In God's Name

I was prompted by Simon Sarmiento to comment on the recent dispatches programme In God's Name - it's still on catch up or a bit if you're on Virgin Media and I don't know if gets repeated.

You can also see it on youtube (divided into 5 sections).

It's a very important documentary and well worth watching.

As you can see from my post below - this has prompted a letter from Joel Edwards which I can only read as Joel saying to evangelicals "If you're going to go nuts don't do it in front of a camera crew".

The most tragic point was of children in a "science" lesson in which a young girl answers Bible questions as well as young children being told about God turning people into pillars of salt before the coming of Jesus. A truly horrible and malevolent view of God that is being inculcated into young children.

It had its counterpoint when Andrea Williams was asked about the age of the earth and asked for the filming to stop and the headteacher when asked about the age of the earth said that he didn't know as he wasn't a scientist...

The programme features a evangelicals with a lot of aggression which seems to find its release in some of the campaigns that they undertake. They did not appear to psychologically balanced and anger appears to be a key concern.

Also very frightening how intertwined all of this with the Tory Party underneath Cameron's gloss of modernity, similar to the US religious right.

And please do not forget how powerful this lobby is - as well as connections to the Conservative Party the patron is a former Lord Chancellor and the President is a sitting High Court Judge.

As to the point about fundamentalist (and politicised) anger see this perceptive quote by Spong:

A major function of fundamentalist religion is to bolster deeply insecure and fearful people. This is done by justifying a way of life with all of its defining prejudices. It thereby provides an appropriate and legitimate outlet for one's anger. The authority of an inerrant Bible that can be readily quoted to buttress this point of view becomes an essential ingredient to such a life. When that Bible is challenged, or relativized, the resulting anger proves the point categorically. [Bishop John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism, (San Fransisco: Harper Collins, 1991), p. 5.]

Joel Edwards

As it is well known that I am that rare thing - a fan from within the LGBT community of Evangelical Alliance leader (as well as being a Commissioner with the UK's Equality and Human Rights Commission) Joel Edwards, I thought I'd pass comment on his latest forays into the public sphere (I might even make this a regular item).

I should make clear that I do rate him as a thinker who is capable of both depth and brevity at the same time (he gathers both very good attributes in one whereas some religious thinkers only have the one, as the Archbishop of Canterbury is very deep (probably) but can't make his thought clear to ordinary folk).

So his latest forays have been an intriguing letter on the recent Dispatches programme, In God's Name.

Joel is at pains to distance himself from Stephen Green stating:

Stephen Green, a key example given of this fundamentalist movement, is an extremist. The vast majority of Christians who watched last night would, like me, have recoiled in horror at some of the statements he made.

The kind of fundamentalism shown by Stephen is not growing in the UK. Unfortunately, the oxygen of publicity provided by the media has exaggerated his influence. What is increasing is a movement of evangelicals, which currently numbers around two million.

He also uses the following in speaking of LCF's (Lawyers Christian Fellowship) Andrea Minichiello Williams

This is how a healthy democracy operates, and while Andrea may have been naïve and controversial in Dispatches, her actions were a legitimate and transparent part of the political process.

Talk about damning with very faint praise!

Possibly wrongly I think I have learned how to interpret Joel's statements because I think he is always saying the same thing - another thing I like about him.

It really is as Joel says important to see the diversity in evangelical thought and practice (presumably this means he is encouraging evangelicals (and LGBT activists?) to see our activist groupings as less monolithic (etym: consisting of a single stone), though not without consistency.

I must confess to a little more disappointment over his recent Thought for the Day. That's the transcript, the recording's as well as transcripts of other TFTD contributions is here and he has great reading voice so is well worth listening to if you get the chance.

I must admit feeling disappointed when he refers to Iain Duncan Smith's politically motivated actions around the 'need for a father' debate, quoting it as if it was a politically neutral group (in actual fact it was Iain Duncan Smith who moved the main 'need for a father' motion.

