The need to defend free speech

In light of things like this, but more directly things like this, this, this, this, this and this, and unhelpful and unconscionable consequences like this, this and this I suggest you go here and sign up to this.

Free speech is becoming ever less free. Over the last 15 years, encroachments onto this several hundred year old right have been increasing. It would be remiss to lay the blame at any one government's door. For the start of such interference began with the Blair-era New Labour government and have continued with aplomb under David Cameron's Conservative government. The introduction of such draconian, heavy-handed and ill-considered legislation is therefore neither solely a Conservative nor Labour foible and - with their recent foray into government before their catastrophic implosion - the Liberal Democrats do not escape unscathed either. 

The clampdown on free speech and basic civil liberties is manifestly a centrist obsession. Governments, and parties of government, across the board have played their part in pressing forward such inhibiting laws. The strongest opposition to such measures has unerringly come from those on, and to, the left of the Labour Party (eg Michael Meacher, Diane Abbott, Caroline Lucas, Peter Tatchell, et al) and the right, and those to the right, of the Conservative Party (eg David Davis, Douglas Carswell, Fiona Bruce, et al). Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat centrists and moderates appear to be those most keen to implement extreme, draconian and thoroughly immoderate laws that inhibit basic civil liberties.

If you value the right to be able to think and express opinions that may, or may not, accord with the cultural zeitgeist  then consider joining the above campaign. If you find any of these following pronouncements troubling, then consider joining the above campaign.

"Extremism Disruption Orders will go “beyond terrorism” and “eliminate extremism in all its forms”. - George Osbourne, Chancellor of the Exchequer

"If that’s what you think and that’s what you believe and you want to hold that in your head, that is your business and your right but bear in mind that if you speak it out loud you might be breaking the law.” - Polly Harrow (head of safeguarding and Prevent) [in response to being asked if someone was allowed to have a religious opinion against homosexuality]

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone... This Government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach." - David Cameron, Prime Minister

"There will, I’m sure, be some who say politicians shouldn’t get involved in these matters. But to live in a modern liberal state is not to live in a moral vacuum. We have to stand up for our values as a nation. There will, I know, be some who say that what I describe as extremism is merely social conservatism. But if others described a woman’s intellect as “deficient”, denounced people on the basis of their religious beliefs, or rejected the democratic process, we would quite rightly condemn their bigotry. And there will be others who say I am wrong to link these kinds of beliefs with the violent extremism we agree we must confront. To them I say, yes, not all extremism leads to violence. And not all extremists are violent. But the damage extremists cause to our society is reason enough to act. And there is, undoubtedly, a thread that binds the kind of extremism that promotes intolerance, hatred and a sense of superiority over others to the actions of those who want to impose their values on us through violence." - Theresa May, Home Secretary

Such moves are extremely worrying. They will stop any dissenting opinion and will impact the nature of debate, discussion, free thought and free speech. It will have knock-on effects for academia, education, entertainment, religious institutions and political discourse. Things have moved from the realm of allowing certain ideas to be frowned upon to making certain ideas unsayable and, in the process, is attempting to make certain thoughts unthinkable. It is without question a totalitarian move by an existent oligarchy. Despite what the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have repeatedly tried to claim, this has no place in a free society. It has no place in a liberal democracy. It cannot be squared with the free democratic system that Britain at least claims it wants to remain.

If you are in any way troubled by these moves, I strongly encourage you to make your voice heard here and write to your MP to express your concerns.

Rev Barry Trayhorn forced to resign for quoting Bible in chapel

The salient facts of this case are these:

• HMP Littlehey is a category C men's prison and Young Offender institute in Cambridgeshire. Chapel is entirely voluntary. Nobody is required or forced to attend, sing hymns or listen to scripture.
• Rev Trayhorn is an ordained Pentecostal minister who worked as a gardener at the prison. He has helped out with prison chapel services at the invitation and under the supervision of the coordinating Chaplain, the Rev’d David Kinder, on behalf of the Criminal Justice Forum in the Diocese of Ely.
• Whilst leading worship in chapel in May 2014 Rev Trayhorn quoted the passage 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (the quoted version is unknown).
• Four days later, a complaint was lodged against Rev Trayhorn. He was immediately suspended from helping with chapel services, and was subsequently told that his comments during the service were ‘homophobic’ and breached national prison policy.
• Rev Trayhorn was informed a disciplinary hearing would follow. He was subsequently signed off work with a stress related illness. During this time, his manager visited him three times at home to discuss work-related issues. On two of those occasions, a senior prison official was present.
• On 4th November 2014, Rev Trayhorn felt that he had no choice but to resign. Two days later, a disciplinary hearing was held in his absence, when he was given a ‘final written warning’.
• Rev Trayhorn, backed by the Christian Legal Centre, is now taking HMP Littlehey to an employment tribunal where he is claiming he was forced out of his main paid job as a gardener at the jail because of the intimidation he suffered as a result of his faith.

Several things are worthy of note and a few comments seem necessary.

First, as the Archbishop Cranmer blog notes, Rev Trayhorn's claim is not entirely unreasonable. For "it was not Barry Trayhorn’s skills as a paid gardener which had been called into question, but his competence to lead worship as an unpaid chaplain’s assistant." By all accounts, Rev Trayhorn's gardening skills have not entered into any discussion and there has been no complaint received over his horticultural prowess. It does, therefore, appear very much as though his quote from the Bible has directly led to the loss of his job as gardener.

Second, Rev Trayhorn received a final written warning at a disciplinary hearing in his absence. Again, as noted by Cranmer, given his gardening skills were not under scrutiny and he had "no previous misdemeanours or complaints recorded against him, it is not unreasonable to conclude that he was disciplined for quoting scriptures about sin which were deemed unpalatable by sinners."

Third, it seems worth pointing out that Rev Trayhorn did not major on sexual sin at the expense of other forms of sin. It does appear his quote includes the sexually immoral (that is the heterosexual immoral as the verse also goes on to mention those who practice homosexuality), idolaters, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers and swindlers. Across the range of those sins, and in line with traditional evangelical thought, the list takes aim at just about all people everywhere. It is a more extensive list of Paul's basic comment in Romans 3:23: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

Fourth, Rev Trayhorn was not disciplined for offering a particular interpretive view of the verses quoted. In fact, the man only went on to say "the Christian message [is] that God will forgive those who repent." It is, therefore, highly likely that Rev Trayhorn was disciplined specifically for quoting directly from the Bible.

All of this adds up to the ludicrous position that suggests it is now a felony to state the Bible's ethical teaching to convicted felons. It is equally ridiculous that prisoners, many of whom have been incarcerated for heinous sexual crimes which both the penal system and wider society recognise as ethically wrong, can claim offence at the biblical position (which is in agreement with both the penal system and wider society on this issue) and make a felon out of the man who dared quote it. Truly this is a nonsense.

Aside from all of this, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that significant portions of the Bible are now prohibited for public proclamation. We are censoring the ethical teachings of a book that played a central role in forming the ethical standard by which our own penal system abides. We are deeming a book that was, until very recently, a central part of school daily assemblies and a copy of which was given to every hotel room in the land to be incompatible with nebulous "British values" which, if they even exist at all, have been drawn from the selfsame source.

