Cameron faces backlash from social conservatives on gay adoption decision

The danger for Mr Cameron is the breadth of offence he is beginning to cause.  Tory Eurosceptics are still pained by the delay to leaving the EPP.  Small government conservatives regret the caution on tax.  Hawks are disappointed that defence is a lower spending priority than the NHS and Atlanticists fear the long-term consequences of the coolness towards the White House.  Upsetting the party's social conservatives may be Mr Cameron's biggest risk so far, however.  It became clear to ConservativeHome yesterday evening that David Cameron's decision to back the Government and gay rights against the liberty of the churches has upset a large section of his parliamentary party.  The Cornerstone Group of 40 MPs are particularly angry.  For a while this tightly-knit group within the parliamentary party has been relaxed about Project Cameron.  The Tory leader's social conservatism on marriage and his support for Iain Duncan  Smith's social justice agenda have kept them quiet.  Their enthusiasm evaporated yesterday.

Ann Widdecombe (not a formal member of the group) warned that Britain was "in completely new territory" and that we could be witnessing "the death of religious freedom in Britain."  She said that this debate was not about gay rights and compared the situation to abortion.  Miss Widdecombe said that gay couples now had a right to adopt and a pregnant woman had a right to an abortion.  The unsettling difference was that the woman did not have the right to require a particular doctor to terminate her preganancy but a gay couple had the right to go to any adoption agency to find a child.

MPs Gerald Howarth and Douglas Carswell also registered their concerns in quotations to the Daily Mail.  Shadow defence minister Gerald Howarth:

"We now undoubtedly face a challenge from the UK Independence Party and to a lesser extent from the British National Party.  We therefore need to measure what is the effect of the message we are sending. This will cause concern among a lot of traditional Conservatives up and down the country. This is an incredible assault on freedom of conscience... This is a motif for his leadership. Our core supporters in the country don't like it and they are saying they will vote for UKIP. It's wrong, it's offensive. it's political correctness, and it's social engineering.  Tony Blair has given us 20 months to adapt 2,000 years of Christian teaching. It's unacceptable."

Douglas Carswell:

"I will not be taking David Cameron's position on this. I will be supporting the Churches.  This isn't about gay rights, it's about whether we should be interfering in the very good job that a part of civil society does on our behalf for children who are hard to place."

Comments

[Tory T]

You protest too much, Ed.

I am a social conservative and very happy overall with Cameron. His speech yesterday was a cracking example of why he is to be welcomed.

I am firmly against the Equality Law as written. We need, not opt-outs, but a different law.

BUT. This is clearly a conscience issue and it is a free vote. Remember those? Free votes? Carswell - and myself - are free to argue our positions without being disloyal. David Davis can take the opposite position and there is no "Tory split" because this is a free vote.

[Editor]

This is an area where a free vote is the wrong way forward, Tory T. Greater voluntary sector-provided social action is supposedly David Cameron's big idea. You cannot invite faith-based and other groups into the public square to receive government funding and then fail - as a leader and party as a whole - to protect their freedom to organise according to their long-held beliefs.

[Tory T]

As you will have seen from my comments on earlier threads I am totally against the law as t is written. But you cannot whip a conscience issue.

IMO, as posted earlier, the way forward was to suggest a different law.

[Editor]

I see gay adoption as a conscience issue - I see the freedom of religious organisations to be true to themselves as more of a fundamental protection of liberty issue.

[Gareth]

Ed,

We all know you have strong feelings on this but this really isn't the end of civilisation as we know it. You can't seriously propose that you'd whip MP's to vote against gay rights (as some would see it) any more than you could whip them in favour of gay adoption (as others would see it)?

[Tory T]

Certainly Anne W. has a strong point with her abortion analogy.

In America Catholic hospitals were threatened by nominally Catholic politicians with being forced to provide abortions and contraceptives. When it was pointed out they would all rather close down than do that the pols backed off.

But still you simply could not have whipped this issue without splitting the parliamentary party. I am disappointed Cameron does not share my view on it, and would much have preferred a free vote with Cameron going the other way, but social Conservatives will be heartened, on the other hand, with his understanding of the divisions of multiculturalism and protection of the rights of Muslim women.

Furthermore if Carswell really worries about ukip he should take a look at Political Betting. com today where there is a lead article analysing ukip's actual poll performance lately:

"Populus recorded a drop from 2% to 1% with five out out of the seven supporters (not percentages you should note) being male.

ICM discovered that 11 people in its survey said they had voted UKIP at the 2005 General but only 3 were ready to do so now - all of them male.

YouGov found an unchanged 3% UKIP support level - the same as it has been for several months with the men, as ever, outnumbering women.

Another trend in the polls is that what support there for the Anti-EU party is not coming from the younger age groups with very few of those under 35 saying they are supporters. There is also an almost total lack of response to the party in Scotland.

How frustrating this must be for the Simon Heffers of this world."

[Editor]

It's not the end of civilisation, Gareth, - of course not - but for me it's the most disappointing thing that David Cameron has done. You may not believe me but this isn't about gay rights for me. It is about the freedom of a Christian organisation to run its affairs according to its own teachings. I do not think that religious beliefs should be imposed on other people but any Government inteference in the affairs of religious organisations should be exceptional measures of last resort. I do regard yesterday's decision by our leader as a worrying attack on religious liberty.

[Tory T]

And so do I, and as an ardent Cameroon I confess that this is the only thing he has done that truly saddens me. For the sake of the children who will be left behind.

For Catholics are not being forced to violate their consciences - we can (and now must) just shut down. However, a small fraction of would-be adoptive parents are gay couples, but Catholic agencies currently find good homes for a full third of the hard to place children in the system.

A year from now, this will be yesterday's headlines. Still, very few gay couples - all of whom could have been served by secular agencies - will want to adopt; but those hard to place children, forgotten by the champagne socialists at the BBC, will be languishing in care homes, and will never know a happy family.

The characteristic of this debate has been the "rights" of would be parents in contrast to what the UN charter calls for as the paramount and overriding consideration, the welfare of the child.

It is a deeply disappointing decision by Cameron to flip that around.

But I would have wished to see a free vote, with Cameron leading from the front in calling for a law rewritten so as not to allow either opt-outs or trampling on liberty.

[HF]

I agree with Tory T, a flawed proposal that needs an unwhipped vote and for once DC and DD to keep quiet.

If the Catholics and CofE etc do not like what this Govt has done, then maybe they should not have voted for them?

