Why I left the Conservatives part 2: Gay 'marriage' and the quadruple lock lie

Whilst it may not be a major concern to many readers, I have decided to bump this piece up the pecking order following today's front page story in the Daily Mail (read it here) that David Cameron now regrets having "forced through gay marriage law".

We know how you feel, Dave

Despite a pledge to introduce gay marriage not being in the 2010 manifesto of any major party, and despite the public having never been asked for their opinion (Cameron's sham consultation only asked how, not if, legislation should be introduced), the Bill received Royal Assent and passed into law in July 2013.

In an attempt to assuage the fears of her backbench colleagues, Maria Miller announced the so-called 'quadruple lock' designed, we are told, to prevent any religious leader being forced to conduct same-sex 'marriages' against their beliefs. Her statement to the House of Commons focused particularly on the Church of England, given its unique position as the established church and which had opposed the legislation.

The quadruple lock consists of the following measures:

1. The legislation states that neither religious organisations as a whole nor individual ministers will be forced to hold same-sex weddings on their premises;

 

2. Parliament will amend the Equalities Act so that no discrimination claims can be brought against religious organisations who refuse to conduct gay marriages;

 

3. Religious organisations who do support gay marriage can opt-in, and then their individual ministers will also then need to opt-in before they can conduct the ceremonies; and

 

4. The legislation will explicitly state that it would be illegal for the Church of England and Wales to marry same sex couple: the Church of England had already said that it did not want to carry out same-sex partnerships.

This lock would, we were told, ensured "beyond doubt" there could not be a successful action brought in the courts against any church for failing to conduct a same sex 'marriage'.

Regrettably, and all too predictably, the 'quadruple lock' is not worth the fresh air into which Maria Miller's words were breathed.

On 24th June 2010, a chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the matter of Schalk and Kopf v. Austria. The applicants claimed they had been discriminated against as Austrian law did not allow them, as a same-sex couple, to contract marriage.

Their claim did not focus on any specific benefits available to married couples which they were unable to take advantage of. Rather, their claim focused solely on the fact they were being prevented from contracting marriage based only on their sexual orientation. In other words, they argued that a law defining marriage as being solely between one man and one woman was discriminatory.

Although the chamber of the Court found, unanimously, against the applicants, the detailed judgment handed down puts the lie to the 'quadruple lock'.

Whilst the European Court's case-law had previously determined "...the emotional and sexual relationship of a same-sex couple constitutes 'private life'" [para. 92], the judgment in this case ruled for the first time such relationships also constituted 'family life', because "... the rapid revolution of social attitudes towards same-sex couples has taken place in many member states" [para. 93].

So as a result of legislation sanctioning same-sex marriage and/or civil partnerships having been enacted by a number of EU countries, the European Courts have already started to re-write the rules.

In ruling that, notwithstanding the new case-law it had just created, it was not discriminatory for states to legislate only for opposite-sex marriage, it was made eminently clear this position was not set in stone.

The judgement reads:

"The Court cannot but note that there is an emerging European consensus towards legal recognition of same-sex couples. Moreover, this tendency has developed rapidly over the past decade. Nevertheless, there is not yet [emphasis added] a majority of States providing for legal recognition of same-sex couples. The area in question must therefore still be regarded as one of evolving rights with no established consensus, where States must also enjoy a margin of appreciation in the timing of the introduction of legislative changes " [para. 105]

In other words, once a majority of EU countries - or more likely, those countries constituting a majority of residents of the EU - have legalised gay marriage, the Court would see its way open to rule it discriminatory (i.e. illegal) for member states not to permit same-sex marriage.


In those circumstances, not only would the UK have then been compelled by the EU (had it not already) to sanction same-sex marriage but the Church of England, as the established Church and de facto extension of the state, would equally be compelled to conduct same-sex marriages.

So there we have it. Irrespective of the Conservatives' 'quadruple lock', the European Court has already indicated it is only a matter of time before it forces all member states to recognise and conduct same-sex marriages.

But that is not the worst of it. Look again at when this judgment was handed down - 24th June 2010. Long before the government brought forward its legislation, and long before Maria Miller announced the 'quadruple lock'.

