Yesterday's Prides

Reuters - Pride events in Italy

Gay NZ - Pride events in Rome, Athens, Warsaw

Amnesty welcomes British embassy flying the rainbow flag (after being flown in Riga recently).

Open letter about Riga Pride

The letter from a wide number of signatories (including ILGA Europe) welcomes the event was upheld and took place whilst still pointing out disappointing ways in which the event was restricted.

In spite of all of the negatives, it's instructive to compare this year's Riga Pride with that of 2005 which was banned by the City Council but went ahead after a Court order, and with 2006 where significant violence and disruption occurred from anti-gay campaigners.

Apart from the sheer tenacity of LGBT campaigners in Latvia (and similarly in other Eastern European countries) we should improved policing, support from organisations such as ILGA-Europe and Amnesty International and high profile politicians from within the EU and in neighbouring countries.

THT interview on blood donation

PinkNews interview with Lisa Powers of THT.

Excerpt dealing with blood donation here:

There is a perception that THT is supporting a policy that is discriminatory.

They need to actually think why would we do that, since we come from the gay communities, being part of the gay community.

I myself have been a gay activist for over 30 years, and I didn't understand it till I sat down at length with people from the National Blood Service and really went into it very carefully and now I understand it.

I don't blame people who don't understand the ban and think it's all about prejudice, because 99 times out of a 100 when someone tells someone they can't do something because they are gay it's prejudice.

The ban around blood is a real problem, and it needs to be constantly checked.

Our view is that we support the blood service as long as they keep reviewing the evidence and we recently had a meeting with the NBS, two months ago, and they are currently going into another review.

They are looking at all the evidence and they are going to be sharing it with us.

They also finally understand they they haven't done enough with the gay community.

I would say to any gay organisation which has tried to engage with the blood service in the past and failed because the NBS hasn't wanted to engage with the community, I would say go back and re-engage.

If you want you can come and ask us at THT about who to talk to.

Get in touch with the blood service, get in touch with the right people at the top and persuade them that they need to explain themselves better.

We now have a FAQ policy about blood donation which is on our website, which tries to explain in as simple terms as possible.

Now sometimes people don't like what we are saying, literally last week we had a phone call to our department here from a gay man who was very upset about the blood policy and said how dare the blood service refuse the blood of gay men.

We said you have to understand that gay men are disproportionately at risk of HIV and then he started shouting at us 'how dare you pick on gay men, how dare you say we are disproportionately at the risk of getting HIV.'

But the fact is that in this country gay men are massively at risk, and what the blood service does, which they have been scared to admit in the past, is they play the odds.

They look at how much blood they need and they look at how many risks they need to take to get the blood they need and what kinds of blood, and they don't take any more risks that that.

Though the risk is relatively low, that something could go wrong, there is risk there.

When we talk to people about this, they are surprised to find out that that no-one from England can give blood in the US, because there is a tiny risk from BSE.

And it wouldn't matter if you are a vegetarian, and for a vegetarian to give blood in the US is like the gay man being refused to give blood here in England.

The dream ends

Clinton finally ended her campaign yesterday though I didn't manage to watch the speech. Here is a collection of some nice clips. As can be seen, she gave a thorough and full endorsement of Barack Obwma.

Whilst I didn't take to some of the tactics used by Clinton in her campaign (and Bill in particular has not come out of the campaign with his reputation enhanced) I have to admire Hilary Clinton's tenacity and energy in campaigning.

I am sure she'll carve out a powerful role for herself but I think that Hilary as VP is a recipe for disaster at some future point.

When the two candidates are so evenly matched it would be confusing as to which one felt more entitled to be President so you can imagine all sorts of difficulties - recent experience in the UK is perhaps not so good in this respect.

Some reflections on last night

I think it is really important to pause and reflect on the sheer history we saw last night in Bareack Obama becoming the first black nominee of a major party in the US presidential election, and yes that he was nearly beat by the first woman nominee.

How many times has it been said it would take the US 100 years to be 'ready' for a woman or a black President?

Whatever else it has achieved in it's existence the Democratic Party has, through this contest, put both of these within grasp.

