POLITICAL HITCH

There have been a number of events recently that puzzle me. That is not surprising these days; I am now constantly foxed by life, by parking meters, telephone answering machines, BOGOF offers at the supermarket, texts from Ms Sexylegs, etc.

But to deal with one of these events, you may have seen that on 5 February the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill was approved by the House of Commons by 400–175. The legislation still has to pass the House of Lords, and who knows how they will vote, but the decisive Commons vote by more than 2 to 1 seems to be pretty representative of current public opinion. But the voting has split the Conservative Party. Bizarrely, more Conservatives voted against the bill than voted for. In fact, almost all the votes against were Conservative. Because of this, a number of questions have arisen.

Why has the Prime Minister pushed this legislation through? It wasn't in the Party manifesto and clearly wasn't supported within the Party. Passing legislation by enlisting Opposition support is not that unusual, but it's pretty odd for an issue of this kind, especially when you don't have your own party's backing at all. Moreover, although public opinion is onside, most people are actually fairly apathetic about the subject. They are much more likely to get excited about the tax on sausage rolls or a railway running through their garden.

Secondly, what has made half the Conservative Party vote against their leader's Bill? Surprisingly, their objections seem to be religious ones. 'Surprisingly' because no one else in Parliament seems to hold such strong religious views. I shan't go into the religious points here, you no doubt know, or can guess, what they are. Anyway, it will remain illegal to have a same-sex marriage in a CofE or RC church for some years I think, but some other religions have already accepted the principle, so church marriage will be possible when the law is passed.

Thirdly, what is the view of same-sex couples? Are they all as keen on the law change as their activist representatives? It is always the same with minority views, the activists are so vociferous, that one can hardly believe the whole world doesn't agree. But, as far as I am aware, there has been enormous support for the Civil Partnership, introduced at the end of 2005, a union which the Church accepts, but not much of a movement in preference for same-sex marriage. There remains a body of opinion within the LGBT community none the less that wants marriage on a par with heterosexual couples. But what exactly does 'on a par' mean here?

I confess my initial reaction was to bemoan the continual minority picking away at societal norms. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that's that. There's no reason of course why that can't change. Society is dynamic and views evolve. Changing the law is trickier and changing religious practice is something else. But the position can change and no doubt will, given the present momentum. Never the less, although LGBTs don't want to be different in marriage from everyone else, the fact remains that they are different.

Same-sex relationships tend to be based on the way one likes to have sex, whereas marriage is based on procreation for the survival of the species or the family line, depending on your view. Maybe those needs are less urgent these days, but this was the intention of the institution of marriage. Henry VIII would have had none of his problems if that was not the case. And, as you will have seen in the Tudors television series, sexual gratification was a separate matter. In some cultures, a marriage between members of different families and descent is still considered more important than love, certainly than sex.

However, in a ruling against marriage between transsexuals as long ago as 1967, Mr Justice Ormerod stated "Marriage is a relationship which depends on sex, not on gender". This rather defeats my initial conclusion. And anyway Henry VIII made some pretty radical changes to law and religion to accommodate marriage, so it it is clearly not impossible to do it again.

So how does civil partnership change the situation? I was rather irritated, to be honest, when, after all the fuss to get that legislation approved, gay activists continued to campaign for more. The recent case of Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson is also interesting, where their discrimination case (that not recognising their civil partnership as a marriage contravened their human rights) failed because "such discrimination has a legitimate aim, is reasonable and proportionate, and falls within the margin of appreciation accorded to Convention States." In other words, human rights legislation not only permits discrimination against same-sex marriage, but recognises that civil partnership confers all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. So, opening marriage to same-sex couples would confer no new legal rights on those already in a civil partnership, yet would require multiple legal changes and the definition of marriage would have to change for everyone. As I have said, that is no reason not to do it and it would certainly end discrimination.

So, the argument is between maintaining marriage and civil partnership, since there is no difference between them, or harmonising the two because there is no difference.