Editor, we are here because we have lost elections. We lost the elections because we were divided and focused on things that the majority of the electorate did not want.

This is a country, where the majority are not regular church attending christians, I do not like that, but I do have to recognise the reality.

For UKIP stuff go to
http://www.politicalbetting.com/

[TomTom]

In America Catholic hospitals were threatened by nominally Catholic politicians with being forced to provide abortions and contraceptives.

That would be interesting since Abortion is a flawed Judgment of Justice Blackmun in the USA rather than a legislative matters passed through Congress.

One day the Roe v. Wade issue will have to return to the Supreme Court especially in view of the fact that the case was contrived from top to bottom and on a fake premise. Had not the attorney from the Mayo Clinic been appointed to the US Supreme Court the pitiful state of Blackmiun's intellectual capabilities would not have been quite so exposed as in his paperwork.

How a man so prejudiced ever got to be a Supreme Court Justice is a case study which should illustrate the dangers of Rule by Judiciary

[TomTom]

This is a country, where the majority are not regular church attending christians,

Sorry, what goes on in many Churches is not Christian and staying away from them is....

[Richard Willis]

Cameron has this absolutely right in giving his MPs a free vote. In a free and democratic society it is unacceptable for a hotel to refuse entry to someone because they are black or disabled. Why should it be acceptable for an adoption agency to refuse to deal with someone because they are gay?

It is not an attack on religious freedom, it is an attack on bigotry and prejudice.

Let the Catholic agencies twin with a non-Catholic agency, as they have done in the far more religious US. I dont see why a tiny minority of Catholics should impose their view by default on the rest of society.

There are two key points in this for me.
1. Services that are provided for society in general should be free from discrimination and prejudice, and

2. The prime motivation should be what is right for the child. ALmost everyone agrees that the worst option is in institutional care.

The irony is that the Catholic Church takes this position when it has been the defender of paedophile priests and other abusers. Officially and unofficially the Catholic Church has systematically covered up for priests who have inflicted terrible sexual and physical abuse on children in its care.

Why on earth should we listen to them now?

[Zorro]

I've just taken a look at the opinions of Mike Smithson. Mike Who? Definitely a name to conjure with.

"UKIP is still finding it hard to extend its appeal beyond white males in their late middle age"

Which of course just happens to be the Tory core vote, but don't let that spoil a good story.

1) When UKIPs vote starts to move up it's usually just before an election, as in the case of the last Euro-elections. That's when the public become focused about issues.

2) At the last General Election at least 27 Tory hopefuls were trashed by UKIP candidates scoring in many cases ony 1-2%

We're prepared to work with Cameron on terms which we will dictate. If he won't play ball, and on current form we have every reason to expect that he won't, he will have only himself to blame for the ensuing Tory defeat.

And don't kid yourself that winning back a few seats will be compensation. In politics a miss is as good as a mile.

[Margaret on the Gullotine]

There's no massive backlash. Montgomerie wants there to be one because of his own religious views, and he thinks that if you can get enough people to believe something to be true, then it is.

Just as if enough people think this site is "the home of the Conservative roots", then he thinks it is, rather than seeing CH for what it is: around 100 malcontents and UKIP trolls whinging to their heart's content.

[Tory T]

Richard,

The Church does not refuse to deal with anybody because they are gay, and currently places children with gay single parents.

Rather it has the positive criterion "Are these parents offering a Catholic family ethos?" that means placing with single and married people - not civil unions and not straight cohabitees either.

[Tory T]

Zorro, it's not surprising you haven't heard of Smithson; he deals with polls, ie reality. Three of them quoted above, all disastrous for UKIP.

[John Coles]

Editor
I have always thought that you have been commendably restrained by rarely offering direct comment on the many contentious threads that have passed through this site. Now that, on this occasion, you have declared an opinion I think it a pity that you should have harried by the glib (Gareth) and the downright rude (Margaret on the Guillotine).
You deserve a little better than this.

[TomTom]

Let the Catholic agencies twin with a non-Catholic agency, as they have done in the far more religious US. I dont see why a tiny minority of Catholics should impose their view by default on the rest of society.

but they do...they refuse the Eucharist to non-Catholics

Why should Catholic parents give their children up for adoption to the Church to have them adopted by non-Catholics ?

[Tory Lady]

It may be a new turning point against the Cameron led Party.Christians everywhwere will be privately despairing at the stance Cameron has taken and will be silently witholding their vote.
It could cost the Tories over a million votes in silent protest and these will be the loss of solid goodwill votes.The Chrisstian press will soon start rolling and exacerbate the situation.
Is this the opportunity for the makings of a new Christian led Political Party and the demise of the Conservative Party.

[Will]

AW - " The unsettling difference was that the woman did not have the right to require a particular doctor to terminate her preganancy but a gay couple had the right to go to any adoption agency to find a child. "

Rubbish. The equivelent is a abortion doctor who refused to perform an abortion because the mother was black.

The doctors right not to perform abortions is a moral choice against the act of abortion. An opt out on gay couples adopting is an act of discrimation against a set of individuals.

Gay couples can legally adopt. Catholic agencies have to find a way of dealing with this or get out of the adoption business. If they really do put children first they will find a way to continue to provide their service without discrimation.

Also Cornerstone can stop bleating - the majority of their members voted for Cameron - what did they expect they were getting ?

[malcolm]

I very much doubt it Tory Lady. It will be interesting to see how many Tory MPs take the Cameron position and how many vote with Davis/Cornerstone. I would hope that the vast majority take the latter route, we shall see. I do disagree with you though Editor, this is a vote of conscience and therefore the correct decision is to have it unwhipped.
Does anyone know if Labour are doing the same?

[changetowin]

Oh dear me. This website is trying to whip this story up into an even bigger issue. This is a free vote! I would prefer it if everyone was whipped to support my view that there should be one law in Britain that applies to all, but accept that given the strong feeligns on both sides a free vote is a fair compromise. The multiculturalists, who believe that their group membership should confer opt-out rights from British laws, are being allowed to vote against equality. That doesn't satisfy the Editor. On an issue of great sensitivity he wants everyone to have to vote for his view. Perhaps it shouldn't surprise us that he wants us to repeat the mistakes of IDS on gay adoption.

[changetowin]

And while I'm at it, the issue at stake here is not religious freedom. Roman Catholics should always remain free to think and preach whatever they like about homosexuality. That is religious freedom and freedom of conscience. But this issue is about two fundamental things:

1. whether a religious group should be subject to British law. If we say 'no' then we are opening a can of worms, which could lead to sharia law in Britain.