Most troubling of all, we already know about the government's plans to crack down on "extremism in all its forms" (see here, here and here etc). It seems quite clear that ill-defined "British values" must be pressed into every sphere of British public and private life. Anything that does not accord with them will be clamped down. The Home Secretary has already made it clear that those who speak against orthodox cultural utterances stand to lose charitable status and assets such as privately held buildings and cash funds. Some evangelical preachers who pose no physical threat to anybody - regardless of whether you agree with their position or the way in which they communicate it - have begun to feel the force of these measures (eg here).

And this seems to be yet another case of it happening. The chapel at HMP Littlehey is neither a public space nor a mandatory requirement for all prisoners. It is attended voluntarily and nobody is forced to partake in worship or to listen to God's word against their will. It is, therefore, utterly incredible that the Bible can be censored during a private meeting of Christian worship. Whilst this particular case beggars belief, it is all the more troubling that what is happening in HMP Littlehey and has already reached into some private meeting houses, will increasingly impede the public reading of God's word and the clear proclamation and explanation of what it contains in more and more churches. 

Measures intended to impede acts of terrorism and those propagating such acts are increasingly being used against all manner of political protesters and benign religious groups who pose no physical threat to anybody but who nonetheless do not assent to cultural orthodoxy. The measures are politically obtuse and utterly cowardly. For it seems clear enough that to avoid being seen to target one particular religious group, all people of faith - regardless of what they actually teach and believe or their propensity to call for the death of the infidel - are embroiled in a war against one small group, within one particular strain, of one particular branch of one particular religion. By any measure, it is not fair, it is not equitable, it is not reasonable and it should not stand.

The tyranny of liberalism inculcates illiberal counter-extremism measures

If you cannot conceive why so many people are pleased that Jeremy Corbyn has won the Labour leadership election, the reasons are plethora. One major factor is the sense that the party will now undo decades of vacuous New Labour policy which has dragged the party further to the right and away from its founding principles. Another reason is the tyranny of liberalism that began in the New Labour era and has been perpetuated by the so called "heir to Blair". It is telling that both the left-wing of the Labour Party and the right-wing of the Conservative Party have both been the most vociferous defenders of civil liberties in the face of this oppressive centrism that so lauds the values of tolerance and acceptance that it simultaneously denies anyone the right to disagree with its moral pronouncements (which, ironically, it claims is grounded in no set of morals at all!)

This centrist tyrannical liberalism is the epitome of amorality and illiberality. I have far more time for moral and social Conservatives, who actually ground their beliefs in a set of moral principles and a proper understanding of what it is to be a liberal society, than I have for this vacuous centrism. Likewise traditional Socialist values - especially those grounded in the Christian Socialist tradition - have always made their arguments in moral terms. The very term liberalism, and the supposed post-war liberal consensus, once meant defining particular rights and allowing all such practices that do not impinge thereon. These rights were once determined from accepted moral values. However, these terms have come to mean a set of moral statements, without any underpinning moral framework, which must be upheld at all costs. All dissenting opinion will not be tolerated and must be quashed. What once stood for inherent freedom for the individual has come to mean cultural oppression. What claims to be a stand for tolerance is, in actual fact, the refusal to tolerate anything else.

This troubling tendency of the last three decades was perfectly illustrated by a report in yesterday's Telegraph. The report opens with the ominous words:

Imams, priests, rabbis and other religious figures will have to enrol in a “national register of faith leaders” and be subject to government-specified training and security checks in the Home Office’s latest action on extremism.

The report claimed:

Whitehall will “require all faiths to maintain a national register of faith leaders” and the Government will “set out the minimum level of training and checks” faith leaders must have to join the new register.

In short, the proposal demands leaders within all faiths become state registered with the state determining the minimum level of training required to fulfil their job requirements.

There are several things to note about this. Firstly, this is being driven through as part of the government's latest round of anti-extremism measures. Once again, in the name of security, age old civil liberties, such as freedom of religion, are being eroded. It is shocking to see a supposedly liberal government enacting a policy that is worryingly similar to that of the Communist regime in China.

Second, it cannot fail to escape anybody's notice that anti-extremism measures and counter-terror legislation were introduced as a result of 9/11, 7/7 and other more recent atrocities. We have been well acquainted with terrorism in Western Europe for well over a century (cf. IRA and its offshoots; UDA, UVF and their offshoots; ETA; Terra Lliure et al). It is clear enough that the increase in such legislation is not a result of such groups. This legislation has been a result of particular terrorist activities which comes from one particular source. It is specifically a response to Islamist terrorism (or Jihadism).

All sensible observers recognise Islam comes in a range of forms, going well beyond Sunni and Shia branches. It should be clear to even the most casual observer that Islam is not one monolithic bloc and clearly most Muslims do not subscribe to Islamist terrorism nor even the Salafi strain of Sunni Islam. Nonetheless, we cannot ignore the glaringly obvious fact that the major threat of terrorist activity in recent decades has come from these pernicious forms  of Muslim thought. It is in response to this particular form of terrorism that anti-terror and anti-extremist legislation - however well thought through or otherwise - has been introduced.

What is most troubling is that this latest attempt at anti-extremist legislation should include those of "all faiths". How many reform Jews have we heard of jumping onto buses and blowing themselves up? How many rabbis have we heard encouraging such behaviour or encouraging British citizens to kill in the name of the Israeli state? We are not hearing of swathes of Sikhs using their (legally permitted) kirpan to strike fear into the heart of British society. Militant Hindus (though some certainly exist on the Indian sub-continent) are not the subject of major police counter-terror initiatives. Christian leaders are not encouraging their communicants to attack the infidel. Why, then, are "all faiths" always found subject to measures designed to target one particular group of people, within one particular branch, of one particular religion?

Are the government truly trying to argue that, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the issue, taking a traditional line on heterosexual marriage is akin to Salafi Jihadism? Is it really the case that evangelical street preachers pose a similar threat to national security as those who seek to intentionally blow themselves up in the name of martyrdom? Are orthodox Jews really the same threat to British culture as those who actively proclaim allegiance to the Islamic State?

If this is a problem confined to one particular religion, it is highly unreasonable to use this as a catch-all way to extend these rules to all religions. If it is unfair to tarnish all Muslims with the same brush - knowing, as I do, many Imams and Muslim parents who are terrified that their own children may buy into these pernicious extremist ideologies, it most certainly is - how much less fair is it to include those who don't even subscribe to the wider religion in question? It seems that government are pressing on with this approach because they do not want to be seen attacking Islam alone. But there simply is no escaping that it is not the Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs or Buddhist who are having any effect on the British terror threat level. Until such time as we accept the source of the problem, we will continue to be hit with these cack-handed attempts to address the problem.

Third, this sort of approach does absolutely nothing to address the root problem. The issues that government are (rightly) concerned about are terrorist activities and the incitement to violence. Sadly, the government have extended their attempts to to deal with these two issues to anything deemed "extremist". Quite apart from failing to define nebulous "British values" and defining extremism as anything which doesn't accord with them, this does nothing to address the root of the problem. As noted by Haras Rafiq - director of the counter-extremism think tank Quilliam - "“It is very noticeable that the main Islamist groups are not really up in arms about this. They want it, because it will feed the narrative of grievance and victimhood they love. They will be able to use it to say, ‘look, we told you so’.” We have moved from trying to stop people breaking the law, and actively damaging others, to trying to inculcate views and values by diktat.

