Christian bigot wins employment case

The registrar who refused to do part of the job she was being paid for because it went against her superstitions has won her case at an employment tribunal, and Christian groups are rubbing their hands.

Lilian Ladele is a registrar in Islington in London. She said she wouldn't perform marriage ceremonies (well, the authorities prefer to call them civil partnerships) for same-sex couples because some sky fairy is supposed not to like that sort of thing.

A story in Pink News tells us:

Islington council is considering an appeal after an employment tribunal ruled that a registrar was bullied because she refused to perform civil partnership ceremonies that she claimed were against God's will.

"It is an important case, which may have a wider impact than the dispute between the parties," the tribunal said. It added that it would be "wrong for one set of rights to trump another".

Islington Council rightly considered the importance of the right of the gay community not to be discriminated against, but did not consider the right of Miss Ladele as a member of a religious group.

Completely missing the point that Ms bloody Ladele can choose her religion or, if she didn't have a big God slot in her brain, could choose not to have a religion at all. To say someone has a "right" because they belong to a religious group suggests they have a "right" because they belong to any group, whether it's political, religious or Olympic yodelling.

I've been saving this piece from the Independent for when this story reared its head again. There are some good points made by Ben Summerskill of Stonewall, not least of which is his question as to what would happen if doctors refused to operate on gay people or gay registrars decided not to officiate at straight marriages because they thought they were patriarchal. To which I might add that the latter is only a belief system, just as Ladele's religion is.

What's in a word?

A Christian publisher is facing a US$60 million lawsuit over the word homosexual. Yup, it's the sort of thing that happens in America.

Zondervan publish translations of the Bible, and there's one in particular that a guy called Bradley Fowler doesn't like. The offending passage is Corinthians 6: 9.

"Fowler says Zondervan Bibles published in 1982 and 1987 use the word homosexuals among a list of those who are 'wicked' or 'unrighteous' and won't inherit the kingdom of heaven," says a story on WoodTV.com of Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Now he wants an apology and 60 million bucks, "to compensate for the past 20 years of emotional duress and mental instability".

I looked at a few versions – well, four – just to satisfy my curiosity. Here they are. First, the good old-fashioned King James version:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

Then the New Century version:

Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit God's kingdom. Do not be fooled. Those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob – these people will not inherit God's kingdom.

And here's the New International Reader's version:

Don't you know that evil people will not receive God's kingdom? Don't be fooled. Those who commit sexual sins will not receive the kingdom. Neither will those who worship statues of gods or commit adultery. Neither will men who are prostitutes or who commit homosexual acts.

And finally, this version:

Know ye this and be not deceived: only the righteous shall inherit the Kingdom of Heaven; and they that fornicate or lie with mankind as with womankind; they that are abusers of themselves or do wicked things shall be entered into this week's Heavenly Lotto for a chance to win a ticket to see Jerry Springer: the Opera in the company of my servant Stephen Green, he of Christian Voice, which is an abomination; while to him that cometh second shall be given a lifetime supply of exquisitely ribbed and flavoured condoms by my Vicar on Earth . . .

Not sure where that last one came from.

Corpus Crispi

A student at the University of Florida has made off with a biscuit. Oh, it had undergone the transubstantiation thing first, so it was no ordinary biscuit, you understand. This was the Body of Christ, in all its crunchy crispiness.

There's a delicious take on this by Barry Duke on the Freethinker blog, where he tells the tale of Webster Cook, who didn't consume the sacred Host in church one day, but took it off to show a friend. But Webster is now receiving wholesome Christian death threats for his heinous crime, because the itty bitty bickie is supposed to be consumed before the magic wears off – er, as soon as possible after the blessing.

According to WFTV.com, Cook is "holding hostage" this wafer thing after church officials said he was disruptive and disrespectful during the service at which he "kidnapped" this bit of his Lord's body.

"When I received the Eucharist, my intention was to bring it back to my seat to show [my friend]," Cook said. "I took about three steps from the woman distributing the Eucharist and someone grabbed the inside of my elbow and blocked the path in front of me. At that point I put it in my mouth so they'd leave me alone and I went back to my seat and I removed it from my mouth."

There's more to the story, with filings of complaints and goodness knows what else – all too boring to go into here. What is important is how much fuss can be made over the nicking of a little disc made of crispy unleavened bread.

