Well, the book has made it to Amazon's hallowed listings, though they don't seem to have any in stock at present
Friday, November 30, 2007
Freedom of speech, teddybears and fascists
It was refreshing to see Caroline Flint's straightforward and honest performance on tonights Question Time. More politicians like her, please.
Freedom of speech is back on the agenda. We had the infamous debate at the Oxford Hooray Henry's Glee Club. I think it had precisely nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with publicity seeking tossers. Neither Irving nor Griffin are prevented from expressing their vile views within the law. But to invite them to do so - no.
As for Sudan. It goes without saying that I sympathise with Ms. Gibbons, and disagree with the Sudanese government. This is largely about political points being made by a government in a strop with the West, and Ms. Gibbons has been caught up in the mess. I do think, though, that it makes sense to be cautious whilst she remains in custody. I am also surprised that she seemed so naive as to what Sudan was actually like - surely someone from the school must have explained? I do think that one needs to be aware of the risks of working in countries with these sort of regimes.
When she is released, all aid should be automatically stopped until they are prepared to change. I would do the same for nearly all foreign aid, unless the country is prepared to sign up to secular democratic values. If they won't, then we will keep our money, and they can go stuff themselves. The third world lobby will whine as per usual, but if there's one issue I lean to the right on, then that's it. Why support a bunch of pre-modern homophobic religionists of either Christian or Muslim variety? The most civilised and progressive countries are both liberal and secular, and religion is kept in its proper place - for private piety, not public governance. The answer, though, is not to march in with troops in the hope that somehow one will be viewed as some sort of saviour - particularly when your own government has so many shortcomings.
Freedom of speech is back on the agenda. We had the infamous debate at the Oxford Hooray Henry's Glee Club. I think it had precisely nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with publicity seeking tossers. Neither Irving nor Griffin are prevented from expressing their vile views within the law. But to invite them to do so - no.
As for Sudan. It goes without saying that I sympathise with Ms. Gibbons, and disagree with the Sudanese government. This is largely about political points being made by a government in a strop with the West, and Ms. Gibbons has been caught up in the mess. I do think, though, that it makes sense to be cautious whilst she remains in custody. I am also surprised that she seemed so naive as to what Sudan was actually like - surely someone from the school must have explained? I do think that one needs to be aware of the risks of working in countries with these sort of regimes.
When she is released, all aid should be automatically stopped until they are prepared to change. I would do the same for nearly all foreign aid, unless the country is prepared to sign up to secular democratic values. If they won't, then we will keep our money, and they can go stuff themselves. The third world lobby will whine as per usual, but if there's one issue I lean to the right on, then that's it. Why support a bunch of pre-modern homophobic religionists of either Christian or Muslim variety? The most civilised and progressive countries are both liberal and secular, and religion is kept in its proper place - for private piety, not public governance. The answer, though, is not to march in with troops in the hope that somehow one will be viewed as some sort of saviour - particularly when your own government has so many shortcomings.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Politics....
So, who else listens to music when doing the shopping? Yes, that slightly crazed, animated person with the mp3player making his way round Formby Waitrose is me (yes, Waitrose, yes, I know I am a champagne socialist...)
Which brings me on to the fact that the last two times I have been shopping, the two albums on my Mp3player were both anti-Tory political pop albums. The Housemartins' biting satires set to pretty little popsongs - can you listen to 'Five get Over-Excited' without thinking of Cameron's arrogant, oleageanous face just waiting for someone to thump it. Sorry, but he makes me want to vomit. Wankers like him are the very reason every public school in the country should be firebombed (No, not literally..there I go, back on the MI5 security risk list).
But on Friday, pride of place went to the Style Council's excellent 'Our Favourite Shop'. A superb expose of everything wrong with Thatcherism and the Conservative party. But, listening to it again, my thoughts were....some of this could equally apply to this lot.
