Friday, 25 July 2008
POPE ON THE ROPES
Benedict XVI won't address the European parliament because of our 'militant secularism'. What a foolish and self-defeating stance. Take a look at my article on the Guardian's Comment is Free site: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/25/catholicism.eu
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
RESEARCH FUNDING
The European Union funds various programmes to stimulate European research and development. But what level of democratic scrutiny should there be over this funding? How much control should politicians exert over how this money is spent?
You might be interested in this article I wrote for this week's European Voice.
http://www.maryhoneyball.net/EV%20Research.pdf
You might be interested in this article I wrote for this week's European Voice.
http://www.maryhoneyball.net/EV%20Research.pdf
Monday, 21 July 2008
MEDIA AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Last year a Conservative MEP organised a screening in the European Parliament of the discredited Channel 4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle".
The documentary caused a huge controversy when it was broadcast on TV and it caused a similar stir when it was shown in Parliament.
Following Channel 4's broadcast of the programme last year, there were some 265 complaints to Ofcom, the UK's media regulator. Ofcom have just ruled that the documentary did break broadcast rules and was "unjust and unfair" in the way it represented individuals' views in the documentary. The ruling went on to say that "the programme made some significant allegations without offering an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond"
Whilst some of the complains were upheld, Bob Ward, the former head of media at the Royal Society said that "The programme has been let off the hook on a highly questionable technicality".
He was complaining because Ofcom defines a misleading programme as one where the audience is "materially misled so as to cause harm or offence" and the ruling said the programme didn't meet that test.
However, Channel 4 has been ordered to broadcast a summary of Ofcom's findings about the programme. I don't expect the Tory MEP to acknowledge the programmes' errors though.
It's a shame that some Tory MEPs are still questioning the existance or cause of climate change.
On balance I think I'll take my scientific advice from Britain's Royal Society rather than a bunch discredited Tory MEPs!
You can read more about Ofcom's ruling at the following links:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/21/climatechange.carbonemissions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7517509.stm
The documentary caused a huge controversy when it was broadcast on TV and it caused a similar stir when it was shown in Parliament.
Following Channel 4's broadcast of the programme last year, there were some 265 complaints to Ofcom, the UK's media regulator. Ofcom have just ruled that the documentary did break broadcast rules and was "unjust and unfair" in the way it represented individuals' views in the documentary. The ruling went on to say that "the programme made some significant allegations without offering an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond"
Whilst some of the complains were upheld, Bob Ward, the former head of media at the Royal Society said that "The programme has been let off the hook on a highly questionable technicality".
He was complaining because Ofcom defines a misleading programme as one where the audience is "materially misled so as to cause harm or offence" and the ruling said the programme didn't meet that test.
However, Channel 4 has been ordered to broadcast a summary of Ofcom's findings about the programme. I don't expect the Tory MEP to acknowledge the programmes' errors though.
It's a shame that some Tory MEPs are still questioning the existance or cause of climate change.
On balance I think I'll take my scientific advice from Britain's Royal Society rather than a bunch discredited Tory MEPs!
You can read more about Ofcom's ruling at the following links:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/21/climatechange.carbonemissions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7517509.stm
Friday, 18 July 2008
BROKEN BELGIUM
The long running saga of who governs Belgium is continuing.
A couple of days ago the Belgian Prime Minister, Yves Leterme, tendered his resignation to the King after failing to reconcile differences between Belgium's French and Flemish speaking communities.
Belgium's Federal elections in June last year plunged the country into crisis when none of the political parties could agree on a coalition - this left the country effectively without a government for nine months. Leterme formed a government back in March but this now seems to have broken down. People are again talking about whether Belgium will split and what would happen to Brussels.
You might be interested to read these articles on what might happen next:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7512975.stm
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/58595e74-5399-11dd-8dd2-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
You might also be interested to read of this prank in late 2006 when the Belgian state broadcaster ran a spoof news programme reporting that the country had split.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6178671.stm
A case of life imitating art perhaps?
A couple of days ago the Belgian Prime Minister, Yves Leterme, tendered his resignation to the King after failing to reconcile differences between Belgium's French and Flemish speaking communities.
Belgium's Federal elections in June last year plunged the country into crisis when none of the political parties could agree on a coalition - this left the country effectively without a government for nine months. Leterme formed a government back in March but this now seems to have broken down. People are again talking about whether Belgium will split and what would happen to Brussels.
You might be interested to read these articles on what might happen next:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7512975.stm
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/58595e74-5399-11dd-8dd2-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
You might also be interested to read of this prank in late 2006 when the Belgian state broadcaster ran a spoof news programme reporting that the country had split.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6178671.stm
A case of life imitating art perhaps?
Wednesday, 16 July 2008
BETTER BROADBAND
I've blogged many times about the importance of broadband connections for Britain's economy. It's good news then that BT have announced increased investment in fibre optic broadband.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7506742.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7506742.stm
Tuesday, 15 July 2008
POLITICS OF FEAR
Last week I blogged about the Italian Government's plan to fingerprint the Roma population, including children. You can read my blog about our protest by clicking here: http://maryhoneyballmep.blogspot.com/2008/07/ethnic-cataloguing-politics-of-fear.html Or watch the short video below:
Monday, 14 July 2008
RELIGION IN EUROPE
This article appeared in the most recent edition of the monthly publication, The German Times.
http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6329&Itemid=28
http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6329&Itemid=28
Friday, 11 July 2008
HOME ALONE
In June, the Liberal Democrats and Tories joined forces in support of an unbelievably unjust report "on common standards and procedures for the return of third country nationals residing illegally".
