WHERE WERE CHRISTIANS WHEN THE ABORTION ACT WAS PASSED IN 1967? SINCE THEN 7 MILLION UNBORN CHILDREN HAVE BEEN ABORTED

WHERE WERE CHRISTIANS when 'NO FAULT DIVORCE' was passed by parliament IN 1996?

WHERE WERE CHRISTIANS WHEN THE ADOPTION ACT 2002 LEGALISED SAME-SEX ADOPTION?

WHERE WERE CHRISTIANS WHEN THE CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS ACT 2004 PUT HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS ON THE SAME FOOTING AS MARRIAGE?

WHERE WILL YOU BE ON WEDNESDAY 21ST MARCH 2007 WHEN THE SEXUAL ORIENTATION REGULATIONS ARE VOTED ON IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR MAKING IT ILLEGAL TO REFUSE TO PROMOTE HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICES?

JOIN THE PRAYER VIGIL OUTSIDE PARLIAMENT ON THE 21ST MARCH (DETAILS BELOW)

House of Lords: Wednesday 21 March 2007

PLEASE COME TO A PRAYER VIGIL OUTSIDE PARLIAMENT AT OLD PALACE YARD (the square opposite the St Stephen's entrance to the House of Lords) ON WEDNESDAY 21ST MARCH FROM 7 TO 9PM WHEN THE FINAL VOTE ON THE SEXUAL ORIENTATION REGULATIONS WILL BE TAKEN. WE PRAY FOR A MIRACLE NEXT WEDNESDAY. HOWEVER, WHATEVER THE OUTCOME IT IS VITAL THAT HISTORY RECORDS CHRISTIANS STANDING FOR TRUTH TO THE VERY END OF THE PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS.

THIS DEBATE NEXT WEDNESDAYIS THE CRUCIAL DEBATE. I BELIEVE IT IS STILL POSSIBLE TO PERSUADE PEERS OF THE LACK OF DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IN BRINGING IN THE SORS AND TO PERSUADE THEM OF GENUINE CONCERNS REGARDING THE CLASH OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN FREEDOMS.

For either one or both of these reasons we encourage all Christians who have any contact with a member of the House of Lords, or who can locate a member who lives in their area (see the link to the 'How to Lobby' sheet, below), to contact them (by letter, email or telephone) and explain the issues involved. PLEASE ASK THEM TO BE PRESENT IN THE CHAMBER NEXT WEDNEDAY AND TO VOTE FOR BARONESS O'CATHAIN'S MOTION NOT TO APPROVE THE SORS (Please see texts below of the Government's motion to approve and Baroness O'Cathain's motion to decline.

Please note that 21 days notice is required to use amplification outside Parliament so it is very unlikely we will be able to obtain permission for such use at the prayer vigil. We intend to use this occasion to make a solemn, prayerful stand for Truth in this Nation.

Briefing for MPs

Key information

The full text of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 can be found at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/draft/20075920.htm.

These Sexual Orientation Regulations (the "SORs") apply to England, Wales and Scotland. They were published on the 7th March 2007 and if approved by Parliament, they will come into force on the 30th April 2007 (parallel SORs for Northern Ireland came into force on the 1st January 2007).

The SORs are intended by the Government to 'outlaw sexual orientation discrimination by goods and services providers in both the public and private sector'[1].

The Government accept that the Regulations raise "complex issues" about how to reconcile "competing rights and freedoms"[2]. This law has serious implications for the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion which have existed in this country for many centuries.

The Government have said about the SORs that "this is not just about legislation it is about ultimately changing the culture of our society".[3] They also claim that the Regulations are "the moral and appropriate thing to do".[4]

The SORs adopt the approach in law that the right to live a homosexual lifestyle should trump the right to live a Christian lifestyle[5].

The House of Commons passed the SORs on the 15th March 2007 in a Committee of 16 MPs in a procedure which was roundly criticised by Lib-Dem, Labour and Conservative members of that Committee. The approach taken by the Government in giving only 17 hours notice to members of the Committee before their meeting at 8:55am was described as "bringing the House into disrepute"[6]. The 90 minutes given for the debate, involving only 1 MP (other than the 3 front-bench spokespeople) having the opportunity to make a speech was described as "an outrage as far as democracy is concerned"[7].

Important points

Christian organisations support the principle of outlawing unjustified discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

The opposition from Christians to elements of the SORs is based on extremely important issues of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. It is a question of balancing rights.

The Government has said "You can either be against discrimination or you can allow for it"[8] which is a gross simplification of the issues raised by the SORs. Discrimination cuts both ways: in making discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation unlawful, the SORs discriminate heavily against those with strongly held religious convictions (see specific examples, below).

The Government has not published a single piece of evidence to support the need for these Regulations. The only reference they made in the consultation paper to support the need for the legislation was from "several accounts in national newspapers" [9].

