Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on September 28, 2016, 11:34:58 PM
-
Good for John Nicolson
http://www.scottishlegal.com/2016/09/23/snp-mp-to-push-ahead-with-turing-law/
-
ood for John Nicolson
http://www.scottishlegal.com/2016/09/23/snp-mp-to-push-ahead-with-turing-law/
Yes, good man, a move long, long overdue!
-
Quite agree, about time.
-
At first glance it seems quite reasonable - but the law was changed in 1967!
It's not possible to hop into a time machine and 'right the wrongs' of the past, so I wonder about the motive of people who propose these kinds of laws. It's not as if the government has nothing else on it's plate.
-
At first glance it seems quite reasonable - but the law was changed in 1967!
It's not possible to hop into a time machine and 'right the wrongs' of the past, so I wonder about the motive of people who propose these kinds of laws. It's not as if the government has nothing else on it's plate.
The law changed in England and Wales in 1967, in Scotland in 1980, in Northern Ireland in 1982.
It's a Private Members Bill so is not distracting the govt. Private Members bills have no chance of getting passed if they were to seek to change govt policy, say to abolish the bedroom tax, as it will be voted down. It has a much better chance if it is something that can gain cross party support.
As to John's motives, growing up in Scotland in the 60s and 70s, as a gay man, I think they are fairly obvious. Will it right all the wrongs of the past, no, but it will mean that we recognise that people should not have this as a criminal record. It's a small step along the road in treating homosexuality as normal part of life, but it is a step.
-
The law changed in England and Wales in 1967, in Scotland in 1980, in Northern Ireland in 1982.
It's a Private Members Bill so is not distracting the govt. Private Members bills have no chance of getting passed if they were to seek to change govt policy, say to abolish the bedroom tax, as it will be voted down. It has a much better chance if it is something that can gain cross party support.
As to John's motives, growing up in Scotland in the 60s and 70s, as a gay man, I think they are fairly obvious. Will it right all the wrongs of the past, no, but it will mean that we recognise that people should not have this as a criminal record. It's a small step along the road in treating homosexuality as normal part of life, but it is a step.
No doubt it will give the Bills sponsor a 'nice warm feeling' of having done something worthy but will it actually make the slightest difference to the lives of anyone?
-
No doubt it will give the Bills sponsor a 'nice warm feeling' of having done something worthy but will it actually make the slightest difference to the lives of anyone?
in the great scheme of things, it may be a very small step but I still think a good one for society to make clear its attitude to homosexuality.
On a smaller level, I can only say from talking to people with such criminal records, and their families, and having read many other statements from others in the same position, that they feel it will make a difference to them.
-
At first glance it seems quite reasonable - but the law was changed in 1967!
It's not possible to hop into a time machine and 'right the wrongs' of the past, so I wonder about the motive of people who propose these kinds of laws. It's not as if the government has nothing else on it's plate.
There are some people still alive who were convicted under the law that was repealed in 1967. It might mean something to them to be finally pardoned.
-
There are some people still alive who were convicted under the law that was repealed in 1967. It might mean something to them to be finally pardoned.
I don't know, I suspect that some might regard such a conviction as a 'badge of honour' but I don't think any of them will currently be suffering discrimination because of it.
-
A bit of a pointless gesture, it seems to me, and changing the law retrospectively may be a dangerous precedent. Would any men who were convicted then and are still alive be entitled to compensation, I wonder.
-
It's not a precedent. It has happened previously.and no, there will be no compensation
-
I don't know, I suspect that some might regard such a conviction as a 'badge of honour' but I don't think any of them will currently be suffering discrimination because of it.
You suspect this how?
I suspect that a lot of them feel shame because of what happened to them.
I suspect this because I have talked to a few men who were convicted under this law. None of them referred to it with any pride.
-
I don't know, I suspect that some might regard such a conviction as a 'badge of honour' but I don't think any of them will currently be suffering discrimination because of it.
But you could be wrong. And even if you are not wrong, this new law will do no harm.
