I knew it!!!
Seriously, well done - you've made a huge difference to the lives of young women and the way they are treated by society and the media. The last time we had this debate in the tabloids, no one gave a shit. Big thumbs up to the RESPECT Young Mums campaign
Can't imagine that the horrible database we Labour people use would be able to cope with this level of activity any time soon, though!|||111754505811712142|||Distributed campaigning
At the same time, the Dem bloggers and blog-readers (what's the noun for a reader of and commenter on blogs, btw?) are having another argument about their positioning and lack of uniting ideology, played out in great fashion here, here and here, at the Daily Kos. Seems to have disintegrated into an argument about whether the Dems should be hardline on abortion or not, though.
So, I went to look for the statement of belief of the Democratic Party, and found this (PDF):
"We, the Democrats of the United States of America, united in common purpose, hereby rededicate ourselves to the principles which have historically sustained our Party. Recognizing that the vitality of the Nation's political institutions has been the foundation of its enduring strength, we acknowledge that a political party which wishes to lead must listen to those it would lead, a party which asks for the people's trust must prove that it trusts the people and a party which hopes to call forth the best the Nation can achieve must embody the best of the Nation's heritage and traditions. What we seek for our Nation, we hope for all people: individual freedom in the framework of a just society, political freedom in the framework of meaningful participation by all citizens. Bound by the United States Constitution, aware that a party must be responsive to be worthy of responsibility, we pledge ourselves to open, honest endeavor and to the conduct of public affairs in a manner worthy of a society of free people."
Horrible and meaningless, isn't it? No wonder the Dems are having trouble coming back, if they've never set down what they believe in, but instead just adopt a platform every four years prior to the presidential elections (and rereading it, last year's seems a little banal, too, though at the time the obvious political compromises were clearly justified).
Thank goodness for Clause IV then - at least it's there, on the back of our membership cards, reasonably succint and clear, something most of the party can unite around, even if it's not exactly prose to set the world alight. Mind you, those pesky Fabians were discussing changing it again last autumn. Cos that's a can of worms we need to open.|||111747230374654899|||Core beliefs of the Democrats?
Madeleine Bunting has a fascinating article over at the Guardian ( well, I would say that, as we filled in some of the details for the article, but the spin is all her own!) Basically, her pov is that young women who have babies as teenagers have poorer life chances, but that as they'd been growing up in areas where their chances wouldn't have been all that great anyway, the answer is not to treat teenage pregnancy as a tragedy, but to try to sort out disadvantage. It's a thought-provoking article, and should be required reading for new ministers.
A few other bloggers are talking about this - makes a change from Iraq, ID cards and PR, I suppose! - Tim Worstall and Volsunga, in a fabulous blog about why abstinence education has precisely the wrong effect, in that it doesn't stop kids having sex, it stops them having PROTECTED sex.
If you don't believe me or her, look at the summary of "Teenage Pregnancy and Parenthood: a Review of Reviews" put otgether by the Health Development Agency. This evidence briefing pulls together learning from review-level data about effective interventions to reduce the rates of teenage pregnancy, and it's properly thorough. I would link directly to it here if the TPU's website weren't so fucking useless - as it is, I can't even open it currently, probably because the site can't deal with Firefox, so you'll have to put up with a link to the page it's on here.|||111728578054319223|||More teenage pregnancy
The tables shows that eight girls in 1000 under 16 get pregnant, which has fallen from a peak of 9.5 per thousand in 1996, and that 42.3 girls per thousand under 18 get pregnant every year, fallen from 47.1 in 1998.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'd prefer that no young women were getting pregnant under 16 and fewer under 18, but the answers to that problem aren't just about sex education, as some of my fellow bloggers seem to think. It's about ensuring that our young women have a sense of their potential future, aspirations for a career and a family, and opportunities to develop an adult identity in ways other than by becoming a mother, so they actively take steps to prevent themselves becoming pregnant.