But, even accepting that, it is still a slightly odd debate. The trend to marriage has continually fallen (despite a slight recent rise, probably following the 2002 changes in the immigration laws). The fastest-growing type of family in the UK is of those living together without being married. The number of people who cohabit has quadrupled from 0.6% to 2.2% (5.9 million couples) since 1996. Over the last 10 years, the numbers of children born to cohabiting couples has also doubled, suggesting that the unmarried state is a genuine social choice over marriage. There is, moreover, no religious or society objection now generally to cohabitation or to children born out of wedlock, nor indeed to divorce. Since the Divorce Reform Act came into effect in 1971, the annual number of divorces has continued to rise. At the same time, although same-sex couples in civil partnerships appear to be less likely statistically to “divorce” than their heterosexual counterparts, dissolutions of such unions, particularly among females, are already occurring, despite only being made legal relatively recently, suggesting that legal union for homosexuals is no more binding than for heteros.

So we have a situation where growing numbers of couples live together, rather than marry, where indeed ambitions to marry have softened considerably in recent years, even where children are concerned, and where there is no inherent commitment to permanence in any legal union. Furthermore, of those that do marry, church is not now the first choice for marriage. Many still content themselves with a 'legal' marriage at the registry office and dispense with the ceremony altogether. Very many others choose mundane secular locations such as hotels or even beaches for their nuptials. This, coupled with the fact that divorce rates continue to increase, shows just how rapidly strict attitudes in society have relaxed in the last few years. It is not inconceivable, with presently proposed legislation supporting same-sex marriage and not especially encouraging heterosexual marriage (indeed for some couples cohabitation offers a preferential tax position), that at some stage only homosexuals will bother with marriage. That will provide an interesting divide.

Ultimately though this is a legal problem and, even without the public apathy, no one is much excited by a legal debate. The Bill may or may not drift through Parliament without much fanfare, except from a small minority whose euphoria will not be understood by the majority of us, from the quality newspapers who will call it a 'landmark', and from Zimbabwe which will call it an abomination. But my puzzlement at the Prime Minister risking his re-election on the strength of it remains. If we aren't much moved by same-sex marriage, we would surely prefer not to have to make this into an election issue. There are far more important things to worry about in this country. Personally, a manifesto offering cheap sausage rolls will get my vote every time.

YOU HAVE MALE

I am a man!   

Perhaps that sounds a surprising discovery at this stage of my life.  But I have to say I had always thought of myself as being an individual first and a man second.

I usually like to read the bridge columns in the newspapers (unlike the average man).  But the one on Sunday is written by a woman.  She must be quite good, since she has just won the British Ladies Teams Championships.  But I sometimes don’t quite understand her deductions and line of play.  ‘But it’s much clearer than that bloke during the week,’ says She Who is Suddenly Now an Authority on the Game.  Can it be that the way of thinking is different in Men’s and Women’s bridge?!  This would explain why my partner sometimes goes walkabout during the bidding of course.

The other day I attended a buffet lunch at which we were given plates to go and select and pick up our food.  One lady on my table said, ‘Oh, be careful; the plate’s hot.  You’re a man; you’ll need a serviette to pick it up.’  Wait a minute, surely not all men are like that?!  ‘Oh, it’s fine I said’, noting that she was holding hers in her bare hand.  ‘Wow!’  I said, dropping it back on the table.  She must have hands made of asbestos!

We were at friends the other night, when one of the ladies, talking about gardening, said, ‘what is it with men and lawns?’  Whereupon everybody laughed and muttered things like, ‘I know’ or ‘Tell me about it.’  That’s certainly not true anyway; it’s not all I do in the garden.  I just like to tend to the lawn’s needs at the various times of year.  I’ve just finished moss killing and scarifying and hope to aerate over the weekend, before dressing it for the winter.  Then . . . oh, OK, I spend a lot of time on it.  But surely all men aren’t like that?! 

This is all very distressing.  Can it be that I have devoted my life to creating a unique set of character traits and they’re the same as every other man’s??