-
This is an attempt to rewrite history, in effect a Disneyfication of a real life pathos.
-
This is an attempt to rewrite history, in effect a Disneyfication of a real life pathos.
No it isn't. It's an attempt to acknowledge that mistakes were made in the past and to try to rectify them as far as possible.
-
But you could be wrong. And even if you are not wrong, this new law will do no harm.
I don't really have any very strong feelings on the subject Jeremy, but it seems that there must be higher priorities at the moment and this is just 'gesture politics'.
-
I don't really have any very strong feelings on the subject Jeremy, but it seems that there must be higher priorities at the moment and this is just 'gesture politics'.
and which of these is higher priorities will be addressed by a Private Members Bill that has a chance of passing?
-
and which of these is higher priorities will be addressed by a Private Members Bill that has a chance of passing?
Obviously, it will only really start to take up parliamentary time if it gets past the first reading. I don't know if it stands a 'cat in hell's' chance but if it did, I would suggest that the time might be better spent - if it fails it would be a particularly pointless piece of gesture politics.
-
Obviously, it will only really start to take up parliamentary time if it gets past the first reading. I don't know if it stands a 'cat in hell's' chance but if it did, I would suggest that the time might be better spent - if it fails it would be a particularly pointless piece of gesture politics.
the parliamentary time for such bills are already set aside. I note you didn't answer the question.
As to its chances, better than average, it has cross party support, and is something the govt has said they won't oppose. As to a gesture, sometimes that's what politics is about.
-
the parliamentary time for such bills are already set aside. I note you didn't answer the question.
As to its chances, better than average, it has cross party support, and is something the govt has said they won't oppose. As to a gesture, sometimes that's what politics is about.
I don't have a list of forthcoming private members bills, but I think it is highly likely that there would be at least one more worthy of parliamentary time.
-
I don't have a list of forthcoming private members bills, but I think it is highly likely that there would be at least one more worthy of parliamentary time.
And are they likely to pass as was the question?
-
And are they likely to pass as was the question?
I'm afraid NS. that try as I may, there are times when I just can't figure-out what the hell you are on about.
-
I'm afraid NS. that try as I may, there are times when I just can't figure-out what the hell you are on about.
I think he meant that if the other, more worthy, bills are not likely to pass then the time used on them is wasted.
-
I'm afraid NS. that try as I may, there are times when I just can't figure-out what the hell you are on about.
I asked what other Private Members Bills that might be worthwhile had a chance of getting passed. I was merely reiterating the 'getting passed' part of the question which you half responded to.
-
I asked what other Private Members Bills that might be worthwhile had a chance of getting passed. I was merely reiterating the 'getting passed' part of the question which you half responded to.
I would consider it would be 'better' if a more worthy bill failed rather than a lot of time be wasted on a pointless bill.
-
I would consider it would be 'better' if a more worthy bill failed rather than a lot of time be wasted on a pointless bill.
So you have no idea of any bill that might get passed, or even what the others bills are, and you consider this 'pointless' even though you haven't ever talked to anyone that might be affected by it.
-
So you have no idea of any bill that might get passed, or even what the others bills are, and you consider this 'pointless' even though you haven't ever talked to anyone that might be affected by it.
I think that was rather the point that I started off by making - i.e. it's better not to waste time on futile gestures
-
I think that was rather the point that I started off by making - i.e. it's better not to waste time on futile gestures
Yes, and you defined futile by not knowing anything about those affected, even making a rather ill informed guess, and gave been unable to suggest any bill that might get passed.
-
Yes, and you defined futile by not knowing anything about those affected, even making a rather ill informed guess, and gave been unable to suggest any bill that might get passed.
I feel that we are going round in circles. I've given my response and my reasoning - if you don't like it - tough!
-
I feel that we are going round in circles. I've given my response and my reasoning - if you don't like it - tough!
And when picked up on what you have said, you have just ignored it and given no answers. We are going round in circles because you think assertion without knowledge is reasoning.
-
But does it actually change reality? Over the years, the law has held a variety of activities to be illegal, which it now deems legal.
