CentreRight

Women bishops

As I have mentioned on this site before, I am a member of the Church of England. I know of course that the church's affairs do not interest everyone and I have seen in recent times that posts that are not directly and entirely about politics seem to upset some who choose to read them for some reason. So - if you're not interested in the current arguments about women bishops raging in the C of E, look away now.

I suppose it is obvious that in many aspects of life I am a conservative. I value duty and sacrifice over glamour, fashion, the new-found conventions of the politically correct day. I love our heritage in this country. I love tradition, and love the church's traditions. I loathe much of the trendy new language injected into services (and I loathe the silly logo I've shared with you above). I cherish the unbroken continuity of practice that links me via shared rites and prayers with my forefathers. Indeed, and perhaps this is a characteristically English trait, I often find myself much more moved by such things than I do by conventional sentimentality or by the mawkish moments of emotion that our newspapers tell us have captured the "national mood." So in many respects I am a traditionalist and a conservative in the Church of England. But I see no reason not to have women bishops.

First, I see no genuine Biblical objection. Those cited seem to me to be spurious - so spurious that one wonders at the motives of the otherwise thoughtful people offering them. Furthermore, if such an objection truly exists it would presumably have been irrevocably breached by the ordination of women priests. I cannot fathom the logic of those who accept women priests - from whom we in the laity receive guidance and teaching - but not women bishops. The big decision on this issue was taken some time ago, when it was rightly decided that women can be priests. The principle was decided then and the issue of women bishops inevitably flows naturally and consequentially from that.

Secondly, and this is or ought to be obvious but in the context of this discussion it does need to be said, I think that there is nothing that impairs women in taking up leadership positions. Indeed, when I was growing up I was fortunate enough to benefit from the ministry of the late Marion Mingins at St Edmundsbury Cathedral, whose gentle, thoughtful care touched the lives of many, and who went on to serve as a Chaplain to the Queen. Those who have come first in the new development of women priests have done the clergy proud - so it can hardly be said that the obvious precedent for women bishops (women priests) is bad.

I do not wish to see the Church pulled apart. I realise the deep-felt emotions held by those who disagree with me. I find this difficult, because in taking this position I find myself on opposite sides to old friends and people I like and respect. But I think that there really isn't any other proper position for one to take and I think that the debate is very important, so... there we are.

Three worthy Early Day Motions

Twitterers often recommend people they think worthy of "following" on Fridays. In a similar vein I thought I'd recommend three EDMs which are, in my view, worth signing:

Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge) EDM 186 Summary Care Records

I have already set out my views on the Government's u-turn on the putative nationwide NHS database. It is very wrong for the uploading of patients' medical records to continue given the enormous questions which exist about the scheme, and must be answered (many of which are being asked by GPs).

Robert Halfon (Conservative, Harlow) EDM 328 Surveillance and the Internet

As I've written here previously, Google's Street View cars did more than take pictures of streets. They allegedly mapped every single wireless internet connection in Britain, including many millions in private homes, for commercial purposes, and (in the words of the EDM) "may have failed to disclose that it was building a massive database of wi-fi networks across the UK without people's consent" - and the capture by Google Street View cars of private data transmitted via wi-fi networks is the subject of a Metropolitan police investigation.

(Rob is speaking at a Big Brother Watch event on the evening of 20 July on this topic - if you are interested in attending, please contact us)

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South) EDM 406 A review of the smoking ban in pubs and clubs

Even the most puritan of anti-smokers should realise that it is unjust to impose a ban without exemptions on smoking on the workplace, including private clubs. It is draconian and unjust to ban entirely the public consumption of anything which has been lawful for hundreds of years, and remains lawful, without making proper provision for those who have been enjoying it in just these same places for decades. A properly ventilated room which staff do not have to enter would solve the demands of the anti-smoking lobby whilst allowing smokers to pursue their legal activity and prop up our ailing pubs to boot.

Two of these come from members of the new intake - who have collectively, it seems to me, swiftly got stuck into their duties with an admirable vigour and a significant sense of independence. All three of them, I think, are worthy examples of the rigorous defence of freedom one looks to Parliament to perform.

