The amendment to the Equality Bill, which was tabled as a free vote by gay Muslim peer Waheed Alli, received overwhelming backing in the Lords, including from a number of prominent Anglican bishops.
Under current UK law religious venues are forbidden from holding civil partnerships, although some liberal denominations within Christianity and Judaism have been willing to bless gay unions once a partnership ceremony has taken place elsewhere.
The lifting of the ban, which still needs to be approved by the House of Commons, will now give religious venues the option of conducting civil partnerships – but it will not compel them to do so, as some traditionalists had feared.
Lord Alli denied the suggestion that religious communities would be forced to accept gay marriages.
“Religious freedom cannot begin and end with what one religion wants,” he said. “This amendment does not place an obligation on any religious organisation to host civil partnerships in their buildings. But there are many gay and lesbian couples who want to share their civil partnership with the congregations that they worship with. And there are a number of religious organisations that want to allow gay and lesbian couples to do exactly that.”
No doubt the religious fundamentalist set will denounce this as an anti-religious move, but as Alli points out this, if approved by the Commons (and how appalling would it be if the Commons struck this down?), would allow civil partnerships on religious premises, not demand them. It’s amazing how often the devoutly religious wilfully mix the the two up, but the distinction is pretty important because it’s about religious freedom for all. As Stonewall Chief Executive Ben Summerskill says:
‘We’ve argued throughout that this is an important matter of religious freedom. Ministers have known for some months that we intended to table this measure and we regret that the Government didn’t stand up to the bullying it faced from some churches on this issue. We’ll now work closely with ministers to ensure that we secure implementation of this further step towards equality. This vote is hugely important to those gay people of faith (and, as Lady Neuberger pointed out, to their Jewish mothers too!) who wish to celebrate their civil partnerships in their own place of worship.’
It should have been unthinkable to have had a ban in the first place. Why any religion should have the freedom to discriminate based purely on the grounds of the bigoted beliefs of some, is beyond me. But this government has kowtowed incessantly towards the religious lobby, and in the run-up to the general election will no doubt continue to do so. Remember civil partnerships are still only for gay people, and marriage is only for straight people. In a European Union where even Catholic Spain has marriage equality I fail to comprehend why Britain’s inequality is allowed to continue.
I have no issue with allowing Jan Moir to have said the disgusting, hateful, homophobic things which she did about Stephen Gately after his death. Nor do I have an issue with the Daily HateMail having the right to publish them. Freedom of speech after all means you must champion speech you dislike, as well as speech you like, but it does have other provisos too, which I believe the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) wilfully ignored. Its argument was as follows:
In a ruling, the commission said it was “uncomfortable with the tenor of the columnist’s remarks” but that censuring Moir, and the paper, would represent “a slide towards censorship”. It added: “Argument and debate are working parts of an active society and should not be constrained unnecessarily.”
The PCC’s director, Stephen Abell said the article contained flaws, but the commission had decided: “It would not be proportionate to rule against the columnist’s right to offer freely expressed views about something that was the focus of public attention.”
It’s a ridiculous argument. The PCC was set up because there is no such thing as absolutely free speech, yet now they conveniently champion absolute free speech, when their code was flagrantly breached? They have it entirely the wrong way around – censoring her would be the problem, not censuring her. For speech which is constrained there have to be consequences, which the PCC was set up to enforce. Yet PCC director Abell persists with a thoroughly absurd argument – the article doesn’t just contain flaws, but untruths, and in the name of denigrating Gately for his sexual orientation. I don’t think for a moment that an article can only be homophobic if it uses outright homophobic language; the subtext of her hate-filled rant couldn’t have been more homophobic. The PCC disagrees there too:
Gately’s civil partner, Andrew Cowles, said he was disgusted by the article and claimed the Daily Mail had broken the PCC’s code of conduct on three grounds, arguing that it was inaccurate, intruded into private grief and contained homophobic remarks.
The code says that the press must avoid making pejorative references to a person’s sexual orientation, but the commission said that Moir did not use any abusive or discriminatory language.
“While many complainants considered that there was an underlying tone of negativity towards Mr Gately and the complainant on account of the fact that they were gay, it was not possible to identify any direct uses of pejorative or prejudicial language in the article,” it said.
