Pink Sauce

I have been rather busy in the past few days, not spending much time at home and neglecting my blogging duties in the process. Had I been online on Monday I would no doubt have come up with a quick little post to mark the implementation of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, outlawing discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities services. Ironically, in the light of all the protests from the Catholic Church and some Evangelical groups, together with this, come measures to outlaw discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. The last and biggest irony perhaps is that Monday also marked the 8th anniversary of the bombing of the Admiral Duncan pub in Soho. Three people were killed and dozens were injured.

This week-end (tomorrow) marks the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade by the British Parliament. Something which, of course everyone should rejoice in, even though 200 years on there is evidence that slavery still exists in the world albeit in different forms to what one may normally think about when thinking about slavery. Many institutions and organisations have been keen to rejoice in and mark the anniversary. This afternoon in London , the Church of England, had organised a " Walk of Witness " which was led by the archbishops of Canterbury and York. 200 years ago, there was a strong debate within the Church of England to decide whether William Wilberforce was right to say that Christians should oppose salvery. Last year the Church made a formal apology for its role in slavery. The Church held slaves on plantations in the Caribbean.An amendment "recognising the damage done" to those enslaved was backed overwhelmingly by the General Synod in F...

Yesterday marked the last stage of a very long process by which, on 30 April, gay, lesbian and bisexual people will receive equal protection to that other members of the community enjoy in the provision of goods and services. As might have been expected, from the different incidents that peppered the troubled route of the Sexual Orientation Regulations since they were proposed, yesterday was a climactic day. There had been a build up in the past few days as the regulations were approved by MPs. The first salvo of the day took place during Prime Minister Question Time in the House of Commons, when the Tory MP William Cash put a question to Tony Blair regarding the ethos of the Regulations and the procedure leading to their approval. Throughout the afternoon, while the House and the rest of the world was concerned with the big parliamentary and political event of the day, a demonstration (and possibly even two) was taking place outside the Palace of Westminster ( Ekklesia and PinkNew...

I am just back from the " Prayer Vigil " outside Parliament organised by right wings Christians to protest against the Sexual Orientation Regulations. Inside the Palace of Westminster, the Lords was preparing to vote to approve or reject the regulations. The organisers of the demonstration tonight must have hoped that it would be repeat of what happened on 09 January this year. But it wasn't at all. The picture above is a view of the crowd just after the start of the vigil at seven. About 200 people huddled together in the cold singing hymns. The space between the group and where I was standing when taking the picture was full of people in January. To be fair, our side didn't fair much better. At our peak, there were three of us. I spent most of the time I stayed there on my own (as far as I could tell) with a specially bought rainbow flag draped over my backpack. I think this was due to the fact that much less publicity had been given to this event than to the previ...

During the whole controversy around the Sexual Orientation Regulations, right wing Christians have never hesitated to distort the truth to try and forward their hateful rhetoric. That started last year with that advert in the Times , which is still being investigated by the Advertising Standards Agency, following 48 complaints. Then we had all the high profile attacks and lies from various religious leaders. And now this piece of vile rubbish: There are also several videos on YouTube featuring various interventions by "bishop" Michael Reid. He seems to be an independent "bishop" with his own church and he is the one who brought Ian Paisley at the demonstration outside Parliament on 09 January this year. In those videos, he keeps citing figures (how many of gay people there are, how many of us are in couples) from a study by one Welcome Foundation. Strangely enough, I could not find a trace of that Foundation on google or even on the "bishop"'s websit...

It was interresting, if rather sad, to hear Murphy O'Connor blubbering about gay adoption and the Sexual Orientation Regulations on the Today Programme on BBC Radio 4, this morning. It was just as sad to see how little Carolyn Quinn, the interviewer, challenged him on the half-baked arguments he produced. First he did not reply to the question about his earlier accusation against the government supposedly attacking democracy. This was simply a headline grabbing outburst since all the procedures have been respected in Parliament for the approval of the Regulations. This had the support of all 3 major front bench. Then we heard that old chestnut about the fact that giving rights to gay people and couples undermines marriage. This was not, as it never is, followed by an explanation of how this works. The only way to undermine marriage would be something that would change it's structure or purport. Not what is happening, by any means. Anyway, straight couples do a very good job th...

