More on the Sexual Orientation Regulations

Here is the full suite of documents relating to these:

The draft regulations

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

The Government's Regulatory Impact Assessment

The Government's Equality Impact Assessment.


In addition, and for ease of reference see also:

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

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

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

What differences are there between the NI and GB regulations?

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

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

What exemptions are there in the regulations for religious organisations?

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

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

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

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

What other exemptions are there?

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

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

Commons backs a fully elected House of Lords

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

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

A wholly appointed house opposed by 375 to 196.

50/50 opposed by 418 to 155.

60% elected opposed by 392 to 178.

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

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


More later.

Ruth Kelly announces the regulations

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

The text of the regulations can be read here.

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

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

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

The House of Lords (again)

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

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

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

Here, though are my arguments for an elected house:

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

Joint Committee on Human Rights Report into Sexual Orientation Regulations

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

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

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

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

The Joint Committee:

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

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

Regulations covering Great Britain are eagerly awaited.

UN Special Rapporteurs call for the withdrawal of the Nigerian Bill

Important news from the UN.

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

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

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

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

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

Some depressing news

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

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

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

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

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

Dar es Salaam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just back from Germany

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~~~

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

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

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

Freedom of Assembly developments

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

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

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

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

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

The need for democracy

My views are becoming clearer on House of Lords Reform.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Straw gets a rough ride over Lords reform

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


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

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

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

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

Is a second chamber really worth all of this hassle?

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

Hobson's choice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just get on with it.....

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

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

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

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

So they just need to get on with it.

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

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

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

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

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

Gay opposition to the regs

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

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

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

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

Faithworks article

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

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

Exchanges in Parliament

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

Also a written answer here (31st January)

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

Bishop launches a blistering attack on the Government

Link here.

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

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

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

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

No exemptions - No 10 statement

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

BBC report here

365gay report here

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

Adoption letter in today's Independent

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

You can read it here.

Exchange in the House of Commons

During today's business questions ....

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

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

John Bercow: Oh go on, Jack.

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

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

See hansard

Contradictions of "conscience"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said:

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

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

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

Petition on Goods and Services

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

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

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

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

The petition

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

Praise Be (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The true face of the Church

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

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

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

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

However some interesting blog reactions:

Zefrog
Recce Homo
Thinking Anglicans

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

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

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

The view from the US ....

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

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

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

Hansard, latest developments and LCF ramblings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Also in the LCF page we find this rant:

Interviewer: “So why are you opposing this law”

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

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

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

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

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

Ruth Kelly trying to create loopholes

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

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

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

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

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

How to lobby your MP:

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

You can also sign the petition on the No 10 website

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

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

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

Big Brother Racism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guest houses, printers and schools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn't it time we broke out of this?

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

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

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

The regulations - a political view

A few more things -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Praise Be!

Good News from Parliament.

The move to annull the regulations on sexual orientation for Northern Ireland has been heavily defeated 199 - 68 (defeated 3 to 1) in the House of Lords.

Massive victory for common sense and equality for all.

More to follow.

BBC News report

For some excellent blog coverage see Thinknig Anglcans here and here (loads of interesting links as always) as well the Zefrog blog (with pictures and a live account of events).

Death of David Ervine

Meanwhile, sad to note the recent death of David Ervine of the Progressive Unionist Party. He struck a rare note on the Unionist side in the Northern Ireland Assembly in speaking out against moves by Unionists to ask for the regulations to be withdrawn, as well as being widely praised for his role in the Northern Ireland peace process. (See an obituary notice in the Times).


Some quotes from his moving speech (see here for the full text, including interruptions):

"Equality is equality is equality. If we refuse any human being the entitlement to equality, we deny ourselves proper equality. It is either for everyone or for no one."

"We have the option to live in a modern, decent society, and if we choose to have equality, it must be for everyone. This is a nice country with a great opportunity, but it is a bit like the beautiful girl who goes to a beauty salon and comes out with warts on her nose."

"In reality, there are human beings who struggle to come through life with the realisation that they are different. It is a horrific condition for a young man or woman to realise that they are out of step with the rest of society. It brings immense pressure.

Let me give you some examples of things we could be talking about. Northern Ireland has the highest teenage suicide rate; one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates; the highest rate of heart defect; and the lowest levels of educational achievement in Europe.

Yet here we are, talking about ensuring that we guarantee that those ogres in the gay and lesbian community do not get equality."

"The sentiments and attitudes of people such as those in the DUP — and the DUP is surely not alone — is that it is OK to treat those people as inferior. They are not inferior; they are equal, and they should be equal in all aspects of life as far as it is earthly possible for us to deliver. Northern Ireland has the opportunity to deliver that equality."

