Ugandan homophobic legislation

I have signed the petition being organised on behalf of Ekklesia, calling on church leaders to speak out against the proposed legislation in Uganda which would impose severe sanctions on gays, including long periods of imprisonment, or even death. I would encourage readers to sign up here.

A victory for free speech?

There has been surprisingly little comment on the UK government’s acceptance of the amendment to the Public Order Act 1986 approved by the House of Lords last Thursday (12 November). This amendment is to that section of the Act which seeks to extend the definition of ‘hate crime’ to include attacks on people because of their sexual orientation (in addition to the existing provisions governing race and religion). The amendment has been welcomed in some quarters as a victory for free speech. I’m not at all sure that it is anything of the kind.

Clearly, there have been several instances lately of over-zealous and not very intelligent police interpreting legislation in a maximalist way, e.g., as reported in the New Internationalist, someone photographing a London bus was ordered to desist (information about transport, you see: could be passed to a terrorist organisation). There is something in the claim that over-explicit laws could lead to comedians being prosecuted for off-the-cuff remarks.

The problem is that any use of certain kinds of language creates a climate of tolerance which, while stopping short of incitement, intensifies and prolongs the stigmatisation of minorities as legitimate targets for contempt and abuse.

I include below the text of the relevant ‘exception’ clauses. 29JA sounds innocuous in isolation, but it has to be read in conjunction with 29J. Judge for yourselves.

‘29J Protection of freedom of expression
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

29JA Protection of freedom of expression (sexual orientation) The Waddington Amendment
In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.’

Tanks on the lawn

I never thought I’d find myself in agreement with Reform, but it’s hard to fault this statement:

“If priests really are out of sympathy with the C of E’s doctrine (as opposed to the battles we are having over women’s ministry and sexuality), then perhaps it is better they make a clean break and go to Rome. However, when they do, they will have to accommodate themselves to Rome’s top-down approach to church life, whereas the C of E has always stressed the importance of decision making at the level of the local church.”

Instead of the individual conversions envisaged by Reform, however, what we are being invited to contemplate is mass annexation, aptly summed up by Ruth Gledhill as the Vatican putting its tanks on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s lawn.

How can any self-respecting Anglican, whether traditionalist or liberal, acquiesce in a situation which

·(a) has been brought about unilaterally  by the CDF, apparently  without consultation with the RC hierarchies of England and Wales, much less with the Church of England

·(b) has, according to the ABC, been sprung on him at short notice, precluding proper discussion within the CofE

·(c) will entail insult and humiliation to any ordained Anglican priest who joins the Romeward movement, as he (no she’s involved!) will have to undergo re-ordination, with the implication that his previous life as a priest has been a charade

·(d) will mean that any married Anglican priest who bows his head to re-ordination and who is subsequently widowed will not only be forbidden to re-marry without renouncing his orders, but will be precluded even from discussing the celibacy issue publicly?

If the arrangement goes ahead as it is apparently contemplated, it will be gall and wormwood to those fine men, some of whom I have been privileged to know, who were forced out of the RC priesthood because they wanted to marry.

I suppose it’s too much to expect that those who will make the move to Rome will worry unduly about the implications for attitudes towards women; but the signals that this development will send to the rest of the world mean that half the human race yet again has its humanity negated by an organisation calling itself Christian. This comment, by someone signing ‘palaeologos’ on the Thinking Anglicans website, really takes the biscuit:

‘The problem with women’s ordination is not that women are unqualified, but that they are not proper matter for the sacrament. You can’t marry your car, you can’t consecrate pizza for the Eucharist, and you can’t ordain women. It’s not a matter of an internal rule that prohibits something from happening, but an ontological impossibility.’

Those whom the gods wish to destroy…

…they first make mad.

Shame!

…on Aberdeenshire Council, which has cravenly caved in to the unspeakable Donald Trump’s desire to take over large swathes of the county. In order to allow him to expand his colony even further, the Council has rejected an appeal against Compulsory Purchase Orders for four properties within its area, obliging long-term residents to leave their homes. It beggars description.

In defence of the NHS

I’m increasingly amazed at the visceral nature of the opposition to President Obama’s health care plans. Are people really saying that they view with equanimity the prospect of large numbers of their fellow-Americans (fellow-humans) suffering and/or dying because they can’t afford to pay for health care? Having recently undergone an operation in an NHS hospital, I can vouch for the excellent skill, care and cleanliness of the facility where I was treated. Give me ’socialised medicine’ any time!

Loyal to what?

The Church of Ireland Gazette has this news item:  ‘The [Belfast] News Letter reported last week that the Loyal Orders have declined to take part in the intercessions at the General Synod service in St Patrick’s Cathedral, Armagh (10th May) because a representative of the pro-gay Church lobby group Changing Attitude Ireland was also going to participate.’

Why were the so-called ‘Loyal Orders’ invited to participate in the first place? And what did they suppose that the representative of CAI was going to pray for?

Whatever you say, say nothing

Er…I don’t know whether I should talk about this but…you know: new legislation. From today, ISPs are obliged to store all records of internet searches, e-mails, text messages, etc. So I didn’t say any of those things I wrote since I started this blog. And I haven’t read any of yours or commented, and anyone who alleges differently will receive a sharp e-mail…oh, rats! Forget I said that. Anyway, this blog will be written from now on in invisible ink.

Destroy on reading. [Are you getting all this down, Jacqui?]