European Labour MEPs, tried to amend the report to prevent unaccompanied children from being deported, unless their family or guardian was able to look after them when they were returned to their home country. There were obviously concerns that if unaccompanied minors were deported, alone, without any supervision, they could fall victim to paedophiles or child slavery or any of the other myriad of dangers that we know could occur.
Almost all Tory and Lib Dem MEPs voted against this specific amendment.
The UK opts out of EU wide immigration legislation preferring to create its own national legislation. Here at the European Parliament, protocol dictates that when a report does not affect their country MEPs can vote on individual amendments but should abstain from voting on the whole report, passing it into legislation. That was exactly what both Labour and Tory MEPs did.
Lib Dem MEPs, however, threw protocol to the wind and voted in favour of the whole report. They backed a raft of draconian measures, including deporting children, with little concern for their welfare after they had been deported.
As I have said before, with such a hard-right agenda it is difficult to see where the word 'liberal' fits into Liberal Democrat. Mind you, when Lib Dems vote for directives such as this one it's hard to see them as true 'democrats' either.
European Labour MEPs, tried to amend the report to prevent unaccompanied children from being deported, unless their family or guardian was able to look after them when they were returned to their home country. There were obviously concerns that if unaccompanied minors were deported, alone, without any supervision, they could fall victim to paedophiles or child slavery or any of the other myriad of dangers that we know could occur.
Almost all Tory and Lib Dem MEPs voted against this specific amendment.
The UK opts out of EU wide immigration legislation preferring to create its own national legislation. Here at the European Parliament, protocol dictates that when a report does not affect their country MEPs can vote on individual amendments but should abstain from voting on the whole report, passing it into legislation. That was exactly what both Labour and Tory MEPs did.
Lib Dem MEPs, however, threw protocol to the wind and voted in favour of the whole report. They backed a raft of draconian measures, including deporting children, with little concern for their welfare after they had been deported.
As I have said before, with such a hard-right agenda it is difficult to see where the word 'liberal' fits into Liberal Democrat. Mind you, when Lib Dems vote for directives such as this one it's hard to see them as true 'democrats' either.
Thursday, 10 July 2008
WOMEN IN POWER
Forty percent of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament are women. Eight out of 19 Labour MEPs are women - a slightly higher percentage. Gender equality is more advanced in the EPLP and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament than the House of Commons where Labour has 256 MPs, 94 of whom are women- that's just 27%.
I have recently published "Women in Power" - a guide to women MEPs. If you would like a copy please contact me.
Wednesday, 9 July 2008
ETHNIC CATALOGUING: THE POLITICS OF FEAR
On the 13th of May a woman in a suburb of Naples in Italy alleged that a young Roma girl had broken into her apartment and tried to kidnap her baby. Within hours of the accusation a local mob of several hundred Italians attacked the Roma camp throwing Molatov cocktails, scattering the inhabitants and burning the place to the ground.
Far-right governments have a grand tradition of blaming 'the other' particularly in times of economic hardship and stagnation as we find in Italy today. This tactic is being used to full effect in Italy by the right-wing government led by Berlusconi and including the far-right, anti-immigration Northern League.
Since they arrived in power the government and the (Berlusconi owned) media have been whipping up a storm of controversy and rumour around the Roma gypsies. Blaming them for a rising crime rate and suggesting that the ordinary Italian is 'living in fear'. As a result the minister of the Interior Roberto Maroni has declared a 'security emergency'. The first part of tackling this emergency came in early May when the police began a series of mass expulsions of Roma from their camps at the edges of the major Italian cities.
However, worse may be yet to come as a law is being proposed that will allow the Italian government to keep a fingerprint database of all of the Roma- including children. This is nothing short of an ethnic catalogue. Not since the 1930s have such blatantly racist policies been seen in Europe.
Mr Maroni says that the register will help protect Roma children who are not always sent to school, but as UNICEF Italy state that if that was really case that they would treat ALL Italian children in the same way not just the Roma.
High profile figures from the Italian Jewish community such as Riccardo Di Segni, chief Rabbi of Rome and Amos Luzzatto from Italy's Union of Jewish Communities have registered their protest against the policies. As Di Segni puts it "We have to be on the alert, not only because of what is happening but because of what could happen. First one group is singled out, then another. This must be stopped."
These Italian policies are in clear violation of the EU anti-discrimination rules and respect for fundamental rights. As a mark of my protest against the activities of the Italian government I have added my signature and fingerprint to a letter of protest to Mr Berlusconi here at the Parliament. I will also be voting to ask the European Commission to take action against the Italian government if it decides to proceed with these plans.
And if anyone thinks that such a horror could not happen in Britain may I please refer you to the manifesto of the BNP.
Far-right governments have a grand tradition of blaming 'the other' particularly in times of economic hardship and stagnation as we find in Italy today. This tactic is being used to full effect in Italy by the right-wing government led by Berlusconi and including the far-right, anti-immigration Northern League.
Since they arrived in power the government and the (Berlusconi owned) media have been whipping up a storm of controversy and rumour around the Roma gypsies. Blaming them for a rising crime rate and suggesting that the ordinary Italian is 'living in fear'. As a result the minister of the Interior Roberto Maroni has declared a 'security emergency'. The first part of tackling this emergency came in early May when the police began a series of mass expulsions of Roma from their camps at the edges of the major Italian cities.
