Ruth Kelly gets the Buttiglione treatment

Ruth Kelly, a devout Catholic, was appointed Minister for Women and Equality in Tony Blair's recent reshuffle.  Many in the gay community were unimpressed.  PinkNews listed the occasions on which she had failed to support Labour's homosexual rights agenda and worried that Tony Blair's decision to appoint Mrs Kelly may have "failed the LGBT community".  Many other people have been much harsher on Ms Kelly.  The episode is an echo of 2004's "excommunication" of Rocco Buttiglione by the European Parliament.  The Parliament concluded that Mr Buttiglione's belief in traditional Catholic teaching on homosexuality meant that he was unsuitable to be the EU's Justice Commissioner.   Nick Spencer of the London Institute for Contemporary Christianity accused the EU of totalitolerance:

“Buttiglione’s hounding from office brings to light one of the most distasteful and worrying trends of our time. It shows how moral conservatives are increasingly debarred from office, even when they agree to leave their convictions at the door. And it demonstrates how, in bowing their knee at the altar of ‘tolerance’, elements of the liberal left are prepared to adopt aggressively intolerant measures, to turn their own tolerance into a kind of dictatorial ‘totalitolerance’. Most worryingly, it marks the eclipse of the liberal vision that has been the guiding light of progressive politics since the days of John Stuart Mill. Buttiglione’s insistence that the personal and political can coexist while being at odds is the cornerstone of liberal democracy. The alternative is for the thought-police to patrol our personal opinions, to ensure they conform to the political norms of the day.”

Ruth Kelly's position has been defended this morning by Daniel Finkelstein in The Times.  Danny makes it clear that he does not share the orthodox Catholic view that homosexuality is a sin and believes that "for our Equality Minister to be a woman who disapproves openly of the very thing that she is protecting would be the most eloquent possible statement that we are a liberal society".

The people who object to orthodox Christians holding a post like Equality Minister will not be content when they have stopped Mrs Kelly and Mr Buttiglione holding justice posts.  As Daniel Finkelstein points out, the same arguments could lead to traditional Christians, Muslims or Jews being prevented from holding all sorts of public offices:

"Ms Kelly’s critics say that the problem is not with her, but with the office she has been appointed to. I do not believe them.  There was a fuss when she was made Education Secretary (how can she look after stem cell research and sex education?). Clearly she couldn’t do Health (abortion) or Northern Ireland (where do I start?) or Culture, Media and Sport (Christian radio stations) or the Home Office (community relations) or the Treasury (VAT on rosary beads). Maybe a post in which she was paid to have unprotected sex would be acceptable, but we already have a Deputy Prime Minister."

Opposition to religious people with morally conservative views holding senior public office is only one aspect of the growing dangers of secular fundamentalism.  Before he became Pope, Joseph Ratzinger warned of the changing nature of 'secularism':

"Secularism is no longer that element of neutrality, which opens up space for freedom for all. It is beginning to change into an ideology which, through politics, is being imposed. It concedes no public space to the Catholic and Christian vision, which as a result runs the risk of turning into a purely private matter, so that deep down it is no longer the same.”

It is important that Conservatives - in addition to their duties to gay people - protect the right of religious organisations to employ people of like mind and allow freedom of religious expression.

Comments

[Andrea]

No-one siad Ruth Kelly shouldn't get some government positions at all. It's just that her belief is at odds with the government's policies in that field (and she almost always failed to support). How could she fight for those policies in the COmmons if she's the first not to believe them?

Mrs Kelly could perfectly become Equality minister in a goverment that has not equal rights for gay people as an aim.

I suppose Mr Finkelstein and co would vote for a communist in charge of free trade in the EU commission as long as that communist would go around saying that his personal belief will not interfere with his work and he'll follow the the government line (what Kelly said in the end)

[Chris]

As a gay and a (more or less) conservative supporter, I agree with the thrust of the argument. But tt is her own hypocrisy / lack of honesty which is infuriating.

She claims in interviews about this new appointment to be "passionate" about ending discrimination, yet failed to vote for any of the relevant legislation. Now that failure may reflect her religious belief - fair enough. Now she cannot be "passionate" on both sides simultaneously....although she is following her master in that regard I suppose!

[Henry Whitmarsh]

aggressively intolerant measures

How about gay people being second class citizens?

Why is it tolerable to express such beliefs about the moral standing of gay people but not ok to say such things about ethnic minorities or people of other faiths? As a Catholic, Kelly must surely believe that all non believers will go with the goats on the day of judgment, along with all the protestants, athiests and muslims. Why is it ok for her to allow her bias to express itself on this issue and not on others? She is an MP, not joe public, she has to take a stand on these issues and she is accountable for that stand. It's not that she's a Catholic, it's that she's a bigot with a ministers job.

[William Norton]

Many criticisms could be levelled at Ruth Kelly: washy-washy Blairite; promoted too quickly; dubious executive/managerial ability; arguably poor on presentation; lack of standing/clout for the Education portfolio; allowed herself to be used as a pawn in the eternal Blair/Brown struggle; put her name to an incoherent dog's dinner of a parliamentary bill; etc. etc.

It says something about the way British politics is going - and how it is reported - that the first charge which has gathered any traction is over her religious beliefs. And it has a very nasty tone to it. What's next: Paxman asking her if she's ever murdered someone to suppress the Da Vinci Code?

The real scandal is that there is an "Equalities Minister" at all. Sounds like a waste of time, space and money. It should be scrapped. What a tawdry, trivial little island we're becoming.

[Mike Christie]

There is a genuine dilemma here, do we want a minister who is in charge of implementing policies that they have a fundamental ethical problem with? Surely part of the role of a minister is to bring one's own beliefs and passions to the job.

