the more things change..

For the sake of expediency, let's count just a few of the ways in which Melanie Phillips is plain wrong:

That concept is freedom of conscience, the right of religious bodies to organise their own affairs in accordance with their own religious and moral precepts. For that is the real issue at the heart of the gay adoption row.

Ah, no, not least because when religions work for the state, their affairs become our affairs. Religious affairs have never operated outside of the realm of common law.

It is not the merits or otherwise of gay adoption. It is the fact that Christians and other faiths can no longer choose to place children only in families with an adoptive mother and father, which they think serve best the interests of the child.

Well, that might be your argument. However, we've just had months and months of arguments that adoption by gay couples lacks merit and may in fact even be dangerous. That argument only began to fade when it was shown to be a) ineffective because b) it was a pack of lies.

The essence of liberal tolerance is that the state does not interfere with religious practices as long as they don’t hurt or disadvantage other people.

Denying children the ability to be adopted by the widest pool of available and qualified candidates doesn't count as hurt or disadvantage? I thought this was all about the children, but it's apparently about the "hurt" that will be dealt to "Christians." Conflation of Christianity with homobigotry aside, that does have the merit of being honest: this will indeed inconvenience people who really, really don't like gay people.

Finally, let's do a quick check of Phillips' favourite bits of rhetoric. World turned upside down? "So everything has been turned on its head." Check. "Quite simply, Britain stopped being a liberal society." Check.

(For further discussion of Phillips' recurring conviction that everything is going to hell in a handbasket despite evidence to the contrary, go here.)

Prophecy of doom, with side-order of eliminationist rhetoric? "It is nothing less than the destruction of the moral basis of our society." Check. "This is but the latest move against religion by a culture which believes that only secularism provides freedom. This is a big mistake." Check.

I'm really not sure what to make of people who think they can't live moral lives with out the supervision of a sky fairy. Still, if there is one constant in the universe arond which we might build our lives, it's that Melanie Phillips will be inaccurate, misleading and oftentimes plain wrong. I'm just not sure we can base a religion on it.

quite calm, actually

While I'm still in search of an issue where the claim to being more libertarian than thou isn't the universal trump card, there are a few details missing from DK's support for the Catholic Church.

For one, while Catholic adoption agencies might not be the sole provider of that service, they are being paid with public money for whatever service they do provide. The argument that "if people do not like the Church's attitude on this, then they can stop placing the children with Catholic adoption agencies" only applies when individuals are directly involved in placing their child up for adoption. In the majority of cases, the state performs that role and makes decisions on our behalf concerning the welfare of children who do not have families that can support them. It's certainly not a simple question of personal preference.

Apologies for a lack of rage that would aid characterisation of supposed opponents of libertarianism as crazed fiends.

for reasons of clarity

Let me get this straight: Muslim hardlines views bad, Christian hardline views good. If you're at all confused, try to remember this. This statement is true:

Policy makers should stop assuming that the loudest voices and the most organised elements within the Muslim community necessarily represent the Muslim population as a whole.

and this one is false:

Policy makers should stop assuming that the loudest voices and the most organised elements within the Christian community necessarily represent the Christian population as a whole.

And if it involves homos, you get to collect £200 and take a card from the Community Chest.

This has been another edition of Simple Guides To What The Fuck.

attempts to improve rape convictions stall

Today's call for improvements in rape prosecutions has a horrible resemblance to similar demands made back in June of last year, when a Home Office study found that rules to prevent irrelevant past sexual history from being used in court were ignored or avoided.

Many of the problems remain the same: the scale of false allegations is being over-estimated, subjective judgments were being made by the police about victim credibility and that juries are inclined, despite evidence to the contrary, to believe that women are "asking for it." This belief is reinforced in no small way by a media focus on a tiny minority of cases of false (and sometimes serial) accusations of rape, which distorts the public perception of the crime.

Such narratives rarely recognise that improvements in the way rape is investigated and prosecuted would both increase the number of true convictions and reduce the number of false accusations reaching court. A system where there are:

high levels of variation in the detection rate in different police forces, from 22% to 93%, [...] concerns include inconsistency over the way forensic doctors examine victims, a lack of training for frontline officers [and] variable use of "early evidence kits" by police and poor management of rotas for specialist officers.

serves no-one. An institutional inability to handle rape cases amongst both the police and judiciary (where there are no criteria for specialist rape prosecutors) means that the worst and most misplaced beliefs about rape go unchallenged or are even reinforced, to the detriment of justice for both the accuser and the accused.

While we can apportion blame to jurors who maintain prejudicial attitudes towards women and their behaviour (that a short skirt is somehow the same as consent), the greater responsibility rests with our systems of investigation and prosecution to level the playing field and establish the most equitable environment for trials. At the moment, it almost seems that many people in that environment are content to take advantage of existing prejudices, as they provide the most convenient and least challenging narratives for handling rape.

Given that defence barristers are understandably going to use whatever strategy they can to serve the interests of their clients - even bending or ignoring rules - doesn't the judiciary need to be more attentive, or even pro-active in enforcing its own procedures and codes of conduct? While any suggestion of stronger regulation raises the hackles of an independent judiciary, that independence is only worth protecting if its merit is proven - and with rape the case is far from proven.

Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor is a fraud

Here's why: if it's so, so important that children are raised by a man and a woman in a "traditional" relationship, then why do Catholic adoption agencies currently allow single people, including single gay people, to adopt?

The answer comes directly from the Cardinal, that it's "not so much about gays as about marriage" - that the welfare of children is a secondary concern to the desire to regulate the sex lives of adults.

The claim that allowing gay people to enter the adoption process, or to get married creates a "new norm" is nonsense of the highest order. As before, the vast, vast majority of children will be raised by a couple composed of a man and a woman, and the vast majority of couples in long term relationships who get married will be composed of a man and a woman.

The real trend that the Cardinal might want to worry about is one that has nothing to do with the deadly, deadly homos: it's that the majority of heterosexual marriages since the mid-90's have been non-religious.

irregular sins

Irony pushed to breaking point as inventors of "original sin" accuse government of creating thought crime. It must be one of those irregular verbs: I enforce intractable religious law, you create thought-crime.

no opt-out for religious in equality act; ruth kelly still MIA

Blair has announced that there will be no exemption from anti-discrimination laws for Catholic adoption agencies: the next step is a Parliamentary vote.

Some detail from Blair's statement:

In the interests of children, the [regulations that the Government will lay before Parliament] will include a transition period before these regulations come fully into force at the end of 2008 for existing adoption agencies.

This will be coupled, during this period, with a statutory duty for any adoption agency which does not process applications from same sex couples to refer them to another agency.

In other words, it's a combination of the two approaches discussed earlier this week, though the option to refer expires when the law comes into full force.

Amazingly, we also seem to have word from Our Lady of the Suspicious Silence, Ruth Kelly:

Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly said government was about "robust debate and finding solutions that meet our principles".