However, worse may be yet to come as a law is being proposed that will allow the Italian government to keep a fingerprint database of all of the Roma- including children. This is nothing short of an ethnic catalogue. Not since the 1930s have such blatantly racist policies been seen in Europe.
Mr Maroni says that the register will help protect Roma children who are not always sent to school, but as UNICEF Italy state that if that was really case that they would treat ALL Italian children in the same way not just the Roma.
High profile figures from the Italian Jewish community such as Riccardo Di Segni, chief Rabbi of Rome and Amos Luzzatto from Italy's Union of Jewish Communities have registered their protest against the policies. As Di Segni puts it "We have to be on the alert, not only because of what is happening but because of what could happen. First one group is singled out, then another. This must be stopped."
These Italian policies are in clear violation of the EU anti-discrimination rules and respect for fundamental rights. As a mark of my protest against the activities of the Italian government I have added my signature and fingerprint to a letter of protest to Mr Berlusconi here at the Parliament. I will also be voting to ask the European Commission to take action against the Italian government if it decides to proceed with these plans.
And if anyone thinks that such a horror could not happen in Britain may I please refer you to the manifesto of the BNP.
Tuesday, 8 July 2008
EMBRYOLOGY BILL
In May I wrote an article for the Guardian's Comment is Free website designed to spark debate about the issues surrounding the role of religion in the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Bill.
Needless to say I am not and have never been anti-Catholic. I do believe that all organisations seeking to lobby Government - whether it be big business, NGOs, professional lobbyists or religious groups -should be subject to proper scrutiny and debate.
However, looking through some of the press coverage resulting from my article, I've become concerned that my views have been misrepresented. This is particularly the case in relation to Conor McGinn who has resigned his position as vice-chair of Young Labour seemingly in reaction to my comments.
In the sprit of openness, I've decided to compile a list of media articles making reference me or my original article.
With the exception of BBC Radio Ulster, none of the journalists contacted me in advance of publication to check my views.
As you'll see there are some serious misquotes - nowhere have I questioned the right of Catholics to hold public office.
I am pleased to engage in vigorous debate. But it serves no benefit to misrepresent anybody's views. Let's engage in a debate based on the facts.
TIMELINE OF MEDIA COVERAGE
MARY HONEYBALL MEP AND CONOR MCGINN
20 May
Guardian Comment Is Free
‘Cardinals Sins’ published by Mary Honeyball
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/20/cardinalssins
Cardinals' sins
Politics and piety are becoming increasingly entangled as the human fertilisation and embryology bill passes through parliament. But democracy and religion do not mix. Pious pro-life Tory MP Nadine Dorries claims her high-profile campaign to reduce the abortion limit is non-religious and non-political; according to Sunny Hundal, she is in fact backed by Christian Concern for our Nation and the Conservative Christian Fellowship.
But it is Gordon Brown's kowtowing to threats of resignation from three Catholic government ministers - Ruth Kelly, the transport secretary, Des Browne, the defence secretary and Paul Murphy, the Welsh secretary - that has undermined his strength. In allowing a free vote on three of the bill's most important clauses (selecting and screening embryos for diseases and "saviour siblings"; allowing the creation of hybrid embryos from animal and human cells; and obviating the need for a father in IVF treatment), the PM has failed to protect the rights of the general public, over half of whom support the three causes, according to a recent Times poll.
Notwithstanding the result of the vote tonight, Brown put the interests of the Christian few over the rights of the many. Most people obviously disagree with a Catholic morality that puts the rights of the non-extant over those of the living.
Gordon Brown's failure to stand firm flies in the face of Department of Health (DoH) advice that the bill is essential to improve the technologies for assisting human reproduction and conducting high level research into finding cures for various diseases. The DoH also stresses that the bill is necessary to maintain the UK's position as a world leader in the science of embryology. It would not help our economy if we were to lose out in the same way as the US under George Bush, where embryonic stem cell research was denied federal funding nearly eight years ago.
Brown's about-turn has led many to conclude that the government's front benches are becoming increasingly religion-led. One Times reader this week pointed out that he had never before thought about "the religion of candidates for public office" but in future may not take such an "enlightened" approach if faith is given such sway in parliamentary votes. The idea that British voters may look closely at candidates' religious affiliations when choosing their MP raises fears that the more conservative style of religious voting seen in parts of Europe may come to Britain.
The vice-like grip of Catholicism holds fast across large parts of the continent. Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland are just some of the countries in Europe that have been subjected to interference by meddling cardinals. Abortion is still outlawed in Ireland and was only recently legalised in Portugal. Anti-abortion campaigns have, almost without exception, been led from the pulpit.
Catholicism has never taken a back seat; it has always actively interfered in democratic politics. In 2006 Pope Benedict castigated Catholic politicians in Canada for voting for gay rights and Cardinal Keith O'Brien, leader of Scotland's Catholics, is alleged to have compared same-sex relationships to paedophilia. The same Cardinal O'Brien is now accusing the human fertilisation and embryology bill of challenging "standards by which we have lived throughout our lives and by which Christians have lived for the past 2,000 years".
The European parliament has, fortunately, made a stand against some of this Christian fundamentalism. In a dramatic exercise of power in 2004, MEPs opposed the appointment of Rocco Buttiglione, nominated as a European commissioner by Silvio Berlusconi. Set to take up the justice, freedom and security portfolio, Buttiglione enraged the European parliament justice committee with his views on the role of women and his belief that homosexuality is a sin put forward during his confirmation hearings. The Italian government eventually withdrew his nomination as commissioner, due in large part to pressure from MEPs.