I was also disappointed he used Thought for The Day to wade into the debate on this issue which to my mind cuts across the BBC guidelines on impartiality.

Nonetheless I was interested by this section:

For a Bill providing loopholes by which Fatherhood becomes unnecessary seems strangely regressive. Same sex parenting is a feature in our democracy. But legislation which institutionalises the absence of fatherhood seems to me like a cultural time bomb.

It's great to see the recognition (don't blink you might miss it) of same sex parenting. The idea that law on IVF clinic treatment's is the place to tell fathers to take their responsibilities seriously is simply weird, when you think about it. Because parents, mothers, fathers, same sex, opposite sex should take their responsibilities seriously but it doesn't have to be in a heterosexual setting, does it?

I also noted this and see a little more (perhaps):

In the cacophony of voices on the subject there should be room for one more: it's the apostle Paul. "You have many teachers," he said, "but not many fathers." Fatherhood is not a biological accident or cultural misogyny.

Interesting. Interesting because Paul says 'not many fathers' - presumably you can have more than one .... Interesting also because Paul is arguing he is their (the Christians at Corinth) father, so he isn't actually addressing himself to biological fatherhood, which is the very point of same sex parenting .... where the second is ... a supportive parent? (i.e. the words the Government has put into the Bill).

And of course Paul also does describe himself (to Christians of Galatia) as their mother and we know that Jesus was raised by Joseph without being his genetic father.

Just a few thoughts. Or am I reading too much into it?

Well at the very least someone that quotes Moltmann and Tillich can't be entirely bad....

Addendum

Example here of an evangelical tirade against Joel for the way he has expressed his more moderate views. I have bought the book and await its delivery from Amazon.

UK Govt to promote LGBT human rights

Full report on Pink News - Foreign Office instructs embassies to push LGBT rights

Press release here on the FCO website

Despite repeated condemnation by the UN Human Rights Committee, discrimination and denial of people’s basic human rights due to sexual orientation continues. Human rights are universal and should not be determined by sexual orientation or gender identity. We are committed to promoting equality and ending the discrimination of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people (LGBT) around the world and have developed a programme to help achieve this. Working with human rights activists, international institutions and non-governmental organisations and like minded governments the Foreign Office is targeting states where same sex relations are illegal, to raise our concerns and encourage them to change their laws.

Why isn't Obama able to win everywhere?

Last night Obama inched yet further towards the nomination by sweeping ahead in (largely white let it be said Oregon).

Hilary still determined to stay in the race but surely now not thinking she will win but thinking no doubt of other things and of course keeping hope alive because you never know - it isn't over till it's over.

Why isn't Obama winning in every state?

Because both candidates have shown themselves to be very evenly matched in this contest and Hilary has shown her self to be extremely resilient (to her credit), albeit by shifting her message rather widly (less to her credit). There's no knock out blow because they're so evenly matched.

Does this mean she can still win?

Surely not. Because while the two are very evenly matched one of them has the edge - more pledged delegates, more super delegates, more small donors, ahead in the popular vote.

Hilary no doubt wants to get herself a name as a non-quitter and the party's foremost campaigner, the Dem's No2.

Clearly she has and will earn that right by the end of this process, whatever her formal role (I don't think two evenly balanced candidates should serve as each other's running mate, though evenly matched teams occasionally do very well......)

From today's Guardian They think it's all over by Michael Tomasky

But Appalachian states are not in conflict. They're red. Lots of pundits don't understand this yet. It wouldn't matter if Obama lost Kentucky by 80 points.

The only point now is how to end this thing. Clinton deserves respect. But she can't win. All that's needed is a referee who has the authority to send her to the locker room. Good luck with that, Democrats.

Phew! Government survives with its dignity intact

Finally we have seen that the Government has come through.

I think that hybrid embryos and saviour siblings were such issues that should have been resolved by a free vote. The Government had significant majorities.