The PCC added that a distinction should be drawn “between critical innuendo which, though perhaps distasteful, was permissible in a free society – and discriminatory description of individuals, and the code was designed to constrain the latter rather than the former”.
So a homophobic subtext is now ‘critical innuendo’? Whilst it’s entirely possible that 25,000 could be wrong, that is the biggest disgrace of all. Whilst making Moir and the HateMail pay a price wouldn’t be unnecessary constrain argument or debate – her column contained neither, just underhanded homophobic slurs, and the PCC has impressively absolved itself of its own remit. If the quick way around it is merely not to use proscribed words in combination (ie. ‘fag’, ‘poof’, ‘homo’, ‘queer’) then the Commission and its code might as well not even exist.
When Christians, Jews and others feel that the ideology of human rights is threatening their freedoms of association and religious practice, a tension is set in motion that is not healthy for society, freedom or Britain. Rather than regard the Pope’s remarks as an inappropriate intervention, we should use them to launch an honest debate on where to draw the line between our freedom as individuals and our freedom as members of communities of faith. One should not be purchased at the cost of the other.
It’s the same logic which Lillian Ladele and others have tried to justify, but he masks it in the language of human rights. But look how he misuses it:
We all have an interest in freedom, the freedom to act differently from others. Indeed, at the core of human rights is a religious proposition: that we are all, regardless of colour, creed or culture, in the image of God.
No. At the core of human rights is a proposition that we’re all equally deserving of fundamental dignity and rights. It’s a secular argument, which presumes that we’re all entitled to the same treatment before civil law, which in turn should protect those things equally for everyone, and under all circumstances. So when he suggests that human rights threaten freedom of religion he’s operating under an entirely false premise. Human rights don’t threaten the right to religious association, but they do presume that no organisation or association has the right to discriminate against people for being gay. And religion is far from fundamentally predicated on the right to discriminate, which Ratzinger clearly believes to be the case. The government ultimately remains short sighted in having allowed this clash to happen, and to continue. Having equality legislation which equates inherent characteristics such as age or gender with the imagined quality of belief makes a mockery of equality. Human rights are not about justifying discrimination or legitimising bigotry.
The Lib Dem leader puts David Cameron on the back foot on gay rights as it looks increasingly as though cultural divisions will define this year’s general election. Nick Clegg acknowledged how far Labour equalised the legal playing field, with the equalisation of the age of consent, the removal of Section 28, the removal of the armed forces ban an the introduction of civil partnerships, but in interview with Johann Hari offered to go much further, to:
Force all schools – including faith schools – to implement anti-homophobia bullying policies and teach that homosexuality is “normal and harmless”.
Change the law to allow gay men and women the same marital rights as straight couples, including the symbolic right to use the word “marriage” rather than civil partnerships.
Reverse the ban on gay men being allowed to give blood.
Guarantee any refugees genuinely fleeing a country because of persecution over their sexual orientation asylum in the UK.
Review Uganda’s membership of the Commonwealth if its government was to bring in the death penalty for practicing gays.
It’s an impressive support of full equality, the likes of which David Cameron and even Gordon Brown would be hard pressed to match. Most interesting I find is his offer to force all schools, particularly faith schools to operate positively against homophobia. It’ll infuriate widely in the religious community, yet Clegg is entirely right when he points out the real battleground in changing attitudes is in schools. It’s where Brown hasn’t risked treading, it’s where Cameron won’t consider treading, and it’s extremely admirable that Clegg should risk losing considerable number of religious votes on this issue. Acting on principle rather than for electoral advantage will put serious weight behind his pledge to want to move past the first-past-the-post strategy of having to court swing voters in marginal seats. The Church of England has already responded:
speaking to The Independent last night, one senior Anglican bishop (who asked not to be named) said: “I think this will go down badly even among the not overtly evangelical. Instituting something that must be taught, come what may, is frighteningly fascist.”