Theresa May's statement on Stop and Search

Theresa May has just made a statement to the House.

She has stated that she will not allow the continued use of Stop and Search powers contrary to law and ("more importantly") civil liberties, in the face of our Government's drubbing on section 44 in the European Court. She has issued new guidance to the police for stop and search:

• The requirement for a search to be "expedient" becomes a requirement that it be "necessary" (this one, I think, is pretty thin: "necessity" is or can be a nebulous term in the hands of those who wish to use powers)

• Suspicion is required for a search. Officers must "reasonably suspect" people of an offence before stopping and searching them - so searches must now be conducted under section 43, not section 44 (which will continue to be used for searching vehicles, but not individuals).

These guidelines will last until the conclusion of the Government's review of stop and search. They are better than the status quo, but I do not think that such a review is necessary. The last Government’s random stop and search powers systematically abused privacy and freedom, as the European Court made clear, twice.

Random stop and search should be ruled out altogether, not left hanging on an unnecessary review.

The Census

Before the election, the Conservative Party's position on the forthcoming Census (with which Big Brother Watch entirely agreed) was that it is

"increasingly invasive and intrusive... [and] will erode public support, cost more and result in a less accurate survey.

Just because the Government has the legal powers to ask these questions does not give the state the licence to ask anything they want."

So said Nick Hurd, then shadow Cabinet Office spokesman.

That is a very different position to that taken by our new Cabinet Office Minister... Nick Hurd. The man responsible for administering the Census, Glen Watson, confirms that now that the Conservatives are in government, plans for the census are... entirely unchanged. Mr Hurd's urgings about scaling back the census seem to have fallen on his own deaf ears. Francis Maude says that

"The expenses already committed to the census mean any changes are difficult."

I had to check my trusty French dictionary to ensure I didn't misspell fait accompli.

The 2011 Census Mr Hurd so decried, and will now enforce, is 32 pages long (frequently duplicating data already held by the authorities on databases such as the electoral register, school records, tax returns and GP information). It requires you to disclose your proficiency in English, your health, when you last worked, disclosure of the identity of your overnight visitor(s), the kind of central heating you have, and makes the entirely hollow but nevertheless bullying threat of fines of £1,000 for non-compliance.

Last time (in 2001): 390,000 people declared themselves Jedi and 3 million people refused to comply, and as there were fewer than 100 prosecutions, non-compliance comes pretty much entirely without repercussions.

Sounds about right.

**UPDATE** this was discussed yesterday on Radio 4's PM programme - you can listen here.

Tony Blair is given a medal for his support for "liberty"

Pity the satirist. You could hardly make this up:

Tony Blair is to be awarded a £100,000 Liberty medal by the National Constitutional Center based in Washington for his role in "bringing liberty to people around the world".

Hmm. Let us note, inter alia:

• ID cards
• Control Orders
• 28 day detention (and wanted longer)
• Random stop and search
• ASBOs
• Clamping down on free speech (especially around Parliament)
• Innocent people on the DNA database
• Trial without jury
• The Civil Contingencies Act (the most overbearing legislation ever passed by our Parliament)

Tony Blair trampled on liberty in Britain in a dozen different ways. He is an unworthy recipient of any award supposed to be connected with freedom.

Britain loses appeal in European Court - good

In January, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Britain's s. 44 stop and search powers were unlawful. The last government lodged an appeal and judgment was given today. Britain lost.

Good.

Random stop and search was an abuse of our historic, hard-won liberties. I don't want to live in a society in which a representative of the state can march up to you and demand without just cause or reasonable suspicion and ask, "your papers please" - or demand your name and address, what you're doing there, where you're going. I suspect that you don't want that situation either.

These powers were also unnecessary - no successful prosecutions for terrorism offences resulted from these draconian powers.  They served only to intimidate, and to empower officials to intrude on us and our privacy without just cause.

The old government should never have appealed and once again - as with the defeat of Britain's policy of retaining DNA profiles of innocent people on the database, or the British approval of the conviction of people in criminal cases based on the evidence of absent witnesses - I find myself - a patriot, and a Eurosceptic - in the peculiar situation of being glad that lawyers representing my country have been defeated in the European court.

