tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6068105406305319114.post7476700736882813072..comments2024-01-11T17:17:37.361+00:00Comments on The Raft Journal: Marriage a la mode - popcornWoman on a Rafthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897415591130901416noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6068105406305319114.post-44081482194451257842012-02-12T00:29:33.787+00:002012-02-12T00:29:33.787+00:00History note: the case of the three Muslims went b...History note: the case of the three Muslims went before a jury and <a href="http://www.itn.co.uk/uk/37441/Three+men+guilty+over+homophobic+leaflets" rel="nofollow">they were convicted.</a><br /><br />Three Muslim men have been found guilty of stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation after distributing a leaflet that said Islam called for homosexuals to be executed.Woman on a Rafthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897415591130901416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6068105406305319114.post-15410174512294943132011-01-31T17:59:03.324+00:002011-01-31T17:59:03.324+00:00Jim, in the first comment I notice that you refer ...Jim, in the first comment I notice that you refer to the possibility of a future "gays vs. Islam" case. Well we already have one, with three men charged with public order offences for distributing leaflets advocating the execution of homosexuals. But sorry, I don't think this will be that entertaining. These leafleting chaps aren't going to woo any hearts and minds, and as it's a criminal matter with the CPS itself prosecuting there aren't any convenient gay targets for friends of the defendants to denigrate.<br /><br />Outright homophobic extremists don't do subtlety, it seems.Tony Sidawayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05574184901254178514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6068105406305319114.post-24261361238026032472011-01-31T17:47:26.215+00:002011-01-31T17:47:26.215+00:00Ed Butt, I think both homosexual rights campaigner...Ed Butt, I think both homosexual rights campaigners and conservative Christians see behind this case to deeper issues. For a gay couple a civil partnership is a "don't mess with us, we're as good as you" card, and after decades of work against what at one time seemed insurmountable obstacles they expect their hard-won legal rights to be taken seriously. Christians too haven't been slow to assert claims of religious discrimination at employment tribunals and to fight for a broad interpretation of their rights to practise their religion.<br /><br /><br />The world has changed, and the general thrust of public policy with it. Probably quite soon the Scottish Assembly may introduce a new legal framework granting equal rights to marriage in Scotland, and England and Wales won't be far behind. This case and others like it will resonate with both supporters and opponents of the law by dramatizing the clash between old culture and new.<br /><br />The Bulls and those like them are, I agree, just pawns of the Christian Institute.Tony Sidawayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05574184901254178514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6068105406305319114.post-4184762299606227242011-01-28T20:03:34.741+00:002011-01-28T20:03:34.741+00:00When I once turned up at a private hotel with a la...When I once turned up at a private hotel with a lady who was not who was not wearing a ring and who was quite a lot younger than me to be told there was a married couples only rule and they suspected we were not married we simply said OK then, quite understand; can you recommend anywhere else nearby.<br />They sent us to a very comfotable pub that had a few rooms.<br /><br />Good manners till works at times. So I suspect this whole thing was a set up.Ed Butthttp://www.greenteethmm.com/equalities-bill.shtmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6068105406305319114.post-41114985101301538422011-01-28T07:50:45.445+00:002011-01-28T07:50:45.445+00:00Yes, I know Peter Tatchell has "previous"...Yes, I know Peter Tatchell has "previous" with the Church of England. As you suggest, civil disobedience cuts both ways.<br /><br />This question of why somebody who gets into an argument with Christians doesn't instead go pick an argument with Muslims keeps cropping up. I don't think it makes any sense. If a Christian hotelier unlawfully discriminates against you, it would seem perverse to run off to find a Muslim hotelies in the hope that he will do the same, and then sue him in preference to the Christian. What would be the point? You sue the person who has wronged you. A British court is unlikely to make any special allowances for Muslims that it doesn't for Christians.<br /><br />There is another case in the news, from an incident of homophobia last March. The couple were met outside and refused entry, the hotelier being unwilling to let a room to a gay couple. There is apparently no civil partnership/marriage issue in this case, just open-and-shut discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. They filed suit last May.Tony Sidawayhttp://twitter.com/tonysidawaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6068105406305319114.post-6101906286236045882011-01-26T19:59:24.837+00:002011-01-26T19:59:24.837+00:00"I can't see the difference".
