Category: Politics

Is Britain behind the world in legalising same-sex marriage?

The past two weeks would be regarded as a success by same-sex marriage campaigners. With significant developments in Uruguay, France, Ireland and New Zealand the number of countries recognising and allowing same-sex marriage is increasing. So where does this leave Britain? Is it falling behind other parts of the world in this issue or is it an unnecessary waste of time because civil partnerships have been established for many years now?

 

April 11

The lower house in Uruguay voted in favor of legalising same-sex marriage. The result came a week after the senate  passed it by a wide majority and makes Uruguay the third country in the Americas to legalise same-sex marriage.

 

April 12

France’s upper house voted in favour of legalising same-sex marriage, meaning this country is also well on its way to having same-sex marriages. However, the decision was taken amidst lively debates and strong protests. Whether it passes the next stage will be interesting to see.

 

April 14

Same-sex marriage was on the agenda for debate in Ireland, with an overwhelming majority of 79% voting for constitutional reform allowing gay people to marry. 78% of people also voted that the constitutional amendment be directive rather than permissive. Meaning that, if adopted, the constitutional change will require laws to be made allowing same-sex marriage, rather than merely permitting laws to be made to allow same-sex marriage.

 

April 17

New Zealand legalised same-sex marriage with the result of both MPs and members of the public bursting into song to celebrate. New Zealand has made history by becoming the first country in the Asia Pacific to legalise same-sex marriage.

 

Where is Britain in the process of legalising same-sex marriage?

With so many controversial ideas and policies being discussed and implemented recently, the issue of same-sex marriage seems to have been somewhat forgotten. However, it was only in February that MPs in the Commons voted in favour of marriage equality (Same Sex Couples) bill with a majority of 225. This was the second reading in the Commons, meaning that the legislation has now progressed to the committee stage where it will be scrutinised and amended. Once this stage is finished it will be reported and the third reading in the Commons will be carried out. If the bill passes this it will then progress to the House of Lords to begin the same process.

This bill has therefore still got a long way to go before it becomes legal for same-sex couples to marry, if the law is ever passed at all. Conservative MP David Burrowes predicts that there will be great opposition once it reaches the House of Lords.

 

Is same-sex marriage necessary in Britain when civil partnerships are legal?

The Civil partnership Act 2004 made it legal for same-sex couples to enter into legally recognised partnerships. To many people this has bridged the gap that left same-sex couples unable to be recognised by the law, however, there are major distinctions between civil partnerships and marriages which mean that there is a convincing argument that civil partnerships are not equal to marriage.

Firstly, whilst civil partnerships are legal they arguably do not hold the same social standing as marriage. The distinction also forces same-sex couples to ‘out’ themselves whenever they are required to state their marital status. This may not appear to be a significant issue, but many same-sex couples live in fear of being discovered and many believe that ‘outing’ themselves will lead to prejudice and discrimination.

On a more practical level civil partnerships do not grant couples the same financial rights as married couples, for instance pensions are generally lower for a surviving civil partner than for a surviving spouse.

Civil partnerships are not recognised around the world, even in countries that either allow same-sex marriage or some form of civil partnership, so there is no guarantee that a couple civil partnered in the UK will be recognised as a legal couple in other parts of the world. For example, in Sweden and Portugal same-sex marriage is legal, but they do not recognise civil partnerships as a legal relationship. This causes restrictions on travel and the possibility of moving abroad as a couple.

The law surrounding civil partnerships is not as settled and so there may be areas that still cause confusion legally. Civil partnerships are dissolved rather than divorced and adultery is not recognised as a legitimate reason to file for dissolution. This has two implications: firstly, this may feed into the stereotype that gay people are promiscuous and the stigma that civil partnerships are not as important as marriages; and secondly the vast amount of law surrounding marriage may not be applicable to civil partnerships, promoting uncertainty and the possibility for civil partners to be treated very differently by the legal system.

In order to bring legal partnerships between same-sex couples up to an equal footing with heterosexual couples it seems that same-sex marriage is necessary. To ensure that all citizens enjoy the same rights the same law is needed, not a substitute that seems to be very similar, which is arguably what the Civil Partnership Act is. However, if equality is what is being strived for then the issue of civil partnerships also needs to be addressed. It would not be an equal situation if same-sex couples have the choice of either a marriage or a civil partnership, whilst heterosexual couples are restricted solely to marriage.

Kent Airport Development Causes Concern

The proposal to expand a small Kent airport into a “regional hub”, which has just been approved by the government, has caused great concern for environmental campaigners.

LyddAirport in Romney Marsh has now been granted permission to expand its runway and to build a new terminal building, and about half a million more passengers could potentially be accommodated by this new development. However, although there is a prevailing optimism about the new airport, as it would certainly give the area a higher profile, there is growing anger that the local area – where there is an abundance of wildlife – will be endangered by the encroachment of a much bigger airport. For many species, the “Garden of England” is a natural refuge.