Wednesday sees the last stage (hopefully) of the legislative process before the introduction of the Sexual Orientation Regulations at the end of April. A vote for approval will be taking place in the House of Lords. A group of Christian lawyers (The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship) are planning a "prayer vigil" outside Parliament on the same night (between 7 and 9pm at Old Palace yard (the square opposite the St Stephen’s entrance to the House of Lords)), presumably trying to re-enact the demonstration which took place there on 09 January this year, against the Nothern Irish version of the Regulations. Here is what they are (perhaps not surprisingly) yelling (the online convention is that a text in capitals is being yelled) about the vigil (taken from their website, which I won't link to): WE PRAY FOR A MIRACLE NEXT WEDNESDAY. HOWEVER, WHATEVER THE OUTCOME IT IS VITAL THAT HISTORY RECORDS CHRISTIANS STANDING FOR TRUTH TO THE VERY END OF THE PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS. THIS ...

Last Night, a group of conservative MPs, lead by Ann Widdecombe , managed to force a vote on the House of Commons to again approve the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 which had already been approved in Committee on Thursday. The MPs were quite heavily defeated in their attempt to scupper the Regulations. The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 100. Reading the transcript ( here and here ) of the debates one gets the feeling that the move by those MPs was more as a question of principal against the fact that they felt they had not been given time to air their views on the subject. They were forgetting in the process of complaining that the Tory front bench had themselves agreed to the procedures used in this instance. Some supporters of the Regulations agreed to the fact that a debate was needed, however. Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con), who voted against the Regulations, asked that the Speaker "ensure that time is made available on the Easter Adjournment to debate th...

Craig Nelson, in his LGBT Blog , has a post bringing together all the major documents related to the Sexual Orientation Regulations; from the draft Regulations to consultation responses via assessments and committee reports. There is also a quick summary of the differences between the British and Northern Irish versions of the Regulations, and a list of the different exemptions included in the draft, whether on religious grounds or not. Have a look . To read my (growing number of) previous posts on the subject, please click here or on "Sexual Orientation Regulations" in the right hand menu.

There seems to be some confusion as to what will be happening next in respect of the Sexual Orientation Regulations. The BBC's report on the Committee meeting which took place on Thursday morning seem to imply that the Regulations are now only waiting for implementation barring the risk of a forced vote in the House of Commons. The order of business for the House of Lords at the date of Wednesday 21 seems to imply that there is at least one last hurddle: Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 Baroness Andrews to move that the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 March be approved. 12th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee and 14th Report from the Merits Committee (Dinner break business) Baroness O’Cathain to move, as an amendment to the above motion, to leave out all the words after “that” and insert “this House, having regard to the widespread concerns that the draft Regulations compromise religious liberty and will result in litigation over the ...

As I reported last night, the Sexual Orientations Regulations were considered by a Committee of 16 MPs on Thursday. Only two of these (both conservative) voted against the Regulations (David Burrowes and Jeremy Wright). During the 90 minutes debate, Megg Munn, the Minister for Equality outlined the content of the regulations before the Front-Bench spokeswomen for both opposition parties were allowed to speak. Eleanor Laing , the Shadow Equality Minister, was speaking for the Conservatives here are extracts of what she said: [...] I have said that many times, as the Minister knows. It follows from that that we believe that discrimination on any grounds should be prohibited. We in the Conservative party truly believe in the freedom of the individual and in freedom of conscience. We are addressing matters of individual belief and of conscience, so although I support the introduction of the regulations and, if a Division is called, I shall vote for them, I do not require my hon. Friends to...

Yesterday morning , the draft Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 was approved by the Twelfth Delegated Legislation Committee of the House of Commons. Room 11 of the Palace of Westminster (Interestingly, this is the meeting room next door to the one in which a delegation of us was received 2 years ago for LGBT History Month) apparently proved too small for the number of MPs (about 60) attending the meeting, which had been convened at the last minute for some unknown reason. A transcript of the discussion can be found here and a recording of it here (90min). Conservative MPs, who attended en force, tried to have the meeting cancelled claiming that a matter of such importance should be discussed by the House rather than an otherwise small and obscure committee. They felt they could not properly represent the views and concerns of the Catholic Church. It turned out, however that the committee procedure had been agreed by Conservative big whigs. Megg Munn MP , the Ministe...

After many delays due to the level of interest and controversy generated, the Sexual Orientation (Goods and Services) Regulations 2007 were published yesterday by the government. The regulations as they now stand are almost similar to those already in place in Northern Ireland since January and do not allow for further discriminations from religious organisations than the expected and acceptable doctrinal exemption. Faith-based adoption agencies are given until the end of 2008 to comply with the new regulations following the vocal protest from the Catholic Church on this respect. Insurance companies and National Blood Service have also been granted limited opt-outs . Right until last week, there were fears that the Regulations in England , wales and particularly Scotland might be compromised but this did not turn out to be the case. This is obviously very good news; showing the govermnent's committment to true equality. While religious groups are being placated with the measures ...