2. whether groups should be in receipt of state funding when they are acting outside British law and values.

If we want to talk about 'social responsibility', how about the Roman Catholic church's social responsibility to vulnerable children (and no I'm not talking about paedophilia!)? The Roman Catholic church has disgraced itself by saying that the adoption agencies would close if there was a chance that they might have to deal with gay couples (as opposed to single gay people). Talk about throwing your toys out of the pram! Shouldn't the Roman Catholic church put the care of vulnerable children above their belief in inequality for gay people?

[Tory T]

Changetowin, let me try again; there is no belief in inequality of gay people, as you put it, but in inequality of relationships, some that promote sex outside marriage, contrary to Christian teaching, and some that don't. Catholic groups will also not place children with unmarried straight couples who are legally as entitled as gay couples to adopt.

It won't place a child into a situation where the child's soul could be harmed by being raised to believe that sex outside of marriage is fine and dandy.

The Church's belief is that single and married people can adopt. No co-habiting couples, straight nor gay.

[Michael McGowan]

Changetowin provides the usual unpleasant Portillista sniping which we have come to expect: the snarling features of the Provisional Wing of the modernising movement, contorted with hate, especially of IDS who denied the Beloved Michael his birthright. Tim and Malcolm, I agree with you: it must be a free vote like all such votes but the whole point is that this country has always been a drabber, less tolerant, less free place when self-righteous members of the middle classes like Changetowin use the blunt instrument of the law to impose, on pain of penalty, ethical views which they regard as "right". Their hubristic arrogance will be their downfall. One footnote, Tim, this isn't an issue just for social conservatives. It is one for authentic liberals who believe in pluralism and the right of people to have seemingly odd and weird views and to live their lives accordingly. The finger-wagging tendency don't accept such rights.

[changetowin]

Tory T,

First of all your fair and balanced procedure is to offer adoption to all who are married and then exclude a group from marriage!!! The result of your policy is to offer adoption to single gay men (who presumably might have sex) and not to gay men in a committed relationship.

Secondly, let's suppose that society as a whole takes a different view from a religious group. There are two options.

1. Apply the law to all and make the religious group comply with the State (render onto Caesar and all that).

2. Have two laws - one for religious group and one for everyone else.

If we go for (2) as you and the other multiculturalists are arguing, we are setting a dangerous precedent. What do we say when Muslim groups want exemptions on a whole raft of things?

[Tory T]

But I do think Changetowin makes one important point, that of equality under the law. Of course we must have equality under the law and I do not support opt-outs for Catholics, Jews or anyone else.

The correct Conservative position is not to advocate an opt-out but to vote to defeat the law, and later to work to repeal it, because it is a wrongly drafted law.

[Simon Newman]

"One footnote, Tim, this isn't an issue just for social conservatives. It is one for authentic liberals who believe in pluralism and the right of people to have seemingly odd and weird views and to live their lives accordingly"

Yes, I'm not against gay adoption and I'm not pro the Catholic church, but I absolutely am against this whole totalitarian approach to 'non discrimination', where the government imposes its own views into every part of our lives.

[changetowin]

Tory T you are totally right on that. What Michael is offering us is not liberal. Liberals deal with individuals and support indiviudal freedom under the law. If they don't support a law they work to repeal it, never offer group based exclusions.

[Tory T]

Change, I'd take your 1. I can draft a law easily enough that applies to all but would not compel religious groups to face the choice of spiritually hurting vulnerable children or closing.

I suggested yesterday a law should go something like, all voluntary bodies offering adoptive services are required to prove that they are placing children with fit and proper parents.

That way a Jewish agency could place with only Jewish parents, a gay agency with civil partners, an agency which believes children should have siblings only in such families, etc.

The duty would be universal, no opt-outs for faith groups, and would allow voluntary orgs to carry on their good work.

[changetowin]

And Michael, most members of the public reading this would be amazed that those supporting an Equality Act are being accused of being intolerant by those supporting group-based exclusions from British law for groups who want to discriminate against others based on their sexuality.

[Edward]

I don't see that the law would say, within the terms of these regulations, that not allowing people to adopt because they're having sex outside a married relationship would be a disproportionate response to achieve a legitimate aim (protection of the child). Storm in a teacup?

[changetowin]

Tory T - why is purity on this rather academic issue more important for the Roman Catholic church than the care of vulnerable children. Why should it be a choice between getting their way and closing?

[HF]

Under this regulation can a church refuse to have in its membership homosexual couples?

If not then the RC could just create a membership system and use that to exclude who it did not want.

[Denis Cooper]

On the electoral level in Scotland, it seems this is a bit of a gift to the SNP.

[Andrew Lilico]

I agree with the Editor that this should not be a free vote. Let us understand what this is about, clearly. First, Catholic adoption agencies do *not* discriminate against homosexuals. They discriminate against unmarried couples. Thus gay rights are neither here nor there.

Nonetheless, they do discriminate, and they do so against government policy. But their doing so reflects the faith-based nature of the service they offer. It is precisely because of this faith-based nature that Alan Johnson etc oppose them, as they likewise opposed faith schools - because it is in the nature of faith-based public service delivery that it will be discriminating and that it will reflect faith-based ethical judgements rather than government policy or democratic judgements.

And this is precisely why there should not be a free vote for Conservatives - because we are avowedly in *favour* of faith-based public service delivery. We cannot be in favour of faith-based service delivery but then be against the basing of such delivery on faith positions - that would be absurd.

As a Party, we are either for such "little platoons" as the Catholic adoption agencies, or we are against them. If we are for them as a Party, then we must have whipped votes that support them. Otherwise, friends, we just aren't putting our votes where our mouths are.

[Tory T]

Changetowin, you and I agree on many things, not on this, though.

What you don't see is that (Catholics believe) that it is doing dreadful harm to a little child to put him or her in a home where they will grow up believing it is OK to have sex outside of marriage. You are asking Catholics not to protect vulnerable children, but to hurt them.

As to "right to marry" Catholics are Christians, we are bound by Christ's teaching on marriage in the Gospels where he said it existed because God made them male and female.

I can clearly see you don't agree with a word of it and I am not trying to convert anybody, but it would be good if people tried to see things from the other's point of view.

If you understood that to a Catholic, placing a child with a co-habiting couple straight or gay is hurting that child, you could understand why they refuse to do it. Because the child's needs have to come first.

[malcolm]

Andrew Lilico, so you argue freedom of conscience for Catholics but not for MPs? What a strange argument.