Fourth, this approach goes against anything that can be considered tolerable in a free and liberal society. It is the outworking of precisely the issue noted at the beginning of this post. It is the tyranny of liberalism that cannot cope with permitting views outside of the cultural zeitgeist. Extremism is being defined in this case as a refusal to push "British values". As noted on the blog before (here and here), British values seem to be defined as a refusal to actively promote current cultural views on issues such as homosexuality, gay marriage and the ever-slippery value of tolerance (without tolerating religious views, of course!) In the name of counter-extremism, religious adherents and faith leaders who have otherwise lived in the UK for centuries without such interference by the state are now being subject to measures that would in any other area be considered draconian, authoritarian and illiberal. If such measure were enacted within politics because of the actions of certain political terrorist organisation within our midst, people would rightly be up in arms. When it comes to issues of religious belief, it does seem the same criteria are not applied.

This tyranny of liberalism began under the New Labour era and has been continued under David Cameron's Conservative rule. I have written to my local MP - a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn - regarding several recent troubling announcements from Theresa May's office. He has given assurance, in no uncertain terms and without usual political obfuscation, that he has the same concerns and in no way supports the measures. I understand Jeremy Corbyn similarly recognises the issue and rejects this approach. If you are wondering why I am pleased Jeremy Corbyn has won the Labour leadership, this is no small factor.

For my part, I will not submit to any national register. I will not permit the state to determine what I teach in my own church. I will not allow the state to interfere with what scripture clearly teaches. I will not allow my sermons and studies to be vetted. I refuse to be deemed a threat to state security simply because I do not always agree with the prevalent government agenda. I am not prepared to be subjected to statist, Communist-style interference and I will not subject my church communicants and congregants to the vacuous homilies permitted in accordance with the whims of the government of the day. One hopes and prays there are enough sensible voices in parliament to recognise precisely why.

Jeremy Corbyn's campaign and what it has to say about two-stage separation

I have watched on over recent weeks as Jeremy Corbyn has been associated with "Jew-haters", conspiracy theorists, murderers, Holocaust deniers and other terrorists and extremists. In his most recent interview with Cathy Newman on Channel 4, Corbyn denied sympathising with Holocaust deniers and vociferously rejected such views in no uncertain terms. On today's World at One on Radio 4, Corbyn denied knowing the 'extremist' Dyab Abou Jahjah who has links to Hezbollah. He also denounced the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah in no uncertain terms whilst still maintaining the importance of open dialogue.

I am reasonably happy with such denials. I am rather in agreement with the need to keep lines of communication open for dialogue that leads to peace. I do think it is possible to speak to terrorist organisations and unsavoury characters without endorsing everything they say, do and stand for. I am, nonetheless, much less impressed with his continued refusal to denounce the IRA in the same terms as he has Hezbollah and Hamas (see here). If he can censure Hezbollah and Hamas in the clearest possible terms whilst maintaining the need to talk to them for the purposes of a peace process, there is no reason the same cannot be said to the IRA. I strongly suspect this is down to his ongoing friendship with the Irish Republican top brass compared to his mere supposed general association with those linked to Middle Eastern terror groups.

Leaving aside the glaring exception of the IRA, Corbyn has consistently denied sympathising with the views espoused by those he has been accused of courting. He has publicly rejected the violent means of Hezbollah, Hamas and their respective supporters. Corbyn has also condemned Holocaust denial in the strongest terms stating "Holocaust denial is vile and wrong. The Holocaust was the most vile part of our history. The Jewish people killed by the Nazi Holocaust were the people who suffered the most in the 20th century." Despite pictures emerging of him sitting beside Dyab Abou Jahjah, I think Owen Jones' defence of Corbyn is quite reasonable and eminently likely. Frankly, I believe Corbyn when he says he doesn't remember the man and knew nothing of his views; not least given his brazen, unrepentant willingness to admit to the vast majority of links that many deem questionable.

In short, I don't think Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic, a Holocaust denier nor a "Jew-hater". I do not think he supports Hezbollah and Hamas. I am yet to be convinced he wholeheartedly rejects the actions of the IRA and doesn't seek to justify their means as "necessary".

In Owen Jones' defence of Corbyn, he comments:

If he knew somebody had anti-Semitic views or indulged Holocaust denial, he would find their views utterly repulsive. But having spent his life attending more meetings and protests than virtually any other MP, he will have encountered and met countless people. I can’t remember people I’ve shared platforms with and met (which has led to many embarrassing moments in my case) and the idea an MP like Corbyn juggling his constituency and campaigning work and meeting the number of people he does will remember is pushing human capabilities to an extreme degree.

I am utterly sympathetic to this defence. Christians who advocate a policy of co-belligerence (e.g. here) should understand this. On issues of agreement, we may share a platform with those whom we would otherwise disagree. For example, in the Reform Section 5 campaign, Christian groups found themselves sharing a platform with all sorts of atheistic and secular groups due to agreement on the issue at hand. It seems likely in the Palestinian Solidarity movement one is likely, on that issue, to share a platform with others who hold unsavoury views in other areas. The same is almost certainly true in the pro-zionist camp - agreement on the issue is likely to lead to one sharing a platform with some who hold unsavoury views in other areas.

The issue is one of two-stage separation. If it can be reasonably demonstrated that Jeremy Corbyn himself supports Holocaust denial, sympathises with anti-Semites and supports the violent means of sundry terrorist organisations then we are well within our rights to denounce his campaign on such grounds. If, however, he does not hold or sympathise with such views but happens to support some other issues which those who hold these views also happen to support that is rather different. For example, it is possible to support the maintenance of the Union in Northern Ireland without in any way linking oneself to the terrorist activities of Loyalist paramilitary groups (so Unionism has been arguing for over a century). The same goes for Irish unification without supporting Republican paramilitaries (or so the Nationalists have been arguing to some while). It is, however, wholly unreasonable to denounce Ian Paisley - who has consistently denounced the actions of Loyalist paramilitaries - for having occasionally found himself in the same room as paramilitary men who share his view on the Union. Likewise, to denounce Mark Durkan - who has consistently denounced the tactics of Republican paramilitaries - for having occasionally found himself in the same room as Provisional IRA men is equally unreasonable. This guilt by association two-stage separation is unfair, it is no way to determine the actual views of an individual.

The approach to Jeremy Corbyn's campaign is reminiscent of two-stage separation in churches. It is the view that says A must separate from B, not because of any issue with B, but because B is associated with C who is deemed beyond the pale. Occasionally, it becomes three, four or more stage separation. It is a view that infers guilt by association and can often end up condemning nigh on everybody. If we are working with the sense that it is not possible to even share a platform or be in the same room as those with whom we disagree on unrelated issues, we may as well shut the House of Commons down. We cannot possibly expect people to be so certain of any link they may make that they must background check every individual they meet at any given rally they attend.

