The story of modern Russia is the story of dramatic, almost seismic change. Russian voices, both literary and journalistic, have always striven to make themselves heard above the clamour of their nation's unfolding story – commenting on it, shaping it and, in doing so, contributing to the political and intellectual shape of the world far beyond their country's borders.
But during the last 18 months, Russian lawmakers have passed a number of laws that place a chokehold on the right to express oneself freely in Russia. As writers and artists, we cannot stand quietly by as we watch our fellow writers and journalists pressed into silence or risking prosecution and often drastic punishment for the mere act of communicating their thoughts.
Three of these laws specifically put writers at risk: the so-called gay "propaganda" and "blasphemy" laws, prohibiting the "promotion" of homosexuality and "religious insult" respectively, and the recriminalisation of defamation. A healthy democracy must hear the independent voices of all its citizens; the global community needs to hear, and be enriched by, the diversity of Russian opinion.
We therefore urge the Russian authorities to repeal these laws that strangle free speech, to recognise Russia's obligations under the international covenant on civil and political rights to respect freedom of opinion, expression and belief – including the right not to believe – and to commit itself to creating an environment in which all citizens can experience the benefit of the free exchange of opinion.
Aki Kaurismäki, Abdizhamil Nurpeisov, Alejandro Sánchez-Aizcorbe, Alek Popov, Aleksandar Hemon, Alexander Gorodnitskiy, Alexey Simonov, Ali Smith, Alix Ohlin, Anders Heger, Anders Jerichow, Andrea Reiter, Andrei Nekrasov, Andrej Nikolaidis, Angel Cuadra, Annabel Lyon, Anthony Appiah, Antonio Della Rocca, Ariel Dorfman, Arnon Grunberg, Bei Dao, Bei Ling, Bigeldy Gabdullin, Carl Morten Iversen, Carme Arenas, Carol Ann Duffy, Cary Fagan, Charles Foran, Charlotte Gray, Chen Maiping, Ching-His Perng, Christine McKenzie, Christoph Hein, Clayton Ruby, Daniel Cil Brecher, Daniel Leuwers, Daša Drndic, David Bezmozgis, David Malouf, David Van Reybrouck, DBC Pierre, Debbie Ohi, EL Doctorow, Edward Albee, Eeva Park, Elfriede Jelinek, Elif Shafak, Ellen Seligman, Emile Martel, Entela Kasi, Eric Lax, Erwin Mortier, Eugene Benson, Eugene Schoulgin, Evelyn Juers, Francine Prose, Francois Thisdale, Françoise Coulmin, Fred Viebahn, Freya Klier, Gabrielle Alioth, Gao Yu, George Melnyk, Gert Heidenreich, Gioconda Belli, Gloria Guardia, Günter Grass, Günter Kunert, Guy Stern, Haroon Siddiqui, Helaine Becker, Helen Garner, Herkus Kuncius, Hori Takeaki, Ian McEwan, Igor Irteniev, Ilija Trojanow, Indrek Koff, Ingo Schulze, Irina Surat, Jane Urquhart, Janice Williamson, Janne Teller, Jarkko Tontti, Jean-Luc Despax, Jeffrey Eugenides, Jennifer Clement, Jennifer Egan, Jennifer Lanthier, Jo Glanville, Jo Hermann, Joanne Leedom-Ackerman, John Ashbery, John Massey, John Ralston Saul, Joke van Leeuwen, Jon Lee Anderson, Jonathan Franzen, Jonathan Lethem, Josef Haslinger, Jostein Gaarder, Jukka Koskelainen, Jukka Laajarinne, Julian Barnes, Karen Connelly, Katherine Govier, Kätlin Kaldmaa, Kirsty Gunn, Kjell Westö, Klaus Staeck, Kyo Maclear, Larry Siems, Laurel Croza, Laurence Paton, Lauri Otonkoski, Lawrence Hill, Leena Parkkinen, Linwood Barclay, LIU Di, Lorna Crozier, Louise Dennys, Lucina Kathmann, Ludmila Ulitskaya, Ma Jian, Ma Thida, Magda Carneci, Margaret Atwood, Margie Orford, Marian Botsford Fraser, Mark Harris, Markéta Hejkalová, Markus Nummi, Marsha Skrypuch, Masha Gessen, Max Alhau, Michael Guggenheimer, Michael Krueger, Michael MacLennan, Michael Ondaatje, Michelle de Kretser, Miriam Cosic, Myrna Kostash, Nadezda Cacinovic, Neetha Barclay, Neil Bissoondath, Neil Gaiman, Nelofer Pazira, Niels Barfoed, Nino Ricci, Ola Larsmo, Oleg Khlebnikov, Olga Kuchkina, Orhan Pamuk, Patricia Storms, Patrick Lane, Paul Auster, Per Wästberg, Peter Godwin, Peter Normann Waage, Peter Schneider, Peter Stamm, Peter von Bagh, Philip