So politics is still a noble endeavour, party politics (too often maligned) specifically.

Remarkable for any country to candidate of a minority ethnic group as a contender for high office, whereas in the US the Civil Rights movement is still in living memory for many.

I can only borrow this from Andrew Sullivan's blog:

My grandfather, 86 years old and a veteran of WWII, just gave me a call. He
was calling all of his grandchildren to let them know what an important night
this was in the history of our country.

Grandpa drove a truck for over 50 years, and he told the story of how he drove with a team of drivers, 2 white (including him), and 4 black. When they stopped at the truck stops, the black drivers had to use seperate restrooms and showers, and had to eat in a small room in the back of the kitchen. Grandpa and his co-driver would eat in the back with the rest of the team, and while they didn't speak of it at the time, they
knew it was wrong yet felt powerless to change it, and believed that it would never change.

Tonight, he told me, we have come full-circle. Many people, especially the younger generation who supported Obama, will never fully realize the historical import of what happened tonight. But he wanted his grandchildren to know this story that he had never told us, and it was the second time in my 33 years that I have heard my grandpa cry.

Obama's speech showed the same deep oratorical gifts that Obama has always showed. His ability to move the audience, move with the audience, create common purpose with them. He looked every bit a President and compared very favourably to the two other speeches, both of which were rather pedestrian in nature.

Of course, oratory alone (oratory is the thing that is decried when present but bemoaned when absent - in Obama we have a foremost modern orator that lives up to the highest ideals of the art) won't work and the hard graft of a General Election that leaves the contestation of the Primaries behind.

On the other hand I now have a more negative view of Hilary Clinton's speech - also some reactions here. I don't think she managed the required tone and her speech doesn't stand muster in the cold light of day. Seem to remember John Major saying something along the lines of "When the curtain falls, you leave the stage...").

I think the chances of being a VP were always slim but probably a generous concession speech was required to make it a possible. I think she's overplaying her hand and it will backfire.

In spite of all of this no-one will deny her her position as a candidate who was a candidate to the very end of the process (quite a rare occureence) . There's lots of speculation as to potential roles but some that have been mentioned include Senate Leader, Health coverage supremo and the even Supreme Court. Putting her in charge of health care reform is a very good proposal as it people to remember the chaos the last time she was put in charge of it.

To get any where near to cashing in on her achievement in this Primary she does need to concede and get behind the nominee.

But the most important thing is to pause a while and reflect on hisotry in the making that I am sure, whatever the result of the election, will have massive ramifications for the rest of the world.

Clinton wraps it up

Actually quite a good speech. A pretty good hust for VP.

"I am committed to uniting our Party"

"Where do we go from here"

"No decisions tonight"

"I will consult with our Party leaders"

Effectively concedes without conceding.

Obama goes over the top

The last Democratic Primaries (Montana and South Dakota)

SD closes 8pm ET, Mont closes 10pm (1am and 3am on whatever time we're on at the moment)

11pm

Obama close to clinching the nomination

More and more superdelegates endorsing Obama - now only 12 short of the 'magic number'

Now on 2106

Described as the most exciting and historic Primary night in US history

11.40pm

Now on 2107 - 11 more needed

11.50pm

Now on 2108 - 10 more needed

1am

Now on 2112 - 6 more needed, 200 in front of Clinton

1.04 - 2113 - 5 needed

1.10 - 2114 - 4 needed

2.30 - Obama on 2119 and is therefore now the nominee presumptive

OBAMA WINS

According to the Associated Press Barack Obama has now won the Democratic nomination and has reached the required number of delegates and makes history for the US as the first black Presidential candidate (presumptive nominee until made into the official candidate at the Convention).

Andrew Sullivan (Daily Dish) How to Celebrate

Interesting pickings from the Drudge Report

Times The Clinton juggernaut coughs and splutters to a halt, Barack Obama on the threshold of history

BBC Obama on brink of victory

British Embassy flies Rainbow Flag in Riga

Story carried on several news services - Pink News article here, UK Gay News here.

THT on blood donation, supporting the current approach

Pink News carries this story today.