Rather than this attempt at piecemeal reparation, which we are so accustomed to, isn't it time an MP or MPs developed an all-enveloping Bill that will cover more than just a single bit of legislation.
-
No it isn't. It's an attempt to acknowledge that mistakes were made in the past and to try to rectify them as far as possible.
In that case why not campaign for Turing to be pardoned for committing suicide? That was a crime until 1961.
-
In that case why not campaign for Turing to be pardoned for committing suicide? That was a crime until 1961.
Was he charged with it? Note he's already been pardoned for the homosexuality, that isn't the point of the Private Members Bill.
-
So are we going to have another private members bill, asking for backstreet abortionists to be pardoned?
-
So are we going to have another private members bill, asking for backstreet abortionists to be pardoned?
Perhaps, is that at all related to this bill?
-
My point is that if we rewrite history once, we will be rewriting it time and time again. Let the past be as it was.
-
My point is that if we rewrite history once, we will be rewriting it time and time again. Let the past be as it was.
Already been done, as already pointed out. And this isn't rewriting history, it's just an attempt to make some people feel a bit better about themselves or their loved ones. The past is as it was. This is about some people now
-
In that case why not campaign for Turing to be pardoned for committing suicide? That was a crime until 1961.
He was never convicted of it. You can't pardon somebody for a conviction that never happened.
-
My point is that if we rewrite history once, we will be rewriting it time and time again. Let the past be as it was.
My point is that this does not constitute rewriting history.
-
From today's Metro:
Posthumous pardons for gay men
Thousands of gay and bisexual men convicted of consensual same-sex relationships before laws were changed are to be posthumously pardoned.
The move follows World War II code-breaker Alan Turing's posthumous royal pardon in 2013 for a gross indecency charge in 1952.
Justice Minister Sam Gyimah said the pardons are "hugely important".
-
It is criminal that engaging in homosexual activity was ever illegal! >:(
-
My point is that if we rewrite history once, we will be rewriting it time and time again. Let the past be as it was.
It isn't rewriting history - that would be to claim that those individuals were never charged and convicted at the time. It is righting a wrong, pardoning them, which is different to implying they weren't convicted in the first place. So in a way it is the opposite of rewriting history as, by definition we are clearly acknowledging what happened in the past and trying, in a small way, to make reparation for the wrong committed.
-
It isn't rewriting history - that would be to claim that those individuals were never charged and convicted at the time. It is righting a wrong, pardoning them, which is different to implying they weren't convicted in the first place. So in a way it is the opposite of rewriting history as, by definition we are clearly acknowledging what happened in the past and trying, in a small way, to make reparation for the wrong committed.
It is just a shame that so few of these "convicts" have lived to see this day!
-
It is just a shame that so few of these "convicts" have lived to see this day!
Indeed - and although this is, of course, a positive thing I'd like to see more being done now to ensure equality for gay people and the law to be strengthened and enforced to prevent discrimination against gay people, which is still prevalent in society and also institutionalised within some organisations (shamefully within the law in some cases).
-
Indeed - and although this is, of course, a positive thing I'd like to see more being done now to ensure equality for gay people and the law to be strengthened and enforced to prevent discrimination against gay people, which is still prevalent in society and also institutionalised within some organisations (shamefully within the law in some cases).
Is this situation, as it stands today, proof that God does indeed hate fags? Or is it that fag-haters just like to think that he does?
-
Link to John Nicolson's speech proposing his bill this morning
http://tinyurl.com/hz23847
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=06WiC5F8UJQ&feature=share
-
Found the debate very moving, particularly Chris Bryant's speech and the staunch support of a number of Tories for the bill against the govt line. Shocking that people were still being arrested for importuning up to the 2000s
-
Bill talked out by Govt that had promised support and no tricks
-
Bill talked out by Govt that had promised support and no tricks
Bastards!