Slayton, Philippe Pujas, QI Jiazhen, Raficq Abdulla, Ralph Giordano, Raymond Louw, Rein Raud, René Appel, Riikka Pelo, Robert Chang, Rohinton Mistry, Ron Deibert, Russell Banks, Salman Rushdie, Sarah Slean, Sergey Gandlevskiy, Sheila Heti, Sheree Fitch, Simon Racioppa, Siri Hustvedt, Sirpa Kähkönen, Sjón, Smagul Yelubay, Sofi Oksanen, Sreko Horvat, Steven Galloway, Susan Coyne, Susin Nielsen, Suzanne Nossel, Sylvestre Clancier, Tanis Rideout, Terry Fallis, Thomas Keneally, Tienchi Martin-Liao, Tomica Bajsic, Tone Peršak, Tony Cohan, Tony Kushner, Ulrich Beck, Uwe Timm, Valery Nikolayev, Veronika Dolina, Vida Ognjenovic, Vilja-Tuulia Huotarinen, Vincent Lam, Vladislav Bajac, William Nygaard, William Schwalbe, Wole Soyinka, Yang Lian, Yann Martel, Yuri Ryashentsev, Zhang Yu, Zhao Shiying, Ching-Hsi Perng
"more than 200 writers from 30 different countries" stinks of anti-Russian propaganda to me. Russian laws are for Russian people,simple. Maybe the 200 hundred writers should stick to enforcing free speech in their own countries, i can guarantee you there is freedom abuses in their own country.
ReplyDeleteThis western sanctimonious bullshit gets on my nerves, lecturing to the whole world, lets get our own domain in order.
David,
ReplyDeleteanti gay laws and blasphemy laws are not to be recommended for the people of any society. The rights we demand for ourselves must also be extended to others otherwise we have some form of cultural relativism and the horrors it gives rise to. I want protected from repressive laws and can hardly say that others should be denied that protection.
AM, I am not saying the should be denied anything, Russian people can deal with there own affairs, The are more than capable. who are we to repeal their laws? whats next? sanctions? sending troops in to countries we deem repressive. Give me peace, we are in no position to lecture anybody we've enough homophobes in our own country.
ReplyDeleteI watch this develop and its just another case of western celebrities deciding when to be moral. Mass murder in Fallujah that's fine, Russia passes a repressive law lets give it ridiculous amount of air time.
I've no doubt some writers involved will be sincere most will be hypocritical bastards
David,
ReplyDeleteRussians will deal with their own laws as will each other country. But where those laws abuse people - and anti-gay and blasphemy laws do - we have every right, arguably an obligation (but I don't intend to tub thump) to object and support the freedoms for others that we expect for ourselves. Otherwise we, in my view, succumb to a form of racism whereby we think that some people becaue they are 'foreign' should not have the same rights that we have.
I think it is a good thing to call for the repeal of repressive laws no matter where they are in place.
I don't believe in physically attacking other countries because of their internal laws but at the very least I think we should be free to support those harmed by repressive laws whether it be in the USA where they executed a woman in Texas yesterday or in Kenya where they approve laws that persecute gays.
While I don't mean to disturb your peace if my views don't give you peace, too bad. It is what we do to each other here!! You are free to disturb my peace too.
AM, my problem here is simple,its politics at the highest order, I watched stephen fry, talk about this,and child rape in the catholic church, on their own noble issues to get actively opposed to,couple of weeks later he was at some brit function with prince Andrew who runs around with convicted peadophilles.
ReplyDeletethis is pure political theater. in comparison with human suffering around the globe the amount suffered in Russia doesn't justify the media coverage.
I am not saying you shouldn't oppose racism, i admire you for doing it. But this is being manipulated to suit anti Russian agendas. Are the Russians wrong in my opinion yes. However i bet there are American writers on that list they should petition their governments and tell them to put pressure on Saudis who excecute homosexuals.