I have no time for the 'totalitolerance' (fantastic word by the way, I'll have to try and get it into at least one conversation this week) of the liberal left. However, Ruth Kelly is doing herself no favours in looking to twist words around her beliefs to convice herself and the wider world that her Catholic belief in the immorality of homosexuality does not conflict with a ministerial brief that looks to uphold the opposing concept that homosexuality is a prefectly normal part of human existance free from any social stigma.

Some of the examples of conflicts of interest put forward by Finkelstein are the sort of trivial conflicts faced by all ministers, should someone who likes a cigar and a pint be barred from being Chancellor because they might be tempted to mess around with tax on beer and cigars to their own advantage?

However, in the case of Ruth Kelly's current role, her role involves her actively promoting notions utterly at odds with her own moral standpoint, any attempts to square the circle look like immoral weasling. If she is prepared to leave her morals at the door, should she be a minister at all?

[johnC]

Why, if Equality is sought, and we have a Minister for Women and Equality, do we not have a Minister for Men and Equality ?

[Peter Harrison]

All mainstream Christian churches believe that homosexual acts are sinful. It is not, as parts of the media are making out, some weird belief of Opus Dei.

However, as a Christian myself, I believe that you condemn the sin, not the sinner (which doesn't mean you can't throw murderers and rapists into jail but may say something about how we should treat prisoners). Discrimination against people on grounds of race, creed, age, sexual inclination, sex and so on is also a sin. So I am in favour of ending discrimination against homosexuals.

We expect civil servants to implement government policy whether or not they agree with it. We expect politicians to follow the party line by and large. What's the difference?

In the example given by Andrea, I would expect the communist to keep quiet about his beliefs and implement EU policy. If he did that effectively and demonstrated that he was the best person for the job, I don't really care that he doesn't agree with what he is doing. Why does it matter?

As Finkelstein points out, the campaign against Ruth Kelly is part of a highly intolerant "tolerance" agenda which would shut out traditional Christians and others from public office. I agree with him wholeheartedly.

[Mike Christie]

"It is important that Conservatives - in addition to their duties to gay people - protect the right of religious organisations to employ people of like mind and allow freedom of religious expression."

It is easy to say, but if/when a religious organisation tells gay people that they are all evil sinners who will burn in hell, where do we stand?

There needs to be an acceptance that these are often not issues with 'common ground'. Sometimes there is no touchy-feely Blair style third-way.

The religious types must accept that some people do not wish to be 'saved' and are happy to take their chances, the more militant parts of the gay community (and pro-abortionists and other groups that come into conflict with religions) need to accept that there are some people who will always view what they do as morally indefensible.

The important part though is that both sides need to accept that they won't win the argument and settle into lives as well-paid pundits for their respective camps, appearing regularly on Question Time to scream abuse at each other whilst letting the rest of the world muddle on with their 'shades of grey' lives where we mostly all get along.

[Peter Harrison]

Some of the comments being made show a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity.

We are all sinners. We will all face judgement and most will be condemned. However, it is not my place to judge you. After all, I am a sinner myself. I don't care how you have sinned, I will still defend you against discrimination, whether on the basis of your sin or anything else.

There is no conflict in my mind between believing that speeding is a sin (and that those who speed should be subject punished) and believing that there should be no discrimination against people for speeding. My own beliefs on homosexuality are somewhat complex and I'm not going to discuss them here, but I have no problem with someone saying "I think homosexual acts are sinful but I do not condemn homosexuals and I will defend them against discrimination".

It is no different in my mind from free speech - I disagree with what you are saying but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

There are many reasons why Ruth Kelly should not be a minister. Her faith is not one of them.

[Mike Christie]

"We expect civil servants to implement government policy whether or not they agree with it. We expect politicians to follow the party line by and large. What's the difference?"

Do we expect politicians to follow the party line when the party line conflicts with deeply held personal beliefs? Do we want all our politicians to be meek little mobile votes for the party leader? Personally I'd rather have a few that said something like

'Sorry, I can't be Minister for Equality because it is my firm personal belief that homosexuality is immoral, and whilst I fully accept people's right to choose how to live I am not prepared to give my personal support to acts I believe to be wrong.'

Just as a completely hypothetical example ;-)

We condemn the liberati for trying to drive out Christian values, but if the people who hold those values are prepared to sell them out or downplay them to land a good job, are we surprised?

[Bel]

It is easy to say, but if/when a religious organisation tells gay people that they are all evil sinners who will burn in hell, where do we stand?

Where we stand is as follows: Ruth Kelly may well believe that gay people are evil and may burn in hell, but while on earth, she will ensure that they have the same rights as others. That makes sense to me.

As Peter Harrison has said, mainstream churches also believe that homosexuality is a sin. This is not just an opus dei position. People are entitled to believe what they want. As long as Ruth Kelly is satisfied that her conscience will allow her to do the job, she should be left alone to carry on. Any whiff of bias will be picked up by the media. Until then, she should be given the benefit of the doubt.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

What about in the US where the FreeRepublic posting bible bashing wingnuts are trying to get ammend the constitution to specify that marriage is only between a man and a woman? The Editor appears to have been caught up in Anne Coulter-esque paranoia about the "homosexual agenda" and how soon all the churches are going to be torn down by EU secularist jackboots. What utter nonsense. You can practice your faith as freely as you please as much today as you always have been. The fact that people aren't showing up to your churches in the numbers they used to is, of course, blamed on a culture in decline where secularism is a greater threat than the Nazi's or Communism. Again, utter nonsense. The fact is that people have forgotten that within living memory homosexuality was illegal, section 28 institutionalised homophobia in schools (ever wonder why so many gay people vote labour?), and there was no legal protection against discrimination either in work or in the provision of goods and services. Yeah, gay people are really going to take over! GAY = Good As You. All these jackbooted secularists want is equality and the freedom from discrimination guaranteed by a secular state.

Ronald Reagan once said that the constitution was designed to protect religion from the state not the other way around. Secularism is the best friend religion has, the only reason why a religious person would dislike it is if they think that their religious views should be imposed on others, whether they believe or not.