It d..."I can't see the difference". <br /><br />It depends where you stand on the map of the law. If this were a matter of private contract and property law then there is very little reason for public law to step in and you are absolutely correct. <br /><br />The snag being that this isn't about contract law but is the inevitable clash of two principles of human rights law i.e. the right to freedom from discrimination versus the right to expression of religion.<br /><br />The Human Rights legislation was originally set up after the Second Unpleasantness to put a moral framework around the claim that a duly elected government could change the law how it damn well pleased.<br /><br />It's now our prime directive so anyone looking at the law has to look at through this lens. History just trundled over us, I'm afraid. <br /><br />While the continent had a majority of people supporting a form of fairly conservative Christianity then there was a reasonably common concensus of what Human Rights meant i.e. how the legislation should be interpretted. <br /><br />Now, the parallax shift between the judiciary and the Christian Conservative minority (majority? who knows) is becoming apparent. <br /><br />Of which more later, only I want to do some lighter stuff as this is deadly earnest and there is a bucket load of fun coming up to do with discrimination in the insurance market.Woman on a Rafthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897415591130901416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6068105406305319114.post-34648150673785103092011-01-26T11:10:33.291+00:002011-01-26T11:10:33.291+00:00Your last sentence is telling - that we live in a ...Your last sentence is telling - that we live in a victimocracy. Why should there be a "victim" at all?<br /><br />Surely if there needs to be an eventual winner then market forces will dictate?<br /><br />I'll take the risky route of an analogy, and make a reservation at a vegetarian restaurant.<br /><br />"Oh. Is it vegetarian? You didn't say so over the phone. No no, I didn't book on your website. No matter, we'll stay"<br /><br />"This Meat Eaters Union badge I'm wearing, oh no, just ignore that. I've borrowed the jacket for the night."<br /><br />"Right, I'll have steak."<br /><br />"You won't serve me? Vegetarian restaurant be damned, I demand...it's my right..." etc etc. You get the point.<br /><br />Point is, it's their restaurant and they serve what they want. They might even be carnivores themselves - they've identified a niche and are selling into it. <br /><br />Market forces say that if every cafe in the area did the same thing then a small proportion of customers would be happy, a small proportion would suffer it and most people would phone for a Chinese. And a bucketful of restaurants wouldn't survive the season. <br /><br />I can't see the difference. The gay community is safe that every hotel won't do the same thing because market forces wouldn't allow it. In fact, those same forces would encourage the opening of gay-friendly lodgings to exploit that niche. <br /><br />So why legislate at all?<br /><br />I apologise for taking the risk of an analogy because they always have weaknesses and encourage the weakest thread to be pulled to discredit an argument. But I think this one is relatively firm. <br /><br />It's all about what you do with your meat.All Seeing Eyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671520010496394878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6068105406305319114.post-42166463429819570802011-01-26T10:31:32.812+00:002011-01-26T10:31:32.812+00:00Hope it helps, Mr Sidaway. The matter is unlikely ...Hope it helps, Mr Sidaway. The matter is unlikely to go away; I expect a challenge to the gay hotels which exclude women at some point. As Mr Elby points out, there are some possible inconsistencies but we won't know until somebody tests the exemptions.<br /><br />You are right about Tatchell; he has always been consistent in his views but he has a history of using the CoE for its publicity purposes and I haven't seen him trying the same stunt down at the Peterborough Mosque.<br /><br />One from the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/225550.stm" rel="nofollow">archives</a> when Tatchell interrupted a sermon by Dr Carey in Canterbury Cathedral. <br /><br />Tatchell's own account is eloquent and <a href="http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/easter_sunday.htm" rel="nofollow">well worth reading</a>.<br /><br />On day 2 of the trial - a show-trial in every sense of the word for a minor public order offence with a fine of less than £20 - Tony Benn gave a character reference and mounted a defenence of Tatchell's protest. Benn said:<br /><br /><b>"It has long been accepted that<i>'Conscience is above the Law'</i> and that men and women who follow their own deeply held beliefs and peacefully defy unjust laws are right to do so, and though they may be punished at the time for what they have done are often upheld by the judgement of history."