She described the announcement as a "breakthrough" on what had been an "extremely complex issue".

Thank you for your bountiful gift of truisms. It's hard to think of a comment that could be more devoid of commitment. Any idea if she's in favour of the decision?

More importantly, will Kelly be getting up in the Commons to announce this policy? And if not, why should she keep her job?

sublimate this

Roger Scruton, in his own words:

From Plato to Britten, homosexuals have distinguished themselves as teachers, often sublimating their erotic feelings as those two great men did, through nurturing the minds and souls of the young. But it was Plato who, in The Laws, pointed out that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, must learn the way of sacrifice, that it is not present desires that should govern them, but the long-term interests of the community.

Things that are apparently not a form of sacrifice for the long-term interest of the community: giving up a substantial proportion of your income and a large number of years of your life to commit to raising a child who does not have a family. This is, in fact, the most selfish thing you can do, you filthy queer.

Things that might just pass as acceptable forms of sacrifice: education, staying in the goddamn closet, sweeping chimneys.

Things which are still under consideration: the priesthood.

meta meta-commentary

Quick question: what's more annoyingly convoluted? Madeleine Bunting's comment piece, or me on the subject of Madeleine Bunting comment piece?

One for the infinite hall of pundit mirrors, perhaps. :)

madeleine bunting: the smugness defence

Madeleine Bunting's argument that the Equality Act is little more than a political side-show has a major flaw: far beyond any Westminster wrangling and when the debate is forgotten, real people, living real lives will gain protection from discrimination. The idea that there are more important political issues that should occupy our time is shoddy, if popular, logic - it assumes what one needs to prove (that this handling of discrimination is overblown) and proceeds from that assumption. Petere principium, if you like.

To discount the struggle against discrimination as US- style liberal hysteria also ignores how this debate has been primarily shaped by religious claims of impending disaster: threats to the stability of the family, threats to the welfare of children. I'm also unconvinced by her characterisation of the religious right:

Last week's rumpus was about much more than just an uppity cardinal, it was also one of those moments in public life snatched as an opportunity beyond Westminster for a bigger purpose. The hapless villain of the piece - the Catholic church - offered the perfect foil for a demonstration of liberal progressive moral superiority.

The idea that one of the largest and richest organised religions on the planet is somehow hapless, and has been tricked into looking stupid by liberal smugness is rather strange.

The blogs hummed with an outpouring of anti-Catholic bile. Catholicism was lambasted as antediluvian, anachronistic and bigoted.

Hmm.. and a defence of the Church against those charges would be? Presumably not one that touches on women, contraception, abortion or homosexuality. It's also really not my fault that the Catholic Church has decided to make the abhorrence of homosexuality its central tenet off late. I'm able to differentiate between different parts of the church's teaching, some of which are more desirable and less bat-shit crazy than others; however, while I get to pick and choose, dogma demands all or nothing.

And yes, it is possible to separate Catholicism as it is practiced by most Catholics from the focus on the deadly deadly homo propagated by its leaders, but it's hard to maintain that pretence when the leader of the Church is in the pulpit calling you names. For that unseemly conflation of the faithful and the oftentimes bigoted leaders of those faiths, I offer tiny, tiny apologies.

In contrast, liberal progressives came out shining with moral fervour.

Not quite sure what this argument is. Liberal progressives should feel bad for being fiercely opposed to discrimination? The strength of their convictions invalidates those convictions? If so, where does that leave religious convictions?

Faith - of all varieties - has become one of the phenomena against which a demoralised post-socialist centre-left chooses to define itself.

Bunting conveniently repeats the argument that organised religions have internalised: that faith of any variety is only real if it's the same thing as obedience to organised religion. It's also a rather lovely example of attacking the conveniently homogenous messenger (have you got your demoralised post-socialist centre-left membership card?) while avoiding any discussion of the issue at hand.

No pragmatic argument, or one based in a logic of simple fairness - hey, aren't those the same rights as those religious dudes have? - can survive under the accusation of smugness. It's a brilliant catch-all argument, even the recognition of which is damning proof of my smugness.

The idea that being Christian and being liberal might possibly go quite well together (blessed are the meek and all that jazz) disappears; also avoided is the queston of why godless liberal moral smugness in the name of equality is so far, far worse that god-inspired conservative moral smugness of those who oppose it. At the very least, we can safely presume that  Madeleine Bunting lecturing godless liberals is the good kind of moral superiority. How convenient.

where in the world is ruth kelly?

Over the last two weeks, a large number of public figures have spoken on the subject of gay adoption and the issue of equality.

There's Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, head of Catholic Church in England and Wales, and his counterpart in Scotland, Cardinal Keith O'Brian, who both strongly oppose gay adoption. Amongst the Anglican community, there's Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, who also oppose gay adoption and are seeking an opt-out amendment to the Equality Act.

Shadow home secretary David Davis has spoken against gay adoption, and David Cameron has spoken in favour of it. Constitutional Affairs Secretary Lord Falconer and environment minister Ben Bradshaw both rejected the suggestion of religious exemptions to the Equality Act, along with Education Secretary Alan Johnson who argued any opt-out would mean "plain, simple discrimination".

And there's Tony Blair who has declared himself "personally" in favour of gay adoption but is still apparently searching for some middle-ground - though it's not clear what the position between the decision to discriminate or not could be. Then there are the hundreds, if not thousands, of newspaper columnists, bloggers, letter-writers and pundits across the new and old media who have publicly expressed an opinion.

So where is Ruth Kelly, Minister for Communities and Local Government and responsible for guiding and implementing equalities law?

Kelly managed to appear in Parliament several times last week to answer questions on several different Bills (Community Land Trusts, Anti-Social Behaviour and Local government and Public Health) so she isn't on holiday and she hasn't been struck mute.

Yet somehow, she hasn't found the time to give an interview on a subject that has been dominating public debate and for which she is directly responsible. With Blair promising a decision sometime this week, I wonder if we're going to hear the elected official who's actually in charge of implementing what he announces speak at all.

Funny that.

one penis good, two penis bad

The news that the Catholic Church wants to create "gay rights martyrs" (that is, people martyred for the right to refuse gay people rights) is the clearest sign yet that this crusade against sexual immorality and the threat to the family is just a crusade against gay sex. As Stephen Bates and others have observed, Catholic adoption agencies are perfectly content to work with unmarried couples and even the unholiest of unholies: atheists.

We even have Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Birmingham, rehashing the "children's best interests" argument to assert that:

If the judgment is made that a particular child is best placed with a single parent, then the sexual orientation of that parent may well not be relevant. The Catholic Church teaches that to identify people by their sexuality is to diminish them.

The point of our concern about same-sex couples is precisely that they are a couple. They offer, in day-to-day living, a partnership in parenting that lacks the complementarity of male and female. They also offer to the child a very particular model of adult sexuality which will be deeply formative. This is not so in the case of a single parent.