Sorry about the ge me peace comment its just these hand picked campaigns irritate me, Abuse is abuse, Its not just abuse when it suits the establishment.
David,
ReplyDeleteI don't doubt the political dimension but I feel it important to endorse or at least not stand in the way of any progressive thrust. It is better that the issue in Russia is highlighted rather than hidden.
Hypocrisy? By the skip for sure.
By way of comparison, when we oppose capital punishment it is not because we think those on death row are a fine bunch of upstanding people only concerned with rights. I have some instinctive sympathy for the maxim 'if we are to abolish capital punishment let our friends the murderers make the first move' but when reason replaces instinct I oppose it because I think it brutal and inhumane even if that also applies to many who would face the jab. We should where possible avoid judging an issue by its supporters.
So, while a lot of these writers are without doubt in the bollix brigade, the issue is worthy.
How Russia Is Scapegoating Gays to Distract from Most Corrupt Olympics in History
ReplyDeleteAM, I can.t come back with any logical argument, your right. It just gets on my nerves when these parasites hijack a worthy cause. There's no doubt in my mind the media are propagating this issue to entice anti Russian sentiment rather than human rights.
ReplyDeleteStill when you wrong, your wrong, hands up, regardless of their motives it's still positive they got it the public arena.
AM, I've great sympathy of the principle of free expression these folk are defending - but I doubt that many are sincere about it.
ReplyDeleteThey say:
'A healthy democracy must hear the independent voices of all its citizens; the global community needs to hear, and be enriched by, the diversity of Russian opinion.'
Fine. But how come the gay rights lobby - with certain honourable exceptions - are targeting Christians who challenge their claims? In a free society we ought to be able to hold a view or to deny it, without being criminalised.
I'm happy for gays to publicly claim that their sexuality is one of several natural and moral alternatives. I disagree with their claim, but not their right to hold or promote it.
However, I am then labelled a gay-hater, one who incites violence against the LGBT folk. My right to say their claims are mistaken, that LGBT sexuality is unnatural, disordered, degenerate or immoral is denied.
Is that a healthy democracy at work in the UK? No, its liberal fascism.
And the reaction in Russia against that Western liberal fascism makes Putin an ally of true liberal democrats. He may be going too far, but he is holding a line against modern Western fascism.
Wolfsbane,
ReplyDeletethey might not be sincere. But that is secondary to the issue they raise.
I don't believe the Christians should be subject to censorship any more than the gay lobby. I am neither gay nor Christian and I think each should be allowed to hold their own views and express them.
Christians should be free to practice their religion but only on thesmselves and not on anybody else. They should never for example be able to discriminate against others who do not share their belief, such as denying them the right to contraceptives in chemists, morning after pills. Nor should they be allowed to ban gays from hotels - stuff like that are a no no.
I think the real gay haters are not those who think gay identity is wrong but those who want them discriminated against and denied rights that other citizens have.
Anthony said:
ReplyDelete'I think each should be allowed to hold their own views and express them.'
I agree. That's the 'rights' both Christians and the gay lobby should be working for. Not the gagging of opposing views.
'Christians should be free to practice their religion but only on thesmselves and not on anybody else.'
Agree totally.
'They should never for example be able to discriminate against others who do not share their belief, such as denying them the right to contraceptives in chemists, morning after pills.'
The latter enters the field of abortion, and involves two lives - so clouds the debate on the general principle of individual freedom.
'Nor should they be allowed to ban gays from hotels - stuff like that are a no no.'
Agreed. But a case in point involved a private B&B that did not give the same bed to unmarried couples, heterosexual or homosexual, on religious grounds. Surely their right not to permit sinful behaviour in their home is at least as valid as the gay couple's right to a bed?
Or how about a printer who refuses to print what to them is offensive or sinful material? Should we not distinguish between discrimination because you are a gay and refusal to condone your sin? It would always be wrong to refuse service because one is a gay, Jew, etc. - but not wrong to refuse to publish gay or Zionist propaganda.
Or am I missing something?
Wolfsbane,
ReplyDeleteif they do not wish to provide the medical service they should not be in employment in the chemist. All should have equal acccess to medical facilities and should not be discriminated against because of somebody's else's religious opinion. Where it is a person's right to obtain a morning after pill there is no religious opinion that should be allowed to trump that right. The person of faith should not use their employment position to inflict their religious opinion on others.
