A new dawn for gay people in the Church of England?

From Reuters Tue Feb 28, 2012

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.
Photograph: Andrew Winning/Reuters

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, spiritual head of the global Anglican communion, stepped on Tuesday into a row which is flaring at the U.N. Human Rights Council over the persecution of gays and lesbians.

Williams, who has faced strong opposition from parts of his own church especially in Africa for his stance on gays, did not directly refer to the current controversy at the Council, according to the text of a speech prepared for delivery at the Geneva-based World Council of Churches (WCC).

However, he said laws against sexual minorities were equivalent to racism, and warned that legal regulation of consensual sexual conduct "can be both unworkable and open to appalling abuse - intimidation and blackmail."

 Reuters is concerned with the developing stand-off in the UN with Pakistan, on behalf of the 57-nation Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC), opposed to the convening of the panel and refusing to accept any recommendations that it might issue.

How will Rowan's comments play with his friends in the Vatican?

More domestically, does this mean we will now see the removal of formal and informal barriers to homosexuals' participation in the Church of England? Is it possible that gay people can be full members of the Church?

Or will we have a justification of the Archbishop of Canterbury's expression of one set of views in an international forum (which are believed to be his personal views) - while continuing to endorse, support and enact attitudes 'equivalent to racism' in the Church of which he is head?

So who leaked the Jeffrey John papers?

Martin Reynolds

Martin Reynolds has a different and authentic sounding analysis of the Jeffrey John affair - or rather the way the story was leaked, spun and misconstrued.  See the comments section of the Thinking Anglicans report of press coverage.

In Colin Coward's view

It seems clear that it was a conservative member of the Southwark CNC, hostile to the candidacy of a gay priest and a man married to a divorcee, who revealed that Jeffrey John and Nicholas Holtam were on the shortlist in an attempt to sabotage the appointment of either.

No names there, then.

And Coward's conclusion seems incontrovertable:

Changing Attitude’s view [is] that senior officials in the Church are attempting to prevent any progress that might result in a change in attitude and practice in the church. They are blocking appointments, inhibiting discussion, overruling General Synod’s right to determine policy and ensuring slow to no progress in reviewing House of Bishops’ policy.

In this catalogue the legal opinion on the appointment of gay bishops is a key document. But a legal opinion is only an opinion. Those acting in the capacity of trustees must take seriously such advice as they are given. They are also entitled to seek another opinion, were they so minded.

But until any such opinion is tested in the courts it remains only advice. It may be persuasive but it is not definitive.

Jeffrey John story largely speculation?

Jim Naughton at Episcopal Cafe has a different story to Sunday's headlines.

I admit, I'm disappointed. I had thought that legal action might force the Church to revise its practice. But I also wish to keep the record straight, so to speak.

Jeffrey John

Naughton cites Andrew Brown's (Correction: Sam Brown's) article in The Guardian. Though this hedges its bets (with a very cautious opening paragraph and, later, 'News of John's apparent decision to challenge his employers') nonetheless it does seem to rest on the presumption that John is preparing to sue.

In The Independent Jerome Taylor goes over the same ground, pointing out that no-one is happy. Neither conservatives nor liberals like the compromise the Church is trying to pursue. The Archbishop of Canterbury and other leaders know its a precarious position to try to hold and would not want put it at the top of the agenda by a law suit.

But some liberals believe now is precisely the time for them to force the issue. "We are determined to campaign for full equality right now," says Colin Coward, director of Changing Attitude, the most prolific, pro-gay lobby within the Church. "There is no sense of urgency among Church leaders. But the Church is sick, it needs to be fixed right away."

The Independent also has a leader article:

The office of a bishop is weighty in the Church. Charged with acting as a focus of unity and with upholding doctrine, the post is supposed to be prayerfully accepted rather than actively sought, which is why reports that the Dean of St Albans may sue the Church of England for discrimination over its refusal to make him a bishop will have shocked the Anglican hierarchy to its core.

Well, possibly, maybe not. But the leader does point out the contradiction of being a state church whilst also trying to avoid the application of the state's legislation. Now disestablishment really would shock the hierarchy.

Naughton's piece has a quote from a different Andrew Brown article in The Guardian to the one cited above. This sets out why John cannot win.

Last year the Church of England published a legal opinion that makes it quite clear that it believes it is legal to discriminate against John, not because he is gay, since he is also celibate, but because he is not in the least bit ashamed of being gay. That is what sticks in the craw of the conservative evangelicals who oppose him. They have moved on from supposing that it is absolutely wrong to be gay. They now believe that it is OK to be gay providing that you are very unhappy about it.