28 day detention continues under the Coalition

We had our first bad news under the Coalition a little while ago. Now, we've had some more.

The rules which allow the police to detain suspects for 28 days without charge are to remain in force for at least another six months. Both parties in the Coalition have indicated that they think that the limit, which is the longest in the developed world, is too high. But still it's going to continue.

Extending detention without charge went against the grain of our country’s traditions of fairness under the law. I am afraid that continuing the policy suggests that the government’s promise to safeguard rights and liberties is hollow.

The record of prosecutions shows that this power has done nothing to advance the fight against terrorism. All it does is damage the very values of democratic freedom that terrorists hate.

So I was wrong on court closures

I was wrong yesterday. It's not the closure of 150 Magistrates' Courts being announced today.

It's 103 Magistrates' Courts and 54 County Courts.

Bad news for localists (and perhaps for justice?)

I have it on good authority that the closure of 150 Magistrates' Courts shall be announced tomorrow (approximately 40% of the courts still open nationally, a total which has of course already been cut many times).

Defamation reform - the role of juries

This afternoon, I attended Lord Lester's talk on his draft Defamation Bill, hosted by the Index on Censorship / English PEN.* The proposal has significant support and would have important ramifications for public discourse in this country, and I recommend that anyone interested in this area (including those who write online) have a quick look at it (it has the admirable virtue of brevity). All I want to talk about today is the significantly altered role Lord Lester foresees for juries in the process.

Lord Lester explained that in his Bill he had reversed the presumption that trial is by jury rather than by judge in defamation proceedings because, in the present situation, the prospect of jury trial supposedly makes it more likely that parties hold out for the prospect of argument before juries rather than settling the case early, which would generally be in the interests of the parties (and, incidentally, save the state costs). I question whether the practical consideration about the likelihood of cases settling earlier is worth changing the principle of trial by jury, but - regardless of the accuracy or merits of that decision on its own terms - I would highlight the great risk involved in this approach.

I think I can guarantee that this brief and collateral aspect of the Bill will demand by far the most significant media attention the Bill will attract. It is the most obviously contentious part of the proposals and it is the one which any critics of the Bill (in the House, and in both broadsheets and tabloids) will grasp. The Conservative Party's pledge to halt the erosion of trial by jury, enshrined by both Government parties in the Coalition Agreement, will be invoked against it.To the extent that Lord Lester thinks that people in the general media sphere will overlook this aspect of his proposals and focus on the merits of the Bill's effect on defamation more generally, he is wrong.

Worst of all, this part of the Bill is unnecessary. The thrust of defamation reform (which is greatly needed in this country, so overweening has the power to gag become) stands or falls entirely without it. If it really is worthy of legislative change, then that change can come later and separately, preserving the clarity of this process rather than muddying it. Why make the actual purpose of the Bill a hostage to this point?

It is a draft Bill, on which the good Lord has invited discussion and suggestions. Mine is to delete the sections which produce this change. The work of this campaign, of these organisations, the general direction of this Bill, to both protect free speech and advance one's interests in protecting one's reputation, are all to be admired. There is still time to rethink this decision which is by no means a core element of what they wish to achieve but could, if left unaltered, derail the process of this reform altogether.

*With admirable certainty in the attractiveness of their cause, the event was held to clash exactly with the Emergency Budget. They still packed out the lecture hall. Cojones.

You can't be too careful...

The precautionary principle is a dominant theme in modern society, notwithstanding the setback it suffered yesterday on vetting and barring. It is not only present in the cloying, crushing clamps on anything that might conceivably "harm" children - it has also found a willing partner in the days of *black special* terror scareathons, and it's still on the march.

Just by way of example, the proliferation of body scanners at airports. Yes, there are all manner of concerns about whether they work, whether they might harm those going through them, the vast expense... but if it saves one life...

How about scanners at railway stations, too? That's what's planned now in Italy. After all, you can't be too careful...