Private B&Bs that provide a public service lose the ability to implement practices that private citizens might freely deploy in their own homes. Sin is a religious opinion and is often different from a crime. It is as wrong to ban gays from a hotel bed as it is to ban 'blacks, dogs and Irish.'
Re your final paragraph - what sin? Pointless talking to me about sin. It is just a religious concept and of no relevance to me.
A printer can get away more easily with saying material is not up to scratch or that their target audience might not buy the stuff. But if a printer offering a public service discriminates against people solely because they are gay, then they are wholly wrong.
Let people hold their religious opnion by all means but they should never be allowed to inflict it on others who refuse it and who have rights against it.
I think it very fortunate that gay people have rights against religious discrimination.
Religious people should have the same rights as everybody else but no more right to discriminate against a person on religious grounds than I have to discriminate on sporting grounds.
AM said:
ReplyDelete'if they do not wish to provide the medical service they should not be in employment in the chemist.'
I see your point - but that would apply too to all theatre staff in abortions. Are you saying there are no grounds for conscious objection - in what can be argued as killing a human being?
'Private B&Bs that provide a public service lose the ability to implement practices that private citizens might freely deploy in their own homes. Sin is a religious opinion and is often different from a crime.'
Indeed. But has the individual no right to refuse service to anything but a crime? A hotel must accommodate a BNP or KKK meeting? It would be committing a racist offence if it refused?
Would it not be better to hold the offence would exist only if it was the person who was being refused, rather than the action?
That is, it would be wrong to refuse a room to a gay, or a KKK member on the basis of what they are; but not wrong to refuse a room for them to do things one considers immoral (though not illegal)?
'Re your final paragraph - what sin? Pointless talking to me about sin. It is just a religious concept and of no relevance to me.'
I appreciate that. Just substitute 'immoral' for 'sin':
Or how about a printer who refuses to print what to them is offensive or immoral material? Should we not distinguish between discrimination because you are a gay and refusal to condone your immorality? It would always be wrong to refuse service because one is a gay, Jew, etc. - but not wrong to refuse to publish gay or Zionist propaganda.
'A printer can get away more easily with saying material is not up to scratch or that their target audience might not buy the stuff. But if a printer offering a public service discriminates against people solely because they are gay, then they are wholly wrong.'
But that is not why they were being refused service. If they had presented a cafe menu for printing, it would have have been printed. The printer refused to print gay material.
Would you print material you found offensive? Material that is legal, but promoting, say, an Islamic State for Ireland?
I would say you have every right to refuse such a request - but no right to refuse the Mullah's request to print his wedding list.
Wolfsbane,
ReplyDeleteI think there are grounds for conscientious objection. A member of the Tally Ho golf club must have the same rights to object to someone from the Hooray Henry golf club as a religious person would have to object to so someone of a different faith or club. And if either of them deny someone the right to a societal service, then they have to take the hit. Why should the sporting opinion of a golf club member trump the society approved right of a citizen to avail of a service?
If it is written into the job that there are services you must render then if your opinion prevents you from doing it stay away from the job.
But has the individual no right to refuse service to anything but a crime?
I am sure they do – dress sense and so on. But a Catholic hotelier should have no right to refuse a Protestant a room because the Protestant wants to read his bible in the room and pray in whatever way a Protestant might do. That would be sheer discrimination. No gay couple should be refused a bed. Now if a hotelier says no sex at all in his beds, he would have to apply it across the board. But we know that does not happen. It is used to discriminate against somebody on the basis of a religious opinion, some hotelier wanting to practice his religion on somebody else.
A hotel must accommodate a BNP or KKK meeting?
I thought Cork University should have permitted the David Irving lecture a few years ago. He is a Holocaust denier and seemingly a bad historian to boot. I also agree with Nick Griffin being given air time on the BBC. So in principle I would not be able to complain a great deal. I mightn’t like it but ...
The racists would be banned for their hate views and not for what they are. Gays are being banned for what they are. We can always take a person to task for their opinion but not for their sexuality, colour, disability, gender.
Would it not be better to hold the offence would exist only if it was the person who was being refused, rather than the action?
I’m afraid I don’t understand the question.
As for replacing sin with immorality – not much of a difference really. A moral pluralism is now pervasive and we should refrain from going around inflicting our morality on others or punishing them because they don’t believe the same bible verse that we do. Richard Holloway is very good on this.
Or how about a printer who refuses to print what to them is offensive or immoral material?