[Michael McGowan]

It is authentically liberal to argue that individuals are entitled to live their lives according to their consciences which, however peculiar or wrong in the disapproving eyes of the moral majority, have minimal adverse impact on others and can be accomodated with relative ease. The cry of "conscience is not an excuse for prejudice" is the cry of the censor down the ages. There is the world of difference between this limited degree of pluralism and upholding the "rights" of irredentist minorities to beat their wives, deny them education, force their teenage daughters to marry, persecute homosexuals and blow people up on the Tube. Such "rights" are a direct assault on the foundations of a free society - the very kind of society which permits pluralism in the first place. I suggest that Changetowin do some basic reading in political theory, starting with Voltaire and Mill's essay On Liberty. If you adopt his/her anti-Enlightenment approach, Catholic doctors must perform abortions; Quakers who refuse to fight in the armed forces must be sent to prison; and Sikhs must wear crash helmets - just because the House of Commons says so.

When less than a third of the voting population vote for the Government of the day and 40% of the electorate abstain, the moral authority of the sleazy House of Commons to legislate on matters of morlity is negligible.

[Liberal conservative]

Editor - please explain how Christian groups arguing for an exemption from the law are different from Muslim groups arguing for the same thing (i.e. to be allowed to practice Sharia law).

If we are against one should we also not be against the other?

[Michael McGowan]

Liberal Conservative, what an odd argument. All you are saying is that we have either to be utterly uniform or totally divergent, which is of course nonsense. You wouldn't accept this argument for five seconds in relation to sexual conduct. So why is it any more robust in relation to other aspects of human behvaiour? The whole human experience is about dealing with shades of grey.

[Andrew Lilico]

Malcolm,

The question of whether public service delivery is to be via homogeneous government-ordered mechanisms or via heterogeneous, including faith-based mechanisms is a policy matter, not a matter of conscience.

Furthermore, some matters that involve conscience are not given free votes, because to have the "wrong" opinion on the matter and unwilling to vote against oneself would place one outside Conservatism. For example, perhaps there are Conservative MPs that are opposed to nuclear weapons - should there be a free vote on that? Some MPs are in favour of ID cards - should there be a free vote on that?

There are many reasons Conservatives should oppose the over-riding of the Catholic adoption agencies. I disagree with the Editor that the protection of religious liberty is central in the case of the adoption agencies (though it may well be important in other parts of the Bill) - it is a pure policy judgement how we deliver public services, and a Socialist is entitled to believe in monolithic provision without being an opponent of religious liberty. But, by the same token, since we disagree with him about how public services are to be delivered, we must vote against this Bill - and do so on a whipped vote.

[Sean Fear]

"Editor - please explain how Christian groups arguing for an exemption from the law are different from Muslim groups arguing for the same thing (i.e. to be allowed to practice Sharia law)."

I'm willing to be corrected by someone with greater knowledge of Islam than I have, but I don't think there's anything in English law that positively requires Muslims to act against their religious teachings.

Islamic law does not *require* Muslims to practice polygamy, nor does it require the secular State to prescribe the punishments laid down in the Koran.

But Muslims are quite at liberty to submit personal disputes to the arbitration of Islamic courts, and to leave their property in accordance with Islamic custom.

[Deborah]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I understand that Catholic agencies refer gays to other agencies at the moment. It they were required by law to do so, would that still be a problem?

[TomTom]

Under this regulation can a church refuse to have in its membership homosexual couples?

If not then the RC could just create a membership system and use that to exclude who it did not want.

You really are mad....the EU Directive has exemptions for religious associations

The British Govt has gold-plated yet another EU Directive.

As for Sharia Law whatever that might be....elements of it are currently in use in England for settlement of many disputes coming under the heading of mediation services

[Sean Fear]

I don't think there's any realistic option but to have a free vote on this.

On the merits of this, as far as I'm concerned, Simon Newman, Andrew Lilico, and Tory T say all that needs to be said.

The wider issue though is much more important. Namely, whether equality legislation, as currently drafted, does more harm than good.

[TomTom]

So if I read these "Conservatives" correctly there is no higher law than conformity with the laws enacted by Parliament ?

There is no morality higher than the written law ?

There is no other possibility than the Order of a Court or a Quango in implementing an EU Directive ?

It is good that we have established the Moral Code of the Conservative Party 2007

[Henry Cook]

Perhaps the editor would do well to point out that while this is indeed a very important issue, Cameron has taken a far more constructive view than the previous leader to be faced with it.

When Duncan Smith confronted the adoption issue, he imposed a three-line whip, leading to the humiliating 'unite or die' press conference. Cameron has on the other hand promised a free vote, so that MPs such as Duncan Smith and Widdecombe can vote as they please. Equally, those who have strong views on gay rights can vote with their consciences. How is this a contentious position? There is no reason for this to be a party political issue - after all, even a Lib Dem backing the Catholic Church.

At least Cameron is allowing his MPs to vote according to their consciences rather than trying to dictate the line on an issue where many people have strong views.

[changetowin]

Exactly, Henry. But then the Editor of this site may well have been advising IDS at the terrible time you refer to. What a shame he seems to have learned nothing from it.

Michael, I've read the texts you're referring to. Perhaps you should read Barry's Culture and Equality, which is an eloquent liberal plea for equality under the law against multicultural arguments for group-based exclusions from laws.

[Denis Cooper]

Liberal conservative @ 10:46 - more correctly, Christian groups are arguing for an exemption UNDER the law, an exemption incorporated WITHIN the law, not an exemption FROM the law. Changetowin also seems to have difficulty grasping that while one law may be intentionally drafted to apply to all and not allow any exceptions from its provisions, another law may still apply to all but allow certain exceptions for specified individuals or groups. Take two contrasting examples.

The law to prevent the solicitation of murder was obviously deliberately written to be comprehensive. Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Section 4:

"Whosoever shall solicit, encourage, persuade or endeavour to persuade, or shall propose to any person, to murder any other person, whether he be a subject of her Majesty or not, and whether he be within the Queen's dominions or not, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for life."

There were no legal exemptions built into this law - nothing like:

"provided only that those who are of the Mohammedan or Moslem faith shall not be subject to prosecution or any other legal proceedings under this Section"

added on at the end - and if the police and CPS turn a blind eye to Muslims who solicit murder then they are being given an illegal exemption.