</b><br /><br />Tatchell lost. The prosecution was lucky; they didn't really fight a good hand and anyway, as far as Tatchell was concerned it gave him a national platform at a bargain price. The Crown was frankly silly to have prosecuted. He had to pay £320 costs, which I'd be surprised if Mike Mansfield didn't pick up for him. <br /><br />Outside the court Tatchell said:<br /><br /><b>I have been found guilty in a court of law: but I do not regard myself as morally guilty of any crime. My actions in Canterbury Cathedral were in defence of Human Rights.</b><br /><br />This knife cuts both ways; I have a great deal of trouble deciding who is the victim here; the right not to be discriminated against in the supply of goods and services, or the right to hold quaint views and act on them in a limited household.Woman on a Rafthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897415591130901416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6068105406305319114.post-76445792760246216082011-01-24T21:10:12.629+00:002011-01-24T21:10:12.629+00:00A good line from David Blackburn in the Spectator....A good line from David Blackburn in the <a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6643578/sexism-is-a-redherring-its-family-that-matters.thtml" rel="nofollow">Spectator</a>.<br /><br />"The Equality Act coalesces 40 years of legislation into one document, codifying past mistakes for future use."All Seeing Eyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671520010496394878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6068105406305319114.post-24410190793179926682011-01-24T02:36:20.536+00:002011-01-24T02:36:20.536+00:00Thanks for the exposition, both here and in your e...Thanks for the exposition, both here and in your earlier post to which you link. It's saved me some very boring hours posing over the primary legislation and the statutory instrument.<br /><br />I think I disagree with you on the notion that this is about sticking it to the religious (Ithough they richly deserve it). Rather, it seems to me that Tatchell's position is based very sensibly on the principle that "separate but equal" ends up being the same as "unequal".<br /><br />Is allowing the state to register gay marriage in name, and with all kinds of religious or pseudo-religious paraphernalia, really going to arrest the decline of religion and bring forth a theocracy? Search me but I'll not be holding my breath. <br /><br />People want to be married and for that to mean something, so they're unlikely to settle for a halfway house. The degree of support for marriage equality is surprisingly high--I'd even say overwhelming. That's an awful lot of folk to write off as motivated by triumphalism or anti-religious sentiment.Tony Sidawayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05574184901254178514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6068105406305319114.post-67921284271696040132011-01-23T13:00:09.995+00:002011-01-23T13:00:09.995+00:00Beserk,
For non-reproductive sex to remain a new-h...Beserk,<br />For non-reproductive sex to remain a new-high you can either create new fetishes out of strangers or 'do it' in taboo places. The Mile High club look for virgin places such as little Christian bed and breakfastes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6068105406305319114.post-18381553398794270482011-01-23T11:16:26.204+00:002011-01-23T11:16:26.204+00:00The other thing that strikes me about this set up ...The other thing that strikes me about this set up - why would ANYONE want to stay in an establishment that clearly did not want them there? <br /><br />To feel fully victimised, I would think...Elby the Beserkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15060519682739666145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6068105406305319114.post-23497623516404937382011-01-23T11:15:39.178+00:002011-01-23T11:15:39.178+00:00Odd, is it not, that Google informs me that there ...Odd, is it not, that Google informs me that there a a number of gay only clubs in the UK. <br /><br />One law...Elby the Beserkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15060519682739666145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6068105406305319114.post-43938711570204329702011-01-20T20:52:48.347+00:002011-01-20T20:52:48.347+00:00Thanks for the clarification, Surreptitious Evil. ...Thanks for the clarification, Surreptitious Evil. The story is moving around. I accept that it would be easy to miss the statement on the online booking form. <br /><br />You are so right; there is a huge fog of propaganda around this one. <br /><br />Whilst I have sympathy with the view that this is a religious point of principle in conflict with the civil law, I'm wary of the Christian Institute and the Christian Legal Centre as both are only too willing to pull the public's emotions around if it helps them win an argument.Woman on a Rafthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897415591130901416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6068105406305319114.post-32672178442851608792011-01-20T15:33:02.029+00:002011-01-20T15:33:02.029+00:00"Whether the Bulls were prepared to let them ..."