It would depend on what rights society gives to those the printer might refuse. I don’t think the customer here would have the same degree of societal protection as the gay person would. The printer would have a right to refuse to print material he regarded as racist but not have the right to refuse to print it because the customer is white. He has no right to discriminate against a person on the grounds of colour or race, even religion.
A printer refusing to print gay material but who would print straight material should be put out of business in my view.
Would you print material you found offensive? Material that is legal, but promoting, say, an Islamic State for Ireland?
If you have been reading this site for any length of time you should know the answer to that. Of course we would. We print material we find offensive all the time – even the views of those who wish to discriminate against gays. We used to have a right wing Catholic here arguing all sorts of stuff like that. He was never once denied his opinion and was well liked here, whatever about his views. People ask all the time how we let some people express their views on the site.
Ultimately, as an atheist I don’t feel I have any right to deny a Christian a bed for the night in my B & B because he might want to read his holy book which in my view legitimises a wrathful, brutal violent and vengeful god. He is entitled to his religious opinion and I would not even consider banning him from holding a religious conference in it.
Wolfsbane in reply to AM you quoted him and then agreed writing- "'Nor should they be allowed to ban gays from hotels - stuff like that are a no no.'
ReplyDeleteAgreed. But a case in point involved a private B&B that did not give the same bed to unmarried couples, heterosexual or homosexual, on religious grounds. Surely their right not to permit sinful behaviour in their home is at least as valid as the gay couple's right to a bed?"
I can't see the significance of referring to the B&B as "private". The B&B owners were offering a service and under equality law service providers can't discriminate against people just because they're gay. Gay people are less likely to be married to each other so refusing them a service because they aren't married is indirect discrimination.
It stops being purely "their home" as soon as they offer rooms to the general public for a fee. They may live there but as soon as it becomes a B&B it is a place of business.
Also, why should religious beliefs be given more weight than secular beliefs when it comes to morality?
AM said:
ReplyDelete'I think there are grounds for conscientious objection...
Why should the sporting opinion of a golf club member trump the society approved right of a citizen to avail of a service?'
That's my point: they are not being denied because they are of a certain club, but because their *activity* is unacceptable to the morality of the hotelier.
'If it is written into the job that there are services you must render then if your opinion prevents you from doing it stay away from the job.'
So no one who regards abortion as murder should be a doctor, nurse, or theatre staff? And if (when) euthanasia becomes legal, the same would apply?
But I do see the complexity raised when one pries into other's privacy, as your example points out: 'a Catholic hotelier should have no right to refuse a Protestant a room because the Protestant wants to read his bible in the room and pray in whatever way a Protestant might do. That would be sheer discrimination. No gay couple should be refused a bed.' Why should we make an exception for religious immorality but ban sexual immorality? That has had me rethink the case.
I'm inclined now to agree that what is private should not be banned, even though everyone knows the score.
The difficulty case-of-conscience folk have is in distinguishing between providing a service and condoning immorality. As I now see it, the gay couple should be given a room - what they do there is their responsibility.
But if a LGBT group asked for a function room to celebrate their Gay Pride Day, surely the hotelier can refuse? Would that not be on a par with a refusal to provide a function room for a UVF or IRA Old Boys Campaign Celebration? Or a Catholic hotelier refusing a room to an Evangelical church meeting?
'I thought Cork University should have permitted the David Irving lecture a few years ago. He is a Holocaust denier and seemingly a bad historian to boot. I also agree with Nick Griffin being given air time on the BBC. So in principle I would not be able to complain a great deal. I mightn’t like it but ...'
I appreciate your defence of academic and press freedom, but should a hotel, as distinct from a university or the BBC, be obliged to provide a venue for Irving or Griffin?
'The racists would be banned for their hate views and not for what they are. Gays are being banned for what they are.'
No, they were banned for what they did, not even what they believed.
AM said:
ReplyDelete'As for replacing sin with immorality – not much of a difference really. A moral pluralism is now pervasive and we should refrain from going around inflicting our morality on others or punishing them because they don’t believe the same bible verse that we do. Richard Holloway is very good on this.'
We all believe in imposing certain morals on others. Whether those morals are from the Bible or Das Capital or whatever, is not the point. It is where we draw the line on how much of our morals we impose, that's the problem.
[W]Or how about a printer who refuses to print what to them is offensive or immoral material?
'It would depend on what rights society gives to those the printer might refuse. I don’t think the customer here would have the same degree of societal protection as the gay person would. The printer would have a right to refuse to print material he regarded as racist but not have the right to refuse to print it because the customer is white. He has no right to discriminate against a person on the grounds of colour or race, even religion.