[HF]

If Ruth Kelly was a Conservative she would have been hounded out of office by now. Just like Prescott would have been.

Yes there are double standards, but when Conservatives take over Govt then we can at least look forward to fewer similar attacks.

The longer they both stay the better for us, as their presence eats at the morale of Labour activists.

[johnC]

At the risk of getting immersed in theological debate, I think this argument shows a lack of understanding of 'sin' in the Christian context. 'Sin' is any falling short of the ideal standards of Christian behaviour which only one living person - Jesus Christ - has achieved. So we are all sinful to a greater or lesser degree, and we all inherit sinful human nature - original sin - at our conception. The Christian ideal is for sex to only take place within marriage, so homosexual practice - as well as extra-marital heterosexual activity - is 'sinful' because it falls short of this ideal. A lot of Chrisitan morality is based on the idea that self-discipline is good for you, and in this age of obesity, casual sex, mindless violence and alarming levels of personal debt I think this is quite a good line to take. But all political parties, and all politicians, recognise that you have to base policy and legislation on human nature as it actually is, and in a free society no-one should be coerced into accepting Christian moral standards. The whole point about Christianity is that we have free will to decide whether or not to accept these standards, and the state cannot free us from the responsibility of making our own moral choices for ourselves.
In a fallen world politicians have do do a lot of things - such as going to war - which they would not have to do if Christian morality were universally followed, and they are fully able to distinguish between the ideal and the actual. There seems to be some very mnuddled thinking out there.

[Sean Fear]

There will be occasions when one's beliefs make it impossible to hold a particular political position. I don't believe that there should be a Ministry of Equalities in the first place, and I believe that most Equalities legislation ought to be repealed. Thus, I really don't think I would make a very good Minister for Equalities - and wouldn't want the position if it was offered to me.

I think that Ruth Kelly should not be such a minister, not because she is a socially conservative Catholic, but because she clearly doesn't agree with a good deal of the legislation which she is expected to implement.

[Mike Christie]

"I think homosexual acts are sinful but I do not condemn homosexuals and I will defend them against discrimination"

If Ruth Kelly says that, she will have my full support. However, she would then have the liberal mafia after her blood.

My argument is that her new position involves arguing that homosexuality isn't sinful and that it is a perfectly normal part of life. Therein lies the hypocrisy.

I must clarify my own position, as a very lapsed Catholic, I've been taught that all sorts of things are sinful. I no longer hold those beliefs, however I get very touchy when people who do profess to hold them start seeming to be hypocritical.

I fully accept the 'hate the sin, love the sinner' argument. I just feel that, given her role, and the issues it has highlighted, the public has a right to know if Ruth Kelly really believes in her heart that gay people are equal.

I understand the concept that we are all sinners, I didn't spend all those years in Catholic schools without learning that! :-)

There is a fundamental difference with homosexuality, we can all choose to try not to tell lies, or to try and love our neighbours. I'm not in a position to know, but I guess it is a little bit harder to try not to be gay. Gay people then are told that something that is a fundamental part of who they are is sinful.

[Mike Christie]

Just to put the debate into context, according to 'publicwhip.org' in 14 votes on gay rights issues, Ruth Kelly has abstained in 12.

How can she possibly now be in a position to champion further legislation in this field?

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1433&dmp=826

[RobD]

I would not have a problem with her having these views while working to protect the equality rights of GLBTs, however her previous voting record shows that she does not seem to be able to do this.

Even if she does vote in future can we really be reassured that she is carrying out the duties of her role with the same commitment and enthusiasm as someone who actually believes in the principles of the role?

[Bel]

Just to put the debate into context, according to 'publicwhip.org' in 14 votes on gay rights issues, Ruth Kelly has abstained in 12.
How can she possibly now be in a position to champion further legislation in this field?

Since when has inconsistency ever been a bar to anything in politics and Government? What about other politicians who have voted against (ie not abstaining) a particular measure, only to change their minds later? We have many such on the Tory benches.

My point is that even if Ruth Kelly had voted against, which she did not, there is nothing wrong in resiling from a position one has previously held. That's what the brand new Conservatives are all about, not so? Change is a good thing.

In Ruth Kelly's case, she probably has not changed her views, but she is wise not to comment on them. In any case, all the 'gay-friendly' legislation the Government intended to pass has already been made law. Short of repealing the legislation, Ruth Kelly cannot do any harm in that area.

[Mike Christie]

"I would expect the communist to keep quiet about his beliefs and implement EU policy. If he did that effectively and demonstrated that he was the best person for the job, I don't really care that he doesn't agree with what he is doing. Why does it matter?"

Sorry, but personally I expect our politicians to be more than efficient managers. I expect them to bring passion and commitment to their work. Maybe I'm just an idealist... or maybe the fact that politicians are seemingly expected to be unprincipled hustlers prepared to do anything to get a good job explains the 35% turnout at the local elections.

[Mike Christie]

"Ruth Kelly's case, she probably has not changed her views"

Judging by her record of abstention, her view seems to be that she is opposed to gay rights but doesn't want to blot her copybook by actually standing up and defending her beliefs.

This hypocrisy makes her completely unsuitable for her current job.

[johnC]

Should someone who thinks that sex outside marriage is sinful be allowed a Government job in a department such as health or DFID which promotes the use of condoms to combat AIDS ? Of course they should. There is no hypocrisy involved in recognising that there is a gulf between moral ideals and reality.

[Christina]

Christians also believe that adultery is a sin. Does this mean that Christian MPs entrusted with being Government Ministers would male adultery a crime? If not, why assume that a Christian would in some way try to do away with measures to outlaw discrimination against gays?

The problem with Ruth Kelly is her voting record, not her religion. Her voting record shows she is unsuitable for the job.

[Sean Fear]

I think the question is more the extent to which someone should be implementing legislation which it would appear they disagree with.

