Murdo Fraser's stigmatising questions of equal marriage

Murdo Fraser

Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser has laid down four questions that make for rather worrying reading when taken as a whole in relation to the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill that is progressing through Holyrood.

The first:

Question S4W-17753: Murdo Fraser, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Date Lodged: 15/10/2013

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will amend the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill to state that the current definition of marriage is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society.

Now I believe in freedom of speech. So I would want to protect people right to say that they disagree with the definition of marriage. Nobody should be forced to change the way they practice marriage, but the state can lead the way and at the same time enable faith groups to follow if they choose. In fact that was the reason that when it came to drafting Scottish Liberal Democrat policy on this that we let faith groups decide for themselves if they wanted to bring in same-sex marriage within their group.

However, when you lift the right of someone to say they disagree to the level of a belief there is a problem. Opposition to same-sex couples getting married in and of itself is not a complete belief structure. Indeed there are many people within most of the faith groups who disagree on this point to varying degrees. Some will oppose it absolutely, some oppose it within any faith group, some only within their faith group but are happy for others that want to to go ahead and others that are open to it however it happens. There is no straight forward belief in how people are opposed to same-sex couples getting married. It is as diverse a belief system as the faith groups themselves. 

Which leads to the second question:

Question S4W-17754: Murdo Fraser, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Date Lodged: 15/10/2013

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will seek to amend the Equality Act 2010 to (a) include in the protected characteristic of religion or belief, support for the current definition of marriage and (b) ensure that people opposed to same-sex marriage should not experience any detriment because of their views.

Here as I said above even those within faith groups have differing views on the current definition of marriage. What the current Bill is seeking to do is to respect whatever decision each faith group comes to via its own governance and procedures. In Scotland we have less state control of religion than in England and Wales. 

This amendment would seek to ensure that people opposed to same-sex marriage should not experience any detriment because of their views. But what if them avoiding detriment comes to their views comes at the detriment of those in a same-sex marriage. You cannot impose a cover all as this amendment does. Imagine an extreme example:

"I'm sorry my Lord, but I disagree with same-sex marriage and when I found out the couple next door were 'gay married' I collapsed our connecting wall unto them stoning them to death as stated in Leviticus 20:13 I should do with man who lies with another man. But under the amendment to the Equality Act 2010 I should not suffer any detriment for acting upon my views."

Extreme maybe, but if that amendment were to be added to the equality act as it is written is there really any response that a court could make to such a defence?

Then unto question three:

Question S4W-17756: Murdo Fraser, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Date Lodged: 15/10/2013

To ask the Scottish Government, if same-sex marriage was introduced, what its position is on whether it would be appropriate for public sector employers to take into account the views on this of (a) applicants for posts and (b) staff when considering their suitability for employment.

Now public sector employees cover a wide gamut of positions.

First there is the obvious front line position of registrars who would have to carry out same-sex marriages. Mind you these people already carry out marriages between people of faith and those without (which their beliefs could oppose), same sex couples in civil partnerships, and even divorcees. We do not see Murdo Fraser or anyone else for that matter wanting these believes about the current definition of marriage being similarly protested.

Also what about in the workplace. Will people engaged in same-sex marriages be allowed of have pictures of their spouse and family around their work station, or would the objector who has their opposite-sex spouse and family on his object and force that to be taken down?

Then there are other public servants, the police who have to deal with homophobic abuse against a same sex couple who are married. Medical staff who would have to admit the spouse of a same-sex marriage into a patients room when only family are allowed. The benefits officer adjudicating on the benefits that a couple deserve as a respect of their marriage. Etc, etc. 

In other words as far as public servants go they have to serve the public. Their views cannot get in the way of them carrying out their duties. I know that this question was aimed solely at the task of registrars, but by being so openly worded to avoid looking targeted and openly homophobic in one area of public service, there is no way that such an open ended statement can be allowed anywhere near this Bill or its consequences.

Which leads to the final question:

Question S4W-17757: Murdo Fraser, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Date Lodged: 15/10/2013

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will amend the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 to specify that organisations opposed to same-sex marriage will not fail to meet the charity test because of this view.

