan cannot wedge a
lost penny under our tight knickers.
Alas, too often these conversations across the divides take on the character of near-parody. I will parody your understandings, if only you will firmly promise to parody mine. As for divorcing sex/childbirth from marriage, in many cultures the links are hardly the simplistic westernized conservative religious ones an either/or reference in passing might suggest to a casual reader.
Is adopting a strict, closed conservative religious view really, really, really, really the only possible way to value and engage in the value of human life? If we categorically cannot - cannot be allowed to? - empirically and ethically distinguish between embryonic tissues in a petri dish over a two week cycle of experimentation, and the
full-blown human being who just happens to be a queer citizen, partnered and
parenting, who just moved into the empty house next door - we might indeed
wonder if our ethical and empirical tools were too heavy and too blunt to serve
as anything better than a thrashing tool?
Monday, March 17, 2008
Blood donation
Just a few words about the rather long running issue of complaint by gay and bisexual men who feel excluded by not being able to donate blood.
This is one of the issues that has been campaigned on by the NUS LGBT Campaign - I think it's a great campaigning opportunity for student LGBT groups because it allows for greater LGBT visibility on campus and highlights different ways in which LGBT people may be treated differently within society.
But it is important for us not to miss the wider picture of rights.
It has also been debated at UNISON LGBT Conference, UNISON National Delegate Conference and UNISON's Health Conference and the TUC LGBT Conference and has gained recent prominence in reporting by the BBC and Pink News.
In my view the approach taken by UNISON's National Delegate Conference is a sensible balanced one, demonstrating the need for decisions on who may and may not be able to give blood to based on medical evidence relating to the risk posed. I think that's the right approach.
It's an important issue - donor selection should not be without scrutiny and there can be a damaging impact from banning a whole section of the community from donating blood.
Obviously a set of criteria based on sexual activity is far preferable than one based on belonging to a group (in this case men who have had oral or anal sex with other men - gay men per se are permitted to give blood and many men who self define as gay or bi may not have engaged in oral or anal sex - equally there are many heterosexual men who have engaged in oral or anal sex with men).
So if possible I would prefer for us to move away from a lifetime blanket ban, provided it is supported by scientific evidence.
This would enhance gay and bisexual men's sense of citizenship and inclusion in society - an important goal in itself. It would tend to reinforce messages of safer sex (I stress the word safer because anal and oral sex are still risky activities and even use of condoms does not eliminate that risk entirely).
Whilst equitable treatment of potential donors is important the rights of recipients take precedence. They must do, if they clash in any way. Blood donation isn't for the good and well being of the donors - it's for the recipients. The right to life is more important than the right not to feel rejected.
So where are we now?
Australia has removed its lifetime ban and replaced it with a 12 month deferral for anyone who has had "male to male" sex. It seems like a sensible policy, but it's one that the UK, Canada, the US and Sweden have declined to follow. Recent statistical modelling has indicated even the Australian model would lead to an increase of risk of infected blood within the blood supply. This does of course remain to be seen in practice. In a few years' time we'll have actual evidence of the quantity of infected blood in Australia and whether it's gone up, down or stayed the same.
Although all blood donations are screened for HIV and other infections, these tests aren't 100% effective - the tests aren't 100% accurate (i.e. they have error rates, though small), there is a window period - 3 month, though it may be much more reduced than that and there is human error in the lab. So there is still a risk and a good rationale for preventing donations through donor screening if it can effectively be done.
Currently between a half and a third of infected donations in the UK are given by men who have had sex with men and have in some instances given blood on a previous occasion. That is to say that a group compirisng about 3% of the polulation accounts for between 33% and 50% of infected donations even when there is a ban in place supposedly preventing them from donating. So clearly we are dealing with a high risk group for HIV (we'd all prefer it wasn't the case but the figures are there and can't be argued with - by these figures between 10 and 20 times higher than the general population that is not otherwise in a high risk group).
