EU Budget

The right wing press is having a field day.  The papers are full of headlines such as "One Step Nearer to the EU Exit", "Britain closer to quitting EU", "Cameron defies wealth tax" etc.  The language of the press is one of war.  War against our closest neighbours and most important trading partners.  Our prime minister banged his hand down on the table, went red and puffy in the face and spoke of his anger and said "I'm not going to pay that bill!"  Certain backbench Tories screamed that the demand was "illegal" and he was told to ignore it.

Judging by Twitter, Europhiles are left wringing their hands in despair, almost giving up the fight.  This is a gift for the Eurosceptics, must be an inside job by a UKIPer at Brussels, total idiocy by the EU, makes it hard to defend them etc.  Certainly a chunk of Labour is seeking to out Tory the Tories, as they have done on immigration, by rushing to get behind the populist call to stop Brussels in its latest outrage.  Let's just turn the pan off boil for a moment and look at all this a bit more dispassionately.

PM "goes to war"

We're being Singled Out

The first general reaction yesterday seemed to be that Britain was being singled out by "Brussels" by arbitrarily having a bill slapped on it to pay a great deal of money in a completely unreasonable space of time.  People were asking if this was deliberate spite by Brussels, or whether it was designed to push us out.  In total it was, perhaps predictably, a typically UK centric reaction.  It is of course the one that's being carried through in the tabloids. 

I looked at the story and asked myself whether any one else had been given a similar demand.   It turns out that 11 of the 28 member states have in fact been asked to pay more.  So clearly it's not just us.

Our figure, €2.1 billion, is however far larger than any other country's.  Except the British economy and population is far larger than say the Netherlands': we have 64 million inhabitants, they have 16 million people.  So I took the figures that were being reported and did a 3 second calculation.  We are being asked for €2.1 billion extra; the Netherlands are being asked for €642 million (I had to go to the Dutch press for that as the reaction was so uniquely UK-centric at first).

So that's a demand of €32 per person for the year from every Briton and one of... oh, 20% more than that, or €38 per person, from every Dutch person.

Suddenly it's becoming a bit tricky to see this as a hate campaign directed solely at Perfidious Albion, masterminded by a garlic munching Frenchman and a beer-swilling German, over a waffle in a side street Belgian café, determined to get their revenge for our success at Empire and the War.

It's "Brussels' Fault"

Some people talk about Brussels as if it is some huge amorphous blob made up of foreigner bureaucrats that is designed solely to make our lives miserable.   It is all imposed on us from abroad, with no democratic input whatsoever.  They seem oblivious to the fact that all the important decision making, the really key stuff, is made by a body called the European Council.

Who is the European Council made up of?  It's the heads of state or government of the national states.  Yep: it's David Cameron for the United Kingdom.  It's a tiny body: 28 people for each one of the member states, plus the Council president and the Commission president.  This isn't thousands of foreign civil servants.  It's our democratically elected national leaders setting out the political agenda and workings of the EU. 

The Council determines how the EU works, by creating and amending treaties, and by making decisions.  One of those decisions was made back in 2007 and it was unanimously adopted.  It wasn't anything sexy or exciting: it concerned the method for calculating the annual EU budget, and in particular the dreary way statistics are calculated.  Once the rule is made, it's then over to the hordes of bureaucrats at the Commission, Eurostat and other EU bodies.  Remember every one of these bodies was set up as a result of the decisions of the democratically elected national leaders, to carry out their will.

Don't like the rules?  Blame our leaders, who created them.  It's not the fault of people whose job it is to carry the rules as they have been instructed to.  If they're doing their job poorly they deserve criticism, but if they are applying the rules as they are supposed to, it is hard to blame "Brussels".  Unless you're a complete idiot, of course.

(Picture in no way linked to preceding sentence)

Why the Demand?

Britain has been consistently reporting too low values for our Gross National Income over the last years.  Hence there has been a large adjustments upwards.  It's that simple.  We weren't happy with the way the statistics were calculated by everyone, wanted the system to be fairer, and have now found out we've been underpaying. 