This blog has previously commented on the issue of two-stage separation within the Christian world. If our unity is based on gospel truth, it is inevitable that we will ultimately share fellowship with churches who are no exactly like us. That is not to say there are no ministries we ought to denounce in no uncertain terms but there are clearly large areas of theological truth which will be relegated to matters of secondary importance. They are those issues on which there may be a right answer but which do not form a basis of separation. Moreover, there will be issues on which we share a platform without agreeing with those whom we campaign. It is entirely possible, for example, that in the name of co-belligerence a Christian may find themselves on the same platform as a Muslim. It is highly likely that, in so doing, there may be dispensational, pro-Israel, CWI-supporting believers sharing a platform with some Muslim who hold less than salubrious views toward Israel and its citizens.Yet, because we agree on the issue at hand, we share a platform without endorsing all the views of those thereon.

If we want to be able to defend co-belligerence, we must be careful we don't fall into this guilt-by-association trap toward others. If links are symptomatic of views, then we ought to be careful to bring personal views into the light and make sure we are denouncing the actual views of the individual rather than our presumed view based on some of things we may know about their associations. If we want to be able to support gospel unity, we will have to be very careful about precisely those positions we wish to denounce. Are they essentials? Do they undermine the gospel? Are we sure the people we are disassociating with actually hold the views we deem anti-gospel or are we presuming that based on others they know? For the sake of the gospel, let's keep the main things the main things. If we must disassociate with someone, let's make sure we are doing so rightly. Let's determine fellowship based on the actual views of those we know, not based on the presumed views of third-parties with whom they associate.

The problem with protest-free buffers around abortion clinics

There seems to be much news about abortion of late. The blogosphere - and certain mainstream news outlets - have expended much time pouring over recent undercover videos showing the modus operandi of American abortion provider Planned Parenthood (e.g. see here, here and here amongst others). Attention initially focused on PP's callous efforts to abort foetuses in "a less crunchy way" in order to preserve body parts which they can sell on. Things quickly moved on to their "after-birth abortions" which remain virtually impossible to distinguish from the murder of a newly born child (apart from the fact the foetus is not wanted by the mother). 

Many have commented on the glib manner in which PP representatives conversed over lunch about killing infants who have taken their first breath (not just those killed in utero) and noted the cold, detached discussion regarding the resale value of individual body parts. It is the matter-of-factness of it all that seems to have caused the greatest consternation. The details surrounding the reality of abortion clinics have long been in the public domain; the regular goings on are well established. As such, I don't particular want to dig into any of the details surrounding PP here. I rather wanted to look at another story which, though having nothing to do with PP, is linked. 

Today, Yvette Cooper - Labour leadership contender - argued in favour of protest-free buffers around abortion clinics. We are already contending with Extremism Disruption Orders (EDOs) from the incumbent government (see here) which seek to inhibit free speech and, to some degree, free thought. Now, in line with the New Labour tendency to such things, Cooper is mooting curbs on the right to protest against abortion, another of the new cultural orthodoxies that cannot be spoken against.

Why has this been raised as an issue? As The Guardian report, The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) has complained confirmed that one of their clinics had to close down as a "direct result of protest activity". In other words, as the protest actually had the desired effect, Cooper wants to limit anything that might have a positive outcome for the protesters. She is happy for folk to protest in ways that are thoroughly ineffectual but, as soon as the action begins to work, curbs on freedom must be introduced to protect cultural orthodoxy.

On such things New Labour have form. It was they who stopped anti-war protesters from camping outside Westminster primarily because they found it a nuisance to be reminded of widespread public displeasure at certain military interventions. It is New Labour who began to introduce limits on free speech because certain words or phrases could be deemed "offensive" or "annoying". It was New Labour who inculcated the culture of offence and victimhood which meant certain words and views could not be expressed without the law being brought to boot. Now, Yvette Cooper - who has been part of the New Labour project - wishes to stop dissent regarding yet another culturally accepted norm. Cultural orthodoxy cannot be challenged, protests can only take the form of ineffective, inoffensive nothingness. Anything that may offend or lead to a questioning of the cultural zeitgeist is verboten.

Is there a legitimate discussion to be had regarding the boundaries of legitimate protest? Of course. Is it wrong to intimidate or harass those against whom you protest? Absolutely. But if intimidation and harassment are subjective measures, that which one person finds meek and mild another will find thoroughly intimidating. Where do the boundaries of such things lie?

Let's consider this: if we were discussing a protest outside the doors of a shop found to be exploiting foreign labour, would a buffer-zone be mooted? Would tears be shed for the shop workers? Would there be an outcry if the shop had to shut down? Or, alternatively, consider animal testing laboratories. Are protesters expected to protest away from the lab in such a way that their protest is rendered totally ineffective? Surely it is simply the nature of the clinic that has caused the concern.

Every reasonable person agrees that threats and intimidation are not appropriate tools of protest. However, being "confronted with images of foetuses" can hardly be said to represent a threat. And a static protest standing outside the doors of a clinic is hardly harassment. Following those seeking to go into the clinic up and down the street may fall into that category but a static protest can hardly be considered within the same bracket. As for intimidation, it is possible for anyone to find anything intimidating. It may be intimidating to walk past a group of protesters but if there is not danger to life or limb, no threat of assault, it seems such is congruent with a free and civil society.

The issue is a troubling one and extends well beyond the presenting issue. If we are prepared to reduce protests outside abortion clinics to ineffective and valueless acts, what is to stop legislation from doing the same to other forms of public assembly? If a static protest outside an abortion clinic amounts to intimidation and harassment, then what of the union picket line? What of animal rights protest? What of anti-hunting campaigns? How about the anti-austerity protests or anti-war marches? If we go down this line, there really is nothing to stop future governments finding anything politically awkward to which this approach could not be taken. There will be no means of protest that might possibly have any effect on the issue at hand. By castrating the power of the protest, they render all protest of no value.

Regardless of our view on the rights and wrongs of abortion, it surely cannot be right to restrict the right of others to disagree. It is also short-sighted to disallow tactics that may cause others to change their mind. It sets a dangerous precedent for all forms of protest and reduces protest to a valueless act. If it is politically expedient to do so, there is no reason such powers couldn't extend to any protest on any issue. The policy is a bad one and the precedent it will set is even worse.

MP claims EDOs should be used against teachers who hold traditional views on marriage

It has been reported in The Telegraph and The Independent that the introduction of Extremism Disruption Orders (EDOs) - the latest government anti-terror legislation - will be used against teachers who hold to a traditional view of marriage. A Tory backbench MP has written to one of his constituents and claimed EDOs should be used in "a situation where a teacher was specifically teaching that gay marriage is wrong". Both the National Secular Society and the Christian Institute have criticised the comments. This blog has already highlighted some of the issues surrounding EDOs here and here. For a reasoned explanation of the problems surrounding these recent troubling developments, you can do much worse than read the Archbishop Cranmer blog.

Mark Spencer, backbench Conservative MP for Sherwood, has this to say in a letter to a constituent:

I believe that everybody in society has a right to free speech and to express their views without fear of persecution. The EDOs will not serve to limit but rather to guarantee it: it is those who seek to stop other people expressing their beliefs who will be targeted. Let me give you an example, one which lots of constituents have been writing about – talking about gay marriage in schools.

The new legislation specifically targets hate speech, so teachers will still be free to express their understanding of the term ‘marriage’, and their moral opposition to its use in some situations without breaking the new laws. The EDOs, in this case, would apply to a situation where a teacher was specifically teaching that gay marriage is wrong.

