Morning:
8°c
Well, you have to admire Pope Benedict's timing. The Vatican's intervention in Harriet Harman's equalities bill is one of those meteors which occasionally strikes the placid progress of lawmaking. Three months before the election is a pretty good time to do it.
Ms Harman's last-blast equalities legislation has been criticised by modernising Cabinet colleagues as a ragbag of ideas which assume the state is best placed to foist more equality on the country. Public sector reformers regard it as an extra burden: surely their primary purpose is to improve schools and hospitals, not undertake audits of which class is being best catered for by which service?
The Harman bill has already unleashed many Cabinet battles, not least with Peter Mandelson, the business secretary, whose reservations have been privately vocal. Senior Blairites insist it would not have got through on their watch. “It's Gordon's payback for Harriet — and it gives her something to do,” carps one.
Ms Harman, to give her credit, is as full of missionary zeal as the Pope — just of a different kind.
Although she is as argumentative as a Labour QC should be, I doubt she would much like to trade definitions of the Natural Law, from Aristotle to Thomas Aquinas and the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke, with the Pope. His arguments, while often calculated to raise secular hackles, always have an intellectual grounding — in this case, the separate spheres of religious and civil life.
The more controversial part is that to a Catholic traditionalist such as Pope Benedict, the Natural Law would preclude homosexuals being able to act on their sexuality, which would seem to most of us, including many Catholics, very unnatural indeed .
But it is hard to deny that the clashes between the secular state and the second biggest faith group in the country have multiplied in the past few years. This is what is moving the Pope to call for a unified voice from bishops and a firmer line of resistance on meddling in faith schools and the limits placed on religious organisations.
Much of the ill feeling is left over from the argument over the rights of Catholic adoption agencies to exclude adoption by gay couples. This was a divisive issue in Cabinet. Two ordinarily herbivorous ministers, Ruth Kelly, a devout Roman Catholic, and Alan Johnson, an equally devout defender of the secular tradition, had bitter and ill-tempered exchanges on the matter.
Ms Harman's new bill, precisely because it is so broad in its reach, does, however, invite the kind of criticism the Pope has made. She believes that by extending rights to “religious workers” (as Private Eye's Dave Spart would call them), she is merely extending fair treatment the rest of us would expect into parishes and other church institutions.
Of course, this leaves the Church, as one commentator earnestly put it yesterday, “sadly out of touch with the public mood”. But the purpose of a spiritual leader is not to fall in behind the public mood, which is by nature temporal and changeable. It is to offer an insight into a different, eternal truth.
We can find that idea uplifting or laughable but to judge the Pope by the standards of a focus group is beyond parody. “Now, this Resurrection thing, do you think it's entirely credible or should we go for something a bit less outré?”
The deeper question is how far religions can choose to opt out of laws which pass through Parliament. The example of the Catholic Church's woeful record in addressing sex abuse by its clergy is a warning against too great a separation of the Church from the rest of society.
One fellow Cabinet minister sighs: “Let the Pope have a row about it — the rest of us know it won't be implemented anyway in this life.” Certainly, it will not be pursued with much vigour if Labour is consigned to an afterlife in opposition.
The Lords (including the Bishops) are already seeking several juicy bites out of the law before it returns to the Commons.
But it is no bad thing that more attention is focused on an undertaking which is, in Ms Harman's own words, “a new social order” — a direct quote from the old East German constitution.
It supposes that the government of the day is best placed to determine what that order is and how widely it is to be embraced. Should a faith school head, for instance, be assessed on their views on homosexuality? Many of us metropolitan liberals might run a mile from a school head who was not neutral on the issue of what kind of sexuality is preferable.
Yet subjecting religious institutions to the state's intervention is dubious on both practical and philosophical grounds.
Those which feel unduly attacked will plead those similar constraints are not being applied to other faiths: how will the clauses on equal opportunities for gays fare down at the local mosque?
Remember also that the Bill requires public bodies to actively work to close the class divide. Possibly this would merely enshrine existing commitments to make sure poorer people have access to public services. Yet the co-opting of public services to a class crusade is also uncomfortable — because it is so hard to say what it really entails.