The Rev Janina Ainsworth, chief education officer for the Church of England, said she saw no reason why the current laws governing sex education in schools should change. “The Church’s traditional teaching is that sex should be set within the framework of a faithful marriage, and sex education in church schools will be delivered within that context,” she said. “At the appropriate stage within the sex education curriculum, all students, in all schools, should have the opportunity to examine the full range of views on different aspects of sex and sexuality, and to develop their own considered position. Further upheaval of the guidance for sex education would not be welcomed by many schools, church or otherwise.”
It’s interesting to think that preventing organised religion from permitting homophobia to be condoned in any aspect of children’s education should be somehow ‘fascist’, but arguments such as this may be the shape of things to come. If Clegg persists in his line of constitutional reform and putting his money where his mouth is on matters of equality, we’ll have some genuinely non-technocratic dividing lines opening up in this general election. His interviewer Johann Hari explains why it’s necessary:
41 per cent of gay children get beaten up in school, and they are six times more likely to commit suicide than their straight siblings. He says every school must teach that homosexuality is “normal and harmless and something that happens”. There can be no religious excuses. He wants to see this tightly policed: “We need to put serious pressure on them. It needs to be a requirement.”
And then goes further, identifying institutional homophobia as equally unacceptable as institutional racism:
In the same way, he says the Government needs to drive homophobia out of the police, where a 2005 Home Office study found it to be “endemic”. He compared several recent cases – where gay people were murdered and the investigations appeared to go badly wrong – to the Stephen Lawrence tragedy, and said there needs to be a change of culture “on patrol, on the beat, in the changing room, in the officers’ mess, in the staffroom”.
This is genuinely brave, because Clegg is taking the fight to the last remaining bastions of bigotry. He will get a nasty kick from religious fundamentalists who say that gay couples should never be allowed to marry, and who claim they have a “right” to teach homophobia to children in a way that produces such disproportionate rates of violent bullying and suicide. The right-wing press will savage it as an attack on “freedom” – when, in fact, it is a defence of the freedom of gay people to live their lives free of irrational hate.
It’s a clear dare to David Cameron, and in my mind to gay Tories. If Cameron refuses to accept that everything possible must be done to stop bullying of gay children in schools, and that homophobia should be treated in the same way as racism, will it be morally acceptable for gay people to vote Tory, or even Labour for that matter? Labour has equalised the legal playing field in most respects for gay equality but has barely touched the thornier issue of changing attitudes; the Lib Dems are first out of the gate in offering the next step. Will the ‘big two’ respond cynically and turn the whole election into one surrounding identity politics? I hope not – we’ll have to wait and see. It’s true that gay voters can’t only look at policies relating to their sexual orientation any more than voters who are religious should respond only to parties which offer policies relating to that aspect of their identities. Many gay voters will have never experienced the kind of overt homophobia which used to be omnipresent in society, and will understandably (but sadly) not see the need to vote for Clegg. I would argue however that Labour’s implicit claim to have brought about gay equality has been illusory – on paper it’s highly impressive but the deaths of Ian Baynham, Michael Causer and many others prove how murderous homophobia remains only a footstep away from all of us.
Posters have also been placed around Belfast encouraging people to download the song [Mrs Robinson by Simon & Garfunkel] and it is currently at number 45 in Amazon’s download charts. The Official UK Charts Company told AFP yesterday that download sales of the song in Northern Ireland last week were up 1,200 per cent on the week before.
The song was made famous in the 1960s film The Graduate, in which a much older woman seduces a young man. Robinson, 59 at the time of the affair, reportedly took 19-year-old Kirk McCambley into her marital bed while her husband Peter, Northern Ireland’s first minister, was away.
It contains the lines: “It’s a little secret, just the Robinsons’ affair. Most of all, you’ve got to hide it from the kids” and “God bless you please, Mrs Robinson. Heaven holds a place for those who pray”.
Robinson, an evangelical Christian, said God had forgiven her for the affair. She said in 2008 that gays were an “abomination”.
Brilliant. Now if there’s going to be a rigging of the charts, this makes far more sense than a crazy, staged battle by the record label between Rage Against the Machine and X-Factor winner Joe McElderry. Do it! Buy your copy now! Celebrate Iris’ love of hot twinks!
In an attempt to limit the damage caused by the Iris Robinson scandal,the Democratic Unionist Party moved today to expel her from the party.