If this case seems like an (ironically) extreme approach to those holding traditional views on marriage, it is entirely consistent with Theresa May's claim: “I want to see new civil powers to target extremists who stay within the law but still spread poisonous hatred..”; and David Cameron's comment: “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens ‘as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'”.

This is dangerous territory for the government. We have moved from a position where dissenting opinion was tolerated, to a place where it was not, to a situation where only the active affirmation of state orthodoxy will do. Not only will the government refuse to tolerate anybody who actively opposes gay marriage but they are now also making it virtually impossible to do anything other than affirm it without question. It is now official policy that certain views - specifically traditional views on marriage - are illegal to express. This is totalitarian control of the very worst order.

Aside from the clear issues related to freedom of speech and freedom of thought, this particular case becomes even more ridiculous when one remembers that there are parts of the UK that still uphold the traditional view of marriage. Northern Ireland has yet to pass a gay marriage act which, bizarrely, makes the entire Stormont government guilty of extremism according to our new prescribed definition. Just as ludicrous is the thought that our own government, up until a few months ago, were themselves guilty of extremism according to this new definition. Every Westminster MP that abstained or voted against gay marriage should, presumably, be subject to EDOs in retrospect. Even if the government aren't concerned about retroactive action, those who have never fully affirmed the new prescribed direction must surely be investigated as extremists as they remain belligerently unreformed.

We are told that we must all actively support, without reserve, nebulous "British values". And what are those values? Apparently the affirmation of whatever the government tells us they are. And if we do not assent? We are extremists and fall foul of EDOs; even if you are non-violent, not inciting violence and are in every respect obeying the current law. That is, we can be prosecuted even when - to all intents and purposes - we are obeying the government. It is utterly ludicrous and terrifyingly dangerous.

Tax, total depravity and why I disagree with R.C. Sproul Jr.

Great piece by @rcsprouljr. A man theologically close to me; politically poles apart. Relevant for left & right alike http://t.co/Qi6DDzE7hr

— Stephen Kneale (@steve_kneale) July 24, 2015

As you will gather from the above embedded tweet, R.C. Sproul Jr is a man with whom I have a lot in common theologically. Yes, we differ on the issue of baptism and we would see things differently regarding polity. Beyond that, we're not far apart theologically. And, as he has helpfully pointed our here, we ought to weigh the views and advice of those from different church cultures and theological backgrounds. Without throwing the baby out with the bath water, we should learn to take the good and leave the bad. In all of that, I am total agreement with him even though, of course, we will differ slightly on what constitutes the good and bad (1).

While we are (broadly) theologically on the same page, politically we are poles apart. No doubt there are areas of agreement (2) but when the man considers Barack Obama as far away from him on the political spectrum as one can get, I dread to think how he would categorise one such as me! Which leads me on to a short conversation I recently had with him on twitter.

@rcsprouljr really? Why not emphasise total depravity, inherent selfishness, and if the system takes that into account by redistribution?

— Stephen Kneale (@steve_kneale) July 24, 2015

@steve_kneale Really and truly. Because systems don't undo depravity and selfishness.

— R.C. Sproul Jr. (@rcsprouljr) July 24, 2015

It was this I wanted to dig into.

As I have previously commented here and here, the doctrine of total depravity tells me that a society built on philanthropy, charitable giving and the economics of 'trickle down' will not work in the interests of most. The capitalist model is predicated on greed as a motivator. Unfortunately, greed being deemed good is entirely antithetical to the teachings of the Bible. Moreover, if greed is the motivating factor in creating wealth - and if greed is deemed good by society as a result - we can hardly be surprised when that greed extends to seeking to keep as much money to myself as I possibly can. A society that functions on 'trickle down' or philanthropy as a principle for helping the poor fails to account for the base desire to hoard wealth. Examples of companies and individuals using tax loopholes and avoidance schemes serve only to underline the point. The rich - who become so by being told their greed is good - merely take that view to its logical conclusion and do all they can to keep their amassed wealth and do very little for the poor.

For some on the left, more often than not the secular left - though I may often (but not always) agree with their outcomes - there is far too much confidence in the inherent good of man. Total depravity tells me their optimism is more than misplaced, speaking against the reality of what we see in the human heart and the world all around us. I do not see a world full of people who naturally help each other at great cost to themselves (3). For those on the right, more often than not the Christian right in America, they see through this optimism in the inherent good of man. However, they then presume, despite man being inherently selfish and sinful, those individuals who generate wealth will be philanthropic and generous. They motivate individuals through greed - recognising that sinful human nature can be harnessed this way - but with a ludicrous sleight of hand simultaneously argue these same sinful people will suddenly become generous and philanthropic despite having been motivated to amass their wealth through greed and monetary motivation. It makes no sense and doesn't speak to the reality of a world in which the very rich do all they can to maintain and hoard their wealth.

It would be my contention that because the human heart is sinful we cannot rely on the generosity of rich and wealthy individuals. It is precisely because I believe in the doctrine of total depravity that I cannot see how a low tax system, that relies on philanthropy and trickle-down economics, can possibly work for the good of all. Rather, it makes more sense to recognise that people are inherently sinful. That sinful nature does not suddenly disappear upon the generation of vast amounts of wealth. Therefore, to have a system that imposes redistribution on wealthy individuals seems a far more sensible approach. This allows people to amass wealth whilst simultaneously recognising they are unlikely to share their money for the benefit others.

This brings me back to my twitter conversation. My response to R.C. Sproul Jr's view of economic systems being beneficent if they let you keep your money was this: why not emphasise total depravity and selfishness and assess an economic system by its redistributive effects? His answer was illuminating: because no system can undo total depravity or selfishness entirely we shouldn't even bother trying to mitigate them.

Now, this was surprising. One could argue, using the same logic, that because no system will ever undo total depravity or murder then we shouldn't bother assessing any system based on its efficacy of limiting and preventing murder. He and I share a view on abortion. We would both support a system that limited the proliferation of abortion on demand. But, by his logic, the system shouldn't interfere because it won't undo total depravity or the desires of some to abort children. Unless we can wipeout total depravity and the sin that underlies each and every outworking of it, we must ignore it and allow it to continue. As we can't undo total depravity, and the sins of greed and selfishness, we shouldn't bother to mitigate them and, in fact, should press on with a system that not only allows them but  actively encourages them to thrive. This is madness. As Martin Luther-King said: "morality may not be legislated but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless". To paraphrase another comment by the man: it may be true that the law cannot make a person generous, but it can keep him from the sinful outcome of his selfishness and greed, and I think that's pretty important.

One may seek to argue that it's not the same. One may argue that in allowing selfishness we are allowing state theft with a system that steals from its citizens (4). But this strikes me as a weak argument. Jesus and Paul are both clear enough that taxes do not equate to theft (see Mk 12:17 and Rm 13:6f). They are a legitimate part of governance and cannot be equated with sin - unless of course Jesus and Paul were trying to encourage us into sinful behaviour by telling us to pay them! The selfishness and greed inherent in the capitalist system cannot be deemed anything other than sinful; taxes inherent in almost every system are evidently not forms of state sin.