In other words, the announcement on the 'quadruple lock' was made despite full knowledge of its long-term impotence, and of the judgment of the European Court.

It goes without saying that I could no longer remain a member of a party which not only brought forward this legislation without any democratic mandate to do so and whilst ignoring the millions of faith in this country who objected, but who have lied to us in doing so.

I am proud to have joined UKIP, the only party to stand up for faith and the traditional, the only, definition of marriage.





Boxing Day hunts, and another broken promise...

Christmas Day has come and gone, and that can only mean one thing - Boxing Day hunts.

Seven years on from what was possibly the most hateful, class-prejudice driven piece of legislation on the statute books, certainly in living memory, traditional Boxing Day hunts go from strength to strength. 2012 saw over a quarter of a million people attending over 300 hunts across the length and breadth of the country, from Cornwall to Cumbria, from Norfolk to North Wales (including more than 6,000 in attendance at the Heythrop Hunt - despite the recent criminal waste of £327,000 by the RSPCA in its ongoing persecution of hunters and hunting).

But the news is not all good. Speaking to the Telegraph, Environment Secretary Owen Paterson appeared to rule out the promised vote to repeal the Hunting Act.

Well, there's a surprise.

The Conservative manifesto, for what it is worth, stated (on page 80): "The Hunting Act has proved unworkable. A Conservative government will give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote, with a government bill in government time."

Whilst this was a much woolier commitment than many of us had hoped, and was given far less prominence than we'd hoped for - tagged on as an afterthought, the final paragraph in the chapter 'Restore our civil liberties' - it was a commitment nevertheless.

However, hopes of a repeal appear to have been dashed for the foreseeable future.

Owen Paterson said, "At the moment, it would not be my proposal to bring forward a vote we were going to lose. There needs to be more work done on Members of Parliament."  He went on: "It is our clear intention to have a free vote but we need to choose an appropriate moment."

Of course, this would seem to be a sensible stance to take. But are we honestly expected to believe that whilst a free vote could not be won in 2013, it may in 2014? Doesn't really seem plausible, does it?

It is, however, perfectly reasonable to point out that Parliament has more pressing issues to be grappling with at present than repealing the Hunting Act, however badly drafted a piece of legislation it may be. I am inclined to agree.

But that's a much more difficult pill to swallow when David Cameon can dedicate no small amount of time to trying to alienate an entire generation of small- and large-C conservatives to impose a wholesale redefinition of marriage, despite it not being in the manifesto of any major political party, and with not even its supporters seeking to claim it a priority.

So we must continue to live in hope for what 2013 may bring, but I cannot claim to be hopeful. After all, when neither party manifestos nor coalition agreements appear to be worth spit, you will forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

Why it won't be UKIP that leads to Cameron's demise, but himself...

 

There has been much written in recent months about the rise of UKIP and what is perceived to be the resulting decline in the prospect of a Conservative majority in 2015.  This has lead to talk (from outside of UKIP it must be said) of an electoral pact between the two right-of-centre parties.

 

Although much that has been written about UKIP of late doesn’t hold up to any meaningful scrutiny – for example, contrary to their portrayal in much of the media, the EU ranks as only the third most important issue amongst UKIP supporters – that they appear to be benefitting from their stance on ‘equal marriage’, as widely reported over the weekend, does appear to stand up.

 

The Sunday headlines were predictably dominated by UKIP’s rise to 14%, securing a clear third place, in this month’s Comres poll for theIndependent on Sunday/Sunday Mirror:

 

Conservative 28% (-3%)

Labour 39% (-4%)
UKIP 14% (+6%)
Lib Dem 9% (-1%)
Others 9% (+1%)

Despite the headlines, the polling isn’t all bad news for the Conservatives. They continue to be more trusted on the economy than Labour, which is widely expected to be the key battleground come the 2015 election.  But drill down further into the in depth polling and a worrying picture emerges for Cameron.

 

It’s well documented that older people tend to be more likely to vote in elections than younger people.  They also tend to be far more likely to identify with and vote for Conservatives. Amongst 55-64 year olds, Comres finds that Conservatives hold a one point lead over Labour; this lead rises to 8 points amongst those aged 65+.

