SOHO POLITICO

Equality, consistency, and the rights of Christian B & B owners

2011-01-20T08:43:00.000Z

Consider the following news item:

'Now some people are more equal than others': Despair of Christian hotel owners penalised for turning away interracial couple

Two Christian hotel owners punished for refusing a bed to an interracial couple claimed yesterday that their religion is being suppressed.

Arthur and Martha Bloggs said Christianity had been pushed to the margins of society, and added: ‘Some people are more equal than others.’

They spoke out after a landmark court decision awarded £1,800 each to James Smith (black) and Anne Jones (white), who were denied a double room under the Bloggs’ biblically-inspired policy of allowing only couples of the same race to share a bed in the hotel that is also their home.

This story is imaginary. But I have constructed it using almost exactly the same words and details as those which appeared in the Daily's Mail's reporting of the case of Peter and Hazelmary Bull, who, a judge ruled yesterday, acted unlawfully in refusing to allow gay couple Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy to share a bed on their premises.

The Bulls' right to refuse, on grounds of conscience, to accommodate gay couples' requests to share double beds has been defended in the usual rightwing quarters - not only the Mail but, for instance, by Christian conservative blogger Archbishop Cranmer, and a contributor on ConservativeHome.

However, those who sympathise with the Bulls owe it to us to explain where their loyalties would lie in my imagined scenario, and - if it would not again lie with the B & B owners - what accounts for the difference, in their eyes, between religiously-motivated discrimination towards same-sex and interracial couples respectively.

Now, it will not do for them to try to evade the question by refusing to acknowledge the possibility that my case could ever arise. We know that Christians have in the past been just as opposed to interracial relationships as same-sex relationships, and in particular that various biblical passages were invoked in support of anti-miscegenation laws in the US. Who could confidently deny that there are at least some who still, quietly, agree with the words of the trial judge in Loving v. Virginia to the effect that:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Nor will it do to suggest that discrimination against gay couples is alone acceptable because, whilst Christian opposition to homosexuality is amply founded in the 'valid' interpretation of biblical passages, opposition to interracial marriage is based on biblical 'misreadings'. The state does not - cannot - get into the business of ruling on what counts as valid interpretation of holy texts, nor create law on that basis.

Nor again can defenders of religious discrimination against gay people claim that, whilst Christian opposition to homosexuality is common and mainstream, only at most a few lone kooks would now take the same view of miscegenation. In a liberal democracy, religious freedom cannot be made contingent on the popularity of the belief in question.

Nor, finally, can they distinguish between the Bulls and the B & B owners in my example by claiming that, whilst the latter are guilty of racism - that is, prejudice directed against an unchosen characteristic of a person - the former have merely refused to play host to a certain kind of behaviour with which they disagree - namely, homosexual activity. For my case can equally be described as involving a refusal to tolerate a certain kind of behaviour - namely, sexual activity between people of different races.

Conservatives who bite the bullet, and endorse the idea that religious B & B owners ought to have the right to turn away interracial as well as same-sex couples unquestionably put themselves beyond the pale of mainstream British public opinion. I doubt that many supporters of the Bulls would be prepared to do so. However, if they don't, they can be indicted for being prepared to deny some groups but not others the full protection of the law, based on nothing more than their own, ad hoc personal preferences. For such conservatives, it is certainly true that, in the Bulls' words, 'some people are more equal than others'. But, equally certainly, it is not gay people who are at the top of the heap.

Labour's electoral system needs urgent reform

2010-09-26T10:21:00.000+01:00

By writing this I imagine I will be accused of being a sore loser. I did, after all, back the other Miliband. However, my objection to Labour's electoral system isn't about who won, but the manner of his winning. All Labour members have an interest in ensuring that the party leader wins clearly and unambiguously. That is not what has happened with the election of Ed Miliband.

The electoral college system was designed to ensure that the leader of the party is acceptable to, and has the support of, the various party stakeholders - MPs, rank-and-file members, and affiliates/unions. However, it failed, in this case, to produce a result that looked like a consensus between these groups. Instead, the system pitted them against each other. The electoral college system promotes the appearance of factionalism within the party. It has given us a leader whom, it can be claimed without obviously distorting the truth, owes his victory to one constituency, when the other two came out for someone else.

That Ed Miliband can be painted by Labour's opponents, from his first moment in the job, as the candidate of a vested interest rather than of his party en masse is a serious defect of the system. Labour should not be happy with an electoral system that hands ammunition to its enemies, and gives the winning candidate a mixed, uncertain mandate to lead the party. Nor should it be happy with a system that draws distinctions between groups of voters, as though they are in opposition to one another, vying for dominance.

These problems would be solved by a one-member-one-vote system. George Eaton has already argued that the current system hands too much power to MPs. Oddly, however, he is happy for there to be a distinct affiliates section within the electoral college. That ought to be abolished too, however (or, more accurately, submerged within the members' section).

This would end the situation whereby some people have multiple votes, as members of several affiliated organisations. That aspect of the current system already casts a shadow over its democratic credentials.

Abolishing the affiliates section also ends the odd situation whereby people who are trade union members who are not card carrying party members get to have a say over the party leader. Rank-and-file members may feel somewhat aggrieved that non-members can, in sufficient numbers, contradict and overturn their choice for leader. I do not think it would be entirely unreasonable for them to feel that way.

Most importantly, abolishing the affiliates section ends the suggestion that those who vote in it are an identifiable bloc whose interests and preferences are potentially opposed to, and need to be balanced against, those of regular party members.

Now, George Eaton and others defend the affiliates section on grounds that it represents democracy in action - a mass plebiscite of 'ordinary workers'. True, but what is the members' section, then, if not that? The problem here is the fact that the electoral college is set up to contrast the members with affiliates, and therefore to contrast a leadership victory secured on the basis of members' votes with one that relies of union votes. What we need is a system that hands victory to the candidate that get the most Labour votes, without distinction.

I am not arguing that union members ought to be disenfranchised. I am arguing that there ought not to be distinctions between different voting blocs in leadership elections. Union members who pay into the political fund and are eligible to vote in the affiliates section should be given membership cards, and vote in their capacity as members. That means, in particular, that they should receive their ballot papers through the party, not the union. The unions can mail members separately with their recommendations about how they should use their votes. Nobody should have multiple votes.

Let's hope this is the last Labour leadership election that gives onlookers the impression that the winner has anything less than the support of a clear majority of his party. If we had had such a system this time around, it would have been better for Ed Miliband, and for Labour members who care about the political fortunes of their party, whichever candidate they supported.

Does the Times/Populus poll vindicate the Balls approach to the deficit?

2010-09-14T11:59:00.000+01:00

Sunder Katwala has details of this latest poll, which shows the public rejecting the Coalition's hell-for-leather deficit reduction policy:

Populus asked the public to identify which of three deficit reduction plans they agree with most, without identifying which party or group was advocating each position. Over a third of voters, 37 per cent, say they prefer Labour’s position [i.e. the Darling plan, taken forward by David Miliband - SP] to halve the deficit by the next election and deal with it over ten years.

The same number [37 per cent] say that protecting the vulnerable and keeping unemployment as low as possible should be bigger priorities than reducing the budget deficit.

Only one in five voters, 22 per cent, agree with the coalition plan to deal with the deficit by the next general election, in five years’ time.

Whose policy did Populus have in mind in asking about the second policy option, which prioritises jobs and protecting vulnerable people over the deficit? I imagine supporters of Ed Balls will infer that Populus had in mind his approach. So I expect to hear the following kind of argument now from them, in light of the poll:

The Balls plan, as this poll shows, chimes with the instincts of voters, even though it has no support to speak of in the media, and has only recently come to prominence, through the Balls campaign. If, under these conditions, it level pegs with the Darling/David Miliband plan to halve the deficit, we should be confident that it would win the argument if adopted wholeheartedly by Labour. Labour needs to have the courage to break out of the cosy rightwing consensus on the deficit, and reap the electoral rewards.

This response, however, is not yet justified, because Populus did not give people a choice between the Balls plan and the Darling/DM plan. Both the first two options which Populus gave to respondents could be fair descriptions of the Darling/DM plan. This is because, as Duncan Weldon, Hopi Sen, myself and others have all emphasised, the latter comes with an escape clause whereby deficit reduction can be frozen or slowed if the economy shows signs of going south. David Miliband's plan does not prioritise the deficit over unemployment and vulnerable people - far from. So it would be a mistake for Labourites to read from this poll that there is a head of steam building building behind the Balls strategy. Indeed, that looks unlikely, because, as Sunny Hundal has shown us, other polling indicates that the public do believe that there is a need to tackle the deficit through at least some cuts.

'Will Mr Ratzinger listen to a rap singer?'