Now I thought the aim of all the charities in Scotland was to help those in need. Whether that is adults or children. Would a charity aimed at helping children not help a child if their parents were or had been in a same-sex marriage. Would a charity fail to help someone because there were in a same-sex marriage, if they were hungry, thirsty, needed clothes, were sick or  in prison. Because if they failed on any of these definitions of charity they fail not just the charity test laid down in law but that laid down by Jesus in Matthew 25:31-46. 

So Murdo is looking to protect faith charities from one part of the bible by allowing them to break another part of it. If they want to provide a charity they should follow the examples of the one they base their faith on surely. He didn't seem to differentiate between those worthy of his charity and those who didn't. In fact he broke the norms of his time reaching out to those groups that those of his faith felt were unclean, rather than banishing them from his help.

All of these 'amendments' from Murdo Fraser are probably meant to address very specific areas but in order to appear to not be stigmatising people who will become married to a same-sex partner  he has opened his parameters wide. The result is that in trying not to focus on particularly homophobic language and instances he has opened the gap far too wide. 

It shows total disregard to his first question looking for respect in a democratic society. If people who are opposed to same-sex marriage want to be respected in a democratic society they should also respect those who want to be married to a same-sex partner. That respect will allow them to disagree without discriminating.

Those of us who support equal marriage also support freedom of expression. Our expression doesn't impinge on those who object, but their trying to squeeze how far our equality goes does make some of our number more anti allowing them to keep their freedoms.

Alex Salmond and the Royal Mail

So in his speech today Alex Salmond said that after independence he would return the Royal Mail to public ownership. Now I make no apology here for being a philately geek as this is where the issues arise from what Alex has said in such a blasé manner.

First up there is the name, he would have no powers over the Royal Mail. The only postal service in the World that does not need to use the nation's name in its title is that of the United Kingdom as in 1840 they were the first to offer a universal set price postal service. Every other nation from the USA to South Sudan has to have the name of the country in its postal service name and on its stamps.

I have no qualms about Alex salmond saying he would restore a public postal service, but I do when he says that it would be the Royal Mail.

However, on the subject of a public postal service, does that mean that the franchised counters out to grocery stores or other shops in our rural communities would also be brought back into public ownership and therefore into a custom state run enterprise. You see if Alex truly means that all units of the Scottish Mail Service are to be public we cannot have rural post services run in the local shop. Nor can we have grocers delivery groceries and mail as an all in one service. You see the post service has not been entirely publicly owned for some time. Sometimes the franchised counters do not live up to expectations or occasionally the store into which they have been franchised run into difficulty. Then the Royal Mail has had to find some alternative arrangement, and this has not always been immediate, nor it is always fit for the purpose that those locals would like to expect, initially.

Then we have the matter that Alex Salmond's post service would have to operate outside of the UK. People will know that the cost of posting to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man is the same as to the UK. But these are crown dependencies. What Alex Salmond is wanting is a fully independent Scotland within the framework of  the UK.

While in the UK to post a letter up to 100g currently costs 60p first class and 50p second class. If I wanted to post something from Londonderry to Letterkenny, it would cost 88p minimum (up to 10g) but rise to £2.38 for between 90 and 100g. This is because Ireland counts as being in the EU. I know of people close to the border who have family in Northern Ireland who will order to the Northern Irish address as it is cheaper by quite some way.

Independence and the mail will have an affect on Scottish jobs.

Amazons largest fulfillment centre is in Dunfermline. But with increased mail costs to the rest of the UK will it be economically viable to keep both the one there and the one at Gourock? Probably not. So they will probably close the Gourock centre and scale down the one at Dunfermline. The same applies to other distribution networks that have based themselves in Scotland because of the space. With increased postage as shown above being quite steep for even small items the cost of distribution by mail order would mean a scaling back of these type of industries. That would mean a lot of lost jobs in the central belt where the M8, M9 and M80 triangle have prided themselves in becoming a distribution hub.