Now, I don't think that the two parties are exactly the same. But there comes a time in every government's life where it simply runs out of steam. In this case, it coincides with Brown's ascension. I think that's something of a coincidence. In many ways we have simply returned to the tiredness of late-Blair. What appears to be the case is that the Government has little direction and is still beholden to the mistakes of the Blair years. Listening to the Style Council album brought back memories of how much I detested the Thatcher regime, and I certainly don't feel the same about the current government. But I do feel a sense of...boredom? Lack of any real enthusiasm or feeling that they know where they are going and why? And positively no enthusiasm for what they have to offer....not that the alternatives offer anything more. Clegg has the same effect on me as Cameron. I just don't like public-school wankers trying to be trendy. Piss off to the Tory party where you belong, Nicky-boy.
So, how about a few radical ideas.
1. tell the old gits whining on about defence that they should, firstly, keep their mouths shut, and secondly, that we quite agree that the current money doesn't cover current commitments. There's a simple answer to that. Pull out of Iraq, with one months notice, and halve the commitment to Afghanistan. There we go. Easy, wasn't it? Plenty of money, to be reduced each year and spent on something worthwhile, not propping up the military-industrial complex
2. stop sucking up to religious bigots of all colours, disestablish the church, and remove religion from public life. Keep it where it belongs. In private life, personal faith to follow, not interfering in the State's workings.
3. abandon PFI and nationalise all current hospital buildings without a penny of compensation to those who wanted to make money out of 'investing' in the NHS
4. get rid of the plastic coppers and spend money on proper police. And get rid of the ridiculous amounts of paperwork. That may require getting the Germans in to show us how to run IT schemes successfully
5. start taking reparative community sentencing seriously. Imprison people who are a danger to others only, and deal with the others in a constructive way, not in universities of crime
There's five for starters....
2.
Which brings me on to the fact that the last two times I have been shopping, the two albums on my Mp3player were both anti-Tory political pop albums. The Housemartins' biting satires set to pretty little popsongs - can you listen to 'Five get Over-Excited' without thinking of Cameron's arrogant, oleageanous face just waiting for someone to thump it. Sorry, but he makes me want to vomit. Wankers like him are the very reason every public school in the country should be firebombed (No, not literally..there I go, back on the MI5 security risk list).
But on Friday, pride of place went to the Style Council's excellent 'Our Favourite Shop'. A superb expose of everything wrong with Thatcherism and the Conservative party. But, listening to it again, my thoughts were....some of this could equally apply to this lot.
Now, I don't think that the two parties are exactly the same. But there comes a time in every government's life where it simply runs out of steam. In this case, it coincides with Brown's ascension. I think that's something of a coincidence. In many ways we have simply returned to the tiredness of late-Blair. What appears to be the case is that the Government has little direction and is still beholden to the mistakes of the Blair years. Listening to the Style Council album brought back memories of how much I detested the Thatcher regime, and I certainly don't feel the same about the current government. But I do feel a sense of...boredom? Lack of any real enthusiasm or feeling that they know where they are going and why? And positively no enthusiasm for what they have to offer....not that the alternatives offer anything more. Clegg has the same effect on me as Cameron. I just don't like public-school wankers trying to be trendy. Piss off to the Tory party where you belong, Nicky-boy.
So, how about a few radical ideas.
1. tell the old gits whining on about defence that they should, firstly, keep their mouths shut, and secondly, that we quite agree that the current money doesn't cover current commitments. There's a simple answer to that. Pull out of Iraq, with one months notice, and halve the commitment to Afghanistan. There we go. Easy, wasn't it? Plenty of money, to be reduced each year and spent on something worthwhile, not propping up the military-industrial complex
2. stop sucking up to religious bigots of all colours, disestablish the church, and remove religion from public life. Keep it where it belongs. In private life, personal faith to follow, not interfering in the State's workings.
3. abandon PFI and nationalise all current hospital buildings without a penny of compensation to those who wanted to make money out of 'investing' in the NHS
4. get rid of the plastic coppers and spend money on proper police. And get rid of the ridiculous amounts of paperwork. That may require getting the Germans in to show us how to run IT schemes successfully
5. start taking reparative community sentencing seriously. Imprison people who are a danger to others only, and deal with the others in a constructive way, not in universities of crime
There's five for starters....
2.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Equalities and Human Rights Commission
Interesting to see the rather overblown reaction to the appointment of Joel Edwards of the Evangelical Alliance to the Equality Commission. I have a feeling that some conservative religionists think that his purpose will be to oppose LGB equality.