THT has stated its support in the context of regular review of the scientific evidence.

I have previously blogged that I am more sympathetic to the position of the current ban in respect of men who had anal or oral sex with men.

I do though note that in Australia there is a 12 month deferral for anyone having had 'male to male sex' and also has a provision of subjecting applicants who provide misleading information in their screening.

I think the Australian model is actually something worth looking at - I'm not aware of any countries having done away with any restrictions on men who have had sex with men donating and think it would be quite unsafe to so.

THT's (very brief) statement here of why they support the Blood Services approach to donor screening with respect to men who have had anal or oral sex with men and therefore pose a risk with regard to the safety of the blood supply.

Four Days in Denver

Great script for a deadlocked Convention unable to agree on a nominee. I won't spoil the ending. Makes for a great read.

(ht to Andrew Sullivan, Daily Dish)

Brown plants his standard on 42 days

"I'm determined to stick to our principles."

BBC report.

Obama Pride

Really like the link for the LGBT supporters of Obama.

Homosexuality in America

According to this poll 'homosexual relations' come between abortion and doctor assisted suicide, with the same percentage finding "homosexual relations" acceptable and wrong (48% for both sides) irrespective of their view of whether it should be legal or not.

Heathrow wins award for worst airport

Well not quite.

The world's airline organisation doesn't like Heathrow because it's too expensive.

Those of us who use it dislike it for other reasons.

Simon Barrow responds to Bishop Nazir Ali

From Ekklesia:

There are indeed serious issues about moral cohesion in modern, plural societies. But diversity and disagreement cannot be wished away, and a vision of social justice and responsibility will not be created by lecturing people, seeking to restore Christian privilege, portraying Islam as the new threat, or bemoaning the loss of a monoculture.

The churches need to be seen as small-scale communities of positive hope, not wounded dinosaurs complaining that people do not take them seriously any more and that the country is going to the dogs.

Similar thoughts expressed in his recent Comment is Free article Blinkered Bishop.

I'm confused

We used to be very worried about rising house prices and new buyers not being able to afford to buy a home - now house prices are falling (albeit moderately).

We used to be very concerned both about global warming and on our dependence on oil - now the price of oil has gone up (though faster than had been planned by governments).

Food prices are of course different and genuinely worrying as to their global impact as well as their impact on inflation

For an alternative to the 'up and down' of capitalism there is always the option of Central Planning (though it is far from clear that planned economies escape from the business cycle, certainly from inflation). Planned economy has not proved popular in Western Europe and didn't work well in the Soviet Union when it was tried over a long period and China's mix of communism and capitalism is prone to overheating and therefore also recession.

Capitalist economies have always over and undershot in a cycle, with severe downturns frequent. 'Business cycle' in Wikipedia.


The only thing we can ask of our politicians is to dampen (rather than feed the excesses of the 'market economy' as the Tories often did) and Gordon Brown has been quite good at that over the past decade.

The capitalist economy has rarely been anything other than turbulent. That's not likely to change now.

Andrew Rawnsley in today's Observer

Andrew Rawnsely in today's Observer on his advice to GB. Though other commentators and Rawnsley himself has said this before.

Piece is titled Gordon's best - and only - bet now is to be bold.

Some quotes:

There is now only one potentially winning strategy left to Gordon Brown. Paradoxically, that is to start governing on the assumption that he is going to lose the next general election. He should give up trying to please everyone, not least because he is no good at pleasing anyone at the moment, and concentrate his energies on achieving a few important things that he believes in.

I heard a matching critique from a cabinet minister who is usually regarded as extremely close to Mr Brown. 'He's got to break free. He's got to throw off some of the bonds,' says this minister. 'He's got to be himself. He's got to say what he believes, act on it and fight for it.'

Take that advice and at least the Prime Minister would regain his self-respect. Over time, he may begin to win back the respect of the voters too. Governing on the basis that he's lost is now his last, best hope of winning.

Riga Pride 2008

Video of event by Amnesty

Particularly moving to see the bravery of those marching in the midst of a wall of hate (including obligatory placards with Bible verses - do they know ugly their religion is?).