Independence would affect these jobs, these industries. Therefore is not enough for Alex Salmond to merely say that under independence the Royal Mail will be returned to public hands. Under independence mail will cost a lot more to send outwith Scotland and that has an impact on the cost of running companies and on people's jobs.

The Royal Mail is an essential service to people all across the UK. But under independence 5.25 million of those citizens will find it has an impact on them, the work they do, keeping in touch with family and friends and maybe even their job. People in the borders will be able to get around this, they'll use the address of their family or friends in Carlisle or Berwick to order stuff from English based firms. You don't believe this. This already happens with people from the Republic ordering stuff from UK companies to their f&f in Derry/Londonderry, Newry or Enniskillen.

There are more questions that Alex and his SNP team have to answer about postal services under an independent Scotland, because this is another area where we are Better Together.

Eric Cantor effectively elected Dictator of the USA

For the last 16 days only the leader of the Republican Party (the majority party) or his designate has had the ability to move an amended join resolution of the House and Senate. Why? Because on 1st October the Republican led house moved to change centuries of House standing orders. So now you know that only person had the power to reopen the US Government and he wasn't elected to rule over the USA, by all the people, but merely by the 750,000 people or so of the Virginia's 7th Congressional District. Of whom 222,983 gave him their vote. His name is Eric Cantor, his party's 241 other representatives elected him the dictator of the USA at the start of this month.

Fisking UKIP Councillor Henry Reilly

Newry and Mourne's District Council's UKIP member Henry Reilly wrote and opinion piece in the Belfast Telegraph today. I have decided that the best way to deal with this is Fisking it line by line (as usually my comments are in red).

As a democratic and libertarian party definition of libertarian - a) an adherent of libertarianism b) a person who advocates civil liberty, UKIP believes the state should play only a minimal role in the lives of its people. Marriage for instance, happily existed for millennia without any interference from the state whatsoever so the 1753 Marriage Act where you had to be married in the Church of England was not interference for the Roman Catholics, dissenting churches, Jews, atheists, Hindus, Muslims was quite correctly lifted in the 1836 Marriage Act it was an end to state interference. While I personally cannot condone the 'gay' lifestyle Here we go with the lifestyle thing again. Is it my drinking coffee, going out to work every day, shopping on the street, enjoying time with friends, or falling in love that you cannot condone, or is it merely what I may get up to in the privacy of my bedroom you want to 'interfere' with which I believe is damaging to the individuals as I said before where is the damage in my lifestyle which doesn't differ than much from others involved I recognise that not all people have the same values and beliefs as me.

Civil partnerships are a recent development. UKIP recognises that they provide a way of allowing  people to formally register relationship commitments wonder if he calls opposite-sex marriage a way to register relationship commitments, this is about love is it not? and have a legal means of dealing with the problems that had been identified in the past like tax arrangements and the distribution of joint property assets legal means yes, but in a way of keeping that love commitment separate and compartmentalised away from those who object and do not condone the so called 'gay' lifestyle. The civil partnership  arrangement allows all people the same fundamental rights as married heterosexual couples not all as those LGBT people of faith who want to marry a same-sex partner are not allowed to be joined in a faith setting with hymns. prayers or God being mentioned, nor faith groups that currently want to the ability to fulfill this equality if they choose. Why? Because Northern Ireland currently is alone with in the UK in not lifting this prohibition.

A difficulty arises however when the state seeks to punish those for practising sincerely held principles or religious beliefs again there are those who religious beliefs differ on this issue of same-sex marriage and indeed homosexuality in general. I believe that it is profoundly unjust that Christian business people like B&B operators or printers should be subjected to the threat of jail for simply practicing what they believe or council staff and church ministers who believe that marriage is a sacred Christian rite between a man and a women. First up these people are providing a service. If you have advertised that you are providing a service and then refuse it merely because of the sexual orientation of the customer you are discriminating. No Blacks, no Irish ring a bell.