2010-09-13T11:49:00.000+01:00

Following on from Tim Minchin's Pope Song earlier this year, now Dan Bull has a go at bashing the bishop over child abuse:

NSFW, on grounds of language. Though if you're listening with headphones, co-workers may just think you're typing an email!

Sunny Hundal on the deficit

2010-09-13T10:36:00.001+01:00

Responding to my post from yesterday about the Labour leadership candidates and the deficit, Sunny tweets:

'there's little evidence to support that. Polling actually shows Labour started losing when they started accepting Tory args'

First and foremost, this merely repeats what I have stressed to be untrue, namely that DM's deficit plan relies on/replicates Tory arguments. Sunny's repeated claims to this effect are not helpful to the cause of accurate analysis.

Leave that aside, though. When did Labour start accepting Tory arguments on the deficit, according to Sunny? Apparently in around March 2010 (i.e. around Darling's last budget). Sunny points me to an older post of his on LabourList, in which he exhibits a graph, produced by Ipsos Mori, which shows a point in March 2010 when voters seem to have begun to agree in greater numbers that 'there is a real need to cut spending on public services in order to pay off the very high national debt we have now':

Sunny claims that, in March 2010, Labour's arguments on the deficit began to go 'haywire', in the sense that the party started to accept the need for cuts, and adopted the Darling deficit reduction plan. Sunny's theory is that when Labour altered its stance to accept the need for cuts it 'started losing' because voters came to think that they should vote for the Tories, who had consistently demanded cuts, rather than Labour, which had changed its view.

Sunny forgets that the reason Labour changed its approach was that its refusal to discuss cuts, in the face of a media that was screaming from the top of its lungs that they were necessary, was becoming untenable. The 'Labour investment versus Tory cuts' line was widely seen as a fabrication of Gordon Brown's, and castigated as such. The media drumbeat on cuts was simply irresistible. Sunny is rewriting history by pretending that, when Labour adopted a deficit reduction plan it did itself a needless, self-inflicted wound.

In addition, Sunny neglects polling that shows that, as I emphasised in my previous post, the public preferred Labour's approach to deficit reduction to the Tory plan by considerable margins. To give some evidence of this, Sunny's chosen pollster, Ipsos Mori, shows that, in March 2010, when Labour's message started going 'haywire', the public actually preferred Labour's strategy on the deficit by 57% to 30%. Labour seems to have lost the election in spite of its deficit reduction plan, not because of it. So there is every reason to believe that, if a Labour leader seen as more credible than Brown were to make it now, it would be persuasive.

Most importantly, at risk of stating the obvious, Sunny's graph does not show any falling off of support for Labour as a result of its adoption of the Darling plan, because the graph does not record party vote shares, only public opinion on cuts. If his argument were correct, one would expect to see a significant drop in support for Labour in March-April 2010, and a move towards the Tories, as the public grew disillusioned with the government's abrupt volte-face on the deficit. That is not what happened, however. Returning to Ipsos Mori again, their headline figures for Labour are remarkably static during this period. Indeed, the biggest drop seen is in Tory support from March to April - exactly the point at which, according to Sunny, it should have taken off:

2010	Con	Lab	LD

19-22 March 2010 (T)	35	30	21
18-19 April (T)	32	28	32
23 April (T)	36	30	23
5 May (T)	36	29	27
General election result (6 May)	36. 9	29.7	23.6

In short, the evidence isn't there to support Sunny's claim that the Darling/David Miliband deficit plan is a vote loser.

Finally, Sunny wants not merely to give a post mortem of the 2010 election, but to explain why Ed Balls' approach to the deficit is electorally most sound. (Though incidentally, it is not totally clear why he thinks that this is a point in favour of his own preferred candidate, Ed Miliband. Ed Miliband's policy on the deficit is not Ed Balls' [and is a good deal more ill-defined]). But all Sunny has successfully shown is that the public now accept the need for cuts. There is no reason to think that Labour could reverse this, and every reason to think that, if they suddenly decided to set their face against cuts, having previously supported them in an election campaign, they would be laughed out of court. I continue to think, then, that the electorally smart approach is to accept the need to tackle the deficit whilst insisting that we adopt a slower, fairer, safer approach to doing so.

Who do the Tories want to win the Labour leadership?

2010-09-12T17:59:00.000+01:00

Are the right praying for a David or an Ed victory?

That is the question Sunny Hundal on Liberal Conspiracy keeps returning to lately. He has more than once claimed that the Conservatives would prefer a David Miliband victory, and are more worried about the prospect of facing his younger brother.

His evidence? Well, that is somewhat murky. Some indications in the press say that the Tories, including David Cameron, fear David Miliband the most. Sunny's response has been to suggest this is a reverse ferret, designed to confuse the left into supporting the wrong candidate. So for instance, when the Guardian ran the story that David Cameron is most concerned by the prospect of a DM victory, Sunny said that this was an 'obvious ruse', put about by someone 'who wants the Labour Party to believe this stuff'. On Twitter, he also says today, 'If you want to know who Tories fear - look at who they disparage, not who they admire and praise.'

All of which would be fine if Sunny was not inclined to believe rightwing commentators and their sources in the Tory party when they say things that favour his preferred candidates and narrative. Sunny does not, for instance, think that James Forsyth or his Tory sources are trying to mislead when they claim that CCHQ wants DM to win, because it will be easier to pin Labour's past mistakes on him. And Sunny also believes that Boris Johnson is speaking from the heart when he heaps praise on Ed Balls' approach to tackling the deficit, rather than attempting to lead Labour up the garden path, as the 'look at who they disparage, not who they admire and praise' maxim would suggest.

Let us leave all this aside, however. Partly in response to me, and partly in response to Christopher Cook of the FT, Sunny has now put up a post on LibCon explaining his reasons for thinking that the Tories are hoping for a DM win. Let's examine his reasoning. For space reasons, I'll concentrate on what he says about economic matters.

Sunny claims that the Tories want DM to win because of his approach to the deficit. He makes two key points about this, both of which are highly problematic:

1) Sunny says DM's plan is not distinguishable from the Tory plan. It allegedly involves conceding the argument on the deficit to the Tories, and will allow them to say ‘see, he accepts Labour went too far in allowing the debt to get out of hand‘. Sunny writes:

Politically – it’s not an easily explainable or different enough plan from the Conservatives. It admits that Labour got it wrong on trying to protect the economy rather than cutting the deficit. This lack of a clear political message over the economy is why Labour lost the last election so badly – people saw Labour admitting they had messed up the economy.

This, however, is full of questionable claims. First, Sunny consistently talks up the similarity between the Tory plan and DM's plan, and unjustifiably so. DM's plan is to halve the deficit in the lifetime of a parliament, rather than eliminate it entirely, at a hell-for-leather pace. DM's plan involves reducing the deficit via a 2:1 mix of cuts to tax rises, as opposed to Osborne's 4:1. And DM's plan has an escape clause, whereby the pace of deficit reduction can be slowed depending on the economic outlook. The only way these plans can be mistaken for one another is if the public are repeatedly told, as Sunny does, that they are identical. Moreover, Sunny thinks that the provision for an escape hatch is 'minutae that will go over the head of most voters and the media.' Yet, I don't think the public will find it too difficult to grasp the idea that DM would not cut at the expense of the economy, whilst the Tories give every indication that they would.

Second, the DM deficit plan does not, in any way, involve implicitly conceding to the Tories that Labour was wrong to increase the deficit at the time. I simply do not see why, in general, one would think that any deficit reduction plan implies a judgement about the reasons for having a deficit in the first place. It is perfectly consistent for David Miliband to argue that it was the right thing to do at the time to allow the deficit to grow, but now something must be done (albeit not the same thing as the Tories demand).

Third, Sunny has no evidence that Labour's proposals on the deficit prior to the election, to which DM still adheres, were responsible for its losing. There is evidence, however, that the public was sick of the Labour brand, and of Gordon Brown in particular, and would not have stomached five more years of the latter for all the tea in China. The public voted for the Tories despite being unconvinced by the Tory plans for the deficit. And there were some indications from polling that the public were more friendly to the Labour line on the deficit going into the election.

The fact is that now there is a potential big opening for a Labour alternative that says that the deficit should be taken seriously, but can be reduced more slowly, safely, and fairly, than the Tories are doing. The Tories are scared, as the papers constantly tell us, that they will not be able to recover from the anger that the impending cuts will generate. DM will be able to argue that there is another way, and the government has reason to be fearful of that.

By contrast, it is seriously doubtful, given that polling indicates that the public certainly believe that the deficit needs addressing, and that cuts in some measure are needed, that the Ed Balls approach would be taken seriously at all. Indeed, if Labour were to make the Ed Balls case now, they would be asked to explain their radical change of heart since the election, when all cabinet members endorsed the Darling strategy. If Ed Balls or Ed Miliband were leader, they would be asked why they ought to be taken seriously on economic affairs at all, if they are the kind of politician to insist that cuts are needed in May, and to deny it in September.