Guardian journalist, Andrew Brown

... the real point is found in the apparently balanced statements of disagreement. "It is clear that a significant number of Anglicans, on grounds of strongly held religious conviction, believe that a Christian leader should not entire into a civil partnership, even if celibate … it is equally clear that many other Anglicans believe it is appropriate that clergy who are gay by orientation entire into civil partnerships." [from the legal opinion on the appointment of gay bishops, para. 26.]

This formulation gives the game away. It is only conservative evangelical opinion which is described as "strongly held religious conviction". The liberals merely "believe it is appropriate", with the implication that their beliefs on this are not religious at all.

This kind of nonsense was dealt with decades ago where women priests were concerned. What needs saying, loud and clear, is that the case for liberalism here is every bit as religious, and as theologically informed, as the case for the conservatives.

Exactly. Liberals are too nice and that is mistaken for a lack of strength of conviction, a lack of passion, and insufficient willingness to clarify fudges. 

Jeffrey John to sue the Church of England

The Very Rev Jeffrey John,
Dean of St Albans

[Update here - a less straightforward story, it seems.]

I think the Sunday Times and the Mail both had this story but, except behind the paywall, the Mail got online first:

'I'll sue Church of England if it bars me from being bishop,' says gay dean

The Very Rev Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans, has instructed an eminent employment lawyer to complain to Church officials after being rejected for the role of Bishop of Southwark.

It's a very interesting move and I'm happy to bet that the CofE will settle out of court rather than face a full hearing. 

The court will, I suspect, have regard to two issues. The first is that of discrimination. Second, the extent to which the Church has followed its own rules. 

Inevitably this touches on the clash between the desire of (some in) the Church to place its structural prejudices in front of human rights. 

However the view that there is no bar to the preferment of gay people who are celibate was recently set out in a formal legal opinion by William Fittal (Guardian article, the opinion - pdf). It will also do John's case no harm that a memo by Colin Slee was later prepared (and leaked) setting out the appalling manner in which the appointment committee was conducted.

Slee said of the meeting: "We had two very horrible days in which I would say both archbishops behaved very badly. The meeting was not a fair consideration at all; they were intent on wrecking both Jeffrey John and Nick Holtam equally, despite the fact that their CVs were startlingly in an entirely different and better league than the other two candidates …

I would guess that the CofE will be liable for considerable damages. 

Assuming John wins his case, whether in the tribunal or outside it, the question then will be: would the Church prefer to keep barring gay people from posts and keep paying compensation, or will it change its recruitment process to ensure that (at least celibate) gay people are not discriminated against?

We shall see.

(Pink News and the Guardian also picked up the story. And I nearly missed MadPriest.)

The death of a pioneer

From the New York Times:

The Rev. Mary Michael Simpson, the first Episcopal nun to be ordained a priest and the first ordained woman to preach a sermon in Westminster Abbey, died Wednesday in Augusta, Ga. She was 85.....Even though the Church of England said it had no official objection to women joining the priesthood in the Anglican Communion — which includes the Episcopal Church — lay opinion and the private views of the clergy were often more conservative. By 1978, women had become priests in Anglican Communion churches in the United States, Canada and New Zealand, but not yet in the United Kingdom.

Canon Simpson addressed the issue directly in a sermon at Westminster Abbey on April 2, 1978, in which she asserted that the church treated women like “second-class Christians.”
“Christian creativity for the present age must not depend on male leaders,” she told a gathering of about 700 people. “Woman’s contribution — from women properly trained and authorized — is essential.”

...

And as a male in the church, I say Amen.

Drought is natural, famine is not

Somalian women wait at a refugee centre in
Mogadishu in July 2011. Reuters

Paul Rogers comments on the famine in the horn of Africa:

Since the previous trans-national famine (1973-74), he says,

There have since been nearly four decades of “development”, with contrasting outcomes: the world has grown very much richer yet the great bulk of the new wealth has benefited the richest 1.5 billion in a global population that the United Nations estimates will reach 7 billion in October 2011. A far wealthier world is more divided, and contains nearly twice as many malnourished people, as was the case in the early 1970s. These facts alone are a damning criticism of the way the world economic system has evolved, and in particular of the neglect of food security for tens of millions of poor and vulnerable people.

Climate change will make things worse. 

See also: Brian Stewart's Famine in Africa: Global mismanagement of the first order

One inevitable consequence [I add] is that many more people will be forced to migrate. Yet the rich world's barriers against forced migration from the poorer world have been growing higher and higher.

It is a recipe for greater conflict.  How little can the wealthy world pay to keep the poor away from their doors and out of sight? 

NoW and British conservatism

William Davies in Hack-gate: the latest cultural contradiction of British conservatism? has an interesting take on the News of the World debacle, linking it to the 'unwieldy and self-destructive' character of British conservatism.