Lets make it clear. I don't have a lot of time for Edwards, and even less for his organisation. However, the Commission exists to put into practice the law which exists - it has no role in changing the law. Thus, Edwards will have to work within the confines of all the legal boundaries - which includes all the legislation they were so unenthusiastic about. And I am sure that the other Commissioners will be there to remind him of that fact!
His presence there reflects the fact that faith/religion is a category which is also included within the legislation - he is there to advise on that strand of the legislation and to provide that representation, not as a mouthpiece for the anti-gay lobby. His statement and the corresponding Government statement make that clear enough - but I don't think the spinners of the right-wing religioso have been listening!
Lets make it clear. I don't have a lot of time for Edwards, and even less for his organisation. However, the Commission exists to put into practice the law which exists - it has no role in changing the law. Thus, Edwards will have to work within the confines of all the legal boundaries - which includes all the legislation they were so unenthusiastic about. And I am sure that the other Commissioners will be there to remind him of that fact!
His presence there reflects the fact that faith/religion is a category which is also included within the legislation - he is there to advise on that strand of the legislation and to provide that representation, not as a mouthpiece for the anti-gay lobby. His statement and the corresponding Government statement make that clear enough - but I don't think the spinners of the right-wing religioso have been listening!
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Spin pt. 2
I shall never cease to be amused by the attempts of the religious right-wing to spin things to their liking. The couple who created such a fuss about the gay equality and anti-discrimination clause in the adoption and fostering agreement mentioned below have now climbed down and agreed to sign the document. The document has not been altered or changed. So, its reasonable to assume that they realised that they had no choice but to sign.
However, the 'morality' merchants have taken the false claims of their original spin ( that fosterer's would be expected to 'promote' homosexuality - which of course they will not, and were never expected to - that was purely in their over-fertile and sex-fuelled imaginations!) and claimed that the council, not the couple, have climbed down, even though their policy remains absolutely intact and the document has been agreed to without amendment.
I suppose we should sympathise. After all, we know they are prone to believing delusions by their very existence, but the poor dears have so little to celebrate these days!
However, the 'morality' merchants have taken the false claims of their original spin ( that fosterer's would be expected to 'promote' homosexuality - which of course they will not, and were never expected to - that was purely in their over-fertile and sex-fuelled imaginations!) and claimed that the council, not the couple, have climbed down, even though their policy remains absolutely intact and the document has been agreed to without amendment.
I suppose we should sympathise. After all, we know they are prone to believing delusions by their very existence, but the poor dears have so little to celebrate these days!
Food Festivals and Reality TV!
Forgot to mention this - we went to a Food festival last week, at Tatton Park, and bumped into Martin and Emma, stars of the reality-TV programme 'The Restaurant'. They were very entertaining on the programme and many were rooting for them to win. They were very friendly and Martin is an Evertonian! I'm quite convinced the programme was a fix from the start. A restaurant had already been procured and the location fitted the eventual winners ( and what can one say about them - strange isn't the word...)
As for Everton, I don't often blog about my beloved club, but yesterday was just amazing - 1-0 until 10 minutes before the end, though we missed loads of chances and totally dominated throughout - then an equaliser which dampened everyone's spirits. We have a habit of last minute goals, and the 4 minutes of extra time spurred on some cheering - but no-one expected the TWO goals from Lee Carsley and James Vaughan. Amazing!
As for Everton, I don't often blog about my beloved club, but yesterday was just amazing - 1-0 until 10 minutes before the end, though we missed loads of chances and totally dominated throughout - then an equaliser which dampened everyone's spirits. We have a habit of last minute goals, and the 4 minutes of extra time spurred on some cheering - but no-one expected the TWO goals from Lee Carsley and James Vaughan. Amazing!
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Congratulations!
To the Bishop of Hereford, Anthony Priddis, who has been awarded the prize of 'Bigot of the Year' at this years Stonewall Awards. This was the idiot who managed to lose a keynote discrimination case after discriminating against an openly gay youth worker, but still wouldn't accept responsibility for doing so.
Good to see the Church taking its proper place in society!
