Who leads your life? The State? The Church? Or Yourself?
In the past, it was the Church that dictated so much of a person's life; spiritually, morally and communally.
Life, was something sacred; it was God given. Therefore, the individual’s ultimate power, the decision to end his life, was nothing short of a crime, a felo de se. The crime was a publishable offence, and the felon would have his burial on unconsecrated ground, typically at a crossroads with a stake driven through his heart.
A much more sympathetic approach is taken nowadays. However, being helped to end your life still remains unacceptable to the State.
The reason for this is down to a few powerful lobby groups which, time and again, prevent a change in the law.
The Church still has a dead hand on the affairs of the State and does not hesitate to inflict their views on the sanctity of life – even where it affects people who do not even believe in God.
The other lobby groups are disabled charities; generally the proponents are convinced that Euthanasia is one step away from Eugenics. They make a false equivalence between a weak body and a weak mind. The best possible counter example is Diane Pretty. She took her case for assisted suicide to the High Court and on to the European Court, such was her psychological strength in seeking justice for her partner. She failed – although some would say that the system failed her.
At the same time as these lobby groups preventing a change in the law, the reality is that we already have tacit assisted suicide in the UK.
Generally, this occurs through the administration of morphine, dressed up as palliative care.
A similar dichotomy between law and practice exists when it comes to taking a relative abroad to help them to die at the Swiss Dignitas clinic.
Recently, Lord Falconer proposed a measure in the House of Lords, which would have given such relatives immunity from prosecution. In practice, although such cases are investigated, they never lead to a prosecution.
Therefore, one would have thought it would not be difficult to put the measure through the House of Lords.
Not so. In a free vote the House of Lords defeated the amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill by 194 to 141.
Consequently, anyone helping a loved one travel on what would otherwise be a very lonely, final journey, would be at risk of prosecution. Their only comfort being - a reassuring nudge and a wink from the prosecution service! Is that really how we want to conduct this kind of desperate, emotionally charged, situation?
The Church and some disabled groups have inflicted their own morality and own life experience on to the life experience of other people. We are led to believe that the person choosing to end their life are always vulnerable, and at the mercy of iniquitous relatives. The reality is invariably different
Individuals may choose to end their lives for any number of reasons. It might be because of a terminal illness. It might be that they consider themselves to be a burden on their family. It might be because they do not want to be in a world without their partner e.g. consider the case of Sir Edward Downes who was losing his sight and hearing chose to die alongside his terminally ill wife at Dignitas; nota bene, both did not have any religious beliefs.
We should not over-revere life for life’s sake. For the great majority of us, life is not for the glory of God, it is merely an end in itself.
Life is precious, but who ultimately decides it’s value? The individual concerned? The Church? The State?
Speaking personally, as someone who loves life, I now find the sting of death fairly muted. As time goes on, I re-valuate my life – in my teenage years I feared death. Since then I have experienced love, and indeed experienced a great deal more – I find myself in a state of (in all honesty) having had my fill. If I had a terminal illness, it might just be that I would consider doing my own living will – something unthinkable twenty years ago.
Naturally, it is important that safeguards are put in place in any law legalising Euthanasia, but fundamentally we need to recognise the individual is sovereign over their own life. We need to come of age, we need to grasp that final, ultimate responsibility.
Sunday 19 July 2009
Friday 3 July 2009
Section 28 of Local Government Act 1988
“We got it wrong. I hope you can forgive us." David Cameron, 30th June 2009
The Tory leader was commenting on the legislation introduced by the Tories in 1988 and finally repealed by a Labour Government in 2003.
For those of you too young to know the text of the legislation it is as follows:
(1) A local authority shall not—
(a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;
(b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
The supporters of this particular Section can never address this question: “Promotion of any lifestyle is wrong – but why the need to legislate on this point in respect of one, and only one, minority lifestyle?”.
It is an important question to ask – because a badly drafted bill, which in particular seeks to address a tabloid concern, can alienate that minority, and can therefore be distinctly anti-social.
Supposing, just to be provocative, I change the wording of the first part of the Section to make this point more clear:
1) A local authority shall not—
(a) intentionally promote judaism or publish material with the intention of promoting judaism;
It is quite right that any local government authority should not promote Judaism – it should not be in the business of promotion of any faith. However, by singling out Judaism – what do we create?
• Suspicion of a secret agenda
• That this particular faith is dangerous and destabilising
• Confusion – does provision of information constitute promotion – could an Association be prosecuted for providing any literature relating to Judaism?
This is the legacy of singling out one religion, one lifestyle, one race, or one minority.
Each time I am stressing the word ‘particular’; that is, if we were to accept the premise that homosexuality is dangerous and destabilising (I don’t) then what about all the other practices which are not Christian/not Heterosexual/not part of the supposedly homogenous society and therefore potentially destablilising.