When I got married, I spent hours (well, five minutes actually) proving that I can’t bake a cake.  That’s that sorted, I chuckled to myself, never have to do that ever again.  But maybe I’ve got it all wrong.  Perhaps no ordinary house husband can bake a proper cake?  If that’s the case, I’d better get on and learn how to do it, to maintain some element of my individual personality.  I also, using the Men’s Guide to Easy Living handbook, managed to break a valuable piece of crockery on my first attempt at washing up.  That let me off any washing up for the last few years.  But perhaps all men have read the handbook?  Oh, no, we’re all stereotyping ourselves into ordinary men.

Perhaps I should back the car into the garden wall next time I park, to show my individuality and metrosexual male credentials?  That reminds me, I can, on the other hand, read a road map; that must be a distinguishing feature.  Every man can do that?  What about putting up shelves?  Putting spiders outside?

ALE AND HEARTY

 At last!  After nearly a year of argument and persuasion, she has finally agreed to my having a Threesome.  I have good stamina and a high level of fitness now, so I was convinced that now was the time.  We had to compromise in the end; this is the essence of a good relationship. 

Yes, while she went to the toy shop to buy things for grandchildren, I went to the Haslemere Beer Festival to try a pint of the Sherfield Brewery’s new golden ale, Threesome.

 

It’s called a Beer Festival, but it’s basically a lot of fat men standing around, drinking and discussing football and, every 15 seconds, mentioning sex.

Threesome BTW is a rather pale beer, with lots of hops.  Tasty, but a bit weak and lacking in malt for my taste.  I wanted to try Greensand from the Surrey Hills brewery, but they’d run out by the time I got there.  ‘Must be good then,’ said the barperson.  ‘WTF use is that to me?’ I thought.

Those of my age will know that Pressed Rat and Warthog is a creamy beverage.  It’s dark and chocolatey and plummy, like Moira Stuart.  Bucking Fastard, that I just had to try, is gold with a flowery taste and a kick.  Stopped Dancing, from Havant, is stronger than it seems – tastes of mowed lawns, but not remarkable.  Armada, brewed to celebrate the 400^th anniversary of the sinking of the Armada off the Sussex coast, is a much better bitter taste, but is even stronger.  And Hammerpot Woodcote is an old favourite, tangy and bitter.

Didn't try the other 45 beers.

Off to bed now.  On my own.

WHO CARES?

I have been trying to find something sensible to say about the recent spate of sex grooming cases here.  The first convictions in such a case were reported here.

 

For those of you that haven’t heard of these cases, men, mostly in the Midlands, have been systematically plying very young girls with drink and drugs and then taking advantage of them sexually and selling them for sex to friends and relatives.  There seem to be many such cases, but few culprits have been tried and convicted.  There was another conviction of an individual this morning on similar offences, so perhaps investigations are becoming more successful.

Everyone has been trying hard not to say that there is some racial element involved here, mostly because white far right groups have been trying to incite violence against immigrant communities on the back of the scandal.  But the fact is that almost all the men involved are Pakistanis (hence they are mostly found in the Midlands, a major Pakistani community) and almost all the girls involved are white.  A separate issue is that most of the girls live in care homes or are otherwise under care and are therefore particularly vulnerable.

I listened to a chilling account on the radio yesterday by one of the girls involved.  She was 13 when she decided to go into town one night ‘for a bit of fun’.  A Pakistani man stopped in his car and asked her whether she’d like a lift.  She agreed and, whilst he drove, she drank from a vodka mix drink he gave her.  When he eventually stopped, not in the town centre, but at his house, she was drunk and went inside with him.  He had sex with her and then took her home.  From then on she found herself locked into a relationship with him and was frequently picked up and passed around others for sex.

This account was given in such a matter of fact voice that, at each stage, you felt like screaming ‘but why did you do it?’  There was no explanation.  Of course these girls are the victims, but the men’s description of them as willing whores was not at all contradicted by this girl’s account or by others I have read.  Yes, they present themselves as victims, and they were abused and the men were acting against the law, but at no time is there any rationale for what the girls did.

