My take on the "Gay Pardons" campaign

A campaign to "pardon" about 49,000 men who were convicted under laws outlawing male homosexuality (no such law ever existed for females) has recently begun to achieve a much higher profile than formerly, specially since the brilliant code-breaker Alan Turing was the object of a public "unequivocal apology" by then Prime Minister Gordon Brown MP in 2009, then in 2013 he was granted a Royal Pardon by Her Majesty the Queen. Alan Turing died by suicide in 1954, after having been convicted of "gross indecency" in 1952 and offered a choice of prison or "chemical castration" as punishment for his crime (i.e. what was considered a crime at the time).

The basis of the campaign, apart from being a desire to right a wrong, or "gross indecency" (geddit? -Ed) in fact in the law then and its application, is because it is contended (rightly in my view) that every person convicted under this unfair law was just as wronged by it as was Alan Turing. A new film production of the life of Alan Turing, called The Imitation Game, starring Benedict Cumberbatch who plays the role of Alan Turing, has obviously raised the profile of this historic injustice.

So, what do I think of all this? Well I am generally in favour of the campaign, although I have certain reservations about it and similar pardons for other historic injustices. Specifically, Alan Turing was driven to commit suicide in 1954 by the atrocious treatment meted out to him. Comforting as it may be to some of his family now living for this recognition of the wrong he suffered, he is himself no longer in a position to care one way or the other. A wrong has been done which can NEVER be righted, however many times a government of our time says "sorry" or Her Majesty grants a Pardon, no doubt issued on the recommendation of the government in place in 2013 under David Cameron, as it tries to make amends.

The same applies to any of the other 49,000 who are, like Alan Turing, dead. If any of these individuals are still alive then a Royal Pardon might have some real value to them, but for those of them who are dead it serves no real purpose, other than to try and salve the conscience of "the country" collectively. As readers here know, I am a cynical soul, so I cannot refrain from pointing out that one of the principal reasons, in my opinion, for waiting until most or all of these individuals are dead is because compensation claims can be avoided. Granting the Pardon during a person's lifetime would almost inevitably leave the government open to substantial compensation claims.

I feel the same about other historic apologies or Pardons where those directly affected are no longer alive (e.g. US citizens of Japanese descent automatically interned during WWII without looking at individual cases, similar internments of German citizens here during WWII, including some Jewish people who had fled Germany to save their lives).

No, what would be of more value, would be cessation of certain government policies today that are just as awful, for example the repatriation of asylum seekers who are gay to countries where homosexuality is not tolerated, with the near certainty that such people will be abused or in extreme cases even executed in their home countries:
- Two gay asylum seekers deported from UK (a case from 2008);
- Ugandan woman branded by iron over sexuality faces deportation from UK (a case from 2011);
- Report tells Home Office: Don’t ask gay asylum seekers ‘sexually explicit questions’ (report from October 2014).
(Whilst I accept it may be difficult to ascertain fully if claims by an asylum-seeker that he or she is homosexual and in genuine fear of returning back to their home country for that reason are true, we know enough about the policies and practices in many of the relevant countries to be sure of what would probably happen if their homosexuality were to be discovered; telling someone to "behave discreetly" so as not to draw attention to himself or herself is laughable and insulting. It seems that the desire of mainstream political parties of the left and right to placate the "anti-immigration lobby" and political Parties such as UKIP is perhaps making our government blur the lines of what is acceptable.)

In summary, it is all very well for our government to issue rather meaningless apologies and Pardons to people who are for the most part dead, but a more concrete illustration of a real change in behaviour would be the righting of current rather than historic wrongs as they relate to homosexuals. In other words, by all means Talk the Talk, but you must also Walk the Walk.

Scottish Parliament votes overwhelmingly for same-sex marriage

(Please see UPDATE at end)

Today, 4th February 2014, is an historic day in Scotland, because today the Scottish Parliament voted overwhelmingly for same-sex marriage, or more colloquially for "equal marriage". The negative amendments proposed for the 3rd reading of the Bill (formally known as the "Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill") were all rejected and the Bill, once it has been given Royal Assent, will become law.

With this vote, Scotland becomes the 17th country in the world to legislate for same-sex marriage.

As mentioned earlier, the vote in the Scottish Parliament today was massively in favour of this legislation, with 105 voting for and only 18 against (* - see below).

In a post-vote video-message the Scottish Government's Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing welcomed the vote:

- according to what Alex Neil MSP said, the Scottish Government will now be working with the UK Government at Westminster to ensure that the first same-sex marriages can take place in Scotland before the end of 2014. It will be recalled that the UK Parliament at Westminster has already legislated for same-sex marriage in England and Wales and it is likely that the first such marriages will take place there during the first half of 2014; Royal Assent for this legislation was granted during July 2013.