Green Party MEP, Keith Taylor, has commented on the new development, saying that there are “huge concerns about the impact these proposals would have in terms of the increase in pollution for local residents and the threat to important wildlife.”

This development has emerged amid worldwide concerns that the progression of low-carbon energy is not happening quickly enough to offset global warming. The International Energy Agency has reported that there has only been a 25% growth in non-fossil fuel generation, compared to 45% of fossil fuel generation.

New developments that would help offset the still-excessive CO2 emissions, such as carbon capture and storage, while still being developed and built, are simply not appearing fast enough to counteract the growing worldwide damage.

While countries such as the US are pioneering ways to generate environmentally friendly energy (such as shale gas technology), the majority of Europe is still, allegedly, falling far short of targets which need to be met to see a maximum rise in global temperature of 2 degrees celsius by the end of the century.

The new airport development at Romney Marsh will certainly be an economic asset for the region, and will create much-needed jobs, however it is important that it tries to remain environmentally responsible, so that it can help the region to uphold the reputation of being an ecological haven.

Changes to the law on dangerous dogs

Amidst news of the death of Margaret Thatcher, the death of the young girl Jade Anderson, who was mauled to death by dogs when she went to a house to visit a friend, was largely overlooked. Yet this story is of great significance when it comes to light that no crime was committed and so there will be no consequences for the owners of the dogs.

The problem with the current law

The Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced in 1991 and attempted to set out what a ‘dangerous dog’ is, as well as allow for the prosecution of owners, or people in charge, of the dog if the animal were to attack somebody.  The law has come under heavy criticism for not wholly achieving this aim.

Certain types of dogs were made illegal to own: Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Braziliero. However, the legislation recognises that it is not so much the name or breed of the dog but its temperament that makes it dangerous. Therefore, it is the characteristics of the dog and whether it resembles any of the four types of banned breeds that will determine whether it is dangerous or not. If any breed of dog were to demonstrate violent tendencies then the courts may insist on its destruction; however, owners may also request that the dog be exempt. It was also made illegal to breed any dog for the purpose of fighting.

The legislation also makes it an offence for a dog to be out of control in a public place or a non-public place if the dog is not permitted to be there. This would include any person’s house who had not given their permission for the dog to be there. ‘Out of control’ is not specifically defined in the Act but references to injuring a person or there being reasonable belief that a dog may injure someone are made. It has therefore been interpreted that ‘out of control’ means either that the dog has attacked or attempted to attack a person.

This arguably leaves a huge gap in the legislation, namely the situation where a dog has not been categorised as dangerous but nonetheless attacks somebody on the property on which it is housed. This is the unfortunate situation Jade Anderson found herself in. She was attacked by dogs at a house she went to visit where the dogs were permitted to be.

For this reason no actual offence has taken place and so the police are not looking to make an arrests as they are bound by this wholly inadequate piece of legislation.

Does the law need reform?

There are hundreds of thousands of dog attacks in Britain every year and many of these will take place in areas where the dogs are permitted to be and so will not be covered by the legislation. Thankfully the majority of cases will be minor, however, when there are no consequences for the owners when a person is killed by dogs there is a deep injustice in the system. This feeling has been reflected by an e-petition entitled ‘Justice for Jade’, which has received over 9,000 signatures.

Whilst the law is arguably fairly adequate for classifying dangerous dogs and prosecuting owners of dogs out of control in public places, there is a strong argument that any dog in the right (or rather wrong) circumstances could be dangerous, whether it has demonstrated characteristics of the four types of banned breeds or not. Allowing people to have potentially out of control dogs on their premises not only puts themselves and their families and friends at risk but also unsuspecting people who are required to visit the property – the postman/woman, a delivery driver, gas or electric meter reader. There are numerous people who are legally allowed access to private property and the law should protect these people. Of course, changing the law so that owners can be prosecuted will not stop people having out of control dogs on their property, however it may make some people reconsider whether their dog is safe to own if they are aware that they face prosecution of a fine or imprisonment.

What is the government proposing?

The Government has been proactive since the death of Jade Anderson and has published draft proposals for new legislation. These proposals allow for owners to be prosecuted if their dog attacks somebody on private property, whether it be their own or someone else’s. The requirement that the dog is not allowed to be in the area has been removed, which should, in theory, close the loophole. The consequence of a conviction under this new law would be a maximum of two years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.

What about trespassers or burglars?

At this stage the new law will still not cover situations in which burglars or other trespassers are attacked. The debate surrounding this issue is still ongoing as many believe that people should have the right to protect themselves and their property, using dogs a guard if they wish. Others believe that if a person trespasses or commits an offence they should still be owed the same duty of care to be protected from dangers such as dogs. It will be interesting to see whether this part of the legislation changes on its way through the process or whether it will remain that burglars and trespassers are not protected.