The bottom line is that Sunny's claim that David Miliband's approach to the deficit concedes too much to the Tories depends on distorting what the latter stands for until it is unrecognisable. Sunny is highly exercised by the need to create clear blue water between Labour and the Tories on the deficit. That is fine, but there is already enough water between the Tory plan and the DM plan, and it is far from clear that a policy that is even further removed, such as the Balls proposal, could be argued for credibly at this stage. It's no good having a more distinct policy that is also widely taken to be a turkey.

2. Sunny claims that DM's plan for the deficit would lead to infighting in Labour with opponents on the left, which the Tories would relish. That is an odd point, and can be safely ignored, since it can also be made in reverse. In other words, why is it not a problem with the Balls proposal that it will not be accepted by centrists? The fact is that whoever is leader, someone's preferred policy on the deficit will not be adopted. Those people will just have to suck it up, whoever they turn out to be.

Some further, shorter points in response to Sunny:

a) He claims that DM 'hasn’t attacked the Coalition from the right on issues.' However, like Sunny's misrepresentation of DM's position on the deficit, repeating the mantra that he is just (in effect) another Tory isn't enough to make it true. Don Paskini recently provided a list of solidly leftwing policies adopted by David Miliband in this campaign:

- an economic strategy which aims to halve unemployment
- a living wage
- doubling the bank levy
- a mansion tax on the wealthiest homeowners to reverse housing benefit cuts
- withdrawing charitable status from private schools to pay for an expansion of free school meals
- defending universal benefits
- marriage equality for same sex couples
- a comprehensive strategy to rid the world of nuclear weapons
- training 1,000 future leaders to campaign in their communities
- building more affordable homes and creating more green jobs as part of an industrial strategy to reduce Britain's dependency on the City of London

On what world does advocating these policies not involve attacking the coalition from the left?

And by the same token, Ed Miliband is hardly immune from the charge of adopting rightwing talking points. For instance, in an interview with Sunny himself back in July, when asked whether Labour went too far in waging war on benefits claimants, Ed said 'For the most part I don’t think we were too harsh' -an astonishing claim, I'd have thought, for many on the left.

b) Sunny also has an unfortunate tendency of suggesting that supporters of David Miliband, such as Jack Straw and Alan Johnson, speak for his campaign. Conversely, it is not clear that he is wholly on top of his own chosen candidate's policies. For example, he says that David Miliband would be hamstrung in building a progressive alliance by his continuing commitment to Trident. This ignores that Ed Miliband is also committed to keeping Trident.

c) Sunny does not make any attempt to explore in what way Ed Miliband's victory might be a gift to the Tories. At the very least, then, he doesn't give us a balanced appraisal. On that score, there is at least some room to fear that the Tories would be able to effectively portray the younger Miliband as the reincarnation of Gordon Brown. After all, he is from the Brownite wing of the party. He owes his career, in large measure, to Brown's patronage. He wrote the manifesto the country rejected at the polls this year, on behalf of Brown. He is heavily backed by increasinngly assertive unions, again calling to mind Brown, who was with some effectiveness (and however unfairly) portrayed in the rightwing press as in thrall to his 'union paymasters' during the days of the BA strike, etc. And he shares with Brown the fact that, as Paul Sagar notes, he is not in any way a polished media performer, but instead appears slightly awkward and off-putting.

Note that these last points are not intended to suggest that the Tories are praying for Ed Miliband. I happen to think it is a futile enterprise trying to second guess their preferences, and I would advise Sunny not to try.

Lib Dems giving mixed signals on gay marriage

2010-07-21T18:18:00.002+01:00

Where do the Lib Dems really stand on gay marriage? Recently, Simon Hughes spoke to this issue in a video interview with Yoosk. It was then widely reported - e.g. by gay media outlet Pink News - that Hughes had indicated that gay marriage will happen in this parliament.

However, that is a rather optimistic assessment of what Hughes actually said. Indeed, Hughes actually dampened expectations that gay marriage would be adopted as a matter of Lib Dem party policy, let alone coalition policy.

Hughes' full answer on gay marriage can be seen here:

Notice that the only concrete step towards gay marriage mentioned by Hughes is a 'consultation' by the coalition government, which had anyway already been previously promised by Lynne Featherstone. Whether or not gay marriage ever sees the light of day depends, then, on how the consultation is handled by the coalition, and what its outcome is. Hughes doesn't venture a guess on that - indeed, he says that he doesn't know what the outcome of discussions over gay marriage will be even within the Liberal Democrat party. So, whilst he has some warm words to say for gay marriage, and speculates that we 'should' be able to get it in this parliament, he is certainly not committing to anything beyond the consultation as yet.

Moreover, Hughes implies that he would rather gay marriage were not adopted as a matter of whipped, Lib Dem policy, but were instead put forward as a mere free conscience vote. He says:

I think that every Liberal Democrat MP will be free to come to their own decision. I don't think this will be a whipped vote matter, because there are matters of conscience around these issues, and I am keen that we don't say every single item is a matter of party policy.

Now, at the beginning of this year, Nick Clegg announced that he was a supporter of full gay marriage. So it was a matter of considerable disappointment when the issue was omitted from the Liberal Democrats' 2010 manifesto. At the time, the explanation for this was that there had not been time to debate gay marriage at the Lib Dems' Federal Conference. Pink News was told that, eventually, gay marriage would be debated, and would be adopted as a policy commitment.*

Hughes' comments now suggest that he thinks a pro-position on gay marriage will not become a matter of Lib Dem policy at all. To be sure, that does not mean it will not happen. And gay marriage could still pass on a free vote, even if Lib Dem MPs were not whipped into supporting it.

Nonetheless, though, the Lib Dem position on gay marriage is a good deal more ambiguous than some reports suggest. There is certainly no call for Lib Dem Voice to run the details of Hughes' interview beneath the headline: 'Simon Hughes: Coalition Government will legislate to allow gay marriage'.

*A small update: as commenter Jae tells me, gay marriage is now on the agenda for the Lib Dem Federal Conference this autumn (see Jae's own post on it here). That is positive, but still leaves us with a situation in which (headlines in Pink News and Lib Dem Voice to the contrary notwithstanding) the Lib Dem Deputy Leader has said that, in his opinion, gay marriage will not (and perhaps should not) become a matter of whipped party policy.

Ed Miliband has blown it on gay marriage

2010-07-21T12:04:00.000+01:00

It was disappointing when, in his Liberal Conspiracy interview a fortnight ago, Ed Miliband passed up the opportunity to give clear support for marriage equality.

But it is a pretty sad indictment of his candidacy that, when offered the chance to revisit his earlier position, and come out firmly, if belatedly, in support of gay marriage, in an interview published today in Labour Uncut, he once again failed to do so. Here is the relevant portion of the interview:

Q. (from Jae): Following Ed Balls and Diane Abbott announcing their support for marriage equality, will he retract his comments about there not being enough people calling for it and come out in support of LGBT equality?

A. My position on this is pretty simple, which is that we did a consultation in the run up to the manifesto, and it wasn’t raised with me as an issue. But obviously if it’s something that is felt to be an important issue, I understand absolutely the reasons for that, then it’s something we should definitely look at. And I’m very happy to say that and I completely understand and sympathise with the wish for equality in this area.

Q. So does it matter how many people ask for it?

A. It’s not about how many people but I think if it’s felt to be an issue, as I say it hasn’t been raised with me, but I completely understand the reasons for it, it’s something that we should look at. I think if we were in government we should have a consultation on it, I believe the government is having a consultation on it. I’m very happy for that to happen.

So Ed, who represents himself as a believer in equality, 'understands' the case for gay marriage, yet shies away from committing to it. His deliberate refusal (for that is what it is, given that he has now been asked about this twice) to be drawn on gay marriage is in stark contrast with the unequivocal endorsements of equality from the other runners (bar his brother).

Contrast Miliband's words with this statement from Ed Balls' campaign team:

[Balls] had an uncle, the youngest of 7 kids, who eventually came out to the family, after many years, very difficult for him.

He was in a long term relationship, but died of cancer a few years ago, before civil partnerships were introduced. (The family is still in touch with his partner).

The uncle was a very religious man, a Christian, and Ed says it was really sad that he didn’t get to have a civil partnership but also, why should he have been denied the chance to have a proper marriage too, especially given his religious faith?

So it’s something he feels quite strongly about on a personal level.

Or this, from Diane Abbott:

I have always supported gay marriage and made that case when civil partnerships were first discussed. Despite what may now be reported, it wasn’t New Labour that first proposed civil partnerships but Ken Livingstone in his first administration. I supported it then, way before New Labour had the bravery to put this issue into legislation.