This is the ‘particular’ point I am making. If the reason for the ‘particular’ amendment was because of some over-zealous gay activists joining the Inner London Education Authority and promoting the book "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin", and the subsequent rant by The Daily Mail, then it is indeed a very poor Law indeed. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
If the book is so offensive (having read the synopsis it isn’t by the way) then no doubt parent pressure would have the library withdraw it.
Instead the response was a law? Against a particular minority lifestyle?
Appropriate? Proportionate? Responsible Government?
Moving on to the second section, 28 1b)
1(b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
Families brought up by homosexual parents – unacceptable? – a ‘pretence’ (?)
There is nothing pretend about a loving lesbian couple bringing up a son or daughter.
Once again the legislation infers there is an active agenda and uses offensive terminology to refer to homosexual relationships. I am fine with personal, moral expression of such sentiments – however I do have a problem with it being put into law – even if it is only in the context of promotion. By doing this it takes a position on homosexual relationships. It says that ‘We the Government – think homosexual relationships are unacceptable – so it is written!’
The mood music straining from this particular Pied Piper soon brought out the rats.
During the passage of the bill in December 1987, the offices of the Newspaper “Capital Gay” were subjected to an arson attack.
Conservative Member of Parliament Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman was quoted as believing this was a good thing and when challenged in Parliament said "I am quite prepared to say that there should be an intolerance of evil".
What a disgraceful thing to say.
Public morality is a creature of fashion, anyone with any grounding in history knows this. It is therefore important for Governments to behave responsibly in respect of the latest furore against a particular minority.
Imagine if a Labour Government, as a response to the 7th July bombings, and the never-ending Islamaphobic rants of the Daily Mail, had instituted a clause relating to the promotion of Islam? What an insanely, ludicrous and potentially devestating effect that would have on our society.
Yet it was not even a bombing – it was a children’s book?
Homosexuals have every right to be angry with the Tory Government that brought in this particular legislation.
Cameron has at long last said sorry. However, his own voting record on gay politics is actually quite mixed. For instance he voted for amendments that would require a male role model in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (HFEB) and voted for an amendment specifically excluding homosexual couples adopting in the Adoption and Childrens Bill – however he voted for the Civil Partnerships Bill and latterly the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations.
It may well be that there are degrees here – in particular on the HFEB Cameron may have been worried about the need for a male role model in children’s development.
However, even to my tired, poltically cynical eyes it does appear that Cameron has indeed undergone an almost damascene conversion. I was particularly struck by his October 2006 Conference speech – the key extract here:
“There's something special about marriage. It's not about religion. It's not about morality. It's about commitment. When you stand up there, in front of your friends and your family, in front of the world, whether it's in a church or anywhere else, what you're doing really means something. Pledging yourself to another means doing something brave and important. You are making a commitment. You are publicly saying: it's not just about me, me me anymore. It is about we - together, the two of us, through thick and thin. That really matters. And by the way, it means something whether you're a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man. That's why we were right to support civil partnerships, and I'm proud of that.”
The amusing thing was that the BBC live coverage cut to the tory audience and a woman shaking her head quite defiantly. The next amusing thing was to view it on the Conservative Party website to see the now edited version cut immediately to the cheerleader benches behind Cameron all wildly applauding with almost insane gusto.
The edit was appreciated by me; if only the Cameroon cheerleaders actually made up the party.
What is bewildering for many Tory gays is that although Cameron appears to have made a journey the grass roots struggle to see that the old legislation could be construed as alienating gays – and that by particularising their assault on one minority – it was fundamentally wrong. Whenever Gay politics rears it’s head on the Conservative Home website the members responses can make for very weary reading.
People remain luke-warm and unconvinced about the Tories – because they do not yet reflect society. The expenses scandal just made this public perception even worse.
Cameron is not the problem, the polling is clear on this point. The Party is the problem, Cameron cannot (and should not) have to go and make them move one by one. He leads; it is up to you whether you follow.
The Tories as a whole need to start moving. This can be done if they engage with people/groups and with alternative views. It is only through this process that you can then make up your own mind on the basis of the full facts. That is, to take into account the human impact of your views, you need to engage with all of humanity, not just the bit that you feel comfortable with. This requires an active choice and maybe even a little courage. You either have that or you don’t.
The Tory leader was commenting on the legislation introduced by the Tories in 1988 and finally repealed by a Labour Government in 2003.
For those of you too young to know the text of the legislation it is as follows:
(1) A local authority shall not—
(a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;
(b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
The supporters of this particular Section can never address this question: “Promotion of any lifestyle is wrong – but why the need to legislate on this point in respect of one, and only one, minority lifestyle?”.
It is an important question to ask – because a badly drafted bill, which in particular seeks to address a tabloid concern, can alienate that minority, and can therefore be distinctly anti-social.
Supposing, just to be provocative, I change the wording of the first part of the Section to make this point more clear:
1) A local authority shall not—
(a) intentionally promote judaism or publish material with the intention of promoting judaism;
It is quite right that any local government authority should not promote Judaism – it should not be in the business of promotion of any faith. However, by singling out Judaism – what do we create?
• Suspicion of a secret agenda
• That this particular faith is dangerous and destabilising
• Confusion – does provision of information constitute promotion – could an Association be prosecuted for providing any literature relating to Judaism?
This is the legacy of singling out one religion, one lifestyle, one race, or one minority.
Each time I am stressing the word ‘particular’; that is, if we were to accept the premise that homosexuality is dangerous and destabilising (I don’t) then what about all the other practices which are not Christian/not Heterosexual/not part of the supposedly homogenous society and therefore potentially destablilising.
This is the ‘particular’ point I am making. If the reason for the ‘particular’ amendment was because of some over-zealous gay activists joining the Inner London Education Authority and promoting the book "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin", and the subsequent rant by The Daily Mail, then it is indeed a very poor Law indeed. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
If the book is so offensive (having read the synopsis it isn’t by the way) then no doubt parent pressure would have the library withdraw it.
Instead the response was a law? Against a particular minority lifestyle?
Appropriate? Proportionate? Responsible Government?
Moving on to the second section, 28 1b)
1(b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
Families brought up by homosexual parents – unacceptable? – a ‘pretence’ (?)
There is nothing pretend about a loving lesbian couple bringing up a son or daughter.
Once again the legislation infers there is an active agenda and uses offensive terminology to refer to homosexual relationships. I am fine with personal, moral expression of such sentiments – however I do have a problem with it being put into law – even if it is only in the context of promotion. By doing this it takes a position on homosexual relationships. It says that ‘We the Government – think homosexual relationships are unacceptable – so it is written!’
The mood music straining from this particular Pied Piper soon brought out the rats.
During the passage of the bill in December 1987, the offices of the Newspaper “Capital Gay” were subjected to an arson attack.
Conservative Member of Parliament Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman was quoted as believing this was a good thing and when challenged in Parliament said "I am quite prepared to say that there should be an intolerance of evil".
What a disgraceful thing to say.
Public morality is a creature of fashion, anyone with any grounding in history knows this. It is therefore important for Governments to behave responsibly in respect of the latest furore against a particular minority.
Imagine if a Labour Government, as a response to the 7th July bombings, and the never-ending Islamaphobic rants of the Daily Mail, had instituted a clause relating to the promotion of Islam? What an insanely, ludicrous and potentially devestating effect that would have on our society.
Yet it was not even a bombing – it was a children’s book?
Homosexuals have every right to be angry with the Tory Government that brought in this particular legislation.
Cameron has at long last said sorry. However, his own voting record on gay politics is actually quite mixed. For instance he voted for amendments that would require a male role model in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (HFEB) and voted for an amendment specifically excluding homosexual couples adopting in the Adoption and Childrens Bill – however he voted for the Civil Partnerships Bill and latterly the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations.
It may well be that there are degrees here – in particular on the HFEB Cameron may have been worried about the need for a male role model in children’s development.
However, even to my tired, poltically cynical eyes it does appear that Cameron has indeed undergone an almost damascene conversion. I was particularly struck by his October 2006 Conference speech – the key extract here:
“There's something special about marriage. It's not about religion. It's not about morality. It's about commitment. When you stand up there, in front of your friends and your family, in front of the world, whether it's in a church or anywhere else, what you're doing really means something. Pledging yourself to another means doing something brave and important. You are making a commitment. You are publicly saying: it's not just about me, me me anymore. It is about we - together, the two of us, through thick and thin. That really matters. And by the way, it means something whether you're a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man. That's why we were right to support civil partnerships, and I'm proud of that.”
The amusing thing was that the BBC live coverage cut to the tory audience and a woman shaking her head quite defiantly. The next amusing thing was to view it on the Conservative Party website to see the now edited version cut immediately to the cheerleader benches behind Cameron all wildly applauding with almost insane gusto.
The edit was appreciated by me; if only the Cameroon cheerleaders actually made up the party.
What is bewildering for many Tory gays is that although Cameron appears to have made a journey the grass roots struggle to see that the old legislation could be construed as alienating gays – and that by particularising their assault on one minority – it was fundamentally wrong. Whenever Gay politics rears it’s head on the Conservative Home website the members responses can make for very weary reading.
People remain luke-warm and unconvinced about the Tories – because they do not yet reflect society. The expenses scandal just made this public perception even worse.
Cameron is not the problem, the polling is clear on this point. The Party is the problem, Cameron cannot (and should not) have to go and make them move one by one. He leads; it is up to you whether you follow.
The Tories as a whole need to start moving. This can be done if they engage with people/groups and with alternative views. It is only through this process that you can then make up your own mind on the basis of the full facts. That is, to take into account the human impact of your views, you need to engage with all of humanity, not just the bit that you feel comfortable with. This requires an active choice and maybe even a little courage. You either have that or you don’t.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
