Blair proud of his gay rights record

BBC report here about a speech that Tony Blair made at a fundraising dinner for Stonewall.

The speech can be seen on Pink News.

It's quite interesting to read in full.

Here's a quote:

And I really just wanted to say two things about the changes that have happened over the past ten years, which you will know very well.

There are a lot of important things, but I think civil partnerships is really the thing � as I was saying to people earlier, it doesn�t just give you a lot of pride, but it actually brought real joy.

I don�t know whether you remember the very first day, and it was quite a bizarre circumstance that the first ceremonies were actually in Northern Ireland.

Laughter

I was so struck by it, it was so alive, I remember actually seeing the pictures on television. It is not often that you sort of skip around in my job, I can assure you, But it really the fact that that the people were so happy and the fact that you felt just one major, major change had happened, of which everyone can feel really proud.

I think it is genuinely one of the records of achievement that this Government does have to have removed all of the discriminatory laws as well as introducing civil partnerships, employment protection and now goods and services protections.

More on the House of Lords debate - the bishops' speeches

The speeches of the Bishops of Southwell and Nottingham, the Bishop of Winchester and the Archbishop of York can be accessed on Theyworkforyou.com by clicking on the hyperlinks.

They make very interesting reading and deserve very close attention.

First of the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham. His speech on the Northern Ireland regulations highlighted the perceived lack of consultation and paid warm tribute to the listening and co-operative approach that the Secretary of State (Ruth Kelly) was showing in allowing further dialogue and consultation over the GB regs.

His principal concerns over the GB regs were summed up as relating to the balance between the freedom of religion and the freedom from discrimination:

"It is hard to escape the conclusion that the right to freedom of religion is being treated as of lesser weight than other human rights. The sixth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights appears to suggest precisely that, on the grounds that religion and belief are matters of choice and therefore less deserving of protection than sexual orientation, race or sex. If that is indeed the committee's analysis, it is certainly not one that we share."

And closed with:

"For now, it gives me no satisfaction to say that the present regulations represent a disturbing erosion of religious liberty."

This seems to be related to schools which he didn't dwell on and adoption agencies which he referred to at a little more length.

In his speech he seems to reflect the approach suggested by the Archbishop of Canterbury that where you find a genuine doctrinal reason for discrimination (even if in a publicly funded service) then that should be left alone.

The obvious critique of that is that you end up with a set of regulations with so many exemptions it basically absolves Christians from obeying the law.

The Archbishop of York gave an odd speech, very much laden with metaphor and imagery which was never entirely explained. The included references to spider's webs, sausage machines and umbrellas versus bus shelters.

He must have been quite proud of his oration as he immediatley released it on the web and it has since been posted by Anglican Mainstream.

He started his speech with a quote of Wlberforce about the passing of Christianity from the public sphere and went on to bemoan a dogmatic secularism alongside a 'new' hierarchy of rights.

In a bizarre quotation he stated

"The whole concept of human rights is one that is alien to rabbinic jurisprudence ..." and "For the Torah is a golfing umbrella, not an infinitely extensible bus shelter".

In summary then:

- we are no longer a Christian country if we grant equal status to LGB people
- human rights are alien to the rabbinic (and therefore Chhristian?) tradition (amazing to find that Christian authorities are now willing to quote rabbinic authorities - we might do better with 26 rabbis in the House of Lords)
- LGB people don't fit under the golfing umbrella of Torah based rights

Following his golfing umbrella analogy (the meaning of which we may have to speculate a little) he stated:

"This freedom of thought may help us to get out of the quagmire of the human rights debate."

So for John Sentamu, human rights which under most human rights intruments are seem as 'universal' are actually a 'quagmire', to which a specifically religious 'freedom of thought' and presumably expression is called for (i.e. the one about to be denied to Nigerian LGBT associations - they are about to be helped out of their 'quagmire' of human rights to free assembly, association and assembly by a religious freedom of thought that is ranged against them - they're no doubt outside God's 'golfing umbrella' of rights)

This is (I presume) to avoid us having a 'bus shelter' approach where "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights - The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which makes Christians uncomfortable because they can only practice as Christians if they are able to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation (and the duty of a Christian nation is to make positive provision for Christian worship and discipleship).