Yes, the Catholic Church is actually in favour of gay single parent families: one penis good, two penis bad. And then there's the awesome threat of multiple vaginas - nunneries have never seemed more like unexploded ordinance.

I quite like how heterosexuality doesn't count as "a very particular model of adult sexuality," though presumably in this context it's code for go-go dancing and drug-orgies - and we all know that heterosexuality is entirely devoid of any fetish whatsoever. Or perhaps not.

And this argument persists despite the growing collection of evidence that shows that gay parents have no appreciable impact on the sexual identity of their children. The real fear, one suspects, has nothing to do with welfare but that gay parents will raise children who are more tolerant of gay people.

Rather entertainingly, the welfare argument entirely abandons scriptural precedent: it has nothing to do with the Bible and the punishment of a disapproving god at all. Brilliantly spun, it's an argument for religious values masquerading as secular logic (logic that ignores how perfectly straight couples can raise gay children).

The claim that the Church will not close down adoption agencies ("We will carry on working until someone takes us to court for breaking the law") also contradicts the argument of only a few days ago: that the withdrawal of funding would automatically lead to closure. Was the notion of blackmail a little too hard to sustain, or could it be that the Church has decided that homo-baiting is worth dipping a little deeper into the coffer to support?

So the gloves are coming off, though we're still stuck with the claim that the Church has been forced into this position as some kind of oppressed minority: that being asked not to persecute others is actually a cruel and unusual form of persecution in itself. To claim victim status while demanding the right to victimise others is spectacularly ugly.

While I've been courteous enough to show restraint in the past for fear of tarring an entire religion with the beliefs of a minority, we're at the point where it's really hard not to point out that the Catholic Church really, really hates gay people, really, really loathes them - that after years of platitudes, a new Pope has given the Church the energy and confidence to show just how deep the hatred goes.

about as secret as hotmail

After reading over various posts on "secret" email system allegedly running at Downing Street, Unity's comment over at Blairwatch deserves a little attention:

I think we're veering a little close to tinfoil helmet territory with elements of this.

This is a Labour Party system and not a government system because its for use by Labour Party employees to send emails relating to Labour Party business, not government business.

It's not housed at Downing Street - in fact so far as it appears it looks to be running on Whale Communications's own servers (which will be in the US) - and Downing only 'has' this system in the sense that it also 'has' access to Gmail and Hotmail, i.e. it has internet access and a browser.

It's not much of a secret when there's a publicly available case study on the supplier's website.

While it might lure readers, the desire amonst certain bloggers and journalists to write OMG!!! Top SECRET EMAILS! ZOMG!!! IS there a SECRET BUNKER??!! style stories only damages the credibility of those who write them. They're fun, but fairly useless.

monkey chaser

To clear the palate after a string of fairly heavy posts:



Maybe I need to introduce tiny monkey Friday, seeing as I don't have a pet of which I can take pointless pictures.

Maybe I really, really don't.

taking your cradle and going home

Oh good, more threats:

CATHOLIC adoption agencies will defy new anti-discrimination laws, the Church warned last night, as the row over allowing gay couples to adopt threatened to divide religion and politics.

I can't be the only person thinking that a divide between religion and politics isn't rather desirable, nor is the prospect that everyone be treated equally by the law. Oh, and it's not so much defiance as defeat: defiance would involve remaining open and working to rule.

It's also helpful to be able to tell the difference between being unable to do something and being unwilling to do the same, a distinction which escapes the Catholic Church:

Archbishop Conti denied the Church was "blackmailing" politicians by threatening to close agencies. He said agencies would continue to work as normal, it would be the government that forced them to close by not allowing them to work within their conscience.

He said: "Catholic adoption agencies would be unlikely to retain registration, given that they would be unable to comply with the proposed regulations."

Well, so long as you know what comes first: dogma, or the welfare of children.

if blair is in favour of gay adoption, why did he hire ruth kelly?

Small question: if Blair is now so thoroughly in favour of equal rights for gay people, why the f*** did he put Ruth Kelly in charge of it?

From The Guardian:

In his statement the prime minister said: "I have always personally been in favour of the right of gay couples to adopt."

Really? It's a little bit of a suprise that you havn't mentioned it before, or that you've failed to correct the last six months of news reports claiming that you are "still making up your mind."

The contortionist's sideshow necessary to claim that the position Blair may be forced to accept is the one he has assumed all along is almost as dubious as the furious spin coming from Ruth Kelly's office:

Ms Kelly is said to be frustrated by "assumptions" in the press that because she was Catholic she was against gay adoption.

"She is a serious, pragmatic politician who leads the department that takes decisions on this," the source said.

Of course, the quick and easy way to correct this foul misperception would be to come out (ahem) and declare in favour of gay adoption - or even to say that she's not bothered either way.

This would involve a few interesting conversations with her friends at the ultra-dogmatic Opus Dei, but I'm sure a "serious pragmatic politician" should be able to wriggle her way clear. However - as with nearly every other significant vote on gay rights in her career as an MP - Ruth Kelly has chosen to duck the question.

Taking a brief look at her parliamentary record, Kelly has been missing in action for all of the major votes on gay rights.

Kelly might lead the department that "takes decisions on this", but to all appearances that's exactly what she's been trying to avoid doing in public for her entire political career.

So we're now waiting for the "proposals" which will settle the issue, the favourite of which seems to be that law passes as proposed, with a delay for religious adoption agencies to come into line with the law:

[S]ources close to Ms Kelly told Guardian Unlimited that ministers were considering proposals that included allowing adoption agencies a transition period of between six months and three years.

The alternative allows religious agencies to opt out of placing children with gay parents directly, but commits them to referring prospective parents to other groups:

Other proposals were a duty on Catholic agencies to refer gay couples to other adoption organisations who could help them, or to develop affiliations or merge with non-secular agencies

This is pretty much the agreement which applies to the provision of abortion. The second proposal may be minimally more agreeable to the religious right, but will still involve them - if only by proxy - in the recognition of gay people as legitimate potential parents, and in turn legitimate humans - a fate which will probably be resisted at all costs.

Blair is promising a decision next week and a vote within the month following that: will Kelly be unavoidably detained elsewhere then, too? Or will we enjoy the spectacle of Kelly at the dispatch box arguing in favour of her department's legislation?

Somehow, I get the feeling that her deputy, Pamela Munn, might be pencilled in for that one.

cautious optimism

Today's UK print press has seized on a BBC interview with Alan Johnson, education secretary, to declare that there will be no opt-out clause for the religious when it comes to discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. It sounds feasible, but I don't think we're quite there yet.

The favoured right-leaning press narrative (echoed by the left) is that this "decision" demonstrates Blair's weakness and inability to resist his cabinet (even though the very same papers have criticised him for his "presidential" style in the past). From The Daily Mail:

Tony Blair has dramatically caved in over the row about gay adoption.

His hopes of a deal to avoid a direct clash with church leaders were shattered by fierce Cabinet opposition.