What next? How about in schools? Just in case...

Then in shopping centres, perhaps? Well, if it saves one life...

And so we become conditioned to such control everywhere, ad cottonwoolum. And what have you got to complain about? It's for your own good! And if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear...

An end to "vetting and barring"

The long-threatened national database of adults who come into contact with children has been halted today. The nine million people who would have had to jump through various hoops get a badge declaring that they're not known perverts can breathe a collective sigh of relief.

It was a typical late-New Labour policy - unbelievably heavy-handed, colossally bureaucratic, hugely expensive, came with real harms, carried no real guarantee that it would achieve the stated aims and there was no real demand for it. If fuelled by anything, it was down to our national obsession with paedophilia.

For some time now both volunteerism and childhood itself have been slowly strangled in this country by unnecessary statist bureaucracy and absurd nannyism. That doesn't get undone in one go - but this decision is to be welcomed.

Two important caveats though:

1) The Independent Safeguarding Authority remains and will swiftly find a new job for itself if the Government allows it to - such is the behaviour of bureaucratic bodies. Better to kill it off now, as we called for in our manifesto.

2) This is only a halt. And another review. Just kill the scheme completely.

Tommy

The Saville Report into "Bloody Sunday" will be published today. Having just listened to the Today Programme's "trailing" of the report, I think that whatever is said within the 5,000 pages, we should bear Kipling's wisdom in mind today:

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,

The publican 'e up an' sez, 'We serve no red-coats 'ere.'

The girls be'ind the bar they laughed and giggled fit to die,

I outs into the street again, an' to myself sez I:

Oh, it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Tommy, go away':

But it's 'Thank you, Mister Atkins,' when the band begins to play -

The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,

Oh, it's 'Thank you, Mister Atkins,' when the band begins to play.

Teaching children about Christianity should be a central part of British education - not marginalised, as Ofsted reports is happening currently

Ofsted has reported this week that schools are failing to teach pupils about Christian beliefs in their RE lessons. When Christianity is taught, Christ's parables are used to explore pupils' "personal feelings and principles, but ignore any religious significance they may have." The number of classes rated as "inadequate" have doubled in the last three years.

This is of course very wrong. Inter alia, Christianity is a fundamental aspect of our 

• language and literature (indeed, this is outlined in the brilliant new book, The Spiritual History of English by my friend Andrew Thornton-Norris, reviewed here in the Times)
• art
• architecture

and an understanding of Christianity - a genuine understanding - is essential to understanding all of those things. To point out the importance of Christianity in our culture, and the importance of understanding it, is not, or should not be, controversial. Rather, it is a statement of fact - it is, or should be, a statement of the obvious.

British budget, EU oversight..?

 The EU wants member states to submit their budgets to Brussels for approval. It seems that Britain is the only country unwilling to do so.

• How do you feel about such control over our budget by Europe?
• What do you think our chances are of resisting...?
• What does it say about this club and the direction of travel within it, even if we are successful?

Medical privacy - the Government u-turns

One of the great things about CentreRight is the platform it provides for frank discussion of the failings of parties on the right, as well as their successes. Such discussion is needed today.

The Government announced yesterday that it will continue to build the Summary Care Record database of our medical data.

1) This contradicts the Conservative position outlined last year: "A Conservative government would "dismantle" central NHS IT infrastructure, halt and renegotiate NPfIT local service provider contracts and introduce interoperable local systems."

2) It contradicts the Liberal Democrat position outlined this year, "The Government needs to end its obsession with massive central databases. The NHS IT scheme has been a disastrous waste of money and the national programme should be abandoned."

This is a disgraceful u-turn. The Coalition wants us to believe that they are serious about privacy and civil liberties – this is their first real test, and they have failed it.

The Summary Care Record is an unnecessary and intrusive piece of bureaucracy, as well as being wildly expensive. Doctors have managed without it until now. Big Brother Watch research has shown how vulnerable the NHS is to breaches of privacy – I'm afraid that this will make things much worse.