I find it interesting that a specifically religious freedom of thought (one that is denied to its opponents) views the universal application of human rights as a quagmire.

Prior to the bit about the golfing umbrella we had this:

"We must keep in mind the epigram of Montesquieu, that great, great jurist, who said that if mankind was of one mind, and only one man was of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified to silence him than he, if he had the power, to silence mankind."

Which reminds us that Montesquieu was indeed a great liberal of his time - but the relevance to the sexual orientation regulations? And was Montesquieu a Christian in any traditional sense (that is any more than Goethe, whom he also quotes?). [I am advised that in fact this "epigram" is in fact part of JS Mill's On Liberty - the world would no doubt be a much better place if JS Mill was used more often as an authority by Church leaders].

If the regulations "silenced" anyone they would be easily struck down by the Courts - they're regulations and therefore secondary to the Human Rights Act and there's a broad religious exemption. But again to refer to Nigeria - here is a real threat of silencing one small group of people who are "of a contrary mind".

He also appeared to be in a bit of a muddle over the EU Equal Treatment Directive and the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (2003), claiming a wide religious exemption - it is actually much narrower than the Goods and Services Regulations and only really covers ministers of religion.

After many erudite but not necessarily aposite quotations the Archbishop of York sat down, with a lot more to say but I think he'd run out of his allotted time.

Last but certainly not least we have the Bishop of Winchester who I think it's fair to say has form on this kind of debate and I don't think could be accused of having said anything positive about LGB people ever in his life.

The Bishop of Winchester made a number of points but ended up on education (as previewed by the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham - they'd obviously read each others' speeches before hand).

His beef was twofold. First of all that the regulations covering education were for the most part welcome, but that they were drafted too widely and would inevtably end up covering the curriculum.

Now at this point I need to break off my analysis to say that I partly agree with him on this. I think an LGB school student could take a case if the curriculum subjected them to direct discrimination. Now I think that's actually inevitable over time. On this point and (probably) on this point alone I have some agreement with the religious right. This is not though the same as saying that certain things will have to be taught because of the regulations (equally race relations law doesn't mean that a school has to, for instance, celebrate 'Black History Month') so there is no objective duty to do anything different. But if a pupil is subjected to a curriculum, that for instance had the effect of undermining his or her self confidence and/or exposed them to bullying which disrupted their studies then I think there could be a challenge. That is though unlikely to happen if the school takes action against homophobic bullying and follows the guidelines already in force.

The Bishop concludes with this utterly chilling paragraph:

"I greatly regret the fact that the Government chose not to do so, but, rather, chose to legislate to coerce the churches and others to accept as the norm for this society—the regulations ask us to accept this and to collude in the Government's promotion—alternative patterns of living and of family life that many people conscientiously believe are less than the best, less than the most healthy, and less than God's will for humankind."

Remember those words. And if you are reading them as an LGB person this is what he thinks of you - less than the best, less than the most healthy, and less than God's will for humankind.

He wants an exemption so that children can be told they are "less than the best", that they are "less than healthy" that their lives are "less than God's will for humankind".

So the mask slips - we are "less than the best, less than healthy and less than God's will for humankind" and that ultimately makes us a kind of enemy because we see ourselves to be equal and not less than the best.

And the Government "chose to legislate to coerce the churches and others to accept as the norm for this society—the regulations ask us to accept this and to collude in the Government's promotion—alternative patterns of living and of family life".

This really is the nub (I think) to this whole debate.

The Sexual Orientation regulations are fundamentally about equality for LGB people. Religious people may still speak freely, hold teachings that we may or may not approve of. They may even adopt discriminatory practices within their own spheres.