From The Telegraph:

In a stark illustration of his diminishing authority, the Prime Minister has been forced to accept a deal which will rule out any exemptions for Roman Catholic adoption agencies from gay rights laws.

It wouldn't hurt to recognise that this could be a victory for those who support equality and fair treatment: after all, gay people would only receive the same protections previously extended to the religious.

Largely unobserved is that this speculative narrative stems primarily from Alan Johnson - and not Ruth Kelly or her deputy Pamela Munn who are supposed to have been overseeing this legislation.

Similarly, of all the mainstream press, only the BBC has reported Downing Street's rejection of the newspaper narrative - and the claim that discussion is still ongoing. While this may just be standard face-saving boilerplate (and while I'm hopeful about the eventual outcome) Johnson was only expressing an opinion, albeit as a minister, and not setting government policy. While the cabinet room might be in the middle of a power struggle, we're not done yet.

Finally, let's not forget the kind of virulent homobigotry that these last few weeks have revealed. Lifted from The Times, there's this card from the Christian Institute:


Yes, that's right. Some people would rather see their own children without any family at all than place them in the care of gay people. Suffer the little children, hey?

I hate snow, trains and easyjet (and terror scares)

I'm back from an extended weekend in London and itching to catch up with various stories, not least the "question of conscience" discovered by the Anglican church over the weekend (the question presumably being "Are filthy queers sinners or awesome mega-bad sinners?").

The idea that the law should not address the issue equality is quite awesomely ludicrous, given that we have laws addressing pretty much every other popular question of conscience - including divorce, the death penalty, abortion, the use of military force, sunday trading and parking fines. In fact, it's quite hard to find an issue at law that could not be framed as one of conscience.

I'm also on the receiving end of various nice links over the sexy pizza story and my re-write of the Sunday Times' gay sheep feature - demonstrating quite nicely what's popular online. But before going into any of that, I have to eat and sleep.

Back later.

better late than never

Ooops - seem to have missed the most recent edition of round-ups. I'm in the most recent BritMeds (for asking some pointed questions about Ruth Kelly) and the 14th Scottish Blogging Roundup (for a post on the manufactured outrage that features heavily in the local Edinburgh press). Great thanks for thinking to include me, and apologies for being so slow to link back to two entertaining and well-edited features.

While I'm linking to things linking to me (ah, reflexive blogging) there's Robert Sharp's post concerning the recent Equality Act debate in the House of Lords (where's the condemnation of unmarried heterosexual couples?) with a good discussion going on in the comments.

Think that's it for now. Off to work out why my webstats seem to be showing a trickle of traffic (the very thinnest of rivulets) from posts on the Guardian's Comment is Free when I can't find a single link..

sex is not like pizza

I'll make a deal with you: I'll stop writing posts about ridiculous sexual health stories when they stop being published. However, this morning's crop suggests I'm unlikely to stop anytime soon. From the Scottish Daily Mail (Wednesday 17th 2007):

A controversial programme that gives out more than 1,000 free condoms a week to underage children has been attacked for making sex as accessible to teenagers as pizza.

Yes, pizza. That slattern whore of a flat-bread.

The huge demand comes amid soaring rates of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, such as chlamydia.

That actually kind of sounds like good news - at least young people who are sexually active have the sense to seek out ways to protect themselves. Still, the 1,000 condoms a week also doesn't translate into 1,000 young people and is likely much lower. Why? It's fairly standard practice to hand out a stack of condoms to each person, and some teenagers will have used the service more than once.

The Mail comes dangerously close here to suggesting that condoms cause pregnancy and STIs: I suppose it's a not-that-insane extension of the theory that condoms cause sex. Anyway, here comes the money quote:

Simon Dames, a spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland, said "Sex isn't like having a pizza, which is why we are lying to our youth by having these so-called sexual health services."

My brain is now a puddle on the floor. Let's try that again:

Sex isn't like having a pizza, which is why we are lying to our youth by having these so-called sexual health services.

Okay, technically he's right and I agree with the Catholic Church on that first point. Sex isn't like having a pizza (under most conditions, passata fetishes notwithstanding) but then? Did everyone get hungry with all the food talk and go to lunch without adding the special ingredient of not sounding like an idiot?

I'm guessing it's an attempt to talk to the kidz in their own language ("Hey, what do young people like? Is bebop still cool?") but it still doesn't make any sense. Maybe it's the start of a campaign series: "Sex is also not like eating pasta; you will have to make a special request for parmesan or fresh black pepper."

Having scooped what remains of my cortex back into my skull, I think the argument expressed by this torturous metaphor is something like this: "Sex, like a pizza, might be easy to consume, popular and enjoyable but it is BAD for you."

Quite how a sexual health service that explains the risks and makes potentially risky behaviour much, much safer is "lying to our youth" is a mystery only the Vatican pizzeria can answer.

breaking news: 21st Century possibly not same as 16th

Is there a word that means impending lack of surprise?

independence, mandates and referendums. oh my

The questionable legality of the SNP's proposed referendum on independence seems to rest on the use of public money to run such a vote. According to The Scotsman's account of advice prepared in 2002,

It would be outwith the parliament's competence to pass legislation to authorise expenditure for a referendum on an aspect of the constitution, as this is a reserved matter.

Reserved for Westminster, that is. The SNP's argument in response runs something like this:

The SNP wants voters to answer yes or no to: "The Scottish Parliament should negotiate a new settlement with the British government so that Scotland becomes a sovereign and independent state."

This, party leaders believe, would get round any potential problems of illegality, because the Scottish Parliament has the power to negotiate with Westminster and this could not be dismissed as a reserved issue.

A few thoughts. If the SNP has sufficient political support - which has translated into seats in the Scottish Parliament in a election - then there's no need for a referendum because a mandate for independence has already been won. The SNP, in its role as the majority party leading the Scottish Parliament, could move directly to negotiations with British government.

The referendum plan seems to assume that the SNP do not or would not have this support - leaving us in a curious position where the use of a referendum might actually bypass the will of the people as expressed in the party they've elected (or not elected) to power. However, this doesn't rule out the situation where the SNP does not hold a majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament but is still able to win a vote in session that authorises funding for a referendum.

We're differentiating here between a Parliament that wants independence, and the possible (but unlikely) scenario of a Parliament that consents to the idea of a referendum (beyond the mandate already expressed by general elections) as a means of finally settling the issue.

We're then at the point where consitutional lawyers start to earn their fees. Given that the Scottish Parliament is already empowered to negotiate with the UK Parliament, would it be legal to use public money to run a referendum which - given that it wouldn't extend any legal powers the Parliament didn't already have - is essentially an opinion poll?