How has this state of affairs come about?  One problem of course (if you accept the premise that there is a major Pakistani involvement) is the culture and practices of Pakistani Muslims, not only in their own country, but transported to UK by immigrants and maintained here by British born Pakistanis.  There are frequent stories in the media concerning crimes committed by Pakistani families, often where daughters do not marry the man chosen by the father.  One in today’s newspaper concerns a girl abducted by her family, despite being married, because she is expected to marry a cousin in Pakistan.  She was apparently betrothed without her knowledge when she was 15.  And it isn’t just the father that commits these acts; she was drugged by her sister and carried off by her mother and father.  In another case, a young Pakistani bride was kept locked in the house by her father in law and subjected to sexual abuse.  And there have been many worse cases where girls are murdered because they get involved with a man the father believes is unsuitable. It is shameful for Pakistani girls to be involved with an 'unsuitable' man.  But the way to overcome that seems to be for Pakistani men to turn to a non-Pakistani for sex.  That seems not to be shameful. 

The point is that, although these crimes take place in Britain, none of those involved seem to think that they are in fact crimes.  There is mixed comment from others in the community about whether such acts are normal in Pakistani culture, but anyway, plenty of members of the community believe they are.  The men convicted in the sex grooming case made it quite clear they didn’t think that they had done anything wrong.  And of course betrothals at a very early age (often to older men) help to sustain the thought that sex with young girls is OK.

What to do?  Clearly there is a problem in the Pakistani community.  I assume that not all Pakistani people believe such practices should be condoned.  Yet, no one from the community came forward and reported the crimes to the authorities.  Community leaders must be instructed to do more to get across to their communities that such practices are unacceptable in Britain, if not everywhere.  But we should do more too.  I am all for multiculturalism, but immigrants and their families (at the time of immigration – many members of these communities were of course born here, which is why community leaders have to take responsibility now) must be made to understand what the laws and culture of Britain are.  Where there is a clash, the law of their chosen country (ie Britain) must prevail.  I hope that increased success by the police in stamping on this activity will help to bring home to others that it is wrong.  That is why working with community leaders must start now before others in the 'business' are pushed underground or deeper into the community.

But we must also do something about the victims and the potential victims.  If children are in care, if the home is called a ‘care home’, then it is the Director's responsibility to ensure that care is applied.  It just won’t do to allow young girls to go wandering off at night.  There is some suggestion that the homes knew the girls were being picked up in cars outside.  If this is true, the duty of care has certainly been lost somewhere and those responsible should be made to understand.  

Care homes are currently the subject of an inquiry, following this recent case, and that is as it should be.  But surely there is more to looking after young, vulnerable girls than just stopping them from going out at night.  Any father of teen-aged girls knows how difficult that is and knows what it’s like sitting up waiting nervously for them to come home.  But, before this moment, the girl will have been given a good deal of education and instruction and advice (probably scorned, but hopefully not forgotten).  I can’t forget the calm way that girl described her experiences, as though they were inevitable, or maybe that there was nothing else to do of an evening, or (can it be) that she didn’t know what was happening.  It is not clear to me that the care homes are offering anything like a parental duty of care, but nor do they seem to be providing education.  There may be something we should be doing to prevent so many girls ending up in care like this, but meanwhile, simply sticking them in a home is not in itself a solution to their problems.

There are many angles at which we as a society should be ensuring education is applied, not only to young people, but also to those of different cultures and to those in positions of authority.  But we seem to have failed to do so in every respect.  The most horrific feature in all this is that so many people seemed to know what was going on – other Pakistanis, families, friends of the girls, shopkeepers and neighbours, care home staff.  Yet no one seems to have cared quite enough to do anything about it.  Maybe we should now make it clear that we care.