Perhaps Kellog's or someone ought to launch a new breakfast cereal for Catholics, suitably blessed by the Vatican, of course: Corpus Crispies.

A case of snap, crackle and pope.

==========
FOOTNOTE: Since posting the above this morning, I've come across another good read on this subject. Go take a look. Oh, and the cracker has now been returned. It's still a cracker.

Permit us to be annoyed, say Catholics

If you say anything that annoys a Catholic in New South Wales at the moment, you can be done for it. But now, according to the Ekklesia think tank, some Catholics have taken exception to this. They don't want that degree of protection from "annoyance", it seems, if that gets in the way of social justice.

The new laws were brought in to prevent criticism of or annoyance to Catholics – effectively gagging people from openly criticising – during the World Youth Day in Sydney, which Pope Ratzinger will be attending. This is being held from 15 to 20 July.

Protesters can be fined up to A$5,500 for causing annoyance or inconvenience to Youth Day participants, says Ekklesia, which continues:

The Edmund Rice Centre, an Australian Catholic advocacy organisation, claimed that the laws introduced in New South Wales to restrict protests are contrary to Catholic traditions of social justice. "These laws significantly dampen our right to freedom of speech and to demonstrate inside or outside the church," a spokesperson for the centre, John Sweeney, told Ecumenical News International on 4 July.

But the authorities may have their work cut out, since there seems to be a lively trade in anti-Pope materials, including T-shirts such as the one above. Who's going to spend all that money to make an anti-Pope fashion statement, and then not turn up to the party?

Pride and Trust

I’ve been looking at some footage of the new Mayor of London (see below), who’s had something of a mixed reception by gays, but mainly good, I think. I still can’t get out of my mind images of the blond floppy mop responding blondly and floppily to questions from whoever was “in the chair” on Have I Got News For You, the excellent satirical quiz. He was always value for money.

Oddly enough, as my fellow blogger Roy Saich (pictured, in Pride of place) said a couple of days ago, “Gays of a certain age may be amazed to have lived to see a Conservative leader of the government of London leading a march of gays wearing a pink hat.”

Well, you might respond that it’s not just a Conservative leader: it’s Boris. Either way, you would never in a million years have conceived of its happening in the Thatcher years, or even early in the Blair years.

Anyway, the PTT were well represented at last Saturday’s Pride in London, where they set up a stall staffed by Roy, who’s a trustee, along with fellow trustee and partner George Broadhead. They were handing out the Trust's leaflets on Humanism, people in the Humanist tradition such as Epicurus, Robert Ingersoll and Thomas Paine, and the pagan origins of Christmas and Easter. Also displayed were copies of Gay & Lesbian Humanist, published by the PTT, brochures on its “Humanist Ceremony of Love and Commitment”, and International Humanist News.

“A great deal of interest was shown by the many Pride participants,” George tells me, “and, despite noises off from the very loud music, some lively discussions were held.”

George and Roy also represented the Trust at the Mayor's Pride London Reception held at City Hall, when floppily blond Boris was the main speaker. "I thought Boris did very well,” says George, “and was a refreshing change from Ken Livingstone, who badly blotted his copy book by warmly welcoming that frightful homophobic Islamic cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi." (See this GALHA briefing on that.)

And you can see Boris Johnson in action in the video below.

The Vatican regrets . . .

It's no surprise that the seriously demented people in the Vatican have expressed regret at the Church of England's welcoming of women bishops. But I thought I'd mention it, since we've been on the subject.

The madmen in the Vatican say the ruling would present a "new obstacle" to reconciliation between the so-called "Holy See" and the Anglican Communion.

"We learned with regret the news of the vote of the Church of England that opens the way to the introduction of legislation that would lead to the ordination of women bishops," the Vatican said in a statement.

Well poor bloody "Holy See"! Perhaps Anglicans ought just to tell them they're an out-of-date bunch of wankers who have no relevance in today's world. In their own chosen form of language, of course, which I'm sure would be more mealy-mouthed than mine!

Women welcome, but . . .

It's not surprising that the Church of England Synod decided to confirm the church's intention to consecrate women bishops. After all, it had been agreed upon; this was a rubber stamp.