Unfortunately the Northern Ireland Assembly has not so far proposed similar legislation for Northern Ireland and from what I can gather has no current plans to do so, but at least in the other three parts of the United Kingdom (England, Wales and now Scotland) this welcome legislation is now almost in place - Royal Assent has already happened for the England and Wales legislation and I expect similar Royal Assent will be granted for Scotland quite soon. I mention Northern Ireland not to be negative on this joyous day, but simply to highlight that the job is not yet finished and that efforts must continue to ensure that all parts of the UK legislate for equality.

* - Once I have full details of the "105 for / 18 against" votes I will add an update at the end with relevant information.

See also:
- Equality Network: Scotland Legalises Same Sex Marriage;
- BBC: "Scotland's same-sex marriage bill is passed"

UPDATE (Tuesday 4FEB2014 22.35 CET) I now have full voting information for today's vote in the Scottish Parliament - please see full details here. The 18 who voted against the Bill were as follows:
Dr Alasdair Allan (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Gavin Brown (Lothian) (Con)
Roseanna Cunningham (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Fergus Ewing (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Alex Fergusson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con)
Richard Lyle (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Angus MacDonald (Falkirk East) (SNP)
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Michael McMahon (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Siobhan McMahon (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Nanette Milne (North East Scotland) (Con)
Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con)
Elaine Smith (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Liz Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Dave Thompson (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
(SNP - 7, Conservatives - 8, Labour - 3)
- seemingly there were 6 out of 129 MSPs who did not vote or who abstained;
- see some reactions to the vote here.

Spain's Constitutional Court again upholds gay marriage law

Spain's Constitutional Court has once more upheld the 2005 law granting same-sex couples the right to marry, with 8 voting for and 3 against with one judge abstaining.

This follows on from the similar vote earlier in the year, which I wrote about here.

As I wrote in that earlier article, doesn't Mariano Rajoy have more important things to worry about than attempting to reverse gay-marriage laws, for example getting the Spanish economy back into some semblance of order?

(NB/ This article is cross-posted from my Spanish blog casabill.blogspot.com)

Why has the UK Government fallen for the SNP ruse on the Referendum?

We have yet to see the full detail of what the UK Government led by the Prime Minister David Cameron has agreed with the Scottish Executive (aka 'Government'), led by Alex Salmond, about the holding of a referendum to decide on the constitutional future of Scotland in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom - or, in the words of the Clash song from the 1980s Should I Stay or Should I Go? (the link is to a YouTube video-clip)

So far, what seems to have been agreed is that the UK Government will allow the Scottish Executive (aka 'Government'):
- to hold a simple yes/no in/out referendum, with that one question being the only one asked, by agreeing a 'Section 30' order;
- to set the precise terms of the referendum question and precisely when it is held (before the end of 2014);
- extend the franchise for the referendum to those who are at least 16 years old at the time of the referendum (instead of the current age of 18 for all other elections).

I think that this referendum is so important and crucial for the future of Scotland and indeed for the whole United Kingdom that the terms of the referendum question need to be agreed jointly by the Scottish Executive (aka 'Government') and the UK Government, under the supervision of the Electoral Commission to ensure that it is worded fairly and neutrally and is not partisan with regard to either of the two possible outcomes. However, it appears that the UK Government has conceded this to the Scottish Executive (aka 'Government') alone. Why? It seems to me utter madness and a very poor return for the reported 'concession' by the Scottish Executive (aka 'Government') that the referendum should contain only one question, rather than multiple choices which it had earlier indicated it was considering (cynically, not because it wanted this outcome itself, but because it said - with scant evidence - that some wished this according to its 'consultation' on the issue).

On the question of allowing those who have reached the age of 16 to vote in the referendum, but not in other elections either in Scotland or the rest of the UK, this appears to rest on extremely shaky logic and the viability of such an outcome is being questioned by former Scottish Secretary, Lord Forsyth (Conservative); Lord Wallace (Liberal Democrat), who advises the UK Government on Scots Law, says there are no plans to change the law. Now it is being urged upon the UK Government to allow the same voting regime for any referendum on the UK's future relationship with the EU. In short, it seems that this issue is going to result in an enormous divergence of viewpoints about the constitutional validity of this proposed change for one specific purpose, but not for other votes or plebiscite.

Just how cynical and self-serving the SNP Scottish Executive (aka 'Government') is being over this issue can be judged by a comparison with its earlier attempt to raise the current age for buying alcohol from 18 to 21.