Or Andy Burnham's impassioned defence:

Gay marriage epitomises my approach - complete equality because civil partnerships can be seen as second-class arrangements. Marriage is a life-long commitment by two people to each other, which is much more important than any judgement about their sexuality.

As I said in my previous post on the subject, for anyone with egalitarian sympathies, support for gay marriage should be an absolute no-brainer - there simply are no good, secular reasons not to embrace it.

Ed Miliband has now had two opportunities to do so, and blown it. This is not a positive indication of the instincts and convictions of a man who seeks to lead a political party of the left.

Why not gay marriage, Ed?

2010-07-07T17:34:00.008+01:00

At several points in his interview with Sunny Hundal, published on Liberal Conspiracy today, Ed Miliband comes across either as lacking the courage of his leftwing convictions, or as lacking those convictions altogether. He continues to be heavy on soggy rhetoric (e.g. “We have to be proud of our record, but we must apply our values to a blank sheet of paper”). And although he wants to position himself as the 'change candidate', who can make a decisive break with the New Labour era, he cannot bring himself to repudiate some of the worst aspects of New Labour's record (on its war on benefit cheats, he says “For the most part I don’t think we were too harsh"). One of the very few clear lines he takes could have the consequence of denying Labour a chance at returning to power (he rules out a coalition with the Lib Dems).

Finally, there is this:

Would you allow gays to be legally married, rather than just be registered as a civil partnership?

He hesitates. “I will listen to what people have to say on going further than that if there is a demand. No one has yet put that to me in the leadership election.” He said his feeling was that not enough people were asking for the policy.

The coalition has promised to 'consult' on gay marriage (with whom?), and now Ed Miliband, bravely, says that he will also 'listen' to people about it. He suggests that not enough people are asking for it. This implies that he is not now listening to the gay activists who are already campaigning on the issue, and also raises the intriguing question of how many people demanding gay marriage would, for Ed Miliband, seem like 'enough' to encourage him to get behind it.

It is difficult to understand why Ed Miliband thinks this issue is not clearcut. What possible good secular reason could one have to resist implementing full marriage equality? I am at a loss to think of one. Civil partnership legislation was of course a hugely important step. But it was just that - a step, not the end goal. Civil partnerships are to marriage equality what AV is to PR (assuming you like PR in the first place, of course). The status quo gives us marriage apartheid, and will continue to be seen as implicitly endorsing the view that gay relationships are inferior until it is changed.

Religious groups will continue to regard gay marriage as unconscionable, of course. They can refuse to conduct them, then. It is not for them to veto marriage equality any more than it is for (say) the Catholic Church to demand a ban on heterosexual second marriages. It is often said that marriage is an essentially religious institution. It is not. What counts as a legal marriage is decided by the state. If it were down to religion to decide, we would be allowing men to have multiple prepubescent brides.

True enough, some gay people prefer civil partnerships, e.g. on grounds that they do not have connotations of ownership, as marriage is sometimes seen to do. But that just suggests, though, that civil partnerships should also be available, to gay and straight couples who want them. It's important to note that there isn't anything wrong with civil partnerships, just with the inequality.

It is a deep shame that, when presented with such an easy opportunity to support equality, Miliband flunked it. Not that his rivals have done any better to date, of course. Labour is currently in the lamentable position of having nobody among the current crop of leadership candidates who openly and unequivocally supports gay marriage. ~~Meanwhile, the Tory mayor of London now does.~~* If the candidates want to offer genuine change, they could start here.

ADDENDUM: @ConorPope, on Twitter, points me to this post, by Kerry McCarthy, in which she suggests that there may be practical roadblocks to implementing marriage equality. McCarthy writes:

Civil partnerships are not the same as marriage. And we won't have true equality until they are. I've tried looking into this, and the explanation I got as to why the UK hasn't gone down the path of other countries who have legalised gay marriage was that it's more difficult in the UK because whereas in those countries you can only be married in a civil ceremony and can then choose to go on and have a religious service should you want one, in the UK you can be married in church without the civil element. Which I took to mean that you couldn't have gay marriage in this country without persuading the Church of England, Catholic church, etc, to accept it.

I don't understand what the difficulty is supposed to be here. In this country, heterosexual couples can already choose between a civil and religious marriage. the former being conducted in a registry office. Gay marriage would, in the first instance, extend the availability of civil marriage to gay couples. Religious marriage could also be allowed in churches that agree to conduct them. You would not have to win over or secure the consent of religious denominations opposed to gay marriage for any of this. As I say in the original post, those that oppose gay marriage needn't perform them.

* UPDATE 8th July: Thanks to Patrick, in the comments section, for pointing out that initial reports that Johnson had come out in favour of gay marriage at London Pride may not have been an accurate relection of his position after all. Pink News reports that, 'Following [Johnson's] remarks at Pride, a City Hall statement made clear he supported civil partnerships, with no mention of marriage.'

According to the Tories, the country has voted for Gordon Brown

2010-05-08T17:44:00.005+01:00

Remember this poster?

This was the Tories' effort towards the end of the campaign, when they decided to run against the 'Hung Parliament Party'. The message? That a vote for a hung parliament was a vote for five more years of Gordon Brown.

The country has now voted for a hung parliament. Presumably, then, the Tories think voters have opted for five more years of Gordon Brown. Perhaps someone should ask David Cameron to confirm whether it is indeed, as the poster implies, the view of the Tories that the voters have chosen Brown.

David Cameron's Head on a Stick - behind the scenes

2010-05-05T17:50:00.002+01:00

I should have posted this excellent video from Tim Ireland some time ago, but better late than never:

See also Tim's post on the technicalities of making of the video here.

You may or may not be interested to know that I had a small but very fun role in the filming of this video. Tim asked me to lend him a hand one evening in London, which in a nutshell involved followed him around whilst he was in the persona of David Cameron, complete with creepy mask, and filming as he asked members of the public in Soho, Picadilly Circus, and nearby areas to pose with him for his 'campaign video'. Some of the footage we filmed shows up in the video at, e.g., 1.53 mins in, and again at 2.33 or so.

Reactions, as you can imagine, were varied! Some people jumped out of their skins when they saw the mask, others burst out laughing (and others still did both). Some passers-by somehow came to the conclusion that we were making a film for the Conservative Party, and this was the only thing that occasionally made what we were doing a little embarrassing ('Urgh - David Cameron? No thanks!!'). Some who originally turned down requests to be in the video changed their minds and enthusiastically posed with Tim once they had it clarified that the video would be taking the mickey out of Dave, rather than bigging him up.

So I was later told by LGBT Labour's James Asser on Twitter, while filming on Old Compton St we narrowly missed the chance to have Tim in the same place as David Miliband, who was outside Ku Bar launching Labour's International LGBT Manifesto!

Finally, throughout the walkabout one of the things we heard most often, and were most struck by, was the apparently high level of support on the street for the Lib Dems. People shouted 'Nick Clegg for PM!' at us from across the street, and those who declined to be in the video often gave, as their reason, 'No thanks - I'm voting for Nick Clegg!' as they walked on. Of course, Soho is a very lefty place at the best of times. And this also was during the height of Cleggmania - after the first television debate, and before the second. Nevertheless, maybe this will prove to be a good omen for the Lib Dems come polling day...

Update, 07.05.10, 11.10 am: Erm, as the observant among you may now have gleaned, things did not exactly pan out well for Clegg in the end...

These slippery Tory non-denials over Stroud will only fuel further suspicions

2010-05-02T23:35:00.003+01:00

UPDATE, 5/05/10, 14.30: On legal advice, a more recent, related post has been deleted.

Meanwhile, Liberal Conspiracy today has further details about the general media inattention to the Stroud story.

ORIGINAL POST:

By now, many people will have read both the original allegations against Tory PPC Philippa Stroud in today's Observer, and her rather curious non-denial denial. Stroud's statement reads:

I make no apology for being a committed Christian. However, it is categorically untrue that I believe homosexuality to be an illness and I am deeply offended that The Observer has suggested otherwise.

However, what Stroud here denies in not what The Observer alleges. The Observer alleges that Stroud either believes or once believed that homosexuality and gender identity issues are caused by demonic possession, and that prayer, by driving out the demons, can 'cure' the possessed person. And the newspaper further avers that Stroud has herself attempted to cast a demon out of a teenager who was sent to her by evangelical parents:

Abi, a teenage girl with transsexual issues, was sent to the church by her parents, who were evangelical Christians. "Convinced I was demonically possessed, my parents made the decision to move to Bedford, because of this woman [Stroud] who had come back from Hong Kong and had the power to set me free," Abi told the Observer.

"She wanted me to know all my thinking was wrong, I was wrong and the so-called demons inside me were wrong. The session ended with her and others praying over me, calling out the demons. She really believed things like homosexuality, transsexualism and addiction could be fixed just by prayer, all in the name of Jesus."

These are allegations that Stroud's statement fails to acknowledge, let alone rebut.

