Comments: Baroness Scotland and the Equality Bill

What the who?

There's nothing like seeing a term such as "Baroness" to make me glad for what day it is today. ;-)

Happy Independence Day to all my fellow Yanks!

Posted by JCF at Saturday, 4 July 2009 at 6:41am BST

Sorry, but the suggestion is incomprehensible. What does it mean?

Nothing good one might surmise, but what?

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Saturday, 4 July 2009 at 8:45am BST

If you mean my suggestion, then it is clear (see for example the transcript of evidence given by Mr Kornicki for the RCs and Mr Fittall of the CofE at ) that the churches seek amendments to Clause 2 to widen the scope for use of that exemption which relates to gender, marital status, circumstances surrounding divorce, and also "relating to sexual orientation".

The dispute with the government is about whether the wording of the new definition in fact constitutes a change to existing law. The government, and all the employment law experts I know, consider that it does not change it.

The point is therefore that there is a dispute about what the existing law is.

The churches have always argued - see my post on the history of Reg 7(3) - for a much wider applicability of such an exemption than in fact the law currently provides. And they are still arguing for it.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Saturday, 4 July 2009 at 9:20am BST

No sorry, I did not mean you at all, Simon.

But I agree (as little as I understand English law speak) that the Government just restated what has been said.

And I do realise it's up to no good as to discrimination; a continued Carte Blanche...

But what is this for? And how can the opposite of real be claimed?

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Saturday, 4 July 2009 at 10:39am BST

Being a faith community who occupies the only possible high ethical grounds, CoE reserves a singular leeway to pre-judge and mistreat others, which same leeway it loudly agrees will not do, outside the church proper in civil society. Corollary to all that: times have clearly changed, and while trash talking queer folks will do very nicely, actually punching queer folks in the face or tying them to stakes to be burned alive - well, dear folks, all that is out, way, way out.

Am I getting it yet?

Is this White Privilege? Colonial Privilege? Males Only and Males First Privilege? English Privilege? Constantinian Privilege? Nicean Privilege? Anglican Mainstream Privilege? Fulcrum Privilege? Confessing Anglican Privilege? Strict Conservative Privilege? Global South Anglican Privilege? Jamaican Privilege? Ugandan Privilege? Nigerian Privilege? Islamic Fatwa Privilege? No Gays-No Gay Marches Downtown Privilege?

If the privilege is lost, or partly eroded, or amended by law and application, what then?

Will a bishop still be a bishop without this singular privilege, properly denied to everyone else in regular society?

Note to self: Recheck the slave chains, and locks. Routine maintenance. The local bishop will sprinkle them with holy water, come Slave Sunday, a reminder to all of us that we are bought with a holy price, and after all, nobody gets to do anything without higher permission. The occupants of high places are always God's proxies, in all times and all places.

Posted by drdanfee at Saturday, 4 July 2009 at 6:48pm BST
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.