The inconsistency and incoherence of the rightwing tabloid press have always been part of its popular appeal and political strength, thereby harnessing the cultural contradictions of conservatism to its own advantage. It has represented the interests of big business and ‘white van man’ with equal gusto; it has portrayed society as decadent and lawless on one page, whilst celebrating hedonistic consumption on the next. It has demanded that the state look after the old and infirm in one editorial, then raged against the ‘nanny state’ in the next. Its exuberance lies in its irresponsibility. The tabloid media might almost have shared the motto of the French social theorist, Michel Foucault when he wrote “do not ask who I am and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order” – except that our bureaucrats and our police are now rapidly discovering that their papers are anything but in order.

While the rest of the conservative establishment was tearing itself apart in Thatcher and Reagan’s wake, the tabloid press was benefiting and growing in influence. When Conservative politicians were caught in sex scandals during the 1990s, the tabloids harnessed outrage to sell papers. When investment banks nearly collapsed the global economy in 2008, under the guise of market ‘efficiency’, the tabloids harnessed outrage to sell papers. Whether a teenager had committed murder or been murdered, The Sun and its cohort scarcely cared, so long as it was outrageous. The establishment could be represented as both institutionally racist (the Stephen Lawrence case) and institutionally liberal (the ‘flood’ of immigration), without any concern for consistency.

Free from the constraints of consistency or responsibility, the conservative media has been the great survivor of the ‘new right’ coalition that emerged in the 1970s, and fragmented in the 1990s. One question that hack-gate poses is how much longer it can retain this status.

All here.

And from the Guardian:

Police are investigating evidence that a News International executive may have deleted millions of emails from an internal archive, in an apparent attempt to obstruct Scotland Yard's inquiry into the phone-hacking scandal.

The archive is believed to have reached back to January 2005 revealing daily contact between News of the World editors, reporters and outsiders, including private investigators. The messages are potentially highly valuable both for the police and for the numerous public figures who are suing News International.

Now who would have thought that anyone would could behave in such a way in the days when one 'rogue reporter' and one 'rogue investigator' were held to be the extent of the problem?

NoW is yesterday

The sudden death of the News of the World has been announced.

Of course there are cynical suggestions as to why this step should have been taken. Perhaps it was a token gesture whereby the Sun on Sunday will imply replace it. Or maybe this is a fire break: to protect Murdoch and the rest of his businesses from taint or to evade a legal duty to compensate those the newspaper intruded on. Or both.

Tom Watson MP in full flood

However it is clear that we are not (and never were) talking about 'rogue operators'. The willingness to hack anyone and everyone, from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to a man who helped a victim of the 7/7 bombing was systemic.  A list of known names to date is here but up to 4,000 people may have been hacked and quite possibly more.

But what is clear is the complicity of all involved: the police, the DPP, politicians, David Cameron (assuming he was adequately briefed and if he wasn't he should have been) and his predecessors.

News of the World was effectively running a criminal enterprise (which included paying police officers and, in at least one case, full scale surveillance of a police officer). But it was powerful and no-one, until now, was prepared to take it on and had sufficient power to do so.  Nor was it alone either in hacking or in illegally paying for information though it may have been particularly egregious .

Complacency is the least of the accusations. News of the World staff appear to have regarded themselves as above the law. That others tolerated this constitutes corrupt relationships. Insofar as police and other individuals benefited from such relationships they are personally corrupt. Insofar as regulatory and prosecution authorities, including the police, have minimised or turned a blind eye they participate in and further such corruption.

So perhaps it's more accurate to say, the whole media-police-politics nexus is corrupt. But within that nexus not every individual is tainted. Tom Watson MP at least must count as one of the good guys in this matter.

White collar crime in New Zealand

st matthew-in-the-city, Aukland, petition

 

The Wardens, Vestry and Parishioners of St Matthew-in-the-City ask you to consider:

For many centuries gay and lesbian Christians have served the Anglican Church in positions of leadership. Most though have hidden their sexual orientation. In recent times however as Western society has become more accepting of difference many gay and lesbian Christians no longer wish to hide their orientation or their relationships. There are now a number of countries that provide sacred and legal opportunities for couples to commit themselves to each other for the long-term.

In 2004 the US Episcopal Church ordained as a bishop a priest in a same-sex relationship. Due to conservative opposition the Archbishop of Canterbury asked the American church and rest of the Anglican Communion to not ordain anyone bishop who was in a same-sex relationship until the entire Communion could find agreement.