The government has reached the limits of its ability to contain the UK's high rate of teenage pregnancy and can go no further without the help of parents
said Bev Hughes in an interview in today's Guardian.
Fair enough, parents do need to do far more. But, given that you can't legislate to make them talk to their kids and given that you know that teenage mums are more likely to have no qualifications and a lower-paying job in later life, are you just going to give up, Bev? Are you sure you're doing everything you can? How about making sex and relationships education compulsory in every school - no opt-outs for governors or parents? How about opening a sexual health clinic in every secondary school in every hotspot area? And how about sending a clear message to schools that they have a role to play in preventing teeange pregnancy - becasue the girls most likely to get pregnant are those who are disaffected from school, not achieving, maybe not attending - and effective schools are about more than A-C at GCSE.|||111712619126645422|||Anyone would think there's an epidemic...
I don't think it's just a question of sex education, hence my comment:
...if I create an environment for my children where either of them has nothing else in their lives at age 12...then I've clearly failed as a father.
I want to make my daughters' lives rich and varied so thoughts of going out and getting knocked up at 12 are waaaaaaayyyyy down the list. The question is, without blowing my own trumpet, how to get more - in what is politely called - the D and E social classes to think in a similar way. It used to be said that birth rates declined in the West as a result of materialism and general contentment - some it seems are missing out.
(Nice place, BTW, and a West Wing fan to boot - excellent. Series 5 sucked though. Paging Mr Sorkin.)
These girls are not getting pregnant alone and the focus on the girls in my view seems to reinforce those stereotypes that place child-birth/child rearing as a 'burden' to be borne soley by females.
Anyway, the lovely Councillor Dan has a new blog, and has addressed just this point in one of the inaugural posts.|||111687004088560084|||ASBOs
SISTERS Jemma, Natasha and Jade Williams proudly pose with their tots — after getting pregnant aged 12, 16 and 14. The three girls and their children share a council home in Derby with their twice-divorced mum Julie, 38. None of the toddlers’ dads is supporting their children — so the Williams family rakes in £31,000-a-year benefits.
Newspaper pieces like these really get my goat (and it’s not just The Sun – everyone’s at it today, see here and here). Every time we put another teenage mum on the front cover of the paper, we legitimise the prejudice she faces from other people. And it is prejudice. 90% of teenage mums aged 16-17 are on benefits (as you would expect, as continuing a pregnancy as a teenager is overwhelmingly something that happens to young women from deprived or disadvantaged areas), but young mums aged 16-17 are entitled to between £10 and £22 less per week than older mums on benefits. Anecdotally, young mums experience real discrimination at school, with many being informally excluded, despite government guidance that says that pregnancy isn’t grounds for exclusion. They also get it in the neck from healthcare professionals – one young mum that I’ve met had the midwife’s hand held over her mouth through her labour to “stop her making so much noise” - and from the general public, who think they have a perfect right to comment on them and disapprove of them.
Now, what I’m not saying is that what these young women have done is to be applauded. I’m saying that if we want them to get off benefits and one day get a career and provide for their families, we shouldn’t demonise them. Fewer than 8 young women aged under 16 in a thousand give birth every year, so this case is quite unusual.
I’m encouraged that two of the young women are still in school – less than one in three teenage mums stay in education – and the “free nursery care” that they get absolutely indispensable in making this happen – it’s a small scale government scheme called “Care to Learn”, which is paid directly to the childcare provider if the teenage mum goes back to school or college, up to £5k per year. So that’s £10k of that notorious £31k they get accounted for, leaving £21k p.a. to support two adults, two teenagers and three toddlers. Doesn’t seem exactly the lap of luxury does it? And what’s the alternative, anyway? Is the Sun’s argument that, instead of “raking it in”, these young women shouldn't get any benefits so that their kids starve? Is that really what they're calling for here? And would that be anyway for a civilised society to behave?