On the other hand, the police are allowed to break the speed limit if necessary not because they are above the law, or because they can act outside of the law, or because "there's one law for the police and another for the rest of us", or even because they have an exemption FROM the relevant law, but because they are specifically exempted UNDER that law:

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 - Section 87:

“No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for which it is being used on that occasion”

I don't see the problem with deliberately and transparently allowing exceptions within the law when there's a good case for doing so; I can see a lot of problems with the idea that there should never be any legal exemptions.

[Richard]

"In a free and democratic society it is unacceptable for a hotel to refuse entry to someone because they are black or disabled."

Firstly, many advocates of freedom believe that private organisations should be free to discriminate. Secondly, what if a democratic majority favours discrimination?

The answer to this issue is to do away with all the anti-discrimination legislation that has been passed since the 1960s and allow consenting adults to deal with each other on whatever terms they please. anybody indulging in discriminatory behaviour can risk social ostracism and being put out of business instead of the government having to spend money on prosecuting them.

[Michael McGowan]

More sniping at IDS, Changetowin? How sad. How long do you need for your rancour to subside?

You may have read Mill but you clearly don't understand or agree with his core thinking. You still claim the right to use the law to impose your views on others and then have the gall to accuse them of intolerance.
I did not argue for a group-based exclusion from the law.....so we can dismiss that straw man. I argued that the law should shy away from requiring INDIVIDUALS to act according to their conscience. As you have not responded, I assume that you would indeed coerce the Catholic doctor, the Quaker and the Sikh in my earlier example. Unlike you, I do not believe that the personal is political. I also do not believe that the law has any particular weight in matters of personal morality, least of all in the British Parliamentary system which is an elective dictatorship were most of the electorate are disenfranchised.

[changetowin]

Michael,

With things like the Sikh I've answered on a different thread that I would not have that particular law. If there's a strong enough case against motorcycle helmets that we can give an exemption to Sikhs then we shouldn't have the law at all.

The honourable position for you to take would be to argue against the whole idea of this law. I would at least have some respect for this.

As for the IDS stuff, it is entirely relevant to this debate on this site. The Editor of this site was a chief advisor to IDS and remains close to him. IDS split our party unnecessarily by imposing a three line whip on a matter of conscience. Today the Editor of this site is advocating that we repeat the mistake. Shouldn't we try to learn from the IDS case and improve? Do you think that the way IDS dealt with this was good for our party? And don't you think there's something a little odd about preaching the importance of freedom of conscience and then advocating the imposition of a three line whip on a matter of conscience?!

[edmund]

What I'm missing by all the three or 4 people arguing in favour of this dreadfull legislation is argument. The point is about giving the Catholic church an exemption the point is about freedom of conscin e. that is people should not be forced to priviledge relationshipss they disapprove off.What conservative principal is served by this legislation respect for relgion? i don't have to answer that do I? respect for tradition? ditto. Resepct for indivial liberty-not at all this is all about ending peoples freedom to do as they want. If someone who loves homosexuality has such a little respect for freedom of assocation as to support this bill. Could somone who disapproves (which is still about half the population) equally well argue for banning it under the same logic? I don't like it-let's ban it.

[Andrew Lilico]

One part of the Editor's piece that hasn't had much discussion here is his suggestion that this is politically important. I think that he could be right in that. Cameron has, on previous occasions, regularly annoyed his intellectuals and confused his grass roots. But it doesn't seem to me that his previous manoeuvres will have particularly alienated him from his grass roots - even if they thought his positions confusing, strange, or reflecting metropolitan eccentricities, they didn't particularly strongly *disagree*.

But on this issue, I think most ordinary Conservatives will just disagree with him and think it's not a matter of clever politics, but being plain wrong.

And this, on an issue that appeared, only a couple of days ago, an open goal for us, where splits in the Labour Party were the story. What should have been a strong issue for us, showing the merits of our diverse and tolerant approach versus the inflexible one-size-fits-all approach of Socialists, getting our little platoons agenda into the public mind, he has managed to turn into a big internal split.

I think Cameron has screwed up, and will be damaged by this. Not badly. Not fatally. Not permanently. But he's going to need to get some things right soon if he wants to recover quickly.

[changetowin]

Cameron is a liberal Conservative. He realised that he couldn't give a speech in Birmingham about the dangers of multiculturalism and then support exemptions for faith groups from British laws on the same day!

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

I can't see the point of this thread - was it really necessary after already having two threads on the subject? Arguments For and Against are just being repeated. I know people disagree with me, but the language used against gays has been horribly depressing. I do actually have time for Tim (I think he has toned down his views a bit from when I first discovered him back in the mid-90's) but why do you want this story to run and run? Cameron has made his decision and will stick to it. The rest of the parliamentary party will have a free vote; a good compromise. To have given UKUP trolls and others a third opportunity to bash gays under a 'debate' heading has served the Party no purpose at all. We can kiss goodbye to the three Brighton seats!

[Denis Cooper]

You really mean exemptions for faith groups UNDER British laws. Which I do not object to, in principle, provided a good case for a legal exemption is made. On your reasoning, we would either have no speed limits, and more of us would die on the roads, or we would insist that fire engines must observe the speed limits and more of us would die in fires because the fire brigade was too slow to arrive.

[Michael McGowan]

Changetowin,

I'm not particularly interested in what you regard as an "honourable" position. I just prefer coherence: honour I can take or leave - especially lectures on honour from the acolytes of Francis Maude and Michael Portillo. I note that you have failed to advance any compelling reason why Parliament should have unlimited rights to compel individuals (not groups) to act according to their consciences. You have sidestepped, not addressed, instances where you must be objecting to legalised dissent on grounds of conscience. Pacifist conscientious objection is clearly such a case. In wartime, a country clearly needs a conscript army so a law compelling conscription cannot be avoided (unlike, maybe a law about motor cycle helmets). Hence, if you are to be consistent, you must jail conscientious objectors. Ditto doctors who refuse to perform abortions because I rather doubt if you would argue that a law allowing abortion is unnecessary in the first place.

I thought IDS' three-line whip on gay adoption was an error but I was never under any illusions about the real motives of most of those who used it as a stick to beat him with. I do hope that IDS and his wife sue over Betsygate. It would throw a long overdue spotlight on the sheer unpleasantness of some of those who claim to represent the modern and liberal wing of the Conservative Party.

[changetowin]

Michael you're the one taking us way off topic and the one obsessed with fighting the battles of old. The party voted for change - this IDS stuff/adoption rows/cv fiddling stuff is old hat. I agreed with Henry's mention of the IDS adoption row because it was an example of how NOT to deal with this sort of issue of conscience. It was pertinent to the debate at hand, especially given the Editor's position as IDS's chief advisor. All your stuff about Maude/Portillo is totally irrelevant and shows your obsession with the past.