Iain Dale, who often volunteers himself as firefighter for his party when stories about anti-gay Tories begin to smoulder in the press, posts today in defence of Stroud. What he does, however, is put words in her mouth. Dale claims:

Philippa Stroud categorically denies the Observer's implication that she believes homosexuality is an illness or can be cured.

But Stroud's statement does not deny that she believes homosexuality can be cured: Dale has pulled this out of thin air.

Tim Montgomerie also addresses the Stroud story, albeit reluctantly. He is a close friend of hers, and admits, candidly enough, that his first thought was to try to ignore the allegations against her to death, rather than confront them. Convinced, however, that the story could not be ignored, he reproduces her statement of non-denial, with emphases added as follows:

I make no apology for being a committed Christian. However, it is categorically untrue that I believe homosexuality to be an illness and I am deeply offended that The Observer has suggested otherwise.

Montgomerie's choice to embolden 'it is categorically untrue', but not the words that follow immediately after ('that I believe homosexuality to be an illness') makes it appear, to the casual eye, as though Stroud's statement was a far more comprehensive denial of the Observer allegations than in fact it was (since it was not, of course, any kind of denial).

Montgomerie also refers to the Observer piece as 'gutter journalism'. But he does not adduce any evidence to back up that jab (e.g. evidence to show that the interviewees either do not exist, or were misrepresented by the journalist). Rather, in effect, he merely asks his readers to accept it as an article of faith that the story is unfounded. Much as Nadine Dorries also did when, on Twitter, she invited Gaby Hinsliff to accept that 'Philippa Stroud would never, ever lie'. (Though Nadine may be right about Stroud's truthiness, note. Because she has yet to deny the specific allegations against her in the Observer, Stroud would not be rendered a liar, even if the story turns out to be true.)

Whether or not there is any truth to The Observer story, the reaction to it from Stroud herself, and from other Tories trying to defend her, has been evasive at best, disingenuous at worst. Far from helping to bury the story, they may encourage the asking of further awkward questions.

Tim Minchin's Pope Song - motherf**king brilliant!

2010-05-01T20:55:00.008+01:00

For those of you who have yet to see it:

Very NSFW, on grounds of language.

Tim Montgomerie normalises homophobia (again)

2010-04-28T10:46:00.001+01:00

As has now been widely reported, the Conservative Party has, uncharacteristically, taken action on homophobia in their ranks by... erm, suspending a Scottish PPC who was contesting a seat that he had absolutely no chance of winning anyway (at the last election Labour won secured 43.9% of the vote, with the Tories trailing on 18.4%). Compare and contrast the suspension of Philip Lardner with the cases of Chris Grayling and Julian Lewis, a Shadow Cabinet member and Shadow Minister respectively, who are still in jobs, and over whom David Cameron has taken no action.

Iain Dale has written a post saying 'good riddance' to Philip Lardner. This is an open goal for him, giving him the chance to burnish his credentials as a champion of gay rights without actually having to stand up to his party - after all, the Scottish Tories had already suspended Lardner, so all Dale had to do was applaud their decision. As I have noted here before, Dale's record on calling out Tory homophobia in cases where the party itself is unkeen to take action has been consistently poor.

Conservative Home's Tim Montgomerie, meanwhile, has come out as an apologist for Lardner's homophobia. Before getting to his assessment of the situation, it's worth noting the comments from Lardner that led to his suspension:

"I will always support the rights of homosexuals to be treated within concepts of (common-sense) equality and respect, and defend their rights to choose to live the way they want in private, but I will not accept that their behaviour is 'normal' or encourage children to indulge in it.

"The promotion of homosexuality by public bodies (as per 'clause 28′/section 2a in Scotland,) was correctly outlawed by Mrs Thatcher's government. Toleration and understanding is one thing, but state-promotion of homosexuality is quite another.

"Why should Christian churches be forced by the government to employ homosexuals as 'ministers' against all that the Bible teaches? They are being forced by the government to betray their mission – would the Equality and Human Rights Commission be fined for refusing a job to Nick Griffin?

"Christians (and most of the population) believe homosexuality to be somewhere between 'unfortunate' and simply 'wrong' and they should not be penalised for politely saying so – good manners count too, of course.

"The current 'law' is wrong and must be overturned in the interests of freedom as well as Christian values."

Let us leave aside the parts of his comments that have attracted the most attention - that homosexuality is not normal, and that it is "somewhere between 'unfortunate' and simply 'wrong'". Note instead that Lardner defends Section 28, and advocates its reintroduction. Note too that he peddles the falsehood that it is possible to teach or promote homosexuality. And note finally that he stokes up fears about the effects of equality legislation, saying that it forces churches to hire gay clergy, when spiritual positions are exempt. In a nutshell, Lardner attempts to fight gay equality by lying to people about what it entails.

And Montgomerie's response? He does not object to any of Lardner's ideas about gay rights, but only to the manner of their presentation:

I see no evidence for hatefulness in Mr Lardner's remarks, even though I disagree with his choice of words. Although he's probably wrong to say "most of the population" share his views, they are shared by many conservative Christians and people of other faiths. His suspension by the Scottish Conservative Party seems a disproportionate response.

But this should not be a surprise, since it is not the first time Montgomerie has attempted to claim that clearly homophobic comments by a Tory are in fact nothing of the sort. Back in August of last year, Tory MEP Roger Helmer claimed that homophobia does not exist, but is instead a 'thought crime', 'a propaganda device designed to denigrate and stigmatise those holding conventional opinions', and 'frightening evidence of the way in which political correctness is threatening our freedom'. Montgomerie said, on that occasion, that Helmer's comments were 'perfectly reasonable'.

Tory Grant Shapps claims to be 'big supporter' of gay rights, having never voted in favour of gay rights

2010-04-14T17:48:00.000+01:00

At 3pm today, C4's Krishnan Guru-Murthy conducted an interview over Twitter with Grant Shapps, the Shadow Housing Minister. Shapps, whose previous claim to fame was to have been at the centre of an embarrassing episode involving sock-puppetry, was asked, among other things, about his views on gay rights. The initial exchange between him and Guru-Murthy went as follows:

KGM: Do you agree with Chris Grayling on B&B owners being able to choose who they admit to their homes?

GS: the law is the law & huge progress has been made over the yrs. I'd never want to turn the clock back.

KGM: 'the law is the law' doesn't sound like a big banging of the drum on gay rights. A bit reluctant on this issue?

GS: spotted follow up on gay rights. Big supporter. Legislation passed prior to being MP. Would definitely voted for civil partnerships

Yet, Shapps can only be accounted a 'big supporter' of gay rights if what that involves is not once voting in favour of gay rights. Since Grant became a MP in 2005, there have been two key gay rights votes - over the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations in March 2007, which outlawed discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services, and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in May 2008, which granted lesbian couples access to IVF, by removing the earlier stipulation that treatment should only be provided once doctors had considered the child's 'need' for a father.

Shapps voted against lesbian access to IVF, supporting two separate attempts to insert a new requirement on doctors that they take account of the child's 'need' for a father or a 'male role model'. And he failed to turn up to vote for non-discrimination in goods and services. In other words, Shapps failed to support the law that, among other things, prohibits Christian B&B owners from turning away gay couples. Oddly, he failed to mention this when quizzed about Grayling's comments.

In light of his voting record, Shapps has only a 21% gay-friendliness rating from Stonewall. (The only reason this score is not lower still is that failure to vote, as opposed to voting against, gets an MP a token mark in Stonewall's calculations, and so Shapps' no-show on the Equality Act counts slightly in his favour). And yet, in Shapps' own estimation, this is enough to render him a 'big supporter' of gay rights.

When I pointed Shapps' less than impressive record out to Guru-Murthy, he sent this follow-up question:

Grant, @sohopolitico has sent us your voting record on gay rights http://bit.ly/bdVVPW can you explain pls when u have time?

Thus far, Shapps has ignored that question, though he has written other tweets since the interview (including a tweet linking to the interview transcript on the C4 website, which disappointingly does not include Guru-Murthy's follow-up tweet about Shapps' voting record). I'm not holding my breath that he'll find the time to set the record straight anytime soon...

Complain to the BBC over its grotesque 'debate' on killing queers

2009-12-16T14:53:00.004Z

UPDATE 3, 17th Dec: Sunny has details of the saga's conclusion:

today Peter Horrocks, director of BBC World Service, posted another blog on the BBC Editor’s blog, accepting they had gotten it wrong:

The original headline on our website was, in hindsight, too stark. We apologise for any offence it caused. But it’s important that this does not detract from what is a crucial debate for Africans and the international community.

Today the NUJ also issued a statement attacking the BBC for posing the question in such an inflammatory way.

Good.

Sunny also points out a further detail I had missed in my earlier, coverage on this story - namely that credit for drawing attention to the existence of the Have Your Say debate in the first place goes to Twitter's @thedancingflea.