As the Archbishop of Canterbury has no authority to impose such a moratorium on another bishop or jurisdiction it had to be complied with voluntarily. Initially it was. Vigorous debate ensued. Responding to these disputes many countries declared a state of impaired communion with the American Church. This was not surprising as most of those jurisdictions were in one of the 46 British Commonwealth countries that still criminalize same-sex relationships. In 2009 the Episcopal Church voted to resume ordaining as bishops candidates in committed same-sex relationships.

...

'the Archbishop of Canterbury has no authority to impose such a moratorium' nor in all the history of the Anglican Communion has he ever had. That lack of central authority - and centralised power - had been seen as a strength on the Communion. Because of it different Communions in different cultures could rub along nicely. There were frequent disagreements and some of these on occasions these became destabilising. Yet at the same time there was a huge amount of communication across differences, plenty of mutual listening, learning and respect. Different culture and spiritual traditions may all enrich the whole.

But the desire for centralised authority and power stems from the perception that difference is the problem and narrower conformity is the answer. Hence the Covenant.

The Covenant is designed (a) to grant the Archbishop authority over the whole Communion (albeit through his overlapping roles in the Communion's consultative structures rather than directly) and (b) to reduce the degree of difference between Churches - and to do so at the bidding of the loudest and most implacable voices.

I don't doubt that the the war over the nature of the church and the substance of its teaching (not least on issues of sexuality) has caused a lot of anger, pain and distress. The answer is not to be found in greater uniformity - the answer is to be found in greater comprehension (in the older Anglican sense) and deeper listening to the varieties of the one Spirit.

And, when I looked, I saw 'God, New Zealand' had recently signed the petition.

Genuine marriages only

The Church of England's Communication office seems very keen on (heterosexual) weddings (see yesterday's post).

Under the strap line "Join in with us wherever you are!" (why the exclamation?) they have a YouTube marketing video basically telling potential customers, you can get married in any church you like, one way or another. Everyone welcome - baptised or not, church-goer or not, believer or not.

Is the CofE continuing to lose market share? Or is this just a distraction from the question of civil partnerships? Or is it a merely matter of needing the fees?

However the video doesn't mention the CofE's guidance on marriage of non-EEA people. The UKBA have been paranoid about sham marriages. Or, in the more diplomatic words of the Faculty Office,

Strictly speaking the law of marriage and the national immigration requirements are separate. However, there is a contemporary concern that some couples may be contracting marriage solely for immigrations reasons. (here, pdf)

For some time the CofE resisted pressure to conform to secular changes in marriage preliminaries.  They have now caved in no doubt following the successful prosecution of Rev Alex Brown for his part in a series of sham marriages. To rub in its victory the UKBA sent its own guidance note along with the Church's.

I don't deny sham marriages take place, and may be arranged by organised criminal gangs, and that they are are a crime to be prosecuted like any other. But I do think the matter has been blown out of proportion.  For example, the press release, in support of the need for such a change, says there were 155 arrests in relation to sham marriages - arrests, not convictions, and presumably more than one arrest per putative marriage, and with no time-scale given. 

I also know that genuine marriages, contracted by "those who wish to do so to enter into the honourable estate of holy matrimony, intending a permanent and lifelong union, for better for worse, till death do them part." are threatened and, I believe, have been blocked. The reason is that sham marriages are only one of the UKBA's target. 

The other target is those asylum seekers or other non-EEA nationals who wish to contract a valid marriage. Such a marriage is likely to strengthen in their a to remain in the UK. To assert or assume that such benefit is the only or primary reason for marriage for every one is as demeaning of the holy estate of matrimony as is sham marriage. It reflects the UKBA's culture of disbelief and disdain towards those it is trying to keep out.  

The Case Study in the Faculty Office's guidance, which is less a case study than a statement of dfficult decisions to be made, concludes:

If the relationship is a genuine one and the parties understand the nature and import of marriage, it would be disproportionate to refuse the licence. Although the overriding interest is to ensure  that the marriage is based on a genuine intention, such procedures can help to ensure that the position of the Church of England is not abused in a way which could cause it potential embarrassment or damage its position as a national institution privileged and obligated to carry out national duties.

It is the final clause which the Revd Alex Brown flouted.

And I don't see in any of the guidance notes how to appeal the refusal of a licence if the incumbent considers a couple's application to be genuinely founded.

Meanwhile, in Nigeria

The House of Representatives, Nigeria

Homosexuality is a 'moral and social holocaust' which threatens the 'continued existence of this nation' and brings 'disastrous consequences to mankind' - according to the Anglican Church (Nigeria).

From Gay Community News:

The House of Representatives in Nigeria has voted unanimously in favour of a new legislation banning same-sex marriage.

The bill "prohibits marriage between persons of same gender, solemnisation of same and other matters related therewith."