WHISTLES, TRUMPETS AND HORNS

There have been interesting developments lately involving secrecy.  I give some of my time to the local District Council, by chairing a committee which examines complaints against Councillors.  Of course, I start from the position that the Councillor is not guilty unless proven otherwise.  But it wouldn’t occur to me to look critically at the complainant for revealing sensitive information about the activities of the Council or the proceedings of the committee on which he sits.  In fact, when we wrote our Code of Conduct some while ago, we inserted a clause which says that we will respect and not punish whistleblowers, or something along those lines.

The situation in America seems to be becoming less tolerant than that.  Of course, terrorism has become the new neurosis.  But there have been a number of cases recently of investigation of citizens for espionage or inappropriate use of position or ‘exceeding authority’, etc, when what they have actually done is shed some light on the hidden activities of the administration.  This smacks a little of authoritarianism, if not guilt.  I do believe that there should be some limits on such revelations, but I also think we should know what our democratically elected representatives are actually doing.  This illiberal trend certainly won’t help the case of Bradley Manning.  I don’t expect him to be given the death sentence, but I don’t suppose the ‘no criminal intent’ defence will get him off either.

In this country, at another level, we had the fascinating period of the super-injunction, when celebs (mostly footballers it seemed) would obtain a court order preventing anyone (usually the press and a woman they’d shagged) from saying anything in public about their nefarious activities.  The justification was that disclosure would harm their family life, as though it was the whistleblower that caused the harm, rather than the shagger himself.  What was really interesting was that the press were not even permitted to reveal that a super-injunction had been granted.  That too was secret.  I think all that has stopped now.  But, who knows?  I haven’t been told.

One of these cases sort of came to court the other day, when the subject of a super-injunction had to apologise for words spoken about the object of a super-injunction.  We’re not allowed to know that there was a super-injunction of course.  Isn’t the law wonderful?!  So we’re not to know the name of the footballer (or it might have been a film star or a politician) who was granted the super-injunction, but because he said some disparaging words about the alleged object of the super-injunction, he was taken to court and had to apologise publicly, even though there might not have been a super-injunction.  Are you with me so far?  In court, the shaggee was known as ‘CTB’ to protect her identity and the shagger was known as ‘RJG’ to protect his family.  After the case, Imogen Thomas made a public statement outside the court saying that she was relieved (which was probably the point of the alleged incident in the first place) and vindicated, but of course couldn’t say who she was or what she was relieved about.  The press then reported the whole story with the real names of those involved (since there is no injunction on this subsequent case).  Well, at least secrecy was maintained, the super-injunction wasn’t broken and Ryan Giggs name didn’t come out as the shagger in the woodpile.

We have also seen the US military withdraw from Iraq.  No secrecy was involved here of course, but one interesting outcome of all the secrecy that had gone before was that the military had signally failed to win over hearts and minds, which, as we all know, is the second most important role of the military overseas.  The debate about whether we should have invaded Iraq or whether the cost was worthwhile I leave to history.  But, since they have been in Iraq, the US has improved electricity generation and transmission, improved irrigation and drainage and increased the amount of land under agriculture, created a new sewage collection and treatment system, increased civil aviation capacity and upgraded airports, repaired the fibre-optic network and built a new telephone exchange, increased oil production and reduced import dependence, built prisons, barracks, entry points, and equipped and trained the military, security forces and police, not to mention establishing local administrative committees and democratic elections.  It’s not perfect, but it’s not a bad state to leave the country in. 

But somehow this information has not permeated down to the Iraqi population.  If there’s one thing that needed not to be kept secret, surely it was this.  Now's the chance to get Wikileaks to leaflet the population.  Ask any Iraqi what they think about the US withdrawing and they will say ‘good riddance’, ‘they didn’t do anything for us, except maybe kill my brother’, ‘things were better under Saddam’, etc.  What a waste.  All that expense and cost and all that has been created is resentment and maybe hatred.  If ever there was a need for whistleblowers!  Or at least blowing one’s own trumpet.  Or is it tooting one’s own horn?