Of course the dads should contribute to their children (and I hope the CSA gets their act together); I love the way that the Sun and the rest conveniently ignore that it takes two to tango – clearly the young women are entirely to blame for this situation, with the menfolk, who have taken no responsibility at all, getting off scot-free. Double standards that the women can’t escape – because if they’d had an abortion, that would have been wrong too, of course.
Of course young women shouldn’t be getting pregnant at 12, 14 and 16, and their mum has it partly right – school should have taught them better. Too much sex and relationships education is too biological and far far too late. I strongly believe that SRE must be about feelings, relationships and emotions, confidence- and self esteem-building, about teaching young people the skills to negotiate with their partners about condom use, contraception, about when they’re ready and when they’re not. It has to be about biology too, of course, and it has to start early – key stage 1 is my preference – not conversations about anal sex with five year olds, but conversations about relationships and friendships, leading to body changes and where babies come from as they get older, and so on.
But despite all this, young people still say they want their sex education to come from their parents, not from school and not from playground gossip. If you’ve got kids – talk to them, talk to them tonight. If you’re not sure where to start, Parentline Plus have got an amazing set of resources here. And the other way to prevent teenage pregnancy? Ensure that your daughter is confident and has aspirations for a career. Young women with a future and a means of asserting their independence and adult status don’t need to become a mother in their teens, and will in most cases make sure they don’t.
PS - if you want to know the real facts about teenage mums, there's a little bit of information just here.|||111684215847618791|||Too much too young? (updated)
I've never:
1. Chosen a college to attend because Margaret Thatcher went there
2. Changed my surname, dropping a middle "de" - though I do quite like the sound of Antonia de Bance
3. Met Gordon Brown
4. Eaten a cheesesteak in the city of brotherly love
5. Ridden on a motorbike, even though I owned one for a while
6. Been a trot (despite what some, mainly employed by the LP, think)
7. Painted a room
8. Jumped off Magdalen Bridge
9. Been arrested (that'll make Mum and Dad happy!)
10. Been bungee-jumping|||111660488716104307|||Ten things I've never done
I guess I was sparked by the Honorable Fiend's post about his disappointment with the QS. I was just struck by his analysis of the things that were wrong with it. While the rest of the leftish-blog-world seems to be having agonies about ID cards (about which, for the record, I don't really give a 4X either way, to my girlfriend's fury), his vitriol is reserved for the proposed commission on equality and human rights and the changes to the Welsh Assembly.
For my part, I'm really pleased about the equality bill, which will make public authorities have a duty to promote equality between women and men in all their functions - sounds bureaucratic, but it's one more tool to ensure that all public bodies do an effective gender analysis of their workforce and policies (now that sounds even more bureaucratic!) - it means that local authorities, universities, quangos, the police, all sorts of public bodies will have to look at the impact on women and men of what they do, how they do it and who they employ to do it. CEHR is great too - first statutory support for LGB people and might even give effective support to people who experience multiple discrimination.
Pleased to see Government of Wales bill in there. Had the pleasure of living in the valleys for a year, and got pretty involved with the local party. It was bloody obvious to us all that the stupid regional list system disadvantaged the Labour Party and let sub-standard politicians who were kicked out by the voters of their own constituencies in through the regional back door. We lived a few doors down from Jane Davidson, who when I'm having moments of disillusionment with Ms Kelly (understandably quite frequent) I imagine is the education minister not just for Wales but for England too.
So, what else is right with it? Parental rights and childcare bills, to start with. Labour keeping its promises from the manifesto always a good thing, particularly when they're the nice progressive policies that will actually help poorer people and make a difference to their lives. Smoking ban, reintroduction of criminalising incitement to religious hatred, violent crime bill to sort out alcohol-related crime and young people buying knives - all good.
I was glad to see a commitment - however vague - to sorting out my generation's pensions after the Turner review. It appears that we're all going to have to find out a lot more about pensions policy in the coming years.
I'm pretty indifferent about most of the rest of it, though for the life of me I don't get why we need another law on asylum.