Representatives said that both Islam and Christianity, the prominent religions in Nigeria, condemn homosexual acts.

Pink News says:

Changing Attitudes Nigeria (CAN), an Anglican Church pressure group on LGBT rights, attacked a bill that would ban same-sex marriage and imprison anyone associated with promoting gay rights.

Davis Mac-Iyalla, head of Changing Attitudes Nigeria, warned that acceptance of the bill would see vast numbers of Nigerians fleeing to other countries to escape persecution.

"Already we are seeing an increase in homophobic behaviour and attacks, because people feel they can get away with it. The climate is already becoming intolerable", said Mac-Iyalla.

"Unless the government tones down its language and cancels the bill, we are going to see a flood of refugees as people flee for their lives," he warned.

...
But Emmanuel Onwubiko, a senior commissioner at Nigeria's Human Rights Commission told the BBC:

"Supporters of the same-sex marriage in Nigeria don't know what they are saying. As far as we are concerned, gay marriage is not allowed in Africa.

"If South Africa want to do it, that is their business. It is not Nigerian to by gay, let alone going ahead to legally get married as gay and even live as a family with adopted children.

It's completely alien to our culture," he added.

Colin Coward has written a letter (here, but not yet on his blog) arguing against the legislation partly because 'Very few Nigerian LGBT activists are free to speak out in a country which already has repressive anti-gay legislation on the statute book'.

But there were protests (This day):

Homosexuals yesterday stormed the National Assembly to protest over a bill which seeks to prohibit same sex marriages in Nigeria.

The group, comprising young males and females, said they were opposed to the bill because the United Nations charter on Human Rights guaranteed them freedom of association and freedom to sexual orientation, all of which the proposed law will deny them.

The protest was countered by a group of religious leaders who were in attendance at a public hearing organised by the House of Representatives Joint Committee on Human Rights, Women Affairs and Justice.

...

Rashidi Williams, leader of the Queer Alliance, one of the homosexual groups at the forefront of the agitation, said his group was opposed to all forms of discrimination against homosexuality in Nigeria, arguing that homosexuality was a private decision which does not in anyway affect the right of others who are not homosexuals.

...

“We believe that we are created by God and do not wish to be discriminated against, we seek your help and appeal to you all to lay this bill aside. We ask that the House of Representatives and our lawmakers work with us to understand the concept of sexuality and sexual orientation through our experiences and not create laws that punish us needlessly,’’ he said.

And this is what the church says:

Many of the legislators and religious leaders at the event were shocked to see young people openly identifying with an idea considered as sacrilegious and satanic.

In a presentation by the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), the church said “same sex marriage is out to foist on the world a false sense of the family, which will bring disastrous consequences to mankind.”

According to the clerics, same sex marriage ”apart from being ungodly, was unscriptural, unnatural, unprofitable, unhealthy, un-cultural, un-African and un-Nigerian. It is a perversion, a deviation and an aberration that is capable of engendering moral and social holocaust in this country. Outlawing it is to ensure the continued existence of this nation.”

===========

When the rhetoric grows this loud and bombastic the only question that remains is: what are they tring to hide?


.

Homosexual clergy: a little local matter

Twin sets of Lutherans waiting for the reccommendation in 2007

Lutherans weigh making gay clergy a local decision


Associated Press

A task force of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America recommended that course Thursday in a long-awaited report on ministry standards. The panel, however, said the church needs to clarify a number of questions before overhauling its gay clergy policy.

The report, issued at the same time as a broader church social statement on human sexuality, seeks balance on an issue dividing many Protestant churches. Both documents will be considered in August in Minneapolis at the biannual convention of the 4.7-million member denomination.

"At this point, there is no consensus in the church," said the Rev. Peter Strommen of Prior Lake, Minn., chairman of the 15-member task force on sexuality. "The question ends up being, 'How are we going to live together in that absence of consensus?'

"This ought not to be church-dividing, even if there are strong differences."

Church members on both sides of the issue, however, were dissatisfied with the proposal. Conservatives called it a rejection of Scripture and an advocate for gay clergy said some of the elements take "a step backward."

Gays and lesbians can now serve as clergy in the ELCA if they remain celibate, although some congregations have challenged the system and hired pastors in gay relationships. Heterosexual clergy and professional lay workers are to abstain from sex outside marriage.

Between August 2006 and July 2007 Pastor Bradley Schmeling of St. John Lutheran Church in Atlanta was tried before the church's disciplinary processes for his committed relationship with Rev. Darin Easler. The congregation of the church stood in solidarity with Pastor Schmeling and full details of the events of the trial are still on the church's website. Bradley Schmeling was eventually "removed from the ELCA roster". Nonetheless he remains in post and the bishop at the time, and his successor, have not pursued him further.