Robinson will also leave her Westminster and assembly seats early this week as the DUP punishes her for the furore over her toyboy lover and the £50,000 loan she secured for him.
Her husband, Peter Robinson, Northern Ireland’s first minister, also came under further pressure tonight in his fight to maintain his position and remain leader of the DUP.
The East Belfast MP has one week to turn his fortunes around as he faces allegations that he failed to report the loan given to his wife, which is a breach of the ministerial code.
The Free Presbyterian church founded by his predecessor, the Rev Ian Paisley, and which is inextricably linked to the DUP, dealt a blow to Peter Robinson today when a senior minister and close confidant of Paisley, the Rev David McIlveen, called on the first minister to step down. “I do believe that his position is becoming increasingly untenable,” McIlveen said. “He has a major problem with regard to solving his own family difficulties and I personally cannot take the view that a person’s private life does not affect their public life.”
Allegedly raising £50,000 for your teenage lover whom you’re committing adultery (and betraying your friend) with, and allegedly choosing to retain £5,000 as a kick-back were never really signs of mental illness were they? They were signs of greed, arrogance and double standards. So next time a Christian fundamentalist politician starts pontificating on the evils of homosexuality you know they’re either a) gay or b) up to no good somewhere. It’s certainly clear who the most moral turned out to be after all. The real danger of course is that her disgusting, hypocritical behaviour actually has an impact on the Northern Irish peace process.
Portugal’s parliament has passed a law to legalise same-sex marriage, but rejected proposals to allow homosexual couples to adopt.
The bill was approved with the support of the governing Socialist Party and other parties further to the left.
Prime Minister Jose Socrates opened the debate with an appeal to back the law, saying it would put right an injustice that had caused unnecessary pain.
The law has been fiercely opposed by conservatives in the Catholic country.
So if Catholic Spain and Portugal both have full gay marriage, why not Britain?
As Mrs Robinson’s lover was named as Kirk McCambley, a 21-year-old cafe owner, it emerged she was facing allegations over a business venture she supported on his behalf.
The 60-year-old mother-of-three, an MP since 2001, admitted on Wednesday that she had a brief relationship 18 months ago with someone she had been supporting after a family death, and that her guilt led her to try to kill herself last March.
He was named by the BBC as Mr McCambley, a Catholic man, who was 19 at the time of the affair.
He confirmed to the Spotlight Programme that he had an affair with the married woman.
It is understood that the lover set up his business in a building constructed by Castlereagh Borough Council, supported by the EU Building Sustainable Prosperity Programme and administered by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.
It has emerged that 24 hours before the surprise announcement, a BBC documentary team had confronted her husband, Peter Robinson, at Stormont with questions about the couple’s financial affairs.
Asked if he was confident that neither he nor his wife had done anything illegal, Mr Robinson said: “I am absolutely certain that everything I have done has been done as it should.”
According to a BBC Spotlight programme broadcast last night, Mrs Robinson, 60, also demanded a £5,000 kickback from Mr McCambley for helping arrange the transaction.
Today, her husband Peter Robinson, who is Northern Ireland’s first minister, denied he had done anything wrong.
It was claimed he knew about the solicitation and had demanded the return of the money, but had not alerted parliamentary authorities.
So Iris, who famously said gay people were an ‘abomination’ and likened us to paedophiles and murderers isn’t just an adulteress but she’s facing an allegation of corruption too. Talk about pigeons coming home to roost! The allegations against her include:
• that she gained £50,000 for her 19-year-old lover Kirk McCambley from two property developers.
• that she took £5,000 of the money for herself.
• that when Peter Robinson found out about the loan and his wife’s affair he insisted she pay the money back but that he did not inform the authorities about his wife’s conduct.
• that when her relationship with the young man broke down she demanded the loan back and wanted £25,0000 paid into the account of her church, the Light and Life Free Methodist Church in East Belfast.
• that the payments which were used to fund McCambley’s refurbishment of a riverside cafe outside Belfast came from two major property developers, Ken Campbell and Fred Fraser.
• that Iris Robinson lobbied on behalf of Ken Campbell for a building scheme he was involved with in her Strangford constituency.
It doesn’t look good for Iris and her ‘mental illness’.