It seems to me that many of the rights people acquire as they reach adulthood should be aligned so far as possible, rather than allow a further confusing and hard-to-justify mish-mash of different ages for different things. For instance one can get married at 16, have sex at 16, but vote only at 18. Currently one may buy alcohol at 18, but if this is raised to 21 (or indeed if the 'think 25?' policy of certain retail outlets is given legal force) then you would have the phenomenon of people allowed to vote in elections, but not buy a drink. Maybe people should gain all their rights at 16 because if they are considered old enough then to get married or enter into contracts at that age, then it seems bizarre they cannot vote until two years later. So I have no 'in principle' objection to people who have reached 16 being permitted a vote in the referendum relating to Scotland and the UK, but if they are allowed to vote in that decision-making process, then I can see no good reason to deny them a vote in any other election or referendum. However, I do not think one should play around with voting-age eligibility for what seem to me to be nakedly-partisan political purposes.

I look forward to seeing what form the final mooted 'agreement' to be reached next week will take with great interest and some disquiet at the apparent lack of clear thinking in what we have been told so far.

Rajoy's attempt to reverse gay-marriage law rejected by Spain's Constitutional Court

(Please see UPDATE at end)

Spain's economy may be in a complete shambles, but at least some sense still prevails. The Constitutional Court has rejected an appeal by the governing Partido Popular and President ('Prime Minister') Mariano Rajoy against the 2005 change in the law which permitted same-sex marriage on the grounds that it was 'unconstitutional', asserting at the time the law was changed that it flouted article 10.2, relating to protection of the family, women and children. Of course he ignored the fact that a ban on same-sex marriage would constitute gender discrimination, and segregation on the grounds of sexuality, two situations forbidden by the Constitution.

I may think that Zapatero's PSOE was a lousy manager of Spain's economy (just as was the last Labour government in the UK), but both introduced reforms of the law which brought their countries into the forefront in terms of granting badly-needed rights to enhance the equality of their gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender citizens.

It is great to know that the Spanish Constitutional Court is prepared to stand up to the government when it seeks to deprive a segment of the population of recently-won and hard fought-for rights. I recall at the time the last government introduced the change how vehement was the opposition of the then opposition and the Roman Catholic church. We are seeing exactly the same opposition to the changes currently under discussion in the UK from the very-same Roman Catholic church. Although Spain is nominally a Catholic country, whereas the UK is not, both are modern democracies which have, fortunately, moved well beyond the crude propaganda efforts of the Church and neither is a theocracy, a concept the main churches in both countries (Catholic and CofE respectively) will just have to learn to live with!

And referring back to the first line of this article, doesn't Mariano Rajoy have more important things to worry about than attempting to reverse gay-marriage laws, for example the urgent task of sorting out the Spanish economy, which still has a very long way to go (quite frankly)?!

(NB/ This article is cross-posted from my Spanish blog casabill.blogspot.com)

UPDATE (Wednesday 7NOV2012 06.41 GMT) Spain's Constitutional Court has re-affirmed the 2005 law granting same-sex couples the right to marry. See later post here.

I'm Out4Marriage - are you?

As part of the Government's consultation process on the advisability of changing the law to allow same-sex civil marriages, campaigns have been started by people who hold opposing viewpoints on the matter. This article is about those who support a change in the law (you can find out about the other side - those who oppose permitting same-sex marriage - for yourself, if you are interested).

I support the concept of same-sex marriage. Period. My only 'disagreement' with what the Government is proposing is that same-sex religious marriage should also be permitted, for those religious bodies which wish to carry out such ceremonies (and there are many) and I fully accept, without any quibble whatsoever, that those religious organisations that oppose such unions should not be obliged to carry them out.

In any case, many individuals have been happy to add their support for same-sex marriage and have recorded video-clips in the support of the Out4Marriage campaign and you can see the play-list of those who have done so, so far, here in the YouTube website. I high-light two of those who have so far added their support:

Theresa May, MP - Home Secretary


Desmond Swayne, MP - Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Prime Minister, David Cameron


So far there are 103 video-clip recorded in this series, many from quite well-known people in politics (of many political view-points), or business, etc.

Equality is for everyone and those who oppose equal marriage rights for same-sex people are on the wrong side of history - I am pretty certain that in fifty years time it will seem just as bizarre to most people that same-sex marriage was once not permitted, just as most today find it difficult to comprehend why equal votes for women were once not permitted, why inter-racial marriage was once not permitted in some places, why equal rights irrespective of race, creed or colour were once not recognised in many countries. It really is that simple.

If you support the idea that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry if they wish, please sign the petition to support this by visiting the website of the Coalition for Equal Marriage here. Finally, to those who say that Civil Partnerships already give the same rights as marriage, the sad truth is that this is not entirely so and that there are important differences between the two which generally disfavour Civil Partnerships; the following video-clip explains clearly some of the disadvantages of a Civil Partnership when compared with a marriage:

If you support same-sex marriage, show your support!

The UK Government is currently consulting on whether to allow same-sex [civil] marriage. It is the stated policy of the current (Coalition) Government that same-sex marriage be legislated for and the Prime Minister, David Cameron, has stated that he is personally in favour of same-sex marriage because he is a Conservative, not despite being a Conservative.