Good to see the Church taking its proper place in society!
Friday, November 02, 2007
The London policing incident and the judgment on the Met
The judgment on the de Menezes case has been issued and has decided that the Met broke health and safety laws.
I do wonder, though, just how any normal regulations can be made to operate successfully in this sort of situation. Mistakes were made, and I think that they will be made again. Can the normal precautions be enacted when the level of fear and heightened concern was as it was then? Did the victim run away because he knew that his illegal status might be the reason for the chase? And why do we still not have police radio systems which can work underground? The Tube was the threatened target.
I think Ken Livingstone's comments make a lot of sense.
I do wonder, though, just how any normal regulations can be made to operate successfully in this sort of situation. Mistakes were made, and I think that they will be made again. Can the normal precautions be enacted when the level of fear and heightened concern was as it was then? Did the victim run away because he knew that his illegal status might be the reason for the chase? And why do we still not have police radio systems which can work underground? The Tube was the threatened target.
I think Ken Livingstone's comments make a lot of sense.
"I think this is disastrous ... if an armed police officer believes they are in pursuit of a terrorist who might be a suicide bomber, and they start making calculations based on this - 'how's this going to be seen, am I going to be hauled off to court?'
At the end of the day, mistakes are always going to happen in wars or situations like this. The best you can do is to try to make the potential risk the minimum possible.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Sefton Equality Week conference
Having limited paid work is giving me time to do a bit more in the way of community-based activity at the moment which is fun - today I was a one of the keynote speakers at a conference to mark Equality and Diversity Week in Sefton - giving a presentation on the history of the gay and lesbian movement, and facilitating two workshops on making one's organisation more LGB friendly.
It made me think of just how far we have come in such a short time. I recall a few years ago, few people feeling confident enough to attend such an event, and workshops such as mine struggling for participants. Not the case today!
We still have to continue to work for change. As I said today:
It made me think of just how far we have come in such a short time. I recall a few years ago, few people feeling confident enough to attend such an event, and workshops such as mine struggling for participants. Not the case today!
We still have to continue to work for change. As I said today:
It is not the end of working for change, but the beginning....
The real challenge is to ensure that the legal and policy changes are put into practice, and that we ensure that our commitment to equality is enacted via our own organisation
The advantage we have is that those who still wish to pursue an agenda of prejudice, often justified by religion, are ever more shrill and represented by those who repel and who are clearly not comfortable with their own stance.Another sensible legal decision
I have been generally encouraged that the barrage of cases brought by right-wing evangelical Christians aiming to undermine gay equality legislation have all to date been quashed.
The latest is a Sheffield magistrate who thought that he should be able to ignore the law of the land and pick and choose which cases he heard.
Of course, this is not possible, for any reason. He wished to absent himself from child care hearings involving same sex couples as he does not agree with the law of the land.
I have friends on the bench. They often have to make judgments according to laws they do not agree with. But they do so, and they apply the law as it stands fairly and objectively - because that is what they are required to do.
If that isn't something that a person feels they can do - then don't be a magistrate. but no-one in that important position can be 'let off' cases of any description simply because they don't agree with the law.
The latest is a Sheffield magistrate who thought that he should be able to ignore the law of the land and pick and choose which cases he heard.
Of course, this is not possible, for any reason. He wished to absent himself from child care hearings involving same sex couples as he does not agree with the law of the land.
I have friends on the bench. They often have to make judgments according to laws they do not agree with. But they do so, and they apply the law as it stands fairly and objectively - because that is what they are required to do.
If that isn't something that a person feels they can do - then don't be a magistrate. but no-one in that important position can be 'let off' cases of any description simply because they don't agree with the law.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Abortion and more religious homophobia
The abortion issue appears to be on the agenda again.
I think there is a lot of hypocrisy talked about this issue. Those who believe it to be murder know that their position is not shared by most, so tend to concentrate on cutting the time in which abortions are legal. Surely if 'life is life', this is irrelevant?
I would not reduce the upper age. Very few abortions take place at the latter stages and those which do are done for good reason. I would also make early abortion easier and agree with the proposal to remove the need to have a second medical signature.