Given a similar opportunity, I wonder whether the Commons would have stood in the way of Ruth Kelly's appointment as minister for equality. Her strong religious beliefs obviously made her an inappropriate choice for this job, which involved standing up for the rights of homosexuals. Kelly famously refused to deny or confirm whether she thought homosexuality was a sin on Five Live in 2006.
Ruth Kelly's contention, supported by other religious politicians, that she can separate her private morals from public policy does not stand up to scrutiny. During the passage of the legislation to ban discrimination in the provision of goods and services in 2007, she is reputed to have fought hard for Catholic adoption agencies to opt out of the requirement to place children with same sex couples. When it came to the crunch, her Catholic faith won the day. Should devout Catholics such as Kelly, Browne and Murphy be allowed on the government front bench in the light of their predilection to favour the Pope's word above the government's?
Politicians are voted in to represent their electorates. People who vote for me and my colleagues expect us to further the interests of the public at large, not those of any particular religion, church, mosque, synagogue, temple or indeed any other interest group. We go against the democratic foundations of our country at our peril.
30 May
The Times Online
Faith News
NIB reporting that the vice-chair of Young Labour has resigned after particularly objecting to Mary’s language in comment is free piece.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4035217.ece
The Catholic Herald
“Labour activist quits post over anti-Catholicism”
Quotes Conor McGinn heavily including about Mary Honeyball “This type of sectarian diatribe makes me wonder whether a prejudice we all thought was long consigned to the past is slowly re-emerging.”
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000291.shtml
6 June
Tribune
John Street’s Diary
Connor (sic) McGinn…has quit his post in disgust over what he perceives as the party’s anti-Catholic stance. He was particularly upset at the suggestion from Mary Honeyball MEP that Ruth Kelly’s strong religious beliefs “…obviously made her an inappropriate choice” for the job of Communities Secretary.
13 June
Total Catholic
“Labour’s anti-Catholicism raised with PM”
http://www.totalcatholic.com/tc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=32:brown-faces-anti-catholic-concern&catid=14:uk-and-ireland&Itemid=34
16 June
New Statesman
“Whiff of anti-popery”
Written by Paul Donovan who also writes weekly columns for the Irish Post and Catholic weekly the Universe. He also contributes to the Guardian’s Comment is Free site, Tribune and the Morning Star.
Again article heavily quotes Conor McGinn and no response from Mary Honeyball was sought.
McGinn describes Honeyball's language as harking back to the days of Guy Fawkes. "Imagine substituting the words Jew or Muslim for Catholic in Mary Honeyball's comments - there would have been a furious reaction," says McGinn, whose stance resonates with several Catholic Labour MP.
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2008/06/anti-catholic-labour-party
Labour Home (blog)
“Is the Labour party anti-catholic?”
Is the Labour Party anti-Catholic? Conor McGinn, the vice chairman of Young Labour has resigned his post in protest at the party's alleged anti-Catholic prejudice and its hostility towards the pro-life movement.
http://www.labourhome.org/story/2008/6/16/85046/5274
18 June
BBC Radio Ulster
Talk Back
Debate with Conor McGinn and Mary Honeyball on the separation of religion and politics and the influence of the Catholic Church. We were contacted by the show. The researcher asked us to defend our case and we were told Conor McGinn was going to speak on the show about the reasons for his resignation whether we appeared or not.
19 June
Labour Home (blog)
“Labour MP decries Labour anti Catholicism”
http://www.labourhome.org/story/2008/6/18/1919/41752
20 June
Tribune
“Religious persecution may drive us out of the Labour Party”
Comment piece by Conor McGinn
Cites Mary Honeyball’s comment piece as “the most vicious of recent attacks on Catholics in the Labour party”
23 June
New Statesman
“Faith and reason”
Mary Honeyball responds in a letter accusing Paul Donovan’s piece of “…misconstruing the pro-democracy message of my article…I am not anti-Catholic but anti any religion that attempts to coerce or control parliament by exploiting the religious convictions of MPs.”
Total Catholic
“Labour’s ‘anti-Catholicism’ raised with PM”
“Church’s social welfare work threatened”
Conor McGinn quoted discussing emails requesting his phone number from Mary Honeyball.
http://www.totalcatholic.com/tc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77:churchs-social-welfare-work-threatened&catid=14:uk-and-ireland&Itemid=34
Theo’s Blog
Posting starts: “Shocked to see local MEP Mary Honeyball’s statements in her article…”
http://regentsparklabour.blogspot.com/2008/06/shocked-to-see-local-mep-mary.html
26 June
Dolphinarium (blog)
“Venomballs”
Leaked email to Prospect/Fabian Review posted on blogsite
http://dolphinarium.blogspot.com/2008/06/venomballs.html
27 June
Islington Tribune
“Activist claims Labour has anti-Catholic bias”
In the piece Conor McGinn says“..an article written by Mary Honeyball MEP made his position “untenable”.”.
http://www.thecnj.co.uk/islington/2008/062708/news062708_09.html
2 July
Political Betting online (comment)
“What Price the Gordon Comeback?”
Extract from 171st comment in response to posting: With that Catholic youth leader resigning over anto-Catholic bias ( http://www.labourhome.org/story/2008/6/16/85046/5274 ) and Mary Honeyball MEP writing her piece in the Guardian ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/20/cardinalssins ) I think any deliberate mention of a policy issue such as the HF&E bill by Cardinal O’Brian will be a massive psychic wink to the Catholic vote that Labour is no longer their party. by Morus July 2nd, 2008 at 12:30 am
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/07/01/what-price-the-gordon-come-back/#comment-712304
4 July
Tribune
“Condemn these Catholic tastes for intimidating those who disagree”
Letter from Mary Honeyball in response to Conor McGinn’s previous comment piece.