No More Hiding Places for Prejudice

The TUC have just issued this excellent briefing 'No more hiding places or prejudice' commenting on the sexual orientation regulations and the religious pressure for exemptions, and giving some excellent examples, both of real life examples as well as of Christian groups who are in opposition to the hysteria being whipped up by groups like the Lawyers Christian Fellowship, the Christian Institute and Anglican Mainstream.

It's an excellent risposte to some of the more ludicrous pourings forth of the religious right.

Meanwhile this promises to be a busy week - Tuesday sees the House of Lords vote on a motion to annull the regulations; Wednesday the committee to scrutinise them in the House of Commons will be unveiled (not sure which days they will sit on).

The last day for the regulations to be annulled is the 20th January. The regulations covering the rest of the UK are due to come into force in April.

Building religious pressure??

According to some reports various other religious groups are jumping on the bandwagon to derail the Sexual Orientation regulations (see also report here). I must say that this issue is creating very strange bedfellows, where extremist Christians and Muslims find a way of declaring a common purpose, whereas they normally spend their time attacking each other.

We shouldn't be so sure though - media reports create an inflated sense of reality and ought not to be trusted unless coroborrated.

There is a method to all of this. It consists of hyping something up; developing a sense of being persecuted (intolerable burdens being imposed) and your identity being under threat and then getting a 'Daily Mail' bandwagon going.

If successful all sorts of people throw caution to the wind and jump aboard (even otherwise sensible people).

Various recent bandwagons have included the BA Cross affair, the exclusion of Christian Unions from Universities and of the course the Sexual Orientation regulations themselves.

This is intentional - it isn't an accident and it's now the mainstay of conservative cultural politics.

The method seems to be as follows - either exaggerate, be careless with the facts or frankly just make something up (ordinarily this might worry religious believers, but when you are possessed of the Truth itself minor details aren't so important - as journalists often say "yeah, sure the story was poorly sourced and factually incorrect but even though the pictures are fakes the story is essentially true").

Factual truth tends to beget a moderate response - a letter to a minsiter seeking reassurances, questions in Parliament and so on. If you want your followers to go nuts you need to scare people about the imminent end of civilisation.

Exaggerated claims (or lies) generate panic, anxiety and fanaticism. Always have, always will. That's why people use this tactic - it works. You need a panic stations approach to get the sort of massive response that MP's and ministers are getting at the moment.

One example is the very early story that, according to the Church of England, the sexual orientation regulations will oblige churches to bless Civil Partnerships. This was never true in any sense i.e. the regulations were never going to require this and the Church of England never said it. And yet it still gets thrown in to Daily Mail news stories - they never correct the errors.

When 'exaggerations' start acting as the 'carrier' of the story no amount of denial or clarification will work. Because it's not an honest mistake but a 'message' that's part of a strategy at work.

It worked with the BA Cross 'affair' because BA was quite vulnerable to the actions of Dail Mail readers. It may have less success with the Government as the Daily Mail issues cast quantities of such exaggerations and the world of a Daily Mail reader is a very dark and sombre one where the sexual orientation regulations are the least of people's problems. It isn't going to hit the Government that hard because it only replaces a similar news story about immigration, Council Tax, deaths in hospitals and so on, and so on (reading the Daily Mail for a week is most instructive).

Also because MP's are (hopefully) much better informed and have access to accurate information in the form of written questions and open debate which tends to dissipate the worst of such myths.

The only way to defeat this is by fisking - for a definition see here, see also this site devoted to fisking.

An ideal candidate for fisking is anything on the websites of the Christian Institute or Lawyers Christian Fellowship - particularly on this topic, which consist of a catalogue of errors an example can be seen here

Massachusetts same sex marriage decision

News today (also here) that the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention (comprising both Houses of the Legislature) have voted on the constitutional amendment to prevent same sex marriage.

Currently Massachusetts is the only US state to allow same sex couples to marry, following a Court decision (4-3) in 2003.

Since then there have been various and numerous attempts to reverse this decision and a heck of a lot of arguing in Court - the latest because instead of voting on the merits of the amendment the legislature voted to recess its constitutional convention without voting (the measure only needs a 25% vote of each chamber to progress as it is a referendum process).

After cristicism from the State Supreme Court, they voted yesterday 131 against and 62 in favour, thus allowing the measure to progress, provided that they get enough votes next time round (2007). The amendment would then be put to the vote in the election in 2008 - should add a bit of zing to the presidential elections.