 

Whilst these figures tend to be relatively stable – certainly more so than amongst those younger voters – Conservative support amongst the key 65+ age group has fallen four points in a month, to 30%. This is despite, according to Comres, 44% of this age group, generally speaking, identifying themselves as Conservatives.

 

Put another way, one in three Conservatives aged 65+ would cast their votes elsewhere if there was an election tomorrow.

 

Tellingly, over the same period support for UKIP amongst this age group has surged by five points, to 21%.

 

Of course, it would be reckless to purport these figures illustrate support switching from Conservative to UKIP over any one single issue.  That said, the polling does add weight to the suggestion that Conservative voters, no longer just activists, are being haemorrhaged to UKIP as a consequence of Cameron’s ‘equal marriage’ crusade.

 

It’s hardly a surprise that ‘equal marriage’ enjoys considerably less support amongst older voters.  What is, perhaps, more surprising is the criticism of Cameron’s leadership on the matter from those minded to vote UKIP, with a huge 74% being critical of the Prime Minister – this compares to figures of 51% and 31% amongst Labour and Conservative voters respectively.

 

With UKIP maintaining a consistent stance on marriage – they accused the government of ‘picking a fight’ with religious groups earlier this year – they are increasingly becoming the logical, the only, alternative for those of all political persuasions who are vehemently opposed to ‘equal marriage’.

 

Whilst I may indeed be guilty of making too many inferences from what is only two months’ polling, if these patterns are repeated in the months to come they will represent a major headache for the Prime Minister. (So watch out for more good news for pensioners in coming budgets).

 

Should Cameron fail to deliver a Conservative majority in 2015, the blame will lie fairly and squarely at his door. It will not be because of the activity of UKIP, not even because of Cameron and Clegg’s civil partnership.

 

Cameron’s political obituary will lead with his electoral suicide over ‘equal marriage’ and his alienation of an entire generation of Conservatives.

If the Church of England is still ‘the Tory Party at prayer’ is Cameron done for?

There have been many examples of David Cameron ‘doing God’ in recent times, from his speech celebrating the 400^th anniversary of the King James Bible last December to him hosting a reception for Christian leaders at Downing  Street to celebrate Easter (not Holy Week in his words but Easter week, though let us not quibble).

Keen to burnish his Christian credentials, this self-professed ‘committed’ but ‘vaguely practicing’ Anglican stated during his Easter reception that “I think there is something of a Christian fight-back going on in Britain and I think that’s a thoroughly good thing”.  Unfortunately, Dave appears to have neglected to mention this to James Eadie QC, the barrister representing the Government in landmark cases currently being heard before the European Court of Human Rights.

Amongst the human rights challenges being considered, Shirley Chaplin and Nadia Eweida – a nurse and a British Airways worker respectively – argue that their employers’ refusal to allow them to openly wear crucifixes at work contravened Articles 9 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibit discrimination on grounds of religion.

However, speaking for the Government, James Eadie QC countered that wearing a cross was not a “generally recognised” act of Christian worship as “a great many Christians do not insist on wearing crosses, still less visibly”.  More ridiculously, he claimed that neither Chaplin nor Eadie had been discriminated against by their employers as they were free to “resign and move to another job”.

So how closely do the Government’s words in Court marry to Cameron’s recent proclamations on faith? Well, not remotely so; not even close.

During his Easter reception, Cameron said, “I think we see this fight-back in this very strong stance that I’ve taken and others have taken in terms of the right to wear a crucifix. I think this is important.”

Such a strong stance in fact that his Government’s lawyers are currently arguing that as there is no ostensible obligation for Christians to wear a crucifix then their ‘rights’ could not have been impinged.

With poll after poll, decade after decade, supporting the 18^th century perception of the Church of England being the ‘Tory Party at prayer’, then Cameron has problems.

Without a party co-Chairman who he can any longer instruct to ‘do Allah’ on the Government’s behalf, Cameron’s ability to ‘do God’ is undoubtedly going to be of more importance come the next general election than it was a week ago.

Based on his, and his Government’s, record so far, he’s in trouble…