[Nicholas Bennett]

Editor, you rightly identify the central issue that of religious freedom and of conscience.

Whether or not people think that the Catholic Church's view that the homosexual ct is immoral', that is their view (and the view of other mainstream Christian and non Christian faiths). It is a belief based on a coherent philosophical foundation which has been consistently held since the foundation of the Church.

I am sorry that my good friend Richard Willis thinks it is bigotry; we will have to agree to disagree. However Richard and those who share his views are not satisfied with that position. Tolerance and acceptance of other people's beliefs, the hallmark of a democratic, plural society seem to be thrown out of the window on this issue. The Catholic Church must deny its teaching and act in a way which is contrary to the values it holds so as to provide a service to people who clearly do not share the Church's values.

Why?

[Michael McGowan]

I don't care what the Party voted for. I don't belong to it, thankfully.

Your last sentence simply shows your desire to whitewash some rather nasty people who are now running for office on a platform which proclaims that they are something different.... I am quite keen that the public should not be conned and should see these people in their true light. I am still waiting for an answer about how you would deal with conscientious objectors and doctors who won't perform abortions. As you haven't come up with one, I conclude you have no answer to my objections.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

"I don't care what the Party voted for. I don't belong to it, thankfully." Hurrah! Stop posting on this site, haven't you got a UKUPHome to go to?

[changetowin]

Once again, we've flushed out the fact that this site is "home" to a UKIP-BNP-anti-Tory rump. It is a cold house for modern compassionate Conservatives.

[changetowin]

And before you get all upset, those dashes can act as slashes!

[Gospel of Enoch]

"At least Cameron is allowing his MPs to vote according to their consciences rather than trying to dictate the line on an issue where many people have strong views."

Many people also have strong views on BOO membership. Why couldn't Camerloon fulfil his ledaership election pledge on that, rather than trying to dictate the line?

[Michael McGowan]

Justin, I appreciate that this involves dragging you into the 21st Century along with Changetowinbutwhatsthepoint? but there are many many people of a centre-rightish persuasion who have never belonged tothe Conservative Party and don't necessarily think it represents their thinking. They may simply not vote at the next election, just as they have not at the least three. I know you will do anything for power and office but the Tory Party doesn't own people or their votes. The feudal system and the politics of middle class deference to Tories are over. Get with it. Your obsession with UKIP and the BNP simply illustrates your own paranoia. In particular, why would I would want to vote for the BNP, a National Socialist Party? I am not a National Socialist.

Changetowin is neither modern nor compassionate, so he is right but not in the sense .

[Puzzled]

Change To Win Once again, we've flushed out the fact that this site is "home" to a UKIP-BNP-anti-Tory rump. It is a cold house for modern compassionate Conservatives.

Changetowin keeps promising to leave CH forever, but somehow never does. Perhaps he/she could tell me the address of the pro-DC mass readership compassionate Conservative blog where all the real Tories go?

The truth is out there, and I want to believe.

[lucy74]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I understand that Catholic agencies refer gays to other agencies at the moment. It they were required by law to do so, would that still be a problem? - Deborah at 11.07am

You are indeed right. At a meeting of a Catholic lobby group yesterday, they agreed that they already do this informally but to have it written down would not be possible. When asked why morality should be different when unwritten or written, they had no answer!

[changetowin]

Michael, you call me Changetowinbutwhatsthepoint?

For Conservatives, the point of winning is because we think we would serve our country better than this discredited and anchorless government. Since you're not a Conservative, I am less puzzled than I use to be about why you wonder why I want the Conservatives to win an election. Winning is one of the central goals of a political party, after all!

I post on this site from time to time, puzzled one, to show those who come to this site to hear the views of Conservatives, that this site is completely unrepresentative of the modern Conservative Party. Indeed many of those who post regularly are not party members or are in UKIP-BNP.

[RodS]

"Editor - please explain how Christian groups arguing for an exemption from the law are different from Muslim groups arguing for the same thing (i.e. to be allowed to practice Sharia law)"

The difference is that Christian groups are rooted in a 1,000 years of turbulent Anglo/saxon history and are part of the fabric of what was an identifiable culture. Muslim groups are recent immigrants who having arrived seek to replicate what they left behind - not by creating their own little ex-pat world but by usurping the culture they have joined.

Cameron is wrong on Gay Adoption not just as a specific issue but what it says about his politics. As Max Hastings says of him approvingly 'he is a Social Democrat' That's fine but as a Conservative Party leader, he is a fake.

[John Wilkinson]

Good question Puzzled. But what I want to know's a bit different. What on earth are the high powered, politically-sensitive jobs that Changetowin and Tory T must have, that they daren't express their loyalty to the leader under their own names?

[Michael McGowan]

Ah, the Tories are so clearly going to do a better job than this discredited and anchorless government? Well, you believe that if it gives you comfort. We only have your word for it that this site is unrepresentative of the modern Conservative Party. In any case, so what? It is a debating forum. Anyone can show up. Tim is a very tolerant host.

I do not want Labour to win the next election. Whether I want the Tories to win a working majority is another matter. At the moment, the answer is "no" because they are not up to the job. That may change.

[Richard]

"I post on this site from time to time, puzzled one, to show those who come to this site to hear the views of Conservatives, that this site is completely unrepresentative of the modern Conservative Party. Indeed many of those who post regularly are not party members or are in UKIP-BNP."

Are you suggesting that people in favour of the Catholic opt-our are unrepresentative of the Conservative Party? Or even the wider electorate? Not what the polling evidence is showing!

[Richard]

"I post on this site from time to time, puzzled one, to show those who come to this site to hear the views of Conservatives, that this site is completely unrepresentative of the modern Conservative Party. Indeed many of those who post regularly are not party members or are in UKIP-BNP."

Are you suggesting that people in favour of the Catholic opt-our are unrepresentative of the Conservative Party? Or even the wider electorate? Not what the polling evidence is showing!

[Richard]

"I post on this site from time to time, puzzled one, to show those who come to this site to hear the views of Conservatives, that this site is completely unrepresentative of the modern Conservative Party. Indeed many of those who post regularly are not party members or are in UKIP-BNP."

Are you suggesting that people in favour of the Catholic opt-our are unrepresentative of the Conservative Party? Or even the wider electorate? Not what the polling evidence is showing!