Back in the unspiritual world of Westminster, the possible impact on voters worries Labour because it has traditionally had a strong base among Roman Catholics. Plus, to adapt Voltaire on his deathbed refusal to denounce Satan. “This is no time to be making enemies.” The last thing Mr Brown wants is a diversionary row about the equalities legislation in the run-up to an election which could be closely fought.
But making enemies is exactly what the doughty Ms Harman is doing. Her crusade plays to activists who will determine whether she is a serious candidate for the leadership.
Outside that group, though, it strikes many as too wide, too sure of itself and too bossy to be healthy.
You do not have to sign up to the Vatican's missionary zeal to find the Harman variety a bit unholy too.
Reader views (21)
@ James, London
She says that most people consider acting on homosexual feelings "very unnatural indeed".
Er, calm down, James. Re-read the sentence carefully. Ms MacElvoy doesn't actually say that at all. This is, true, a slightly convoluted sentence, but what she is arguing is something quite different, i.e.that the Pope believes that to be against homosexuality is to obey "natural law", whereas most people including many catholics believe that this (the Pope's opinion) is not true and it is in fact the POPE's ideas along these lines that are "very unnatural indeed". In other words the opposite of what you are claiming.
- Freddie, Aylesbury, 09/02/2010 10:50
Report abuse
Looking at history,let us not forget that the church was there long before the idea of having a parliament even existed and critically that most of the laws used today were found on christian beliefs.
I share the major sentiment expressed above.Namely, you cannot stop or legislate against someone's belief. Firstly, every human being under natural law or freedom has the right to believe what they choose. Gays exercise their right in choosing to be gay just as the catholics and other non-christians exercise their right to disagree. If gay people don't like that, tough, at worst, don't go to church.
There is no grounds whatsoever for forcing people to accept a view they don't share. Acceptance if anything and under the right of free will is and should remain naturally forthcoming. It is ghastly for HH to try and force it.
Secondly, life is about consequence. Certain actions exclude certain benefits. Is a vegetarian shop owner discriminating against carnivores for not serving any meat products? Against a background of needing to focus on improving the economy, this law seems pointless! Gay people enjoy as much freedom as anyone else if not more in all aspects of life. HH is delusional. Equality is not about being politically correct! It's not about changing laws to justify the choices made by a significant few. The only thing that makes us human beings equal is the common right to freedom/free will and free thought.
- Matthew, LONDON, England, 06/02/2010 13:28
Report abuse
Bijjasus, so many words, so little wisdom. It is inconceivable why anyone cares, this is a dialogue between two impotent fools.
The leader of the Catholic church has lost all credibility with all non Catholics, and, I suspect many Catholics; and as for HH, Ha Ha
- Sam, Brighton, 05/02/2010 22:54
Report abuse
this pope encouraging hatred.
- La Fronde, Clapham, London, 05/02/2010 11:09
Report abuse
I cannot see any justification for a church to be exempted from the equality laws of this country. If, say, a church like the former apartheid Dutch Reformed Church had branches in the UK and was explicitly excluding any non-whites from working for them, nobody in their right mind would find this acceptable, yet this may be an intrinsic part of that church’s teaching. Why then should the Catholic church be exempted from equality legislation?
Of course Mr Ratzinger has a right to free speech. What makes him different, however, is that this head of state interferes with domestic politics of another country without any opportunity for being questioned. If he went onto the Today Programme (as suggested yesterday morning) to be grilled on the issue, I would not object.
Oh, and “D from North London”, I suggest you get a copy of the children’s book “And Tango Makes Three” and then visit Central Park Zoo to see this same-sex penguin family.
- Andrea Woelke, Solicitor, Alternative Family Law, London, 05/02/2010 01:04
Report abuse
There are two other major flaws in the article.
First it uses Ratzinger's comment about sexual orientation in order to support Ms McElvoy's personal view about the socio-economic provisions in the Bill. Those, certainly, are new and radical, and one may debate whether they are desirable. But they are wholly unconnected with the provisions on sexual orientation. Indeed I would assume that the Catholic church generally supports reducing class inequality - as indeed did Conservative PM John Major when he talked about creating a classless society. Their concern is only to be able to practise sexual orientation discrimination.
Second is the insinuation that the government is extending the provisions on sexual orientation, which is not the case: it is the Catholic church that is constantly trying to pick away at the provisions on sexual orientation equality, which already exist. So far as I can see those provisions have not yet caused the Catholic church to collapse because the church cleaner is gay, or the catholic school secretary is a lesbian, or because a loving gay couple share a bed in a catholic owned B&B.