It’s now pretty easy to see Iris’ attack on gay people as the cynical embarrassment most rational people took it as. It had nothing whatsoever to do with a clash of gay rights and religious rights – it was a vile attempt to legitimise the basest of bigotries – her thoroughly immoral behaviour has proven that – and she should be as condemned now as she was then. Yesterday Iris said God had forgiven her. But what do you think? Vote here.
Dij’s mother Christine Davies was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia. Christine, who was 47, was being treated at the Western General in Edinburgh and was doing well until she developed an infection that meant she needed a transfusion.
“They asked my uncles, my brother, all of her work colleagues if they would be willing to see if they would be a match and I said ‘can I be tested?’ It might have been that I was the wrong type of blood group, but my brother and uncle were approached. They knew my sexual orientation. I was in a monogamous, stable relationship so it wasn’t as if I was at high risk of HIV.”
Then on August 14 last year, Christine developed an infection on her brain. She died 10 days later. “My eyes have been opened to this since my mum died,” says Dij. “Maybe gay men do have a right to give blood if they want to. Certainly for me, who was in a monogamous relationship, I think it would have been acceptable in these circumstances.”
The Scottish Blood Transfusion Service says it has a duty to ensure a sufficient supply of the safest possible blood for patients and that it believes there is no scope for a relaxation of the rules without a reduction in blood safety.
A spokeswoman told The Herald: “To minimise the risk of a blood transfusion transmitting an infection to patients, all donations are tested for viruses such as HIV. However, the tests are not completely infallible, particularly in the early stages of infection.
“To reduce this risk, the current policy is to ask those groups who have an increased risk of blood-borne viruses not to donate blood on a temporary or permanent basis. Currently, men who have sex with men are asked not to give blood permanently, with the exclusion resting on specific sexual behaviours, rather than sexuality.”
Campaigners have argued that if it is certain behaviours that are risky, then it is those behaviours that should be excluded rather than all gay men.
Bentley is right when he says the ban misses the point entirely about the management of risk. This homophobic obsession with gay=AIDS=death masks the reality that other dangerous infections will be coming through from straight men and women, without any orientation-based bans there. The ban should be lifted, as it has been in Sweden.
Where is the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)? Why does the US Armed Forces’ anti-gay Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) remain untouched? And now is immigration equality on the back burner too?
House proponents of comprehensive immigration reform unveiled an ambitious proposal last week with much fanfare, but lost in the buzz was that their bill isn’t entirely comprehensive: They intentionally left out protections for gay and lesbian immigrants.
A bill introduced earlier this year by Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) dealing with family reunification policies for immigrants was completely rolled into the reform package, except for its provisions allowing same-sex partners of permanent residents to qualify for a visa. The decision behind the little-noted change sparked friction between liberals hoping to kick off debate with an all-inclusive bill and Hispanic leaders more focused on keeping religious leaders on board with the plan.
“All the evangelists, Catholics and churches that are part of this were whacking out” over the gay and lesbian provisions, said a Democratic lawmaker familiar with negotiations on the bill.
The lawmaker said Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who has led the House effort on comprehensive immigration reform, initially “didn’t want to deal with it. At all.” Then he tried to work out a “stupid” compromise whereby the same-sex partner provisions would be in the bill but they wouldn’t take effect for five or six years, said this Member.
But some liberals argued the idea was “really bad” since Hispanic lawmakers have strongly opposed an effort by the Senate to impose a similar five-year waiting period for immigrants to receive benefits under health care reform, said the lawmaker. A multiyear delay for same-sex partners would likely result in “more criticism for this stupid deal than for leaving it out,” said the House Democrat.
The decision was finally made to offer an amendment to the bill when it comes before the Judiciary Committee in February.
Will an amendment materialise in February? The jury’s most definitely out. Is a compromise being worked out whereby the Catholic Church will support a deal on immigration equality as long as it’s covert, as the article goes on to suggest? Or is the current exclusion down to a cultural prejudice of other minority lawmakers? Anyone would think we’re entering an election year in the US. Rachel Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality said:
that her group was “disappointed” not to see the sought-after provisions—but she said Immigration Equality remained hopeful that Gutierrez, a longtime ally of the LGBT community, would support future measures: ” [ W ] e have every expectation that he will continue to work on behalf of our families as lawmakers tackle this critically important issue.”