I have signed the petition organised by the Coalition for Equal Marriage calling for same-sex marriage to be legislated for - you can sign the C4EM petition here.

I have also completed the Home Office consultation survey - you can complete it too, by visiting the relevant part of the Home Office website here.

The legislative proposals put forward by the Government provide only for same-sex 'Civil' marriage, in other words it does not contemplate allowing same-sex marriage in a religious context, even where a particular religious organisation would be happy to do so. I think this is wrong and that religious organisations which wish to do so should be allowed to. I do not think that any religious organisation should be forced to conduct same-sex marriages if this would be in conflict with its theology - any more than certain religious organisations currently are forced to conduct heterosexual marriages under certain circumstances which they find objectionable (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church will not consecrate marriages where one partner is divorved or has a former marriage partner who remains alive). However, the legislative proposals by the Government are a huge step forward and should be strongly supported, even if they are perhaps not the ideal solution.

I urge you strongly to sign the petition and to complete the Home Office Consultation survey without delay!

The face and the name behind the "Lallands Peat Worrier" blog

I've had the Lallands Peat Worrier blog in my bloglist for some years, but apart from coming to value the obvious 'erudition' of his articles on legal issues affecting Scotland I had no real idea of who the person behind this blog is. So I was inerested to come across this video-clip of a recent appearance by Andrew Tickell on the 'Politics Show - Scotland' programme:



- speaking from Oxford. However, as the programme presenter introduced him as a "Scottish legal blogger" we are not in fact very much farther forward in being able to understand who he is, so a little digging via Google reveals this very interesting biography, which I think puts his credentials into much better focus. Below is an excerpt:

Education Andrew Tickell is a DPhil candidate. Before joining the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies in 2009, he graduated from the University of Edinburgh in 2008 with a 1st Class Honours degree in Law, awarded with the Lord President Cooper Memorial Prize. A year of his undergraduate study was spent in the Universiteit Utrecht in the Netherlands. In December 2009 he completed an MSc in Equality and Human Rights (awarded with distinction) at the University of Glasgow’s School of Sociology, Anthropology and Applied Social Sciences with a thesis exploring ‘Gender and the Scottish Bar: Masculinity, Femininity & Representation in the Faculty of Advocates.’ He holds an Arts and Humanities Research Council Award.

- so the basis for his erudition is much clearer. On the other hand I do not share his views on Scotland's position within the United Kingdom, nor his desire to see that position change with a move to Scottish separation/independence. However, whatever I may think of his views on this matter, he is certainly someone who writes with great clarity of thought and rationality and his is one of those blogs that I try and read regularly, simply for the sheer quality of his writing.

(Video-clip thru Caron's Musings, another blog I read although somewhat less-regularly, but also thru Scottish Roundup whose weekly selections I generally glance through. I did some more research myself to find the link to his biography.)

Brian Souter Knighthood - sign the petition opposing this

Brian Souter, a co-founder of major transport company 'Stagecoach', has just been granted a Knighthood in the Queen's Birthday Honours 2011. However, as the man who provided a million pounds of his own money for a campaign opposing the repeal of the anti-LGBT 'Section 28' (Clause 2a in Scotland), I feel this is a deeply flawed award and should be withdrawn as it is deeply insulting to the LGBT community, who suffered increased violence in the wake of the ultimately unsuccessful campaign to keep this odious piece of legislation. The legislation was finally repealed in Scotland in June 2000 and in the rest of the UK in November 2003 - the full history of this legislation is here.

In the event that you feel as I do, I wanted to draw your attention to an important petition that I recently signed to "Withdraw Brian Souter's Knighthood" - I really think this is an important cause, and I'd like to encourage you to add your signature, too. It's free and takes just a few seconds of your time. If you wish to visit and sign the petition, please click here to go there now.

I urge you to consider signing this petition.

Super Injunctions and the "right to privacy"

(Please see UPDATE at end)

The current controversy, farce, call it what you will, about the "right to privacy" which people may or may not have in different circumstances and whether it should be possible to injunct not only mention of the underlying subject of the injunction, but the very fact that an injunction has been granted (in other words a 'super injunction'), has continued to grow. All of this is relevant to the Common Law of England and Wales; as was shown yesterday a Scottish publication has published some information subject to an injunction under English law, on the grounds (which seem pretty incontrovertible) that as Scotland has it own legal system, Scots Law, persons in Scotland are not subject to rulings by English courts, unless similar injunctions ('interdictions' in Scotland) are applied for and granted by a Scottish court. This is no different, in legal terms, from a US or French publication choosing to ignore a ruling in an English court. And vice versa or course. The fact that both England and Wales and Scotland are part of one political entity, the United Kingdom, is just one of the curiosities of British life.