From Pink News (2/6/2008):

A march for gay rights has passed off peacefully in the Latvian capital Riga.

Police arrested four of an estimated 400 anti-gay protesters, but the threats of violence against the Pride march did not materialise.

British and Swedish human rights advocates and politicians were among the 300 people who took part in the event on Saturday. City authorities closed off streets and deployed police to keep the groups apart.

Derek Draper (!) comes to Gordon's aid

In today's Guardian , Derek Draper (sometime new Labour spin doctor - though not a very good one and now some kind of psychotherapist - more of which later) gives his view that we are currently living through an exaggerated 'crowd' response to Gordon Brown's difficulties, where he is getting blamed in an exaggerated way for the international economic shocks (triple whammy of banking crisis, oil shock, food price hike - and none of the government's making).

Behind the relentless criticism lies the more balanced truth: That, sure, Brown has made mistakes but that the main source of his unpopularity is that people blame him for the economic downturn. He is hoping that he will receive reciprocal credit for any subsequent recovery. In the meantime something akin to mass hysteria has gripped the nation.

In other words the best antidote is for Brown to exhibit those characteristics he most possesses: being solid, steadfast and serious. Not flash, as the slogan put it - just Gordon. If he soldiers on I suspect that people will begin to realise that the current negativity is out of proportion and that he deserves a more balanced judgment.

At a pivotal moment in the West Wing, the administration's disastrous poll slide is arrested by the simple strategy, scrawled on a napkin by an aide, of "letting Bartlet be Bartlet". Brown's best bet is to follow the spirit of this advice. Be himself, relax, let people get to know him more with all his flaws and eccentricities, take the brickbats with good humour and wait for the tide of opinion to turn.

It makes good sense and if there is a recovery (seems the banking crisis has already settled down) then Brown's ratings are likely to recover.

I think this is only partly correct. There's something odd about the conjunction between democracy and capitalism.

Capitalist economies are like the shares that distinguish them - they go down as well as up. When running for office, parties exaggerate what's going wrong with the economy and exaggerate what they can do about it. When in power they either say they're still cleaning up the mess left by the last lot or that they're suffering under international shocks over which they have no control.

In the midst of all of this the most likely scenario is that governments take credit for successful economies and take the rap for economic difficulties (you have to be able to blame 'someone' for what's going wrong).

Correct diagnosis is of course the key and then you have to sell it persuade people of your view. It's easier if you can demonstrate our economy is doing better than everyone else's. But many people have a magical view of the economy that if there is something wrong in the economy the current government is to blame.

I think we underestimate how severe an economic shock is hitting us at the moment. Gordon's genius so far has been to avoid wild excesses (no more boom and bust) which has kept us out of recession and kept growth solid. Is this transient bumpiness or the beginning of a new economic dispensation?

Martin Kettle has some similar thoughts in today's Guardian The false rhinoceros...

But the greatest collective hypocrisy of our time remains the state of the economy. Indisputably, times are harder than they were. Undeniably, big changes in global financial power are afoot. Yes, growth is faltering, nerves are stretching and politicians are struggling to strike a persuasive note after surfing a long period of rising prosperity. But be honest: is this biting economic distress of the sort that traumatises families, communities and whole generations in the way that the convulsions of the 1930s or the 1980s did? Not yet it isn't.

When I read on yesterday's front pages that a family of four planning a summer holiday trip to the west coast of America, a place which their parents could never have dreamed of visiting, will suffer the "misery" of paying an extra £240 surcharge for the privilege, I wonder who is more deluded, the politicians or the people? And I ask myself what kind of rhinoceros we think we are looking at.

Freedom of expression under threat

Increasing concern about latest developments in Turkey where the State via a Court case has ordered Turkey's only gay rights group to be dissolved, with comments by the President of the Parliamentary Assembly expressing worries over freedom of expression.

Riga Pride Tomorrow

Coverage from Pink News about planned opposition to the planned Riga Pride.

Opposition seems mainly to be coming from two sources - from ultra right nationalists and the Roman Catholic Church.