GP (doctors) are supposed to be eductated and intelligent people. They spend about seven years at univeristy learning complicated things by heard, having drugs, lots of of sex and drinking too much (that's the reputation of French medecine students anyway). They have huge responsibilities over people's lives and should they not be percieved to be made of a better cloth, people would perhaps hesitate to trust them. So I am wondering which part of the word "No", Dr John Lockley from Bedfordshire is finding difficult to understand. Dr Lockey has asked Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt to provide an avoidance clause for GPs similar to that in abortion legislation. Section 4 of the 1967 Abortion Act give doctors the right to refuse to be involved in an abortion if in doing so they would be forced to act against their own conscience or ethics. He said he had a "very good relationship" with gay patients on his list but if asked to provide detailed information about...

Yesterday the Prime Minister announced that faith based adoption agencies would not be given any exemption under the forthcoming Sexual Orientation Regulations. They would however be given 21 months to adapt to the new situation. The decision has to be welcomed as a victory for fairness. The Regulations are about giving LGB people the same rights as any other citizen, including religious ones. Something which, the Catholic Church should remember, did not happen such a long time ago for its own people. I am however not sure I understand the need for an adjustment period. It seems to be nothing else but a way to appease the Catholic Church. If, as they claim, they can really not change their minds on the subject of adoption by gay couple what difference are those 21 months going to make? They either go along with the regulations or they don't. Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor's reaction to the news were most interesting and I thing clearly prove what I was hinting at in my previou...

This is a revised and extended version of my two previous post on the subject After the recent demonstrations outside Parliament, the first salvo of the predictable attack on the forthcoming Sexual Orientation Regulations in the delivery of goods, access and services for the rest of the UK, was shot on Monday, quite unsurprisingly, by the Catholic Church. Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster and head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, sent a letter to every Cabinet member with apparent intent of blackmailing the government into giving the Church further exemptions in the regulations to those they already have. Something he has since then denied . Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, herself a staunch Catholic, had been reported over the week-end to be considering granting the Church an opt-out clause with the apparent support of the Prime Minister. However, several members of the Cabinet have already come out against the move, prompting rumours ...

The Church of England had always seemed to me to be quite tolerant. I even know of churches in its fold who actively welcome LGBT people. It seems I have been mistaken. At the very time when Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor is defending himself against accusations of blackmailing the government, the C. of E. in the persons of its two highest ranking prelates (Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and John Sentamu, Archbishop of York) have just come out in an open letter to the Prime Minister in support of Murphy-O'Connor's threat that some adoption agencies may have to close because of the forthcoming Sexual Orientation Regulations. This argument is actually relatively new in the debate. When the law was changed to allow gay couples to adopt last year, nothing (strangely) was heard from religious people. And when some of them decided they did not like the new regulations, they focused their energy of the rediculous fallacy that Christian B&B owners would be in tr...

The first salvo of the predicted attack on the forthcoming Sexual Orientation Regulations in the delivery of goods, access and services, was shot today quite unsurprisingly by the Catholic Church. Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster and head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, sent a letter to every Cabinet member basically trying to bully or blackmail the government into giving the Church further exemptions in the regulations to what they already have. Very fine tactics to use, if you ask me, as a responsible institution perporting to give vulnerable youths a positive moral example. In his letter, Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor said: "We believe it would be unreasonable, unnecessary and unjust discrimination against Catholics for the government to insist that if they wish to continue to work with local authorities, Catholic adoption agencies must act against the teaching of the Church and their own consciences by being obliged in law to provi...

With Thanks to Craig Nelson for the quote (interesting links to comments in the Guardian from his post too): Here is a link to the breakdown of the voting in the House of Lords as well as a link to the Hansard report of speakers [transcript of Parliament debates] . Of particular note are speeches by Lord Smith, Lord Alli and Lord Lester. Interesting that the majority of the votes against are from Conservative peers and that a large majority of Conservative voting Lords were against. Clear and uncontrovertible evidence, if any were needed, of the probability of any Tory Government (even with Cameron at the helm) enacting any socially progressive legislation at all. All of the Labour and Lib Dem peers who voted were in favour. Previous Posts: * No Comment Needed * Christians: "Get Over It and Get On With It" * Further "Christian" Attacks * Sexual Orientation Regulations - The Demo * Anti-Freedom Demo Today Outside Parliament * Sexual Orientation Regulations, Lett...