Backing out of our commitment to equality?
At Labour conference 2005, the Labour campaign for lesbian and gay rights pulled off a coup in getting the government to agree to put forward a law prohibiting discrimination against lesbian and gay people in the provision of goods and services. Following the introduction of civil partnerships and the prohibiting of discrimination at work, it’s a nonsense that a bank couldn’t sack someone for being gay, but could refuse them a mortgage for no other reason; that a couple have the right to get married, but the venue of their choice could turn round and refuse to let them use it. I feel particularly proud of this accomplishment as Jo was the one who went through rounds of arduous negotiations with ministers at conference on behalf of LCLGR, and gave the proposing speech.
So I’m angry that following the transfer of responsibility for equalities issues to a notoriously-socially-conservative Catholic minister, having a full law that prohibits all discrimination, no matter how you justify it, is apparently in jeopardy again.
Let battle commence!
I wonder if Ruth Kelly and Meg Munn have any understanding of how Women’s ‘Equality’ has been fought for, and to some extent, won, in the face of opposition from religious nutters. What’s that expression about pulling the ladder up?
Surely a Christian B&B would advertise itself as Christian. I wouldn’t go with my male partner, because of the Christian thing, and I expect that gay non-Christians would take a similar line. Gay Christian couples, of which there are many (not just Govt. ministers) would use their judgement; I can’t imagine a situation where a gay Christian couple would wish to force a confrontation on a Christian B&B, unless the B&B had provoked it. I expect that some Christian B&Bs are more liberal than others, and those that stay in Christian B&Bs move in circles where these things are known.
Faith schools should remember that they are funded by people of other faiths and none, and by people who accept their spirituality and theology but not their political interpretations. Some faith schools manage the intellectual leap of imparting factual information about eg homosexuality and contraception whilst also doing so in a context which imparts their particular ideology, and if they are any good at educating (as opposed to mere indoctrination), as many are, giving their pupils the skills to understand the difference and the ability to make an informed choice.
I think the discussion should be more fruitfully about ‘promote’ eg if someone is advertising a swingers’ club, I think it’s reasonable to state that it is for straight couples, because it clearly isn’t appropriate for gay couples, as a gay swinging club isn’t appropriate for straights. The challenge is to make what seems like common sense not be an unintended consequence of a law. But not insurmountable: gender, age and race legislation have get-out clauses for drama casting, therefore it would be reasonable to have a get-out clause where the service is related to a sexual act.
Personally, if I were honeymooning, the last place I would go would be a ‘honeymoon resort’ but I would be attracted to a Couples Only resort for any holiday in order to avoid a)screaming kids and b) groups of beered-up louts on the pull.
I would not find the presence of gay couples, or of two same-sex friends not on the pull (or only discretely) as being a breach of ‘couples only’. But I just wouldn’t go to something promoted as a gay resort, and wouldn’t find it discriminatory, any more than I’d go to one promoted for ‘families’ or for fun and parties.
LGBT Discrimination…
Can somebody point me to what this is all about please? I’m getting very confused indeed. Antonia Bance on a proposed law to outlaw discrimination against lesbians and gays in the provision of goods and services. I do understand that…
[...] But Antonia blogged it and her post was in turn blogged about by Tim Worstall. [...]
[...] Lobbyists in a meeting with the minister for Women and Equality: Ruth Kelly: Our vision is of an equal, inclusive society where every citizen is treated with respect and where there is opportunity for all. We want to measurably improve the lives of all of those who are discriminated against. Our task is to promote equality for all regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion or belief, age or personal disability. This is why we are implementing legislation to prevent discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. A bank can’t sack somebody for being gay, but can refuse a mortgage application on this basis. It’s wrong, insulting to reasonable thinking people everywhere, and a genuine violation of individual rights. Does anybody have any questions? The BNP: Hello. We hate gay people. Can we be excluded from this legislation, please? Ruth Kelly: Get the hell off my planet. The Church: Hello. We hate homosexuality, but can forgive homosexuals themselves, obviously. Can we be excluded from the legislation, please? Ruth Kelly: Sure thing. The BNP: Hey. What? Ruth Kelly: It’s their religion, retards. The BNP: Huh. Oh, did we mention we have a magic thimble that tells us to hate homosexuality? Obviously we can separate homosexuality from homosexuals, just like it’s practically possible to hate the colour of people’s skin, not the people themselves. Are we good? Can we be excluded? Ruth Kelly: … [...]