The Synod also decided to reject so-called "super bishops" and all-male dioceses, because, said some, these would have had the effect of making women bishops "second-class". So far, so good.

But what is disturbing is that the Synod allowed the possibility of a back door through which mysoginist and bigoted prejudice might get in to spoil the party.

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is to be commended for saying, according to the Ekklesia think tank's website, "I am deeply unhappy with any scheme or any solution to this which ends up, as it were, structurally humiliating women who might be nominated to the episcopate."

He was referring to the fact that the Synod decided that serious efforts should be made not to alienate dissenters. Those serious efforts could come in the form of a "code of practice" to accommodate the bigots, although the code's contents haven't so far been revealed.

So, it seems, instead of saying to the bigots, "Look, you snivelling gobshites, women will become bishops whether you like it or not, and if you don't you can piss off," they say, "Well, er, we might, you know, just be able to do something to make it, sort of, well, not too bad, like."

Which makes them almost as bad as the bigots. Where are their balls, for goodness' sake? And why aren't their practices subject to employment laws, which protect the equality of women. Well, there are no doubt all sorts of complicated and historical reasons for that, but isn't it time politicians simply put an end to them, whatever they are, and said the church, like any other organisation or company, must abide by equality-in-employment legislation?

While men are in charge, there will always be silly rules with which to put women in their perceived place. As for the nonsensical idea that Jesus (if he existed) chose men and not women to be his chief followers, his apostles, and therefore only men can do the bishops' stuff, well, we answered this one last week.

Speaking on BBC television’s Newsnight last night, Archdeacon Christine Hardman, from Lewisham in the Diocese of Southwark, said the decision to ratify the church's intention to allow the consecreation of women was based on the Gospel imperative to recognise the spiritual gifts and authority of women in the church and in society. But she added that any code of practice could not and should not be used to impose, via the "back door", those discriminatory provisions Synod had just rejected.

I bet it will, though. We ain't seen nothing yet.

If you can't stand the heat . . .

Muslims feel like "the Jews of Europe" in the UK because of a growing culture of hostility, according to a British MP. A Muslim.

He's Shahid Malik, and makes his remarks in an interview to coincide with the third anniversary of the 7/7 London bombings. By Muslims.

"Somehow there's a message out there that it is OK to target people as long as it's Muslims, and you don't have to worry about the facts, and people will turn a blind eye," he told the Dispatches TV programme.

The Jerusalem Post tells us, quoting Malik:

"I think most people would agree that if you ask Muslims today what do they feel like, they feel like the Jews of Europe," he said. "I don't mean to equate that with the Holocaust, but in the way that it was legitimate almost – and still is in some parts – to target Jews, many Muslims would say that we feel the exact same way."

The Channel 4 [Dispatches] documentary, entitled "It Shouldn't Happen to a Muslim", will look at claims that negative attitudes to Muslims have become legitimated by think-tanks and the media who use language now being used by the far right.

Malik says British Muslims now feel like "aliens in their own country" and that he himself has been the target of racist incidents. "The MP said he regularly receives anti-Muslim hate mail . . ."

Er, hang on a mo. Racist or anti-Muslim? Yes, some people probably do hide behind religious objections in order to give vent to racism, but not all do. Being anti-Islam is not racist, unless it's accompanied by racism.

Just saying. Before anyone argues.

Is there any wonder that they feel isolated when they continue to moan and groan? Today we've reported on the fact that police may consider fitting bootees on their sniffer dogs – at extra cost to the taxpayer, no doubt – when they're taken to a Muslim home.

Last Thursday, we reported on Muslim unease because a dog was being used on a police postcard giving people their new non-emergency phone number. And there's more. Oh, there's more.

There's an old saying: if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. In this case that means if you can't fit in, assimilate, then bugger off. If you can, then stay. You're welcome.

When their religious "sensitivities" (and that goes for other nutcase belief systems, too) are forever getting in the way of the free, untrammelled flow of daily life, they can drop the religious sensitivities or just go. Few will miss the whining and whingeing.

No, it is not the first of April!

I was going to say, "You'll never believe this." But, in light of recent events, you will.

Taxpayers' money is now going to be spent, it seems, on pretty little bootees for police sniffer dogs. And you don't need to guess who's insisting on that requirement. Guidelines are being drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) urging awareness of religious sensitivities.