If the aim is to reduce abortion rates, then issues such as the effectiveness of sex education , the use of contraception, and broader cultural questions need to be considered. Holland, for example, has a low teen pregnancy rate and a low abortion rate, because teen pregnancy is viewed not as immoral, but a sign of stupidity - the stigma comes from the view that there is no excuse for getting pregnant when contraception is freely available and sex education is comprehensive and frank.
And we now have a new set of self-promoting 'Christian' martyrs. It is clear enough to me that young people who are gay and in the 'looked after' category - in foster care, for example - have an absolute right to positive affirmation and support. It is thus reasonable that prospective foster parents are able to offer this support. If they are unable to do so, then any gay or lesbian young person placed in that environment would be at risk. So, people with those attitudes, and who are unwilling to reconsider their position in the interest of the child they are looking after, should indeed be removed from the fostering register. Bigoted religion has no place in child care.....
I think there is a lot of hypocrisy talked about this issue. Those who believe it to be murder know that their position is not shared by most, so tend to concentrate on cutting the time in which abortions are legal. Surely if 'life is life', this is irrelevant?
I would not reduce the upper age. Very few abortions take place at the latter stages and those which do are done for good reason. I would also make early abortion easier and agree with the proposal to remove the need to have a second medical signature.
If the aim is to reduce abortion rates, then issues such as the effectiveness of sex education , the use of contraception, and broader cultural questions need to be considered. Holland, for example, has a low teen pregnancy rate and a low abortion rate, because teen pregnancy is viewed not as immoral, but a sign of stupidity - the stigma comes from the view that there is no excuse for getting pregnant when contraception is freely available and sex education is comprehensive and frank.
And we now have a new set of self-promoting 'Christian' martyrs. It is clear enough to me that young people who are gay and in the 'looked after' category - in foster care, for example - have an absolute right to positive affirmation and support. It is thus reasonable that prospective foster parents are able to offer this support. If they are unable to do so, then any gay or lesbian young person placed in that environment would be at risk. So, people with those attitudes, and who are unwilling to reconsider their position in the interest of the child they are looking after, should indeed be removed from the fostering register. Bigoted religion has no place in child care.....
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Encouragement
Have a look at http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1572562/20071023/index.jhtml - a refreshingly honest interview.
Its good to see the Yanks catching up - both Stephen Gately and Mark Feehily from boy-bands came out and both have successful careers - in musical theatre and remaining in Westlife respectively.
The real barrier is still professional football, though. Lots of rumours about various players who all without exception, end up married or with live-in girlfriend within 6 months.
Its a shame, but it would take a brave man to come out in such an environment.
Its good to see the Yanks catching up - both Stephen Gately and Mark Feehily from boy-bands came out and both have successful careers - in musical theatre and remaining in Westlife respectively.
The real barrier is still professional football, though. Lots of rumours about various players who all without exception, end up married or with live-in girlfriend within 6 months.
Its a shame, but it would take a brave man to come out in such an environment.
Thinking of you....
Just a quick message to Chloe who regularly reads this blog and occasionally provides comments.
She and many others have been evacuated from their homes near San Diego because of fires. I wish her and all affected a safe return.
She and many others have been evacuated from their homes near San Diego because of fires. I wish her and all affected a safe return.
The mentality of religious conservatives
Its interesting just how angry and frustrated these people are getting.
I suppose they must be feeling rather as we did during the days of Section 28. Only the difference is that change in our direction has been both faster and more complete, and they don't really know how to cope. Pointless attempts to challenge the law, growled remarks about 'defiance', then...nothing - given that the issues have become far less controversial and most simply don't care.
Its interesting , though, to see just how desperate they have become. The group 'Anglican Mainstream', better described as 'Anglican Extreme', has a forum where opinions are becoming ever more shrill and angry. To see what I mean, have a look at the thread 'Cultural Conditioning' which is in their 'Culture' section. I'm not going to dignify it by printing any excerpts, but it sums up how desperate they have become, and why, as their arguments become shriller and more and more angry, they manage to influence so little.
It may be the case that they enjoy the victim status - if they can't get their way, then present themselves as victims of a world which hates them, even though there is precisely no evidence of that. Their churches meet without fear, they have the ability to work with others on community projects, as many do.