Speaking as a gay American with a British husband I’m not going to hold my breath.
“Over the years, I have undergone a long series of operations and, though I have never talked about it publicly, I have also battled against serious bouts of depression.
“Only those who have faced similar challenges in life will know the ordeal faced by those who are profoundly depressed, and the distress caused to those around them as they grapple with personality-changing illness. One in four of the population struggle with mental illnesses at one level or another, yet few talk about it openly.
“The stress and strain of public life comes at a cost and my health has suffered. Regrettably, I have concluded, after considering the matter over Christmas and discussing it with Peter, who has always been most supportive and caring, that I can no longer maintain the high standard of service I require of myself, meet the demands of office and cope with the pressures of public life, without my health deteriorating further.”
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Last year Iris compared gay people to murderers and child abusers, and we’re now supposed to be sympathetic towards her because of ‘depression’? I’m sorry, I have no sympathy at all with unashamed homophobes, particularly when they’re elected representatives who make abusive expenses claims against the taxpayer:
Records showed the Robinsons received more than £500,000 a year in salaries and expenses, while a further £150,000 in wages was paid to four relatives – including their daughter Rebekah and son Gareth – for constituency and other work.
The Ugandan minister for ethics and integrity has suggested that the country will ditch its plans to execute gays in favour of life imprisonment.
James Nsaba Buturo said this would allow authorities to rehabilitate gays.
According to Reuters, he said: “There have been a lot of discussions in government … regarding the proposed law, but we now think a life sentence could be better because it gives room for offenders to be rehabilitated. Killing them might not be helpful.”
He denied the country had bowed down to international pressure. World powers such as the US, UK, France and Sweden had all heavily condemned the proposed law and Sweden had mooted the idea that aid could be cut to Uganda.
Instead, Buturo said: “It’s really out of our consultation with various groups, including religious leaders. It has nothing to do with external forces.”
Sure it isn’t. I would hope however that the Western governments which have threatened withdrawal of aid because of this disgraceful attack on human rights will stand for life imprisonment equally as little. Deutsche Welle points out:
The bill, which is yet to be debated in Uganda’s parliament, would have gay men and lesbians sentenced to life in prison for having sex. In cases of sex with minors or sexual acts leading to HIV infection, the penalty would be death. The bill also proposes that anyone who fails to report a homosexual act committed by others would face up to three years in jail.
Insane. State dehumanisation of minorities is what led to the Holocaust. Uganda is clearly indifferent to that; I hope the EU governments are not.
An Islington registrar who refused to carry out civil partnerships for gay couples has lost her appeal.
The Court of Appeal ruled today that Lillian Ladele had not been discriminated against. She had said she could not hold the ceremonies because of her Christian beliefs.
Lord Neuberger expressed some sympathy for her position but said that in a “modern liberal democracy”, only “very limited exceptions” could be made.
The Christian Institute, which is supporting Ladele, has said it will appeal to the Supreme Court.
The ruling was welcomed by Stonewall.
Director of public affairs Derek Munn said: “Stonewall are pleased that the Court of Appeal has upheld the right of lesbian and gay people to receive public services from public servants. We are glad that Islington council have seen this through for the sake of their lesbian and gay council tax payers.
“You can’t refuse a service to a person based on their gender, race or disability and you can’t on the basis of their sexual orientation either.”
You may remember civil registrar Ladele was fired by Islington Council for refusing to perform civil partnerships, and then took them to a tribunal, alleging religious discrimination. It’s becoming a reassuringly familiar refrain that appeals tribunals and courts, despite the appalling way in which gay and religious rights have been set against one another by this government, have brooked none of this from her or her ultra religious friends. The Christian Legal Centre however thinks otherwise:
“Civil partnerships were not being discriminated against, they were able to be performed by other registrars. Lilian Ladele has been discriminated against because of her Christian convictions.
“In a tolerant and civil society, we should be able to accommodate different groups.
“There will be serious consequences for religious freedom, conscience, acts and speech if we can’t learn to accommodate different groups.”