[Deputy Editor]

You can practice your faith as freely as you please as much today as you always have been.

More or less - at least compared to some countries, and since we defeated the Racial & Religious Hatred Bill.

[Mike Christie]

"The problem with Ruth Kelly is her voting record, not her religion. Her voting record shows she is unsuitable for the job."

Surely her voting record stems from her personal beliefs.

"Should someone who thinks that sex outside marriage is sinful be allowed a Government job in a department such as health or DFID which promotes the use of condoms to combat AIDS ?"

The difference here is that if a minister was in that position they would be involved in something that could be viewed as limiting the damage of 'sinful' behaviour. Ruth Kelly's job involves promoting the idea of 'sinful' behaviour being stigma-free and normal.

[johnC]

'Ruth Kelly's job involves promoting the idea of 'sinful' behaviour being stigma-free and normal.'

Does it ? Isn't it more a question of homosexual orientation rather than behaviour ? Can't she just uphold the rights of gays to be treated equally without discrimination without getting involved in their private lives ?

[wicks]

Her voting record is the problem, I would guess Blair's voting record on gay rights is a lot better, despite the fact that as an apprently committed Christian he probably has similar views to her.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Here's what I think ConHome are getting at...

I suppose it's a matter of one's perspective, but it sure seems to me that if there is any special interest group aggressively pushing its agenda on society, it's the radical homosexual lobby. I don't assert this as some earth-shattering revelation or to prove my superior powers of observation. But it is amazing how many people have swallowed the homosexual activists' propaganda that it is heterosexual conservatives who are picking on them rather than the other way around.

This is a little gem from David Limbaugh, supreme wingnut. The full text can be found here . This is the new tactic of the wingnut, to claim that homosexuals are going to start oppressing heterosexual people. Of course they are, gays are forever trying to stop heterosexual people getting married and preaching that heterosexual sex is immoral and should probably be illegal!

[Simon]

As interesting as all this is, and as much as I may believe Ruth Kelly should remain in her post despite the apparent conflicts, it is hard for me to have sympathy with the Catholic position here. Let us not forget that it was the Catholic Herald, buoyed up by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, that demanded the dismissal of the PPC for Slough at the last General Election, when all he had done, two years previously, was to articulate a defence of the Protestant dimension of Constitution, and the role of the Monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Despite the support of some very prominent Roman Catholics, he had to go.

If Catholics are crying foul over the treatment of Ruth Kelly, it makes their treatment of Adrian Hilton, also a committed Christian, complete hypocrisy.

[passing leftie]

If you replace "thinks homosexuality is a sin" with "thinks being black is a sin", I think it's pretty clear why she is unsuitable, particularly when combined with her voting record.

A person's repellent attitudes to other peoples' nature should exclude them from holding certain positions.

[Sean Fear]

I imagine that Ruth Kelly thinks that homosexual sex is the sin, Passing Lefty, rather than homosexual orientation. In much the same way that she would regard sex outside marriage or masturbation as sinful.

[Serf]

section 28 institutionalised homophobia in schools

That's a pretty extreme statement. One little regulation responsible for so much homophobia?

I personally have no time what so ever for equality legislation, I think we should all be equal under the law, period. All the rest is "being seen to do something".

[Sean Fear]

I agree Serf. I think that everyone has the right to be treated equally by the State, but I don't consider that anyone should have the right to compel other people to treat them equally.

[passing leftie]

I imagine that Ruth Kelly thinks that homosexual sex is the sin, Passing Lefty, rather than homosexual orientation. In much the same way that she would regard sex outside marriage or masturbation as sinful.

So she thinks it's OK for you to be homosexual, as long as you resolve not have sex? Well, that's big of her.

If she thought growing crops was sinful, I wouldn't want her as minister of agriculture.

[Simon]

This blog CRANMER looks at the Kelly/Buttiglione similarities (2nd post down).

The implications for believers are considerable, but were not Christians warned to expect it?

[William Norton]

Passing leftie:If you replace "thinks homosexuality is a sin" with "thinks being black is a sin", I think it's pretty clear why she is unsuitable

And it's even clearer if you replace, say, "women should have the vote" with "women should be kept in sheds and doused in treacle". That proves what?

[Mike Christie]

"I imagine that Ruth Kelly thinks that homosexual sex is the sin, Passing Lefty, rather than homosexual orientation. In much the same way that she would regard sex outside marriage or masturbation as sinful."

However as one is a natural part of the other, she effectively believes that homosexual people should not 'do what comes naturally' to them.

It also does not explain why she abstained on votes for gay rights. The right to leave a house to a long-term partner without an IHT liability has nothing to do with orientation or sex.

[passing leftie]

And it's even clearer if you replace, say, "women should have the vote" with "women should be kept in sheds and doused in treacle". That proves what?

It proves that you probably think an analogy is something to do with peanuts.

[Tom Greeves]

Where do the LGBT community live? Is it some sort of new town?

[passing leftie]

Where do the LGBT community live? Is it some sort of new town?

Perhaps they live in the dictionary?

"A group viewed as forming a distinct segment of society:"

You could look up "reactionary" and "fogey" while you are there.

[Ted]

My initial take was that it was wrong to hound someone on their personal beliefs and faith and make it policy that a Roman Catholic (or a Jew or a Muslim) couldn't hold a particular ministry on that basis.

But actually I do think its wrong for Ruth Kelly to take a job which involves putting forward proposals she cannot in conscience support. She should have rejected it. A pacifist would turn down responsibility for armed services, RCs have in the past indicated they would prefer not to take on Health because of abortion.

We have already had Patricia Hewitt voting against the proposals she put forward on smoking. Would we have Ruth Kelly abstaining regularly on her departments proposals?

It's not that a devout Catholic should be barred from certain posts but that a devout Catholic should turn down posts where his/her conscience is at variance with the policies that department follows. Then the matter wouldn't arise.