EDIT: A final few thoughts. Support for the SNP may not directly translate into support for independence; likewise, support for independence may not directly translate into support for a particular political party. The desirability of a referendum on this issue (legal questions aside) is that it might help cut across artificial divides created by a Parliamentary system based primarily on the block votes of political parties. That make any kind of sense?

hope as parliamentary process

Here's hoping someone got handy with a photocopier:

A highly sensitive file detailing the expenses and security arrangements for more than 30 backbench Labour MPs was left in the House of Commons bar in the wake of the "Brownite coup" that saw Ann Clwyd replaced by Tony Lloyd as chair of the parliamentary Labour party.

The document - which was to form the basis of the MPs' submission to the Senior Salaries Review Board, which is thought to be considering calling for pay to rise to £100,000 a year, an increase of 66% from MPs' present basic salary of £60,277 a year.

Quick pause: you total, total bastards, hands off my money.

The file - unlike the planned submission - contained individual factual details about how much MPs needed to spend on running their offices and details of security arrangements in place to protect them in their constituencies. [...]

The file was returned to her researchers by Commons security staff who found it under a table in the Strangers' Bar, a popular Westminster watering hole for MPs and outside guests. It has now been handed back to Mr Lloyd.

The Strangers' bar is also quite popular with members of the press.

Now, which of the following explanations do you think is most likely? That someone close to Tony Lloyd got pissed and left the file by accident, that someone close to Tony Lloyd wanted to make Ann Clwyd look bad, or that someone in the House of Commons with a streak of integrity wanted to try and scupper the pay rise? Please post your own personal conspiracy theory below..

pointless reverse-snobbery

While £17.8 million sounds like a fuck-load of money for running the PM's offices at Downing Street and Chequers - mainly because it is - it's worth trying to remain clear-headed about Blair's alleged "butler." Of all of the commentary printed today, only The Scotsman reports that

The holder of the post would manage 40 staff covering building management, hospitality, security, events and cleaning, the advert said. The person would also create a database on the needs of VIP guests.

So a little bit more than a personal servant who stands by Tony in a fancy suit with a silver salver, despite what Richard Littlejohn might be foaming this morning.

While the criticism of an administration apparently centralising power around Downing Street is horribly well observed, the faux class outrage is more than a little thin and detracts from the real problem of accountability. At the least, it clouds the debate with pointless rhetorical questions ("Are you seriously suggesting Blair should do the washing-up after a reception?") that let Blair's defenders dodge the wider question.  The issue isn't whether Blair should have staff, or not, but how public money is spent on staff and the roles they fulfil.

turns out we're a load of liberal, atheist sex-fiends after all

The Times' "shocking new survey" on modern marriage omits one rather large trend. But first, the juicy bits:

Compared with 1983, we are far more relaxed about homosexuality and premarital sex, but not about adultery. Then, 62% thought gay sex was always or mostly wrong. That figure has more than halved, to 29%. Meanwhile, the proportion saying it is rarely wrong or not wrong at all has more than doubled to nearly 50%. We are more liberal, too, about premarital sex. Criticism has almost disappeared, with the proportion saying it is always or mostly wrong down from 28% to 6%. The numbers saying it is rarely wrong or not wrong at all rose from 50% to 78%.

I'm not quite sure why this counts as "shocking," unless you believe what a socially conservative minority has been shouting. Maybe we can keep these figures in mind on the next occasion that a self-proclaimed defender of "family values" tries to pass off their own values as representative of the country in general.

So what's the missing marriage trend? Marriage is no longer a primarily religious convention and hasn't been one for over ten years. As discussed back in June, since 1992 there have been more civil marriage ceremonies in England and Wales than religious ceremonies.

execution manners

A fresh load of total and mealy-mouthed bollocks:

Speaking on a visit to Egypt, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said while the executions were an Iraqi process, "we were disappointed there was not greater dignity given to the accused under these circumstances".

The UK prime minister's spokesman said it was "clearly wrong" if the executions had not been carried out in a dignified way.

Because it's the failure to put a fresh doily down before you hang someone that's an affront to human dignity.

trust me, I'm a politician

If there's one thing that should raise your hackles, it's absolute assurances from a politician:

Tony Blair will today spearhead a fresh government initiative to persuade voters they have nothing to fear from consenting to a relaxation of "over-zealous" rules which stop Whitehall departments sharing information about individual citizens.

Now, however well-managed or controlled our government might hope to be (in some future, or possibly entirely parallel universe), we know far too well from experience that there's never "nothing" to fear, and often something very real to fear.

The comparison to supermarket databases is actually quite helpful:

One official derided the condemnation likely to come from civil liberty lobbies, insisting: "At present we have some ridiculously artificial demarcations in government when Tesco and the credit agencies know more about us all than government agencies which are there to help you."

Well, I'm not so happy about the level of information credit agencies have access to either - in fact, it's almost a benchmark that government should strive to be less intrusive.

One problem here is the social contract between government and citizen is pretty torn and tattered: there's no trust that allowing government further access to our lives will actually help, and reasonable suspicion that it will most likely hinder and intrude. Think of it like this: having witnessed the spurious and twisting arguments for ID cards, why should anyone instinctively trust this government when it comes to the handling of our personal information?

"when I said legitimate family, I meant Catholic"

Via From the Left, I discover the Pope has reiterated his lack of faith in heterosexual marriage. Alongside being a source of energy so powerful as to be a future form of time-travel (rhetoria passim) the meeting of peni or vaginas sends family-destroying ripples across space-time:

Pope Benedict XVI on Thursday warned Italian lawmakers the Vatican will use all of its influence to defeat planned legislation to create civil partnerships.

"Projects aimed at granting improper legal recognition to forms of unions other [than traditional marriage] appear dangerous and counterproductive as they inevitably weaken and destabilize the legitimate family based on matrimony," the pontiff told a gathering of local administrators from across Italy.

I can't help but feel sorry for people whose families are so fragile as to be destroyed by someone else's decision to make a long-term commitment to another person.

there's no place like home (for police intrusion into your sex life)

I see DK has discovered his newly local Kentish press: having been brought up in Kent, I remember the delights of "Mouse In My Milk" and "House Might Subside." Happy, happy, pre-Daily Mail days.

Self-explanatory headlines aside, there's this story:

A Neighbourhood Watch Association faces being evicted from the police station where it operates unless its members reveal their sexuality and how much money they owe.

I'm going to presume that the police working out of that station havn't also been required to make similar declarations, though please correct me if I'm wrong. So why the intrusive form-filling?

Police say the information is needed in case the volunteers become “vulnerable to financial inducements”.

A police spokesman said the vetting procedure was due to a new computer system set to launch next month which would give volunteers “controlled access” that could be used “for personal financial gain”.

“We value tremendously their support but the Kent force is not prepared to compromise the security of our systems.”

The argument that people with debts or a preference for same-sexy sexy are by definition vulnerable to blackmail (or "financial inducement") is slightly problematic, not least because those two categories could be shown to include the vast majority of serving police officers.

And how exactly would this information help? Would heavily indebted homos be under closer watch than their debt-ridden hetero friends? What if I'm openly gay but have a large mortgage? Am I more or less dangerous than someone who's not publicly gay but has a savings account? Would it be a sliding scale of paranoia?