Reinsertion of a need for a father for IVF treatment, although sounding commonsensical, would have been damaging and discriminatory in its impact.

From a Government that has legislated in favour of same sex adoption, Civil Partnerships and against discrimination in adoption services defeat on that would have been symbolic but a catastrophic loss of nerve on an issue of principle.

Although it was a completely free vote it would have been the wrong move to lower the limit for abortions.

What is worrying is the extent that politicians are demanding that their religious beliefs exempt them from the social policies of the Government, especially around fairness and equality. Worrying trend for the future.

Commons votes to maintain time limit

Vote No1 (13 weeks) 71-393 maj 322
Vote No2 (16 weeks) 84-387 maj 303
Vote No3 (20 weeks) 190-332 maj 142
Vote No4 (provisions relating to information in the event of abnormalities) 173-309 maj 136
Vote No5 (22 weeks) 233-304 maj 71

Govt wins both votes on 'need for a father'

RESULT VOTE No1 217-292 maj 75
RESULT VOTE No2 222-290 maj 68

I shall be posting here as things develop this afternoon.



Ian Duncan Smith's speech was very well crafted and delivered, especially in its peroration, though still dogged by his 'frog'

Dawn Primiarolo gave an assured, impassioned and spirited performance - by far the best I have seen from her

Evan Harris as good and lucid as always

John Bercow gave his usual performance in intervening helpfully on speeches on his own bench

Good speeches by a number of Labour MP's, especially Chris Bryant.

Of the antis Geraldine Smith (Lab) was infuriating opining that discriminatory treatment was 'just common sense' - lost count of how often she repeated that particular mantra but also said that Lancashire Lesbians were 'more down to earth' than Lesbians elsewhere......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Agency Staff to get equal rights Breaking News on BBC

Link here.

Unions, which have campaigned for the measure for years, described Tuesday's agreement as a massive step forward.

There are estimated to be about 1.4 million agency workers in the UK.

Comment on California

Relying on Andrew Sullivan for much current commentary on this debate.

This item links to comments about supposed judicial hast (over reach?) in the Court's ruling but notes just how out of step California was 60 years ago in ruling racially mixed marriages could not be outlawed (even when they then were by all states up to that point and a ruling by the US Supreme Court was around 20 years into the future).

The key to California's decision in both 1948 and 2008 was to look more closely at an issue that had often before been rejected out of hand. In 1948 the court said that yes "separate but equal" was the law but looked at from the point of view of the individual there was no equal substitute for one's chosen marital partner. In 2008 they said yes the "right to marry" had been stated before with the idea of a marriage being the union of a man and a woman, but if one looked at the reasons for why marriage was a fundamental right it was clear that they would apply equally to unions of the same sex. In both cases it was the careful examination that led to what I believe was the correct decision on the law. Even if you believe one or both cases were incorrectly decided, though, when it comes down to fundamental rights and minorities that have not always been treated justly, it is no virtue for a court to ignore the issue in deference to the wishes of a majority. They should strive instead strive in good faith to apply the constitution regardless of the popularity of the decision. Those that disagree should argue on against the reasoning used and the legal principles applied and not rely on overstated cries of judicial activism.

France to promote LGBT rights

Have just come across this link to an interview given by Rama Yade, French Minister for Human Rights to gay magazine Tetu (from the web site of the French Foreign Office) about France's role in promoting LGBT rights.

There is also a report from yesterday's Pink News titled France will argue for universal decriminalisation at the UN.

Elsewhere have also blogged previously about work being started by the UK Government which Gordon Brown also committed to on becoming Prime Minister.

What will you be doing to help persecuted LGBT community worldwide from persecution and violence from right wing governments? What about EU countries that are hostile to gay rights? Ross Hunter

This Government has taken a lead in ending discrimination against gay and lesbian people in Britain, but as you say, Ross, the fight to counter discrimination is not restricted to the UK.