It is expected, hoped, that he will be the last to face such discipline.

In November 2007 the local option was the route chosen by Norway's state Lutheran Church. Here.

There's little comfort in knowing it's not just Anglicans torn apart in the culture wars. I hope they make a better fist of it than we've managed to date. If they want a covenant we've got a spare they can have.

I should think so too!

Religious leaders praise Obama torture ban

Compiled by the Boston Globe.

It's always seemed to me that this was one matter Christians, and members of other faiths, could agree on whole heartedly.

Why then has there not been a much more high profile religious campaign against torture? Could it be that Christians, and members of other faiths, also agree on deferring to the policy of their nation states, even when they disagree with it?

The Reader

Go see The Reader.



I thought it was brilliant. Beautiful and sexy certainly, and also a history of post-war Germany's silence, secrets, knowing and not speaking.



In some ways it was an old-fashioned court room drama with the key challenges focused in the trial. No excuses, no justification nor trivialisation of what was done in the war but still the question of ordinary people caught up in the machinery of evil: what would you have done?



In the background too, buildings and building work - a visual analogue of German reconstruction.

It was a love story of sorts, but mostly the silent sort.

Lots of detail on Wikipedia.

Wanted: Compassion and Justice

Irony is not a strong suit in the Home Office

Ekklesia reports that

Three of Britain's leading Free Church denominations have called for
justice and compassion for asylum seekers, following a statement from immigration Minister Phil Woolas criticising human rights groups and lawyers for assisting the vulnerable.

Speaking on behalf of The Baptist Church, The Methodist Church and The
URC, the Rev Dr Rosemary Kidd said: “Genuine asylum seekers are frequently
escaping from persecution and torture. They often arrive in the UK, speaking no
English and with no identifying documents.

They are vulnerable, deeply traumatised people, seeking sanctuary and human
kindness.

“There are inevitably some ‘false’ claimants who should, of
course, be efficiently identified through proper legal processes, and then
deported to their country of origin. The view of the Joint Public Issues Team,
however, is twofold – and quite the reverse of the concerns of Mr Woolas.

“Firstly, the asylum appeals system places these already abused people
under further intense suspicion, and the onus is on the individual to explain
his or her circumstances under repeated investigation. Secondly, the recent
introduction of the Immigration Points System is likely to make it increasingly
hard for genuine asylum seekers to enter the UK legally, and thus to claim
sanctuary within these shores at all.

“The Joint Public Issues Team calls on the minister to ensure that all
claimants are treated with dignity at every stage of the asylum process, and to
ensure that people who have already suffered greatly in their country of origin
are not further damaged by unsympathetic treatment or rejection by the
UK.”

Yesterday Ekklesia also reported reactions to Woolas' comments here. Comments included:

Vaughan Jones, director of the agency Praxis, which works with displaced people
across London, who is also a United Reformed Church minister, described the
statement from the new Immigration Minister as "a disturbing
development."

"Asylum seekers and migrants are human beings with rights and
it is quite proper and legitimate for the law to defend those rights and for
people of good will to advocate for and support people in need, vulnerable to
exploitation and potential victims of miscarriages of justice," said Mr
Jones.

He continued: "Attacking the defenders of human rights is not the most
edifying of stands, although it is regrettably not without precedent.

...

The Law Society, the governing body for solicitors, has accused the
minister of running "against the rule of law" and making "unacceptable"
comments.

Paul Marsh, President of the Law Society, said: "The issue of
immigration is one for the politicians to debate, but central to that debate
must be the fact that those seeking asylum can do so in a legal system that
operates under the rule of law.

He continued: "There is no reason why anyone should be denied access to justice on the basis that they are from another country and seeking asylum, which is what the minister seems to suggest."

.

Woolas: blame the lawyers

Immigration Minister Phil Woolas

In The Guardian the Immigration Minister Phil Woolas has laid into lawyers involved in the asylum process.

Immigration minister Phil Woolas has attacked lawyers and charities working on behalf of asylum seekers, accusing them of undermining the law and "playing the
system". In an interview with the Guardian, Woolas described the legal professionals and NGO workers as "an industry", and said most asylum seekers
were not fleeing persecution but were economic migrants.

One comment is worth attention:

In one case, Woolas said, an asylum seeker had won the right to stay after going through six layers of appeal. "That person has no right to be in this country
but I'm sure that there is an industry out there [with] a vested interest."

This is a simple assertion that the politicians (and/or the Home Office) are the ones to decide, not the courts. Of course, if the Home Office is to be judge and jury then every case will undoubtedly be correctly decided.