And whatever you think of the policy, the way that it was "announced" is appalling: by brief Written Answer, without debate, on the day of the statement made to the House on the Cumbrian shooting, so it didn't get picked up anywhere. Jo Moore redux.

The naughty side of NICE

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence and Nannyism has suggested that doctors should routinely quiz their patients about what they drink.

This is not the first time NICE have been at this sort of thing - this is in fact typical nanny statism from a bullying, increasingly authoritarian organisation. They recent called for a database of all homes with children, to enable inspectors to visit and try to stop accidents from happening - to check whether families have installed smoke alarms, stair gates, locks on medicine cupboards, windows and ovens, and fitted temperature controls to stop bath water getting too hot.

On their latest bout of nannyism, Big Brother Watch would say that we are entitled to have a drink when we want one. Doctors are there to heal us, and can keep their opinions about lifestyles to themselves unless they're asked – after all, we pay the tax which pays for the health service. We've got to decide what kind of society we want to live in - one in which the state tells us what to do, or one in which the state is answerable to us. I prefer the latter, and had hoped that we'd lived in such.

In any case, the NHS doesn't treat us as a favour; in a society with a level of tax as high as ours, we're entitled to a service from it just like the service we receive from any other kind of provider. People don't "throw themselves on the mercy of the NHS for treatment" - they get it because they've paid for it. That's especially so for drinkers and smokers, who've paid through the nose on taxes on tobacco and alcohol.

A database of smoking or drinking could, in the long run, be used to charge us when we need medical help and may frighten people away from seeing doctors or from being honest with them.

Charities adopt "liberal" positions that are nothing to do with their core mission - a mistake, perhaps

Whilst She Who Must Be Obeyed and I enjoyed a drink in a lovely pub in Southwold this weekend, a chap from the Salvation Army came around collecting donations. I've always admired the work and dedication of the organisation so I shoved a few quid in the pot and in return he gave me a copy of the day's War Cry, the Salvation Army's publication.

I opened it and... oh, boy. It was essentially a paean - not to God, but to the gods of Climate Change.

I have no settled opinion on the topic, though I am deeply skeptical about the assertions made with pseudo-certainty by the green crowd about the effects of man on the environment, and I regard the straight-faced, portentous predictions of apocalypse-next-Tuesday-unless-we-tithe-to-Al-Gore with a healthy dose of cynicism. I find the gibbering intolerance displayed by that clique's advocates to any who dare to question their position deeply disagreeable, too. Altogether then, the Salvos bowing down to this secular eco-religion makes it less likely that I will donate next time, rather than more.

This got me thinking about the extent to which charitable organisations more generally might harm themselves by adopting positions outwith their raison d'etre which can actually harm the prospects of receiving funds rather than assist. Because it's not just the Salvation Army. Speaking only for myself of course, although attracted to their core message, I am less likely to donate to the following organisations for the following reasons:

The National Trust and the RSPCA - oppose hunting

Christian Aid and Oxfam - both oppose free trade

The NSPCC - opposes smacking

Perhaps you can think of others, too.

It was this edition of War Cry, but the relevant stuff is not online

The Grim RIPA

Big Brother Watch has a new report out today, on councils using covert surveillance to spy on people. You can read the report here.

The key point I'd make is that all of the things being investigated by Councils (if true) are wrong, but none of them justify covert surveillance. Be it fly tipping, dog fouling, flouting the smoking ban or snooping on the council's own employees, when the man from the council is given spying powers, the cure has become worse than the disease.

As you read it, remember that

1) NONE of these uses are for serious crimes or terrorism - those are of course investigated by the police or security services (indeed, many people are very surprised to find out that councils have covert surveillance powers at all)

2) ALL of the 8,000+ uses of surveillance in the past 2 years are based on Councils Freedom of Information responses - they're all their words and explanations, not ours!

3) Getting rid of these powers from Councils would NOT mean that people just "get away with" whatever is alleged. Bradford Council stopped using RIPA in 2007, writing to people to warn them they were going to be monitored for e.g. noise nuisance ("overt surveillance", I suppose) - and compliance went UP, not down.