My big worry is about Incapacity Benefit, and exactly what DB has up his sleeve. I think we can all agree that the numbers on incapacity benefit would appear to indicate that not everyone receiveing that benefit will neccessarily be unable to work again at some point. We also know that thousands of heavy industrial workers were thrown on the scrapheap under the Tories, and that many were encouraged onto IB as a means of getting them off the unemployment lists.
I don't think IB and IB claimants are "scroungers", but nor do I think that IB has to be some sort of sacred cow which you don't dare discuss. The plans we have in outline look okay - moving those who are unlikely ever to be able to return to work onto a higher guaranteed allowance, and encouraging everyone else to attempt to find work, with plenty of support to do so. But with all of these things, the devil is in the detail - specifically, the decision about which person with which condition is entitled to which allowance, and the nature of the support to retrain and look for work. It'll have to be good, in a society where disabled people are five times more likely not to be working than non-disabled people.
So there we are: glad to have got that down. There's a post brewing in my brain about the left's response to crime, prevention, rehabilitation and the fear of crime, but I think it'll wait a day or so.|||111643432778689743|||Her Maj
Its a bit after the fact but I saw you in the Monday night church hustings before the election, thought you did a great job with a cold and all.
Well done on your campaign and work holding the vote here in Ox.
cheerio
political correctness: a term to be avoided on the grounds that it is, in Polly Toynbee's words, 'an empty rightwing smear designed only to elevate its user'|||111626664296407594|||Gone mad...
And as well today, I see Mr Blair is declaring war on disrespect and the causes of disrespect. I hope that includes the long-promised green paper on youth. Ask any young person what they want and somewhere in that conversation will come the wish for things to do and places to go. I'm not some bleeding-heart liberal who just wants to mother the little darlings, but having worked with excellent youth workers who can make a difference to the "hardest to reach" young people (to use the current euphemism), I hope we've some time to look at the causes of disrespect as well as mopping up the mess afterwards. So, new Children's and Young People's Minister Bev Hughes, how about a youth centre in every community, to go alongside that children's centre in every community?|||111593372889939218|||Disrespect and the causes of disrespect
I meant about the youth centres.
Antonia and Colin displaying his prowess
Antonia, Colin and Colin's long-suffering mum Rita
Antonia and Mr Dan
Antonia and Ed discussing the finer points of Labour party policy
Ed and Pete listen in awe at Mr Tim's tales from Gillingham
Lawrence and Dan
Mr Oscar - the hero of Newbury
Pete (and Duncan hiding in the background)
Val and her lovely Martin
My kind of guy!
Thanks, firstly, to the OxWAb team: Susanna, James, Chris Brooke, Kathy Gospel, Peter Stalker, Brian Chang, Nicola, Tom, Rita, Sue and Peter Ledwith, Peter Johnson, Christopher McCready, Pat and Archie Brown in Oxford; Andrew H-S, Catherine Arekelian and Chris Robbins in Kidlington; Rod Dacombe, Emma and friends, Bobbie, Bridget, Caroline and Les in Abingdon; James and Phil in the villages; everyone else who had leaflets dropped at their door, ran polling stations, canvassed and knocked up. Many thanks for your efforts - I promise there are no more deliveries at least for a while! Thanks.
Thanks, in particular, to Andrew Nairne, who'll make a great councillor somewhere, even if it's not for WestCentral; to Rachel and Joe Eden and Rod Dacombe; to Oscar, who achieved a lesser swing than me in Newbury.
To the Oxford East team: Andrew and Val, always ready with advice for a novice; Chris Hurn, Tom, Lawrence, Pete and Dan Simpson - lots of responsibility for young shoulders and you coped amazingly well. Good luck in whatever you do next - travelling, university, finals, finding a new job and lazing around all summer respectively! Val C - your union should be proud of you, and we certainly are. Thanks.