For me, it is my view of total depravity and sinful human nature that tells me we require a system that does something for the poor and needy. Left to our own devices, there would be no measures in place for them at all. In fact, God himself seemed to recognise this tendency and put such measures into the civil law of Israel. Without such laws, human nature was unlikely to ever come up with any sort of solution (or, dare I say, truly care about it). When the Early Church in Acts 2 were living as they ought under the gospel, we don't see amassed wealth and no giving. We see something much closer to an uneforced version of Socialism. But we must recognise that those who aren't under the gospel, who aren't regenerate and don't have the Spirit of God dwelling in their hearts and changing their desires, aren't going to act like this voluntarily. Hoping that they will is simply pie in the sky. It is for that reason I believe the state is duty-bound to redistribute wealth through a fair system of taxation.

None of this is to turn anyone away from R.C. Sproul Jr - I really do hope this doesn't come across that way. I honestly did mean what I said at the beginning. R.C. Sproul Jr. is a man with whom I agree on so much. I find his blog helpful in many ways. On lots of theological and church issues I think he often gives good counsel. I, frankly, wouldn't engage with him at all were that not the case. I see this as an example of the very principles he outlines here. Only, now, we're not talking specifically about theological and ecclesiastical issues, but political ones. Nonetheless, I suspect if we ever were to meet and become friends, he and I would agree not to "get [our] eschatology from [our] dispensational friends" but I would certainly be the friend from whom he wouldn't get his political or economic insights.

Notes

1. For example, I favour congregational polity, independency and credo-baptism. But on the doctrines of grace, the ordo salutis, soteriology and any number of other theological areas there would almost certainly be a great deal of agreement. I read his blog and often find it very helpful.
2. He and I share a definite and clear view on the issue of abortion, for example. 
3. Whilst there are individuals like this, they are often notable because of their scarcity
4. This is an argument R.C. Sproul Jr. has made before (see here)

Tim Farron, illiberalism, bigotry and Evangelicals

This last week I have been on my yearly pilgrimage to Llandudno. It's not so much a site of religious interest as an opportunity for me to serve with United Beach Missions. It is my nearest Beach Mission centre and it is one of very few with the sort of facilities that mean I can bring my family with me too. 

I have spent the last week standing on Llandudno promenade doing public interviews with people about their faith, asking them to share their stories and pressing them to answer questions and objections people may have about the Christian faith. I have also been engaging with non-Christian holidaymakers (NB: only those who actually want to talk, we're happy enough being told to push off) and sharing with them the Christian message of salvation in Jesus Christ. We've also been out delivering short gospel presentations in open air meetings and engaging in public apologetics.

None of that is to say bully for me. Rather, it is to set in context how truly odd such things have become in modern British society. For, as I reacquainted myself with social media and online news output, one particular news item - or one particular angle that kept reappearing in several different stories - seemed prevalent. The story, insofar as it is newsworthy, was the fact that Tim Farron, newly elected leader of the Liberal Democrats, is a Christian. Not only a Christian, but an Evangelical Christian. Not only an Evangelical Christian, but one who is actually prepared to speak about his faith in public.

Gillan Scott, at the Archbishop Cranmer blog, has given a good summary of how several of these interviews have focused not only on Farron's faith but have pressed particular presumed outworkings of his religious beliefs. Specifically, a Channel 4 News interview with Cathy Newman pushed Farron repeatedly on whether he viewed homosexual sex as sinful. Since then, Labour MP and deputy-leadership hopeful Ben Bradshaw has called Farron's approach to gay rights illiberal. Beyond these, The Times has referred to him as an "illiberal democrat", based on little more than the fact he is an Evangelical, and John Humphries pressed him on his Radio 4 Today programme about whether he prayed about different aspects of his job. Some of this interrogation is legitimate - private views will affect what we do in public (unless, of course, you're happy with a Magic FM in the Chilterns kind of faith) - but several things ought to be said.

First, these interviews have only been conducted and focused this way because Farron is an Evangelical. Although occasionally Tony Blair was asked about his faith, very little was ever made of it. David Cameron likewise is asked very little about his Christian beliefs, such as they exist. Moving away from those who identify as Christian in any regard, can you imagine Sajid Javid being asked for his views on particular Qur'anic suras which advocate less than liberal approaches to homosexuals or non-muslim believers? Would Clive Lewis, as chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Humanist Group, be pressed this hard on how his non-belief in a God would affect his moral compass? It is telling that perceptions of what Evangelicalism is persist (1) and such views are often held to a different standard than almost any other view, even among those in parliament.

Second, Tim Farron has been labelled illiberal by those who themselves are being illiberal. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of his position, and despite what Tim Farron's actual views on the sinfulness or otherwise of homosexual sex may be (we may infer what he believes but he hasn't actually said anything about it), Farron has repeatedly stated that he defends equal gay rights. Either, he doesn't think homosexual sex is sinful and he defends gay rights or he does think homosexual sex is sinful but he nevertheless defends gay rights. The first of those may or may not be a liberal position - we all obviously find it easy to make legal or illegal all those things we personally think are right and wrong respectively - but the latter view certainly is liberal. 

At the heart of the liberalism is the view that we don't have to agree, we don't have to be the same, but we can co-exist and defend the rights of one another. It is telling that Ben Bradshaw claims Farron is illiberal for not daring to affirm the moral eminence of homosexuality. In other words, Bradshaw argues you cannot do any other than affirm the moral zeitgeist, all contrary views are verboten. Hardly the words of a thoroughgoing liberal. Farron, on the other hand, defends equality for gay people despite (potentially) personally disagreeing with them. That is surely the same sort of liberal position as anyone who is not a Muslim, and disagrees with swathes of Islamic theology and praxis, yet doesn't believe Islam must be forcibly renounced by legal dictate. True Liberalism defends your entitlement to your view, it defends your equality in law, despite our disagreeing over the issue at hand. It is utterly wrong to suggest Tim Farron is illiberal for (potentially) disagreeing with homosexuality but defending homosexual rights in law. It is surely illiberal to say he cannot hold such a view. 

Farron was absolutely clear that "to understand the Christian faith is to understand we're all sinners". It is evidently not his view that, as we're all sinners, we should all go to prison. It is clearly not his view that, as we're all sinners, none of us should have any rights in law. Even if his view on homosexual sex (yet to be stated) is that it is sinful, it is evidently not the case such a view necessarily means he would do anything other than defend the rights of gay people in law. Even the Conservative American Evangelical writer Tim Keller, some while ago now, argued "you could believe homosexuality is a sin and still believe that same-sex marriage should be legal". Whilst that is not his own view, Keller reported that while many Christians "still believe homosexuality to be a sin, they don’t think the government should put that belief into law for the nation." There is every reason to presume Tim Farron holds to something akin to this Anabaptist position as described by Keller.

It is interesting to me that Farron has been pilloried, not even so much for his views (though that is certainly illiberal) but for his presumed position. The media have decided what they believe Evangelicalism stands for - regardless of the range of views even within this subset of Protestantism - and are gunning for a man based upon their own presumption rather than his actual position. This position is not necessarily the position of the man on the street. It is one pressed by media outlets.