Both the Government[10] and others[11] have made repeated comparisons between sexual orientation and race and sex in order to justify the need to outlaw discrimination through the SORs. Arguments based on this comparison have not been supported by a single piece of scientific or empirical evidence. They are therefore misleading and of no value.

Attempts by supporters of the SORs to say that any opposition to the Regulations is an attempt to "legalise homophobia and bigotry"[12] deliberately ignores the rational, balanced and reasonable criticisms of some aspects of the Regulations made by many in the faith community.

Attempts to label Christian groups who oppose the SORs as 'homophobic' are attempts to stifle open debate about the Regulations. Christians' view of sexual morality is based squarely on the Bible's teaching that God loves everyone and that he created sex to be enjoyed exclusively in the context of a marriage between a man and a woman. That is not a homophobic view.

Supporters of the Regulations say they are needed to "send out a message that we will put behind us the days of violence against homosexual people"[13]. This is misleading because the SORs do not deal with violence, harassment or associated behaviour against homosexuals. There are numerous existing legal provisions dealing with these things.

The concern about these Regulations from the religious community has been widespread and united. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, as well as the Bishop of Durham and the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England have spoken out publicly in supporting those concerns, as has the Chief Rabbi and the Muslim Council of Britain. In Northern Ireland a detailed joint statement was issued by the Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Church of Ireland and Methodists, criticising the content of the Regulations and calling for amendments to be made.

The House of Lords Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee has "drawn the special attention of the House" to the SORs "on the grounds they give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House" (15th March 2007)[14].

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (JCSI) drew the "special attention of both Houses to the Regulations on the grounds that they are defectively drafted"[15] in relation to the Northern Ireland SORs. The JCSI are yet to publish their report on the England, Wales and Scotland SORs.

Amendments to the Regulations can only be made by the House of Lords voting against them (this would allow amended Regulations to be re-introduced by the Government).

Freedom of religion

In Regulation 14 of the SORs, there is an exemption from the non-discrimination requirements for organisations whose purpose is to practice, advance or teach a religious belief. This exemption acts to prevent, for example, a vicar in a church from being required to carry out a blessing of a practising homosexual couple in a civil partnership.

That this exemption is necessary recognises a basic principle: "The Government is clear that nobody should be required to act in a way that contravenes their core religious beliefs"[16]. However, the way the Regulations have been drafted manifestly fails to safeguard this principle.

Christians have argued from the moment the SORs were proposed that the law should not force them to act in a manner contrary to the Bible's teaching by requiring them to actively condone any extra-marital sexual conduct (heterosexual or homosexual).

However, it is clear (from the following examples) that the SORs will do this. As far as Christians are concerned, the SORs are certainly not "a big step forward towards dignity, respect and fairness"[17].

The SORs leave a crucial gap in the protection of vicars and ministers[18] so that it will be illegal under Regulation 11 for them to teach their congregation that they should follow the Bible's teaching on sexual morality even where this conflicts with the SORs. For example, it would be illegal for a vicar to cite the example of a Christian printing company asked to print material promoting homosexuality, and then say 'it is better to follow the Bible's teaching and risk being sued than to be complicit in sin by printing leaflets promoting gay pride'.

The Regulation 14 exemption applies only to organisations - individuals are not protected. This is illogical: Christianity quite clearly makes the same requirements of an individual (that they do not condone sinful behaviour) as it makes of a Christian organisation such as a church.

The SORs are inconsistent and discriminatory because they tell a Christian that whilst in church they have (subject to 1), above) freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and freedom of expression to be taught that homosexual practice is a sin, outside the doors of the church, legislation makes it illegal for them to refuse to promote and assist homosexual practice.

Under the SORs an individual Christian GP, for example, would have no freedom of conscience to refuse to give a reference recommending homosexual parents as suitable for adopting if the GP did not believe it would be right / in the best interests of a child to be raised without a father and a mother. This is inconsistent with the freedom of conscience afforded to the same doctor under the Abortion Act to refuse to recommend / perform an abortion.

The SORs give no protection to a church or other religious organisation where they receive funding from the local authority to provide goods or services such that if a church receives state funding to run, for example, an overnight homeless shelter, it will lose all the protection under Regulation 14 and would not even be able to refuse membership of the church to openly practising homosexuals[19].

Under the SORs there is no protection for commercial Christian organisations, however strong their Christian ethos. There is no doubt that under the Regulations a Christian printing company will be acting illegally if they refuse to print fliers promoting gay sex. This is completely at odds with the Government's promise in November 2006 that "I would like to take this opportunity to clarify that the Regulations will not require anyone to promote gay rights or a homosexual lifestyle'"[20].

Further examples under the Regulations include the fact that it will be illegal for an Islamic wedding photographer to refuse to attend and take publicity photographs at a gay Civil Partnership ceremony and it will be illegal for a Jewish conference centre to refuse to allow its premises to be used by an organisation promoting homosexual practice.