The reason the story has hit the news is that the FT published a leaked draft report on the statistics.  You can read here in detail why the report says what it does, but here it is in essence:

• In May of every year the EU Commission is required to meet with representatives of each state to estimate what their Gross National Income will be for the coming year.  
• Every autumn they meet again to see if there are any revisions to the numbers.  This is a purely mathematical revision.
• It enables the Commission to set the revised figures in stone on 1 December of each year, as it is required to do.

This year, the difference was that because Heads of Government insisted on it, the statistics provided in May were calculated on a different basis.  The aim was to make sure each country calculates its statistics in exactly the same way, to ensure what everyone pays is fair and above board.  It's not a bad principle.  The calculations used 1995 as a benchmark year.

Patrizio Fiorilli is the spokesman for the EU budget commissioner.  He commented "The timing is far from ideal, but there are rules we have to follow."   As for using 1995 as the benchmark year for calculating the impact of GNI figures: “Member states including Britain insisted on this. It is their decision,” he said.

This is a one-off large scale revision: in the UK's case it actually relates to 11 years of underpayment that works out to £155 million a year on average.  It is a historic correction, not an ongoing demand for massive new contributions as many no doubt think.  The Commission confirmed this yesterday: "With all these issues now cleared, future such corrections will again be rather minor, as they were in recent years."

Addendum: What hope is there when the national broadcaster wrongly claims as it did in this report, that it is an annual additional £1.7 billion that has to be paid?  (They've since corrected it):

The Financial Times by contrast described the £155 million figure as "a sum that would barely deserve a footnote in the annual UK national accounts.

The 1 December deadline

The Commission hasn't plucked this date from the air either.  It is the date that is set out in the rules that are followed every year, as described above.   Apparently the PM found out about the issue on Thursday.  The government admits the Chancellor knew on 21 October, but didn't tell the PM until 23 October.  If this is such a massive issue (more on that below) you'd think George would have texted Dave and warned him WW3 was about to break out.  Maybe he didn't have his mobile number.  In turn, the Commission confirmed member countries were told of the revisions on 17 October.  You'd assume someone would have sent an email off to the Chancellor a bit faster than all that.

Our representatives in all this, the people on the ground, are employees of the Treasury.  A good question was whether they realised that there would be a large revision, or whether it was sprung on them.  They are the ones who prepared the statistics for the meeting in May.  It seems a little unlikely that someone didn't notice the massive difference in the GNI figures that led to the €2bn recalculation.

HM Treasury.  George's patch

Labour’s new shadow Europe minister, Pat McFadden, said last night that he had found evidence that ministers must have been aware of the upcoming changes five months ago when they were sent an Office for National Statistics report which stated that growth figures would be used in a recalculation of Britain’s contribution to the EU budget.

Did the Government delay making news public about this expected revision to the UK’s EU contribution because of fears about how it would play out for the Conservative party?” he asked.  Never!  Our PM would never allow a paralysing fear of UKIP to affect something as important as this just because of his party interests.  Surely.

Turning the Tables

The Prime Minister has ruled out paying the €2.1 billion on 1 December.  He hasn't ruled out paying it entirely on a different date.  He really can't: he is part of the club that has agreed the way all this works.  It's not up for him to argue that rules should be bent: a constant criticism of others is that they don't stick to the agreed rules and should do so.  It is also interesting to imagine a situation where it transpired the UK had been overpaying, rather then underpaying.  I can't imagine we'd be throwing our toys out of the pram if that were the case. 

It's the exact position Germany and France are in, for example.  They have been overpaying for years and are entitled to a reduction on that basis.  I don't see why they should agree to give up that refund of money, in the same way we never would.  In terms of the bigger picture, Germany contributes more to the EU budget than the 19 smallest states do combined.  They contribute not that far off double what the UK does.

It might seem instinctively "cruel" or "perverse" that Greece is being included in the countries that is being required to make an increased payment this year given its economic situation.  But hold on one moment: it is being requested to pay an adjustment of €89.4 million.  That is, with respect, chicken-feed in terms of a national budget, even a country like Greece that has been ravaged by the inhuman policies of austerity.  The fact they are being asked for the payment reflects solely the fact that they have been underpaying previously and there is a fair, objective application of the rules across the board.