Here's a thought: either these volunteers are trusted, or not. Either the access is "controlled," or not. Either way, treating volunteers with a track record of service like prospective criminals isn't going to do much for community relations.

the science fiction of gay sheep

I've had a couple of friends talk to me about the latest gay sheep stories, with a few mildly concerned about the implcations of "curing" homosexuality. Fortunately, we have Ben Goldacre doing what he does best and carving through the mountain of errors, misdirection and outright lies in "science" reporting.

The most important element of Goldacre's fisking - to my mind - is that the claim to have altered the sexuality of sheep is entirely false:

“By varying the hormone levels,” [The Sunday Times continues], “mainly by injecting hormones into the brain [cough] they have had “considerable success” in altering the rams’ sexuality, with some previously gay animals becoming attracted to ewes.” This is not just completely untrue, it is, in fact, the polar opposite of what the researchers really did.

The only similar work completed and published by this team of researchers was about trying to make “straight” animals “gay” (although animal behaviour researchers avoid those terms) and in any case, that experiment was negative: it failed to achieve this aim. Go read the study if you don’t believe me (Endocrine. 2006 Jun;29(3):501-11).

The original Sunday Times article is almost unbelievably inaccurate - misreporting both the nature and the outcome of the research, and drawing false conclusions from facts that don't exist. Re-reading the Times, it's hard to find a single paragraph that doesn't contain one or more errors, or isn't based on an entirely flawed premise.

Here's a quick sweep of the oh-so-terrifying opening paragraphs, processed through what I shall now call the Goldacre filter. Here's the original:

SCIENTISTS are conducting experiments to change the sexuality of “gay” sheep in a programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.

The technique being developed by American researchers adjusts the hormonal balance in the brains of homosexual rams so that they are more inclined to mate with ewes.

It raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual.

Re-edited for factual accuracy, we get this mangled nonsense:

SCIENTISTS are not conducting experiments to change the sexuality of “gay” sheep.

A technique tested by American researchers which adjusted the hormonal balance in the brains of straight rams so that they would be more inclined to mate with other rams failed.

It does not raise the prospect of a treatment for pregnant women to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual.

Makes for slightly strained reading, no?

bad ideas

From Fred Halliday's list of the world's twelve worst ideas, "conformism masquerading as profundity":

Number nine: We live in a "post-feminist" epoch

The implication of this claim, supposedly analogous to such terms as "post-industrial", is that we have no more need for feminism, in politics, law, everyday life, because the major goals of that movement, articulated in the 1970s and 1980s, have been achieved.

On all counts, this is a false claim: the "post-feminist" label serves not to register achievement of reforming goals, but the delegitimation of those goals themselves.

and

Number one: The world's population problems, and the spread of Aids, can be solved without the use of condoms

This is not only the most dangerous, but also the most criminal, error of the modern world. Millions of people will suffer, and die premature and humiliating deaths, as a result of the policies pursued in this regard through the United Nations and related aid and public-health programmes.

Indeed, there is no need to ask where the first mass murderers of the 21st century are; we already know, and their addresses besides: the Lateran Palace, Vatican City, Rome, and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC. Timely arrest and indictment would save many lives.

No real need for further comment - go and read the whole list.

lady, love your censor

I think I've discovered the perfect Daily Mail storm:

The BBC came under new fire after it announced plans for a £200,000 TV documentary devoted to the most offensive word in the English language.

Liberal? Feminist? Super-mega-queer? No...

The programme - tentatively titled I love The C-Word..

It's a story that has everything going for it: tax-payer's money being squandered on material that is an affront to public decency, topped off by references to genitalia and the lurking politics of hate-speech. Squuueeeaaal. If you're unaware of the loathing reserved by the Mail for the Vagina Monologues, you have no idea what's coming next.

Springing from the insta-comment booth, here's Shadow Culture Secretary Hugo Swire:

Mr Swire said: "People expect high standards from the BBC and many might well be offended by effectively subsidising programmes of this nature through the licence fee.

"Of this nature"? Shows that use naughty words? Shows that address cultural taboos? I presume the standard Mail moral contraceptive applies here: even talking about something is the equivalent of a hearty endorsement so we're better off keeping our heads firmly in the sand.

"The change of language is an entirely good thing to look at, but I don't see why they have to sensationalise the subject. I'm sure they can have a stimulating debate about the change of language without resorting to the crude and baser words."

Hmm.. this argument sounds a little bit like "it's fine for you to make this programme providing you make a different programme altogether."

Switching to John Whittingdale, chairman of the Commons Culture Select Committee:

Mr Whittingdale said: "I have a general principle that I do not condemn programmes until I have seen them. But the BBC have got to recognise this is a word that still offends a large number of people."

What an excellent general principle you've managed to ignore. "Even though I don't know whether this programme will offend people or not, I have to say this programme is likely to offend people." Yes, above all, don't let the people decide for themselves because once the programme is on-air we are bound to watch, helpless to turn away.

Could it possibly be that this word retains such a unique power to shock, abuse and distress because we treat it that way?

revenge of the smoothies

Hey look - the Mail's scaremongering claim that some smoothies "have more sugar than Coke" has been republished on their website - conveniently updated and scrubbed of the comment pointing out fruit sugar is not the same thing as refined sugar.

It's also worth remembering that sugar is not automatically bad for you, and that (unlike Coke) fruit smoothies contain useful things like fibre and vitamins. The fact that fruit might contain - gasp of horror - sugar does not make up for an almost total lack of nutritional value in Coke. So, fruit is still a better choice than the fizzy pop of your choice, shock.

Compare and fail to contrast the two versions here and here.

revisiting asymetrical prejudice

Reposted from last May:

For anyone flying the flag of classical liberalism and claiming that queer people and their advocates are as intolerant of socially conservative Christians as that group is prejudiced towards "teh queer," it's worth remembering that gay advocate groups have not argued:

- that socially conservative Christians do not have the right to marry or adopt or assume next of kin rights because of their "lifestyle choices"

- that Christianity is a legitimate reason for a person to be denied housing or other goods and services

- that Christians should not be put in charge of teaching children because of the damaging effect it might have on impressionable minds

- that a refusal to have sex outside of a ritualistic union is unnatural or even perverse

- that Christians are going to hell if they do not immediately take up anal sex and go-go dancing.

- that a tendency towards paedophilia is an intrinsic quality of being a religious minister

- that discrimination based on religion (or religious sectarianism) shouldn't be taken seriously, because if the people affected wanted to they could just "stop believing"

- argued that the specific and even generic sex acts of socially conservative Christians are perverted and must not be described in school, even if to prevent the transmission of STI's.