UPDATE 2: Per PinkNews, the BBC is unrepentant, saying that it recognises that the question posed was 'challenging', whilst totally failing to get to grips with the fact that they have, in effect, suggested that there is a reasonable debate of two halves to be had on the question of whether Uganda should embark on a homophobic holocaust. Utterly shameful.

UPDATE: Comments are now closed on the HYS page, and the title has been amended to 'Should Uganda debate gay execution?' So the BBC now presents the thread as an innocuous call for a debate about whether there should be a debate. That's all right, then...

ORIGINAL POST:

As many people are currently discussing on Twitter, the BBC website's Have Your Say page currently includes the topic 'Should Homosexuals face Execution?' Readers are invited to give their views on whether or not Uganda, which is currently debating legislation that would see gays put to death, has 'gone too far'.

To the non-psychotic, it will be only too clear just how objectionable it is for the BBC to give house room to this 'debate'. I have submitted a complaint on the BBC's Complaint Homepage, and encourage you to do the same, here. Should you find it useful, in drafting your own response, copied below is what I said. Feel free to use some or all of it if you find it helpful.

I would like to register, in the strongest possible terms, my objections to the decision to host a debate entitled 'Should Homosexuals Face Execution?' on the Have Your Say pages of the BBC website. That the BBC would invite readers to deliberate the merits of murdering gay people is not merely offensive: it is also profoundly irresponsible, insofar as it can only serve to normalise and legitimise hate-fuelled violence.

Clearly, if the topic for this debate had been the case for systematically murdering Jews, it would never have seen the light of day. Yet, the policy proposal at issue here – the state sponsored killing of gays - is just as morally grotesque. In proposing this debate, BBC unmistakeably implies that the belief that gays should be killed is a reasonable one for people to hold, and that it has a place in civilised discussion. That is frankly sick. Indeed, the actions of the BBC, in publishing this thread, betray a inexcusable disregard for the personal security of gay people around the country. The debate can only encourage people to believe that homophobic violence is justified.

I find it difficult to put into words just how disappointing it is, in a climate of increased hostility to gay people, to see the BBC play fast and loose with the safety of the LGBT community. This thread should be withdrawn immediately, and a full apology offered this appalling and dangerous error of judgement.

ToryHome's weak new excuse over Cameron's Lisbon 'guarantee'

2009-11-15T18:06:00.002Z

Earlier today I noted that John Redwood has called for an apology from Gordon Brown for not holding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. As I said then, consistency demands that Redwood also call for an apology from David Cameron, who, after all (and unlike Brown), personally made and signed a 'cast-iron guarantee' that an incoming Tory government would hold a referendum on Lisbon.

At least one commentor on ConservativeHome appears to agree. In a post today, Jonathan Isaby touts Redwood's list of things for which the PM supposedly ought to apologise, and the accompanying #SaySorryBrown hashtag (ably criticised for its supreme bad taste by Howard Denton, here). In response, one ConHome reader suggests that Cameron should also apologise for his 'worthless' cast-iron guarantee. Interestingly, this commentor is then criticised in turn by two others who claim, in effect, that it is untrue that Cameron ever offered a cast-iron guarantee in the first place. Instead, they claim, Cameron's promise was more carefully qualified. Says one:

please could some posters stop implying that Cameron was dishonest in promising a referendum on Lisbon and then reneging on this post-ratification. To repeat for the umpteenth time the cast-iron guarantee was explicitly to offer a referendum if in power and the Lisbon Treaty had not by then been ratified.

What is the evidence for this? Presumably these commentors have been persuaded by Tim Montgomerie, who at the beginning of this month tried to excuse Cameron's volte-face on Lisbon as follows:

DAVID CAMERON PROMISED A REFERENDUM ON AN 'UNRATIFIED' LISBON TREATY, NOTHING ELSE

...some will say that Cameron will have broken a “cast iron” pledge – made to Sun readers - to hold a referendum. That’s unfair. The sentence from that Sun piece that is always quoted is the penultimate sentence; “Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations." But the final sentence (my emphasis) is just as important: “No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum.” It is also important to remember when the pledge was made. It was made 26 months ago - crucially weeks before Brown was considering holding a 'honeymoon election' - and clearly referred to the ratification process.

Montgomerie tries to make out that the final sentence of Cameron's Sun piece (“No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum”) was a caveat to readers, warning them that, if ratification were to happen before a Tory government got the chance to offer a plebiscite, it would be game over. Unfortunately, though, this is just wishful thinking on Montgomerie's part: the cited sentence says no such thing. All it says is that it would be wrong for Lisbon to be ratified without going to the people. It does not add: 'However, if that happens, we will not then be able to abide by the cast-iron guarantee, and have a referendum.'

The present state of play is that the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum. This is precisely what Cameron told The Sun should not happen. Cameron did not say that, if this bad thing were to happen, he would no longer abide by the cast-iron guarantee. Indeed, it would have been far more reasonable at the time for Sun readers to have understood him as saying that, if it were indeed to occur, then by virtue of the cast-iron guarantee the Tories would sort it out, by belatedly holding the referendum the country had wrongly been denied by Brown. Montgomerie, meanwhile, tries to rewrite Cameron's text so that it says: 'No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum. But let not that (or my cast-iron guarantee) mislead you into thinking that the Conservatives will necessarily consult you either.'

Clearly, on the basis of what he told The Sun, then, Cameron is still committed to holding that referendum, dispute the best efforts of his cheerleaders to persuade people otherwise.

Y8EUJERM3KFM

John Redwood calls for Cameron to apologise over Lisbon

2009-11-15T12:18:00.000Z

Not explicitly, of course. But by logical implication.

Today, John Redwood produces a list of ten things for which he thinks Gordon Brown should offer the British people an apology. It is generally an absurd list, and at least one of the things for which Redwood believes an apology ought to be forthcoming - 'Running up the largest ever public debt' - is out-and-out untrue (at least if, as any sensible person would, we have in mind debt as a proportion of GDP).

This, however, is the most eye-catching entry on Redwood's list:

2. Failing to honour his promise to give us a vote on Lisbon.

Now, of course, Labour never promised a referendum on Lisbon - it promised only a referendum on the now-defunct European Constitution. But, since Tories invariably claim that there is no difference between the Treaty of Lisbon and the old European Constitution, let us grant them that for the sake of argument, and not try to defend Brown on those grounds. The more salient point is that, surely, if Redwood thinks that Brown owes an apology for not holding a referendum on Lisbon, when the government had already committed to a referendum on its ancestor, the EU Constitution, then he must also think that there is an even stronger case for an apology from David Cameron, who made a 'cast-iron guarantee' to hold a referendum on the definitive document - the Lisbon Treaty itself - and then abandoned it.

Now, Gordon Brown, of course, was not Prime Minister in 2005, when Labour made its manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution. But clearly it would not do to try to argue that Brown is off the hook for this reason - he is the current Labour Prime Minister, and as such inherits responsibility for the manifesto commitments made by his party at the last election. But equally clearly, if Redwood thinks that Brown bears responsibility for not honouring a promise made by his party in 2005 then he also must thinks that there are even stronger grounds for an apology from David Cameron, who, in September 2007, personally made, in the pages of The Sun, a 'cast-iron guarantee', on behalf of his party, to hold a referendum on Lisbon, and put his own signature to it.

In the wake of Redwood's post, ConservativeHome and various Tory tweeters are furiously promoting a #SaySorryBrown hashtag. I fully expect that they will now, with equal vigour, promote also the alternative #SaySorryDave hashtag.

Cameron's Lithuanian ally: children need protection from 'evil' of homosexuality

2009-11-05T20:20:00.000Z

Last month I exposed how the Conservatives have allied themselves in the European Parliament with Valdemar Tomasevski, a Lithuanian MEP who has described homosexuality as a 'perversion', and who voted in his national parliament earlier this year for a draconian new law banning public discussion of homosexuality.

Today, on Left Foot Forward, Will Straw publishes striking new evidence of Tomasevski's homophobia:

David Cameron’s Lithuanian partner has revealed his homophobic views in an email to Left Foot Forward. Valdemar Tomasevski MEP – leader of the ‘Electoral Action of Poles in Lithuania’ and a member of David Cameron’s alliance of far right Europeans – describes homosexuality as an “evil” from which children should be protected and says “we cannot allow these people to claim … that homosexuality is normal.”

Tomasevski's anti-gay beliefs were set out in an email to Straw after Left Foot Forward requested an English translation of a Lithuanian interview appearing on the MEP's website. The email, which also describes Tomasevski's opposition to almost all abortions, says:

“I accept existence of homosexuals – we are tolerant state. But homosexuality is also a very good example of the wrong understanding of tolerance. We have to respect every human being, including those who experience sexual attraction to the same-sex.