Another important thing to note is the stat contained in the bottom right hand of the above table.  This isn't the EU conducting a "cash-grab" as has been suggested.  The budget will actually be €419 million shorter on revenues than had been expected as a result of the application of the rules.  Was it the Prime Minister or was it Farage (I genuinely forget) who excitedly said "This isn't fair, they weren't expecting this extra money!" - the fact is they are going to be working off less money, not more next year. 

Sex and Drugs

Some people in my timeline got terribly excited about the fact that our "black economy" was being included in the statistical calculations for the first time, and that this could be responsible for the increased payment.

It is correct that our GDP was given a £10 billion boost after officials worked out that paid sex work represented £5.3 billion for the economy.  In other EU countries such as Germany and Netherlands such work is legal and taxed, and has therefore been included in the statistics for years.  It is therefore fair (as the national leaders agreed) that everything should be calculated on the same basis.  Another £4.4 billion was added from the sale of illegal drugs.  However, our economy is worth $2,900 billion.  These figures represent under 1% of GDP and are hardly responsible for most or all of the €2.1 billion repayment figure.

Still, a headline of "Sex work and drugs lift EU bill" gets the clicks, I guess.

Huge Numbers

It's so hard for us mere mortals to understand numbers involving multiple rows of zeros on the end.  What does a million anything look like?  A billion?  A trillion?  We can only go on the outrage that politicians express and if they sound terribly cross, assume this must be a massive thing.  €2.1 billion sounds like a huge deal anyhow.  Will we ever be able to afford it?

It is undoubtedly a lot of money.  Just three days ago, however, it became clear that government borrowing was 10% higher than a year ago.  Its spending last month was £11.8 billion.  That's in one month.  The overshoot in spending was - wait for it - £1.6 billion higher (€2.03 billion) in that single month than it had been in September 2013.  The Tories' careful management of the economy involved an overspend that was a full £1 billion over the expectations of the City.

This sparked ABSOLUTE OUTRAGE.  TALK OF WAR.  CAMERON BANGING TABLES.  RIOTS IN THE STREETS.  WITHDRAWAL FROM EVERYTHING.  Oh. Actually, there was a story in the Guardian and one in the economics section of the Telegraph and everyone just carried on.

It's clear that utter double standards apply, and people just aren't applying critical faculties to this.  The EU payment is a one-off, correcting possibly twenty years of underpayment by us, which was because of the statistics we supplied.  It is in accordance with the rules we insisted on.  The Government is slashing spending left right and centre, quite deliberately taking away payments from the long term disabled, and yet they are overspending to the tune of £1.6 billion in a single month.  Hardly an eye brow is raised.

Where are the howls of outrage on the front page of the Mail or the Express over this?  The simple fact is that the howls in the EU case come from the fact that Johnny Foreigner is seen as making the "unfair" demand, and nothing sells as well as xenophobia in today's toxic Britain.

EU Myths and Lies

Whilst we're on the subject of myths let's get something straight about EU spending.  It is not going on an army of fraudulent, lazy bureaucrats in Brussels, and it does not represent a mountain of gold.

The EU budget was €144 billion in total in 2013.  The member states' national budgets were €6,400 billion by contrast.  It stands at around 1% of the 28 EU countries' GDP, whereas the budgets of national governments represent 49% of their GDP on average.  The EU budget is always balanced, so there is no deficit or debt - unlike with national governments.

94% of what we pay into the EU comes back on expenditure in EU countries on policies and programmes that directly benefit people who live in the EU.  That includes to you and me on all sorts of programmes, regional spending etc - £5.2 billion in the United Kingdom every year.  6% goes on administration.  Less than 0.2% of EU spending goes on fraud.

On top of everything the UK still gets an annual rebate on its payments: a legacy of Mrs Thatcher that is worth over €3 billion a year to us.  That's pure special treatment for Britain.