It's not a complete list, but it seems to be even more appropriate than ever.

no more than the letter of the (religious) law

As church groups plan legal challenges to gay rights legislation amidst howls of how unfair those proposals are, it's useful to remind ourselves of the content of the Equality Act 2006 which includes the following:

It is unlawful for a person ("A") concerned with the provision to the public or a section of the public of goods, facilities or services to discriminate against a person ("B") who seeks to obtain or use those goods, facilities or services..

That's quoted from part 2 of the act, referring to religious discrimination and should not be confused with this section, from part 3:

The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about discrimination or harassment on grounds of sexual orientation [...] The regulations may, in particular make provision of a kind similar to Part 2 of this Act.

The law authorises nothing more than the possibility of the kinds of protection already given to those with religious beliefs.

Unlike religious discrimination, described and prohibited in some detail, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is a kind of optional extra which the Secretary of State may choose to pursue.

If it's morally, legally and logistically possible to extend protections to the religious, why is it suddenly immoral, illegal and intractable when it comes to gay people?

sugar will kill you and your family while you sleep

As I catch up with my back-log of hackery, here's the Daily Mail's revelation that fruit smoothies contain as much sugar as the entire world's supply of sugar:

Bursting with fruit, smoothies are the drink of choice for many health-conscious Britons. However, many of the colourful drinks are actually more sugary than Coca-Cola.

Fortunately, an unexpectedly coherent commenter immediately asked:

Hang on! Are you equating fruit sugar with refined sugar?

The answer is 'yes': the basis of this story is either ordinary ignorance, or the wilful kind that makes for good Daily Mail reporting.

The Mail's "fruit contains sugar and is therefore bad for you" grasp of nutrition seems to be the bastard offspring of the Food Standard Agency's own food traffic lights. As Grant Thoms over at Tartan Hero argues, the traffic lights are:

supposed to give a ready reckoner approach as to whether foodstuffs are good or bad in one of four groups: fat, saturated fats, sugar and salt. Sounds fairly straightforward except when we think of say judging sugar content, the traffic lights system measures and codes food according to total sugar content, whether it is good (natural sugar content from say dried fruit) or bad (refined sugars such as in confectionary).

So your box of healthy breakfast muesli will be be coded RED even though on the whole it would be regarded as a fairly healthy start to the day.

Or would most likely not be coded at all, to avoid demonstrating that a system intended to simplify is equally likely to confuse.

Here's a crazy thought: if the intention is to help consumers to make informed decisions about what they eat, it's probably going to have to involve something that actually informs consumers rather than treats them like easily scared children.

law intended to bring change will bring change, shock

Meaningless critique of the day, via The Telegraph and on the subject of new school admission rules:

The proposals were condemned by the Conservatives as "social engineering".

Headteachers said that the majority of primary and secondary schools in England would have to tear up existing admissions rules to comply with the code.

First, having any kind of national system education is - even by the loosest definition - social engineering. Second, the change in rules was rather intended to, you know, bring about a change in rules.

fast fool

There's no point in condemning something no-one approved of in the first place unless you raise the stakes.

So, commenting a group of teens who tore up a branch of Burger King (for entirely Buckfasty, apolitical reasons) and filmed the proceedings, Edinburgh's Cllr Aitken has apparently called for tighter control of what is allowed to be shown on the internet.

He said: "It saddens me that sites like YouTube allow these things to be glorified. This must have been absolutely horrendous for anyone in the restaurant.

Yes, the key to solving teenage disorder is censorship of the internet, an aim both level-headed and achievable.

Pause now, to wallow in the irony of the situation: that a low quality video of teen violence that would have been ignored by everyone is only reaching a wide audience because of an article condemning it. An article published on January 8th, more than a month after the actual event.

Will Cllr. Aitken please now condemn The Evening (Five Week Delay For Your) News for enabling such violence to be glorified? Will he condemn himself for taking part in such a circle-jerk in the first place?

I'm actually in favour of people who pose for cameras during the course of violent crime and then make that record publicly available: it makes them at lot easier to prosecute and laugh at. Best incoherent comment from the Evening News website?

Totally agree, the root cause of this behaviour is down to the governments lack of management for this country, if someone in this "restaurant" (not sure this word is correct as it provides rubbish!) actually stood up thp these thugs then they would be up in court!

Yes, the government is to blame for the poor management of the public in privately owned restaurants.. uhmm.. what now?

Gay rights laws challenge fails

Could someone possibly get Ruth Kelly on the phone? Something seems to have happened:

New rules outlawing businesses from discriminating against homosexuals have been upheld in the House of Lords. A challenge led by Lord Morrow of the Democratic Unionist Party failed by a majority of three to one.

Now, when can we have these rules in the rest of the UK?

those hansard notes in full

Small note to Lord Tebbit (debate streaming live now) - stop asking fucking ridiculous and spurious questions for which the answer is "No, that would not be the case under the proposed law." Oh, and please stop pretending that entirely lawful acts are anything other than that; you lost sometime during the 1980s: suck it up.

Can it really be that everyone who owns guest houses lives in morbid fear of having their children exposed to deadly, deadly homos over breakfast? Oops. Someone just had his bluff called by a black, gay member of the House of Lords: "please do come and stay." Ha!

The full transcript tomorrow is going to make very interesting reading..

lies, hatemongering, hypocrisy: probably not what jesus would do

Not a fan of Toynbee, but here's her nice summary of Mail-sponsored hatemongering:

They claim the law will "force all schools to actively promote homosexual civil partnerships to children (from primary-school age) to the same degree that they teach the importance of marriage". No it won't: the curriculum does not "actively promote" homosexuality, nor even make sex education compulsory. They claim the law will "force a printing shop run by a Christian to print fliers promoting gay sex". No it won't, unless the same printers promote heterosexual porn too.

Or how about this one? "Force a family-run B&B to let out a double room to a transsexual couple, even if the family think it in the best interests of their children to refuse to allow such a situation in their home." Oh no it won't: it doesn't even cover transsexuals - and what a daft scenario anyway. The National Secular Society has complained to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Then there's Peter Tatchell arguing for the hypocrisy of religious objections :

"It is wrong to give legal protection against some forms of discrimination but not against others. Last year's Equality Act gave full legal protection against discrimination to people of faith. Some religious leaders are now demanding that the protection they have secured for themselves should be denied to lesbians and gays."

"It is hypocrisy and double standards. They want the law to give them privileged protection and for gay people to be treated as second-class citizens. If anyone was demanding the legal right to discriminate against Christians, these zealots would be outraged. Yet they want the right to discriminate against gays. They are two-faced homophobes."

Watching the Lords debate right now...

rules for skules

Reform of the schools admissions process has kicked in, banning primary and secondary schools from assessing parents' work, financial, marital or social status, stopping schools from giving priority to pupils whose parents put it as their first choice and - perhaps most significantly - parents should now know the outcome of selection tests such as the 11-plus before they make their school choices.

greatest show on earth?

I'm very excited to read - over at Mediawatchwatch - that "Stephen Green, national director of the fundamentalist organisation Stephen Green's Voice (aka Christian Voice), announced yesterday that his long-awaited blasphemy prosecution against the BBC has begun."