Perhaps a central element of the problem was set out later:

Woolas told the Guardian the "primary purpose" of immigration policy was to reassure the public that the government was in control of immigration. "The
public recognise that we don't know the exact numbers. They see the asylum
backlog and what they fear is that we don't have any control over the system,"
he said.

Hence this comment in the equivalent article in the Mail Online

The number of people arriving in Britain, minus those leaving, hit 200,000 last
year. [and why 'hit'?]

Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve said: 'These estimated figures
betray a Labour Government that is not in control of immigration policy.
Immigration can be of real benefit to the country but only if it is properly
controlled.

The primary purpose is not to protect people in fear of their life or fleeing persecution. It is not to enact the requirments of the Geneva Convention and other treaties that successive govenments have signed. These are peripheral considerations, much less important than feeding people's instinctive chauvinism, even racism.

In fact it seems that asylum seekers, and economic migrants (in both cases as amorphous, threatening groups, not as people), are politically useful - they enable politicians to attack one another on a playing ground they understand and simultaneously to ignore the desperate plight of some applicants.

There may also be a wider political benefits to all politicians and certain newspapers - portraying up asylum seekers as less than human enables the poor to blame those who are even poorer for the plight they are in.

On the BBC Radio 4 PM programme later in the day Phil Woolas was insisting that its was only some lawyers and NGOs that he meant. Alistair Mackenzie, an immigration barrister, firmly rejected the idea that the problem with the asylum system was the lawyers. The fundamental problem, in his opinion, was delay, incompetence and poor decision making by the Home Office.



In my limited experience (with one of the NGO's I suppose Woolas thinks is to blame) this is surely the case. The 6-month decision making timetable under the New Asylum Model is frequently missed. People have had reports from the Medical Foundation for the victims of torture simply dismissed. There seems to be a presumption that every applicant is lying (and the burden of proof lies with them). People are challenged to prove their nationality - someone cannot prove they are from Eritrea, say, then the rest of their asylum claim is simply not considered. And it is very hard to prove which country you are from if you've had to flee - few people go back for their birth certificate, for example. And if you do have documents the Home Office will argue they are forgeries.

Many people go through the system with no legal assistance at all. They are seldom successful. (Though I recently met a lady who had won her appeal against the initial refusal of asylum with no help from a lawyer. The Home Office then appealed against that decision, of course.)



Nicholas Sagovsky observed that human rights are indivisible, its just that the rights of asylum applications are worth rather less than those of other people.

I just hope that the minister's statement doesn't presage another reduction in public funding for asylum cases. It's hard enough now to find a solicitor - and (I think I'm right in saying) there are tight limits on the time a lawyer can give to a client (about 5 hours at the first stage, I think - not much help if you have to work through an interpreter).

Another analysis on proposition 8

Gay Religion reports that Catholics and Mormons together won the Proposition 8 campaign.

Exit polls show that religious views had a profound effect on the result, spanning racial lines:
-- 84 percent of those who attend church weekly voted yes.
-- 81 percent of white evangelicals voted yes.
-- 65 percent of white Protestants voted yes.
-- 64 percent of Catholics voted yes. Catholics accounted for 30 percent of all voters.
A late push by many churches to win over their congregations played a decisive role in increasing turnout and swaying opinion, said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, who analyzed the figures.

All here. Previous comment on this blog here. And you might like to go to give Mad Priest support - he has got into hot water for some over hasty comments on the matter.

A giant leap forwards, and fall back a bit

Barack Obama rides a tricycle in the 1960s in Hawaii Photograph: Obama for America/AP

Like pretty well every other blogger this morning, I guess, I'd like to comment on the American Presidential election.

But instead Jan Edminston at A Church for Starving Artists said it for me:

Maybe nothing will change.

Maybe the economy problems and the wars and the deep seated racial prejudice and the suspicion of other cultures and faiths will not go away.

But for one day, at least, let's dream.

There are kids who will never remember when it seemed impossible that a black man could be elected president. A black man whose middle name is Hussein.

Another closely fought and expensive vote - that on Proposition 8 which would remove the right to same-sex marriage in the State of California - looks like it's swinging in the conservative direction. Final result yet to be announced.

And there's an interesting article by Max Blumenthal on The Man Behind Proposition 8: Howard F. Ahmanson Jr with his wife, Roberta. They were key funders of the conservative campaign to undermine TEC. he concludes:

While the Episcopal global schism represented a towering achievement for
Ahmanson, the passage of Prop 8 would be the apotheosis of his long career. He
does not seek credit—recognition only damages the causes he funds. Ahmanson
derives satisfaction from transforming a nation the same way he transformed
himself. “The Christian view of man is that we're not perfect,” Roberta Ahmanson
told me. “You don't give to things that base themselves on the optimistic view
that human beings are going to be doing it right.”