[TomTom]

"I don't care what the Party voted for. I don't belong to it, thankfully." Hurrah! Stop posting on this site, haven't you got a UKUPHome to go to?

Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | January 30, 2007 at 12:52

You are increasingly puerile Justin Hinchliffe. If this site depended upon Conservative Party members alone it would be an insignificant little blog which would die within 3 months.

If only Conservative members voted Conservative I doubt it would win a parliamentary seat anywhere.

The problem with people like yourself is that you are running personal fan clubs which have little impact on the general public who wish to avoid at all costs the unrepresentative groupies who gt their kicks in political parties.

Maybe if you could emerge from the hall of mirrors you might realise the political party members are like those who get elated over crop-circles.

This site is a discussion site which gives some feedback to the Conservative Party but in fact creates a discussion forum in a moribund political environment where the public is turning to other parties and the discontent is great.

So rather than be quite so insulting to people who do not share your enthusiasms a little bit of respect for contrary opinions and reasoned discussion might suggest that political debate is not conducted with paintballs

[TomTom]

Since you're not a Conservative, I am less puzzled than I use to be about why you wonder why I want the Conservatives to win an election. Winning is one of the central goals of a political party, after all!

Yes and it has to win votes so it does not require people to be members to vote....

The Representation of the People Acts have never specified that only members of political parties can vote in elections......in fact political parties are in essence anti-democratic cartels and are not recognised under our constitution

I do not expect to buy shares before I shop at Sainsbury

[Liberal Conservative]

Editor I still await a response - if a Muslim charity asked for an exemption from the law to allow them to discriminate against women, would that be ok?

Any answer that effectively says Christianity is 'our' religion while Islam is 'theirs' is frankly neither acceptable not intellectually coherent.

[changetowin]

Sorry TomTom. To clarify, the person I was referring to does not even want the Conservatives to win the next election. Of course it is fine to debate with people of all parties and none, but I think people should realise that "Conservative Home" is populated by many UKIP-BNP-anti Tory voices... Unfortunately the media has a habit of conflating these bigots with Conservatives given the name of this site and its claim to represent Conservative grassroots.

[Yet Another Anon]

Hawks are disappointed that defence is a lower spending priority than the NHS
This actually started back in the 1980's and has intensified since.

in fact political parties are in essence anti-democratic cartels and are not recognised under our constitution
Short Money and Cranbourne Money are based on party groupings and also allocation of places on Select Committees as well is heavily influenced by party groupings and the loss of the Conservative Majority during the Major years even while it was only because of the whip having been withdrawn over the Maastricht Treaty, had implications for allocations of positions.

[TomTom]

Editor I still await a response - if a Muslim charity asked for an exemption from the law to allow them to discriminate against women, would that be ok?

Any answer that effectively says Christianity is 'our' religion while Islam is 'theirs' is frankly neither acceptable not intellectually coherent.

Stop dreaming up ridiculous cases. Of course Islam treats women differently, it has different inheritance rules, different education, and different entrances to mosques and separate prayers. Women cannot be imams.

What is the point you wish to make ?

The fact is that adoption was not regulated in this country before 1927. In most cases families took care of it themselves - after all the big Catholic influx came with the Irish coming to work in textile towns in Northern England and Scotland after the potato famine.

The Catholic Church revived in the 19th Century and built up social services for its adherents who were in most cases poor and depended upon their Church for help rather than be forced into the Workhouse - which was not abolished until Chamberlain did so in the 1930s.

It seems perfectly reasonable that a Catholic should want their child brought up as such and adopted by other Catholics.

Under Islam adoption is regulated by The Koran and the child cannot be adopted by another man while his real father lives, nor can he assume a new family name. He is in trust and entrusted to his new guardians.

The simple fact is that Northern cities were hell on earth for working class people living in tenements and dying young from typhoid or industrial accidents, that Catholics coming there from Ireland could feel their Church would ensure their children would be brought up in the Faith is perfectly reasonable.

The problem here seems to be a supreme ignorance and contempt towards those who developed working class solutions to dire problems before the bourgeois therapy buraucrats suddenly decided they and their franchiser, the State decided it knew best.

We are being taken over by a professional caste who wish to make everyone their client and render them powerless so they have absolute control and promote their own agendas

[John Wilkinson]

Could Changetowin - or Tory T of course - give us even a hint about why their jobs/families/whatever will be at risk, should they dare, publicly, to agree with Cameron on this site? It's very mysterious that neither of them can.

[Denis Cooper]

"... if a Muslim charity asked for an exemption from the law to allow them to discriminate against women, would that be ok?"

If a Muslim charity asks for the law to include an exemption to allow them to treat women differently from men, that request should be considered on its merits.

Do you have anything specific in mind, Liberal Conservative?

[Michael McGowan]

Changetowin, would you mind repeating what I think you just said i.e. that I am a "bigot" because at present I do not think the Conservative Party is up to the job of running the country? A view which seems to be shared by the 60+% of people who even on the most favourable opinion polls have no current intention of voting Tory? You and your fellow sect members really don't learn, do you? Does Tescos win more customers by abusing them for shopping at Sainsburys or Morrisons?

[Oliver McCarthy]

I've been a supporter of David Cameron since August 2005. Now I cannot in good conscience support him anymore, I hope the Tories lose the next election (and they almost certainly will), and I hope the Tories get rid of Cameron as quickly as possible. It is sad that we are probably going to have been six and eight years of Gordon Brown as PM, but that's the price we're going to have to pay for any progress for conservatism in this country. As usual, this is something that the Tories have done to themselves.

[spagbob]

i fully agree with a lot of what cameron is doing. but i am a christian and my faith must come before political allegiances in voting for a government. before the last few days i had no doubt in my mind who i would be voting for, but cameron's support for this christophobic threat to religious freedom has now made me stop and consider voting for another party. this will be be a disaster for the conservatives getting the votes of christians like me. at least cameron is allowing a free vote on the issue though. still maybe it would be better for us to vote for the Christian People's Alliance.

[Oliver McCarthy]

It's funny, changetowin, but until yesterday evening I was at least a Tory supporter and I was a Cameronista. Now I'm not. I daresay Mr Cameron won't lose any sleep over this, but you can hardly complain that there are so many UKIPpers and BNP-types floating around when actual conservatives no longer have a party to vote for.

[Oliver McCarthy]

All this stuff about free votes leaves me cold. The Socialists are solidly beind their agenda. Having a free vote just makes the Tories look weak, and it underlines the point that Cameron is out of step on this issue not just with fifty per cent of the public and three thousand years of traditional morality but also with a substantial minority in his own party.