Waht an utter Joke. Reshuffle!
The Guardian article to which you refer appears to be a rather confused conflation of a number of different points. It spends a lot of time talking about services that are paid for by the taxpayer, such as state-funded church schools and how, quite rightly, taxpayer-funded schools shouldn’t be able to refuse admission to pupils on the grounds of their sexuality, and how taxpayer-funded schools, community centres and so on should have to treat, for example, a local LGBT support group wishing to hire their facilities for a meeting in the same way as they would treat a bridge club or the WI. It fails to mention a certain other religion with a rather robust view of homosexuality, but as that religion controls rather fewer facilities, its omission from the article can perhaps be excused.
It also mentions faith-based adoption services. I have no knowledge of these bodies, but assume that their purpose is to provide for the adoption of children into the homes of the devout and faithful. If their stated aim is, for example, to place children from Catholic families into adoption with a good Catholic family, that would seem to automatically exclude any prospective adoptive parents who aren’t Catholics or who are living in what the Catholic Church would describe as unrepentant sin (which would seem to include, amongst others, homosexual and unmarried heterosexual couples). As long as they aren’t funded from tax revenues and aren’t used to place children in the care of the local authority, I don’t see the problem.
Then we move on to the infamous Christian B&B and the question of whether they have the right to deny accommodation to a gay couple. I think that whatever position you hold on this, you must at least agree that the question is different from the one about the right of access to taxpayer-funded facilities (although your answer might be the same). There are a range of possible opinions. You could take a hard line for property rights, no matter what, and claim that there was no problem whatsoever in a restaurant owner posting a sign saying “No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish”. I suggest that, whilst that might appeal to libertarians with a desire for intellectual consistency, it’s not a very sensible policy.
You can go the other way and take a hard line for people’s right to live freely regardless of sexual orientation, religion, skin colour or political opinion, and demand that it should be illegal to choose your friends or those that you invite into your home based on any of these attributes. Clearly that’s absurd.
The B&B falls somewhere in the fuzzy centre. It’s a business offering accommodation to the public, so it shouldn’t be able to discriminate amongst its customers, but it’s also a private home, and the householder should be able to chose to only invite people that he finds congenial and who share his values. I think for the B&B, I tend to incline towards the right of the householder to chose who he invites into his home. However, because he’s also soliciting business from the public, I would require him to state his house rules in advance, to all his potential guests. So if I call up to request a room in Unpleasant Bigot Cottage, Mr. Bigot should be obliged to inform me that he will not accommodate same-sex couples or anyone with dark skin, and I in turn will have the chance to deny Mr. Bigot my custom.
I don’t think I care whether the B&B owner is a committed Christian who thinks his faith requires him to prevent gay or unmarried couples from sharing a bed under his roof, whether he’s a BNP member who doesn’t want to house anyone who looks a bit black, or whether he’s a complete nutter who won’t accommodate blonde Labour party members. The law should treat all of these in the same way.
I thought Antonia would ram her way into the this one; possibly the most disgraceful anti-Catholic witch-hunt since Titus Oates. She refers to Ruth Kelly as a ‘notoriously’ socially-conservative minister, whatever that means. Antonia knows what she means: Ruth Kelly is a Catholic and hence unfit for office.
The anti-discrimination bill is fraught with difficulties for faith groups which have made a huge number of submissions to the relevant government department. Any minister would have take their views into account, this being, after all, a free society.
