|
|
|
|
In the Uk, we often hear that "gays have now got Civil Partnerships - you're equal for all practical purposes. What more do you want!"
This - from a newspaper not noted for its liberal views - explains the sabotage of the final remaining equalities provisions {Sexual Orientation (Provision of Goods and Services) Regulations} that is currently taking place.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23370893-details/Cabinet%20row%20over%20gay%20equality%20laws/article.do
Sometimes I truly despair !
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Do not despair without leaving a comment
[Updated on: Tue, 17 October 2006 11:48]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good point, timmy - now that I've calmed down enough to make a reasonable comment, I've done that.
One of the (possibly rather few) things that I've learned with advancing age is that in some areas - like equalities - I have a tendency to fly off the handle, and that I can often make a stronger case if I cool down.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
They do seem to publish calmly worded comments. The only thing that can hurt these people is adverse PR, though Opus Dei is immune, of course.
Do also write to your MP over this.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... first off, you're being manipulated by a politically-skewed report. I confess that I feel that an Opus Dei member should not be responsible for legislation which is contrary to the 'Christian' view but, even so, the delay is an absolutely appropriate response in the light of the number of objections received - how else should good government work?
There's no suggestion that the government opposes the Statutory Instrument - and it quite obviously has strong support within the cabinet. But, being realistic, is it right that the law should oblige a homophobic priest to bless a gay union? What moral advantage would we gain from that? At the same time, it is right that a gay-friendly priest should be allowed to do so, and to do so in the parish church of the parish in which one of the partners resides - just like any other couple. The draft legislation didn't take account of that. What we need is GOOD law, not fast law.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I completely agree with the need to draft legislation carefully - that good law is an essential. But it doesn't seem to me that this is what is going on here.
As I understand it, the Government originally suggested that full equality for gay people would be in the Equalities Bill. When the original version of this Bill was first published in the last parliament (March 2005), it did NOT include anything about discrimination in the provision of goods and services on grounds of sexual orientation. When the Bill was due to be re-introduced to the current parliament (October 2005), an early-day motion from Brighton MP Des Turner (which received widespread cross-party support) and (as I understand it) a lot of backstage lobbying from organisations like Stonewall was instrumental in forcing the inclusion of "sexual orientation" measures.
The voting record of Ruth Kelly does not not inspire confidence in her committment to homosexual equality:
On 22nd June 1998, Ruth Kelly, 38, was absent from the Crime and Disorder Bill to reduce the age of consent, as she was on the 1st March 1999 and the 10th February when the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill sought to achieve the same goal (the first having been rejected by the Lords).
On the 24th October 2001, she was absent from the voting on the Relationships (Civil Registration) motion that was the catalyst for introducing the Civil Partnerships bill in Parliament.
On the 29th October 2001, she was absent from the third reading of the Adoption and Children Bill (Programme), to allow gay couples to adopt, as she was on further votes on the same subject on 16th May 2002, 20th May 2002 and the 4th November 2002. On the 10th March 2003, she was absent from the vote to repeal section 28 which banned local authorities from promoting homosexuality as a valid lifestyle.
On the 12th October 2004, she was absent from the vote on the Civil Partnerships Bill, as she was on the 9th November 2004.
Simply, I don't believe that the delay is *purely* due to the large number of comments received. I do think that insufficent care was paid to the framing of the draft Regulations ... which at the least emphasises the lack of importance that Ruth Kelly attaches to them, and at most could be held as suggesting that she would not be unhappy with regulations that she can dismiss as unenforceable.
I believe that Ruth Kelly has a conflict of interests between her job and her faith, and should therefore excuse herself from responsibility in this area - if she does not do so, she should be sacked.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ruth Kelly is the Communities and local Government Minister. Her portfolio is, among other things to promote equality, and protect and support minority groups. How can she do this if she has a marked prejudice to one of those groups, and is disinclined to admit that such a group deserves equal rights? A lot of eyebrows were raised to the appointment of an Opus Dei member to this position for exactly these reasons, but Kelly and Blair both assured us that she was quite capable of doing the job.
apprently not.
additional, a lot of concerns that have been raised could be easily addressed.
Christian leaders are concerned they may be forced to bless civil partnerships that they do not agree with. That one can easily be solved. i don't think many people expect them too. I don't think people would mind if priests were allowed not to bless a union that their religion disagreed with (oh how i long for the day when someone takes a church to court of human rights on discrimination grounds!)
other issues, like christian guesthouses and gay couples... have they not considered the number of gay christians there are out there? being christian is no bar to being gay and vice versa. Why should a private organisation or person be allowed to discriminate the people they serve? a gay friendly hotel such as those in the canal street area of manchester isn't going to say no to straight couples staying there, and indeed are quite popular with hen nights.
ultimately, if a guest house prevented me staying there on the basis of sexuality, i'd still have cause of action under the human rights act 1998. if there is legislation to the contrary, that legislation would (b virtue of the human rights act) have to be interpreted in line with the European Convention on Human Rights, and the convention articles quite explicitly ban discrimination on any form. There's probably EU directives on the issue as well.