Currently the polls indicate a majority against this amendment and 2/3 of the legislators voted against it as well as being opposed by the newly elected Governor, so it's all to play for.

If defeated this would considerably up-end the rhetoric of the religious right (which underpins attempts to get a Federal Marriage Amendment - probably doomed in any case, given the Republican losses in Congress) on 'activist judges', given that already in Massachusetts the legislature has a solid majority in favour of marriage equality.

For more coverage see GLAD , MassEquality , Wikipedia

European Court ruling

Not recent but have just located the link to the European Court hearing on two cohabiting sisters.

An interesting case which has hit the UK media see also here.

The Court ruled narrowly in favour of the Government but the case may proceed to the full European Court for a final hearing.

In essence it seems to be that since Civil Partnerships were introduced for same sex couples it is in some way discriminatory not to extend protections to everyone including unmarried straight couples and co-habiting siblings and other relatives.

It's a bit confusing because prior to Civil Partnership there was a big hue and cry over the need to reserve certain benefits to 'marriage' but since gay people got in on the act you need to dilute it as much as possible to prevent same sex couples feeling they are being equated to marriage.

Well it's confusing, because although the logic is decidedly iffy (especially as the Daily Mail reporting of it has a distinctly homophobic edge to it, as though Civil Partnerships created the problem), there is a very strong case for ensuring protections are available to de facto couples (common law spouses etc) as well as various other combinations - especially as regards the disposal of property, inheristance tax and so on.

The reason (so far as I can see) for the Government reforming family law in bits at a time is simply to try to avoid a massive mobilisation by the religious right about diluting marriage and so on. At the moment those voices are tending to argue that siblings who share a house should be protected.

This is a good development, though it certainly does tend to undermine the traditional view of marriage and recognising that non-married partners as well as friends and relatives may share their lives and/or property with someone and that should be recognised by the State.

Of course there is always the danger of tax avoidance, especially in the case of inheritance tax. I'm not sure I'd be in favour of certain people being able to make a declaration about living in the same property and then avoiding paying taxes, whereas others wouldn't - that wouldn't be fair, but it's certainly something the Government should look into.

If the ECHR develops its thinking any further they may have little choice and the media coverage tends to suggest that there is a broader support for all cohabiting couples including (genuine) cohabiting siblings.

For information on Law Commission proposals relating to cohabitation see here and on the Law Commission consultation website.

NI Regulations enter into force today

In spite of recent controversy amongst Christian groups, attempted legal action and a debate in the Northern Ireland Transitional Assembly the Government has not withdrawn the regulations and they now enter into force.

There are however still a few challenges ahead.

On the 9th January a motion will be presented in the House of Lords to annull the regulations (they can be annulled by Parliament up until the 20th January) and on the 10th January a committee of the House of Commons will be formed to examine the regulations in detail.

The final challenge is the High Court Judicial Review planned for the 1st and 2nd March.

This is most unlikely to strike down the regulations (had this been their aim they would doubtless have delayed their entry into operation until April as initially requested by the Christians' lawsuit) - notably the Government is only doing in the regulations what is contained in the Equality Act 2006, given Royal Assent in February.

A key issue before the Court will be to stabilise the interpretation of the regulations. Currently there are some wild hypotheses and theories about what would contravene the regs which are a little far fetched, but as the High Court sets a precedent it would formally lay down the interpretation of the regulations, probably endorsing the Government's already stated interpretation.

In any case the Human Rights Act takes precedence over secondary legislation and allows the Courts to either reinterpret legislation in acordance with the HRA or to strike down incompatible provisions.

Home Office action on Hate Crime

Today's BBC reports that the Home Office is publishing guidelines on dealing with homophobic hate crime - inlcuding in schools, with Government minister Tom McNulty unveiling guidance (see also a report in the Guardian education section) which can be found on the UK gay news website (ukgaynews.org.uk).

This is obviously a positive development as in many communities the extent of hate crime still is massively under reported (and in some cases this is because if you reported all of it you'd never be off the phone to the police).

Homophobic abuse is of course a very serious offence and all parties have a serious duty to eliminate it including police, schools and local authorities.

For a rather silly response to the initiative see this article in the Express, which completely misses the point.

Northern Ireland Sexual Orientation regulations

In spite of attempts by various Christian organisations to prevent it, the NI regs covering discrimination in goods and services on grounds of sexual orientation will come into force on the 1st January 2007.

Nice to start the year on a high.

An application had been made to the High Court to delay the regulations until the same time as the GB regs, but had been declined. The High Court will however have a two day hearing on 1st and 2nd March.