4) NOBODY who was watched and found "innocent" was told that they were under surveillance. It's not scaremongering, but simply accurate, to point out the obvious - that it could have happened to you.

Given the remarkable abuses of RIPA outlined in our report that I believe that the Coalition's very welcome pledge to cut back on council surveillance powers by requiring them to obtain warrants from Magistrates before snooping (which, astonishingly, is not currently required) does not go far enough. Councils have failed to demonstrate the responsibility needed to use such serious capabilities and they should be stripped of them altogether. If an alleged offence is serious enough to warrant covert surveillance, then it should be in the hands of the police.

Nick Clegg's extraordinary pledges on civil liberties

In a remarkable speech this morning (still going as I write) Nick Clegg has set out the fundamental first steps of the great repeals this new Government intends to bring about, with a pledge to bring "an end to spying on people:"

• ID cards out
• Biometric passports stopped
• No e-mail control without specific need
• CCTV regulated
• Innocent people off the DNA database
• No ContactPoint
• No fingerprints taken from children by schools without parental consent
• Removal of restrictions on right to peaceful protest
• Review the thousands of criminal offences created by New Labour which made criminals of ordinary people
• Review of the anti-terror powers. Back to "great British freedoms."
• Defend trial by jury.

OK we need details. But this is great stuff.

Big Brother Watch is against the 55% change - where does your organisation stand?

In agreement with David Davis, Big Brother Watch sees the mooted 55% dissolution rule as antidemocratic and undesirable.

The pseudo-defence given - that a vote of no confidence would continue to exist - is no real defence, as a government suffering a vote of no confidence defeat by a margin of 54.9% or less would be likely to say, "we'll take this on board, it's bad news - but there's no need to have an election because a dissolution can't be forced."

The rule change seems designed specifically to suit this Parliament, an unwise way to legislate. One cannot, for example, imagine Gordon Brown giving way to demands for an election, if this provision had been in place, and he had lost such a vote in the way described above.

What do you think? If a representative of a think tank or group, where does your organisation stand?

Google admits Street View cars recorded wi-fi activity without consent

I recently wrote about privacy issues raised by Google's Street View programme. It turns out that things are worse than initially thought, as per the Times:

Google’s Street View cars have been spying on people’s internet use for three years, the search giant admitted last night. It had been scooping up snippets of people’s online activities broadcast over unprotected home and business wi-fi networks.

Google admitted that the cars’ radio antennae snooped on e-mails and other bits of information when the vehicles trundled through towns and cities. Google said that the data was mistakenly collected and only in short bursts as the vehicles passed by, and was never used.

Emphasis added.

Some thought Big Brother Watch was overreacting when we criticised Street View. I simply make the point that Google has found an entirely new way to invade privacy that we hadn't even considered when questioning Street View first time around.

Hat tip: AC

Cabin crews of lemmings

Different lyrics, same old song: it seems that BA cabin crews are taking after the Greeks.

Q: The company that employs you is facing a loss of £20 million a day, and about to post a loss this year of £600 million, largely through no fault of its own. What should you do?

A: Strike.

Sigh.

The Cabinet Office Twitter Guide

If you are at all interested in (a) Twitter, (b) bureaucracy or (c) both then you will find this 20 page document very interesting indeed.

A template created for each government Department to modify for itself, it's quite old (July 2009) but I haven't seen it linked to before (and it will be interesting to see if the new Government embraces it, despite the new Prime Minister's well known attitude to the medium).

Learn about the Cabinet Office approach to the "zeitgeist", "credibility" and so much more...

Hat tip: AW

Mark Steyn: once you establish the principle that the state has the right to police ideas, sooner or later one of yours will catch their eye

The ever-impressive Mark Steyn (oh, how the Telegraph misses him) has written a blistering critique of modern society. I urge you to read it.

It ends:

The more you haul nobodies off to the cells for putting up a poster or quoting the Bible, the more a timid conformist populace will keep its head down, mind its own business, and avoid broader social engagement—or at any rate non-alcohol-fuelled engagement. Big Government is dismantling civic identity, and the slow-burn bonfire of liberties in Europe and North America will eventually consume us all.