The real nub of this is that the original "homophobic" doctrine goes something like this:

a) To be gay is at the very least to be less than the best (may as well use the phrase now)
b) All Christians have a duty to treat LGB people as their inferiors and to ensure inequality of treatment (for example in marriage and discrimination law and in parenting and family life)
c) Failure to allow Christians an accomodation to create an inferior social status for LGB people means they are being stopped from practicing thir religion, which on closer analysis appears more of a socio-political doctrine of power and control over others than a genuinely religious belief.

In trying to make the manifestation of religion (including discriminatory practice) they are attempting to do that which they accuse the Government of - create a hierarchy of rights with themselves at the top, immune from the law on equality. Well, you can't blame them for trying.

The exemptions provided for religious organisations are, in fact, broad. The bishops appear to have swallowed rather uncritically the line put out by the Lawyers Christian Fellowship and Anglican Mainstream early on in the debate over the Northern Ireland regulations.

Their Lordships did not agree.

As Faithworks have always diligently pointed out, the hysterical reaction to the sexual orientaiton regulations does no-one any good.

Praise be

Just to let everyone know the news reported below and also reported on the BBC, with a vote of 168 to 122 an inspite of several impassioned speeches in opposition by the Anglican hierarchy.

The regulations have now been approved by both Houses and enter into force on the 30th April.

I will blog about the debate later.

For now I will simply say "Praise be".

I, along with many other colleagues in the Labour Party and union movement (especially noting UNISON's LGBT committee which has been camapigning almost solidly on this for a year and a half, as has the Labour Campaign for Lesbian and Gay Rights).

We argued our case, campaigned, lobbied and argued. It was never easy, never a given and we never gave up even when we were told there was no hope.

We faced huge opposition from the religious right, that has now become an entrenched force in our political life (sadly). We have now acquired vicious and determined enemies that include no less than the entire hierarchy of the Church of England (no bother - they also opposed an equal age of consent and the removal of section 28). Yet the record will reflect who our enemies and this hatred of us will not melt away immediately, though no doubt will do so with time.

So I will be raising a glass (or two .....) to a great piece of work including many, many people and - all in all - a job well done.

Now for the next challenge.

Really good coverage (as always) - especially about the 'rally' on the Zefrog blogsite.

More comment to be added later. Bye for now.

House of Lords debate underway

The debate on the sexual orientation regulations is now underway in the House of Lords.

They have already been opposed by the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Winchester.

To quote Winchester at his vilest stating that same sex couples were "Less than the best, less than the most healthy and less than God's will".

Lords Alli and Smith have already spoken warmly in favour of the provisions to warm support from the Chamber.

The Vice President of the Humanist Society spoke in favour of freedom of religious viewpoints but of the need for the religious to not have the right to remove rights from others in pursuance of their beliefs.

Lord Lester spoke magisterially as he always does (and his stamp can be read in the Joint Committee on Human Rights report into the sexual orientation regulations) crititicising "misleading, homophobic and scurrilous statements" and "propaganda" used against the regulations, citing the Times advertisement placed by Coherent and Christian Voice, making completely "untrue statements", seeking to mislead people about the provisions.

He picked up on the Archbishop of York's attack, not just in the regulations, but even on the principle of human rights itself. He pointed out (completely correctly) that any provisions would have to read as being consistent with human rights provisions relating to the freedom of speech, conscience and religion.

Their Lordships are now in the process of voting on the hostile amendment to not approve the regulations. From the voice vote it sounded like the amendment would be defeated but I will update with the final vote on this when it comes.

THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT:

FOR 122

AGAINST 168

This means that the amendment opposing the regulations is defeated.

The regulations are now passed into law and take effect on the 30th April.

You can follow the debate live via the weblink here.

More later.

Do you want to be healed?

If so make your way to this Conference (at a cost of £85).

It's an event that is being promoted by ........Anglican Mainstream (if these lot are 'mainstream' I'd sure hate to meet the extremists), the Lawyers Christian Fellowship and CARE. Oh and 'Living Waters' - not sure what this is but I am sure we will find out at some point.

They are very anxious to get everyone thinking that you can heal people's sexual orientation, which is dubious at best and down right manipulative at its worst.

