• The Equality Network Gets it Wrong

    There’s so much that the Equality Network gets right but to be honest, I’m of the view that they got it wrong this weekend. An article appeared in the Scotsman giving a few glimpses of what the Equality Network is planning during the Commonwealth Games. Apparently there is to be a Pride House which will highlight work done for LGBT rights in different commonwealth countries. Well, so far so good, what’s not to like?

    Indeed, the idea of highlighting the work of LGBT rights organisations across the Commonwealth is a very good one indeed and I wish it every success.

    What concerned me greatly was this comment from a staff member at the Equality Network:

    What we won’t be doing is outwardly criticising Commonwealth countries because the last thing I think that is useful for LGBT people in those countries is for the former colonial power to be saying this is how we do it and we do it right and you are wrong when in fact the majority of the homophobic laws in these countries were put in place by the former colonial power.

    Now, that just doesn’t seem right to me.

    The Equality Network has been quite up front about criticising Russia in the last few months. Why on earth would we tone it down when we are talking about Commonwealth Countries with which we have much stronger ties and much greater influence? Yes, it is indeed true that we must be sensitive to where homophobic laws in Commonwealth countries came from. That hardly means that we have no right to speak out about government actions today.

    To put it bluntly, if the President of Uganda signs the bill which is before him which will bring in life sentences for gay people in that country and prison sentences for anyone who knows about someone being gay and who does not report it then I expect to have something to say about it. Not only that, I expect the Equality Network to have something to say about it and to do so loudly during the Commonwealth Games if necessary. If the President of Uganda signs that bill I expect Alex Salmond to refuse to shake the hand that signed it and those of any other government ministers from that country who turn up in Glasgow.

    I saw on twitter last night that it wasn’t just me who thought the emphasis in this article was misguided. There were other voices too and some of us have been the Equality Network’s greatest supporters in recent months. Rather surprisingly, we were not listened to but argued with.

    I think the Equality Network has got it wrong on this. There is very likely to need  to be very direct protests about governments whose officials will be showing up in Scotland with the rest of the Commonwealth this summer.

    It simply isn’t good enough to say that we must represent the views of LGBT networks in those countries. They, like the Equality Network, are in hugely privileged positions. We can’t possibly know what gay folk on the ground think in many countries simply because they are left almost entirely voiceless by forces of oppression and homophobia.

    If they can’t protest the actions of their governments others can. Indeed, that’s how decent people who care about the world behave.

    The Equality Network need to continue their brilliant plan for a Pride House at the Commonwealth Games and make sure they are robustly prepared to use it as a platform to speak out clearly and stridently against cruelty, oppression and hatred whether it comes from individuals or from government ministers. If it comes from the latter, the Equality Network is well placed to whisper in the ears of Scottish Ministers and make sure that they behave equally appropriately and robustly.

    As a gay member of Scottish society who has done my bit for the Equality Network, I expect no less. The gay kid in Kampala who is unrepresented by anyone because he is terrified and can speak to no-one should expect no less either.

    Of course we must directly criticise homophobic Commonwealth governments. How could we do anything else?

9 responses to “Faith and Order Board Business – the Anglican Covenant process”

  1. kelvin Avatar

    Tim Daplyn – says that the Indaba process is not a normative process but something which means many things to many people. We have no rules of procedure. Asks if the feedback from Indaba will be incorporated into synod. is is canonical. Indaba was designed for African situation not our own.

  2. kelvin Avatar

    Chris Mayo – history is replete with turning points. We are at a turning point. Covenant process is laiden with emotion. People making up their minds at an early stage. Some see it as taking away our identity. Others see it as essential in a chaning environment. Question today is about moving on the journey. Thinks it would be abbrogation of responsibility to turn down this motion. We have a voice the punches far above our weight to communion.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      I speak and ask for material for dioceses to consider which puts a different position to that put by the Anglican Comminion Office.

  3. kelvin Avatar

    Grant Swain speaks in favour of the covenant and says that we would be left out in the cold by refusing to sign. Says that we must be there. But, our strength lies in being undecided. He supports the motion and says that we must sign the Covenant so we can mediate between extremists both in and outside our church. Talk is needed. But we need to be

  4. kelvin Avatar

    Lawrie Scrimgeour – asks since Independence is on the agenda, in this motion we are talking about Independence. Has the faith and order board considered a referendum on the question of the Covenant.

  5. kelvin Avatar

    Anne Pankhurst – notes that the Faith and Order Board say that there could be other processes. She says that we could end up with a Canon which was very difficult to change. She asks for further enlightenment.

  6. kelvin Avatar

    Bishop of Glasgow (Acting Convener) responds: Synod does seem to have the capacity to decide to adopt the process outlined. Responds to my suggestion by saying that he will take those views back to Faith and Order Board. He says that the Process itself takes no view on the Covenant. Synod is the only legally competent body to decided it. A referendum has not been considered and he believes it would not be canonical. Faith and Order Board has considered the posibility of remaining undecided.

  7. kelvin Avatar

    Bishop of Argyll says that Indaba process is a way of giving everyone a voice in a transparent way. We are trying to talk this year and explore the issues in depth. Next year a canonical process. Everyone will see everything that has been said in the Indaba process. The process is no in camera or in committee but a way of giving everyone a voice.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      Motion is carried – I think about 12 – 15 people voted against and 1 or 2 abstentions. So, we have a process for considering the Covenant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Sermon for Advent 3 2007

    You will probably be aware that we are using a new microphone system here today. I remember that when I first came here I was told that it was a difficult building to preach in, but you were a good congregation to preach to. Indeed you are. You laugh in all the right places. However…

  • I agree with the Pope

    I find that I’m in agreement with the Pope. Well, in terms of the Advent Wreath Candle Controversy, anyway. The Catholic News Service has highlighted the fact that the Papal Library has a wreath with red candles and has generously linked to the controversy on such topics on this blog. Delighted to reciprocate.

  • Love Blooms Bright

    I’m joining in with a group blog called Love Blooms Bright which Kimberly Bohan has helped set up for advent. Here is my first post: Someone described this blog to me as being very welcome. They described it as a quiet blog for Advent. It got me thinking. A quiet blog? Does that mean only…

  • Take That Piano

    I referred some time ago to a certain piano (white) on the south side of the city. Yes, Westenders, there actually is a South Side of the city – people really do live over on the far bank of the river. I’ve been there, I’ve seen them. Anyway, it was pointed out to me recently…