Also the regs may be voted on in Parliament by way of seeking an annullment ( a debate is due on the 9th in the House fo Lords).

From what I can tell the 'Christian' case against the NI regs is that the consultation was too short and that they will curtail religious freedom in contravention of the Human Rights Act.

The first ground has little to commend it.

There is of course an expectation of a consultation, which usually lasts 3 months. A consultation has in fact taken place, which was well advertised on the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM for short....) website and took as long as scheduled to take (around two months). The regs were due to enter into force in November, which would have been just after the GB regs, though these were subsequently delayed until April 2007, because of a) the number of GB responses received and b) there are only two implementation dates in GB legislation.

The NI regs therefore have been, it would appear, delayed, though not by as much as the GB regs.

Similarly the Government has published its summary and response to the consultation at about the same time as publishing the regulations.

The consultation and summary/response are prominently available on the OFMDFM website dedicated to sexual orientation here - they make for interesting reading.

If the publication of the NI consultation document was the first that any one had heard of the proposals for these regulations there might be some grounds to query however - the Equality Act with the provision for the regs was given Royal Assent in February 2006 and the GB consultation document was published on the 13th March, covering the same issues, and lasting 3 months, as well as the fact that issues relating to goods and services and sexual orientation have already been consulted on in Northern Ireland in preparation for the Northern Ireland Single Equality Bill (reporting on 22nd March 2005). So the issues have been well aired over quite some time.

The argument about curtailment of religious freedom comes in two flavours, one of which has a little more merit (in my view).

The one is that Christians may want to discriminate against someone, not out of 'prejudice' (as in for example in a racist act) but simply because of biblical teachings, which to be a true Chrsitian you need to follow all of the time.

Apart from being inherently ridiculous (insisting on the freedom to discriminate as a core part of Christian discipleship is a strange way of advertising the principle of 'love your neighbour as yourself' and basic ideas about justice, equity and fairness) if granted this would mean that all discrimination is allowed if you say to the Court "It's not prejudice, it's based on the Bible and my profound religious belief". Any regulations would be unenforcable.

This defence would be available to anyone, anywhere and is effectively a licence for anyone (church going or not) to discrimate with impunity. Furthermore has anyone met a bigot who proclaimed themselves such? They usually start with "I'm not a racist but......" "Some of my best friends are ......".

Claims for a more restricted exemption for religious businesses are equally problematic as anyone who wanted to discriminate would just put a 'fish' symbol and a picture of Jesus in the vestibule and away you go.

A more credible argument is that gay rights groups will use the new law to vex Christians by taking out spurious cases of harassment.

Potential examples have been standing in close proximity to a Bible might be construed as harassment or some one may see a book or poster on marriage (obviously these poeple have never either experienced harassment or taken a case before an employment tribunal) and feel harassed.

Well it's good to see that Christians are able to recognise that LGBT people often do feel harassed by their antics. But this is, of course, most unlikely to occur and to delay the equality law on the grounds of something that is highly improbable, though theoretically possible would clearly be inappropriate.

The examples given clearly don't amount to harassment. Yes, you could take spurious cases but costs would be awarded against you so it would be quite expensive.

It is worth remembering that the Human Rights Act gives protection for religious freedom and the freedom of expression and that 'Convention rights' can be relied on in any proceddings.

The High Court case will actually be of some help here in defining (hopefully) in advance the kind of cases that are likely to constitute harassment and what the provisions for human rights may be.

This last point is a bit thorny and the High Court will need a lot of skill to get it right, but the High Court ruling will hopefully calm the more fevered anticipations of folk of faith.

For excellent coverage of the regulations see the Thinking Anglicans weblog with some interesting insights into the mind of the religious fearful.

For a more frightening insight see any number of Christian webistes - Christian Institute, Anglican Mainstream, CARE and the Lawyer's Christian Fellowship.

The Evangelical Alliance has struck a much more reasonable tone in its response.

Also well worth a read are the proceedings of the Northern Ireland Transitional Assembly debating the regulations (the motion to call for the regs to be withdrawn was lost in a tied vote).

Finally (last but not least) the LCF page details a report of a meeting with civil servants to try to assuage the fears of Christian groups. It makes interesting reading, to say the least, most notoably that the Government do not intend to introduce protection on the ground of harassment in the GB regs, which is a disappointment. They also indicated they had no intention of introducing a 'conscience clause', though had they done so there wouldn't have been much of a point to the regulations in any case. They also said that no final decisions have been made on the content of the regs.