[Bel]

If you replace "thinks homosexuality is a sin" with "thinks being black is a sin",

I don't get it. What has being black got to do with any of this? This sort of lazy analysis is designed to silence anyone who has a contrary view, but does not stand up to objective scrutiny.

Ruth Kelly's religion believes homosexuality to be a sin. She has a right to that belief (or are rights now the exclusive possession of 'minorities'?). Her religion makes no judgement about race, so why should we go down that road?

[Sean Fear]

The right to leave a house to a long-term partner without an IHT liability has nothing to do with orientation or sex."

I'd go further and say that people should be entitled to leave their property to anyone they like free of IHT.

[Sean Fear]

"It's not that a devout Catholic should be barred from certain posts but that a devout Catholic should turn down posts where his/her conscience is at variance with the policies that department follows. Then the matter wouldn't arise."

I think that's very well put.

[Jacob Traff]

I don't understand why one has to discriminate against Catholics in order to avoid discriminating gays... Being a tolerant person, I don't mind gay politicians. Neither do I mind Catholics one.

[Mike Christie]

"I'd go further and say that people should be entitled to leave their property to anyone they like free of IHT.

I knew somone would say that :-) I, of course agree! However I was illustrating the point that much legislation Kelly has abstained from is about giving rights and status to gay people or gay relationships that has very little to do with the actual 'act'.

[deborah]

Quite.
Bring back integrity.

[deborah]

Gosh, the comments are coming in thick and fast on this one.
I was agreeing with Sean and Ted -

"It's not that a devout Catholic should be barred from certain posts but that a devout Catholic should turn down posts where his/her conscience is at variance with the policies that department follows. Then the matter wouldn't arise."

[Mike Christie]

"I don't understand why one has to discriminate against Catholics in order to avoid discriminating gays"

I'm not discriminating against Catholics, I am merely curious as to how Ruth Kelly feels able to do a job which involves championing gay rights, where she clearly has views against giving those rights when judged on her voting record.

[Sean Fear]

I think that the case against Buttiglione was actually much weaker than the case against Ruth Kelly.

He was voted down because left-wing MEPs just didn't like his opinions.

[passing leftie]

Ruth Kelly's religion believes homosexuality to be a sin. She has a right to that belief (or are rights now the exclusive possession of 'minorities'?). Her religion makes no judgement about race, so why should we go down that road?

I'm amazed I need to explain this. It's as simple as this. Judging someone by their sexuality is just as bad as judging them by their race. I'll turn it round.

If you wouldn't object to someone who found that homosexuality is a sin, why should you object to someone who thinks being black is a sin?

[Sean Fear]

The analogy may be obvious to a passing lefty, but not to most Conservatives IMO.

[Burkean]

When did anyone ever say being black was sinful?

Nonsense on stilts.

[Bel]

I'm amazed I need to explain this. It's as simple as this. Judging someone by their sexuality is just as bad as judging them by their race.

Yes, passing leftie, you need to explain why you think being gay should be equated to being black. They are not the same. In fact the only thing both have in common is that they are both 'minorities'. That is not enough to draw an analogy.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

I don't get it. What has being black got to do with any of this? This sort of lazy analysis is designed to silence anyone who has a contrary view, but does not stand up to objective scrutiny.

Why is one form of discrimination better or worse than another? You're just making his point, only in a different way. It's no more acceptable for Kelly to express bigoted views on homosexuality than if she expressed similar views on those of another religion or an ethnic minority.

I'm just waiting for someone to mention the pathetic excuses resorted to over the Civil Partnerships Bill, eg two elderly sisters living together, which were used instead of saying "We don't like gay people. They shouldn't be allowed the same freedoms as heterosexual people therefore we oppose this legislation." Which would at least have been more honest.

[Ted]

passing leftie's analogy is dependent on acceptance that:
1 homosexuality is not a matter of choice but in inherited tendency - so like race is it not something an individual can choose.
2 that having homosexual sex (the sin) isn't something an individual should have to choose to do.

many people do not accept that either isn't a lifestyle choice - so do not see that the analogy applies.

Those of us who believe that people do not choose to be gay and that gay people shouldn't have chastity forced on them need to accept and tolerate the rights of people to the opposite belief.

[Mike Christie]

"you need to explain why you think being gay should be equated to being black"

Maybe it is because they are both an intrinsic and involuntary part of who a person is and not good grounds to treat them differently under law...

[Henry Whitmarsh]

I personally have no time what so ever for equality legislation, I think we should all be equal under the law, period. All the rest is "being seen to do something"

The Equality legislation under discussion is supposed to do exactly this. Preventing discrimination against gay people in the work place and in the provision of goods and services is expressly designed to make everyone equal under the law. As one of the gay people who will be protected (not empowered) by this legislation I can tell you that this is not just a token gesture.

[Chad]

And why should an element of choice itself make the prejudice any better?

If I choose to become a muslim and then someone abuses me for being one, does that make their prejudice against me OK?

[William Norton]

I'm waiting for someone to tell us that some of their best friends are Catholics.

Passing Leftie: your argument by analogy doesn't hold strictly.

Firstly you're making what is often called the, er, pink elephant fallacy: All elephants are pink; Nellie is an elephant; therefore Nellie is pink. This holds together logically, except that elephants aren't pink. Skin colour/racial origin is not an issue which can be the subject of individual sin (unless you're making a very esoteric point about original sin, which I suspect not - even then, the argument doesn't hold) so you end up analogously comparing apples and oranges.

Secondly, I would say that you're making a very extreme jump without evidence for the necessary inference. For example: I advance the argument "Driving at 30 mph in a 20mph zone does not warrant a prison sentence." You might respond with "Substitute 'racism' into the sentence and you understand how despicable this chap Norton is." Yes, racism is wrong, but there's no evidence for inferring a view on race from a view on speeding limits, so in that case such an analogy is invalid and somewhat irrelevant.