The proposed reforms appear to keep the satisfactory parts of the law – any dog may still be regarded as dangerous, regardless of breed, if it demonstrates the correct characteristics.  It also appears to rectify the unsatisfactory law currently in place by closing the major loophole was left open by the previous law. However, there is no timetable for when this new legislation may appear on the statute books. Hopefully this draft proposal will not merely be a reaction to the tragic death of a young girl and will be taken through the stages as quickly as possible so that people can be brought to justice and workers who are required to enter private property can feel safer in their work.

The Grand National – A Losing Game?

When it comes to horses, Brits seem to have quite a mixed opinion. The “mighty stallion” may be a creature worthy of respect and admiration, and a significant cut above the mere underlings which are intensively reared for the purpose of reaching the dinner plate as quickly as possible.

Horses are, apparently, meant for something more, and are most certainly not for human consumption; this was reflected in the recent scandal which bred the notion that horses may have gotten closer to the dinner plate than one would like to believe.

Yet while we condemn the atrocious notion of horses ending up in the British food chain, apparently it is a free-for-all when it comes to racing them for human profit; out the window with our respect and in with whatever it takes to push the horses far beyond their physical capability. Then they become mere vehicles on the path to human glory.

The Grand National 2013 is now underway. So far, no lives have been claimed, nor serious injuries sustained, by any horses – that is, in the official competition.

The “warm-up” races in Aintree claimed two equine victims – Battlefront, who was “withdrawn from the competition”, later to collapse and die, and Little Josh, who was “destroyed” after sustaining a serious injury. This is by no means a rare occurrence, indeed quite the contrary. Anyone taking a look at the Animal Aid Horse “Death Watch” campaign can see these horses drop away, one by one, with disturbing regularity.

These deaths occurred on a brand-new race-course which claimed to be far easier for horses to navigate safely, and kinder to them should they fall during the race. According to the Telegraph’s coverage of the new course design, this race was to be “the first competitive test of significant course changes and new fence frames designed to improve safety.”

When considering the way that horses are built, they were never meant to run at top speed and jump such great heights at the same time, and to try to make them will almost certainly result in serious injury or fatality. Essentially, the races force them to go against their physical nature; furthermore, their “herd mentality”, which causes them to run in the first place, is exploited for maximum gain.

Despite the horse fatalities at Aintree, the RSPCA – who have had inspectors monitoring the welfare of the horses more closely this year – seem to be pleased with the condition of the horses during the Grand National 2013. One spokesman said that “We are delighted that the changes seem to have contributed to a safe yet competitive race.”

Furthermore, with changes including “more forgiving” fencing, restrictions on whip use and “run-out areas”, which allow stray horses to escape the racecourse, it seems as if the safety of horses is being taken more seriously.

The real question is, however, if these changes will be enough, and if it is even right to continue to manipulate horses – allowing even moderate risks to their safety – just so that someone, somewhere, can have a “big win”.

With so many supporters continuing to back the Grand National, and with it being so much of a “British institution”, perhaps it will be difficult to convince everyone that it is something that should be consigned to history.

Perhaps all that can be done, at least for the foreseeable future, is to keep a close watch on the horses’ welfare, and never to deem the death or serious injury of any horse as acceptable, or simply “all part of the game”.

The Modern Girl

Appearances are everything, or are they?
I’m the girl that doesn’t care about what people think about me. If you don’t like me that’s your problem not mine. However, to a certain extent can anyone not care that much? I was putting on my make-up this morning when my other half says to me ‘we are only going to the farm shop and your dad’s.’ This makes me think… What if I see someone I know? I can’t be seen looking like I have just rolled out of bed hanging from the night before. Now I have really contradicted myself.
I don’t care what people think but I care about appearances. Does this even make sense? Probably not. It makes me wonder, is this me thinking? Or is it the way the world has taught me to think? After all, in today’s society it’s all about how you look and what you wear isn’t it? Does anyone have their own thoughts any more, or do we think things we are made to think because society tells us it’s right? Take the catwalk for instance; we see all these beautiful models and are left thinking we need to be as skinny as them to look good in clothes. This is when the eating disorders come into play and before we know it we are all playing a role within the same vicious circle. Gone are the days when someone got something on merit and not just because they are hot!
The problem is that it is everywhere now, it’s even in the gym when you go for a work out. Whilst I’m there sweating away my make-up, the girl next to me has caked it on so thick that it really won’t be going anywhere. I’m in my baggy trackies and t-shirt whilst she is in skin tight leggings and a sports bra. Now that is what I call OTT, but heaven forbid she get seen by a cute guy with make-up running down her face. Are we really this vain or is this still society telling us this is the way we should be?
The more I think about this the more I want to pick these girls up and shake some sense into them. It’s time to take a stand. Girls we are beautiful in the ways and shapes we come. You don’t need the next fad diet or extra make-up. People love you for who you are inside not what you look like. So next time you run for the mascara, stop! Take a look in the mirror and think about the things you like about your appearance and personality and help them shine through on a daily basis. After all, when you take away all the so-called important things, does anyone really care if your hair is out of place or if you’re not wearing the latest designs? I doubt it!