To Mum and Dad, who made me what I am and who coped admirably - as non-party members and first-time activists - with the chaos of election day, and night, and next morning. My little brother Marcus, 18 last month, who worked above and beyond the call of duty, even with a grazed hand, and who Dad thinks has been bitten with the political bug too! Carole and Shannon, for your friendship and enthusiasm for what we were doing, even in the small hours of the count with no end in sight. Thanks.
Thanks to the young turks - Ed and Rick, who have proved themselves good drinking buddies and better friends; Tim, who'll always be an Oxford young turk even if he's off elsewhere - Haringay is not in Oxford, Tim!; and Dan - it's all your fault I did this. Thanks, I think.
To my agent, Colin - sorry for making you go outside the ring road twice. If I ever do this again I want you to come too.
And to Jo, who knows how I feel about her.|||111565667125261542|||The people who got me through these last weeks and months
Subject: Re: You won it for Labour
To: Matt Carter, General Secretary of the Labour Party
Date: Sat 7th May 2005
Dear Matt,
Thanks for your message. I'm sharing the joy of a third Labour term.
However I'm worried by this part of your message: "We ... have a clear mandate for new Labour's radical programme of reform". I would hope that after Thursday when we were made to suffer for Iraq and the other mistakes and timidities of our first and second terms, that we approach a third term in a spirit of humility, recognising that the electorate have rejected the excesses of new Labourism. I hope that we now have a chance to revitalise our party, and re-energise our members.
To help you resist the temptation of dismissing me as a member of the awkward squad, I'd like to make clear that I've worked for months to get Andrew Smith re-elected in Oxford East, despite my profound disagreements with him on some areas of policy.
Our victory this week has finally put the ghosts of 1983, 1987 and 1992 to rest - perhaps now it's time to put the tired brand and firefighting mentality of "new" Labour to rest? I believe it's time for a new generation and a new attitude in the party, formed not in opposition to Thatcher, but in awareness of the possibilities of government. There are members here in Oxford and all over the country who have worked for this third term because of the tax credits, the SureStarts and the goal of ending child poverty, but despite PFI, council house privatisation, top-up fees and Iraq - unnecessary and counterproductive policies that make not a jot of difference to middle England but seriously disillusion our members and traditional supporters.
Thursday's results - in Oxford East, Bristol, Manchester, Brent and elsewhere - make it clear that although we must fight the traditional battle against the Tories on our right, we also have to come up with a better strategy for fighting the Lib Dems to our left - "Lib Dems soft on crime" just won't cut it anymore. I firmly believe that we are the left choice, and no other party can match our committment to delivering social justice, but we do it too quietly, without fanfare, in a way that is overshadowed by policies to appeal to former Tory voters. I hope for a third term that is bolder and better - on international development, ending poverty, climate change and opportunity through education.
I'd be interested to hear your views on how we can move forward from here towards a broader party and a socialist future.
with very best wishes,
Antonia Bance
no longer PPC Oxford West and Abingdon
My thoughts on policy priorities for the historic third term and the long-overdue thanks to the team to follow.|||111565241929587448|||The letter I wrote to the Labour party after the election
A letter might not get much further either...
I know it is tempting to think that head office is some kind of wonderfully staffed, exceptionally well-funded machine but believe me it isn't!
Overall, of course, it was a good night for the party. Andrew's back in Oxford East, thank goodness - couldn't bear the thought of the Liberals representing the poorer areas of our city, away from the tourist cameras. Great team, and they pulled it out of the bag. And we've got that third term - let's hope it's less New Labour and more Labour (though they've just announced that Ruth Kelly will be staying on at education - and as an ex-Labour PPC I guess I can now say that when we have a still high (though falling) teenage pregnancy rate and a high STI rate amongst young people, putting a pro-lifer in charge of the teenage pregnancy unit and sex education in schools has always seemed totally ridiculous to me.)
I'm pleased that the number of woman MPs has gone up again to 21% - 136 of 645, mainly because of Labour's committment to positive action, though it's also partly due to the lower number of seats available this time too because of the Scottish reorganisation.