Two can play at the same game: would you make the same comments about, say, a Muslim MP? If you would, then I claim a win for 'proving' [in the absence of any evidence at all] that you are a White Supremacist; if you wouldn't, then I have you on a charge of hypocrisy/double standards. I'm not convinced, however, that this is a profitable line of argument.

Applying the criticism of Ruth Kelly to its logical ends:
* supporters of capital punishment can't be Home Office ministers (or policemen or judges or prison officers and perhaps not probation officers);
* opponents of abortion can't be health ministers;
* people with a dim view of divorce or schoolgirl pregnancy can't be social security ministers, education ministers or at a push, treasury ministers (the inheritance tax legislation would recognise the validity of a second marriage, for instance)
* if you really want to push it: advocates of withdrawal from the European Union can't be MPs

I'm not sure that outcome would improve the quality of government in the UK. Is it going to end with every candidate for public office going through a when-did-you-last-see-your-father style inquisition in the manner of US supreme court justices? That'll really engage a wider involvement in the parliamentary process, won't it?

[Sean Fear]

"It's no more acceptable for Kelly to express bigoted views on homosexuality than if she expressed similar views on those of another religion or an ethnic minority."

Ruth Kelly may very well believe that non-Catholics will go to hell. That in itself should be no bar to office.

[Sean Fear]

"If I choose to become a muslim and then someone abuses me for being one, does that make their prejudice against me OK? "

If someone said your conversion to Islam was a sin, I can't see why that, of itself, should preclude them from holding office.

[Mike Christie]

"I'm waiting for someone to tell us that some of their best friends are Catholics."

Well! Now you mention it... as I was raised a Catholic and went to Catholic schools, and currently work in a Catholic school, some of my best friends...

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Yes, but we're not talking about her other, purely religious views, we're talking about her stated opinion (derived from the mother church) that homosexuality is objectively disordered. My objection to Kelly is not that she is a hypocrite, it is that she is a bigot. She may well be able to carry out her duties as a minister, I just don't understand how it is considered acceptable for anyone in public life to think it acceptable to air such views with an air of such unconcern.

I also have a problem with the Conservative Home view of the situation ie poor Kelly is being beaten up by the gay mafia. Gay people have much more to fear from those who hold similar views to Kelly than bigots like Kelly do from those who criticise their views.

[Mike Christie]

"f someone said your conversion to Islam was a sin, I can't see why that, of itself, should preclude them from holding office."

What if they were Minister for Religious Tolerance?

[Ted]

It still comes back to the individual minister refusing posts at variance with their conscience & beliefs. If they cannot in conscience support and vote for proposals their departments make they need to resign.

It demonstrates how little Blair or his ministers think through the actual business of government, take responsibility for their offices and actions.

[Sean Fear]

"What if they were Minister for Religious Tolerance?"

I would agree that it would be hard to square such a belief with such a position. I think Chad's point was a wider one than that - namely that was unacceptable for someone in public life to say it was sinful to convert to Islam.

[Mike Christie]

"Ruth Kelly may very well believe that non-Catholics will go to hell. That in itself should be no bar to office."

No, it shouldn't. However her seeming objection to equal rights for gay people evidenced by her abstention from 12 out of 14 votes on the issue, coupled with her refusal to confirm or deny whether she thinks homosexuality is sinful should raise serious questions about whether she is the right person to hold the equality brief.

[Richard]

Firstly for those trying to compare dissaproval of homosexuality to racism - the former is still socially acceptable while the latter is not. That is why nobody buys the argument.

http://www.mori.com/polls/2000/m000127.shtml

54% didn't want Section 28 repealed and 49% believed that homosexual relationships are less acceptable than heterosexual relationships. However, fair-minded people that the British are, 65% believed that homosexuality should be tolerated regardless as to whether it is right or wrong.

"Preventing discrimination against gay people in the work place and in the provision of goods and services is expressly designed to make everyone equal under the law."

It interferes with freedom of association. Why should the government tell a private business who it can and cannot hire? I would have no objection to being rejected by a firm on grounds of race or sexuality because a)I don't own the business and b)if they hold those sorts of opinions then frankly I wouldn't want to work with them. Providing homosexuals aren't legally discriminated against then they are equal under the law. This is the position held by the Libertarian Alliance who have been consistent in fighting for both gay rights and against anti-discrimination legislation. Government recruitment should of course be indiscriminatory.

[Richard]

Sorry, that toleration figure is actually 82%.

[Sean Fear]

Yes, I quite agree with that last point. I don't see how you can honourably take up a post which involves enforcing legislation that you disapprove of.

But that's separate from the issue of whether someone who believes homosexuality (or Catholicism for that matter) is wrong is entitled to a place in public life.

[Nadim]

If I choose to become a muslim and then someone abuses me for being one, does that make their prejudice against me OK?

Prejudice, no, but discrimination, on certain grounds, yes. It would be preposterous if, for example, Mosque youth groups were forced to employ Christians to teach them.

Ruth Kelly may very well believe that non-Catholics will go to hell. That in itself should be no bar to office

Well, Sean, as Simon states (13.40), the Conservative Party barred Adrian Hilton from office simply for defending the country's Protestant heritage. The Conservative Party itself was intolerant of his views.

[RodS]

Government , which can only operate through Ministers (with all their human failings, instincts and prejudices) has moved into areas that are completely beyond its capacity to control. As has been said 'Equality under the law' for everyones behaviour and actions towards each other is all that matters. What I might think about someone and their values and beliefs and the way they might offend my values and beliefs is of no consequence.

The human mind has always 'discriminated' on the basis of deeply held core instincts of right and wrong - it is called survival.

What worries me more about Ruth Kelly is her criticism 'of the social culture in this country' where householders are 'protective of their own space'. Now that from the new Communities and Local Government Secretary is really scary.

[Sean Fear]

Indeed it was Nadim. I think Adrian Hilton was unjustly treated.