Anyway what I have written above relates solely to the mechanics of what is going on, not to the underlying merits of the various cases and, going beyond that, the willingness of those subject to various laws to acquiesce in their effects.

Now I am not going to name the footballer named yesterday by a Scottish newspaper, and which I had already known for quite some time of course as it has been mentioned or alluded to regularly on the internet for many days. However, it is alleged that this footballer has been having an adulterous affair with a lady not his wife; the lady has been named (she is not the beneficiary of a super injunction), but I am not going to mention her name here either. So far as I am concerned whom the footballer or this lady whoose to have sexual intercourse with is a matter of complete indifference - the fact of me knowing or not knowing about it does not affect me in any way at all, nor does it affect 'national security' so far as I can see. They are breaking no law. Some people may consider the footballer, as a married man, a 'sinner' or morally flawed for having had sex outside marriage. For me, I simply do not care - it is a matter for the two individuals concerned and the wife and children of the footballer.

However, we British and indeed most nationalities have rather hypocritical attitudes to matters concerning sex. Most of us would be horrified if our own personal sexual life was plastered across the front page of a newspaper, but are 'titillated' to read of the goings-on of the rich and famous in this area. A few countries do seem to have a more 'sophisticated' view (or 'debauched' if you take a different attitude) of such personal matters where they have no effect on public affairs. The former head of the IMF, a French citizen, is currently undergoing legal process in the US because of the differences between the US and France relating to such issues - although it is clear that in that case it is not simply a matter of sex, but the exercise of power in a sexual context by one person over another, something which is tolerated in most societies, at least historically but probably contemporaneously too, far more than most would care to recognise or acknowledge.

So why do newspapers publish such personal information, which has no public dimension? Well, it is really very simple - it helps them to sell more copies, because many people (whatever they may say) enjoy reading about sex or 'famous people' acting in a way that some consider inappropriate. So it is basically about money. In that context it would seem sensible to me that there should be some element of privacy - not to protect a footballer, or indeed his children (that's his job and if he was really concerned about that then he wouldn't have done things which so many people would pay money to read about and which he could have predicted would be the case once the 'lust' was over), but simply because it really is not anyone's business but those involved. Only if society changes such that most people would not care about others knowing of their own sexual behaviour - always provided of course it is mutually consensual and not carried out using coercion of any kind for any of those involved - would it seem to become a matter of such indifference that publication would have no effect on a person's 'reputation', so would be unlikely to increase sales of any publication that chose to print stories about it. The financial imperative would have disappeared, so it is unlikely any newspaper would bother.

Until society does change, and most people's hypocrisy lessens, then individuals probably do require some legal right to privacy for their private life where it has no impact whatsoever on public affairs. The mechanism of achieving such privacy in the internet age with different legal systems and principles applying across borders is not immediately obvious to me.

Then you have cases where a person's behaviour in private does have an impact on public affairs - and sometimes it may genuinely be difficult to differentiate between those that do have an impact on public affairs and those that don't. I cite the case of a former newspaper editor and currently presenter of a major political discussion programme on television (yes, I speak of Andrew Marr) whose name was revealed generally a week or so back as having been involved in an extra-marital affair, despite him having secured a super injunction against such information being made public. Does his extra-marital affair affect the public affairs of the UK? Incidentally his partner in the affair is similarly involved in the media. Evidently it doesn't seem to have affected his role on the BBC, nor does it seem to have proved an impediment to his interview broadcast yesterday with the US President. In fact I knew about his affair (and the name of the partner) some years ago, having read about it in another blog, but I simply did and do not care - except to wonder at how a man so [ahem] ugly could seduce not just one woman (his wife), but a second; mind you his 'mistress' ain't no looker either, even if I have no idea about his wife. Human attraction is a very personal thing - some people go for looks, some for intellect, some for money, some for power, some no doubt go for other 'attributes'. The bottom line is that his affair is not relevant, I suspect, to his job or to public affairs so is no business of mine or anyone else not directly involved. So he had a right to keep this private if he chose to do so, although perhaps his questionning of the former Prime Minister about personal matters weakens his case somewhat - this is why such cases are not so clearcut as some would have us believe.

Similarly with the former CEO of The Royal Bank of Scotland who apparently had an affair with another senior executive of RBS during the period leading up to its financial collapse, with that person having apparently been promoted several times during his tenure. Could there have been, or the legitimate perception that there was, a 'conflict of interest' or defective decision-making associated with his professional functions?