-
Bstards!
they have an amendment in the latest police bill proposed but it needs people to apply to get the prosecutions wiped off. The sensible way would have been to pass the bill and look at changing it in committee but politics got in way
-
They have an amendment in the latest police bill proposed but it needs people to apply to get the prosecutions wiped off. The sensible way would have been to pass the bill and look at changing it in committee but politics got in way
They always do!
-
Bill talked out by Govt that had promised support and no tricks
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37707030
The word I'm thinking of is an anagram of cntus
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37707030
The word I'm thinking of is an anagram of cntus
I don't often quote poetry, and following a very eloquent piece from one Ayrshireman today (Jim, in the Aberfan thread) here's another from earlier times.
Many and sharp the num'rous ills
Inwoven with our frame!
More pointed still we make ourselves
Regret, remorse, and shame!
And man, whose heav'n-erected face
The smiles of love adorn, –
Man's inhumanity to man
Makes countless thousands mourn!
What those bastards did today was inhuman.
-
What those bastards did today was inhuman.
That is a bit OTT, what they did was to exploit the rule book to suit themselves. It's not just the government who do this, I can remember at my trade union conference in 1983, there were two motions regarding AIDS which were "buried" at the bottom of the Agenda because neither the then National Executive Committee, nor the Standing Orders Committee, had any great interest in the matter. One year later, after the original movers had given up trying to go it alone & had taken their interest to the unofficial conference of the union "Broad Left", there was a huge composite of fifty motions on the order paper & the NEC behaved as if they had suffered ten years sleepless nights over the issue.
-
My point is that this does not constitute rewriting history.
Whereas I'd suggest that it is.
-
It is criminal that engaging in homosexual activity was ever illegal! >:(
Why, Floo?
-
Whereas I'd suggest that it is.
in what way is a pardon a rewriting of history? Just so as we are clear here, any Christians who are 'martyrs' are simply by your view criminal?
-
Is this situation, as it stands today, proof that God does indeed hate fags? Or is it that fag-haters just like to think that he does?
Or is it proof that its only humans who have either 'hated' or 'loved' so-called fags, Owl? Does your using the term 'fags' simply reinforce the prejudice?
-
Or is it proof that its only humans who have either 'hated' or 'loved' so-called fags, Owl? Does your using the term 'fags' simply reinforce the prejudice?
you don't think gay people should have equal rights, you take your own hatred here
-
in what way is a pardon a rewriting of history? Just so as we are clear here, any Christians who are 'martyrs' are simply by your view criminal?
Not necessarily, NS. Many persecuted groups have been persecuted despite legal protections and/or legal disinterest. Very often, it is one section of society persecuting another one.
-
Not necessarily, NS. Many persecuted groups have been persecuted despite legal protections and/or legal disinterest. Very often, it is one section of society persecuting another one.
and you want to persecute gay people.
-
Not necessarily, NS. Many persecuted groups have been persecuted despite legal protections and/or legal disinterest. Very often, it is one section of society persecuting another one.
This reads like another of your bizarre tu quoque suggestions: that there has been, or is, persecution of some groups is a matter of regret and does not justify the continued persecution of other groups.
-
Or is it proof that its only humans who have either 'hated' or 'loved' so-called fags, Owl? Does your using the term 'fags' simply reinforce the prejudice?
Don't make yourself look stupier than you already have! I am bi, my current girlfriend is transgender - I took the term from Christians who object to gays being treated as human beings who are capable of loving one another unlike some Christians who refuse love to anyone who is not willing to accept the rules of Christianity as defined by the particular sect of Christianty that the Christian speaking belongs to.
You do not recognise my right to love whomsoever I choose - I do not recognise your right to impose that non-recogition on me. In fact, from my formative years as a Christian I do not recognise you as a Christian as I was taught what it is to be a Christian.
-
Not necessarily, NS. Many persecuted groups have been persecuted despite legal protections and/or legal disinterest. Very often, it is one section of society persecuting another one.
Yeah - Christians persecuting gays!
This is just another demonstration of how out of touch with modern values the Christian church is.
-
This reads like another of your bizarre tu quoque suggestions: that there has been, or is, persecution of some groups is a matter of regret and does not justify the continued persecution of other groups.