As I was out on the streets of Llandudno, as an openly Evangelical Christian, we were generally not received with complete scorn. Those who didn't want to talk, didn't talk. Those who did, spoke politely and often disagreed with us (which is to be expected, those are the people we are generally trying to reach). When we disagreed, we spoke together about why and we had a reasonable discussion about the issues. Some people seemed to move closer to our view, some people didn't. At the end of each discussion, nobody fell out, many were glad to have the conversation (even if we didn't end up agreeing together) and nobody was forced to say, believe or do anything. We sometimes engaged with Atheists at the opposing end of the believing spectrum to us. It was a triumph for liberalism. Two opposing views who could, in the end, disagree strongly and yet remain genial. Nobody forcing anyone else to believe what they don't believe and nobody taking such offence at opposing views that police involvement or legal proceedings had anything to do with either one of us.

It seems to me that illiberalism is a charge thrown around whenever somebody voices a view that someone else doesn't like. It is incredible that someone can suggest, as Cathy Newman in her Channel 4 interview tried to infer, it is impossible for a Christian to be a liberal because they may hold illiberal values. But the essence of liberalism is defending such views even as we may disagree with them. If Newman is correct, then liberalism is not about defending alternative views but rather about insisting on the affirmation of prescribed state orthodoxy. For Newman, liberalism is authoritarianism. Up is down. Good is bad. It is Newspeak in every conceivable way. Beware the charge of illiberalism. One may be a bit more illiberal than our clarion cry suggests. 

I am not a Liberal Democrat but I can spot a witch-hunt when I see one. It doesn't take a genius to see that Tim Farron, irrespective of his political views, is being hounded for being an Evangelical Christian. It matters not whether he defends gay rights. It makes no difference if he upholds religious plurality. It is of no importance whether he has credible view on tax and spending. He is an Evangelical and has thus been branded a bigot. Much like the cry of illiberalism, we should be careful what we use as our rallying cry. If bigotry is defined as "intolerance of those who hold different opinions to oneself" [source: Google Dictionary], dismissing somebody politically as an Evangelical bigot - without engaging with what they say, think or do - rather, at best, smacks of the pot calling the kettle black.

Notes

1. The Times comment that Tim Farron believes "every word of the Bible is literal truth" is clearly misleading to those who do not understand the doctrines of infallibility or inerrancy. It shows a naive ignorance of how the Bible was written and the various types of literature it contains, grossly misinterpreting anything Farron has actually said. Nevertheless, because he's Evangelical and we all know what that means, it seems not to matter.

Should we extend Sunday trading: our answer shows what we value

When the right-wing Archbishop Cranmer blog lines up right alongside The Guardian, USDAW, several Labour leadership candidates and TUC General Secretary Frances O'Grady one knows something has gone awry. In this case, it is George Osbourne's latest plan to extend the Sunday trading laws. It seems left and right, Christian and non-Christian alike believe the move to be less than excellent.

First, lest we forget, let's remember that the government introduced a short-term measure to extend the Sunday trading laws for the duration of the London Olympics. As Gillan Scott remembers well, "voices from the Church of England along with various others raised the concern that this was the first step to them being permanently scrapped." Nonetheless, a response was sent as recently as April to the Keep Sunday Special campaign assuring them that the government had no plans to extend the Sunday trading laws. To be precise:

I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister... 

I can assure you we have no current plans to relax the Sunday trading laws. We believe the current system provides a reasonable balance between those who wish to see more opportunity to shop at large stores on a Sunday, and those who would like to see further restrictions. (Abigail Green, Political Correspondence Manager, letter dated 20th April 2015).

Given such assurances, it seems odd that the extension of Sunday trading laws are now being mooted once again, this time on a permanent basis, by George Osbourne. I wouldn't quite want to say the quoted letter represents a lie but it does rather suggest assurances from the office of Prime Minister aren't worth the paper they are written on. Certainly it is an assurance that is hard to square with Osbourne's new proposal and his comment that "Even two decades on from the introduction of the Sunday Trading Act, it is clear that that there is still a growing appetite for shopping on a Sunday”.

So what if shops open up a bit longer on a Sunday? Let's be clear why this represents an issue. The issue is not primarily one of faith. Traditional sabbatarians are perfectly able to keep the Sabbath themselves (i.e. not using shops and services on a Sunday that cause others to work) without restricting the freedom of others to do so if they wish. Moreover, as outlined here, there is no particular reason to tie the Sabbath command to Sunday and thus it is possible to have a day of rest another time in the week. So, if not an issue primarily revolving around sabbatarianism, why does this represent a problem? There are three basic reasons.

First, it is detrimental to the families of shop workers. Though it is possible for shop workers to have another 'day of rest' in lieu of Sunday, it is often not possible for them to have any time with their families on any other day. Saturday and Sunday used to afford families time together. Traditionally, Saturday was nuclear-family time whilst Sunday was church-family time. Weekend opening has been in force for decades and Sunday trading possible since 1994. Children are on ever-increasing schedules of extra-curricular clubs, additional tutoring and nightly homework with parents faring little better. Sunday used to be a time for families to relax before beginning the hectic weekly routine. Sunday trading already eats into such family time and extending it further can only make matters worse.

Second, it is detrimental to Christian workers. Though there is no scripture command for us to meet together on Sunday (see here), this has traditionally been the day Christian churches meet. Moreover, despite being free to meet on any other day of the week, it is clearly the case that the majority of people enjoy weekends off and thus Sunday becomes a good day for most to meet. Sunday trading laws make it particularly difficult for Christian shop workers, and even some of those in higher managerial positions in the retail sector, to meet with other believers. Though we are free to meet on any given day, Christians are still commanded to not "neglect our meeting together" (Heb 10:25). As most churches meet on Sunday, the trading laws make this nigh on impossible for Christian workers.

This isn't just an issue of Christian workers being able to meet with fellow believers. Many good Christian people cannot enter the retail sector because it will force them to choose between church commitment and work. This happened to me some years ago. I applied for a managerial role with one particular supermarket and, as my CV obviously indicated, I was involved heavily in church. I made it to second-round interview and was asked directly about my desire to work on Sunday. I made it very clear I was prepared to work 6 days a week, and would even work slightly longer hours if need be, to avoid Sunday working so that I could attend church. Unsurprisingly, I was not invited back. Extension of Sunday trading laws will force some to choose between feeding their family physically and feeding their soul spiritually.

Thirdly, it is a measure of government policy and what they value as important. George Osbourne cited research which claimed that extending the laws by just 2 hours in London would create 3000 extra jobs and £200m in extra income. The driving force behind the measure is monetary. It is a placing of the national economy over and above the health of the family unit. It is a desire to put markets ahead of the needs of the workers propping them up. What is more, the research cited by the Chancellors seems questionable given that during the relaxation of Sunday trading laws during the London Olympics retail sales fell by 0.4% overall and as much as 20% being reported by some smaller retailers.

This is an ideological position being touted by the government where growth in GDP is considered the summum bonum of British existence. The workers are simply there as wealth creators to prop up market performance. Gillan Scott argues, to paraphrase Jesus, "the markets were made for man, not man for the markets". Whilst I don't agree markets particularly serve the interests of people, he is right that we were certainly not created as market-fodder. As Frances O'Grady rightly puts it "We need a better economic plan than asking people to spend another day of the week putting debt on their credit cards".

It is questionable whether the measure would, in actual fact, increase GDP. Nonetheless, the question is primarily not one of faith nor one of growth. The question is what do we value as a society. If increasing GDP is all there is, and it can be proven the measure would strengthen the economy, a solid case can be made for relaxing the law. If the family unit, workers rights, the ability of Christian people to practice their faith, Christians in the retail sector, spiralling costs related to stress  brought on by high expectations and increasing hours and other non-monetary concerns really matter, then perhaps we should consider not only keeping the laws as they are but restricting them further still.