If a Muslim objects when police wish to enter his or her home, officers will have to use sniffer dogs only in exceptional cases. Even then, the proud pooch will have to put on a pair of bootees with rubber soles (no matter what the emergency, we assume).

"We are trying to ensure that police forces are aware of sensitivities that people can have with the dogs to make sure they are not going against any religious or cultural element within people’s homes," says Islam-appeasing ACPO. "It is being addressed and forces are working towards doing it."

And I thought I'd seen it all.

Pride London 2008

Gays of a certain age may be amazed to have lived to see a Conservative leader of the government of London leading a march of gays wearing a pink hat.

Will younger ones live to see a gay pride parade led through London by the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Pretend you're not gay, says tribunal

A gay asylum seeker in Scotland has been refused permission to stay there. He's been told he's likely to be safe in his homophobic homeland provided he behaves "discreetly".

Scotland on Sunday carries the story today, having "revealed earlier this year that Syrian Jojo Jako Yakob was battling to stay here after suffering horrific abuse because of his sexuality and political activities".

The paper tells us it's "now emerged that an immigration tribunal has turned down his request to stay in the UK, despite accepting that Yakob is gay and that Syria criminalises and represses homosexuality".

Echoes here of the British Home Secretary, Jaqui Smith, whom we lambasted recently for saying Iranian gays are safe to be departed back to that horrific regime if they're discreet.

On the Scotland case, the paper continues:

Lawyers for the 20-year-old are planning a last-ditch court bid to stop him being deported. Campaigners said they were in no doubt Yakob's life would once again be placed in serious danger.

Yakob, a Christian member of the repressed Kurdish minority in the Arab state, fled to the UK two years ago after being arrested, shot and beaten. He left his home country after surviving a harrowing ordeal at the hands of Syrian police and prison guards.

He had been arrested for distributing anti-government leaflets. When prison guards discovered he was homosexual he suffered horrific beatings and was assaulted so badly that he fell into a coma. Despite his attempts to start a new life in Scotland, the Home Office ordered his deportation in March and, last week, his appeal against the decision was denied.

The Asylum Immigration Tribunal, sitting in Glasgow, states in its ruling, "Syria criminalises and represses homosexuality. Homosexuals have to modify their behaviour and lifestyle accordingly. We find no evidence that in Syria [Yakob] would conduct himself other than discreetly to avoid repercussions."

It's OK, then, to expect someone to be someone he isn't, and Britain doesn't give a toss about him.

Yakob, says Scotland on Sunday, says he now fears for his life following the tribunal's decision. "I am very afraid of being sent home," he tells the paper. "I am afraid for my life. But I will do my best to win my case and stay in Scotland. I want to stay here, but I can't do anything until I am allowed to stay. I can't get a job, I can't do my computer training – my life is on hold.

"I just want to be happy and live my life. They believed that I was gay but they said it was not a problem to be gay in Syria if you keep your mouth shut.

"But how do you live? That is no way to live. I want to live my life and be free, and I could not do that in Syria."

Praying the game

Why are councillors elected to be councillors? Well, to get decent roads, decent schools, decent housing, efficient refuse collection and – well, you know all that.

But some barmy Tory in London has got it into his mangled brain that they should pray, too. Yes, it's their duty to attend council prayers.

According to a story on the This Is Local London website, there's a row going on in Hillingdon Council about the fact that some members decided not to go to the mumbo-jumbo bit at the start of the meeting.

Councillor Doug Mills, a Conservative cabinet member, was answering a question about community cohesion at a meeting of the council and accused some Labour councillors of ignoring their duties to all their constituents by not attending the prayer session.

"They have a duty to respect all religions," he pontificated, "and I think their failure to turn up regularly to prayers is not a sign of that respect."

Then he trotted out this argument: "If it had been a Muslim doing prayers and we Conservatives had stayed outside, they would accuse us of being racist."

Unfortunately, some people would, because they're as barmy as you are, Councillor Mills. But they'd be talking bollocks all the same. Apart from the religion-is-not-a-race argument, which we secularists have to trot out ad nauseam because it never seems to get through to the Islam appeasers, what Labour councillors would have said if this or that had or had not happened is not an argument, and probably couldn't be proved, anyway.