Well said!
-
Whereas I'd suggest that it is.
And you'd be wrong.
Have we forgotten the slave trade now it's abolished? No. Have we forgotten capital punishment now it is abolished? No.
Making and repealing laws does not change history. It changes the future.
-
And you'd be wrong.
Have we forgotten the slave trade now it's abolished? No. Have we forgotten capital punishment now it is abolished? No.
Making and repealing laws does not change history. It changes the future.
Well said
-
Why, Floo?
Because there is nothing wrong in being homosexual; only nasty bigots would disagree!
It would have been great if Jesus has been gay and in a sexual relationship with the disciple whom he loved!
-
It would have been great if Jesus has been gay and in a sexual relationship with the disciple whom he loved!
Jesus, supposedly, loved all men . . . . slaaaaaaaaag!
-
Oy there, I've 'loved' more than one or two in my time, I ain't no slapper! Well not now at any rate, chance would be a fine thing.
I like to think Jesus had 'bromances'.
-
I have only had one boyfriend, the guy I married.
-
You were a nice girl, floo. (I wasn't boasting btw, just being flip.)
-
You were a nice girl, floo. (I wasn't boasting btw, just being flip.)
I boasted when I was 13 that I was never going to have a boyfriend or get married, have kids etc. Two years later I met my husband, we seemed to get on, I still have no idea why. We conducted our 'courtship', if you can call it that, by letter or telephone calls as he lived in the UK. We saw each other during school and university hols, we married four years later. I would never want another relationship, if something happened to him, one is more than enough.
-
Agree with that.
-
Oy there, I've 'loved' more than one or two in my time, I ain't no slapper! Well not now at any rate, chance would be a fine thing.
I like to think Jesus had 'bromances'.
One or two? Those who have had less are the luckiy ones who have hit the jackpot first time!
I am talking ALL men - that is downright greedy.
-
I boasted when I was 13 that I was never going to have a boyfriend or get married, have kids etc. Two years later I met my husband, we seemed to get on, I still have no idea why. We conducted our 'courtship', if you can call it that, by letter or telephone calls as he lived in the UK. We saw each other during school and university hols, we married four years later. I would never want another relationship, if something happened to him, one is more than enough.
Lucky you!
-
Oy there, I've 'loved' more than one or two in my time, I ain't no slapper! Well not now at any rate, chance would be a fine thing.
I like to think Jesus had 'bromances'.
Depends on what you refer to as 'bromances', Brownie. I can think of plenty of people who have never wanted to have a 'special' friend, of either gender, because of their being too busy making money/serving a particular cause of belief/etc./ etc.
Remember that sexualk attractin is only of many facets of the human make-up.
-
Jesus, supposedly, loved all men . . . . slaaaaaaaaag!
Except that the 'eros' term is never used to describe the 'love' that he had for all men (humanity in the Greek). I realise that it is difficult for some here to imagine life without sexual experiences - but plenty of your fellow humans have.
-
Except that the 'eros' term is never used to describe the 'love' that he had for all men (humanity in the Greek). I realise that it is difficult for some here to imagine life without sexual experiences - but plenty of your fellow humans have.
Another Hopeless sense of humour failure!
-
I too think the lucky ones are those who strike oil first time Owlswing, I've known a few, like our floo, who have been really happy - but they are few. Most people go round the block a couple of times when they're young.
-
Good news from Scottish Govt
http://tinyurl.com/h87cydy
-
Revisiting an old thread on account of today's news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38814338
-
Revisiting an old thread on account of today's news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38814338
the watering down of the original position on people living is noted
-
So it looks like at last we are doing this in , and doing it better in, Scotland
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41108768
-
So it looks like at last we are doing this in , and doing it better in, Scotland
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41108768
HOOOORAY!
-
Quite right, long overdue.
-
So Hugh Despenser gets a pardon too?
-
So Hugh Despenser gets a pardon too?
No
-
So the pardon and the disregard process applies from today. I hadn't realised that importuning was excluded in the England and Wales Act.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50002745