Hustings - various
So, tonight was the final hustings of the campaign, at St Aldate’s Church in Oxford. A huge church, recently refurbished to give a much more flexible internal space, with a huge congregation of students and locals.
I was slightly more anxious about speaking there than at some of the previous venues, as there were so many people, and as a feminist and not a Christian, I wasn’t sure quite how I’d go down with them. And sure enough, they weren’t particularly impressed by my properly pro-choice stance - though I will keep making the point to pro-life audiences that if they want fewer abortions, they need to support better sex education and better access to contraception. One of the audience had a real go at Gordon Brown’s record as chancellor - and I got a sharp inhalation of breath from them by answering that I hoped to shake his hand as he carries on his excellent work as chancellor and hopefully as prime minister in the future - like it’s something surprising that GB fancies the top job!
Evan was on his usual smarmy form tonight - indulging in his current mania for removing things from democratic control - tonight it was regulatory impact assessments and information about the number of asylum seekers. He also talked with pride about forming alliances with pro-lifers to press for a debate on abortion and with the Christian Institute (homophobic lobbyists) to oppose the proposed incitement to religious hatred law. Odd company for a self-proclaimed progressive, really.
Apart from this, today’s been a bit of a disaster, really. My little brother had his 18th birthday party last night, so had to make a trip to south London to celebrate with him - well, election or no election, little brothers are only 18 once. But then this morning the M25 was closed near where my family live, and once we’d done a huge detour across half of south London, it was getting towards lunchtime. Add traffic, contraflows and roadworks and the car breaking down, and you’ll have some idea of my day! Oh well - at least there’s the bright spot that the final week’s team are starting to arrive - the lovely Shannon came today, and we’ve got her full-time until Friday, which is excellent.
Congratulations on getting through the night.
However, although I can just about understand your seemingly Lib Dem voting record, there was one comment that I found quite offensive.
Accusing the Christian Institute of being homophobic did not go down well, and it was probably best that you just simply didn’t mention it, since it practically wrote off the vote of every Christian there (including mine, and I support the Labour government, but then again I voted for my home constituency postally).
Your response to the senile guy who went on a rampage against Gordon Brown was greatly put - it certainly got a loud clap from me and my Labour friend next to me!
Good luck in the rest of the compaign.
Jamie, hate to point it out to you but the Christian Institute ARE homophobes and if Antonia stuck it to them, congratulations to her.
Regardless of whether they are or not, it was pretty unwise to say at such an event.
This is an election - Antonia is supposed to be winning votes, and something that people don’t want to hear and is not at all relevant to politics is best left out.
Are you actually saying you’d rather a politician who changed what they say according to the audience, instead of saying what s/he believes in, regardless of the audience? The Lib Dems are famous for the former and I’m proud of Antonia for sticking to her principles, regardless of whether she’s husting for Stop the War or a church.
I agree with that idea in principle, and I don’t think you should hide what you believe in, but this the harsh world of politics, and you have to show a certain amount of tact by being, let’s say ’selective’, in what you say, to avoid losing all your voters.
Evan Harris is a member of the ‘Secular Society’ which doesn’t bother me at all, but he wisely has not mentioned it because it is irrelevant.
You probably disagree, but at the end of the day it’s the polls on voting day that will suffer.
Well, maybe all candidates were a bit more honest about their politics and their beliefs and stuck to them at all times, the polls wouldn’t get twisted in favour of people who pander to their audience over and above the groups they claim to represent.
Sorry, but if Evan has worked in coalition with groups like the Christian Institute, then he can stop pretending to be a friend to the LGB community. I’m disgusted with him and have lost what little respect I had for him. If I wasn’t already voting Labour, Antonia would have won my vote last night.
Thanks for the comments, Jamie. I did indeed call the Christian Institute homophobic - because they are. See this page about Section 28 for example - http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/section28.htm - which says ‘the public promotion of homosexuality is damaging to our society. It undermines the married family by equating the married family with a pretended family relationship.” Or this page - http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/homosexualageofconsent.htm - which says “the Church must … teach publicly that homosexual practice is always wrong.”
What I didn’t say is that St Aldate’s is unwelcoming to lesbian and gay people, or that Christians are homophobic. I’m sorry that you were offended, but from my point of view the Christian Institute promotes discrimination against lesbian and gay people, and that is homophobia, and that is unacceptable.
best wishes, Antonia
Yes, let’s simply dismiss them all as “homophobes” and attack a candidate for trying to reach out to them. That’ll make those Christians realise that we’re not the detrimental members of society that they think we are!
Or perhaps you could hold the olive branch out for once, and maybe help them to understand that we are the same as everybody else.
If you seem happy labelling a group of people with one detrimental generic title, I find it highly hypocritical for you to object to them doing the same.
Chris, you seem to have misunderstood what I said. I didn’t say “All Christians are homophobes”. I said that the Christian Institute are homophobic. Can you see the difference? You really don’t want to be defending them - they’re a nasty bunch, entirely unrepresentative of the broader religious community. Evan Harris has a great record on lesbian and gay rights, and I was surprised and shocked that he was willing to work with them.
I think it depends how you define ‘homophobia’.
It might be defined as:
1) The opinion that homosexuality is wrong.
2) Being prejudiced/discriminatory against homosexuals because of their beliefs.
I’m for example a member of the first category, but I have respect and tolerance for those with different beliefs, and I wouldn’t like to be considered a homophobe (my two best friends at my old school were both gay).