The reports we hear are deeply concerning: around the world gay and lesbian people are outlawed, persecuted and killed for advocating their rights.

We have announced an international strategy to promote rights overseas, which includes Britain's commitment to the universal decriminalisation of homosexuality.

We are and will continue to work with foreign partners and domestic organisations to protect the human rights of gay and lesbian people throughout the world.

HFEB Day 2 (Tues)

Today's votes will be on the need for a father and the debate to lower the abortion limit.

From today's Guardian - Do families need fathers?

Duncan Smith claims that, without fathers, boys join gangs and teenage girls become pregnant. But "there's nothing magical about fathers," says Susan Golombok, professor of family research and director of the Centre for Family Research at the University of Cambridge, and co-author of Growing Up in a Lesbian Family. "Fathers who are very involved with their children are good for children. But fathers who are not very involved - they aren't as important, and can even have a negative effect. It's a very simplistic notion to think that fathers are important just because they're male."

From today's Times - Abortion: a worrying tale of leeches by David Aaronavitch.

So this is what all this nonsense about “compromise” boils down to - telling women who are less than 24 weeks pregnant and who don't want to have a baby that, legally, they must go through with the birth. We then leave them the terrible choice of procuring an abortion elsewhere or of bearing a child they do not want.

To me, this is immoral. It is not a conjecture about lives that could be led, but an action that will damage lives that are being led. Tonight conscientious MPs should put on their leech-socks and vote against all these parasitical amendments.

On both issues we get the merest glimpse of the kind of Chamber we would have with a Conservative majority after the next election - not nice to behold.

Meanwhile, Louise has blogged extensively on yesterday's votes including Labour MP's who voted against the Government.

HFEB Day 1 - Government majority in today's votes

Hybrid embryos

Admixed embryos - Govt wins 336 - 176 Maj 160 (3 Cabinet members vote against).

True hybrids - Govt wins 286-223 Maj 63

Saviour siblings - votes as they happen

Tissue tying and sex selection - Govt wins 318-149 majority against amendment of 169.

Outright ban on tissue typing - Govt wins 342-163 majority against of 179

Restriction to use of regenerative tissue Govt wins 293-200 majority of 93

BBC report


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Today's newspapers included a number of articles including a good one by Jackie Ashley in the Guardian This fight really matters, and lays bare the big party divide :

Here's the bad news. Normal people can't afford to look away. This is too big. On abortion, and much else, it is a fight between conservatives and liberals that truly matters.

Lose 100-plus Labour MPs next year, or in 2010, and you will get a much more reactionary Commons. Lose votes like the ones coming up this week and you have it already.

I don't want to live in a Britain dominated by religious teaching. I want to live in a pro-science, liberal and progressive country where real people's real suffering can be relieved by medical advances and where minority groups are not abused. Behind the tactical smoke, that's the choice before parliament this week.

HFEB - good BBC Summary and the bishops bash back

Good BBC summary of the issues and timetable for the relevant votes.

I hope to put up a summary of events on the blog for Day One (Monday) as well as live blogging on tuesday when the 'need for a father' and the time limit for abortion are debated.

Meanwhile - Bishops Bash Back (article in the Times - that isn't the actual title of the article...)

Some quotes to let you know we're in the same old territory:

Tom wright, Bishop of Durham

We would like to make it plain that as people from other Christian
traditions we are completely opposed to the creation of animal-human hybrids,
saviour siblings and the removal of the obligation on IVF clinics to consider
the child's need for a father. This is not a narrowly Roman Catholic issue, nor
is it a narrowly Christian issue nor indeed is it a narrowly religious issue. It
is a human issue. We need to fight to uphold and protect our humanity
[That's told 'em]

Ian Lucas, Passion for Life (?)

Mr Brown [is] not respecting the conscience of his MPs

[in spite of his MPs ~ and Cabinet Ministers - all having a free vote?]

Josephine Quintavallem, Comment on Reproductive Ethics (?)