At the heart of this move is the rampant capitalist consumerism that we have seen at large since the 80s. The banking crisis should have been warning enough that untrammeled greed is not, as Gordon Gekko famously averred, good. If it is not good in the banking sector, for those who have vast amounts of money to spend, how much worse is such thinking for those who will be encouraged to rack up increasing debts buying goods they frankly don't need. What is for sure is that buying those goods you really don't need can certainly wait until Monday and nobody will be more grateful for your minuscule attempt at restraint than the working parents who can finally spend a day with their children.

On the Ashers Bakery judgment

The Ashers Bakery judgment has been published and the bakers are found to have broken equality legislation. The full judgment is worth reading and can be found here. For a helpful, and relatively brief, summary of why this is an astonishing (if somewhat unsurprising) result see Archbishop Cranmer.

It bears saying that the principle of equal service is a good and valid one. Few would disagree that service ought not to be denied to somebody simply because of their sexual orientation or political beliefs. A bakery that bakes standardised cakes ought not to refuse service to an individual simply because they are homosexual, subscribe to a political party whom the service provider does not or support a campaign the service provider does not/cannot. The Asher case, however, was never about the provision of a standard service being denied to somebody because of their religious or political beliefs. Rather, this was a case of somebody being denied a particular service that would have been denied to anybody else requesting that same identical service.

Rather than offer a summary of the whole case (others have done a better job of that already), I rather want to direct your attention to a handful of rather concerning elements of the judgment itself.

Point 39 of the judgment states the defendants must have known the plaintiff was homosexual and/or associated with homosexual people because of his support for gay marriage, the claim he worked for a small volunteer organisation and the stated graphic on the cake including the word 'QueerSpace'. Certainly there are plenty of heterosexual people that support gay marriage and there is no particular reason for the defendants to have any knowledge of what 'QueerSpace' actually is or does. The presumption of the judge was that this service was denied because the plaintiff was homosexual. However, point 7 of the judgment states quite clearly that the plaintiff 'had previously purchased items at this branch of the 1st Defendant Company'. Were it the case the defendant was denied service because of his homosexuality - which, according to the judge, was 'abundantly clear' - it is virtually impossible to account for the previous provision of service.

Point 41 of the judgment quotes a number of cases that make concerning statements regarding the nature of discrimination. One judgment avers 'discrimination... is something subtle insidious or hidden' while another states motive and purpose have no basis in judgments on discrimination. point 42 then goes on to argue that the necessary comparator is not a heterosexual person purchasing the same cake but a person of undisclosed sexual orientation purchasing a pro-traditional marriage cake. The comparison is laughable. The very cause of discrimination was not the sexual orientation of the person purchasing the cake, which was not known to the defendants and the judgment offers no great evidence they were aware of such orientation, but the message contained on the cake. Equally, even were the judgment correct on this point, it beggars belief that the previous service to this same individual was then not considered as evidence his sexuality had nothing to do with the refusal of service. As the bakery stated throughout, there have been a number of other cakes that were deemed indecent or offensive that they also refused to bake.

Point 43 acknowledges that the bakery 'cancelled the order as they oppose same sex marriage'. It is something of a logical leap to then find, as in Point 46, 'the 2nd and 3rd Defendants have unlawfully discriminated against the Plaintiff on the ground of his sexual orientation'. The prior service of the plaintiff, the provision of cakes bearing no specific political slogans, speaks against this. Moreover, acknowledging that it is indeed the message to which they object in no way implies discrimination against the individual. It, not implicitly, but explicitly implies a refusal to assert political and/or religious slogans and opinions that the service provider themselves do not hold and cannot in good conscience state.

Points 53-60 seek to establish that the Plaintiff held a political opinion and was discriminated against on these grounds. On balance, I suspect the judge is correct in asserting this is a political opinion and is almost certainly correct that the defendants knew the Plaintiff's political opinion on gay marriage (as per their letter and the specific writing on the cake itself). However, it is patently not the case that the political opinion held by the Plaintiff was the basis of discrimination. The purpose of the legislation is to stop the refusal of a standard service to those who hold specific political opinions. However, it is not the purpose of the legislation to coerce service providers to create material and products that actively promote political beliefs and opinions contrary to those they campaigned against. Again, had the bakery refused to serve the Plaintiff a standard cake simply because he supported gay marriage, this would legitimately fall foul of the law. That they refused to bake a cake bearing a political slogan to which they themselves object and campaigned against ought to be outside the scope of this legislation.

Point 64 of the judgment is, frankly, ludicrous. It states 'if the Plaintiff had ordered a cake with the words "support marriage" or "support heterosexual marriage" I have no doubt such a cake would have been provided. It is the word gay to which the 2nd and 3rd Defendants took exception'. That is patently not true. It is the campaign in favour of gay marriage to which they took exception. Now, whatever one's views on gay marriage, it is surely inappropriate to force anybody to produce materials and products which actively promote a position and/or campaign to which they themselves specifically disagree. For example, would it be right for a homosexual baker to produce a cake saying "no to gay marriage" despite campaigning in favour for it? It strikes me that would be just as unfair as the case we are discussing.

The absurdities of this judgment are not hard to discern. For one, the defendants have been found guilty of refusing to bake a cake which supports a position that is currently unlawful. In other words, they have been found guilty of standing up for the existing law of their province. 

It has also been deemed illegal to not provide services and products which directly contravene the views and opinions of the service provider. Now, service providers are compelled to produce products and provide services in favour of campaigns to which they themselves specifically campaigned against.

Further, Asher's Bakery were found to have discriminated against a legitimate political opinion. Though gay marriage is currently not legal in the province, it is certainly not illegal to hold the view that gay marriage ought to be legalised. Such a judgment, however, means a BNP member who requests a cake from a Jewish baker bearing the slogan "Hitler: the best leader we never had" would be compelled to produce such a product on the grounds that to do otherwise would be to discriminate against a political opinion that is not illegal to hold.

The bakers' religious views were found to be moot in this case. As such, religious believers will be compelled to offer products and services to those who request blasphemous, religiously offensive or religiously unconscionable products. If an EDL supporter (holding a political view) asked a muslim baker to produce a cake with a picture of Mohammad and the caption "false prophet" underneath (a religious view), would they be compelled to make such a cake on the grounds to do so is to discriminate against political opinion?

There is no doubt that most agree political opinion, sexual orientation and religious beliefs should not be a basis for withholding products and services. Such a position was always intended to stop those who supported one political party, were of one particular sexual orientation or religious belief from refusing to provide services to a person of any other. What they were never intended to do was compel people with deeply held beliefs and convictions to provide services and products specifically advocating and promoting views contrary to their own that would involve the suppression of conscience. It does not take a genius to see a distinction between refusal to serve a gay man because he is gay (evidently wrong) and refusal to provide a product bearing a slogan supporting a position which you have spent some time campaigning against. As far as I can tell, Ashers Bakery were seeking that distinction. Their service of the Plaintiff and their refusal to bake a particular product (rather than serve the man at all) speak to this. One can only hope an appeal judge recognises this too.