Islington Tribune/Camden News Journal/Camden Gazette
Mary Honeyball responds with letter to “Activist claims Labour has anti-Catholic bias” article.
Theo’s Blog
“No to Da Vinci Code politics”
Article starts: “Mary Honeyball’s bizarre and illadvised crusade against Catholics in the cabinet continues apace in today’s Tribune….”
http://regentsparklabour.blogspot.com/2008/07/no-to-da-vinci-code-politics.html
5 July
Political Betting.com (article)
“Will the Catholics abandon Labour?”
“…with the resignation letter of Conor McGinn (vice-chairman of Young Labour) claiming an ‘anti-catholic’ hostility in the party, and a recent article by Labour MEP Mary Honeyball that asked whether Catholics should be allowed to hold governmental office, there is much discussion amongst Catholics as to whether this natural loyalty to Labour is something that should be perpetuated.”
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/07/05/will-catholics-abandon-labour/
8 July
Daily Telegraph (comment piece)
Article by James MacMillan "Why Gordon Brown will lose Glasgow East". Mary Honeyball's "Cardinal Sins" article quoted out of context - "should devout Catholics such as Ruth Kelly, Des Browne, and Paul Murphy be allowed on the front bench?" The writer then infers - "we have to assume that there is no place any more for Catholics in New Labour."
The "Cardinal Sins" piece about the Embryology Bill and previous government legislation to ban discrimination in the provision of goods and services actually said, "Should devout Catholics such as Kelly, Browne and Murphy be allowed on the government front bench in the light of their predilection to favour the Pope's word above the government's?"
Needless to say I am not and have never been anti-Catholic. I do believe that all organisations seeking to lobby Government - whether it be big business, NGOs, professional lobbyists or religious groups -should be subject to proper scrutiny and debate.
However, looking through some of the press coverage resulting from my article, I've become concerned that my views have been misrepresented. This is particularly the case in relation to Conor McGinn who has resigned his position as vice-chair of Young Labour seemingly in reaction to my comments.
In the sprit of openness, I've decided to compile a list of media articles making reference me or my original article.
With the exception of BBC Radio Ulster, none of the journalists contacted me in advance of publication to check my views.
As you'll see there are some serious misquotes - nowhere have I questioned the right of Catholics to hold public office.
I am pleased to engage in vigorous debate. But it serves no benefit to misrepresent anybody's views. Let's engage in a debate based on the facts.
TIMELINE OF MEDIA COVERAGE
MARY HONEYBALL MEP AND CONOR MCGINN
20 May
Guardian Comment Is Free
‘Cardinals Sins’ published by Mary Honeyball
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/20/cardinalssins
Cardinals' sins
Politics and piety are becoming increasingly entangled as the human fertilisation and embryology bill passes through parliament. But democracy and religion do not mix. Pious pro-life Tory MP Nadine Dorries claims her high-profile campaign to reduce the abortion limit is non-religious and non-political; according to Sunny Hundal, she is in fact backed by Christian Concern for our Nation and the Conservative Christian Fellowship.
But it is Gordon Brown's kowtowing to threats of resignation from three Catholic government ministers - Ruth Kelly, the transport secretary, Des Browne, the defence secretary and Paul Murphy, the Welsh secretary - that has undermined his strength. In allowing a free vote on three of the bill's most important clauses (selecting and screening embryos for diseases and "saviour siblings"; allowing the creation of hybrid embryos from animal and human cells; and obviating the need for a father in IVF treatment), the PM has failed to protect the rights of the general public, over half of whom support the three causes, according to a recent Times poll.
Notwithstanding the result of the vote tonight, Brown put the interests of the Christian few over the rights of the many. Most people obviously disagree with a Catholic morality that puts the rights of the non-extant over those of the living.
Gordon Brown's failure to stand firm flies in the face of Department of Health (DoH) advice that the bill is essential to improve the technologies for assisting human reproduction and conducting high level research into finding cures for various diseases. The DoH also stresses that the bill is necessary to maintain the UK's position as a world leader in the science of embryology. It would not help our economy if we were to lose out in the same way as the US under George Bush, where embryonic stem cell research was denied federal funding nearly eight years ago.
Brown's about-turn has led many to conclude that the government's front benches are becoming increasingly religion-led. One Times reader this week pointed out that he had never before thought about "the religion of candidates for public office" but in future may not take such an "enlightened" approach if faith is given such sway in parliamentary votes. The idea that British voters may look closely at candidates' religious affiliations when choosing their MP raises fears that the more conservative style of religious voting seen in parts of Europe may come to Britain.
The vice-like grip of Catholicism holds fast across large parts of the continent. Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland are just some of the countries in Europe that have been subjected to interference by meddling cardinals. Abortion is still outlawed in Ireland and was only recently legalised in Portugal. Anti-abortion campaigns have, almost without exception, been led from the pulpit.
Catholicism has never taken a back seat; it has always actively interfered in democratic politics. In 2006 Pope Benedict castigated Catholic politicians in Canada for voting for gay rights and Cardinal Keith O'Brien, leader of Scotland's Catholics, is alleged to have compared same-sex relationships to paedophilia. The same Cardinal O'Brien is now accusing the human fertilisation and embryology bill of challenging "standards by which we have lived throughout our lives and by which Christians have lived for the past 2,000 years".