They devoted 700 hours to debate fox hunting and they’re going to give three
hours to debate whether you should kill the unborn child

[rather gives the game away that attempts to reduce the time limit are really fuelled by religiously motivated anti-abortion campaigners]

Finally we are told about the Islamic Medical Association which we are told "represents over two million British Muslims"

[two million doctors?]

Should be an interesting two days ...

.

A nice bit of trade union history

Have just been rummaging around the web and come across the most amazing and wonderful site and just had to do a link.

3 articles on the (what can only be called) COHSE blog about Lesbian and Gay issues within COHSE. COHSE was of course one of the 3 unions that merged to form UNISON in 1993 (alongside NUPE and NALGO).

Includes a great article about a Conference motion carried at the 1987 COHSE Conference in support of Lesbian and Gay Rights and agreeing to affiliate to the Labour Campaign for Lesbian and Gay Rights, now LGBT Labour. (Text of motion reproduced below). Also references COHSE's campaigning against section 28.

I can only congratulate the authors of the blog on maintaining these historical references.


Text of the motion

Lesbian & Gay Rights

Resolution 90 COHSE Conference 1987

That this Conference opposes all discrimination against Lesbian and gay men and recognises that this discrimination is institutionalised in society as it is in the National Health Service.

Conference therefore welcomes and reaffirms COHSE's support for the lesbian and gay resolutions passed at the 1985 and1986 TUC and Labour Party Conferences and calls on the National Executive Committee to:

(i) oppose all discrimination against lesbian and gay men in the Health Service and in the trade union and Labour movement;
(ii) support the Labour councils' introduction of comprehensive equal opportunities policies including 'positive images' of lesbian and gay men such as in Ealing and Haringey Council;
(iii) support for district health authorities who have introduced comprehensive equal opportunities with union support;
(iv) campaign for all District Health Authorities to include in their equal opportunities policy opposition to discrimination against lesbian and gay men;
(v) support the awareness of lesbian and gay issues within COHSE and the trade union and Labour movement;
(vi) affiliate to the Labour Campaign for Lesbian and Gay Rights and support theLCLGR Charter.

COHSE 618 HILLINGDON AND DISTRICT BRANCH
CARRIED

Are Christians facing discrimination?

Excellent article form Jonathan Bartley, Ekklesia

Are Christians facing discrimination?

It is not well known, but it is often the same people who are fuelling the
scare stories of Christian marginalisation that appear in the papers. A small
collection of lobby groups, these usual suspects are actively seeking out
potential cases of discrimination which they can then publicise, make a
political campaign out of, or pursue in the courts. They are also drawing advice
and training from the US, where similar strategies have been pursued.

What is behind their zeal? Their agenda is a desperate attempt to win
back, or at least try to maintain, many of the special privileges and exemptions
that Christianity has previously enjoyed, but which society is no longer willing
to grant. Their argument is that since Britain is a 'Christian country', their
faith, and its adherents, should have special recognition and dispensation.

But they are faced with an internal contradiction which virtually
guarantees their failure - and helps to explain why their have had so little
success.

.

1890's recording from Walt Whitman

Taken from Andrew Sullivan's blog Daily Dish from gay American poet Walt Whitman

Also the link here on You Tube.


"America

Centre of equal daughters, equal sons,
All, all alike endear'd, grown, ungrown, young or old,
Strong, ample, fair, enduring, capable, rich,
Perennial with the Earth, with Freedom, Law and Love..."

.

From today's papers

Quite a lot in the papers about the HFEB votes.

Simon Jenkins is excellent and rightly robust in the Times Family planning is one area in which we don't need MP's help

Some quotes:

The Commons will have a chance to stamp the medieval demand of the Catholic Church that MPs obey its edicts rather than their judgments.