There were some losses - mostly unremarkable nationally, though having been through that moment when you think that your local area might lose its Labour representative, my heart goes out to the teams of activists in every seat that went blue or bluey-yellow last night. Somewhere and Somewhere Else South West may not feature on the rolling coverage, but when you've walked every street five times, know exactly the times when you can get into the controlled-entry block of flats just off the high street, and know what a Tory or Liberal will do to the place you love, it must be heartbreaking.
Particular commiserations to:
Lola, Bex and everyone in Hornsey - in losing Babs we've lost a real advocate for equality in the commons, despite her silly equivocations on top-up fees;
Chris, Josh, Carli and everyone in Bethnal Green, who've slogged for months;
Twiggy, who was a fabulous education minister and another one who really gave a fuck about equality;
Maggie Jones in Blaenau Gwent, who stood up against the "favoured son" mentality that has excluded women from parliament for years - Peter bloody Law, a seat in the Commons isn't inherited, and you're a fucking disgrace.
And well done for great campaigns to Anneliese in Billericay (principled left campaigning in the heartland of Essex man), Kirsty who took on Simon Hughes (I know what you've been through having battled a greasy Liberal myself!), Liam in Beckenham and the lovely Mark Macdonald in Wantage. All people who I hope will find a winnable seat next time.
Oh, and I know everyone's focussing on the general election, and rightly so, but just wanted to say well done to Rae Humberstone, just elected in a bye-election as city councillor for Blackbird Leys with a majority of over 400, beating off the i-wickers. Hurrah!
And now I absolutely have to go to sleep. I've got lots of people I want to thank and lots of things that I'd like to say, but they'll keep until tomorrow.|||111541749276222785|||8725 votes! (and a historic third term...)
I look forward to seeing you defending a Labour seat next time.
Good luck for the future!
That's the myth they'd like you to believe, that Blaenau Gwent CLP was dictated to by London. In fact, the decision to go with AWS in a proportion of seats being vacated by sitting MPs was taken by party conference, to which all CLPs get delegates, and confirmed by the NEC, elected by members, MPs and trade unions. LP democracy isn't perfect, but this one happened through the correct channels.
Now, I'm sure you'll agree with me that the practice of cosying up to a sitting MP over a number of years so that you become the favoured successor, as Peter Law did, is wrong, excludes women from getting selected and should be stamped out.
But beyond my views on AWS, whatever happened to loyalty? How dare he stand against the Labour Party after being a member for so long, over such a relatively trivial issue? Be cross, yes, be furious, yes (though personally I'd be crosser if I had a candidate from No. 10 imposed at three weeks' notice, as had one of the Wolverhampton seats this time and St Helens South last time) but leave the LP and stand against the official candidate after 20-odd years membership and lose Labour their hard-won majority in the Welsh Asembly over it too? Over-reaction, just a little, I think.
PS - maybe I'd have a little more respect if he'd left and run a principled leftwing campaign against Labour on the issues, like Iraq and civil liberties - but he didn't - he just whipped up feeling on the selection issue. Disgraceful.
Just a quick note to say good luck to all the Labour activists and candidates around the country. No more evil biting letterboxes soon - and what is it with the people that put their letterboxes at ankle level?! - dust off those Reading pads and rosettes and prepare to do battle with polling station staff who somehow have an even worse opinion of political activists than most voters.
Wanted to mention the lovely note I got earlier today from an older party member in North Oxford :"GOOD LUCK ANTONIA for May 5th, from Christopher McCready. Proud to be displaying your poster. Proud to vote for a socialist candidate. Proud of my 53 years in the party. And proud to have done over 900 leaflet deliveries for this election!" Certainly one to add to my gallery of moments I'll never forget from the last few weeks.|||111524807493980700|||Nearly there...
However, you have proven yourself to be a tireless candidate that wants to make a difference. I sincerely hope you do well in the future. Perhaps next time the Labour party will give you a more deserved target seat.
Best wishes
Chris
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.|||111498715385695041|||Hustings - various
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.