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... but I still think that you are being manipulated by an article specifically designed no manipulate.
I don't like Ruth Kelly. To be honest, I dislike her intensely - but, as a conciliatory agnostic, I'd feel the same about any member of Opus Dei. I would certainly prefer that her portfolio be transferred to someone with a less obvious religious alignment.
At the same time, I can't accept that deferrment of sanction of the Statutory Instrument is not justified in view of the number of objections received. It is entirely right to allow time for consideration of those objections, however much we may disagree with them. And, as a member of Opus Dei, Ruth Kelly clearly has a 'faith agenda', but despite my dislike I have to acept that her abstentions are morally honourable.
Let's wait for something positive before we brandish our weapons! (And I mean that figuratively - honest, I do!)
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
> ... but I still think that you are being manipulated by an article specifically designed no manipulate.
>
Well, I'm sure that the original leak from cabinet was politically inspired - they always are! Actually, I picked the article I linked to after some thought - the Evening Standard is usually seen as being roughly on the same place in the political spectrum as the Daily Mail - ie right-wing, but not quite barkingly so. The other coverage of the story I've seen (ranging from the Observer, Guardian comment blogs, pinknews uk, etc) is from the usual lefty suspects. I'll be interested to see if the Economist - the only rightwing source I read regularly - mentions it.
>
> At the same time, I can't accept that deferrment of sanction of the Statutory Instrument is not justified in view of the number of objections received. It is entirely right to allow time for consideration of those objections, however much we may disagree with them. And, as a member of Opus Dei, Ruth Kelly clearly has a 'faith agenda', but despite my dislike I have to acept that her abstentions are morally honourable.
>
OK, you think that RK's absentions were honorable, and that need to delay the statutory instrument is due to a failure to appreciate the number of comments it would receive.
I don't think her absences and abstentions were dishonorable, but that they just meet minimum moral standards (ie avoiding voting in favour of something one believes is wrong). I think that her absences from such votes were a politicians weasel avoidance of having to make an irrevocable choice that might later be politically inconvenient, and that the decision to delay the Statutory Instrument was taken for similar reasons. (I simply don't believe that, in the light of the history of adding "sexual orientation" to the Equality Bill, anyone could possibly have expected *not* to have a large number of comments at this stage!).
I understand that the revised timescale now calls for a parliamentary vote in April 2007 - no doubt we'll re-visit the subject then!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... is the fact that you are, in effect, discriminating against Ruth Kelly on grounds of religion.
Yes, she belongs to Opus Dei, a group that is suspicious simply because it is secretive - but her membership is not a secret. I do not see anything culpable in her abstentions; it happens all the time at all levels of politics. There are many situations in which an MP or a councillor may feel unable to actively support a motion because it conflicts with his personal view on moral or other grounds - but at the same time he does not vote against the motion because he considers it wrong to attempt to thwart the wishes of the majority. I do see that as an honourable course.
It's entirely reasonable to declare an interest and to stand down where the interest is direct and material; a judge should not preside over the trial of a personal friend, and a councillor should not vote on a matter such as the grant of planning permission for land which he owns. But when it comes to discriminatory areas such as sex, race, religion, disability and orientation I think that it is wrong in principle to argue that someone outside a given group should not oversee legislation affecting that group, unless there is clear evidence (and not mere innuendo) to suggest that bias has affected that oversight.
That said, I dislike Ruth Kelly; I find her arrogant, smug and out of touch with what is happening on our mean streets (though of course that criticism fits many politicians from all three parties!). But, as yet, I have seen no evidence of malpractice on her part and, until I do, I feel that she ought to be given the benefit of any doubt.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie, your comments on this seem to lack your usual focus, and I think either you've misinterpreted what I've said, or you are assuming some background stuff that isn't the case.
cossie wrote:
> ... is the fact that you are, in effect, discriminating against Ruth Kelly on grounds of religion.
>
> Yes, she belongs to Opus Dei, a group that is suspicious simply because it is secretive - but her membership is not a secret.
I don't seen Opus Dei as any more secretive than many other organisations (Freemasons, Oxford Colleges, etc). I have very limited knowledge of Opus Dei, based on discussions with friends in the Catholic Chaplaincy back when I was a student, at the time when the imminent granting of "personal prelature structure" to Opus Dei was a hot topic (around 1980-1) I haven't read, and am not interested in, any of the conspiracy-theory books that feature Opus Dei - nor those featuring Freemasons, come to that!
> I do not see anything culpable in her abstentions; it happens all the time at all levels of politics. There are many situations in which an MP or a councillor may feel unable to actively support a motion because it conflicts with his personal view on moral or other grounds - but at the same time he does not vote against the motion because he considers it wrong to attempt to thwart the wishes of the majority. I do see that as an honourable course.
I simply see it as "not dishonourable". But the tension between personal views and party views was why I felt unable to go on in representative (as opposed to issue) politics after my sabbatical year as an elected student representative officer.