A printer refusing to print gay material but who would print straight material should be put out of business in my view.'
Why? It is not the person that is being denied - his cafe menu would be printed. It is the gay material that is being denied.
Are you saying Richard Dawkins Speedy Print must print my gospel tract, 'Flee From The Wrath To Come', even though he finds it grossly offensive?
[W]Would you print material you found offensive? Material that is legal, but promoting, say, an Islamic State for Ireland?
'If you have been reading this site for any length of time you should know the answer to that. Of course we would. We print material we find offensive all the time – even the views of those who wish to discriminate against gays. We used to have a right wing Catholic here arguing all sorts of stuff like that. He was never once denied his opinion and was well liked here, whatever about his views. People ask all the time how we let some people express their views on the site.'
Big difference between publishing material one strongly disagrees with and exposing it to rebuttals, and publishing only the material.
'Ultimately, as an atheist I don’t feel I have any right to deny a Christian a bed for the night in my B & B because he might want to read his holy book which in my view legitimises a wrathful, brutal violent and vengeful god. He is entitled to his religious opinion and I would not even consider banning him from holding a religious conference in it.'
We have agreed on the first part, but I would still defend your right not to let me hold my Gospel Meeting in your hotel. I appreciate your generousity, however. :0)
Simon said:
ReplyDelete'I can't see the significance of referring to the B&B as "private". The B&B owners were offering a service and under equality law service providers can't discriminate against people just because they're gay.'
They weren't being denied because of their sexuality.
'Gay people are less likely to be married to each other so refusing them a service because they aren't married is indirect discrimination.'
The service was denied to unmarried heteros as well.
'It stops being purely "their home" as soon as they offer rooms to the general public for a fee. They may live there but as soon as it becomes a B&B it is a place of business.'
Yes, that is a weighty factor. I think confusion on that status contributed to the incident.
'Also, why should religious beliefs be given more weight than secular beliefs when it comes to morality?'
They shouldn't. Whatever the source of one's morality, we need to accord respect for the person's conscience on the matter. We can't cater for every view of everyone - no pork, no beef, no animal product, would not be possible for a supermarket or restaurant, for example. But we ought to make some effort to accommodate the scruples of others.
Wolfsbane "They weren't being denied because of their sexuality."
ReplyDeleteThey were denied because they weren't married and gay people can't get married to each other so they are going to bear the brunt of the B&B owners' beliefs. Gay couples can NEVER stay at their B&B but heterosexual couples can because the latter can actually get married. That is why although they weren't being directly discriminated against for being gay they were indirectly discriminated against for being gay. Which violates equality legislation also.
"But we ought to make some effort to accommodate the scruples of others."
We do make effort to accommodate people's scruples- they have the right to hold and practice them as long as they don't discriminate when providing goods or services against others on a number of grounds like gender, sexual orientation, race, religion etc.
Minority groups for wont of a better word need protection or they will be trampled all over.
By the way I have been to a few really good vegetarian restaurants. ;)
Simon
ReplyDeleteAs you can see from a previous post, I now agree that we should not deny a bed based on what the occupants do in private.
I was just pointing out the owners were not picking on gays, but practicing their wider sexual mores. Yes, it would affect the gay community more than the hetero one - but not intentionally.
My point about restaurants was that a conscientious veggie could not expect to become a waiter in a restaurant and refuse to serve out steaks. Nor could his Hindu friend. Same goes for Muslims and Jews regarding pork.
But if one of them worked in a place that only occasionally served these things, an effort should be made to avoid requiring them to serve it.
How do you feel about being made to participate in abortions and euthanasia? Or renting a function room to a cause one regards as immoral?
Wolfsbane "Yes, it would affect the gay community more than the hetero one - but not intentionally."
ReplyDeleteIt affects the entire gay community as a gay person under the status quo can't get married at all (I mean of course to another gay person).
I feel that regarding abortions or euthanasia the law has got it right when it comes to the level of participation at which you can be forced to do something connected with them. With abortions anyone involved in a medical capacity can't be forced to participate and only those at an administration level can be forced to carry on with the paperwork connected with that. I feel that is fair enough as the influence or impact an administrator has on an actual surgical procedure is minimal.
As to renting a function room to a cause the owner feels is immoral or unethical I would be in favour of the owner having the last word unless it adversely affects a group that the law is there to protect.