The long shadow of a court case

Rev. Jim Ferry, Holy Trinity Church Toronto. MALCOLM TAYLOR/CNS, July 2007

I have just finished reading James Ferry's In the Courts of the Lord (New York, Crossroad, 1994).

It is a book in three parts. First the author describes his journey to accept his homosexuality as a normal part of himself and to lose the self-hatred he had previously developed. Second, he describes life as a parish priest and the hypocritical and destructive culture of 'don't ask, don't tell' which stemmed ultimately from the bishops' collective inability to be clear where they stood on their acceptance of homosexuality within the church.



The third section, on his trial before a church court, was my main interest, though both previous sections are essential to understanding the context of the trial.



The fact of Jim Ferry's homosexuality had become known in the parish not only to those who were supportive but also to a couple of people (and then further afield) who were decidely homophobic.



To pre-empt the coming storm Ferry went to his bishop and explained the situation including the fact that he was in a sexual relationship with a man he loved. In accordance with the bishops' guidelines at the time his bishop, Terence Finlay, asked him to resign. Ferry, asked to choose between his partner and his job, did neither. Finlay brought Ferry before the church court in February 1992.



The charge against Ferry was disobedience and the diocesan prosecutor struggled to stick to it. Ferry's defence was to raise the issue of homosexuality in the church. They made a number of arguments about obedience, not least the facts that Ferry had not actually been asked to give up his relationship, that the 'guidelines' were for assessing ordinands not clergy in post, and that they were applied inconsistently even within the diocese. But their central thrust was that homosexuals should not be treated any differently to heterosexuals in the polity of the church.



The case had international press coverage, though I confess I missed it at the time.



The judgement was self-contradictory. Ferry was found not guilty of disobedience (the pivotal charge against him) but was guilty anyway of refusing to refrain from a homosexual relationship 'contrary to the Bishop's instructions, the Respondent's vows on Ordination, and the discipline of the Church.' The court did not find his conduct to be disobedient or disorderly but did find him contumacious (which generally entails disobedience). A final charge of unbecoming conduct was simply ignored. Thus the court avoided any judgement on the precipitating issue of homosexuality.



The court had no power of sentence but made recommendations to the Bishop. Bishop Finlay removed Ferry from office and withdrew his licence.



On the face of it either an appeal or the civil suit that had originally been contemplated would have been successful. But neither were pursued.



However, time changes things. In 2006 Terence Finlay, then retired as Archbishop of Ontario, celebrated the marriage of a lesbian couple saying that he “came to the conclusion that their love for one another was part of God’s divine love and it was appropriate that that be deeply blessed.” He was himself admonished by the diocesan, Colin Johnson, and had his licence to celebrate weddings withdrawn. Ferry demanded an apology, he remains without a licence.

Don't ask, don't tell

There's always hope - Gay Anglicans parade in Toronto 2006

Gay divinity school graduate must stay in the closet to be ordained

Local man says Anglican Church 'hypocritical'





The Belleview Intelligencer


Posted By By Barry Ellsworth 26.10.08

George is also graduating from the University of Toronto divinity school in May,
qualifying him to be ordained as an Anglican Priest.

But the ordination is not going to happen, if he continues to openly acknowledge his sexual orientation.

“There is a fair amount of hypocrisy in the issue,” George said in an interview during a workshop at Belleville’s St. Thomas Anglican Church. If you keep the fact you are gay to yourself, even though others may know about it, the Anglican bishops can pretend you are straight and ordain you, he said. “As soon as you are open about it, you are treated differently,’ he said.

“Don’t ask, don’t tell. Nobody acknowledges the hypocrisy.”

...

There is another door to hypocrisy, too.

If you are gay, the bishop will ask if you will remain celibate, and if the answer is yes, you are in the door.

“Nobody asks the straight single clergy, ‘Are you willing to be celibate until you are married?’” George said.

All here.



================



The damage such structural hypocrisy does is real and difficult to quantify. Those who struggle with their sexuality can get torn apart. Those who are confident in their sexuality can, and quite reasonably should, get bitter and resentful and often lose both faith and membership.



This is a power game. The inherent duplicity enables those who wish to, to abuse their position and the people for whom they are responsible. And they do.



More deeply wounding is the fact that structural dishonesty is built into the church and its activities - particularly, but not exclusively, in relation to sexuality. In the Church of England dishonesty has been seen for generations in the church's desire to see itself as more important than it really is. On top of this ground it was easy to sow dishonesty relating to sexuality.



I long to see an inclusive Church. But before we get there we will need first to begin to move towards an honest church.