Interesting Links for 12-12-2012

[andrewducker]

• Six scientists tell us about the most accurate science fiction in their fields
  (tags: science scifi writing )
• Church of England to be banned from carrying out same sex marriages.
  (tags: uk ChurchOfEngland religion lgbt marriage law )
• Swedish football team sacks its entire first squad for homophobic abuse
  (tags: lgbt homophobia sweden )

Comments

[danieldwilliam]

The legislative bar on the Church of England etc performing same-sex marriages does make for an interesting focal point for a sustained campaign of protest.

[andrewducker]

Well, that would be one for the church itself. I can understand why they've done it (see nice writeup here: http://www.andrewrilstone.com/2012/12/that-would-be-ecumenical-matter.html ) - but it's a mess!

[danieldwilliam]

That is a good write up.

I think this moves us closer to sexuality equality and closer to dis-establisment, closer to Lords Reform and closer to republicanism.

I’m all in favour.

[marrog]

I think it's pretty hilarious, and is actually bordering on deliberately passive-aggressive and patronising on the part of the government - and I think the Church deserves it.

[danieldwilliam]

Would you say some more about the deliberately passive-aggressive stance?

[marrog]

Well, I guess what I mean is that the government are quite clear on the fact that they don't want to force anyone into marrying anyone they don't want to, and there's already a precedent enshrined in the CofE's procedure for this - that is to say, no CofE minister has to marry someone they really can't see their way to marrying in good faith - for example, very old fashioned ministers who don't want to preside over marriages of divorcees (ironically).

Some areas of the CofE - I would hazard most, in fact, judging by the general background murmur - would probably much rather just let this stand as a matter of conscience, deal with the legal challenges as they happen (and to be fair they probably would happen) as part and parcel of being part of the establishment, and work from within the church to incrementally change the overriding stance on this - mostly through waiting for a bunch of people to die

[marrog]

Caveat: the above is basically 'my opinion based on my feel of the situation' - I'm not proposing it as a complex, nuanced analysis necessarily.

[coughingbear]

Given how very very far we frustratingly are from republicanism, I suppose it could hardly move us further away! Really hope you're right about disestablishment, though I don't think anyone will attempt to do anything about that so long as the Queen is alive.

[danieldwilliam]

Aye - we’re a long way from republicanism.

I think we would have to do disestablismentism before we can do republicanism. I think it is easier to remove roles from the current head of state until the role has no actual purpose than to replace the current arrangement with something else. A salami slice tactic.

I think in order to get stuff done you have to unpick things in the right order. (So we won’t get PR for Westminster until we get PR for local government).

So I’d do a few nibbles round the edge first

- FOI applies to the royal family.
- gender equality for rules of inheritance. (done, religious equality is harder to do because of being the head of the Established Church).
- increasing restrictions on royal privileges
- a campaign on the cost of the monarcy

Then I’d try disestablismentism.

Then when the current incumbent dies I’d try for a republic. If not a republic I’d have a campaign for a widespread refusal to swear oaths to the new monarch.

(Perhaps also a shadow campaign to have the Stuarts returned.)

[danieldwilliam]

Aye - we’re a long way from republicanism.

I think we would have to do disestablismentism before we can do republicanism. I think it is easier to remove roles from the current head of state until the role has no actual purpose than to replace the current arrangement with something else. A salami slice tactic.

I think in order to get stuff done you have to unpick things in the right order. (So we won’t get PR for Westminster until we get PR for local government).

So I’d do a few nibbles round the edge first

- FOI applies to the royal family.
- gender equality for rules of inheritance. (done, religious equality is harder to do because of being the head of the Established Church).
- increasing restrictions on royal privileges
- a campaign on the cost of the monarcy

Then I’d try disestablismentism.

Then when the current incumbent dies I’d try for a republic. If not a republic I’d have a campaign for a widespread refusal to swear oaths to the new monarch.

(Perhaps also a shadow campaign to have the Stuarts returned.)

[coughingbear]

One interesting thing is what will happen to the Head of the Commonwealth when the Queen dies - she's made that a fairly active role (not always to the pleasure of the government of the day) and it's been good for her public image but of course it's not technically hereditary.

[danieldwilliam]

I think there are interesting times ahead with the Commonwealth if the Middleton baby is *bad italian accent* feminine child. That’s a lot of countries to bring into the 21st Century all at once.

[andrewducker]

16 of them. Who already agreed, unanimously:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15492607

[danieldwilliam]

They've agreed when their legislatures have actually passed the necessary legislation.

[coughingbear]

Would be fascinating if we ended up with different inheritance rules in different countries, certainly, but I think they'd probably manage the legislation before any inheritance actually took place. But I am very interested in whether the republics as well as the monarchies will accept Charles as the next Head of the Commonwealth (I think it's likely, but I also think he'll struggle to make it a positive role in the way his mother has). Also whether countries like Australia and NZ turn republican after the Queen dies and that personal support isn't there, and what kind of effect that will have in the UK (assuming the UK still exists!).

[danieldwilliam]

I can see a second referendum on the monarcy in Australia a few years after QEII dies. The first one was probably lost on the exact wording of the question. I don’t see the republican movement in Australia falling for the same trick a second time, especially with the demographic shift one would expect over the coming ten years.

I'd expect it to make some difference to us. Again, it's part of the whole unpicking of the role, the indiviual and the privilege. If the republican movement are smart they (we) will play the man and not the ball.

I am reminded of the joint crowns of the UK and Hanover, which, upon the death of William IV separated as, under Salic Law Victoria could not succeed to the thrown of Hanover and William's younger brother became king.