Mar 15 2007
How little democracy we have in the Commons-the Sexual orientation regulations
Late yesterday afternoon the government chose MPs to sit on a Committee to discuss the Sexual orientation regulations.
There was nothing unusual about that, save for two things.
The first was, the Shadow Attorney General had written to the government explaining that this was a complex piece of legislation, which warranted putting
RSS Feed
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
Well done to you and your backbench colleagues for managing to turn up and kick up a fuss about it. I spent a large part of the afternoon listening to a recoriding of the debate and blogging about it.
I am amazed that none of the mainstream media organisations have picked up on this “railroading” tactic employed by the Government.
I’m not sure of your position on the actual regulations. My position is clear: these regulations will make it impossible for us Catholics to express and uphold our Traditional teaching that homosexual orientation is objectively disordered in matters of education, adoption agencies etc. The regualtions will be tested out almost immediately by the militant gay lobby, resulting, eventually, in Catholic priests and officials of Catholic organisations appearing for upholding their relgious convictions.
However, whatever your view on it, it is absurd that the regulations have not been considered at this stage on the floor of the Commons.
[...] The Commons Committee met yesterday morning, and as this report from a leading Rt Hon suggests, the steamrolling of SORS through Parliament has begun. Late yesterday afternoon the government chose MPs to sit on a Committee to discuss the Sexual orientation regulations. There was nothing unusual about that, save for two things. The first was, the Shadow Attorney General had written to the government explaining that this was a complex piece of legislation, which warranted putting into a Bill so that Parliament could have proper debates about it. A bill receives time for second and third reading debates, as well as a committee stage where MPs can move amendments to help the government get it right. Instead we were given 90 minutes only in a committee on something which could not be amended. The second was, the government insisted on the Committee sitting at 8.55 am the next day, giving MPs little time to clear their diaries and do the reading necessary. Usually MPs are given several days notice of a Committee and its membership. Yesterday also happened to be the day of the big Trident debate. It looked as it the government hoped they could slip these regulations through without much notice on the back of the furore surrounding the Labour splits on nuclear weapons. This morning a good number of Conservative MPs turned up for the Committee, although most of us were not members of the Committee. Any MP can attend, and if opportunity presents can also speak, but you cannot vote unless you are an official member of the Committee. We made a number of points of order. We urged the government to delay the committee, to give everyone time to read the latest draft and to talk to constituents about it. We urged the government to have a debate on the floor of the House, given the strong interest in these regulations on both sides of the argument. We urged the government to think again about the desirability of a Bill rather than a Statutory Instrument. The Minister remained impassive, and the MP chairing the committee refused all our requests. The three front bench spokespeople used up all but 3 minutes of the Committee’s time, leaving an opportunity for just one backbencher to begin a speech to set out the problems many Christians see with the regulation. At the end of the permitted 90 minutes many MPs were frustrated that they had not been allowed to speak, and many Christian lobbyists will doubtless feel their case had not been allowed a proper airing. Why is this government so afraid of honest debate about these issues? They had the votes to win, but they also have a duty to engage with those who disagree, or who think the objectives can be met in a better way. Sensible governments try to win arguments, as well as trying to win votes. Bad governments think the arguments do not matter, until one day the electorate think the government needs changing. [...]
Dear John,What can one say, except this is a giant stride into the Kafkaesque nightmare that started when labour came into power in 1997. I was discussing Tony Blair’s being swept into power by so many “ex” and maybe not so “ex” communists and marxist in 1998, in a small country town, called Young, which is just beyond the Great Dividing Range in NSW , Australia. Even from this rural remoteness she recognised then the danger we were in.
The really scary thing about this is that the public are almost 99.9999% ignorant of what the SORs are. I have done my best in my locality by distributing leaflets that explain the possible dangers of these regulations- especially to families and marriage. I have sent copies of these to the heads of the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormack Murphy o Connor . His Personal Secretary sent back a reply saying that the leaflet was appreciated and it would be forwarded to the Assistent General Secretary of the Bisphops’Conference. The first that the public will be aware of the existence of the SORs is when Christians , or anyone for that matter, is enlightened by Ben Summerskill’s promise to make sure the regulations are “enforced with the utmost vigour” and they see people fined and imprisoned. Why is that the Swedish pastor Ake Green was not brought forward to give evidence of the persucution he has suffered at the hands of a so-called civilsed country? Only a miracle , such as that which occurred , last January , when Christians held a prayer meeting outside the House of Commons , in order to stop the Relgious hatred Bill, can stop this Bill that has the potential to completely destroy out society. Perhaps the Lord is going take away his restraining hand and allow us to into a little self-destruction . Perhaps He is going to let us fight for our liberty , rather than bailing us out all the time. Dear John do not be disheartened , strengthen those knees and let us get down to work . Let us find some way of explaining to the public what the SORs are and how they will be effected. I have contacted , Nick van Benschoten of the Women’s Equality Unity on severual occaisions , asking that the government would produce such a leaflet and he says that there is not the money for it! I have put one of my leaflets in the post for you . God Bless David Skinner
I wonder what Saint Paul would have made of the Sexual Orientation Regulations and their advocates?
“And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve” (2 Corinthians 11:12-15)
From what I can make out of SOI and the Joint Committee scrutiny, schools will now have to be very careful about how they teach religious education, for fear of discriminating against ‘homosexual pupils’.