So, yes, it would be great if we could adopt the Australian model. Only time will tell if it is effective. I hope it is.
But any such move in the UK should be evidence based and not based purely on write ins, petitions and popular opinion, which don't always take account of the bigger picture of the need to safeguard a supply of blood for those who need transfusions.
This is one of the issues that has been campaigned on by the NUS LGBT Campaign - I think it's a great campaigning opportunity for student LGBT groups because it allows for greater LGBT visibility on campus and highlights different ways in which LGBT people may be treated differently within society.
But it is important for us not to miss the wider picture of rights.
It has also been debated at UNISON LGBT Conference, UNISON National Delegate Conference and UNISON's Health Conference and the TUC LGBT Conference and has gained recent prominence in reporting by the BBC and Pink News.
In my view the approach taken by UNISON's National Delegate Conference is a sensible balanced one, demonstrating the need for decisions on who may and may not be able to give blood to based on medical evidence relating to the risk posed. I think that's the right approach.
It's an important issue - donor selection should not be without scrutiny and there can be a damaging impact from banning a whole section of the community from donating blood.
Obviously a set of criteria based on sexual activity is far preferable than one based on belonging to a group (in this case men who have had oral or anal sex with other men - gay men per se are permitted to give blood and many men who self define as gay or bi may not have engaged in oral or anal sex - equally there are many heterosexual men who have engaged in oral or anal sex with men).
So if possible I would prefer for us to move away from a lifetime blanket ban, provided it is supported by scientific evidence.
This would enhance gay and bisexual men's sense of citizenship and inclusion in society - an important goal in itself. It would tend to reinforce messages of safer sex (I stress the word safer because anal and oral sex are still risky activities and even use of condoms does not eliminate that risk entirely).
Whilst equitable treatment of potential donors is important the rights of recipients take precedence. They must do, if they clash in any way. Blood donation isn't for the good and well being of the donors - it's for the recipients. The right to life is more important than the right not to feel rejected.
So where are we now?
Australia has removed its lifetime ban and replaced it with a 12 month deferral for anyone who has had "male to male" sex. It seems like a sensible policy, but it's one that the UK, Canada, the US and Sweden have declined to follow. Recent statistical modelling has indicated even the Australian model would lead to an increase of risk of infected blood within the blood supply. This does of course remain to be seen in practice. In a few years' time we'll have actual evidence of the quantity of infected blood in Australia and whether it's gone up, down or stayed the same.
Although all blood donations are screened for HIV and other infections, these tests aren't 100% effective - the tests aren't 100% accurate (i.e. they have error rates, though small), there is a window period - 3 month, though it may be much more reduced than that and there is human error in the lab. So there is still a risk and a good rationale for preventing donations through donor screening if it can effectively be done.
Currently between a half and a third of infected donations in the UK are given by men who have had sex with men and have in some instances given blood on a previous occasion. That is to say that a group compirisng about 3% of the polulation accounts for between 33% and 50% of infected donations even when there is a ban in place supposedly preventing them from donating. So clearly we are dealing with a high risk group for HIV (we'd all prefer it wasn't the case but the figures are there and can't be argued with - by these figures between 10 and 20 times higher than the general population that is not otherwise in a high risk group).
So, yes, it would be great if we could adopt the Australian model. Only time will tell if it is effective. I hope it is.
But any such move in the UK should be evidence based and not based purely on write ins, petitions and popular opinion, which don't always take account of the bigger picture of the need to safeguard a supply of blood for those who need transfusions.
Right to remain
Very interesting Leader in the Times of the 14th March titled "Right to Remain".
It congratulates the Government for changing its mind on the call for asylum to be granted for Mehdi Kazemi stating:
This also opens up the need for the UK, EU and other countries (such as the US) to be very clear about LGBT human rights in the international sphere (e.g. at the UN and human rights treaty bodies).
The fight goes on and shows the vital importance of having organisations such as ILGA working at the international level.