2006 in review - LGBT

Amidst all the wrangling (still ongoing) in the UK over goods and services legislation, it's worth pausing to recall - especially as 2007 has been designated as the Year of Equal Opportunities for All by the European Union - what kind of a vintage 2006 has been (all references here are to the informative wikipedia LGBT timeline and the pages of ILGA).

From the LGBT standpoint - and in no particular order here are a few of the significant events-

Same sex marriage laws passsed in South Africa - the only country in Africa with partnership recognition of any kind and also demonstrating that allowing same sex couples to marry doesn't cause the sky to fall in.

The Hong Kong Government accepts a Court ruling that the ages of consent should be the same for gay and straight.

ILGA-Europe and 2 other NGO's get ECOSOC consultative status at the UN after a long struggle and 54 member states supported a statement on LGBT human rights issues by Norway - also supported by very many NGO's.

On the smaller side of things the Faroe Islands vote (narrowly) in favour of a discrimination law covering sexual orientation, and the age of consent is equalised in Jersey and Isle of Man.

The Czech Republic and Slovenia adopt a partnership law, meanwhile Uruguay, Italy and Ireland are in the process of considering some kind of partnership recognition.

At the same time the Canadian Parliament voted against reopening the issue of same sex marriage, with the Conservative Party now accepting that the issue is closed.

The Scottish Parliament votes by a large majority in favour of allowing same sex coupels to adopt.

Discrimination laws were passed in Washington and Illinois and the New Jersey legislature voted to enact a form of Civil Union in response to a unanimous ruling from the State Supreme Court.

A lot of the stories are about marriage, civil unions and partnership recognition. There is a clear trend here. Whereas opponents have been saying that this will be the end of civilisation as we know it, they have been proved wrong.

The trend is of timid legislatures (at least initially), but when obliged to act as in New Jersey, South Africa or Canada they tend to gain in conviction and the ability to be able to do the right thing.

In spite of all this progress the downside of the year is that human rights abuses still continue.

Nigeria - supported by the Anglican Church there is still in the process of debating a law which entails a 5 year prison sentence for belonging to a gay organisation, being a witness to a same sex marriage or for any positive portrayal of homosexuality.

Moscow, Latvia, Jerusalem - Pride events still encountering different forms of resistence including violence, opposition from politicians and religious groups.

Cameroon - people continue to face detention without being charged with an offence linked to homosexuality.

All of the above have in common that they are basic human rights abuses - right to a fair trial, right to freedomn of assembly and freedom of expression.

This emphasises why we need to have much more international solidarity in the coming years if we are to ensure that the kind of progress we see in some countries becomes available all over the world - and never let our guard down.

For more information see pages on the ILGA (International Lesbian and Gay Association) website.

Goods and Services - Sexual Orientation

The Govt has published the regulations for Northern Ireland covering discrimination in goods and services here.

They match the Government's original intention of legislating in this area while provising tightly drawn exemptions for 'doctinal reasons' i.e. organisaitons pertaining to religious belief and practice.

As well as substantially exempting religious organisations (but not in terms of commercial activity, education, activity undertaken on behalf of a public body and goods and services generally offered - i.e. not inclusively for members of a particular religion etc) it also includes protection against harassment.

Various organisations of the religious right in the UK have gone ballistic and are mounting a massive camapign effort to try to get the Government to withdraw the NI regulations as well as to water them down when introduced in the rest of the UK.

For UK (and slightly hysterical) reaction see here

In addition the issue has been debated by the Northern Ireland Assembly (the debate makes fascinating reading and really does very well capture the issues at stake).

Further to this the various parties opposed are taking the issue to the High Court BBC news report

Further interesting coverage can be seen in the rather interesting written questions put down by Lord Lester, which can be seen on the web site 'They Work for You'

From a religious angle a lot of the debate can be seen on the Thinking Anglican blog site (as opposed the other kind of Anglican......) for a summary see here

The Government aren't really saying much if anything at the moment. They are though (presumably) going to defend the regulations for Northern Ireland in the High Court. The GB regulations are due to come into force at the beginning of April.

My view is that where LGB people are and have a history of facing discrimination, equality law should bve there to afford a measure of equality - broad exemptions (anything other than a tightly drawn exemption like the one announced for Northern Ireland) have the effect of nullifying the effectiveness of the law - which is to create a general expectation that in the provision of goods and services, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientaiton is unlawful.

The purpose of an equality law is to actually provide for equality, not to protect discriminatory attitudes but to combat them. Anything else is what the Bible would refer to as a "bag with holes in it" Haggai Chapter 1 verse 6.