A law, if it is to generally accepted by the people to whom it applies (i.e. all of us) must be founded on common sense and generally regarded as 'fair'; it must also take into account the fact, however regrettable it may be to some, that the writ of an English court (or indeed a Scottish, French or US court) runs only within its own jurisdiction and that if there is prurient interest in private matters which can be published in other jurisdictions then in practice there is little an English court can do about it; the advent of the internet and 'social media' accentuates this situation, certainly, but it has not created it. One of the most famous relatively recent cases of an attempt to prohibit public knowledge of what the rich and powerful were doing happened in the 1930s when the King was having an affair with a divorced person, not a crime of course, but not sanctioned by the Church of which the King was the titular head; the matter was successfully kept out of the British media for some time, but even then the fact that it was widely-published elsewhere (in the US and various European countries as I understand it - all this happened long before I was born) meant that it could not remain secret from the British people forever. Whether the King having an affair with a divorced woman would have materially affected his duties as King is open to debate, as distinct from his role as titular head of the Church of England. Of course my view is that as a secular country, even one with an 'established' church, this should be irrelevant, but many other people think differently - so quite apart from the impracticality of trying to maintain secrecy within Britain, it was obviously a matter which (like it or not) was of national importance, so attempting to keep it secret was quite wrong.

I expect the law will have to be 'adapted' to suit the world we now live in, with its ease and speed of communication, not to mention its cross-border nature. In the recent troubles in Iran and Libya, attempts by the local authorities there to restrict information to their own populations was attempted for a while, but quickly abandoned at least partially, just as attempts by the government of the former East Germany to keep its people insulated from outside viewpoints were never very effective; the same could be said of China today. The only country I can think of where a repressive regime has some success in restricting information is North Korea, but that is achieved only by extreme repression, something that is unlikely ever to be possible, or at least not for very long, in even nominal democracies.

UPDATE (Monday 23MAY2011 18.17) LibDem MP John Hemming named in Parliament this afternoon the footballer referred to above as Ryan Giggs; he was chastised for doing so by Speaker John Bercow, no doubt strictly correect according to the law, but frankly his objections would have been pointless last week and even more so now, whatever the "law" says as this particular law is no longer fit for purpose. As someone with no interest whatsoever in football I don't have a mental image of what he looks like. but a quick Google image search reveal this. As a corollary, a short while ago I watched an interview with Alistair Campbell, former spin doctor for Tony Blair, and a former tabloid journalist, not someone with whom I agree very often (or almost ever, really) say something which I thought was pretty sensible - basically that the journalistic attempts to get the name of Ryan Giggs into the public domain in this context are just so much hypocritical hogwash (my words), because there is no public interest in naming him, but it does help to sell newspapers, pretty much one of the points I was making in my own article. The fact that Ryan Giggs was at best naïve and at worst plain silly to pay a law firm good money to try and keep his name out of the public prints, given the salacious nature of his actions and the appetite of the [mainly tabloid-reading] public for 'juicy' stories about well-known people so that UK (in this case English) law can be flouted easily by way of the internet, not to mention print publications in other legal jurisdictions, is just becoming ever more clear.

Potentially landmark ruling on EU residency rules

The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, the body which ensures compliance by member states with EU Treaty law, has issued a ruling which could have very far-reaching implications for the residency rights of non-EU citizens.

In a case brought to it by the Brussels Labour Court for clarification it has ruled that a child of non-EU parents born in an EU state automatically acquires the citizenship, and must take the citizenship, of the EU member state in which [s]he is born and that by virtue of this the parents acquire automatically the right to live and work in that member state (and perhaps any other EU state[?], although the ruling does not seem to address this specific issue).

I do not have the negative attitude that many seem to with regard to non-EU immigration into member states, but it seems to me the implications of this ruling are potentially huge, whatever view one takes of the matter.

Denying gay civil partners a double-bedded room is illegal

(Please see UPDATES at end.)

The BBC is reporting that Bristol County Court has ruled against a couple who own an hotel, and who have 'Christian' beliefs, who said it was their policy to deny double-bedded rooms to couples who are not married, even if they are heterosexual.

From what I understand the court has ruled the couple's policy illegal because 'civil partnership' for homosexuals (male gay or lesbian female) is the legal equivalent of marriage for heterosexual couples and the law forbids discrimination of this type. In running a business, hotel owners may not impose their religious beliefs on others. There was a video-interview with the gay couple who brought the action following the judgement and understandably they are very pleased with the outcome of their case. There are no online links as yet, as the judgement has just been given, but I will undoubtedly come back to this story in due course.

It is very pleasing that this clear case of flouting the law by this homophobic couple has been stamped on by a court.

UPDATE (Tuesday 18JAN2011 11.03 GMT) PinkNews now have an article up about the judgement. The BBC have now also shown a video-statement made by Mrs Bull, one of the joint hotel-owners; she seems still not to accept that her 'beliefs' are not justification for discrimination so far as the law is concerned.

2nd UPDATE (Tuesday 18JAN2011 11.17 GMT)The BBC now have a report on the judgement.