It congratulates the Government for changing its mind on the call for asylum to be granted for Mehdi Kazemi stating:
It is good to see there is a high level recognition in the wider media of the dangers of sending LGB people back to Iran and therefore a wider recognition that facing persecution on the grounds of one's sexuality is as good a claim for genuine asylum as a claim based on religion or political views.The Government swiftly drew back yesterday from a monstrous injustice.
Within hours of receiving a letter from more than 60 members of the House of
Lords, Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, announced that the Government would
reconsider its refusal to grant asylum to a 19-year-old Iranian homosexual, who
fears he will be hanged if he is sent back to Iran.
This also opens up the need for the UK, EU and other countries (such as the US) to be very clear about LGBT human rights in the international sphere (e.g. at the UN and human rights treaty bodies).
The fight goes on and shows the vital importance of having organisations such as ILGA working at the international level.
One to watch
Norway has announced the introduction of legislation to equalise the marriage law.
This is significant because Norway was one of the 1st countries to intoriduce civil partnerships within a Scandinavian bloc and it is known that Sweden is also considering equalising its marriage law.
This is also of significance because Scandinavian countires tend to be overwhelmingly Lutheran and their Churches are in Communion with the Anglican Church via the Porvoo Agreement. Evidence from the Swedish Lutheran Church is of an attitude of pragmatism if not yet acceptance of same sex relationships and certainly not the hysteria that exists in the Church of England and Anglican Communion.
Wikipedia has an interesting article here. No doubt it will be updated as the Bill progresses.
365gay news report here
This is significant because Norway was one of the 1st countries to intoriduce civil partnerships within a Scandinavian bloc and it is known that Sweden is also considering equalising its marriage law.
This is also of significance because Scandinavian countires tend to be overwhelmingly Lutheran and their Churches are in Communion with the Anglican Church via the Porvoo Agreement. Evidence from the Swedish Lutheran Church is of an attitude of pragmatism if not yet acceptance of same sex relationships and certainly not the hysteria that exists in the Church of England and Anglican Communion.
Wikipedia has an interesting article here. No doubt it will be updated as the Bill progresses.
365gay news report here
Congratulations to the French socialists
Although the French Parti Socialiste had been working hard to give voters the impression that it was hopelessly divided and anti-EU it is currently managing a bit of a Phoenix operation in the French municipal elections.
Coming so soon - less than a year - after losing the 3rd Presidential election in a row they have managed to do really well in gaining many town halls across France.
Dearest to my heart is the gain of Strasbourg again with a particularly pleasing absolute majority, but gains all over France of many cities including those that are traditionally right wing.
Bertrand Delanoe did well in his re-election in Paris and is being touted as a possible leader of the French socialists in opposition to Segolene Royal.
Last year I must admit I felt quite hopeless about the left in France - and its fragmentation and internal divisions continues to be a worry. Clearly though, Sarkozy is not proviong as popoular as people may have thought and there is a significant potential in future national elections.
Analysis aside - just the sheer joy that Strasbourg is socialist again!
Coming so soon - less than a year - after losing the 3rd Presidential election in a row they have managed to do really well in gaining many town halls across France.
Dearest to my heart is the gain of Strasbourg again with a particularly pleasing absolute majority, but gains all over France of many cities including those that are traditionally right wing.
Bertrand Delanoe did well in his re-election in Paris and is being touted as a possible leader of the French socialists in opposition to Segolene Royal.
Last year I must admit I felt quite hopeless about the left in France - and its fragmentation and internal divisions continues to be a worry. Clearly though, Sarkozy is not proviong as popoular as people may have thought and there is a significant potential in future national elections.
Analysis aside - just the sheer joy that Strasbourg is socialist again!
3rd reading of the Lisbon Treaty
Just catching up on some blogging to mention the excellent debate in the House of Commons to give the Lisbon Treaty Bill a 3rd Reading (11th March)
Previously the House debated a proposal to submit the Bill to a referendum and defeated it - rightly in my view.