The fact is, Councillor Mills, you're saying councillors have a duty to their constituents to do the ridiculous talking-to-an-invisible-friend thing, just because there are people in their wards who do the same? What about cross-dressing half the time because some of their voters are of the other sex? Perhaps they should vote both ways in committee and council debates because many of their constituents would go one way and many the other?

The prayers are there for the councillors. The great unwashed out there couldn't give a rat's arse, and most wouldn't even know, if you decided to start the meeting with a hearty rendering of "Roll Out the Barrell", as long as you then got down to business and improved the roads and the schools.

Apart from the fact that time shouldn't be wasted on prayers (if they want to gather for a prayer beforehand, I'm sure there's an anteroom somewhere they could use, and get together ten minutes before the start of the meeting), what if the councillors simply don't do religion? Wouldn't praying be sheer hypocricy?

Porn again

This'll get the frothies frothing. Two of my favourite freethinking/atheist blogs, the Freethinker and MediaWatchWatch, carry the story of a porn film featuring none other than the man himself: the Lord Jesus Christ.

It's called Passio: Domini Nostri Secundum Matthaeum, and the British Board of Film Classification has passed it uncut. It stars Danny Fox as a gay Jesus. See more about it here.

Uncut? Looks cut to me. Take a closer look. Go on, don't be shy.

That stained-glass ceiling again

They're talking about women bishops at the Church of England Synod today. Some "traditionalists" (read "bigots") don't want them. The argument – if you can call it that – seems to be that Jesus called twelve men as his apostles.

Er, well, it would have been a bit difficult in those says to call a woman, wouldn't it? Is their Jesus of all time or just his own time, the time when he walked as a mortal upon the earth? If he's of all time (which Christians claim he is), and if we live in a time when women are playing active roles in all walks of life (which we do), shouldn't there be a place for women bishops? Just asking, because it seems rather obvious to me.

The "traditionalists" have "formed an alliance with evangelicals who have their own biblical reasons – the belief that men should have authority over women – for demanding the imposition of special conditions before women are ordained as bishops", says Robert Piggott, the BBC's religious affairs chappie, in this story.

If these bozos are not happy to answer to women, they should move out of their jobs. If you (you're male for the sake of this argument) or I worked for an organisation and we suddenly found ourselves with a woman next up in seniority – as I and many others have – we'd be expected to get on with the job, whether we objected or not.

Women exist, and are in roles around us, and often do a damned sight better than men. Get used to it.

There's also some sort of irony – not seriously part of the argument, I know – that these prancing queens doll themselves up in garb that would put a Gay Pride parade to shame, and can't stand the fact that a woman might recite some prayers, confer a blessing or make an administrative decision that would affect the diocese.

In the Green corner . . .

Remember Stephen "Birdshit" Green's petition pleading not to have to pay the court costs after his woeful attempt to bring the BBC to book over Jerry Springer: the Opera? He hasn't got many signatures (1,090 when I checked shortly after 10 a.m. today), but a counterpetition organised by Roger Utting is already pulling 'em in.

It's been up for a shorter period than Green's, and already (at the same time today) has 727 signatures. After you've read this, no doubt it'll get a few more. And it's worth noting that many who signed Green's online petition did so only so that they could leave suitably robust comments.

I'm glad to see that the counterpetition has been signed by the excellent songwriter and comedian (of Now Show fame, among much more) Mitch Benn, who says by way of comment:

Stephen Green and his Christian Voice organisation bullied a cancer charity [Maggie's Centres] into rejecting a £10,000 donation raised by JSTO. They held their own right to take offence to be more important than the suffering of the sick and dying. They present themselves as the defenders of Christian decency and yet they wouldn’t know true Christian decency if it jumped up and bit them. Stephen Green brought this misfortune upon himself through ego and arrogance. You sowed it, Mr Green. Now reap it.

==========

Hat tip: Freethinker

Gay in, gay out

Oh, what a difference a gay makes! You'll love this one.

The American Family Association – a rabidly homophobic organisation made up entirely of suitable cases for treatment – doesn't like the word gay and makes a policy of substituting the word homosexual. So in its news outlet OneNewsNow.com it writes an article about a guy called Tyson Gay, the fastest man on the US Olympic track team.