[Tom Greeves]

'"Where do the LGBT community live? Is it some sort of new town?

Perhaps they live in the dictionary?

"A group viewed as forming a distinct segment of society:"

You could look up "reactionary" and "fogey" while you are there.'

The point I was making, Passing Leftie, is that L, G, B and T people do NOT form a distinct segment of society.

A person's sexual orientation is ultimately a trivial matter, which is just one of the multitudinous reasons that I support gay rights. A heterosexual and homosexual man might have vastly more in common - including living in close proximity, shared values, similar incomes, similar interests etc. - than another pairing where both men are gay.

Moreover, insofar as this is social and political, the concerns of say, lesbians and transvestites might be profoundly different.

The only thing that lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transvestite / transexuals NECESSARILY have in common is that they would not be considered 'straight'. And given that many transvestites are heterosexual, that also seems inadequate.

It's the semantics and imprecision I object to. You shouldn't assume I'm a reactionary or a fogey.

You should also post under your real name, in my opinion.

[Alan T]

If Tony Blair had appointed someone to the Equalites brief who sincerely believed on scientific grounds that black people are intellectually inferior, and said person did not wish black people any harm, or wish to take away their rights, would it be okay for this person to hold the Eqaulities brief? I pose this question to those taking the 'you can't eqaute being black with being gay' line.

I think the answer is that it would be ferociously opposed by black people and most decent people for that matter and there would probably be calls for that person to be expelled from the Labour party never mind denied ministerial office. It demonstrates quite potently the double standard at work.

[Tom Greeves]

I also get fed up with hearing people described as 'ethnic'.

I'm all for civil partnerships, equal pension rights, racial and religious tolerance etc. But constant yakking about 'communities' and 'equality' and 'diversity' does nothing more than give succour to the bottom feeders who live off identity politics.

There are lots of people who want to balkanise this country. The Conservatives and everyone else should resist them.

[RobD]

I don't see how you can honourably take up a post which involves enforcing legislation that you disapprove of.

Sean, this is a great point. It is too easy to get caught up in gay rights and religious intolerance issue here. The simple fact is this highlights a Labour minister in charge of policies she does not agree with and has abstained from in the past.

This kind of disregard for official duties is typical of New Labour and should be the angle we attack.

[torylady]

Passing Leftie,
Whether or not you think people are born gay or they choose to be gay, you can never equate it with being black. Black people do not have the luxury of being able to go in the closet about their "blackness". You can identify a black person just by looking at them, not so with a gay person. A black person cannot deny that he or she is black (not even if he's Michael Jackson). A gay person can.

To lump all minorities in the same box, is very demeaning. Just as I've seen people compare being black to being muslim.
After 7/7 there were loads of muslims condemning the bombers "Oh they're not real muslims". Black people can never say after a black person commits a crime "Oh they are not real blacks".

There are also issues of belonging and citizenship that gay people do not have to deal with. Black people are still and probably always will be viewed as "Not really British" even if they were born here and they're parents were born here.

Alan T, there's a huge chasm between saying that someone is intellectually inferior, and saying that someone's sexual habits are sinful. Your analogy does not hold. We might think it insane but there really are people who believe that homosexuality, inter-racial marriages and mixed-race kids children are unnatural if the BNP website is anything to go by. Yet people such as Christina Speight think it's okay to vote for them!

[Sean Fear]

Your point about lumping all minorities together Torylady is a good one.

It was that kind of thinking that lay behind the Religious and Racial Hatred bill, (ie there's no moral difference between condemning someone's race and condemning someone's religion).

[Henry Whitmarsh]

(Bangs head on desk)

Why should the government tell a private business who it can and cannot hire? It isn't about telling people who they should or should not hire. It merely says that some forms of discimination on irrelevant grounds (to the business) are wrong. It in no way restricts the people a business can or cannot hire. How can you say you support gay rights when you do nothing of the sort. Do you think a business should be able to discriminate on the grounds of disability or gender as well or are these not equal threats to the right to free association?

What if a government said it was OK to put signs saying "No Jews No Blacks No Dogs Irish" in their hotel windows that would be OK too?

[Henry Whitmarsh]

(should have edited that a little more :-D)

[Graeme Archer]

Hi! It's me - resident gay Tory (ask the Editor). I could write for hours about Kelly being "Equality" minister but as usual William Norton has beaten me to it:

First, Tories can surely unite around the fact that a minister of equality is a facile concept. Get rid of the post.

Second, Finkelstein's article was good in drawing out the point that there's a difference between what the religious think of as a sin, and what society decides is illegal. The Left don't get this, which is why we keep getting crap legislation from them.

Third, like the Anglicans, Tories are obsessed with homosexuality. As the resident gay Tory, this is obviously flattering to me. But as a group we might want to ask ourselves why. If Tories are uncomfortable with society's direction, might I ask that we stop using gay people as the target for our spleen? It gets depressing after a while, and it stops us focussing on the real target: This Crap Government.

I'm not part of a gay "community". But please non-gay reader, try to do a bit of empathising - most of the posters here, I guess, are like me and they grew up in an era when our first shared orgasms were illegal. We're making great strides as a country towards a place where - to paraphrase the excellent Tom Greeves - a person's sexuality will be irrelevant. But it's asking maybe a wee bit too much of the 30somethings out there to pretend that we don't remember what it was like when we were growing up. We have that much in common, even if we don't all live in a New Town.

[Sean Fear]

"What if a government said it was OK to put signs saying "No Jews No Blacks No Dogs Irish" in their hotel windows that would be OK too?"

I imagine most people would find that was not to their advantage commercially, even if it was lawful.

[Graeme Archer]

PS Spot the science student - for "facile" above, I meant "fatuous" -sorry.

[Biodun]

What if a government said it was OK to put signs saying "No Jews No Blacks No Dogs Irish" in their hotel windows that would be OK too?