[spagbob]

i also wonder - what is the reason for this new law, gay people arent discriminated against in this country. only people who think that gay practice is wrong discriminate against them, and only then in a few cases that involve gay practices e.g. giving a gay couple a hotel room, allowing them to adopt children e.t.c. why do we need these rules - the only possible people who would be affected by the rules are those with religious beliefs - therefore was this law specifically designed to anger religious people and assault their beleifs, because i cannot see any other instance where it would be applicable?

[malcolm]

Absolute rubbish Oliver. You said yesterday that you were considering voting for the BNP or Respect! Hardly the behaviour of any Tory and certainly not a 'Cameronista'. I have noticed various outrageous comments from you before on this site all of them extremely critical.

[Richard]

I have to confess I find myself agreeing with Justin in wondering why we have yet another thread on this issue.

[Paul Damask]

The real question is: Is it right that New Labour should be saying, as they are in effect: "The only consciences that matter are those of us, New Labour, based on totally secular premises"? The answer to that is "No, it is not right" (unless you believe that the approach of Stalinist Russia was right).

The Catholic Church has a reasonable and balanced view. There is "UNJUST discrimination" (my emphasis) - example: "I will not employ you in my factory because you are gay". Unjust discrimination of that sort is wrong. But there may be circumstances where other factors make such a difference as to render the discrimination not unjust. An example of this is adoption.

If you believe (as Catholics do) that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered", then you will be acting in deep defiance of your beliefs and your conscience if, as an adoption agency, you place a child in a same-sex environment that is likely to teach him/her, by example, that such acts are objectively okay. You just cannot do it. It is not a matter of hating homosexuals; your faith tells you that you should love them. It is a matter of being true to your conscience - not in regard to the would-be adopters as persons, but in relation to acts which you do not believe to be morally neutral, and in pursuance of what you consider to be your solemn duty to the child.

This Government won't tolerate any distinction between just and unjust discrimination. ALL discrimination, they arbitrarily say, is unjust and must be criminalized, with penalties under criminal law. When they say that, they are really saying to Christians and others: "Our, the Government's secular criteria shall be obeyed, not your Church's or your God's."

[Andrew Lilico]

"... if a Muslim charity asked for an exemption from the law to allow them to discriminate against women, would that be ok?"

I suspect that I would accept a number of contexts in which Muslim or other groups wanted to discriminate against women, or groups wanting to discriminate against men. For example, suppose that a Muslim group wanted to occupy young men that might otherwise fall in with a bad crowd, by providing them with swimming training, but because it specialised in men it excluded women. I would allow this. Would you forbid it?

Again, perhaps a slightly trickier case - suppose that a Muslim charity wanted to offer free adventure driving courses to young women, but took the view that young women should not drive men, and so refused men entry onto the course (since all the instructors were women). Again, I would allow this. Would you forbid it?

However, believing that we should use faith groups in delivering public services does not mean that we have to support just *any* faith group. For example, we wouldn't have to provide public money for Scientologist drug rehabilitation centres. But if the Catholic Church were not "in", then it is hard to understand who would be supposed to be.

[Oliver McCarthy]

Re: changetowin's post at 10.05

Don't worry, buddy. None of the Catholic adoption agencies is going to close.

What the Catholic bishops hoped to do was to contain the scandal as much as possible by getting an exemption from the new regulations. (Presumably they've got nothing against hiring out church-halls for gay discos and things!) They were ill-advised, as usual, and so of course they've failed.

What will happen in the end will be one of two things: either the "Catholic" adoption agencies will cut their official ties with the Catholic Church; or the Catholic Church will just wait until Cormac retires, and after that it will go on doing what it's being doing since Vatican II -- i.e. it will completely ignore the whole issue, and if Rome tries to interfere then the bishops will ignore that as well.

[Oliver McCarthy]

Yes, obviously it would be prudent to give Muslim charities the same dispensations when it comes to matters of conscience as the Government ought to have given to the Catholic Church. That is what tolerance means.

It's always a bad idea for politicians to turn against people on the grounds of their religion. But irreligious politicians like the present Government are quick to forget these basic lessons of history.

Shush! Here comes a suicide-bomber! La-la-la!

(I've e-mailed Mr Dunn a couple of times now and I'm still waiting for a reply. He does seem to lie in wait for me here. Perhaps we should both get proper jobs!)

[Jon Gale]

From the other day:

"Multiculturalism as it stands is a divisive force: "For many years, the ruling class in this country believed in something called multiculturalism. Multiculturalism sounds like a good thing: people of different cultures living together. But it has been manipulated to favour a divisive idea - the right to difference… instead of promoting a unifying idea - the right for everyone to be treated equally despite their differences.

And no doubt most people on this site nodded their heads in agreement. Who here thinks multiculturalism has worked?

But then the Catholic adoption saga rumbles on and suddenly (cynics might say because it involves Christians) the majority of posters are arguing that minority religious groups cannot be compelled to do things they dont agree with and various groups should have opt-outs from the law if they dont like it. One law for Group A, one law for Group B.

Sorry but in a choice between upsetting Catholic adoption agencies (4% of adoptions - anyone might think it was more from all the fuss) or continuing and deepening the farce of multiculturalism, I know what I choose (Ideally this new law wouldn't exist of course).

[lucy74]

"...only too happy to farm out vulnerable children to be corrupted by immoral perverts."

Oliver McCarthy @ 14.51:

Who are the "immoral perverts" that you refer to?

[Oliver McCarthy]

I know this is off-topic, but it does apply to more than one person here and the attitudes they've been expressing (e.g. changetowin, Mr Dunn and Mr Hinchcliffe). I don't understand why you're so happy that David Cameron has alienated so many of his supporters.

Ordinary Tories voted for David Cameron: my mother and brother both voted for him, with my approval, and had I still been a member of the Party (i.e. had it not been for Michael Howard) then I'd have voted for him as well. What's to be gained by making it impossible for us to support him in clear conscience?

Are you really sure that this stunt is going to attract more people than it alienates? (I think anyone in business and retail would confirm that it's better to maintain customer loyalty than it is to alienate old customers and try to reach out to new ones simutaneously.)

[Oliver McCarthy]

Yes, I'd certainly choose the British multicultural model over the French and American laicite/integration model any day.

Homosexuality is perverse and immoral, lucy. (You and I may agree to differ on that.) Homosexuals are immoral perverts. (Ditto.)