<i>Whether the Bulls were prepared to let them have the twin-bedded room, Trigge, is not recorded.</i>"<br /><br />Apparently, they would have but it was already occupied or booked. I notice that there are now 2 twin rooms, Trigge and Powdar. There is only one single room at the hotel so the "they were told to occupy two single rooms" is mere propaganda. <br /><br />"<i>One wonders how likely it is that Hall and Preddy were unaware of other legal challenges, or that they didn't read the hotel's website? They maintain they did not see it.</i>"<br /><br />It was agreed that they booked by phone. The notice on the website was only on the online booking form so if you used the website for information and then rang to book, you wouldn't see it.Surreptitious Evilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15393411103584747731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6068105406305319114.post-66020181734957493182011-01-20T08:02:50.114+00:002011-01-20T08:02:50.114+00:00I'd be surprised, too, JuliaM, but I'd als...I'd be surprised, too, JuliaM, but I'd also like to know the approximate source of their funding. If it really is coming in £10 donations from thousands of individuals then the organization has a much greater claim to represent public opinion than Stonewall does. <br /><br />If, however, most of the funding is from, say, a dozen big backers who use the outfit as a training ground for Conservative MPs (whereas Stonewall is the bootcamp for Labour MPs) then the Christian rhetoric is just dog-whistle stuff designed to mobilize innocent people in to behaving in an authoritarian and unpleasant way. The only point of 'virtue' being that at least we aren't paying for half the CI from the public purse.<br /><br />I don't think much of the CI's legal or PR strategy. They pick bad cases, lose them, and don't seem to be able to grasp that this makes every other Christian in the country look peculiar. <br /><br />The social workers in Islington had enough to put up with, without the CI forcing the council to suck money which should have gone to child protection in to paying employment lawyers.<br /><br />Even frivolous employment cases run up huge lawyers bills because it takes hours to do the case-work and fact checking.Woman on a Rafthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897415591130901416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6068105406305319114.post-16131369868112960882011-01-20T07:04:30.598+00:002011-01-20T07:04:30.598+00:00Indeed, Jim, I'll be watching that one from be...Indeed, Jim, I'll be watching that one from behind a blast-wall. <br /><br />This case has happened in a hotel so small that it shows that across the tourism sector there is little or no sex discrimination worth talking about. Stonewall, who lobbied for their SI, knew that perfectly well in 2005. I'm sure the idea of searching for a test-case for their SI never crossed their minds. <br /><br />The underlying dynamic is not really about hotels but is a challenge to the Church, for which the hotel is a proxy. The Church itself comes within exemptions so a case against it would have failed. <br /><br />The case has leave to be appealed (we don't know yet if they can face it) and this time it will involve a discussion of which has primacy: a highly specific regulation in an SI or the primary legislation which protects religious freedom of expression. <br /><br />However, before we get to the I-word there is an argument to be had about clubs which are exclusively for heterosexuals.<br /><br />At the bottom of the SI (reg. 17) is a provision protecting clubs set up for single "sexual orientation" i.e. not gender-dependent. This was necessary otherwise gay clubs would be unlawful under their own legislation. <br /><br />Admittedly there is room to argue about whether it is a club or a business and whether its purpose fits within the definition of the clause, but in theory a heterosexual-only club can be set up.Woman on a Rafthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897415591130901416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6068105406305319114.post-48245855296750640122011-01-20T05:37:19.500+00:002011-01-20T05:37:19.500+00:00"...so it is not possible to see if there is ...<i>"...so it is not possible to see if there is a symmetry of receipts from public bodies."</i><br /><br />I'll be very, very surprised if there is!JuliaMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07844126589712842477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6068105406305319114.post-26019663127267677482011-01-19T23:14:36.809+00:002011-01-19T23:14:36.809+00:00If you want a real clash of PC ideas, wait for a &...If you want a real clash of PC ideas, wait for a 'gays vs Islam' scenario to turn up. That'll be a lot more interesting than this little spat, which was always going one way only.Jimnoreply@blogger.com