The European parliament has, fortunately, made a stand against some of this Christian fundamentalism. In a dramatic exercise of power in 2004, MEPs opposed the appointment of Rocco Buttiglione, nominated as a European commissioner by Silvio Berlusconi. Set to take up the justice, freedom and security portfolio, Buttiglione enraged the European parliament justice committee with his views on the role of women and his belief that homosexuality is a sin put forward during his confirmation hearings. The Italian government eventually withdrew his nomination as commissioner, due in large part to pressure from MEPs.
Given a similar opportunity, I wonder whether the Commons would have stood in the way of Ruth Kelly's appointment as minister for equality. Her strong religious beliefs obviously made her an inappropriate choice for this job, which involved standing up for the rights of homosexuals. Kelly famously refused to deny or confirm whether she thought homosexuality was a sin on Five Live in 2006.
Ruth Kelly's contention, supported by other religious politicians, that she can separate her private morals from public policy does not stand up to scrutiny. During the passage of the legislation to ban discrimination in the provision of goods and services in 2007, she is reputed to have fought hard for Catholic adoption agencies to opt out of the requirement to place children with same sex couples. When it came to the crunch, her Catholic faith won the day. Should devout Catholics such as Kelly, Browne and Murphy be allowed on the government front bench in the light of their predilection to favour the Pope's word above the government's?
Politicians are voted in to represent their electorates. People who vote for me and my colleagues expect us to further the interests of the public at large, not those of any particular religion, church, mosque, synagogue, temple or indeed any other interest group. We go against the democratic foundations of our country at our peril.
30 May
The Times Online
Faith News
NIB reporting that the vice-chair of Young Labour has resigned after particularly objecting to Mary’s language in comment is free piece.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4035217.ece
The Catholic Herald
“Labour activist quits post over anti-Catholicism”
Quotes Conor McGinn heavily including about Mary Honeyball “This type of sectarian diatribe makes me wonder whether a prejudice we all thought was long consigned to the past is slowly re-emerging.”
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000291.shtml
6 June
Tribune
John Street’s Diary
Connor (sic) McGinn…has quit his post in disgust over what he perceives as the party’s anti-Catholic stance. He was particularly upset at the suggestion from Mary Honeyball MEP that Ruth Kelly’s strong religious beliefs “…obviously made her an inappropriate choice” for the job of Communities Secretary.
13 June
Total Catholic
“Labour’s anti-Catholicism raised with PM”
http://www.totalcatholic.com/tc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=32:brown-faces-anti-catholic-concern&catid=14:uk-and-ireland&Itemid=34
16 June
New Statesman
“Whiff of anti-popery”
Written by Paul Donovan who also writes weekly columns for the Irish Post and Catholic weekly the Universe. He also contributes to the Guardian’s Comment is Free site, Tribune and the Morning Star.
Again article heavily quotes Conor McGinn and no response from Mary Honeyball was sought.
McGinn describes Honeyball's language as harking back to the days of Guy Fawkes. "Imagine substituting the words Jew or Muslim for Catholic in Mary Honeyball's comments - there would have been a furious reaction," says McGinn, whose stance resonates with several Catholic Labour MP.
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2008/06/anti-catholic-labour-party
Labour Home (blog)
“Is the Labour party anti-catholic?”
Is the Labour Party anti-Catholic? Conor McGinn, the vice chairman of Young Labour has resigned his post in protest at the party's alleged anti-Catholic prejudice and its hostility towards the pro-life movement.
http://www.labourhome.org/story/2008/6/16/85046/5274
18 June
BBC Radio Ulster
Talk Back
Debate with Conor McGinn and Mary Honeyball on the separation of religion and politics and the influence of the Catholic Church. We were contacted by the show. The researcher asked us to defend our case and we were told Conor McGinn was going to speak on the show about the reasons for his resignation whether we appeared or not.
19 June
Labour Home (blog)
“Labour MP decries Labour anti Catholicism”
http://www.labourhome.org/story/2008/6/18/1919/41752
20 June
Tribune
“Religious persecution may drive us out of the Labour Party”
Comment piece by Conor McGinn
Cites Mary Honeyball’s comment piece as “the most vicious of recent attacks on Catholics in the Labour party”
23 June
New Statesman
“Faith and reason”
Mary Honeyball responds in a letter accusing Paul Donovan’s piece of “…misconstruing the pro-democracy message of my article…I am not anti-Catholic but anti any religion that attempts to coerce or control parliament by exploiting the religious convictions of MPs.”
Total Catholic
“Labour’s ‘anti-Catholicism’ raised with PM”
“Church’s social welfare work threatened”
Conor McGinn quoted discussing emails requesting his phone number from Mary Honeyball.
http://www.totalcatholic.com/tc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77:churchs-social-welfare-work-threatened&catid=14:uk-and-ireland&Itemid=34
Theo’s Blog
Posting starts: “Shocked to see local MEP Mary Honeyball’s statements in her article…”
http://regentsparklabour.blogspot.com/2008/06/shocked-to-see-local-mep-mary.html
26 June
Dolphinarium (blog)
“Venomballs”
Leaked email to Prospect/Fabian Review posted on blogsite
http://dolphinarium.blogspot.com/2008/06/venomballs.html
27 June
Islington Tribune
“Activist claims Labour has anti-Catholic bias”
In the piece Conor McGinn says“..an article written by Mary Honeyball MEP made his position “untenable”.”.
http://www.thecnj.co.uk/islington/2008/062708/news062708_09.html
2 July
Political Betting online (comment)
“What Price the Gordon Comeback?”