Except that wasn’t the issue – it was about Ladele refusing both to abide by her employer’s equal opportunities policy and then refusing different work, when offered, for the same pay. She felt that her religion afforded her what would have been essentially special rights – the right to discriminate in her employment on the grounds of belief. Now noone has suggested that she or any other theist should believe anything other than what they want, but their actions in civil society are governed by civil, not religious law. And despite the flaws in our equality legislation under civil law, she’s not allowed to act in a way that is detrimental to gay people. Accommodating the right to discriminate on the grounds of belief would not be the hallmark of a tolerant and civil society, and it’s something Symon Hill acknowledges:
Christians can welcome the court’s decision. We can emphasise that it is not an affront to Christian values – it is a victory for Christian values. Using traditional Christian terminology, we can point that it is not homosexuality, but homophobia, that is sinful. Those of who have gone along with homophobia in the past can declare our repentance of it.
In Jesus Christ, we have a messiah whose life embodied a message of radical inclusivity, a man who challenged religious hypocrisy and the abuse of power, who socialised with outcasts, broke religious and secular laws and forgave his persecutors as they killed him.
The New Testament’s ethical message is that “love is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:10). It’s time for pro-equality Christians to make clear that our commitment to equality is not in tension with Christianity, or incidental to it, but flows naturally from it. Occasionally, I hear someone say “Symon’s against homophobia, even though he’s a Christian”. That’s just not true. I’m against homophobia because I’m a Christian.
Hill acknowledges the absurdity of Ladele’s position – her objection isn’t to anything she finds abhorrent to her zealous beliefs, just the gay bits. It’s an intellectually vapid take on religion, and fortunately one which neither the legislature nor the judiciary have any interest in enshrining into law.
You’d think it unlikely that our largest public service broadcaster should become part of the problem in relation to Uganda’s push towards gay genocide, but look at this:
Should homosexuals face execution?
Yes, we accept it is a stark and disturbing question. But this is the reality behind an Anti-Homosexuality Bill being debated on Friday by the Ugandan parliament which would see some homosexual offences punishable by death.
The bill proposes:
Life imprisonment for those convicted of a homosexual act
The death sentence where the offender has HiV, is a “serial offender” or the other person is under 18.
Imprisonment for seven years for “attempted homosexuality.”
The bill claims to ‘protect the…traditional family values of the people of Uganda’, but it has prompted widespread international condemnation.
Homosexuality is regarded as taboo in much of Africa, where it is often regarded as a threat to cultural, religious and social values.
Has Uganda gone too far? Should there be any level of legislation against homosexuality? Should homosexuals be protected by legislation as they are in South Africa? What would be the consequences of this bill to you? How will homosexual ‘offences’ be monitored? Send us your views.
Should Jews be gassed? Would that be going too far? Should there be any level of legislation against Judaism? If the BBC actually posed those questions and asked for people’s views they’d be in breach of all sorts of incitement and hate speech legislation, yet in the name of ‘impartiality’ they’re actually not just prepared to debate the merits of executing gay people, but are prepared to defend doing so:
The editors of the BBC Africa Have Your Say programme thought long and hard about using this question which prompted a lot of internal debate.
We agree that it is a stark and challenging question, but think that it accurately focuses on and illustrates the real issue at stake.
If Uganda’s democratically elected MPs vote to proceed with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill this week they will bring onto the statute book legislation that could condemn people to death for some homosexual activities.
We published it alongside clear explanatory text which gave the context of the bill itself (see above). And as we said at the top of our debate page, we accept it is a stark and disturbing question. But this is the reality behind the bill.
I’ve always used the tag line from ‘Good Night and Good Luck’ to deal with so-called journalism like this: just because there are two sides to an argument doesn’t mean they are both equally true or equally valid. There is no valid pro execution argument here, and to entertain the notion under the guise of ‘impartiality’ is quite simply indefensible. The title is far more than just ’stark and disturbing’ – by implying it’s a valid subject for ‘debate’ it’s inciteful to homophobic hatred. Join with me and complain here. This blog’s friends at Soho Politico have posted an excellent article with a form letter for you to copy or draw from here.
UPDATE: The title’s been changed to ‘Should Uganda Debate Gay Execution’ but the page is no less offensive or inflammatory.
Recent Comments