Let’s not delude ourselves as to Antonia’s political motives in all this. She is a member of the extremist Trotskyist Abortion Rights group. As such she doesn’t think Catholics, Moslems and Frummers have a place in the Labour Party. Antonia wants them all expelled. For all her Nu Labour style and faux-democratic posturing, at heart Antonia is just another careerist apparatchik indulging in an anti-Catholic Ruth Kelly witch hunt.
Antonia’s political ambitions are well-known. Clearly representing the broad church which is the Labour Party is not for her. Antonia cannot be trusted with the interests of faith/ethnic minorities when she wants to disenfranchise them.
i don’t think i’ve ever read quite so much balls. If you want to critique A’s politics fine but starting by calling her a trotskyist does your credibilty no good whatseoever. I’d also point out that A’s job is not to represent the Labour Party, it is to represent her constituents. I think you should perhaps let them be the judge about whether they can trust her.
Thanks Helen - and congratulations on getting married, by the way!
Crocus - that’s hilarious. I haven’t laughed so much all day. Seriously, though I don’t think that a devout Catholic should hold the equalities brief, no. But Ruth Kelly has quite sensibly ruled herself out of holding a job (such as Health Minister) which brings her personal values and her position into conflict on the matter of abortion; it would seem sensible to have held that position on gay rights too. She was a perfectly capable treasury minister, after all, and, I’m sure, would be pretty okay at a range of departments where these issues would not arise - DTI, Treasury, Defra. I’m not a Trot, and I have no idea what a Frummer is, so I doubt I’m actively discriminating against them. As for the interests of faith groups and ethnic minorities, don’t talk rubbish; I may not share their beliefs, but I’ve helped a range of Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslim familes who live in my ward, attended a devout Indian Christian youth event, and get on well with both Muslim and Christian councillors in my group.
Antonia, allow me to clarify. True you are not a Trot - perish the thought - but you are a member of an extremist Trot-dominated group: Abortion Rights.
Whether you ‘get on well’ with both Muslim and Christian councillors in your group is besides the point. Ultimately, you want such people purged from the Labour Party. Its Abortion Rights Policy, Antonia or didn’t you read the small print?
I’m still laughing at the thought of Abortion Rigts being a trot group.
Trot-dominated anti-democratic, extremist group, Jo. And nothing to laugh about.
Nothing to laugh about at all when we’re told that a devout Catholic should not hold the equalities brief.
Religious discrimination is alive and well chez Bance, to her shame and my disappointment.
Antonia is clearly a talented, committed politician and a gift to the Labour movement. Its a shame that someone of Antonia’s calibre allies herself with such destructive, inflexible groups as Abortion Rights.
Yeah yeah, tell that to our Catholic friends who are pto-choice. Kelly herself has said she wouldn’t hold the briefs for health or international development specifically because of the abortion issue: if she can rule herself out of those because of her anti-choice views, why can’t you accept that some of us want to rule her out of others as well?
Oh, and for the record, I don’t care if someone is anti-choice so long as they don’t seek to impose that view on other people and restrict their choices as a result. For what it’s worth, I had some respect for Kelly’s decision to rule her out of those briefs I mentioned as it suggests she isn’t seeking to impose her personal choices on other people.
Unfortunately, I think she’s blown it with the gay thing.
/sighs
Jo,
I don’t think you understand Roman Catholicism (which doesn’t surprise me). Roman Catholics are Pro Life. The term, ‘pro choice’ Catholics is a contradiction in terms.
And if you are genuinely ‘pro-choice’, Jo, as you claim to be, you’d be advised not to bring up DFID and the reasons for Ruth Kelly ruling herself out of that particular brief. The record of our ‘pro choice’ friends in international development is, ahem, less than honourable.
Similarly, I don’t care if people are anti-life, so long as *they* don’t care to impose their oddball views on, say, the Labour Party.
Ruth Kelly has never sought to impose anything on anyone; any suggestions to the contrary based on her religious affiliations are mendacious. As minister for local government, moreover, she has a duty to consult with interested parties about forthcoming legislation. Just as she has a duty to report to Cabinet about the unusually high number of submissions she has had from religious groups who say that the wording of the proposed law is deeply problematic as it could compromise their religious freedoms. Any minister would be bound to do the same thing; any failure to do so would be bad politics.