That’s what the Progressive Unionist Party effectively called for at the weekend, when it passed a motion to introduce homosexual marriage in both Northern Ireland without an MLA they cannot introduce anything, but they did pass a motion to support marriage equality twice debated in Stormont and are one of the first unionist parties to do so and the rest of the UK like UKIP the PUP have no elected representatives in the rest of the UK legislators. Admittedly, David Cameron promises those who object to homosexual marriage – most notably churches – in England and Wales will be protected from it. But like any of ‘Cast Iron Dave’s’ promises, they’re not worth the paper they’re written on in England, Wales or anywhere else I don't read of any churches having to marry Jews after 1836 lifted that prohibition, indeed the 1753 Act meant they had to, clearly the paper that previous marriage acts was written on was worth it.

For so long as the UK remains subservient to the European Court of Human Rights, it is inevitable the law will be challenged. It is similarly inevitable it will be deemed to be ‘unfair’ by a panel of judges in Strasbourg, which interferes in everything yet is accountable for nothing.

Consequently, there is a real danger that ministers, church officers, registrars and wedding venue owners could be jailed or heavily fined if they fail to agree with David Cameron or Billy Hutchinson actually if there is any forcing of ministers or church officers being forced he should come and see me, I don't feel that they should be any coercion but faith groups that wish do so can come to their own conclusion. As for registrars they already carry out the civil partnerships that UKIP apparently recognise and many refer to is as being like marriage and venues would surely love the extra revenue.

That’s wrong; no person or group can be allowed to force their ideas on society or compromise hard won personal freedoms there is a juxtoposition of ideas here. He is claiming that one group can not force their ideas on society while at the same time allowing another group to do just that. We are talking about two personal freedoms, allowing people of the same sex to marry doesn't affect anyone else, but denying them that equality certainly does so just whose personal freedom is worth more, a true libertarian would say nobody's personal freedom is worth more than anyone else's. Therefore, while I understand civil partnerships, I’m opposed to state-enforced homosexual marriage the state is not enforcing anything, but lifting an enforced prohibition. The motion passed at the weekend’s PUP conference is profoundly illiberal leader Billy Hutchinson said in his speech "However, it is also important to point out that the motion
adopted today does not discriminate against those who hold opposing views on this
issue." just like the Act from Westminster and the Bill before Holyrood, even if it is regretfully consistent with the PUP’s apparent desire to become the foot soldiers of the European Union and a ruling, metropolitan, socialist elite. So nothing to do about being the same as the rest of the UK then, strange that a UKIP Councillor should want part of the UK to not be the same as the rest.

This is me:

In conclusion yet again you have somebody trying to argue for a liberal or libertarian approach that the removal of the prohibition, imposed by the state, is a state imposition of same-sex marriage. They are arguing for the case of personal freedoms but are placing some people's personal freedoms on a higher pedestal that others. The same was once said about women, before that non-caucasions, or Jews and before that slaves. 

Just because personal freedoms have historically favoured one part of societies personal freedoms giving those same freedoms to a group denied them doesn't mean that group lose their own freedom, they merely have respect for others to move at the same level as themselves.

How can removing a state interference be seen as state interference? Especially for a so-called libertarian such an argument is pure nonsense. How can increasing personal freedom and indeed faith groups freedom to operate as they want be seen as restricting them?

There is somewhat a catch 22 situation here. Giving some people the personal and religious freedoms that you yourself have seems to be seen as taking away those freedoms from you. Surely that is not right.

Has the BBC have mislaid the USA

You know the way that when you move some paperwork always seems to get mislaid or hard to find.

Well the reason that the USA has taken so long to come up with a budget agreement may be for just this reason. "Why?" you ask, well according to the BBC the USA is now part of the Middle East.

Looking at Poots' preferred Blood Banning nations - The Truth

"The same legislation that applies today in Northern Ireland applies in the USA, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark.  I will pose a question.

"The vast majority of countries apply that legislation.  So are all those people prejudiced or is the question that is being posed by others that I am prejudiced just a stupid one?"

Now that was a question posed by Edwin Poots, Northern Ireland's Health Minister, yesterday. However, if is possibly the wrong question. All of these nations brought in such legislation during the 1980s when it was believed that HIV was a disease that only affected gay men and also at a time when testing for the virus was not as good as it is now. 