What they seem to have forgotten is how they look to others outside their narrow world-view. And that gives me pleasure as it can only assist those of us who want to work for equality. Imagine the response of the average MP, when presented with the contents of that AM thread.
Who would appear to be the irrational and angry extremists now?
On more cheerful note, congratulations to LGCM who have been presented with an award from the Gay Police Association for their work in combating homophobia.
I suppose they must be feeling rather as we did during the days of Section 28. Only the difference is that change in our direction has been both faster and more complete, and they don't really know how to cope. Pointless attempts to challenge the law, growled remarks about 'defiance', then...nothing - given that the issues have become far less controversial and most simply don't care.
Its interesting , though, to see just how desperate they have become. The group 'Anglican Mainstream', better described as 'Anglican Extreme', has a forum where opinions are becoming ever more shrill and angry. To see what I mean, have a look at the thread 'Cultural Conditioning' which is in their 'Culture' section. I'm not going to dignify it by printing any excerpts, but it sums up how desperate they have become, and why, as their arguments become shriller and more and more angry, they manage to influence so little.
It may be the case that they enjoy the victim status - if they can't get their way, then present themselves as victims of a world which hates them, even though there is precisely no evidence of that. Their churches meet without fear, they have the ability to work with others on community projects, as many do.
What they seem to have forgotten is how they look to others outside their narrow world-view. And that gives me pleasure as it can only assist those of us who want to work for equality. Imagine the response of the average MP, when presented with the contents of that AM thread.
Who would appear to be the irrational and angry extremists now?
On more cheerful note, congratulations to LGCM who have been presented with an award from the Gay Police Association for their work in combating homophobia.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Venice, and the Liberal Democrats
Went to Venice last weekend. Its such a beautiful city - though very expensive, and its one of those odd places that would not survive without tourists but one sometimes gets the impression that the Venetians would rather they didn't exist (other than to fleece!)
Food-wise, it really is best to stick entirely to fish and seafood, which is first-class, but anything else is less so....
Spent a whole day at the Biennale - which reminds me that the Turner prize contestants are nowe being exhibited in Liverpool and that needs to be fitted into the schedule.
As for the LibDems. I was once a member, during a time when I felt that the Labour party simply couldn't get to grips with the progressive social agenda. They are a curious party, largely because there really isn't anything very much holding them together, and their local campaigning, though very effective, operates on a 'take the politics out of politics' level. Not entirely without justification given the way local government actually works
But their claim to be the nice party has gone forever. I thought Ming Campbell was quite ineffective as party leader but to dump two leaders in as many years cannot be an accident.
And the possible replacements? Two identikit posh boys, one a bit more Tory than the other, offewring very little that isn't already on offer.
If Clegg wins, I can imagine the Tories will be worried since he is another Blair-Cameron type and certainly to the right in LibDem terms. Can't see Labour voters being attracted to him, though.
Food-wise, it really is best to stick entirely to fish and seafood, which is first-class, but anything else is less so....
Spent a whole day at the Biennale - which reminds me that the Turner prize contestants are nowe being exhibited in Liverpool and that needs to be fitted into the schedule.
As for the LibDems. I was once a member, during a time when I felt that the Labour party simply couldn't get to grips with the progressive social agenda. They are a curious party, largely because there really isn't anything very much holding them together, and their local campaigning, though very effective, operates on a 'take the politics out of politics' level. Not entirely without justification given the way local government actually works
But their claim to be the nice party has gone forever. I thought Ming Campbell was quite ineffective as party leader but to dump two leaders in as many years cannot be an accident.
And the possible replacements? Two identikit posh boys, one a bit more Tory than the other, offewring very little that isn't already on offer.
If Clegg wins, I can imagine the Tories will be worried since he is another Blair-Cameron type and certainly to the right in LibDem terms. Can't see Labour voters being attracted to him, though.
An example of conservative obtuseness
The Government have announced that they intend to introduce legislation which will offer protection to people on the grounds of sexual orientation with regard to the incitement of hatred. This is good.