Strangely enough all of these groups are the shock troops of the religious right in the UK at the moment, vociferously opposing the sexual orientation regulations including the use of exaggeration and downright dishonesty in their portrayals (now I wonder why these two things are always linked together like that).

These are the groups we need protection from in the anti-discrimination laws that we are asking Parliament to approve tomorrow evening.

For those who want a more benign view of things see the press release from Faithworks in support of the sexual orientation regulations. It's very good, very sensible.

Faithworks stands by the statements we have previously made on the SORs and is confident that they do not pose a threat to Christians.

This is not an argument about Christian morality. It is rather a discussion about discrimination and prejudice, and ensuring that our services are delivered inclusively and in non-discriminatory ways.

While recognising that there are different Christian perspectives on the issue of human sexuality, we encourage the church to continue to ensure that our service of other people is driven by the inclusive example of Christ, who served all people, even if he disagreed with their lifestyle. The proposed SORs are an opportunity for Christians to demonstrate the love and grace of Christ. Acceptance does not equate with agreement.

The government has made it clear that it respects the conscience of people of faith. The proposed legislation does contain significant exemptions for religious organisations in appropriate circumstances.

The Christian Right plans another torch-lit "rally"

You may have a sense of deja vu about this one.

The assorted ranks of the religious right have planned their next action which is to hold another prayer vigil outside the House fo Lords to coincide with tomorrow's debate and vote on the sexual orientation regulations.

Will these people never give up? Well, no - for one thing they're determined. For another they have got hold of a notion that the disparagement of LGBT people is the core of their faith by which they can gain God's approval.

Probably they will get a better seat in heaven if they push this to the end of the line.

Then again maybe not.

For info on the "rally" see the website for ....... Anglican Mainstream as well as the ever informative Zefrog blog.

Now, there is no counter demo planned or authorised but last time there were many people who kind of turned up on spec either to protest or engage the massed ranks of the religious or alternatively to attend the hearings in the House of Lords and see it all unfold live as it were.

If you are interested in turning up please feel free to do so. The last time Zefrog had a good write up (with pictures!!) of the event.

Commons approves the Sexual Orientaiton Regulations

From the BBC

The regulations were approved by 310 to 100 (majority of 210).

There will be a debate in the House of Lords on Wednesday where there appears to much more nervousness about the outcome, though their Lordships supported the NI regs by 3 to 1 (the BBC is speaking of a "likely defeat", though personally I would doubt that, but that remains to be seen - as I have said previously there are virulent conservative forces at work in our society so we have to wait and see).

If defeated by the unelected upper house it would be very interesting to see what happens next as well as interesting to see what those people who continually tell us of the value of the Lords because of the need for primacy of the Commons would say.

The voting lists are available here (scroll to the end). Soom there will be more analysis of the vote via the Public Whip (i.e. by party etc).

Also:

The House of Commons debate in Committee can be found here. It's well worth a read, as one Tory MP after another (and mostly not even members of the committee but allowed under the rules to just turn up and speak but not vote) posed repeated points of order to interrupt and delay the proceedings.

The recording of it can be found here.

There's very good coverage (as usual) on the Thinking Anglican website (here and here) and the Zefrog blog (here and here), with lots of other angles and other web links.

Anglican Mainstream goes into hyperdrive

I have already commented elsewhere that for Anglican Mainstream (along with the Lawyers Christian Fellowship - and in spite of their name and connections the core of the hard religious right in the UK) are whipping themselves up into a lather about the sexual orientation regulations.

As I say their site is well worth a visit if you want some gentle amusement.

Their latest entry is a blog from "an MP" saying how terrible is the lack of democracy in the House of Commons over the regulations.

Read on and you realise the MP is none other than (wait for it) ..... John Redwood, who always has a place in my heart as the Welsh Secretary under the Tories who didn't knwo the words to the Wlesh National Anthem, but thought he'd try to sing along anyway - with hilarious results. And their latest entry (a bit like the guest publication on 'Have I got news for you' is an excerpt from.......John Redwood's blog.....