The event is due to take place tomorrow. Significant support comes from Amnesty International and different LGBT groups within the EU.

It is a key test for the principles of freedom of assembly and expression along with other Pride events within the EU coming as they do after the events in Moldova this year.

A further roundup from Amnesty here.

Also a report from ILGA-Europe about Bucharest Pride which passed peacefully.

We need a new Government

I think the Labour Government is now in serious difficulty and in need of a profound overhaul.

I may be the last person in the country to catch up on this piece of stunning news but then again I am a loyal member of the Party and generally see things sunny side up.

Where's the sun now?? Are we going to have a death by a thousand concessions from now until the election?

I hope not.

The question of keeping the current leader is finely balanced but surely relates to whether the current incumbent has a dynamic vision for the country.

Now I am sure Gordon Brown does have such a vision but there has been a lot of populism and positioning and ultimately it ain't going to work.

The country is clearly tired of what Labour is offering and there is a need for renewal. Of course economic turbulence hasn't helped either but that won't cut much ice at the ballot box.

There are lots of candidates for what the Mirror today describes as 'spring cleaning' (the Guardian has its own list) that will allow the Government to be refreshed.

These include things like ID cards and 42 days detention as starters for 10.

Brown should certainly ask himself 'If I am only Prime Minister for two more years, what would I like to have achieved?'.

There are doubtless other policy changes as well and there needs to be some big things - headline grabbers if you will (housing, welfare etc) with headline grabbing politicians to front it up.

All this is doable but policy alone won't do it. We also need to shake up the team a bit (a lot).

Things like a Party Chair, a new Chancellor etc, put Miliband in somewhere prominent, appoint a Deputy Prime Minister (possibly Miliband). The thing is it needs to look like a new refreshed team.

Gordon Brown is a very thorough kind of guy so he may already be working on some such package. I certainly hope so, because a Party that keeps defenestrating its leaders doesn't do itself any favours in the long run (to lose one Prime Minister is a misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness).

Doubt over Russian blood ban move

This recently reported on Pink News and also on the Gay Russia website.

I, however, remain unconvinced. In such cases I follow the biblical rule of requiring 3 independent witnesses and here we have a lot of websites reporting from each other. There is no official confirmation (although to be honest, my Russian isn't as good as it should be so I might be missing Russian reporting of it).

It is being reported that it took only 2 years of campaigning (from I can tell this consisted of a few letters to the Health Ministry and an attempted - and outlawed - demonstration) to get the ban overturned.

This is being reported to be Russia 'setting a good example' to Western European countries. Hmmm.

It is also reported that the ban on prostitutes and drug users is also being lifted. Maybe there was a campaign by drug users and prostitutes to get their respective bans lifted as well. If so it has been very effective.

It's all a bit incongruous so I am not ready to believe it until I see independent confirmation.

Meanwhile our enemies on the religious right have also picked up on the news and are using it as a stick to beat us with, with a very interesting (and credible) statistic (from the FDA in the US) that MSN are 800 times greater risk of being HIV positive than first time blood donors and 8,000 times higher risk than repeat donors.

LGBT Labour AGM

Whilst the Party is going through a tough time, LGBT Labour held its annual AGM yesterday in London. In spite of current difficulties it was an upbeat event, showing we are still focused on the goal for equality.

There was plenty of discussion and debate about priorities.

I was pleased by a number of things:

- the new National Committee has quite a few new members, alot of people in different posts (a kind of reshuffle if you will) and the largest number of women (8 by my calculation) in the NC that I can remember.
- a good debate on policy issues, in particular a woman's right to choose (making sure we supprot it from further attacks)
- a good debate on international issues, including an agreement to affiliate to ILGA.
- really good turnout - again alot more women than in previous years

I was also absolutely delighted to see Louise elected as our International Officer, and think she'll do an excellent job keeping that on our agenda as well as seeing a number of UNISON colleagues getting elected in differing capacities.

I was elected as Local Government Officer and Party Conference delegate, where I am looking forward to moving the rule change to add 'gender identity' to the Party's discrimination policy.

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.

.