I went to a Church of England primary school, sexuality was never taught in any form. Some evangelists on the estate where I grew up ran I youth club in the same school in one evening a week. They would have a ‘Godspot’ every so often, once, aged thirteen, they had us watch a video where some American guy preached about sexual immorality, including homosexuality. Would this be outlawed under the regulations? The youth club was a ’service’ after all.
Of course the interesting one that springs to mind are Islamic faith schools. Type ‘Islam homosexuality’ into google and it is quite apparent that there are very few Islamic groups that do not conisder gay sex a sin. Many Islamic states still imprison their gays, yet we happily let these countries spend vast amounts of their oil wealth funding Islamic educational charities in Europe. In fact you could suggest that the Saudi’s are almost as proficient at exporting their Wahhabism to the worlds Muslims as the USA are at exporting McDonalds and Coca-Cola. Some Islamic countries have banned the Niqab in public life, arguably because of the threats posed to their culture by Wahhabi influences.
What are all these Saudi funded Islamic ’services’ preaching these days about gays then?
Sir:
The Sexual Orientation Regulations’ ill-effects upon Christians has been amply covered; I’d only add that they are an intolerable affront to religious freedom. This brings up my main thesis:
At what point does the citizen body cease to owe a duty of obedience to a given law?
I believe that point arrives when a law or laws purport to supplant the citizen’s own religous beliefs by forcing that person to act (rather than to refrain from acting) against his belief.
This government appears to have taken a novel approach toward the relationship of one citizen to another. Formerly, a cornerstone of British legal principle has been, ’so long as your action does not actively do physical harm to another, or injure his good name or reputation, you are free to engage in it’.
If you consider this point, it implies that, if you own a shop, let’s say, and I open an identical shop next to yours, and siphon off your business, I’m doing nothing illegal. I’m not physically harming you, nor am I defaming you. I’m simply going about my lawful occasions, and making a better job of it than you (or vice versa, since I’d probably make a lousy shopkeeper).
Likewise, if a customer of whose actions I disapprove enters my shop, I’m free not to serve him. The crux lies in the ‘not to serve’ bit–I am free to REFRAIN from providing a service based upon the customer’s actions. He could be drunk and disorderly, acting rudely to other customers, or simply be the pedophile down the street with whom I wish nothing to do; and I am free to refuse to provide service.
In a free society, there is no issue of ‘competing rights’ because no right depends upon coercion of another citizen to achieve its ends; the most that is asked of others is that they not interfere with my own rights. That’s the basis for Britain’s political philosophy–which is also directly reflected in the United States’ Declaration of Independence, their Constitution, and their Bill of Rights, all of which are profoundly ‘negative’ in their enumeration of ‘right’.
What we see now is the claim by Government that it has the moral certainty to do more than simply ask the citizen to refrain from actions which affect others’ rights; it demands of the citizen that they ACT to support others’ ‘rights’, which is a complete reversal of the older understanding of ‘right’. Under this new dispensation, my ‘right’ can be trumped by another person’s, who can require me to act against my most deeply held beliefs.
This seems to me to be a long step toward government by mere decree, by fiat; simple tyranny, in fact. The Government have rushed through these SORs in a very peculiar, and indeed cowardly way, and this in itself will delegitimize the legislation.
My worry is that this, along with the increasing erosion of civil liberties in the last ten years, plus the increasingly capricious, punitive and arbitrary nature of government, will render democracy dead in Britain. We’re getting very close to it as is; I’ve never seen such seething hate and anger amongst the ordinary citizenry before (on a whole range of issues). Mr. Redwood, if you could but hear the comments I hear–the raw contempt and bitterness from so many, be they conservative, centrist or liberal–you’d be astonished. It’s quite possible your own constituents have already expressed such feelings in conversation with you.
This Government has taken the bit between its teeth and has, so far as I can tell, cut itself loose from any claim to act as the ’servant of the People’; instead, it acts ever more often as our master, threatening draconian punishments and penalties to anyone who dares to transgress its innumerable illiberal laws (including the SORs).
Perhaps, going back to my original statement, the time is coming when religious believers will say ‘Enough! Government has no competence in the realm of personal belief; we refuse to abide by its SORs, and we shall go to jail if need be’. Such civil disobedience would be peaceful, I hope, but also very much a challenge to this Government’s legitimacy; and given this Government’s arrogance and incompetence, I worry that they reaction might be truly draconian.
When that happens, you will know that Britain is a nation which engages in religious persecution. Perhaps the Government could then be referred to the EU for prosecution? I don’t know.
I foresee dark times ahead for Christians, Muslims and Jews: either break faith with their God, or else in many cases be unable to secure a livelihood for themselves.
The SORs are, in fact a ‘Religious Persecution Enabling Act’, and the cowardice with which they are being rammed through indicates to me that the perpetrators know full well that they are engaging in persecution.
I earnestly hope that you, and/or others, will stand up for those persecuted, come the day, and will use every legal option (including the EU and human rights organizations) to fight on their behalf.
Sir:
I too am deeply concerned at the way in which the SORs are apparently being ‘rushed through’.
Is there no way to force an open debate on the matter? From what I’m reading now, it appears that the vote in Commons will take place this coming Monday, rather than on Wednesday. I fear that this will allow precious little time for those opposed to the SORs to inform and mobilize ‘nay’ votes.
Regardless of one’s religious belief, if any, I feel that this will penalize those of faith by forcing them to ‘privatize’ their expression of that faith. Quite how one can do that is a dilemma.