Oh, and while I'm at it, she seems to imply that the sexual orientation provisions do not apply to Muslims and other faiths. That is simply rubbish. If the provisions did discriminate in that way the Catholics would have good cause to complain about a breach of their human rights. But the provisions apply equally to all faiths.
- James, London, 05/02/2010 00:09
Report abuse
I am bemused to see that McElvoy refers to herself as "liberal" in one breath and considers homosexuality "very unnatural indeed" in the next. Perhaps a re-examination of her self-perception is in order.
How can the sexual nature of 6-10% of humans be unnatural? How can something which occurs across the world in practically every culture and has been recorded since history itself began to be recorded be unnatural?
It would make more sense to suggest that mountains are unnatural, as they occur far less commonly than gay people.
It is not homosexuality which is unnatural, but the irrational hatred of it which continues to be encouraged despite the wealth of evidence to suggest that homosexuality in itself presents no danger of any kind and, as proven by human history, is entirely to be expected.
As for Joe (Swanley): "I'm with the Pope on this one as the political correct engineering programme has been nothing but a disaster to our way of life," who are you speaking for exactly? If your way of life can only be maintained by unfairness and unequal treatment in the eyes of the law, then I imagine an equalities programme would indeed present a spanner in the works. But then yours is not a life I'd aspire to. Some of us work towards a fairer world.
Gay people pay taxes and contribute just like anyone else, so why should they accept unfair treatment?
- Phil, Hornchurch, Essex, 04/02/2010 22:02
Report abuse
Anne McElvoy clearly holds grudges against Harman, but why is she risking her journalistic integrity by writing such a poorly constructed article? She makes too many weird statements to respond to, but how about this one:
"But the purpose of a spiritual leader is not to fall in behind the public mood, which is by nature temporal and changeable. It is to offer an insight into a different, eternal truth."
Do we really have to go through the list of eternal truths that the Catholic church once held and since had to abandon, because public opinion or scientific facts changed in such a way that they had no choice?
Surely Anne, if you can shoehorn Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and Voltaire into this article, you should know about this.
Another funny bit was to attest the pope "intellectual grounding", when he has been an elephant in a China shop on the international stage from the word go. He insulted Muslims, Jews, re-integrated Holocaust denying Bishop Williamson's Society of St Pius, shall I go on. It's a track record fit for a Top Gear presenter.
But all jokes aside, the question is: does a church have the right to make inflammatory statements about certain 'groups' of society or discriminate against them? If it was against their religious belief to employ non white people, would that be acceptable? How different is the hate mongering of other religious fanatics from saying being gay is unnatural? It would have been worth an article. This wasn't.
- U D, London, 04/02/2010 13:22
Report abuse
"It is not scientifically true: numerous studies show homosexual behaviour occurs in most species including wild animals."
This is wrong. Studies have shown 'homosexual behaviour' in the loosest sense. For example, if a female penguin dies the male will nurture the egg and child. This is not the same as same sex animals engaging in regular sexual activity and forming sexual relationships with the same sex in their natural environment, which has yet to be identified.
- D, N London, 04/02/2010 09:27
Report abuse
Ms McElvoy's article is outrageous and so is your decision to publish it. Just to take two points:
1. She says Mr Ratzinger's views are grounded in the separation of religious and civic life. I'm sorry? If he had the slightest notion of the importance of such separation, surely he would not comment on secular legislation. His interference in Italian politics is bad enough, but to do it in a different country is simply impertinent.
2. She says that most people consider acting on homosexual feelings "very unnatural indeed". This is not factually true: in a survey published barely a week ago, only 36% said homosexual acts were wrong. It is not scientifically true: numerous studies show homosexual behaviour occurs in most species including wild animals. It is not logically true: does she really think we gay people would undergo prejudice, bigotry and the risk of being beaten up (or even murdered - in London, in the 21st century!), if we had some kind of choice about our sexuality? And anyway, even if it were true that gay sex were unnatural, so what? Aspirin and aeroplanes are not natural, but I'll bet Ms McElvoy happily takes both. The point is that such acts are PRIVATE and shouldn't be cause for discrimination in access to employment or services, save in the rarest cases for which the Bill provides ample safeguards.