But we cannot allow these people to claim and explain even to children at kindergarten that homosexuality is normal and encourage people to become homosexuals. Those who talk about tolerance should understand that and respect the constitutional right to protecting children from evil.”

The so-called 'Law on the Protection of Minors' supported by Tomasevski does far more than merely prohibit teachers from giving information about homosexuality to kindergarten-age children. Rather, it bans discussion of homosexuality in any media that could be accessed by minors. According to Amnesty, 'the law deprives young people of their right to freedom of expression and access to information and risks isolating children who are already amongst the most at risk of violence at school or within the family.' In September, the European Parliament passed a resolution criticising the law, and pointing out its incompatibility with European human rights documents. As I have previously noted, Conservative MEPs refused to support that resolution.

Straw's new findings certainly reinforce the need to ensure that the Conservatives are pressed for answers to these questions, which I asked earlier this week:

* Why did Conservative MEPs, unlike their Labour and Lib Dem counterparts, refuse to support a European Parliamentary resolution, in September of this year, criticising Lithuania for its passing of a law that has been condemned by human rights watchdogs as an abuse of LGBT and young people's human rights?

* What assurances can the Conservatives provide that their decision not to support the resolution criticising Lithuania was not in any way influenced by their alliance with Lithuanian MEP Valdemar Tomasevski, who is a supporter of the law in question?

* What assurances can the Conservatives give that their positions on homosexuality, and a raft of other human rights issues arising at the European level, will not in future be decided, in whole or in part, by considerations of loyalty to their socially illiberal new allies in the European Conservatives and Reformists group?

Some more substantial questions for William Hague

2009-11-02T12:10:00.001Z

Liberal Conspiracy reports that Labour MP Denis MacShane yesterday sent an email to journalists attacking William Hague, following the latter's claims in the Mail on Sunday that David Miliband and Labour 'spend their time trying to orchestrate a ruthless smear campaign against the Conservative Party’s allies in the European Parliament.' MacShane's email set out ten questions for William Hague and the Conservative Party over Europe, which, having seen the email, LibCon have republished in full.

Now, MacShane's attacks on the Tories' European alliance have not, in my view, been at all effective, and the emailed list of questions is also fundamentally wrong-headed. The questions are intemperate, and each take a 'When did you stop beating your wife?' type format, for instance:

4. Does he [Hague] support kaminski’s homophobic language?

6. Will hague be joining his new friends in Latvia when they commemorate the Waffen SS?

10. Does he agree with the Economist that he has created a “shoddy, shameful alliance” with Kaminski and Vile?

This type of non-serious questioning is counter-productive: it only aids the Tory counter-claim that Kaminski and others are the victims of a baseless smear campaign. If interest in the details of the Conservatives' Euro alliance dies a premature death, or the public and media swing decisively behind the Tories' narrative, it will be because of misjudged attacks like this. And that would be an unforgivable failure on Labour's part, because there are far more important questions that should be put before the Conservatives - questions that they will also find considerably more difficult to field.

For instance, Sunder Katwala has carefully exposed how Michal Kaminski has repeatedly contradicted himself when describing the details of his political history, and made numerous claims that simply do not cohere with the evidence. E.g., Kaminski told the Observer he 'never opposed' a Polish apology for the Jewadbne massacre, but now admits that he did campaign publicly against it, in the face of TV footage showing that he did so. Likewise, he has changed his story over his wearing of a fascist symbol, the Chobry Sword. Hence, inter alia, Hague should be asked:

* What explains the contradictions between the various versions of Michal Kaminski's political history that he has given to the British press?

* What action has been taken by the Conservative Party to determine which of the versions of his political history submitted by Michal Kaminski to the British press is the correct one?

* Has Michal Kaminski contradicted, in any of his media interviews and appearances since becoming leader of the European Conservatives and Reformists group, information that he gave to the Conservative Party as part of their vetting of him, prior to his assuming the leadership?

* Does the Conservative Party believe it is compatible with Kaminski's remaining on as leader of the ECR that he has been found not to have told the truth about his past? If so, why?

Leaving Kaminski to one side now, and following my own investigations into another Conservative ally - anti-gay Lithuanian MEP Valdemar Tomasevski - here are some further questions for Hague and the Tories:

* Why did Conservative MEPs, unlike their Labour and Lib Dem counterparts, refuse to support a European Parliamentary resolution, in September of this year, to criticise Lithuania for its passing of a law banning public discussion of homosexuality that has been condemned by Amnesty and other human rights watchdogs as an abuse of LGBT and young people's human rights?

* What assurances can the Conservatives provide that their decision not to support the resolution criticising Lithuania was not in any way influenced by their alliance with Lithuanian MEP Valdemar Tomesevski, who is a supporter of the law in question, personally voted for it in his national parliament before becoming a MEP, and is on record as having described homosexuality as a 'perversion'?

* What assurances can the Conservatives give that their positions on homosexuality, and a raft of other human rights issues arising at the European level, will not in future be decided, in whole or in part, by considerations of loyalty to their socially illiberal new allies in the ECR?

These are just some of the questions to which the Conservatives must be pressed for answers. It would be an injustice if they are allowed to evade them because of ineffectual blustering from Denis MacShane and others.

Last night's candle-lit vigil in Trafalgar Square

2009-10-31T18:25:00.003Z

There is not much to add to the fairly comprehensive reports from the BBC and Pink News about last night's vigil in Trafalgar Square in memory of murdered gay man Ian Baynham. But here are a couple of the grainy photos I took of the crowd with my iPhone, and some impressions of the event.

Although the vigil was billed as, in part, a protest against homophobic crime, the mood was not angry or combative, but instead generally calm and reflective, and always good humoured. In fact, the most strident speech of the night was from MP Chris Bryant, who raised the spectre of Jan Moir (the mention of whom drew universal boos). Bryant made the good point that interjections like Moir's drip additional poison into society, and damage the cause of tolerance. But his somewhat aggressive speech seemed to me a little out of keeping with the rest of the event, which emphasised unity and pride, but not recriminations. You can listen to Bryant's segment (and that of Maria Eagle, who read out a statement from Gordon Brown) here.

Sandi Toksvig was, for want of a better word, the compère for the evening, explaining the order of events to the crowd, and introducing each speaker in turn, as well as several wonderful performances from the London Gay Men's Chorus (along with The Pink Singers, Diversity, and some additional voices from Brighton, Birmingham and Reading), and the London Gay Symphonic Winds. She was the perfect choice: always heartfelt, sombre where appropriate, but also adept at keeping everyone entertained with jokes, and, in particular, with two heart-warming anecdotes about her own experiences as a gay parent, both of which merit repeating.

First, she said, her daughter had once come home from school and told her that another child in the playground has confronted her with: 'Your Mum's a lesbian.' Sandi said she had felt cold as she asked her daughter how she had responded, but was pleased to hear that the interrogator had been given the retort: 'Yes? Did you need any more information?' Sandi then recounted how she had overheard a friend of her son ask him what it was like to have two mums. The reply was: 'It's great! Even when one of them is ill, you still have the other to do everything for you!'

Through these and other comments, Sandi expertly conveyed just how caring, warm and - yes - normal same sex partnerships and parenting can be. And the speaker who appeared on behalf of Ian's friends and sister also built up a remarkably three-dimensional picture of the man for whom the gathering was taking place: fun-loving, impish, but also sincere, principled, and considerate. We heard that Ian was not the kind of man to ever let anti-social or homophobic taunts and abuse pass unchallenged. That put me in mind of my own partner, standing next to me, who takes very much the same view. I am sure there will be very many debates among LGBTs in Soho and beyond as a result of Ian's murder about the extent to which we have a responsibility to stand up to homophobia in the street, and at what risk to ourselves.

When the event drew to a close, Sandi told us all to leave proudly, openly holding hands with whomever we liked. And so we all did. And hopefully we all got to wherever we were going safely.

PS: see also Cosmodaddy's blogpost on the vigil here, and some additional photos of the event (much more professional than mine, it hardly needs saying) here.

So Guido, does this photo prove that Robert Mugabe is a decent guy?

2009-10-31T13:34:00.005Z

Guido Fawkes drops a bombshell:

Guido gathers that a photo exists of a Downing Street dinner from late November 2005 in honour of the Polish Justice Party prime minister, Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz. The guests at the party included Michal Kaminski.

One might think that there is a fundamental difference between entertaining foreign politicians and getting into parliamentary coalitions with them. But put that troublesome thought aside. Guido assures us that:

This development spells the end of crude attempts by Labour to portray Cameron’s European allies as neo-Nazis.

I suppose it might. But only if, in the same vein, the photograph below, of another glad-handing engagement in Downing Street, conclusively exonerates another individual who stands accused of being a not very nice chap:

And there is also this, from when Mugabe was made a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath by John Major's government in 1994:

Try again Guido.