The Christian Institute is certainly against homosexuality, but does it persecute/resent homosexuals, or go out of its way to stop homosexuals practicing their sexuality? Your quote specifically mentioned that it is the “Church” that shouldn’t be supporting homosexuality.
You’ll have forgive me for being a little audacious in commenting on your campaign, but I think a major flaw (and this is the impression I get from others and hustings) is that you’re seen as focusing too much on your social beliefs - your stance on feminism, being pro-choice on abortion, the war, making so much an issue of gay rights (not to suggest it shouldn’t be an issue at all) and your general Lib Dem stance; which would appear to be unpopular with traditional Labour voters who probably see Evan as more politically mature.
Sorry if I’m coming across a little rude, but then again maybe you appreciate the voice of one of the electorate.
“I’m for example a member of the first category, but I have respect and tolerance for those with different beliefs, and I wouldn’t like to be considered a homophobe (my two best friends at my old school were both gay).”
Sorry, but by my definition, you are homophobic. However, that does not mean you’re not entitled to your opinion, although fairness and a diverse society dictates that you should only have the freedom to do or say things that don’t infringe on the freedoms of others - by making those opinions known, you should have no trouble with people disagreeing with the way you are, or whatever you believe.
“The Christian Institute is certainly against homosexuality, but does it persecute/resent homosexuals, or go out of its way to stop homosexuals practicing their sexuality? Your quote specifically mentioned that it is the “Church” that shouldn’t be supporting homosexuality.”
It did persecute them. They were considered as heretics in the past, and I’m sure that as a consequence, you can understand why there’s a level of bitterness in the air as a result.
The church should not be supporting homosexuality, it should be supporting equality. Supporting you whatever the way God made you. To do otherwise would be to condemn his image, as Christians believe. I see that the Christian Institute is quick to assert that homosexuality is “wrong”, but let’s take a quick leaf through the Bible where it is said that homosexuality is wrong. Hmmm… Leviticus… I wonder whether those that preach against homosexuality follow every other law in that book? I actually highly doubt it.
“…you’re seen as focusing too much on your social beliefs - your stance on feminism, being pro-choice on abortion, the war, making so much an issue of gay rights (not to suggest it shouldn’t be an issue at all) and your general Lib Dem stance; which would appear to be unpopular with traditional Labour voters who probably see Evan as more politically mature.”
As much as Antonia and I disagree on certain points, it is healthy to have a politician that is passionate about social aspects of life, and this is something that Antonia is. Although I disagree (sometimes profoundly) with her methods, I know from the amount of work she puts in that she truly cares about fighting for these things.
Personally I have always tried to build links with Christianity and my politics, but that can only happen if both sides are willing to listen to each other. At the end of the day, I find it unbelievable that in this day and age homosexuality is still frowned upon and even categorised - the most important thing, for example, for a child to grow up with are parents with a stable relationship. To suggest that they need specifically a motherhood/fatherhood figure is not only anti-gay, but it also undermines any single mother/father who have brought up decent people without the help of another partner.
Homophobia is a ‘phobia’ - phobia meaning fear, so I really can’t see how having no fear, and not having any prejudice against gay people makes me homophobic. And not everyone who doesn’t support gay adoption is homophobic either - in fact a very large proportion of people don’t (even Tony Blair?).
I don’t know where you’re getting your Biblical facts from, but homosexuality is mentioned once in the New Testament and is not all vague, so whether you disagree or not, you can’t justify the church embracing it. However what MOST churches teach is tolerance, and I have yet to come across a church that is at all hostile towards homosexuals.
Anyway, I realise I’m being somewhat offtopic here.
Yes, going into a conversation about semantics is slightly off-topic. People can argue all they like about what words *should* mean (for example, you’d think inflammible would be the opposite of flammible, but they’re actually exactly the same), but the fact is we act on what those words actually do mean at the current time of which they are uttered. “Homophobic” has come to mean anybody who specifically dislikes or disagrees with members of society who are attracted to the same sex.
I’m getting my biblical facts from 10 years of Catholic education. Wherever in the Bible homosexuality is condemned, there are plenty of other things that are condemned as well (eating meat with the blood still in it, wearing clothing worn of two fibres, planting two crops in the same field). It is only when these absurdities are uttered to Christians that they turn around and admit that parts of the Bible are no longer relevant. But still they persist that others (such as homosexuality) are… it is inconsistent and ridicules Christianity as an institute of contradiction and political in-fighting. Who is anybody on this earth to say which parts of the Bible are relevant and which ones are not?
Back to the real world. I have taken a look at the CI website, and I must say I pretty much agree with Antonia. In regards to a church that actively discriminates against gays, I suggest you type the words “Fred Phelps” into a search engine, and look at his website.
I apologise to Antonia in advance for filling her comments board with irrelevant stuff, but I need to clear this up.
Feel free to delete.
Firstly, you must have missed some important aspects of the Bible in your Catholic education. There’s a clear distinction between the ‘Old Covenant’ and ‘New Covenant’, the Old Covenant only applicable to the the Isrealites at the time, before the New Covenant was established by Jesus in the New Testament. Hence why we are still not performing animal sacrifices and such, and doesn’t give Christians an excuse to adopt a ‘pick’n'mix’ faith.
Secondly, I don’t care what YOU consider homophobia. Go to any dictionary and you’ll find that it’s based on “prejudice”, “discrimination” or a “dislike” of homosexuals, nowhere is there any mention of ‘disagreeing’.
I’m not going to claim there may be some homophobic individuals in the Christian Institute, but you have no right to accuse people of being homophobic when they simply are not.