There is nothing that has been brought to my attention that would come anywhere near warranting a referendum, which in general is a bad way to make major political decisions, given we are a Parliamentary democracy with the idea that a parliamentary majority is the way all our major decisions are made.
There is of course a role for referendums, notably where the governing party is divided and cannot sustain its majority or because of a fundamental change such as adopting the euro or where a proposed change is (paradoxically) of less importance and you want to give people a choice at a local level (such as elected mayors, regional assemblies).
The only case for a referendum on the now defunct Constitution (which in itself was not that ambitious and represented incremental change) was that it had the symbolism of a Constitution and it was that kind of symbolics which suggested a referendum was of value.
At the time I must say I was not convinced. Europe isn't for most people a misty eyed thing that you embrace and fall in love with. For me it's a pragmatic mechanism that as a matter of simple fact the UK decided to join the EU because it felt it was in its overall interests and for that reason stays and works to improve it.
Going out there and persuading people to love the EU is daft - for good or ill (usually for ill, but there we have it) we Brits are congenitally sceptical of anything and love nothing better than poking fun at them there foreigners with their strange ways that are so clearly inferior to ours.
(This was the reason that we joined the EU late - 1972 as opposed to 1958 when it was first set up. We just couldn't believe that something run by our continental 'cousins' would work. We wanted to be "in Europe, but not run by Europe" a vast "area of free trading sovereign nations" .... so we set up EFTA as an alternative but seeing that the EU worked quite well we decided - that is to say the elected majority in Parliament decided - to join the EU - of course the Labour government did hold a referendum because it was so hopelessly divided it had to do so to maintain its majority and stay in office, but not for any other reason).
All those wonky banana stories are just too good to not print if you are a tabloid editor - though the determination of our culture to prick pomposity and lampoon any bureaucracy is not a totally bad trait either.
And all of these traits have helped to form the Lisbon Traety which makes the EU work at 27 as opposed to 15 (with surely the thought that there are quite a few countries yet to come in, albeit smaller e.g. the Balkan states) but addressing all of the negotiating points identified by eurosceptics over the years. Subsidiarity is in the Treaty and is defined along with a principal of conferral (the EU only has power explicitly conbferred on it, for example. Britain has oodles of 'opt ins', that is areas where the UK can opt in if it wants to but doesn't have to and there is explicit recognition of the role of the National Parliaments, giving them a veto over extensions of qualified majority voting.
Of course there's a lot of content that's the same as the defunct Constitution, but that's because there is widespread agreement on some relatively minor changes, like ending the rather silly rotating presidency (rotating every 6 months), extending QMV in some areas (mostly technical) and improving the votes' weighting system - increasing the UK's share of the vote.
In summary:
- Yes to the EU and our continued membership
- Yes to the Treaty of Lisbon as a good amending Treaty
- No to a referendum because we are a Parliamentary democracy
- Yes (hopefully) to an end to euro-institutional navel gazing
- No to any more EU treaties (amending or otherwise) for the next 20 years........
The link to the Hansard debate at 3rd reading is here
The link to the Parliament web for the Bill is here
For information on who voted which way see here
The Government majority was 140, which is very solid.
Previously the House debated a proposal to submit the Bill to a referendum and defeated it - rightly in my view.
There is nothing that has been brought to my attention that would come anywhere near warranting a referendum, which in general is a bad way to make major political decisions, given we are a Parliamentary democracy with the idea that a parliamentary majority is the way all our major decisions are made.
There is of course a role for referendums, notably where the governing party is divided and cannot sustain its majority or because of a fundamental change such as adopting the euro or where a proposed change is (paradoxically) of less importance and you want to give people a choice at a local level (such as elected mayors, regional assemblies).
The only case for a referendum on the now defunct Constitution (which in itself was not that ambitious and represented incremental change) was that it had the symbolism of a Constitution and it was that kind of symbolics which suggested a referendum was of value.