Dog ban signs to go at Nairn central beach

There's an article in Nairn's local 'dead-tree' rag ('The Nairnshire Telepgraph' - no online presence) this week advising that the signs prohibiting dogs from the 'Central Beach' at Nairn between April and September each year are to come down.

Basically the signs became illegal effective 2002, following the adoption of the Scottish Access Code, but Highland Council had 'kept the signs in place because dogs still have to be kept under a measuure of control at the beach'. However, according to the Nairnshire article:
"In the last few days the bad signs had been challenged by a member of the public and it had been decided to remove them."

Call me an old cynic, but I wonder just how many other illegal signs purporting to enforce non-existent rules, or legislation which is no longer in force, are Highland Council still using, until some brave member of the public has the temerity to challenge them?

What we're not supposed to mention in the UK ...

Injunction, smimjunction - visit here if you care to.

Or indeed:
- here (Telegraph); or
- here (Daily/Sunday Mail); or
- here (Times); or
- here (Financial Times);
- and many hundreds of other articles all around the planet.

The best a man can get?



- The AP news agency reports on what a major sponsor is doing to distance itself from this ongoing disaster. Like many millions of men around the world I use Gillette products on a daily basis; none of this 'brouhaha' is likely to affect my habits in any way, of course. And why should it?

British (English) law is, once again, made to look like a complete ass in a matter that really has little or nothing to do with the UK, with our complaisant legal system being used by a foreigner who doesn't reside here to pursue ends in a foreign country which few in that foreign country or anywhere else are likely to pay much attention to.

But I'm apparently not supposed to talk about it. As Manuel from Fawlty Towers might have said "I know nothing"!

Truly, truly bizarre ...

Four decades after the Sexual Offences Act this kind of nonsense still happens?!

We are told often that life is so much easier for homosexual people in the UK now than it was pre-1967 when the Sexual Offences Act partially decriminalised homosexual acts in private and I am sure it is, even if I don't have relevant personal memories of the period before this, having been only about 15 years old at the time. However, every so often something happens that brings me up with a jolt. Some joker in Portsmouth thought he could make a 'fast buck' by pretending to be an undercover police sergeant and making blackmailing married men 'cruising' in a gay haunt a lucrative proposition, by extracting 'instant fines' from them. The apparently genuine threat of the 'shame' of a court appearance on charges of 'gross indencency' made some of the men involved willing to hand over several hundred pounds each. Presumably one of his potential victims decided to go to the real police (who mostly react somewhat differently now than they would have 40 years ago), leading to Lee Creamer (aka 'Sergeant Perry') being gaoled at Portsmouth Crown Court for three and a half years. Judge Peter Henry correctly summed-up this despicable individual:

"The people you were targeting undoubtedly would have been in that frame of mind where they weren't going to think straight. You were relying on the fact they were going to panic and pay the money."

Even though homosexuality was decriminalised quite a long time ago, many gay men (and women) are still reluctant to 'own' who they are, so leaving themselves open to this kind of nonsense. To some extent this is understandable because however 'right on' we may like to kid oursleves that Britain is today, there are still a lot of prejudiced people around who don't hesitate to make life difficult for gay people if they think they can get away with it (just remind yourself how successful a number of major religions are in having their prejudices accepted and in a number of cases enshrined in law). Whilst this is in some respects a depressingly familiar type of case, at least it has a 'happy' outcome - the culptrit has been brought to book.

Baroness Scotland - am I being more than usually dense?

I just don't get this story at all. It is being said that Baroness Scotland did not 'knowingly' employ a person with no legal right to BE in the UK, never mind the right to work there (I write 'there' rather than 'here' because I am currently in Spain, by the way).

Either the lady (the lady of Tongan nationality formerly employed by Baroness Scotland) was in the UK legally or not and eligible to work in the UK or not. The fact that Baroness Scotland checked or did not check her documents does not alter these basic facts, or does it?

This aspect of the affair is, it seems to me, independent of whether Baroness Scotland herself verified her employee's documents and found them to be in order, but failed to keep photocopies of them. It seems to me that if the Tongan lady was in fact in the UK legally and elegible to work, then not taking the photocopies required by the law (in a Bill piloted through Parliament by Lady Scotland herself, so she might have been expected to know what it contained) could be excused as a simple oversight and perhaps subject to a fine.

But from what I've read and heard about this affair over the past several days it seems that the Tongan lady's visa to work here had expired SOME YEARS AGO and that she had worked for Baroness Scotland much more recently, well after its expiry. To say that she did check her employee's documents and saw nothing wrong is stretching [my] credulity way beyond breaking-point. I do not see how she or her apologists within the Labour hierarchy can continue to state with any credibility that she DID check the lady's documents and still did not 'knowingly' employ an illegal immigrant. The fact that she paid tax and National Insurance contributions is, in this context, beside the point.