Extract from 171st comment in response to posting: With that Catholic youth leader resigning over anto-Catholic bias ( http://www.labourhome.org/story/2008/6/16/85046/5274 ) and Mary Honeyball MEP writing her piece in the Guardian ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/20/cardinalssins ) I think any deliberate mention of a policy issue such as the HF&E bill by Cardinal O’Brian will be a massive psychic wink to the Catholic vote that Labour is no longer their party. by Morus July 2nd, 2008 at 12:30 am
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/07/01/what-price-the-gordon-come-back/#comment-712304
4 July
Tribune
“Condemn these Catholic tastes for intimidating those who disagree”
Letter from Mary Honeyball in response to Conor McGinn’s previous comment piece.
Islington Tribune/Camden News Journal/Camden Gazette
Mary Honeyball responds with letter to “Activist claims Labour has anti-Catholic bias” article.
Theo’s Blog
“No to Da Vinci Code politics”
Article starts: “Mary Honeyball’s bizarre and illadvised crusade against Catholics in the cabinet continues apace in today’s Tribune….”
http://regentsparklabour.blogspot.com/2008/07/no-to-da-vinci-code-politics.html
5 July
Political Betting.com (article)
“Will the Catholics abandon Labour?”
“…with the resignation letter of Conor McGinn (vice-chairman of Young Labour) claiming an ‘anti-catholic’ hostility in the party, and a recent article by Labour MEP Mary Honeyball that asked whether Catholics should be allowed to hold governmental office, there is much discussion amongst Catholics as to whether this natural loyalty to Labour is something that should be perpetuated.”
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/07/05/will-catholics-abandon-labour/
8 July
Daily Telegraph (comment piece)
Article by James MacMillan "Why Gordon Brown will lose Glasgow East". Mary Honeyball's "Cardinal Sins" article quoted out of context - "should devout Catholics such as Ruth Kelly, Des Browne, and Paul Murphy be allowed on the front bench?" The writer then infers - "we have to assume that there is no place any more for Catholics in New Labour."
The "Cardinal Sins" piece about the Embryology Bill and previous government legislation to ban discrimination in the provision of goods and services actually said, "Should devout Catholics such as Kelly, Browne and Murphy be allowed on the government front bench in the light of their predilection to favour the Pope's word above the government's?"
Friday, 4 July 2008
VISIT TO ORPINGTON
Last week I went to Orpington Labour Party to talk about the Lisbon Treaty. After a delightful drive around this beautiful part of south-east London/Kent on my way to the meeting, I was pleased to be able to talk to one of our active parties.
The Lisbon Treaty would make the EU structures which were designed for a Common Market of six countries workable for a European Union of 27 member states. The proposals include an EU presidency which lasts for two and a half years rather than six months, a reduction in the number of Commissioners (there are currently 27), a new foreign policy post combining the External Affairs Commissioner with the European Council's High Representative position and changes in the way majority votes are counted.
The meeting at Orpington was very lively. Inevitably the question of a referendum came up. Since Ireland said no to the Lisbon Treaty in their referendum and the UK Parliament has now ratified it, the question of a British referendum is now less pressing. I do not, however, believe there should be a referendum for two reasons. Whatever the pro-referendum lobby may say, the Lisbon Treaty does not represent a major change to the governance of Britain or any loss of sovereignty. In addition, Britain has no tradition of referendums, preferring representative democracy.
With the refusal of the Polish President to sign the Lisbon Treaty and Czech support for the Irish position, the way forward on Lisbon is less than clear. I am of the view that we should respect the Irish position and listen to the people of Europe. France and Holland rejected the previous Constitution in a referendum and now Ireland has voted no to Lisbon. As a passionate pro-European I fully support to EU. I do, however, at the moment believe it needs to find its way.
The Lisbon Treaty would make the EU structures which were designed for a Common Market of six countries workable for a European Union of 27 member states. The proposals include an EU presidency which lasts for two and a half years rather than six months, a reduction in the number of Commissioners (there are currently 27), a new foreign policy post combining the External Affairs Commissioner with the European Council's High Representative position and changes in the way majority votes are counted.
The meeting at Orpington was very lively. Inevitably the question of a referendum came up. Since Ireland said no to the Lisbon Treaty in their referendum and the UK Parliament has now ratified it, the question of a British referendum is now less pressing. I do not, however, believe there should be a referendum for two reasons. Whatever the pro-referendum lobby may say, the Lisbon Treaty does not represent a major change to the governance of Britain or any loss of sovereignty. In addition, Britain has no tradition of referendums, preferring representative democracy.
With the refusal of the Polish President to sign the Lisbon Treaty and Czech support for the Irish position, the way forward on Lisbon is less than clear. I am of the view that we should respect the Irish position and listen to the people of Europe. France and Holland rejected the previous Constitution in a referendum and now Ireland has voted no to Lisbon. As a passionate pro-European I fully support to EU. I do, however, at the moment believe it needs to find its way.
Thursday, 3 July 2008
LAYING THE WREATH
Last night I laid the wreath at a ceremony in Westminster Abbey for Dame Millicent Fawcett to commemorate her constant and courageous work in securing citizenship rights for women in the Equal Franchise Act passed on 2 July 1928.
I felt honored to be chosen for this important task. And whilst giving a quick speech to the mixed crowd of people of all ages and both sexes, I felt a sense of the feminist issues I have been working on most recently coming together.
