UK Equality Bill: an abomination?

Harriet Harman’s new equality bill uses all the right-on lingo – indeed, who could possibly oppose equality, right? You don’t need to be Catholic to believe the pope might just be right, about one thing at least – the British government has no right meddling in the affairs of non-state institutions and organisations. Others have put the case mildly.

Supporters of the bill appear to think the government should treat religious organisations as if they were part and parcel of the civil service. The pontiff’s comments have drawn rapid fire from Peter Tatchell, who once argued that the Bible is to gays what Mein Kampf is to Jews. Tatchell’s wish is for the Roman Catholic Church (or any church for that matter) to be forbidden from discriminating ‘at will’. But, under the basic freedom to associate, the church has a right to determine whom they do, or whom they do not employ. The freedom to choose, without fear, who you associate with, goes back a long way. What exactly is wrong with tolerating religious freedoms?

Of course, when it comes to the workings of the state, the state should not discriminate - merit should be the only criteria for government employment practices. However, employment practices for non-state organisations are none of the states business – whether it is the Church of Rome, or Arsenal Football Club. The state shouldn’t have the power to force Arsenal to employ women as their first team goalkeeper, no more than they can tell the church how many women, or gay bishops they need to have.

One amusing irony of all this government sponsored intolerance, is the fact that religious faiths and churches could win future legal battles. By simply replacing the word ‘homo’ in homophobia, to ‘Christianophobia’. The psychobabble directed towards prejudice and bigotry from the Church, is now being turned on it’s head by those whom the church thinks have a pathological and irrational hatred towards them.

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Matt M
16 February 2010 - 4:36pm

The problem with this argument is that the churches aren't entirely private bodies. They take public funds in order to run services like schools, etc. It's only these areas (where they're in partnership with the government) that the Bill is supposed to have effect.

So no church would be forced to have female or gay bishops. Unless it decided to start paying them out of the public purse.

Thomas Ash
16 February 2010 - 4:59pm

And of course they're tax exempt as well.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <h2> <h3> <div> <span> <blockquote> <!--break--> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <hr> <br> <table> <td> <tr> <img> <map>
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.

More information about formatting options

Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.

You can avoid the word verification above by joining the openDemocracy community - if you have already registered, log in here