At the time I must say I was not convinced. Europe isn't for most people a misty eyed thing that you embrace and fall in love with. For me it's a pragmatic mechanism that as a matter of simple fact the UK decided to join the EU because it felt it was in its overall interests and for that reason stays and works to improve it.
Going out there and persuading people to love the EU is daft - for good or ill (usually for ill, but there we have it) we Brits are congenitally sceptical of anything and love nothing better than poking fun at them there foreigners with their strange ways that are so clearly inferior to ours.
(This was the reason that we joined the EU late - 1972 as opposed to 1958 when it was first set up. We just couldn't believe that something run by our continental 'cousins' would work. We wanted to be "in Europe, but not run by Europe" a vast "area of free trading sovereign nations" .... so we set up EFTA as an alternative but seeing that the EU worked quite well we decided - that is to say the elected majority in Parliament decided - to join the EU - of course the Labour government did hold a referendum because it was so hopelessly divided it had to do so to maintain its majority and stay in office, but not for any other reason).
All those wonky banana stories are just too good to not print if you are a tabloid editor - though the determination of our culture to prick pomposity and lampoon any bureaucracy is not a totally bad trait either.
And all of these traits have helped to form the Lisbon Traety which makes the EU work at 27 as opposed to 15 (with surely the thought that there are quite a few countries yet to come in, albeit smaller e.g. the Balkan states) but addressing all of the negotiating points identified by eurosceptics over the years. Subsidiarity is in the Treaty and is defined along with a principal of conferral (the EU only has power explicitly conbferred on it, for example. Britain has oodles of 'opt ins', that is areas where the UK can opt in if it wants to but doesn't have to and there is explicit recognition of the role of the National Parliaments, giving them a veto over extensions of qualified majority voting.
Of course there's a lot of content that's the same as the defunct Constitution, but that's because there is widespread agreement on some relatively minor changes, like ending the rather silly rotating presidency (rotating every 6 months), extending QMV in some areas (mostly technical) and improving the votes' weighting system - increasing the UK's share of the vote.
In summary:
- Yes to the EU and our continued membership
- Yes to the Treaty of Lisbon as a good amending Treaty
- No to a referendum because we are a Parliamentary democracy
- Yes (hopefully) to an end to euro-institutional navel gazing
- No to any more EU treaties (amending or otherwise) for the next 20 years........
The link to the Hansard debate at 3rd reading is here
The link to the Parliament web for the Bill is here
For information on who voted which way see here
The Government majority was 140, which is very solid.
Monday, March 10, 2008
More good news - blasphemy's gone
Only just found out almost by accident that the House of Lords has accepted a Government amendment to remove the law on blasphemy.
This is good news, although the passage of the Human Rights Act ensures the law on blasphemy can never be used in any case and the Government was clear it was a dead letter - an attempt to bring a case against Jerry Springer the Opera was described as "bordering on the vexatious" by the judge hearing the case. The law on incitement to religious hatred is another reason given for making the move - we have a law protecting believers of different faiths rather than protecting one religion.
The official line from bishops was that they accepted the change and wouldn't vote against it (though some did) but felt that it wasn't the right time to make the change......
Other Lords (some of whom are well known from other debates - e.g. Baroness O'Cathain, who's somewhat of a regular speaker on such matters) opposed the move, some of them refering to the risk there would be a deluge of anti-Christian attacks.
The House of Lords debate is well worth reading as some of the speeches are very well informed.
The blasphemy law was of course famously used against Gay News for inclusion of a thought provoking poem called 'The Love that dare not speak its Name', which lead to the closure of Gay News.
The text of the poem is here (first time I've ever been able to read it, though on doing so I must admit to having some sympathy with the original trial judge on the matter and I definitely think it is outrageous in the offence it will have caused to many believers and straightway we're back onto the territory of thinking about the Danish cartoons and the reaction that had caused).
The whole House of Lords debate can be seen here.
Baroness Andrews' introduction and summing up.
Baroness O'Cathain here
Commentary from the Guardian - When blasphemy bit the dust.