Commemorating this landmark achievement for women, just a few days after the newest Equality Bill was launched by Harriet Harman with a female Minister, who asked for our thoughts as the fate of women bishops is decided this weekend (see my letter published in the Times 2 July), was a vivid reminder of how controversial equality remains.
As the article 'Now, the backlash' the Guardian showed this week, rapes are up to an unprecedented high (the tally of recorded rapes rose from 247% from 1991 to 2004), whilst conviction rates are plummeting and are now lower than the 70s. A new lap dancing club opens up in England every week, the 24-week abortion limit is under threat, and a leading businessman on The Dragons' Den says pregnant women's brains 'turn to mush'.
Eighty years on from when women achieved equal voting rights to men, there is evidently still a very long way to go before women can enjoy the same political, economic and social freedoms as men.
Perhaps as director of the Fawcett Society Katherine Rake asked us to remember, in her article for the NewStatesman this week, we should all take closer heed of Millicent Fawcett's wise words:
"Men cannot be truly free so long as women are held in public subjugation."
Wednesday, 2 July 2008
RUTH KELLY TRIUMPHS IN TRIAL OF STRENGTH
Ruth Kelly has again put her religion before her allegiance to the Government.
Please see the link below to an article in the "Times" on 1 July.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4245099.ece
Please see the link below to an article in the "Times" on 1 July.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4245099.ece
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
The Struggle for Equality
At the Women's Rights and Gender Equality Committee here at the parliament the other day we were discussing the 2008 report on 'Equal Opportunities for men and women'. Many of my colleagues on the committee expressed their absolute frustration that for yet another year the pay gap between men and women has remained infuriatingly static. Our work trying to give equal opportunities and equal outcomes to every member of society is certainly an uphill struggle.
Back from committee this led me to think that it is 80 years since women won the right to the vote in the UK and with that the right to a political life. But women are still denied the top jobs. In Europe, as I have blogged recently, the senior jobs are consistently awarded to men and that trend looks set to continue into the next term. In the UK our Tory colleagues have only paid lip-service to the promotion of women: in the absence of both Gordon Brown and David Cameron at Prime Minister's Question Time in April Harriet Harman, as deputy leader stood in for Gordon Brown but on the Tory side David Cameron was replaced, not by his deputy leader Theresa May, but by William Hague with May demurely seated behind. As Harman rightly pointed out, this looked like women should be seen but not heard on the Tory side.
It is 40 years since the Equal Pay act meant that women and men should be paid an equal salary for equal work. However, the pay gap in the UK is still alarming. In full-time work women get paid 17% less than men and in part-time a shocking 38% less. The UK's pay gap is fairly much in line with the pay gap between the sexes that is felt right across the EU.
It is 20 years since the first black female MP, Diane Abbott entered the House of Commons. To date there have only been three black, female MPs sitting in the Commons. Dawn Butler, MP for Brent South, has experienced racist and sexist attitudes within the Commons itself. One such incident the Tory (it's always them isn't it?) MP David Heathcote-Amory questioned why Butler was on the members' section of the terrace asking if she was an MP. When she replied that she was he said "they're letting anybody in nowadays". He later denied that his comments were racially motivated but it is hard to see how they could be interpreted otherwise. In the European Parliament there are only four non-white female MEPs out of a total of 785.
So it is obviously with pleasure that I welcome Harriet Harman's Equalities Bill. This legislation is not the beginning of this is issue in the UK, and it is certainly not the end, but another step in an 80 year old journey that will hopefully lead us to a truly equal society. In the UK we serve as a 'best practice' example to our European colleagues on a number of issues my hope is that in the future we will lead the way on equality as well.
Back from committee this led me to think that it is 80 years since women won the right to the vote in the UK and with that the right to a political life. But women are still denied the top jobs. In Europe, as I have blogged recently, the senior jobs are consistently awarded to men and that trend looks set to continue into the next term. In the UK our Tory colleagues have only paid lip-service to the promotion of women: in the absence of both Gordon Brown and David Cameron at Prime Minister's Question Time in April Harriet Harman, as deputy leader stood in for Gordon Brown but on the Tory side David Cameron was replaced, not by his deputy leader Theresa May, but by William Hague with May demurely seated behind. As Harman rightly pointed out, this looked like women should be seen but not heard on the Tory side.
It is 40 years since the Equal Pay act meant that women and men should be paid an equal salary for equal work. However, the pay gap in the UK is still alarming. In full-time work women get paid 17% less than men and in part-time a shocking 38% less. The UK's pay gap is fairly much in line with the pay gap between the sexes that is felt right across the EU.
It is 20 years since the first black female MP, Diane Abbott entered the House of Commons. To date there have only been three black, female MPs sitting in the Commons. Dawn Butler, MP for Brent South, has experienced racist and sexist attitudes within the Commons itself. One such incident the Tory (it's always them isn't it?) MP David Heathcote-Amory questioned why Butler was on the members' section of the terrace asking if she was an MP. When she replied that she was he said "they're letting anybody in nowadays". He later denied that his comments were racially motivated but it is hard to see how they could be interpreted otherwise. In the European Parliament there are only four non-white female MEPs out of a total of 785.
So it is obviously with pleasure that I welcome Harriet Harman's Equalities Bill. This legislation is not the beginning of this is issue in the UK, and it is certainly not the end, but another step in an 80 year old journey that will hopefully lead us to a truly equal society. In the UK we serve as a 'best practice' example to our European colleagues on a number of issues my hope is that in the future we will lead the way on equality as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