Those who regard women as involuntary incubators of God’s souls treat all abortion as murder and therefore seek to ban it by law. I cannot see how this entitles them also to draw fine distinctions as between 24 weeks and 20, 18 or 13. Abortion should be a matter for women, couples, doctors and medical advance to resolve. Each case will be personal and unique. Parliament, having decided to interfere, should at least leave in place a limit validated by experience.

The opposition is like that to Queen Victoria’s use of chloroform in childbirth as “defying God’s labour”.

As for the Commons debate over whether an IVF baby needs a father, words almost fail me. Of course babies are better off with fathers, but whose business is that? We do not enforce abortions on pregnant schoolgirls for lacking a husband, despite the near-certainty of such a child being born into a dysfunctional home. What are we doing about families ruined by rotten fathers? In my experience women seeking IVF, whether gay or not, are self-selected as responsible parents by virtue of being prepared to go through this uncomfortable process.

However, anyone who thinks that parliament will do the job better should look at this week’s whipping list, with its ludicrous distinction between “government” clauses and “conscience” clauses. Every law should be on MPs’ consciences. For the most part MPs should stop meddling in how people choose to plan and protect their families. They have enough trouble with their own.

Very well and succinctly put.

Also in the Observer:

Gordon Brown Why I believe stem cell researchers deserve our backing

Should scientists be given the legal framework they say they need to pursue new cures and treatments through stem cell research or will we turn our back on these potential advances?

Should children who face death or critical illness find new hope in scientific advances that would allow their new brother or sister to be not just a blessing to their family, but also a saviour sibling to them?

And should people be able to approach IVF clinics without fear of discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation?

My answer to all those questions is an unequivocal yes.

Mary Warnock Women, not the unborn deserve our protection

For law cannot be based on what is largely a religious belief and, this apart, we know that abortions would continue to be carried out, only more dangerously, by dodgy doctors or unqualified backstreet abortionists. For those too young to remember, trust me, this is never to be wished for.

The truth, as it always has been, is that we should turn our attention instead to their mothers and consider why they are seeking to abort their babies at so late a stage of pregnancy.

We ought to pay less attention to the destruction of life by abortion than to the quality of life of those who are allowed to live. Life, after all, is not an abstract shared by everyone who is alive - there is no human life that is not lived by somebody. And it is these living people to whom we should attach value and whom we should, if necessary, protect.

Some Italian stuff

Louise has already posted about In Veglia.

Have navigated around and found some great sites. Really good for learning Italian (that is to say not say easy to read if you don't speak Italian, great if you want to start learning - heck why not)

Main link here at Gionata seems from what I can tell to be an Italian LGBT Christian site with an incredible amount of content already - as well as links to In Veglia.

It's a great site and I hope to pop in and out as my Italian (...) improves.

Faith bodies should end discrimination

Recent Employment Tribunal case of constructive dismissal on the grounds of religious belief by a charity with a supposedly Christian ethos.

Reports in:

Thinking Anglicans
Ekklesia
British Humanists Association


Ekklesia has a correct view here in that the Christian values of the gospel leave no space for discrimination.

Idaho

I prefer Idahobit (International Day Against Homophobia Biphobia and Transphobia).

We are getting to the point where there are so many days (Pride, LGBT History Month and Idaho/Idahobit) it gets a bit difficult to mark each one.

Idaho as the mark of the 17th May 1992 when homosexuality was no longer classified as a mental disorder by the World Health Organisation is an important date to mark and also a goo dday to focus our thoughts on the many countries where homosexuality is outlawed and where there is no protection on the gounds of sexual orientation.

Another reason that we must, in Europe, have a 'horizontal directive outlawing discrimination across all major grounds (including sexual orientation) and we need to be engaging (via governments, international NGO's and so on) against the criminalisation of homosexuality and in favour of protections against hate crime and discrimination against LGBT people.

In this context a link from ILGA-Europe from Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights for the Council of Europe (also refers to the Yogyakarta Principles).

See also in today's Comment is Free (CiF) Love is a Human Right.