Although a little used law, it's good to get it off the Statute Book before people start using it again.
This is good news, although the passage of the Human Rights Act ensures the law on blasphemy can never be used in any case and the Government was clear it was a dead letter - an attempt to bring a case against Jerry Springer the Opera was described as "bordering on the vexatious" by the judge hearing the case. The law on incitement to religious hatred is another reason given for making the move - we have a law protecting believers of different faiths rather than protecting one religion.
The official line from bishops was that they accepted the change and wouldn't vote against it (though some did) but felt that it wasn't the right time to make the change......
Other Lords (some of whom are well known from other debates - e.g. Baroness O'Cathain, who's somewhat of a regular speaker on such matters) opposed the move, some of them refering to the risk there would be a deluge of anti-Christian attacks.
The House of Lords debate is well worth reading as some of the speeches are very well informed.
The blasphemy law was of course famously used against Gay News for inclusion of a thought provoking poem called 'The Love that dare not speak its Name', which lead to the closure of Gay News.
The text of the poem is here (first time I've ever been able to read it, though on doing so I must admit to having some sympathy with the original trial judge on the matter and I definitely think it is outrageous in the offence it will have caused to many believers and straightway we're back onto the territory of thinking about the Danish cartoons and the reaction that had caused).
The whole House of Lords debate can be seen here.
Baroness Andrews' introduction and summing up.
Baroness O'Cathain here
Commentary from the Guardian - When blasphemy bit the dust.
Although a little used law, it's good to get it off the Statute Book before people start using it again.
Spanish elections
Good news for Spanish socialists who have been re-elected with a slight increase in their number of seats, but with the right also making gains. Near final results see PSOE with 169 seats out of 350, with the opposition PP on 154, though the socialists do have allies they can rely on.
This is interesting for many reasons including the fact that the socialist government has legislated for same sex marriage including adoption with a ferocious opposition from the Roman Catholic Church on this and a number of other issues.
And yet it seems the election result this time is almost a replay of the election last time.
One other thing is that the decision on same sex marriage did not seem to be the major part of the campaign where the focus seemed to have been on terrorism, separatism and the economy.
So there are big implications for the Catholic Church in how it 'comments' on elections.
Interesting opinion poll here from Angus Reid website (www.angus-reid.com - great for any kind of opinion poll) showing 75% of Spaniards supporting the law on same sex marriage, with 18% opposed to the law.
Commentary here from 365gay.com.
Other good news - in the French municipal elections the Parti Socialiste seems to be in a good position to retake a number of towns including Strasbourg where I lived when the socialists retook it in 1989 amidst posters from the right proclaiming "Strasbourg ne sera jamais socialiste".
Always good to see socialists winning.....
This is interesting for many reasons including the fact that the socialist government has legislated for same sex marriage including adoption with a ferocious opposition from the Roman Catholic Church on this and a number of other issues.
And yet it seems the election result this time is almost a replay of the election last time.
One other thing is that the decision on same sex marriage did not seem to be the major part of the campaign where the focus seemed to have been on terrorism, separatism and the economy.
So there are big implications for the Catholic Church in how it 'comments' on elections.
Interesting opinion poll here from Angus Reid website (www.angus-reid.com - great for any kind of opinion poll) showing 75% of Spaniards supporting the law on same sex marriage, with 18% opposed to the law.
Commentary here from 365gay.com.
Other good news - in the French municipal elections the Parti Socialiste seems to be in a good position to retake a number of towns including Strasbourg where I lived when the socialists retook it in 1989 amidst posters from the right proclaiming "Strasbourg ne sera jamais socialiste".
Always good to see socialists winning.....
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Tribunal award against bishop of Hereford
News recently put out that the Bishop of Hereford has been on the wrong end of an award of £47,500 for his act of discrimination and an expectation from the Tribunal that he undertake equality training.
No wonder the Archbishop wants parallel courts rather than those offered by the State.....
No wonder the Archbishop wants parallel courts rather than those offered by the State.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