(Speaking with authority as resident CH black person), I'd much prefer if a hotel told me that I wasn't welcome with such a sign, than take my hard-earned, over-taxed money, spit in my food, not show up for room service, and basically ruin my holiday.
Just 'cos the govt tells people that racism is bad doesn't mean they stop being racist.

[passing leftie]

Skin colour/racial origin is not an issue which can be the subject of individual sin (unless you're making a very esoteric point about original sin, which I suspect not - even then, the argument doesn't hold) so you end up analogously comparing apples and oranges.

No, my analogy holds well, as other posters have pointed out. A person who fundamentally holds that a particulary minority group is inherently sinful is not a suitable person to look out for their needs. Answer this question:

If you wouldn't object to someone who found that homosexuality is a sin, why should you object to someone who thinks being black is a sin?

Incidentally, there are or at least were Christian denominations who hold that black people arose out of sin.

As to your list of others posts - I'll go through some of them.

supporters of capital punishment can't be Home Office ministers (or policemen or judges or prison officers and perhaps not probation officers);

This example works better the other round, and supports my point. If captial punishment was reintroduced, the Home Office minister would have to be a supporter, and no judge should preside over cases where capital punishment is a possibilty. It's deciding policy and implementing it which is the litmus test.

* opponents of abortion can't be health ministers;

Sounds good to me; if they are fundamentally opposed to abortion on religious grounds, they'd have to be a bloody hypocrite to be responsible for it.

* people with a dim view of divorce or schoolgirl pregnancy can't be social security ministers, education ministers or at a push, treasury ministers (the inheritance tax legislation would recognise the validity of a second marriage, for instance)

I don't follow this line of argument at all.

[Nadim]

Third, like the Anglicans, Tories are obsessed with homosexuality

Interesting observation, and Muslims are becoming so too. Is it that we are all being forced to adapt to a pre-determined media agenda?

[Mike Christie]

"To lump all minorities in the same box, is very demeaning."

Exactly the point I was trying to make in a different thread torylady, which you seemed to take completely the wrong way!

[Tom Greeves]

Thanks for the generous remarks Graeme.

[Graeme Archer]

@ Serf - you're wrong about Section 28's impact imo. It may never have been used in anger, and it may even have done some good in trimming the sails of loony left councils. But it was a truly disgusting piece of legislation which had the unintended consequence of politicising a generation of homosexuals. Its impact, rather than its letter, contradicts the Tory wish which you correctly state as the desire for us all to be treated equally under the law. Section 28 picked one group of people and made them feel sh*t. Trust me. Not the "promotion of homosexuality" bit - I think I've written about this before - how are you going to promote it? With a raffle? It was the "as a pretend family relationship" bit. So you think my love can only ever pretend to be as good as your love, Mr Legislator? F*ck off. Apologies editor but the fact that it still makes people mad as hell must be some sign that the legislation itself was wrong.

@ Tom - you're welcome! And much better with words than wot I am.

[Richard]

"How can you say you support gay rights when you do nothing of the sort."

Because I don't believe laws made by the government should discriminate against homosexuals. That is equality under the law.

"Do you think a business should be able to discriminate on the grounds of disability or gender as well or are these not equal threats to the right to free association?"

Yes, I believe they should be able to. I also believe people are entitled to boycott businesses that do so and attack them in the press for their discriminatory behaviour.

What if a government said it was OK to put signs saying "No Jews No Blacks No Dogs Irish" in their hotel windows that would be OK too?

The chances are any company that did that would be boycotted and would quickly find itself going out of business. But I don't think it's the government's business to interfere. That said public display of such signs could be considered seditious if they stir up trouble.

[Richard]

"But it was a truly disgusting piece of legislation which had the unintended consequence of politicising a generation of homosexuals."

But it was also very popular. This implies that some sort of measure was needed to give the loony-left councils a good kicking. The question is, how could this have been done without accusations of homophobia? I am not suggesting that Section 28 was a good thing, merely that it may have been the only option bearing in mind the situation at the time.

[Helen]

Why precisely do we need a Minister for Women and Equality?

[Richard]

"If you wouldn't object to someone who found that homosexuality is a sin, why should you object to someone who thinks being black is a sin?"

Because homosexuality is about behaviour where as being black is biological. The counter-argument of course is that neither have any control over how they feel/look.

"Incidentally, there are or at least were Christian denominations who hold that black people arose out of sin."

They were a minority of cranks and hardly representative of mainstream Christianity.

The point remains though that while the vast majority of people are tolerant of homosexuality, about half the population do not consider it to be "equal" to heterosexuality. I would be interested to know why you think this is.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

I don't care what most people think. Just because the majority of people consider homosexuality to be objectively disordered, or whatever, that does not give them the right to put their prejudice into law.

Richard, what exactly was Section 28 supposed to be "for" and what was it supposed to "against"? IMO it was a hateful bit of gay bashing, one which drove an entire generation of gay people into the arms of the left.

[Graeme Archer]

Hear hear Henry. I sat for HOURS in the bath, asking myself what the **** I was doing slogging my guts out to get a Tory elected when the major piece of legislation that session was to witter on about the horrors of homosexuality.

Richard - if it was so popular, doesn't your reasoning re: private discrimination hold? That is, if a company should be free to sack someone for being gay (like Cormac wossisname, what a great spiritual leader he is), as long as we're all welcome to boycott that company - surely the loony left, gay-promoting councils should have been left to the whims of their electorates to boycott and refute as they felt appropriate?

[Henry Whitmarsh]

So equality enshrined in employment legislation is too authoritarian, but enshrining homophobia in law is perfectly accpetable?

[wicks]

"Why should the government tell a private business who it can and cannot hire?"

Whilst I would agree that government should be as small as possible, I don't think there should be no government. It is in all our interests that businesses are as well run as possible, I think a bit of government interference to prevent individual people doing utterly stupid things that damage the economic prosperity of this country is a worthwhile sacrifice.