Some people are gay. McElvoy and Ratzinger should get over it.
- James, London, 03/02/2010 20:37
Report abuse
Dress it up how you like this is Catholic church is saying gays are not fit to be in their organization because they are less than "normal people". The same argument the Nazis used against Jews. Why in 2010 is this homophobic Church leader given any time? Hate gays if you want but every time one gets murdered by homophobes (as my friend did) I hope you and your god can live with it.
- Mikey N7, London N7, 03/02/2010 19:22
Report abuse
I'm an atheist and even i agree with the pope. A religion really can't be denied their beliefs can they? Oh i forgot. If StarlinHarman says that's the way it is then that's it. She really is so full of ghastly politically correct zeal. You Can't legislate against anyones belief or view on anything in a democracy.
- David S., Burgess Hill UK, 03/02/2010 17:59
Report abuse
I'm with the Pope on this one as the political correct engineering programme has been nothing but a disaster to our way of life.
These People who advocate political correction don't suffer the damage we all have to endure.
Go on Pope, take on these loony left winger's and make them go madder!
- Joe, Swanley Kent, 03/02/2010 15:19
Report abuse
I see no one backing Hairy Harpy. There is nothing equalling about this Bill on any level. It is a dreadful and dangerous piece of legislation from an individual with the biggest chip on her shoulder I have seen in a very long time. A more bitter and twisted individual you would have great difficulty in finding. There is no place in politics for her ilk.
- Frank, Home Counties, England., 03/02/2010 14:43
Report abuse
Let us not forget, HH campaigns for equality, yet sent her children to selective schools, including the CATHOLIC London Oratory School, despite not being a Catholic. She is happy to use discrimination by religion when it suits her. The ultimate hypocrite amongst many in the Labour Party.
- D, N London, 03/02/2010 14:32
Report abuse
"Harman is a despicable Marxist driven by her own guilt" Oh how we laughed.
- Pete Kendal, Wolverhampton, 03/02/2010 13:22
Report abuse
"Of course, this leaves the Church, as one commentator earnestly put it yesterday, “sadly out of touch with the public mood” - does it though? I suspect the general public's opinion is likely to be more supportive of the Pope than Harperson...
- Alan, Warwick, UK, 03/02/2010 12:57
Report abuse
Speaking as a confirmed atheist, I am in the uncomfortable position of being on the side of the Pope. As a free man with all my strength and marbles, I am automatically against anything that Harriet Hateperson wants, regardless of what it might be. It saves time in the long-term. She mouths the kind well-meaning words, but behind it all is her own hidden personal agenda. Too often legislation was introduced for one thing by her like only to be used for an altogether different purpose. Personally, I suspect she is some kind of science-fiction secret weapon sent by the Mysterons. If you squint at her picture you can almost make out the hostility of her alien masters.
As an aside, having watched Harry Hill on TV, I can't help wonder who would win in a fight - Harriet or Ratzinger? Theres only one way to find out...
... over the next few months.
- Paul M, Airstrip One, 03/02/2010 12:54
Report abuse
No organisation should be able to opt out of any law made by Parliament, nor should exemptions be made. I would argue for a total separation of church from state. Those parliamentarians who hold religious views can let them guide their private lives, and let them influence their voting, but must either submit to the majority or resign. To do otherwise is to open a can of worms of potential beliefs which will need to be accomodated. The RC church may feel it has natural law on it's side and frequently argues that it is the only path to truth, but many others have alternative beliefs.
- David House, Sutton, UK, 03/02/2010 12:41
Report abuse
These comments from the Pope are unhelpful to opponents of this deranged Bill. It creates a smokescreen to the real issues, which include further interference of the State into public and private life to force their Marxist racial and social engineering project on us and to legalise discrimination as a means of attaining their goal. Harman is a despicable Marxist driven by her own guilt at her privileged upbringing. Be warned, this is no "tidying up Bill".
- D, N London, 03/02/2010 12:25
Report abuse
I'm glad you find this amusing Anne. But something tells me that if we introduce legislation banning the integration of Catholics, we will find you barking under a different tree.
P.S you must be dillusional to think that what you have said is even remotely holy xx
- Daniel, London, 03/02/2010 11:58
Report abuse