Did the Tories refuse to condemn Lithuanian hate law to appease their anti-gay Euro ally?

2009-10-30T16:29:00.002Z

The Conservatives’ insistence that Michal Kaminski is merely the innocent victim of a smear campaign has been rather undermined by evidence (ably compiled by Sunder Katwala) that he has repeatedly misrepresented the details of his political journey. But Kaminski is not the only member of the Tories’ new European alliance to have been lacking in transparency of late: Tory MEP Daniel Hannan was also less than open with the readers of his blog when he failed to disclose that, thanks to their choice of friends in the European Parliament (EP), the Tories recently faced a serious conflict of interests over an EU motion criticising Lithuanian plans to introduce a draconian piece of anti-gay legislation.

On 17th September, the EP voted for a resolution criticising Lithuania over its so-called 'Law on the Protection of Minors.' In a post on his Telegraph blog a few days later, Hannan described the law in question as 'a pretty asinine piece of legislation', and likened it to Section 28, which was 'on the British statute book for nearly a decade and, throughout that period, was never once invoked.' That rather underplays the severity of the Lithuanian law, which, as I have previously explained, bans discussion of homosexuality not only in schools but also in any public place or media that could be accessed by young people. The law has been condemned by a raft of human rights watchdogs, including Amnesty. So 'asinine' hardly covers it.

Hannan goes on to claim that the EP’s adoption of the resolution criticising the law represents an infringement of Lithuanian national sovereignty. It is worth noting that he seriously misstates what the EU's intervention over the law amounted to. He opens his post by saying that 'MEPs have voted by 349 to 218 against a law recently passed in Lithuania', thereby implying that they had overturned or vetoed it, rather than merely criticised it. He then goes on to say:

This, though, isn’t really about equality; it’s about democracy. Lithuanians should make their own decisions through their own elected representatives. To have a duly approved statute challenged by the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency – a body, by the way, which will have no legal basis unless and until the European Constitution Lisbon Treaty is approved, but which has been established anyway – is outrageous.

But the Fundamental Rights Agency cannot 'challenge' the law in any meaningful sense. It has no mandate to overturn national legislation: its remit is merely to analyse data, compile reports on the extent to which fundamental rights are respected, and offer advice to states that are trying to improve their record on respect for these rights. So, contra Hannan, the vote was about equality, not democracy. Unless, that is, Hannan thinks democracy is such a delicate flower that it is violated whenever a democratic decision is exposed to scrutiny of any kind.

Although Hannan is critical of the European resolution, he does not explicitly let on how he and his fellow Tory MEPs voted. In fact, (as I noted here) the Tories voted against successive motions to criticise Lithuania, before abstaining on the final resolution.

And here is something else that Hannan curiously fails to tell his readers: one of his allies in the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group is Lithuanian MEP Valdemar Tomaševski, who, as I have previously revealed, is not only on record denouncing homosexuality as a 'perversion', but also personally voted for the homophobic Lithuanian law in question in his national parliament, just days before vacating his seat to join the EP, and the Tories' new Eurosceptic coalition.

So, then: the Tories were offered an opportunity to endorse a resolution criticising a draconian Lithuanian law that constitutes an abuse of LGBT human rights, and they refused to take it. And later, when writing about the resolution, and explaining the basis of Eurosceptic opposition to it, prominent Tory MEP Daniel Hannan singularly failed to disclose the crucial fact that he is part of a coalition that includes a Lithuanian MEP who personally supported the law under scrutiny.

The Conservatives invite us to believe that their new European alliance alters not one iota their own stance on homosexuality. Presumably, then, they would want us to conclude that their refusal to condemn Lithuanian homophobia was borne of firm Eurosceptic conviction, rather than a desire to please, or avoid confrontation with, an ally whom the resolution would have condemned by implication. Nobody exercising a healthy degree of scepticism will think that this is obviously true. And it is still more difficult to think so in light of Hannan's conspicuous failure to openly acknowledge the Tories’ association with Tomasevski in the first place. On the contrary: the impression that the Tory position on Lithuania was affected by internal ECR politics is only increased by Hannan's (strategic?) silence.

There are, then, now reasonable grounds for suspicion that the Tory line on issues like homosexuality has already been, and will continue to be, at least partially determined by considerations of loyalty to their European allies. The concerns being raised about those allies are not mere smears on individuals. They express serious misgivings about what the Tories themselves now stand for, and how they will act.

Join the vigil for Ian Baynham, and stand up against hate, in Trafalgar Square tomorrow

2009-10-29T14:30:00.000Z

From the Pride Life website, via @PeterTatchell:

Bring your non-drip candles (no glass please) to the square from 8pm.
A silent, candle-lit vigil will be held in Trafalgar Square on Friday October 30 in memory of Ian Baynham, the gay man who died from his injuries after being attacked there on September 25, and as a protest against all homophobic and hate crime in the heart of London.

People are asked to gather in the Square from 8pm and observe a 2-minute silence at 9pm, with the vigil finishing at 10pm. Those who cannot make it to the square are asked to organise vigils wherever they are and join those in the square in spirit, and by posting photos and comments to the organisers, Facebook group 17-24-30, make it a globally recognised event.

In an interview, organiser Mark Healey said: "What we're planning to do is to spend the first half of the evening focussing on the victims of hate crime, remembering Ian, remembering the other victims like David Morley, and making sure that family and friends have an opportunity to say what they want to say. We've invited the family and friends to come and speak, we've had friends of David Morley who have said that they want to speak as well, so we're going to try and create a space on the platform for these people to have their say.

"We need a show of numbers. The square can hold 15,000 people; the police are expecting us to have about 10,000 but we really should fill the square. This is an opportunity for us to really push the issue home to make sure it's at the top of the agenda. Too many people are dying on the streets and we should all be safe to walk around freely without being hassled and abused or killed in this manner."

More information is available from Facebook group 17-24-30.

A week ago, Nick Griffin said on Question Time that 'a lot of people find the sight of two grown men kissing in public really creepy. I understand homosexuals don't understand that, but that's how a lot of us feel.' There's been more than enough bigotry in the spotlight - it's time for voice for equality to be heard. So please spread the word about tomorrow, and, if you live in London, think about attending.

I'll be there, with my partner, from 8pm.

Nick Herbert's spurious case for repeal of the hunting ban

2009-10-18T11:51:00.000+01:00

Writing in the Telegraph today, Shadow Environment Secretary makes what he calls a 'compelling case' for repealing the hunting ban, on three counts: (1) the law doesn't work, (2) it victimises hunt employees; (3) it violates the civil liberties of rural people. All three arguments are totally spurious.

With regards (1), Herbert writes:

...lawyers predicted that the legislation, widely regarded as a dog's breakfast, would be unworkable. And so it has proved. The law which makes it an offence for your dog to chase a hare, but not a rabbit, has seen only nine prosecutions of registered hunts in four years, just three of which have been successful. The Crown Prosecution Service has all but given up pursuing the cases and the Association of Chief Police Officers say that enforcement is "definitely not a policing priority." Hunt membership has actually increased.

The League Against Cruel Sports has achieved three successful private prosecutions under the Act. That, presumably, is better than nothing, if one is interested in animal welfare, though not good enough. But the claim that the law ought to be repealed because it has not to date been enforced adequately is utterly illogical. It implies that, because conviction rates are so low, we ought to repeal the prohibition on rape as well.

Herbert next says, with regards (2):

Some argue that the Hunting Act is so ineffective that it might as well be left on the Statute Book. But this is bad law, and bad laws should be repealed. While prosecutions have so far mainly failed, it is the professional hunt staff, whose livelihoods depend on their employment, who have found themselves in the dock and who still fear arrest, with all the worry and opprobrium that very public and drawn out prosecutions entail.

This argument is utterly bizarre. We do not generally worry about the problems that lawbreakers face as a result of their illegal activities. People-traffickers and contract killers also, presumably, cannot go about their business without fear of arrest and a public trial, and so find their livelihoods at risk as a result of the illegality of their chosen career paths. Does Herbert worry about them also?

Herbert's final claim, with regards (3), is the most absurd of all:

Above all, the Act sits with ID cards, the attempt to introduce 42 day detention and the removal of trial by jury for fraud cases as an affront to civil liberties. It is but one of Labour's laws that have overridden individual rights and asserted the power of the State.

There is no civil liberties case at all for repealing the hunting ban: we simply do not have a right to harm or mistreat other creatures. Herbert's appeal to the lofty principle of civil liberties is here without foundation. More generally, there is no compelling case for repealing the ban (as opposed to reforming it to make it more effective). Unless, of course, one is simply not moved by considerations of animal welfare. And if that is the Tories' position then, rather than engage in a desperate scramble for justifications for repeal, as Herbert does today, they should just be upfront about it.