Equality Law Contradicts Diversity Policy

The decision by the UK government not to allow an exemption on the regulations on gay adoptions seems to me a perverse and dangerous one, threatening the whole concept of the independence of civil society organisations who work from a strong value base... For the full news story see the Guardian article at.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2001834,00.html#article_continue

It doesn’t really matter what one thinks of the RC church and its supporters who included the two Anglican Archbishops in general, or in the case of this political protest. My view (as I’ve already blogged) is that this was the wrong (minor) issue for Christians to get fundamentalist about. The reality is that the secular fundamentalists have imposed their will in a manner which has rarely been seen since the French Revolution or the demise of Joseph Stalin.

I never feel comfortable to be in agreement with Ann Widdecome but this time I am. According to the daily Telegraph

the former Home Office minister, said she was not surprised that Mr Cameron had not intervened in the debate so far but added: "I would hope that he will come out in favour of freedom of conscience. "It’s one thing to say that gay people can adopt and quite another to say they must be able to adopt from a specific agency. It’s like saying someone not only has the right to have an abortion but they also have the right to demand an abortion from a specific doctor, regardless of that doctor’s freedom of conscience."

There is a supreme irony in that it was the secular enlightenment that fully developed the idea of diversity and toleration in civil society, though its roots in England go back to the religious tradition of Christian Dissent. Voltaire I think it was who said "I may disagree with your belief but I will fight to the death for your right to believe it". But now the state seems to be saying that all religious and voluntary groups must believe in and practice equality as set out in the law, even if this is anathema to the individual and group conscience.

There seems then to be an inherent contradiction, or at least tension, between the diversity and equality agendas. We are still encouraged to celebrate diversity and ensure public services reach all sections of society. I was at a seminar today where the local NHS mental health service for children and adolescents was enthusiastically trying to communicate with, learn from, and build partnership with, the representatives of many of the diverse faith communities in the city. But we can only wonder if clergy and religious youth workers really are going to be allowed to counsel and work with youngsters with clinical depression along cultural and faith lines they are familiar with, or whether the state is going to step in and insist on some treatment with some universal Prozac.

The other current example of this state control freakery is around the social cohesion agenda. Multiculturalism is being attacked from all sides and the very ideology that led to gay pride is overwhelmed by the revived rhetoric of citizenship and integration. Only the not so new Labour government seems to be able to determine what is appropriate and permitted behaviour for the “good” British citizen. Implicitly their definition means you can’t be a committed Muslim, a faithful Catholic, a born again Christian or even a Scots Nationalist and still remain a true Briton. Still less can you be an asylum seeker or refugee, a hoodie, a kid who hangs out on street corners etc. But apparently you can be a casino entrepreneur, an arms trader paying bribes to secure business, or David Beckham, and still present a perfect image of a good citizen. There is either a whiff of hypocrisy or a corruption of values in this approach.

One can understand why a government so desperate to retain votes goes down this route as they continue to listen to polls and focus groups. In a post 9/11 context, in response to the discontents of globalization, in the maelstrom of diverse and ever changing social identities many in the mainstream feel insecure, and clutch for straws of imagined traditional certainties. And it is the mainstream groups that swing elections. Of course the media, especially the tabloids develop the theme. Or more often trivialize it around celebrities as in the recent Celebrity Big Brother case.. see http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1994828,00.html And the politicians give us all a pat on the back for our supposed “tolerance” as a Great British virtue.

It is very disheartening that a government who for ten years have been pushing the benefits of partnerships involving faith communities and religious social welfare organisations should have ended up like this. Perhaps it always was a sham and they only wanted to take us over on their secular terms. There have been plenty of policy reports that have picked up the issues and tensions that were unresolved in these policy areas and in my view the policy makers just haven’t understood.

Faced with a strengthened secular establishment what are churches and value based groups going to do? Inevitably some will continue to sup with the devil as government funding is the only way their organizations can survive? Others will try to remain in critical solidarity, at least on the issues that they agree with the government, but I suspect will find it increasingly difficult to remain true to their own ethos. And some will decide on the purist option refusing to take government money with strings attached and closing down some of their services. A few may even decide to carry on in their own sweet way, either retreating into their own silo, or engaging in various levels of civil disobedience.

The law of unintended consequences will surely apply. In seeking to impose equality the government is attacking liberty, and fracturing fraternity/ community. The very policies they see as enhancing social cohesion and building social capital are leading to even lower levels of trust and fragmentation.