Tuesday, 9 January 2007

SOR debate tonight in House of Lords

Tonight there will be an hour long debate in the House of Lords to consider Democratic Unionist Party peer Lord Morrow’s motion to annul The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, which came into force on 1 January, and which will also be the subject of a High Court case in March.

Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006
Lord Morrow to move that a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations, laid before the House on 24 November, be annulled. 3rd Report from the Merits Committee (Dinner break business, 1 hour)

Written Answers in the House of Lords on this topic on 13 December were as follows:

Equality: Sexual Orientation

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 would require all schools actively to promote homosexual civil partnerships to children from primary school age to the same degree that they teach the importance of marriage. [HL447]
Lord Rooker: No. The regulations are not concerned with what is taught in schools. That is rightly a matter for the Department of Education, Northern Ireland.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 would require a printing shop run by a Christian to print fliers promoting gay sex.[HL448]
Lord Rooker: No. It would be entirely within the spirit of the regulations for a printing shop run by a Christian to refuse to print fliers promoting gay sex, so long as that printer also refused to print fliers promoting heterosexual sex outside the realm of marriage.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 would require a family-run bed and breakfast to let out a double room to a transsexual couple, even if the family consider it to be in the best interests of their children to refuse to allow such a situation in their own home.[HL449]
Lord Rooker: No.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 would make it illegal for a heterosexual police officer, fire fighter or member of the Armed Forces to refuse to join a Gay Pride event promoting the homosexual way of life.[HL450]
Lord Rooker: No.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether they have received representations from Coherent and Cohesive Voice, a network of Christian leaders about the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 (SI 2006/439); and, if so, when; how many representations have been received; and in what form.[HL451]
Lord Rooker: We have received no representations from this group.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Tuesday, 9 January 2007 at 8:51am GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: News
Comments

'Coherent and Cohesive Voice'.
"We have received no representations from this group."

They'd rather advertise in The Times and spread misinformation in the media-- I must assume.

My theory :
to have made an offical representation to HM Governement, they would have had to come out as to their true identity. It seems cowardly and a tad sinisiter that such facelss people shoul;d make such allegations, under cover of the secrecy, afforded them by their C & C V nom de plume. Perhaps the legal people behind it have broken their professional code by this behaviour, or compromised their professional neutrality.

I shouldn't wish to use them, myself.

Posted by: laurence on Tuesday, 9 January 2007 at 8:40pm GMT

Respectfully inquire as to what the right honorable "Lord Lester of Herne Hill" has up his wazoo? His Lordship seems a tad obsessed!

Posted by: JCF on Tuesday, 9 January 2007 at 10:33pm GMT

He was getting the true position clarified and on the record before the Lord's Debate and vote. I should have said. Thus dispensing with some of the worse misinformation disseminated by fundamentalist. It is a strategic thing, in the service of human rights.

Posted by: laurence on Tuesday, 9 January 2007 at 11:54pm GMT

The religious hatred currently being shown by many secularist liberals and gay rights supporters and campaigners especially towards Christians is appalling. It's ironic for a group of people who claim to know what it was like to be persecuted are now the persecutors, Except their venom and hatred is a 100 times more than anything ever shown to them as far as I can see.
Christians have no right to judge anyone as we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. One day we will all be judged for our sins that includes homosexuals and heterosexuals, people of faith and those of no faith. Real Christians believe we are all equal before God.

The new Sexual Orientation Regulations are unnecessary as there is already plenty of legislation in place to stop discrimination to protect homosexuals. These new laws are about rubbing peoples religious beliefs in the dirt. Telling them what they can believe and how they can live their beliefs, even to the point of forcing people to act against their beliefs. Now where is the equality in that? Do two wrongs make a right? If the respect is not mutual, but only one way, that what is it worth?

During the last few days of the SOR debate I have heard nothing but aggressive divisive words coming from those who claim to represent the oppressed homosexuals, is this helpful in an open free democracy? Or is it true that liberals are only liberal when you agree with them; anyone who dares to hold a different view or hold different beliefs and values should be treated with the utmost contempt and hatred. Please tell me how this makes you any better than the people you love to criticise?

Simon Icke, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. UK

Posted by: Simon Icke on Thursday, 11 January 2007 at 2:42pm GMT

But if what you say is true, Simon, then there is no more reason for a Conservative Evangelical Christian guest house owner to discriminate against a gay couple than against someone who owns shares in British American Tobacco or Tesco supermarkets or is guilty of any other 'sin' (by which I mean behaviour which the Fathers or Scripture might call into question).

The ConsEv response to all this seems to have created a special category of particularly odious sin for gays, which means that their consciences are not to be afforded the same respect as the Born Again President who cheerfully builds new generations of WMDs (not that I'm suggesting that Dubya is likely to roll up at Mrs Terrible's Christian B&B in Ambleside).

As the letter of James warns, such an attitude, privileging one above another,risks the accusation of making oneself into an unjust judge.

Either every Christian guest house owner demands to see documentary proof of the married status of their guests, plus an undertaking that they are not going to engage in any abominable practices, or they quit whining.

Posted by: mynsterpreost (=David Rowett) on Thursday, 11 January 2007 at 5:09pm GMT

I know I shouldn't but the reductio ad absurdum of much ConsEv protest is a cross between Kafka and Python.

Devout Vatican watchers can demand that married couples toss their oral contraception into a bin in reception, while poking a long needle into their toilet bags in case of hidden condoms.

Those hoteliers of a particularly conservative Orthodox tradition (look at byzantine.net) can insist that guests sign a declaration that they are trying for a family, and if the lady looks to be post-menopausal they should be able to refuse to provide a double bed anyway.

Pacifists should demand that guests present a breakdown of their share/pension portfolio to ensure that Raytheon, British Aerospace and the like don't get chance to contaminate their takings.

Wee Wee Frees up in the wilds of Scotland should be able to apply a sort of religious Test Act before bedtime: "Are you, or have you ever been aquainted with a Roman Catholic?"

I'd better stop, satire was never my strong point.

Posted by: mynsterpreost (=David Rowett) on Thursday, 11 January 2007 at 5:24pm GMT

David Icke's posting moves me. It must have been awful for him to witness such goings-on and distress.

I just hope I shall never have to witness these poor Chritians suffering so terribly at the hands of these venomous liberals and unsympathetic gays.

we homos should just be glad we are no longer sent to jail, I ween.

Posted by: laurence on Friday, 12 January 2007 at 12:43am GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.