Margaret Thatcher is gone, but she’ll never be forgotten

I was going to write my weekly blog this week about the crisis in North Korea and what steps we could take in the West to actually stop some kind of nuclear madness in the Far East. However, when the news broke at lunchtime about the death of Baroness Thatcher it seems churlish not to add to the masses of views being expressed, but try and do so from a slightly different angle.

Let me start by stating the obvious, so as not to give the wrong impression. It is a sad occasion when any human being dies, whatever you think of them personally or in their political, professional or personal life. In this occasion two children have lost a mother. That does not, however, mean that we have to pretend that we liked everything about someone or agreed with everything that they did in political and public life. I also make a declaration that I was only born in 1986, and therefore have no recollection of anything Mrs Thatcher did while in office. I grew up in a household where she was referred to in glowing terms as the saviour of the nation by some, and simply as ‘milk-snatcher’ by others.

There are those who adore Thatcher, and will be affected by her passing in a real way. Those who got rich on the back of the deregulation of the banks in the 1980s and those who paid for the shares in many of the privatised companies she created from the old nationalised telecoms, water and gas companies, among others. There will be those who love her because she defeated socialism in Britain, changed the Labour Party into an essentially right-of-centre party and smashed the Trade Union movement beyond all recognition.

Then there those who will be far from mourning the passing today. These will be the people who may well take to the Internet behind their pretend identities and say some pretty nasty things and most other people will call them names. Some of these people will have (what they think are at least) valid reasons for their comments. Whether they were miners, public servants, trade unionists or believers in nationalised utilities. The sentiments will be shared by many, especially in the northern cities and the rural areas that formally relied on mining.

It’s hard to explain to someone who was either totally in love or totally hated Thatcher that she did some good things and some bad things. She will most likely be remembered for two key events which are seen very differently depending on how you see them. The first event is the Falklands War, with supporters believing it was Britain defending the Empire and coming to aid of those poor Islanders who had been overrun by the Argentines.  Those against point to the chronic waste of money and human life involved in retaking an ultimately pointless piece of land 8000 miles away, most of all the sinking of the Belgrano as it sailed away from the UK fleet.

Secondly there is a miners’ strike. It was either the crushing of the over-powerful unions and the enforcement of the law in the place of an illegal strike or the once and for all blow against the working class, to exert the authority of the state over the working man. It was all about showing them who was in charge. It is hard to find anyone who would hold an opinion which falls somewhere between this two positions.

What is not in doubt, however, is that she continues to cast a shadow over both the country and the political system. Liberal economics and the rampant deregulation of the UK economy laid the foundations for the economic crash which occurred in 2008, with the consequences we live in now. She also instilled a small state ideology in the Tory party which is partly leading to the wild slashing of the state we see today. Most importantly for the political system, her election views in 1983 and 1987 changed the Labour Party into one which is now almost indistinguishable from the people in her own party who Thatcher called ‘wets’. Ed Miliband is even trying to rebrand his party as ‘One Nation’.

But now that she is dead, why have we gone so loopy for the afternoon? Complete suspension of usual TV and radio programmes. No other news stories for the entire afternoon. These may be expected given the stature of the woman and the fact that there isn’t anything else massively dominating the news agenda today. But is it really necessary for David Cameron to return back from his European tour? What exactly is he going to do when he arrives back in the UK?

Then there is the Labour Party, who haven’t helped their critics who say they have become too much like the Tories in recent years. No one would expect them to say anything other than that they are sad; it should be possible that they don’t say anything at all. The fact that they have also decided not to continue to campaign for the local elections in May will do nothing to appeal to the people who they seek to represent, especially as much of this campaigning would have been in the communities that still bare many of the scars of the Thatcher years.

I’ll end with the words of Tony Benn, one of Thatcher’s fiercest critics during the 1980s and unafraid to speak his mind on all occasions. Refusing to jump on the bandwagon of the love-in this afternoon, Benn said that he “couldn’t think of one thing she did which he agreed with.” He did mention, in as close to a tribute as he would ever be likely to get, that “she did what she said she would do given the chance, always said what she meant and meant what she said” and perhaps that is the best way that she could be remembered. She might not be the last conviction politicians, but most of those who have followed appear to be following her own convictions.