Under the SORs there is no protection for many voluntary organisations which, although run by Christians who are motivated by their faith, are not strictly 'religious' in the language of the legislation (e.g. a Christian homeless shelter would not be able to hold the policy that 'we will not provide services to someone if this were to promote homosexual practices').

The case (featured in The Telegraph, 12/12/06)[21] with Haringey Council illustrates the point. The Christian lady running the voluntary Family Centre explained very clearly to the Council that her position was "We welcome gay people but we will not promote gay values". This was not enough to satisfy the local council who threatened to withdraw funding from the centre. The SORs will have the same impact in hundreds of other cases.

It is important to note that it is quite possible to draft the SORs in a way which strikes a better balance between the competing rights, and the Government could easily have done more to safeguard the fundamental freedoms of those who hold religious beliefs. For example, under similar Canadian laws, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that a Christian printer could not be compelled to print everything a gay or lesbian organization brought to him where to do so was contrary to fundamental beliefs (Ontario Human Rights Commission v Brockie (2002)).

Education

The Government has repeatedly stated that "the Regulations will not require changes in the current curriculum nor will they force schools to change how they deliver education to their pupils"[22] and yet the specialist Parliamentary lawyers who advised the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments only the day before this statement was made, were adamant that the curriculum was covered by the SORs. The Joint Committee on Human Rights stated that this issue was in urgent need of clarification by the Government[23].

If the SORs do apply to the curriculum then they will make it illegal for all schools (including faith schools) to subject a pupil to "any other detriment"[24] (defined by judges as meaning very broadly "putting at a disadvantage"[25]) by the teaching that is given. The homosexual parents of a school child could argue that the child was 'put at a disadvantage' if the school (even if it was a Christian school) was failing to educate pupils that homosexual relationships were just as acceptable as marriage relationships.
There are already reports of schools who understand their obligation under the SORs will be to begin to promote homosexuality: "Fourteen primary schools are already taking part in a £600,000 Government-funded study aimed at familiarising children with gay and lesbian relationships. [...] Dr Elizabeth Atkinson, reader in social and educational inquiry at Sunderland University, said: "The purpose of the project is to support schools in meeting their requirements under the Equality Act, which will require all public institutions to meet the needs of gay and lesbian users."[26]

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has also expressed the remarkably illiberal view that "the Regulations should clearly apply to the curriculum, so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching, as part of their religious education or other curriculum, that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong"[27].

Procedural issues relating to the Regulations

Between March 2006[28] and January 2007[29], no information at all was given by the Government regarding the content of the highly controversial SORs. When concerns were repeatedly raised, the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship were told (in a letter from Meg Munn MP, 17th November 2006) "We will publish a Government response to the consultation setting out our conclusions in the light of the consultation findings in good time to meet the timetable for commencement".

After the 11 month silence, the Government published both the Regulations and their response to the consultation on the 7th March. Within 7 days they had expedited proceedings so that the SORs went through the House of Lords Merits Committee, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the House of Commons Delegated Legislation Committee. Within 14 days of publication, the SORs will have gone through both Houses and, unless opposed in the Lords, will become law.

This procedure is undemocratic and makes a mockery of the Government's supposed commitment to listening to the views of the electorate (an unprecedented number of whom submitted to the consultation on the SORs: there was an "exceptionally strong response"[30] on the issue of religious freedom in favour of broader exemptions).

Repeated requests were made by MPs in the Delegated Legislation Committee to postpone the debate. The requests were refused by the Labour MP chairing the debate. That chairperson declared that the only way possible to delay the debate would be for a dilatory motion to be passed. When an MP duly sought to bring such a motion the chairperson refused to accept it: it was not even allowed to go to a vote.

Not one Lib Dem or Labour MP (aside from their respective frontbench spokespeople) had the chance to speak[31] about the Regulations, and the only Conservative MP (other than their spokesperson) who was called by the chair only had 2 minutes before the vote was called. Ironically, just one week earlier Ruth Kelly stated about the SORs that "Good Government is not about ducking difficult questions - it is about robust debate".[32]

In the time between their publication on the 7th March and the Delegated Legislation Committee meeting on the 15th March, the SORs had been withdrawn 3 times because of drafting defects. Over 20 changes were made to the Regulations within this time and many of those changes affected the scope and substantive impact of the Regulations.

In addition, in their consultation paper on the SORs the Government declared that "We look forward to hearing your views on our proposals, so that we can take these into account"[33] but it appears that the responses were ignored in relation to the key issues. Although "a majority of both individuals and organisations sought a widening to the [proposed] exemptions"[34] the Government rejected this.

The SORs are now due to be laid in the House of Commons on Monday 19th March. On Friday 16th March there was a rumour that there may also be a vote on the floor of the House of Commons on Monday 19th March and not on Wednesday as would be usual practice in this situation. This news has come late and at a time when MPs may not have had time to realise what is happening and that there might be a crucial vote.

We request MPs to be present at the vote on the SORs and to vote against them.