Is the law - that they don't be discriminated on the basis of religion, race, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation - there to protect individuals or groups?
ReplyDeleteI don't know, so would be glad if you can enlighten me. I have assumed it was the individual that is protected.
For example, I as a Baptist must not be refused a service because I'm a Baptist. But can my Baptist Church be refused a service because it is Baptist?
As an animal rights activist I believe lions should be protected and not compelled to eat Baptists, Free Ps and Opus Dei!!
ReplyDeleteAs well we have a sense of humour or we would all bore each other to tears.
Will get back to your earlier comments Wolfsbane - just overrun with other things at the minute.
It is there to protect individuals but groups are made up of individuals so in that sense if a Baptist Church was refused a room in a hotel it would be an act of discrimination against all the individual members of the church who were going to use that room.
ReplyDeleteThere may be other overriding laws for example to prevent any community unrest but with the list of protected groups as it is I can't imagine an instance where this would happen, the groups being so benign.
AM - yes, a sense of humour helps to express our respect for others, even if we attack their arguments.
ReplyDeleteTake your time, Anthony. I know you are extremely busy with the wider political stuff.
Simon, I see your position - but is that the law? Do Baptist Churches really have the right to hire function rooms for their meetings, regardless of the feelings of the hotelier? Perhaps some one here who knows the law could enlighten us? Same of course for any group.
ReplyDeleteBTW, a church I was with was refused use of a room out of hours by a local state school, even though they allowed others churches to use the room. Mind you, that was some 30 years ago, so legislation may have changed since then.
Wolfsbane,
ReplyDeletebusy but not with wider political stuff exclusively. Watching TV and reading Scandinavian crime fiction. I know ... but we all have our lives to live.
Wolfsbane- I studied equality law before but long before the new Equality Act so new grounds are present like not discriminating against people for being or not being married or in a civil partnership but I guess the general principles are the same.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if a school being a public body is affected the same way as a private enterprise like a hotel.
You are right though 30 years ago it was different. It has changed countless times since, normally strengthening anti-discrimination laws further each time.
There may be a good reason for disallowing room hire like a clash of bookings for example. If it was a hotel and they treated your church differently for using a room in the same manner as they allow other churches to use it that would potentially show discrimination. If all churches were treated the same it may be an act of discrimination against all religious bodies and this may be discrimination also. But this is were it gets complicated and every case is treated on it's own merits.
Back 30 years ago I guess the last word was down to the school's Board of Governors although I couldn't swear to it.
Simon, thanks.
ReplyDeleteSo your understanding is that it would be unlawful for a hotelier to refuse a conference venue/meeting room based on his/her disapproval of the cause being promoted? Religious, sexual, ethnic, etc?
I suppose if banning a meeting was because of a particular cause itself, an extreme viewpoint or mischief making for example, the owner may be protected but if it was down to their status as say a certain denomination or sexual orientation for example it would most likely be against the law.
ReplyDeleteIf there was a chance of civil unrest or violence I could see a legitimate reason for disallowing the booking. ie. If it would lead to a more damaging situation, harm or worse circumstances than the discrimination itself. But I am unsure if the law would see it that way; if it would be mere mitigation rather than a defense.
But as I said the groups of individuals listed are not really controversial enough to expect violence although I suspect in Northern Ireland you wouldn't be surprised.
I haven't read the Equality Act so I am unsure if it even applies to Northern Ireland but the argument stands. (It has been a while since I studied subjects like that.)
i reckon half them names are made up, the only one i recognise is salman rushdie and he was a right pain in the hole
ReplyDeleteGrouch,
ReplyDeleteThey're all real people. Simply pick any name and do a Google search
theres definitely a few porn stars in there.
ReplyDeleteSimon, thanks. If I find out more details - or anyone else here knows - it would be worth knowing.
ReplyDeleteWolfsbane- No worries.
ReplyDeleteGrouch- "theres definitely a few porn stars in there." I know Frankie said "Simply pick any name and do a Google search." but be careful what you google!!
lads, im sure i seen a film with tanis rideout in it and it definitely wasnt suitable for children
ReplyDeleteGrouch,
ReplyDeleteI think you are getting your movies crossed. Don't you mean a movie about a girl called Deborah who took a holiday in Dallas?
frankie, i stand corrected, debbie, luvly girl, i remember her well
ReplyDeleteGrouch as I remeber the movie she gave a lot of woman love
ReplyDelete