So we can see who is working with whom and where the natural alliances are - Hard Right Christians = Hard Right Tories. No surprises there then.

Bearing in mind we had 18 years of Tory rule that brought us section 28, this is hardly surprising and also not surprising that during the progress of the Labour years (equal age of consent, gender recognition, civil partnership, scrapping of section 28 and the writing into law, at long last, of protection from discirmination in goods, facilities, premises and services) these are the groups that vowed unceasing opposition to all of them.

Who opposed them all? The Christian Hard Right and Tory Right every time, right on cue.

So it's political. Change doesn't just happen. You have to make it happen because there are huge forces out there that want (need?) to block progress towards an equal society.

And - if I can be forgiven for being a little party political here - change happened in this instance because we had a Labour Government, but also because the LGBT movement within the Labour Party (noting especially the role of the Labour Campaign for Lesbian and Gay Rights) and the Trade Union movement worked for that change (and for pensions equality and the removal of section 28 before that).


The lesson is that progress is never a given. It has to worked for every step of the way and against great resistence. That's true today as it always has been.

Government updates the regs - Christian groups gird their loins

For about 24 hours the regulations appear to have been removed from the website containing Government legislation. (It also appears that a Delegated Legislation Committee will consider the regulations tomorrow morning. A full vote in both Houses will follow).

All of this has led Anglican Mainstream into some fevered speculation.

Slightly revised regulations have now been placed on the web site.

The only differences I could pick up were that the word "epidemiological" is now spelt correctly in the Memorandum to the regulations and that in regulation 33 "Crown application" it correctly refers to regulation 8 rather than 9 as well as a sentence defining a local authority not being included in the revised regs.

Whether it be that these minor changes alter the meaning, intent and scope of the law I leave to you to decide. Some people were speculating that the reason for the regulations being so delayed was that Ruth Kelly had stayed up all night typing them out and this may well be true....

Menawhile over in the bizarre and unusual place inhabited by the oddly named 'Anglican Mainstream' you can see some of the reaction to the planned procedures for the regulations to gain parliamentary approval.

Their site is worth a visit if you're feeling low in mood and need cheering up.

Their response can be seen here. You will see that the poor maligned "Christian printer" gets another outing as he battles against the onslaught of people asking him to "promote gay sex"....... and so on and so on. These people never really give up and they are a little like a broken record that keeps repeating the same few lines. (Most of their silliness has already been debunked by the House of Lords debate but that isn't stopping them from churning out this nonsense).

Truly there is something of the swivel-eyed about these people who can only be pitied that their lives are so preoccupied by thinking about homosexuality.

Worryingly homosexuality seems to be sending them slightly mad and they're not even doing it (at least I hope for all our sakes they aren't)!

More on the Sexual Orientation Regulations

Here is the full suite of documents relating to these:

The draft regulations

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

The Government's Regulatory Impact Assessment

The Government's Equality Impact Assessment.


In addition, and for ease of reference see also:

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

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

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

What differences are there between the NI and GB regulations?

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

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

What exemptions are there in the regulations for religious organisations?

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

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

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

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

What other exemptions are there?

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

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

Commons backs a fully elected House of Lords

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

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

A wholly appointed house opposed by 375 to 196.

50/50 opposed by 418 to 155.

60% elected opposed by 392 to 178.

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

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


More later.

Ruth Kelly announces the regulations

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

The text of the regulations can be read here.

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

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

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

The House of Lords (again)

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

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

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

Here, though are my arguments for an elected house:

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

Joint Committee on Human Rights Report into Sexual Orientation Regulations

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

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

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

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

The Joint Committee:

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

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

Regulations covering Great Britain are eagerly awaited.

UN Special Rapporteurs call for the withdrawal of the Nigerian Bill

Important news from the UN.

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

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

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

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

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

Some depressing news

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

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

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

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

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

Dar es Salaam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just back from Germany

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~~~

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

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

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

Freedom of Assembly developments

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

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

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

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

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

The need for democracy

My views are becoming clearer on House of Lords Reform.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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