With the aid of the find-and-replace filter, out goes Gay and in comes Homosexual. Here's how a bit of it reads:

Tyson Homosexual was a blur in blue, sprinting 100 meters faster than anyone ever has. His time of 9.68 seconds at the U.S. Olympic trials Sunday doesn't count as a world record, because it was run with the help of a too-strong tailwind. Here's what does matter: Homosexual qualified for his first Summer Games team and served notice he's certainly someone to watch in Beijing.

"It means a lot to me," the 25-year-old Homosexual said. "I'm glad my body could do it, because now I know I have it in me."

See more here on the Dispatches from the Culture Wars blog. It gives you a link to the original, but it appears the athlete's name has been reinstated.

Thanks to Stuart Harthill of Isle of Man Humanists for bringing my attention to this, which he saw on the excellent Butterflies and Wheels (see links in sidebar).

Dog and phone

Reality check. Is it the first of April? Nope. Then this must be true.

Believe it or not, Muslims (who else?) are irate, up in arms, complaining, moaning, call it what you will, about a police postcard advertising a non-emergency phone number for a Scottish force.

Why? Is it because someone has printed "Allah be buggered!" on every one of them? Is it because there's a picture of Mohammed twizzling a policeman's helmet on his knob while sucking on a pork sausage?

No. There's a doggy in the picture. That's all. A cute little doggy called Rebel. Sitting in a policeman's cap with a telephone alongside him. That's all. Just Rebel, the cap and the phone. Nothing else. Except the information the Tayside Constabulary wishes to put out, of course, about its non-emergency phone number.

"The advert has upset Muslims because dogs are considered ritually unclean and has sparked such anger that some shopkeepers in Dundee have refused to display the advert," says this story in the Daily Mail (a couple of days old, but, hey, we get there in the end – and not all our highly intelligent readers bother with the Mail).

The story continues: "Dundee councillor Mohammed Asif said: 'My concern was that it's not welcomed by all communities, with the dog on the cards.' "

Poor Mohammed bloody Asif.

He goes on, "They should have understood. Since then, the police have explained that it was an oversight on their part, and that if they'd seen it was going to cause upset they wouldn't have done it."

But why, oh why, should they pay any attention to religious madmen? This sort of thing could go on for ever, with objections to this and that and goodness knows what else. It's total madness, and giving in to these highly disturbed pillocks is just not on.

Should the police not use police dogs, either, then, even in so-called Muslim areas? Would a Muslim police officer refuse to work with a dog? What would happen if he or she did? You can bet your bottom that the moaning Minny's "sensitivities" would be catered for if the following is anything to go by.

A spokesman for the force is quoted as saying, "His incredible worldwide popularity – he has attracted record visitor numbers to our website – led us to believe Rebel could play a starring role in the promotion of our non-emergency number. We did not seek advice from the force's diversity adviser prior to publishing and distributing the postcards. That was an oversight and we apologise for any offence caused." (Emphasis mine.)

Appeasement, no less! You chicken-livered wazzock! Stanley Baldwin had nothing on today's supine, ball-less authorities, who won't stand up to religious insanity and religious bullying, but allow themselves to be walked all over by superstitionists who feel hurt and offended by almost anything you can mention.

Am I angry? Yes, I'm fucking angry!

Should Mother Kelly be shown the doorstep?

Ruth Kelly has got her way. She'll escape the necessity to vote on somethng her choice of superstition makes distasteful to her.

She's a raving Catholic of the Opus Dei faction and hates poofs. That goes without saying. But she also hates the idea that embryos – you know, those little bundles of cells with no more sentience than a plucked eyelash – might be buggered about with a bit in a Petri dish in the name of science, and possible cures for nasty illnesses.

Her god is OK with allowing actual thinking, breathing, knowing people to die, but not a few cells. Now I know there are concerns about playing with life at a genetic level, but the concensus seems to be that there are potential benefits for living people and those yet to be born if this sort of research is permitted. Anyway, it's up to politicians and scientists and their various ethics bodies to decide, rightly or wrongly, on these matters, not people who believe their guidance comes from on high.