From Christian Voice's low on irony press release:

Stephen Green said afterwards: 'I saw the BBC Songs of Praise School Choirs singing on BBC2's sister channel last night. As one primary school choir was singing so beautifully, I wondered what kind of society they are growing up into, in this day and age.

'Will it be one with no respect for the Almighty or for other people? One with no sense of right or wrong? One with no limits? One with no acknowledgment of the sacred?"

Those poor children - growing up in a world where they've learnt to sing religious songs at school and where there's a TV programme dedicated to it. Truly, there is no place for religion in today's society etc. etc.

orientation, acts and sex by proxy

James McKay's comment piece in The Telegraph on the impending Lords debate to annul the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations in Northern Ireland tries very hard to rehash the logic of loving the sinner and hating the sin:

The moral teaching that is part of the faith of many Christians, Jews and Muslims includes the view that the practice of homosexuality is sinful. This is often held along with the view that sexual relations outside marriage are also sinful. These views are not new, but have been included in the teaching of these faiths for a long time.

As I understand these views, they are not concerned with the orientation of the individual, but with the putting into practice of a homosexual orientation by carrying out homosexual acts.

The distinction between acts and identities is a convenient one, though not one that stands up for very long.

The separation is problematic because the link between desire and action is neither stable or universally consistent - neither in the case of sex or religion. Some people feel the need to pray at their particular temple three times a day; others can make it several months without feeling the urge - and let's not forget the rush to fuck or confess after a brush with death.

There are also those who would argue that their religious or sexual identity persists regardless of whether they are in church or completing a specific sexual act. This situation causes problems for the second part of McKay's argument, which depends on a linear relationship between orientation and act to argue Christians should be able to deny goods or services on the grounds that they would be implicated in acts they object to. Put coarsely but accurately, offering a bed to a gay couple for the night implicates the godly in butt-fucking.

Here too, the definition is loose: what if the gay couple promises to keep their pajamas double-knotted? Is it too much to merely treat them as a couple? Does facilitating sin extend to renting a room for a discussion of gay rights? Does there have to be a clear line of cause and effect, or does facilitation (ugh) appear only in the eye of the beholder?

These are, of course, questions of dogma and not legal principle. The exemption being asked for here is rather simpler - that gay people can be denied goods and services simply because they are gay. Not for the first time, I note that those who argue for this exemption do not argue - for the sake of fairness or parity - that people of faith should have their specific protections removed.

For lurking faux-libertarians, note the usual arguments that apply to the claim that everyone should be allowed to act freely, i.e. such freedom has never existed and that we live in a civil society where freedoms are negotiated.

special rules for lessons in hypocrisy (third standard edition)

Quick addendum to the general rules and proceedings for Daily Mail hackery. The fact the Ruth Kelly appears to endorse one thing and do another only makes her a hypocrite when it involves education, and not when concerns the deadly deadly homos .

So being a strident Catholic (ref. homosexuality "an objective disorder") and in charge of equality legislation is still absolutely fine, but endorsing state education for other people's children with special needs while privately educating her own is not.

ruth kelly's private family matter (non-homo special edition)

The Times' theory that we should ignore Ruth Kelly because there are bigger educational fish to fry is a politely phrased "fuck you, sit down, shut up" to any parent who has a child with educational difficulties but doesn't have £15,000 to go private:

Ruth Kelly, when Secretary of State for Education, received much unfair criticism for her strong religious faith. She is now a target again in her new post for sending her son to a fee-paying school. Even if she had done this solely in the belief that it would maximise his academic prospects, she would be entirely entitled to make that decision and can hardly be accused of hypocrisy when Labour has long ago abandoned its call for the abolition of private education.

While Kelly might have received some unfair criticism of her religious faith, she received far more entirely fair criticism for her hypocrisy. So here's a quick brush-past of the problems with The Times' fig-leaf.

It's a defence of a "private family matter" that conveniently ignores that Kelly was once the Secretary for State for Education and had a huge influence on the "private matters" of thousands of other families. It's a defence that ignores how, while under her leadership, the Department for Education and Skills repeatedly argued that the best place for children with special needs is within mainstream, state-schooling.

It's a defence that ignores the protests of Tower Hamlets council - praised, incidentally, by Kelly for raising standards - that high quality provision for children, including those with special needs, has been made available. If it's good enough for the common majority, when isn't it good enough for her? And if it isn't good enough for her, can she at leaast admit the failure of her own administration? She might not have to fall on the sword, but she has to at least admit it exists.

It's a defence that introduces a highly selective definition of what counts as a private matter: will The Times be so generous the next time a Minister has an affair? Or buys some shares which double in value, mysteriously, ten minutes later?

Aside from those minor problems, The Times' admonishment that "what should be of interest to other parents is what children are taught in schools and how this is tested" conveniently ignores the idea that some of those children might have special needs, or that the provision for those with special needs might be indicative of the kind of education available in general.

Kelly is obviously entitled to do whatever she thinks is best for her family (or indeed, the welfare of her soul, as we've seen previously) but to pretend that those "personal" decisions are beyond examination or reproof when she is also a government minister making the same kinds of decision on our behalf is fucking ridiculous.

DK has a few.. ahem.. select words.. to say on the matter of Kelly, as does the NHS Blog Doctor.

still alive, happy new year, all-male shakespeare

I'm busy. Painfully, joyfully busy - and given that I'm in the middle of preparing a semester on Renaissance literature, this kind of story doesn't help. Here's Edward Hall interviewed on the subject of his all-male productions of Shakespeare:

"This company has never been driven by big mission statements from me or anyone else."

Apart from the obvious one, of course — to perform Shakespeare as originally intended, with all-male casts.

Slight confusion here between original intention, and knowledge of cultural circumstances which meant women were strongly discouraged from performing in public outside of extremely specific circumstances. If we're going to talk about historical realism, then we need some pre-pubescent boys, who possibly pass as women because they do not yet register as men. But then we'd have to talk about making young men sexually desirable.. whoops. Anyhoo..

As statements go, it seems a pretty big one. Do women in the audience, and especially actresses, ever complain?

"I get the feeling a lot of women find it very sexy. Cross-dressing is sexy – should be, anyway. I get the occasional letter saying, 'Why don't you employ women?', to which my reply is always, 'If you want to start an all-female Shakespeare company then do it.'

Which isn't actually any kind of direct answer to the question, you'll note.

Actors by their nature are pretending to be something they're not and whether they're pretending to be Hamlet or pretending to be a woman, essentially to me there is no difference."

So is the argument about historical realism, or merely that women can be seamlessly replaced by men onstage? I'm slightly peeved by someone making an apparently  significant (or at the least substantial) decision about staging and then simultaneously claiming that it's not at all significant. So why are we talking about it?

A gigantic round-up of awful journalism to follow when I can find the time.