The reason people hire employees who are in a country without the required documents can generally be traced back to one simple factor - money, and being able to pay them less than a person here legally.

I would like to know:
- a timeline for when the Tongan lady arrived in the UK and when her legal right to remain and work in the UK expired;
- a timeline for when Baroness Scotland employed and subsequently dismissed her employee;
- the hourly rate the employee was being paid and whether it complied with the legal minimum wage in force at the time;
- comparable hourly wage rates for employees in the the same part of London for those doing similar work.

I think the answers to all these questions would illustrate just how devoted Baroness Scotland and her Party are to observing the law and dealing with epmployees fairly.

Personally I think that the detail of the law that Lady Scotland contravened, by not taking the required photocopies of documents, is rather 'draconian', like a lot of Labour legislation, seeimngly designed to trap the unwary who are normally given a far rougher time than someone who happens to be part of Labour's hierarchy and who is in this instance the person who actually argued forcefully for this law and its detailed requirements to be passed into law.

She should not only be fined, but resign or be sacked.

What's wrong with the human body?

Well, it seems that the law, in the august personage of Perth sheriff Richard MacFarlane, considers it such a danger to public order that he feels obliged to lock away, effectively indefinitely (*), a man whose only crime is that he wishes to walk the length of the country the way his Maker (+) made him.

This seems completely crazy to me. I have no desire whatsoever to parade the highways naked, but if Stephen Gough wants to risk catching his death of cold, even in a British summer, then my attitude is - let him get on with it! What harm is he doing to anyone? Surely such extreme prudishness went out when our Sovereign Lady, Queen Victoria I, shuffled off this mortal coil more than a century ago? And she was, by all accounts, a bit of a 'raver' in Her youth, despite the seeming prudishness of Her later years.

(*) He was re-arrested within 30 seconds of his last release because he walked nude from the gate of the prison to Edinburgh Road, and shows no sign of 'recanting' or conforming to what the Sheriff requires - and why should he?
(+) If you believe in a 'Maker' and other 'sky fairy' concepts.

"Welcome to Scotland" ...

... but take care you don't inadvertently stray onto a motorway-standard highway when entering our lovely country if you are 'driving' under pedal-power! No, not even if you're undertaking a ride from Land's End to John O'Groats on a charity fund-raising effort for a young disabled girl and a Hospice she attends. Obviously this cyclist had to be taken off the motorway pronto, for the safety of himself and others (and Jamie Barton, the cyclist involved, agrees), but I do tend to agree that the punishment meted out is a little harsh in the circumstances.

Coroners and Justice Bill - a letter from my MP

(Please see UPDATE at end)

I wrote an article here 10 days ago about the Second Reading last Monday in the House of Commons of the Coroners and Justice Bill and that because of what is proposed in Part 8 of the Bill it was imperative to try and mobilise support from MPs to ensure that this part of the Bill never passes into law, at least in the form it currently takes.

I am pleased to report that I have this morning received a letter back from my own MP confirming that his Party (the Liberal Democrats) opposes this legislation and that their shadow Justice Secretary, David Howarth, spoke in the debate last Monday saying that the proposals were "outrageous and should be withdrawn. They alone jusstify rejecting this bill". Danny Alexander MP (my MP) also confirms that this vociferous opposition will continue in coming weeks as the Bill continues its passage through Parliament.

Although I am not a supporter of the Liberal Democrats, I wish to record that on this as on a number of other issues relating to civil liberties they have consistently been on the correct side of the argument (for example their opposition to the introduction if ID Cards).

UPDATE: (Tuesday 3FEB09 18.10 GMT) I noticed through my visitor statistics that this post has been viewed today from the Christian Institute server. My 'default attitude' toward this group is that the people behind it have vile ideas; however, they are just as entitled as anyone else not to have their confidentiality violated as clauses 151-154 of the Coroners and Justice Bill would potentially give rise to if it passes into law, so if this is why they were looking at my site, then fair enough. Otherwise, stay away!

A nation is about to return to reality ...

I hope the reality of the Obama Presidency lives up to its initial promise. Eric Holder, Obama's nominee as US Attorney General, gives clear answers before his Confirmation Hearing about torture and other minor matters, such as the Geneva Conventions and the limits of Presidential power under the US Constitution, which the Bush administration acted as if it could override at will.



Barack Obama himself gave a pretty clear indication in an interview with ABC a few days ago about just where he stands on the issue:

"Vice President Cheney I think continues to defend what he calls extraordinary measures or procedures and from my view waterboarding is torture. I have said that under my administration we will not torture."

Amen to that. I've felt constrained to write a fair bit about torture in the past few years, unfortunate but necessary.

It will be good to have a US back that doesn't make me want to upchuck. I hope I can still write this in four years.