But this prat, who was once Secretary of State for Education and Skills, wants it not to happen. She's not happy with having been allowed a free vote, along with other superstitionists, on individual aspects of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, on the understanding that, when it came to a vote on the Bill itself, Labour MPs will vote with the government. Now those individual votes have gone against her, she is not sporting enough to say, "OK, we were defeated, now let's support the Bill because it's a government Bill."

Oh, no. She wants a get-out. And she's bloody well gone and got it, according to the Daily Telegraph, and her colleagues aren't exactly chuffed about it.

"Miss Kelly, one of several prominent Catholics in Gordon Brown's Cabinet, has told whips she will be in Brussels on 14 July, the day that the vote will take place," says the paper.

Convenient for her. And she's been given special permission to miss this vote. That's the galling thing about it: they've caved in to her superstitions and let her off the hook. The paper goes on:

Mr Brown allowed a free, conscience, vote when the matters were debated in the Commons last month on condition that ministers would have to vote for the entire bill when it returned to the Commons.

That "deal" has been accepted by other Catholic Cabinet ministers including Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, and Paul Murphy, the Welsh Secretary. But Miss Kelly's determination to not be forced to vote for the bill has led to her citing a meeting in Brussels as a reason for her absence from the Commons on Monday week.

Some ministers have privately said that Miss Kelly should vote with the Government or stand down from her Cabinet post.

Well, a politician with any honour (and there don't seem to be many of those) would do the decent thing and resign.

In . . .

In October 1999, the Reverend Mel White’s Soulforce faith delegation of 200 gay, lesbian and transgendered people broke bread with the homophobic Reverend Jerry Falwell and 200 of his religious-right associates in an attempt to lower the rhetoric. “Breaking bread is better than breaking heads,” said White, who’d spent the previous seven years pursuing Falwell and those of his ilk.

In July, 2000, George Monbiot wrote asking whether the Pope was gay, and highlighted the claim that up to 200 gay men are murdered in Italy every year.

In 2001, the University of Washington (UW) surveyed 200 gay, lesbian and unmarried and married straight couples about the division of household chores, to ascertain whether the friction that is caused is the same in same-sex households as it is in straight ones!

In May 2003, 200 members of the gay group the Log Cabin Republicans met with White House officials.

In April 2006, 200 gay families attended the annual White House Easter Egg Roll to showcase themselves to President George W Bush and the nation.

In May 2008, around 200 Romanian gay activists defied religious and far-right groups by marching through Bucharest in their Pride parade.

In June 2007, Flicr displayed its 200 most interesting New York gay pride photographs.

In June 2008, Heinz pulled it’s “gay mayo” TV ad after 200 people complained.

In July 2008, the Pink Triangle blog published an entry about the 200 gay people of faith breaking bread with the 200 frothing religious homophobes, the 200 gay men who are murdered in Italy each year, the 200 people surveyed by UW about domestic chores, the 200 US gay Republicans who met with White House officials, the 200 gay families who attended Bush’s Easter Egg Roll, the 200 Romanian LGBT Pride activists who took on the religious bigots, the 200 Flicr photos from the 2007 New York gay pride, the 200 saddos who complained about Heinz’s “gay mayo” TV ad and this 200th Pink Triangle blog entry about the 200th Pink Triangle blog entry.

Campaigners get a "Christian" welcome

Three gay-rights campaigners seem to have been knocked about a bit by frothing homophobic Christians.

According to today's Independent, Peter Tatchell and two others, including a Ugandan Christian, walked calmly into a conference at which 750 or so of the worst elements of Christianity had gathered for a homophobic hate-fest.

Well, to be fair, the Indie doesn't say they're the worst elements. I'm saying that.

Anyway, the gathering, "at which rebel bishops were trying to attract recruits to a network for Anglicans who believe all same-sex relationships should be condemned", was at All Souls' Church in London, and followed the GAFCON event in Jerusalem last week, where some of these people were gathered, seething in their obsessive hatred of same-sex relationships.

"We were punched and physically ejected," Tatchell tells the paper. "We were very polite. We folded up our banners and tried to walk into the conference. They did not say a word to us, they just started punching and shoving."

The rebels have decided to establish a global network for Anglicans opposed to the Church's recognition of gay relationships and women bishops, to be headed by a "primates' council".

Would these be the sorts of primates I'm thinking of at this moment?