But now we have the fringe religious certifiables of the 'Lawyers Christian Fellowship' sounding off because, poor dears, the Government haven't invited them to put their case before the relevant committee whereas that nasty horrid Stonewall group have pride of place straight away. Or not 'straight' away as the case may be....
What these poor deluded people fail to realise is that the Government wishes to gain insight and guidance from a group who share their aims and who wish to offer constructive suggestion as to the way the legislation might be framed. The LCF don't want any legislation at all, because they are afraid that if they rant on about how their BigDaddyHomophobeInTheSky hates poofs, then they might even be thrown into jail.
Of course, that isn't going to happen, as attractive as the idea of homophobic conservative evangelical lawyers (couldn't get much worse, all told) being banged up in the nick might appear. But why should it be a governments priority to invite a group who don't want the legislation to appear before the relevant committee in the first instance?
This is all too typical of the sense of personal loss of status which these people feel. At one time they ruled the roost, now, even the Conservative party finds them an embarrassment.
But now we have the fringe religious certifiables of the 'Lawyers Christian Fellowship' sounding off because, poor dears, the Government haven't invited them to put their case before the relevant committee whereas that nasty horrid Stonewall group have pride of place straight away. Or not 'straight' away as the case may be....
What these poor deluded people fail to realise is that the Government wishes to gain insight and guidance from a group who share their aims and who wish to offer constructive suggestion as to the way the legislation might be framed. The LCF don't want any legislation at all, because they are afraid that if they rant on about how their BigDaddyHomophobeInTheSky hates poofs, then they might even be thrown into jail.
Of course, that isn't going to happen, as attractive as the idea of homophobic conservative evangelical lawyers (couldn't get much worse, all told) being banged up in the nick might appear. But why should it be a governments priority to invite a group who don't want the legislation to appear before the relevant committee in the first instance?
This is all too typical of the sense of personal loss of status which these people feel. At one time they ruled the roost, now, even the Conservative party finds them an embarrassment.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Unseemly behaviour
People with responsible jobs, such as priests in the Church of England, should have no part in scouring through blogs they disagree with, in order to find comments to discredit others.
I hope we would all agree that such people are certainly not fit to hold such a post.
And that such activity says ia lot about their claim to 'morality'
I hope we would all agree that such people are certainly not fit to hold such a post.
And that such activity says ia lot about their claim to 'morality'
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Inciting hatred on the grounds of sexuality
The Government have announced that they are to introduce legislation to protect people on the grounds of incitement to hatred because of their sexual orientation
To quote Stonewall:
Ben Summerskill, Stonewall Chief Executive, said: ‘We’re delighted. We’ve worked tirelessly over the last six months seeking to persuade Ministers to match existing race incitement laws with identical protections for sexual orientation. A new offence will help deter extremists who stir up hatred against lesbian and gay people.These protections aren’t about preventing people expressing their religious views in a temperate way. However, we refuse to accept any longer that there’s no connection between extreme rap lyrics calling for gay people to be attacked, or fundamentalist claims that all gay people are paedophiles, with the epidemic of anti-gay violence disfiguring Britain’s streets. We anticipate, as always, a tough battle with our traditional opponents in the House of Lords but remain determined to secure complete equality in the criminal law.’
Naturally, the extreme evangelicals are kicking up the usual fuss when anything to do with gay equality is mentioned.
Let's hope they lose this as they have lost their other campaigns.
To quote Stonewall:
Ben Summerskill, Stonewall Chief Executive, said: ‘We’re delighted. We’ve worked tirelessly over the last six months seeking to persuade Ministers to match existing race incitement laws with identical protections for sexual orientation. A new offence will help deter extremists who stir up hatred against lesbian and gay people.These protections aren’t about preventing people expressing their religious views in a temperate way. However, we refuse to accept any longer that there’s no connection between extreme rap lyrics calling for gay people to be attacked, or fundamentalist claims that all gay people are paedophiles, with the epidemic of anti-gay violence disfiguring Britain’s streets. We anticipate, as always, a tough battle with our traditional opponents in the House of Lords but remain determined to secure complete equality in the criminal law.’
Naturally, the extreme evangelicals are kicking up the usual fuss when anything to do with gay equality is mentioned.
Let's hope they lose this as they have lost their other campaigns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