So while politicians in these countries maintain this ban what have the medical advisers in some of the countries listed by Poots have actually said:

USA: The American Medical Association earlier this year has advised the Food and Drug Administration who oversee blood donations there that:

"The lifetime ban on blood donation for men who have sex with men is discriminatory and not based on sound science. This new policy urges a federal policy change to ensure blood donation bans or deferrals are applied to donors according to their individual level of risk and are not based on sexual orientation alone."  

Canada:  On May 22, 2013, Health Canada approved proposals from Canadian Blood Services (CBS) and Héma-Québec (HQ) to change the blood donor deferral period for men who have sex with men (MSM) from a lifetime deferral to five years. This regulatory decision came as a result of proposed licence amendments submitted in December 2012 from both blood operators.

Germany: The German Medical Association (BÄK) earlier this year has also said that it will do everything “within its means” to remove the blanket ban on men who have sex with men, those with lots of sexual partners and prostitutes, from donating blood.

France: A Government report earlier this year stated that prohibiting gay donors is now unnecessary because all donated blood is effectively screened for HIV. One of their advisers said:

"There is still this stereotypical image of all gay men having AIDS, which comes from the 1980s. People simply thought AIDS was a gay man’s disease and we are stuck with that view today.

"Most gay couples are simply like any other heterosexual couples in terms of their sexual practices.

"Allowing homosexual men to give blood will take away the risk that people lie on the questionnaires. People who give blood are normally responsible people. They do it for the benefit of someone else and will not do it if they think they pose a risk."

Netherlands: In the government's LGBT  equality plan it says: "The cabinet will consult the Sanquin blood bank and explore the possibilities for amending the rules regarding blood donation so that for men, sexual contact with other men will no longer lead to life-long exclusion from donating blood. In this regard, needless to say the safety of the recipients of blood products has the highest priority."

Sweden: Actually are rather erroneously on this list. MSM have been allowed to give blood after a 12 month deferral period there following a change in the rules as far back as 2010.

Luxembourg: In June 2013 the Minster of Health said "sexual orientation cannot be a reason to ban blood donation.Sexual orientation is not a risk in itself." However, he is awaiting the results from the UK and France (see above) before making his own decision on this. Meanwhile the study in their country found that homosexuals with a single partner were no more likely to contract HIV than heterosexuals, while homosexuals with frequently changing partners were indeed found to be at a higher risk to contract the disease.

Singapore: It is still a criminal offense under the old British imposed penal code to consensually have sex with another man in Singapore. It therefore seems a little remiss of Edwin Poots to compare this nation with Northern Ireland as for a man to admit to having sex with another man while donating blood there (instead of counseling could face a 2 year jail term)


Mr Poots also fail to mention Australia (12 month deferral), New Zealand (5 year deferal), Spain, Portugal, Italy.

In opening his remarks yesterday Mr Poots said:

"There is no ban on blood donation by gay men per se.  The lifetime ban is based on sexual behaviour, not sexual orientation."

Actually this is contrary to the SaBTO report and many of those reports carried out in other nations that are cited above. A monogamous homosexual couple in a long-term relationship are no more susceptible to acquiring a blood borne infection than a heterosexual couple. Nor is a man who had sex with other men over one year ago, any more at risk than another individual bases solely on that one criteria. Also not all MSM are gay men. From the criteria still used by the Northern Ireland Blood Tranfusion service it involves any man who has had any sexual contact either anally or orally, with or without a condom at any point in their life. For some men this may have been a one off in their youth that excludes them, if could also exclude their wife of x years for a 12 month period beyond the time they stop being sexually active.

When actual behaviour is taken into consideration, number of sexual partners, casualness and anonymity of those partners, risks of the sex involved with that individual, then Mr Poots can really say that the ban is based on sexual behaviour not orientation. I'll even allow a deferral period on MSM.