Also from the Council of Europe the revised Convention on adoption which is now inclusive of the ability of same sex couples to adopt. Hopefully all states will ratify the Convention.

Women still need safe, legal abortions

Early next week sees the controversial votes on the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Bill.

The Bill itself has had extensive scrutiny already (considered by a Joint Committee) and already passed throught the Lords.

On top of the 3 so-called controversial areas (need for a father, hybrid embryos and 'savious siblings') there will the tabling of motions to reduce the time limit on abortion.

Personally I support 'abortion rights' for women i.e. access to safe and legal abortions where a woman decides she needs it. This is not the same as saying that aboriton is right or wrong only that it the individual woman's own choices over her own body and reproductive rights rather than society defining it.

In that sense our abortion laws are imperfect. They lay out all sorts of conditions to be met for the abortion to be lawful. I would allow only one condition, that a woman decides after all options are explained to have an abortion and there is no compulsion or coercion (i.e. it's a free and informed decision - the usual standard for important medical procedures.)

Whilst I have no problem whatever for different groups believing different things (abortion is wrong under all or some circumstances/after a certain time limit) I tend to take a more rigorous position about where the law should be.

The right of a woman to choose is the woman's and hers alone in this matter.

Link to Abortion Rights

It is not too late to contact your MP ahead of these votes. The best way is through writetothem.com.

I do not object to the decision to grant free votes in the Bill (it's a bit misleading as no-one would be forced against their will to vote and so in that sense the votes are always free) but I think it's odd to allow a 'free' vote on the 'need for a father' when it's Governement policy to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and to support same sex parenting.

Children born to lesbian parents are of course going to meet boys and men in their immediate family, school, community and wider society and in any case it is far more important for children to have good, loving and balanced role models of either gender than having strong role models but bad ones.

For more extensive coverage see Lou's Blog

.

Why I'm against referendums and why Brown should take heart

I only partly agree with Martin Kettle on referendums/?referenda.

I am a firm believer in representative democracy. It's a good thing. It works and I don't believe in diluting it by having referendums all of the time.

Practice between countries varies considerably. Germany has no referendums as they are not permitted under their Constitution. Ireland has them all of the time. De Gaulle introduced them in France as a means of bolstering the power of the President as against the Assemblee and the government. The record of referendums in France is not that great and seems to point to what we know - they are often used as a means of registering disapproval of the sitting government of the day (often mid-term).

Britain held a referendum on EU membership (it seems to have the opppsite to any intended effect of 'settling' what was already settled by our Acsession to the EU). The referendum was held because Wilson's government was rent asunder and could only hold itself together by holding a neverendum (and then only just).

That's the only UK wide referendum we've ever had and so I'd only have referendums where:

• the governing party can't maintain a parliamentary majority on an issue
• a government decides as part of its policy to put something to a referendum because it's contentious and it prefers to deal with it in that way
• there's a convention that is virtually assured that devolution measures be put to a referendum in the area directly affected (seems reasonable given that the status quo of a unified state should only be departed from if there is a substantial demand for it from voters). I think the 'bring it on' pov from Wendy Alexander is a bit odd - I think that Scotalnd votes on independence every two to three years - they only have to vote by a majority for the SNP in one of these and the deal is done - negotiations start immediately on making Scotland independent.

My thinking on this tells me what I want Gordon Brown to do with his remaining two years.

To have the power for two years of being the leader of a parliamentary majority is a great thing (more is usually considered better ...) and you can achieve great things with that political space. And some small things as well.

Governments that proceed steadlily, doing the things it wants to do, achieving real change, even though they're behind in the polls - these are the exception rather than the rule. And these rarities are, I believe, recognised by voters.

Come election time we have the ultimate referendum in our system of government. I think it's perhaps a bit of a contrast that under Blair we had a lot of electioneering but not that much governance, maybe in this respect Brown is the ying to Blair's yang. Or vice versa.

.