The nasty attacks on Ruth Kelly for her religious affiliations are not merely vulgar and distasteful, they could rebound on the party as a whole. If word gets out that Roman Catholics are being screened out of leading government or party positions, Catholics may just take their votes elsewhere.
Not sure what your point is. Are you
a) Suggesting that I’m telling porkies and that these people don’t exist;
b) Suggesting that my friends aren’t really Catholics; or
c) Suggesting that they aren’t really pro-choice?
It would be really interesting to get your pov on this…
There are many people who are practising Catholics who are pro-choice (for other people).
This is not because they think that abortion is desirable, just like pro-choice non-Catholics. It may mean that they think that legalised abortion is the lesser of two evils compared to so-called backstreet abortions.
It may be that they wish to focus their energies on protecting children who are born. Or it may be, perhaps of personal or vicarious experience they recognise that there are numerous circumstances where, even for a practising Catholic, an abortion is actually desirable.
In my experience (background: brought up a Catholic, many members of immediate and extended family and friends, old and new, are Catholics) Catholics who have first or second person insight into the realities of abortion often become evangelical in their desire to a) ensure that free reliable contraception is available and b) strongly discourage a culture of casual sex.
I think, in general, pro-choice Catholics are very uncomfortable with situations where for example an adult woman in a stable-ish relationship chooses to abort a healthy foetus because she feels unready for motherhood, but have a greater sympathy for children, those who have been (or believe themselves to have been) raped, those with a severely handicapped foetus, those where the mother’s life or health is at risk etc.
It is also true that many other Catholics will not vote for pro-choice Parliamentary candidates, which could be in any of the main Parties. Others base their voting choices on a basket of issues. I grew up in a constituency where the Tory MP at the time was pro-hanging, and that was the issue that was preached from the pulpit.
Within the UK, I think that being uncomfortable with the things Gert describes as uncomfortable for pro-choice Catholics is being pro-life, in that it is to the pro-life side of the law. Although I think that there are some genuinely pro-choice Catholics out there, those that I have known have generally been pretty far from their church on a wide range of issues.
Jo,
I am not ’suggesting’ - perish the thought! - that you are telling porkies.
But I am observing that you know next to nothing about Roman Catholicism, as evinced by your comments about ‘pro-choice’ Catholics, which is, as I noted, a contradiction in terms.
Roman Catholics, who must, by definition, respect the Church’s Magisterium, affirm the sancity of all human life from conception to natural death. Roman Catholics are forbidden from taking *any* part in, approving of, or legislating for abortion on pain of excommunciation.
Those people who claim to be Roman Catholic and ‘pro-choice’ are either wilfully ignorant of Church teaching or deliberately deceitful. Either way, they are not regarded as being in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, nor are they taken seriously.
For one who has held an official NUS position you seem strangely incapable of researching something as simple as the RC Church’s position on abortion.
This gets funnier and funnier. You’re right, I had no idea that the Roman Catholic Church’s official position on abortion was to oppose it. Gracious, how on earth have I managed to get to this stage in my life without ever becoming aware of that?
Turning off the sarcasm, I’ll pass your thoughts on to my friends and let them know that you say they’re not proper Catholics and that they’re either ignorant or deceitful and that I never have to take them seriously again.
Well, it’ll be one way to liven up a Monday morning…
Jo,
When you move in such narrow, restricted circles (and God knows, the pro-choice scene is that) don’t be surprised when the miniscule number of ‘Catholics’ you encounter prove less than representative of Roman Catholicism.
And don’t, for your own credibility’s sake, hold oddball non-communicants up as exemplars of Roman Catholicism because it only makes you look silly. Like I said, you know next to nothing about Catholicism.
Rather than guffawing ignorantly when your category errors are exposed, you’d be better off expanding your reading matter and company.
For an NUS official, your ignorance, as it stands, is truly appalling.