Ealing Southall: a bequest - no comments

A number (set to grow) of bloggers have circulated Ann Black's report from the NEC meeting of 24th June. It's good that she performs this service, though I did find one section rather odd:

Finally some members suggested reopening our decision that Ealing Southall should select its next parliamentary candidate from an all-women shortlist [AWS], following the sad death of sitting MP Piara Khabra. Traditionally, by-election candidates are chosen from open lists, a process which has overwhelmingly favoured men. However in this case, with the normal selection procedure imminent, and Piara Khabra’s own expressed wish that he should be succeeded by an ethnic minority woman, I hope that the NEC will keep its nerve or that we will at least have a chance to discuss any change.

We discussed AWS back here. A popular idea that nobody came close to convincing me of, was that if selected candidates were 'overwhelmingly' male (in aggregate, not specifically in individual seats), the approach most likely to reflect society (if you agree that this is a priority) was to institute AWS, rather than to maintain open lists but investigate the selection process to determine if discrimination was actually taking place.

I don't have evidence wither way, but if the local CLP had indeed got itself into the kind of state where this was happening, or likely to happen, or else its officers came from patriarchal backgrounds and were unable to adhere to their party's commitment to equal-treatment, then this would surely have to be tackled. Better that discrimination be rooted-out than it be allowed to persist, whatever the eventual candidate looks like.

I'd be happy to see an ethnic minority woman selected if she was the best candidate going. Either way, it must be from a free and open process, not some kind of 'gift' bestowed upon one section of the electorate in honour of a much-missed local MP.

Sophistry on faith-based discrimination - 7 comments

I've come to this quite late, but I might as well set out some of my own views, for the record. To start off, though, Andrew at Wongablog has an excellent post on the Archbishops of York and Canterbury's defence of "individual conscience" in matters of sexuality-based discrimination. Here's a stand-out sentence:

I’m not criticising her [Ruth Kelly] because of her faith affiliation, I’m criticising her because her arguments make no sense. [...] But I wouldn’t say she’s not fit to hold public office - she gives every impression of being a very intelligent and competent woman, it’s just that the evidence seems to suggest she has a blind spot when it comes to faith-related matters.

I might have summarised the issue as simply as this:

Treating people differently on the sole basis of their sexual orientation is a clear breach of universal human rights. End of story.

A couple of supplementary points, though. Given that there are no limits on faith, and no mechanism through which they can be evaluated conclusively (by definition), it should be obvious that we cannot accept one faith-based argument without accepting all such arguments, including contradictory ones. So until the various Churches decide to use moral, or practical arguments (based upon evidence), or else insist upon an individual's general right to discriminate as their conscience demands, their call for individual consciences to trump our moral principles in particular cases, is without any merit whatsoever. What's particularly pitiful is that the Archbishops are either unwilling or unable to use the teachings of their own religion to bolster their case, so meek are they. Aware that none of the above strategies can extricate them from their impossible position, they resort to sophistry in an attempt to steal the argument, covering their backs to avoid direct criticism, perhaps hoping the political heat might tell on ministers. What reasonable people they are - how cold we must be:

Those discussions have been conducted in good faith, in mutual respect and with an appropriate level of confidence on all sides. [...] As you approach the final phase of what has, until very recently, been a careful and respectful consideration [...]

I'm ashamed to say that I consulted Nick Robinson's blog for the "talk among the backbenches", and found something almost as ludicrous as the Archbishops' statements (my emphasis):

[...] Allow me to delicately suggest, however, that the attitudes being displayed now towards Catholics in public life must feel to them like a form of prejudice and discrimination.

Saints preserve us! We really should display this more prominently: