British politics round up
+ There's been a story picking up momentum recently that David Cameron is supporting a commission that's looking into banning same-sex kisses on British TV before 9pm. As far as I can tell, this isn't actually true and is a result of the Daily Mail and The Sun doing some stirring, and the queer press taking it and running with it.
What I think is actually happening is that: there is a report being put together by Reg Bailey and the Mothers' Union (more on them in a minute) about whether high street advertising and pre-watershed television in general is too sexualised and inappropriate for children. Cameron appears to have made a general remark saying that he is concerned about the issue.
I have general concerns about this report - for one thing, it seems to be lumping together really different issues, like the marketing of things like padded bras and stationary with the Playboy logo on to 10-year-old girls, to sexualised musical performances on talent shows, to sexual content in TV dramas. Also, Mothers' Union is a religious organisation, which concerns me in this context. And as you know, Bob, queer content is often automatically perceived as 'higher-rated' than equivalent het content, so there's definitely a worry that depending on whether this report comes to anything, programming with queer content could be under pressure to 'tone it down'. So, watch this space, but the headline going round that Cameron wants to ban same-sex kisses is, well, somewhat unfounded so far as I can see.
Sources: BBC, Daily Mail, Mothers' Union statement.
+ Of more pressing concern: Tory MP Nadine Dorries. She's trying to put a couple of amendments through Parliament at the moment, both of which disturb me.
One: enforced abstinence-only sex education specifically for girls. To quote:
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require schools to provide certain additional sex education to girls aged between 13 and 16; to provide that such education must include information and advice on the benefits of abstinence from sexual activity; and for connected purposes.
(Official source.)
Two: abortion access restrictions.
Conservative MP Nadine Dorries, with the help of former Labour minister Frank Field, has tabled an amendment to the upcoming Health and Social Care Bill that aims to introduce mandatory counselling for women seeking abortions, a move which not only disregards counselling arrangements currently in place, but which would create further delays and obstacles for women seeking abortion care.
...
Anti-abortion activists not only choose to disregard these recommendations, but now seek to discredit the RCOG, casting doubt on its impartiality by claiming it has an absurdly liberal agenda and ‘incestuous’ ties to the ‘abortion industry’. Dorries and Field have therefore tabled a second amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill seeking to remove responsibility for abortion guidelines from the RCOG altogether.
While we must call anti-abortion activists to account for their disregard of medical evidence and ignorance of abortion practice as it currently stands, we can be somewhat reassured that on this occasion their proposals have little chance of progressing through Parliament and becoming law.
But we must remain in no doubt that, for all their protestations that they are ‘pro-woman’ and simply seeking to stand up for the rights of the ‘vulnerable and bewildered’, their true aim is to deter, delay and prevent women from accessing abortion when they choose to do so.
(Abortion Rights UK, with links for how to protest this for UK citizens.)
And lastly, a quote for Dorries herself:
“The problem is the churches have withdrawn. Where I grew up the priest was king. We were scared of priests - the same with the vicars. The Church played a very important role. The Church set boundaries. So did schools, doctors, district nurses. But the Church withdrew, the state became anonymous and society went into freefall. One of the things about the Big Society is to try to put those boundaries back. But the Church has to step up to the plate….I’m talking about priests working with communities and admitting to a level of authority they used to.”
No. Get your personal religious convictions out of my secular government, please and thank you.
-- This entry has
comment(s) at Dreamwidth. Comment using your Dreamwidth account or OpenID.
What I think is actually happening is that: there is a report being put together by Reg Bailey and the Mothers' Union (more on them in a minute) about whether high street advertising and pre-watershed television in general is too sexualised and inappropriate for children. Cameron appears to have made a general remark saying that he is concerned about the issue.
I have general concerns about this report - for one thing, it seems to be lumping together really different issues, like the marketing of things like padded bras and stationary with the Playboy logo on to 10-year-old girls, to sexualised musical performances on talent shows, to sexual content in TV dramas. Also, Mothers' Union is a religious organisation, which concerns me in this context. And as you know, Bob, queer content is often automatically perceived as 'higher-rated' than equivalent het content, so there's definitely a worry that depending on whether this report comes to anything, programming with queer content could be under pressure to 'tone it down'. So, watch this space, but the headline going round that Cameron wants to ban same-sex kisses is, well, somewhat unfounded so far as I can see.
Sources: BBC, Daily Mail, Mothers' Union statement.
+ Of more pressing concern: Tory MP Nadine Dorries. She's trying to put a couple of amendments through Parliament at the moment, both of which disturb me.
One: enforced abstinence-only sex education specifically for girls. To quote:
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require schools to provide certain additional sex education to girls aged between 13 and 16; to provide that such education must include information and advice on the benefits of abstinence from sexual activity; and for connected purposes.
(Official source.)
Two: abortion access restrictions.
Conservative MP Nadine Dorries, with the help of former Labour minister Frank Field, has tabled an amendment to the upcoming Health and Social Care Bill that aims to introduce mandatory counselling for women seeking abortions, a move which not only disregards counselling arrangements currently in place, but which would create further delays and obstacles for women seeking abortion care.
...
Anti-abortion activists not only choose to disregard these recommendations, but now seek to discredit the RCOG, casting doubt on its impartiality by claiming it has an absurdly liberal agenda and ‘incestuous’ ties to the ‘abortion industry’. Dorries and Field have therefore tabled a second amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill seeking to remove responsibility for abortion guidelines from the RCOG altogether.
While we must call anti-abortion activists to account for their disregard of medical evidence and ignorance of abortion practice as it currently stands, we can be somewhat reassured that on this occasion their proposals have little chance of progressing through Parliament and becoming law.
But we must remain in no doubt that, for all their protestations that they are ‘pro-woman’ and simply seeking to stand up for the rights of the ‘vulnerable and bewildered’, their true aim is to deter, delay and prevent women from accessing abortion when they choose to do so.
(Abortion Rights UK, with links for how to protest this for UK citizens.)
And lastly, a quote for Dorries herself:
“The problem is the churches have withdrawn. Where I grew up the priest was king. We were scared of priests - the same with the vicars. The Church played a very important role. The Church set boundaries. So did schools, doctors, district nurses. But the Church withdrew, the state became anonymous and society went into freefall. One of the things about the Big Society is to try to put those boundaries back. But the Church has to step up to the plate….I’m talking about priests working with communities and admitting to a level of authority they used to.”
No. Get your personal religious convictions out of my secular government, please and thank you.
-- This entry has
comment(s) at Dreamwidth. Comment using your Dreamwidth account or OpenID.