But he is also insulting nations such as the USA, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands and indeed the Nordic nations especially Sweden when he says that they maintain the same prejudice as that which he claims he is merely echoing. They have commissioned reports which find broadly similar findings to that of SaBTO. The recommendations may vary from 6 months, through 12 to one year, for the deferral period but that recommendation has been made by those medical professionals. The same has recommendation has been made by SaBTO.

Three of the four health ministers acting swiftly in their deliberations on the findings of SaBTO. Only one is lagging and has attempted all manner of legal shenanigans to first fight the move to lift the lifetime ban. Secondly the prevent the information he based his judgements on being released. Most of the countries that Mr Poots listed are looking to see how and when they can lift the lifetime ban on MSM giving blood, unlike him who has spent the last two years working out how he can avoid doing so.

Being dumped by a dear old friend

Growing up in Northern Ireland in the 80s I was used to disappointment. Every week I would scan through the tour lists in the back of Smash Hits and see if any of my favourites were about to tour. By in large when I scanned the list of dates there was often one omission:

Belfast

It wasn't because of a lack of suitable venue, we had that it was bands being scared to come here.

Thankfully in recent years things here have gotten better. Bands do come here and we have an even better and more accessible stadium venue that they can perform in now.

As many of my close friends will know for 35 years of my life I have had an obsession with a radio show, that became a TV series, then a computer game, then an online font of knowledge B.W.* (Before Wikipedia) and then a film, before becoming a touring production. Rather an odd progression, but then it is rather fitting for an extraordinary tale which is the story of a rather remarkable book.

You see last Summer the Hitchhiker's  Guide to the Galaxy Radio Show Live Tour took place in June and July, it was only a short run and Northern Ireland was no included, and I couldn't consider going anywhere else to see it. 

This year when the dates were announced I was trying to work out my itinery to see if it would be best to see it in Aberdeen, Glasgow, Dunfermline or somewhere else. But then I ended up back in Northern Ireland so Belfast it was. A friend of mine, a fellow fan and contributor to h2g2.com was going to celebrate her birthday with a trip to see it and invited me along on the same night. So tickets booked we were starting to look forward to it next Wednesday.

Then on Friday, not Thursday, but then I never did get the hang of Thursday's I received the following email, from the Royal Opera House in Belfast.

Thank you for booking tickets with us for Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy Radio Show Live - unfortunately, due to circumstances beyond our control, this production has now been cancelled. Please contact our Box Office on 028 9024 1919 to obtain a full refund for your tickets.

Please accept our sincerest apologies for any inconvenience or disappointment caused by this cancellation.

Inconvenience! Disappointment! The only thing worse would have been if my planet had been demolished to make way for an intergalactic bypass. 

Later on the Facebook page for the live show said the following:

The producers of The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy Live are very sorry that they will be unable to present the tour in Belfast at this time. They sincerely apologise for the disappointment and inconvenience caused and hope that they will be able to bring the production to the many fans in the North of Ireland at some stage in the future.

If you had bought a ticket we'd like to offer you a free audio download of one of our other shows. Before you return your ticket for a refund, just send a scan or photo of it to sales@hitchhikerslive.com and we'll contact you within a few days.

Now if I really want to listen to a recording of the original radio scripts I can do that, by pulling out my tapes or CDs of them. And the first two series have the bonus of having actual Peter Jones as The Book. Although I was rather looking forward to having Rula Lenska (Lintilla for series two) filling that role.

I hope that they do rearrange dates for Belfast. And I hope that they contact all of us who have bought tickets for something a little special, maybe a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster after the show with the cast or something. Reading some of the comments yesterday on the page and from friends it is rather a disappointment. But also the not knowing why is even worse.

You see we do wonder if having eleven security alerts and two fatal shootings might just have had a little something to do with the sudden cancellation of this shows. We all hope it does not, but being Northern Irish in the back of your mind that sort of thing always does cause concern.

As it is next Wednesday I may be pouring Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters by myself, raising a glass to absent friends not just Douglas Adams but most of the original cast who should have been there in front of me.

I may not know where, or if I'll ever get to see the show, but I know where my towel is.

* Indeed so much so that I was one of the first two researchers to write 100 solo entries for the Guide.