> It's entirely reasonable to declare an interest and to stand down where the interest is direct and material; a judge should not preside over the trial of a personal friend, and a councillor should not vote on a matter such as the grant of planning permission for land which he owns. But when it comes to discriminatory areas such as sex, race, religion, disability and orientation I think that it is wrong in principle to argue that someone outside a given group should not oversee legislation affecting that group, unless there is clear evidence (and not mere innuendo) to suggest that bias has affected that oversight.
I have not, and would never, argue that someone outside a given group should not oversee legislation affecting that group, or indeed furthering the interests of that group. Absolutely to the contrary: I think there is great merit in an alliance approach where members of groups that feel unfavourably treated do their best to work alongside each other in the interests of greater equality.
But I don't accept your assertion "unless there is clear evidence (and not mere innuendo) to suggest that bias has affected that oversight" This is retrospective, and I'm unhappy with it in this area - because I feel that having the confidence of the group one is representing (and of the public) is essential. I would not put someone who advocated a lowering of the age of consent to six years old in charge of child welfare, fostering & adoption, etc. I would not put a member of the Finsbury Park Mosque, nor Al-Qaida, in charge of London's Civil Defence strategy.
I would make an exception to this general principle in some circumstances where there was a clear, public, and unambigous statement that the person would not allow personal beliefs to over-ride the public duty they had accepted - in the way that President Kennedy clarified his loyalties.
Ruth Kelly has NOT, as far as I know (and I've been looking out for it for some time), made any such statement. Given the Opus Dei emphasis on putting beliefs into practice at work (" conversions, a greater participation in the Eucharist, more assiduous reception of the other sacraments, the spreading of the Gospel message to many who are distant from the faith .. ... apostolate of the people of Opus Dei is carried out within the framework of Opus Dei’s specific charism, namely the sanctification of work and of the circumstances and events of ordinary life " - from the US Opus Dei website), I believe that in the absence of any such statement she is unfit for the job.
Furthermore, I take the current delay as evidence that either she is delaying things because her personal views lead her to seek to increase the areas of exemption beyond the "religious duties" already accepted by the government and most gay lobbying organisations, or is so lacking in competence and willingness as to have failed to foresee the level of debate that this issue would provoke, and take steps in good time to remedy and explain the situation to interested parties. In either case, she is unfit for the job.
>
Now, back to your first point, "... is the fact that you are, in effect, discriminating against Ruth Kelly on grounds of religion.
Well, I'd argue that I was discriminating on the grounds that she refused to make it clear that she would not allow her religious duties to over-ride her secular ones, in discharging the secular duties to which she had been appointed. I would also not appoint a Christian Scientist (who would not believe in physical medicine) to oversight of the National Health Service without a similar assurance!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... rather than issue politics. I know that some argue otherwise, but the MP who acts contrary to the majority wish of his constituents is unlikely to be re-elected.
I dislike Ruth Kelly, and I dislike Opus Dei. I don't dislike Freemasons, because their secrecy is illusory - you can find out all you want to know from publications in the public domain. But I can't, at this stage, condemn Ruth Kelly, because I have no evidence to suggest that she has acted improperly. OK, this means that condemnation is necessarily retrospective, but that seems to me to be acceptable.
Personalising the issue, if I were in a position of political power I would not automatically promote gay interests; I would try to be as objective and impartial as possible. Before I take up arms against Ruth Kelly - much as I dislike her - I would need evidence that she had failed to act with impartiality and objectivity. As things stand, I don't have that evidence.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a politician wants to promote equal rights in general, wouldn't he or she then (very soon) come to a point where that would also imply explicitly promoting gay rights? Young people, in particular, now seem to regard the gay issue as simply a matter of human rights.
As I understand it Ruth Kelly is not an MP but a cabinet secretary or minister. In that case she would, in my country, not be elected but appointed to her job, and would be accountable to the prime minister and, consequently, to the parliament, and not necessarily to a constituency. As we've recently seen in Sweden, a public lack of confidence can easily throw a cabinet minister out of his or her office.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
The Cabinet Secretary is a permanent civil servant, but all Ministers are members of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. Ruth Kelly is the Member of Parliament for Bolton West.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
The odd thing here is that only 3 readership views were published. I know more people sent views in.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The older the article gets, the less the editors care about it, I expect.
Or perhaps someone judged that three comments was "enough", regardless of how good any further ones might have been.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I expect you are right. But there were several comments made that I know of other than those from those three.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, my comment went in at lunchtime on 17th ... so pretty early on. But has never appeared on the site. And my comments were fairly restrained and polite!
I think it's probably the usual thing with pre-moderated discussions - not only do they seem to get assigned to people who have far more important 'real' jobs (cynically, I suspect usually the office junior, and the real job is tea-making), but it takes the moderator ages to approve any post, and then they are either posted in batches or ignored. All of which stops any debate building up a head of steam.
I haven't written to my MP about the Equalities proposals - he has failed to answer or acknowledge my last three letters (and, at three letters in two years I've hardly pestered him enough for him to have got pissed off with me!). He is, I'm afraid, just one of several low-level ministers who seem to be too busy to reliably reply to constituents ... a numnber of my friends in other constituencies are finding similar problems. This is one of the reasons that I have doubts about the theory that "our politics is based on representative rather than issue politics".
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
