What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • From Criminality to Equality

    I think this is one of the moments in the debates on marriage where there’s more wisdom to be heard in one speech made well than in acres of newsprint trying to analyse the vote in the House of Commons last night.

    Here’s David Lammy giving it his all.

    Let me speak frankly.

    “Separate but equal” is a fraud.

    “Separate but equal” is the language that tried to push Rosa Parks to the back of the bus.

    “Separate but equal” is the motif that determined that black and white could not possibly drink from the same water fountain, eat at the same table or use the same toilets.

    “Separate but equal” are the words that justified sending black children to different schools from their white peers – schools that would fail them and condemn them to a life of poverty.

    It is an excerpt from the phrasebook of the segregationists and the racists.

    It is the same statement, the same ideas and the same delusion that we borrowed in this country to say that women could vote – but not until they were 30.

    It is the same naivety that gave made my dad a citizen in 1956 but refused to condemn the landlords that proclaimed “no blacks, no Irish, no dogs”.

    It entrenched who we were, who our friends could be and what our lives could become.

    This was not “Separate but equal” but “Separate AND discriminated”,

    “Separate AND oppressed”.

    “Separate AND browbeaten”.

    “Separate AND subjugated”.

    Separate is NOT equal, so let us be rid of it.

    Because as long as there is one rule for us and another for them, we allow the barriers to acceptance to stand unchallenged.

    As long as our statute books suggest that the love between two men or two women is unworthy of being recognised through marriage, we allow the rot of homophobia to fester.

    And then again at the end:

    The Jesus I know was born a refugee, illegitimate, with a death warrant on his name in a barn among animals. He would stand up for minorities. That is why it is right for people of religious convictions to stand up for this bill.

    There’s a longer version of the speech (which he would have given if he had been given more time) on his website.

    , , ,

7 responses to “Newsnight Scotland”

  1. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    Great stuff! Compares favourably with Fr.Gadgetvicar’s Holy Week appearance a few years back although I’m not sure if, personally, I’d rank it up there with Italian Vanity Fair 😉

    Good to see the LGBT Network and Stonewall too – and encouraging that, unlike what would have happened a mere five or six years ago, the BBC didn’t feel the need to rope in some spokesman for a homophobic lobby in the interests of ‘balance’.

    Reply
    1. kelvin Avatar
      kelvin

      Thanks Ryan

      On your last point, I think its interesting that in those five or six years, the opinion polls have been overturned. (That’s what John Curtice was telling us). The BBC can deal differently with the issue now because its not just a hypothetical issue that holy people are arguing about but a mainstream issue that the majority want but which politicians are wary of.

      I took the view a few years ago that campaigning for these issues was more fruitful within society generally rather than simply going over the same ground again and again in the church. I’m proud to be a tiny part in the process that has brought about that change in opinion. That’s a process that is now bearing fruit. The end of the process is equality and justice for all inside and outside the church.

      There are still debates to be had in the media where a pro/anti debate is what they are looking for and the balance argument comes into play. Indeed, I’ve turned down a request to do just such a media debate this week. I don’t think it takes people very far. Incidently, that was my view 6 years ago when I turned down the chance to debate with Fr Gadgetvicar on Newsnight during Holy Week.

      Reply
  2. SomeRandomBint Avatar
    SomeRandomBint

    I very much enjoyed your discussion last night – especially when you re-iterated the fact that being against homosexuality ISN’T the standard Christian view of the matter. I’ve been told I’m not a true believer because I refuse to see the harm in others being in relationships with others of the same sex. I also don’t see the validity of the argument that it’s the thin end of the wedge, and opens churches to the possibility of legal action if they refuse to perform these ceremonies. I don’t see the difference between this choice, and the choice of celebrates as to whether they perform ceremonies of divorcees. There’s much talking still to be done on the issue, but I wanted to thank you for presenting such a measured view of the opinions of those of us who are Christians AND inclusive of all sorts of people.

    Reply
  3. David McCarthy Avatar
    David McCarthy

    Kelvin was standing as a candidate in the election when Newsnight called me in 2005 – as it happens I was at his house drinking tea. They were very surprised that we were being quite so convivial.

    I felt it a pity that an another point of view was not represented the other night – it was hardly a discussion, more a presentation of one side’s opinions.

    Reply
  4. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    Sides? When did we begin to have sides?

    Reply
  5. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    ”If you are not with me, you are my enemy!” as Darth Vader and evangelical posterboy George W Bush are fond of remarking 😉

    Also , even you, David, say you are in favour of civil partnerships, a view shared by many conservatives. So despite the presence of ‘Christian’ Institute lying bigots, they are largely a loud insignificant minority (even, happily, in your congregation!) and not the legitimate ‘opposing point off view’ . Curious (or not so much) that the BBC had stephen green on in the past, but never felt the need to have antisemitic, racist or sexist speakers to provide ‘balance’ on certain issues.

    Reply
  6. Sammi del brocco Avatar
    Sammi del brocco

    Really enjoyed watching that, and thankyou for standing up. I am gay and have been with my partner for 7 years and to me civil parnership is not a marriage we should be able to get married just like everyone else. as for me marriage is all about committing,loving and spending the rest of your life with some one you love regardless of gender, are we all not human beings and supposedly have human rights? Once again thankyou very enjoyable viewing.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • A Night at the Opera

    Just back from a night at the opera. It was the RSAMD’s production of the Coronation of Poppea at the Traverse in Edinburgh. The Traverse made a better than expected venue for the piece which was beautifully sung. A pair of chattering harpsichords kept the dialogue going. The ensemble played well and the many soloists…

  • The Monastery

    Quite enjoyed watching “The Monastery” on BBC2 tonight. It is a new posh reality show where the conceit is that 5 men join the monks at Worth Abbey in Sussex. It is quite a good advert for the monastic life and religion in general. So much so, that I am thinking that it might be…

  • More blogging

    Sorry that I have been a bit remiss in posting over the last couple of weeks. Fighting a General Election campaign is not something one does very often. Well, it is not something that this one has ever done before. The adrenaline rush was incredible last Thursday night and Friday. However, it does fade. Life…

  • Result!

    The election result is o­n my political page – www.kelvin-holdsworth.co.uk I'm off to bed, exhausted but delighted at the result.