Same sex marriage in California

Very significant news from California that that the Supreme Court has declared that same sex marriage is required by the Californian State Constitution by a 4-3 ruling.

Of particular interest is the application by the majority of Justices of the principle of 'strict scrutiny', not usually used in cases of sexual orientation.

So this is a massive landmark case, following the adoption by the Legislature (Senate and House) of a marriage bill (though not passed into the law by Schwarzenegger, the Governor - who has though said he will abide by the ruling and not support a proposed constitutional amendment with the intention of reversing this ruling.

The ruling makes California the second US State (alongside Masachussets) which will have same sex marriage along side countries such as Canada, South Africa, Belgium, Netherlands and Spain.

I gather the ruling will come into effect in 30 days time. It will however be subject to review by the electorate in November when a constitutional amendment is voted on.

When the Campaign starts it will of course not be the first jurisdiction to have done this (whether by legislative or judicial means or a combination of both) . It will be supported by the view of the elected legislature (Schwarzenegger has said he would sign into law if allowed to under the Constitution), the support of the Republican Governor.

If the vote is successful it will have had the support of elected Legislature, Judiciary and General Electorate in a referendum and will therefore be of the highest kind of support and legitimacy possible, rendering it more difficult for the US to enact a Constitutional Amendment whose rationale is to protect voters from so called 'activist judges'.

Of course the vote could go the other way. That is always an option and one would have very big consequences in other US States, though again rendering rather otiose the proposed US Constitutional Amendment, given the ability of voters in the States to amend State constitutions by referendum.

Equality California
BBC
365gay
Pink News
Guardian
Washington Post
Andrew Sullivan
New York Times
Human Rights Campaign

The ruling (172 pages including dissents)

Having been voted by the Legislature, having been found in favour by the Supreme Court, following Massachusetts and Canada it lies entirely in the hands of the voters in California this November.

I do not personally think that this will have quite so much of a negative impact on other States that some fear. Most of the most 'promising' (from a right wing point of view) have already enacted such bans, the more States they go after as same sex marriage becomes more widely practised in the US and its neighbour Canada the greater the chance that it will fail in the popular vote in one or more States. And where such a ban is passed it can only be passed once, limiting its political pay off.

P.S. The Campaign

Now California (and US) lgbt folk are in THE campaign of their lives. If the initiative is defeated 10% of the US will be able to marry equitably and many of those in other states may be able to marry there - with differing levels of recognition.

The ones to watch will be:

• fundraising - the religious right will pour all of their resources into this fight - they are right to as if they fail here they fail utterly and have nowhere else to go. If you're rich and LGBT and live in America donate and make a difference. Otherwise the campaign will be massively underspent.
• the unions - if memory serves most of them have robust pro equality positions - they can make a real difference. See also link to Pride at Work.
• faith groups - really important to mobilise supportive faith voices in order to win the fight
• the Democratic Party - California usually votes Dem in any case (and if they don't the election's lost anyway) so using the Democratic Party to mobilise a 'No' vote will be crucial. See link to California Democratic Party Platform and also the immediate and supportive reaction of Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives from San Fansisco.

.

Pre-Queen's Speech

List of measures announced:

• Banking
  
• savings
  
• housing
  
• welfare reform
• patients, parents and citizens
• education bill,
• apprenticeship - right to
• second chance in education - workplace rights to time off to train
• welfare reform - skills needs
• benefit traps
• right to flexible working
• NHS reform bill, including a constitution and patient satisfaction
• further action on antisocial behaviour
• directly elected representatives
• police - cutting paperwork
• serious crime
• managing migration
• citizenship - emphasis on speaking English
• constitutional renewal ill
• reform of the House of Lords
• Bill of Rights and duties
• agency workers
• equality bill

Text of statement on No10 website.

.

Ping pong in process

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.

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.

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.

.

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

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.

.

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.

.

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.

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.

.

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:

'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.

.

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.

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.

.

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:

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?

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.....