The Commission estimates that in 2013 the average EU citizen paid only €0,89 a day (£0.70) towards the EU budget.  It points out that's less than half the price of a cup of coffee.  It genuinely is hardly very expensive given the benefits that the EU brings its citizens.  The CBI puts the value of UK membership of the EU at between £62bn and £78bn a year in extra trade and intangible benefits.  This means jobs and income for ordinary people.  €8.6 billion in and over £60 billion back out?  That seems a pretty darn good deal to me.

Final Word: over to Carl

So there we have it.  In summary, we asked for these rules.  We've been paying too little for years.   The chutzpah of David Cameron is amazing.  He truly is a showman: he's successfully convincing people in this country that the EU really is a conspiracy that has unfairly singled out Britain (and pretty much Britain alone) to stump up loads of cash unfairly.  This hasn't been known for months: oh no, it's just come to light.  And it's a massive, massive amount of money with loads and loads of zeros (unlike the amount his chancellor and best mate is overspending on literally a monthly basis) that we can't and won't pay.  And Europhiles and Labour supporters are falling hook line and sinker for this utter tosh.

I have no idea who Carl Hornsey is, but this was retweeted into my timeline.  He puts it all much more succinctly than I do.  I like his style.

Abseiling Lesbians

February is LGBT History Month and 2 February 2013 marks the 25th anniversary of a remarkable event in British LGBT history.. the storming of the House of Lords by abseiling lesbians.  This is my little tribute to them.

"Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin"

For anyone lucky enough not to remember, here's some quick background.  In 1981 a straight Danish woman, Susanne Bösche, wrote an illustrated children's book called "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin".  It covered, for example, a trip to the laundrette, a surprise birthday party, and an incident of homophobia in the street.  Her aim was to show to children that it's perfectly fine that some people grow up with different family situations.  As she puts it "It's not possible to go through life without meeting people living in different ways, and they shouldn't come as a shock to anybody" Here's an excellent radio piece from the BBC on it and a lovely Guardian interview with Susanne, in which she describes her gentle, incredibly reasonable, intentions.

When the book came out in English translation, there was uproar from the British tabloid press.  In 1983, the Mail reported that a copy had been found in one school library in Labour-controlled Haringey and a storm developed with the press reporting that outraged parents didn't want their children subjected to "images of semi-naked men in bed with a 7 year old girl".  A cultural gulf between Nordic countries, where families routinely have breakfast in bed together, and 80s Tory Britain where they apparently did not, was about to have explosive results.  The Sun, the Star and the Mail led the hectoring and onslaught of prejudice and hate-speech against gay people.  The book was apparently "blatant propaganda for homosexuality".

Only one copy of the book was ever found in that one school library.  There is no evidence it was ever lent out, nor that a single schoolchild ever read it.  If they had, the homophobic lobby would surely have highlighted it.

This was a ghastly time for many in Britain.  Thatcherism was causing enormous social and political upheaval. Terrence Higgins had in 1982 become the first gay man in this country to die of Aids. Several Labour councils were pilloried for taking the (radical!) step of including sexual orientation in a list of discrimination policies, and the Labour-controlled Greater London Council, headed by Ken Livingstone, was attacked for funding the London Lesbian and Gay Centre which occupied a  building in Farringdon.  Bear in mind also that it was only in 1980 that sex between consenting adult males men stopped being a criminal offence in Scotland, and in 1982 in Northern Ireland.
 
"Pretend Family Relationships"

The Thatcher government's response to all of this was to introduce Clause 28 of the Local Government Bill.  Dame Jill Knight, a leading supporter of the amendment, claimed that gay lobby groups were aiming to "abolish the family".  Tory MPs claimed that gay people were attempting to "indoctrinate" children into becoming homosexual.  It's been said many times, but how anyone can influence anyone to do anything with someone of a person of a gender they're not attracted to is beyond me.

The Clause was vile, spiteful and designed to offend the LGBT community with its use of the words "pretend family relationships".  It provided as follows:

A local authority shall not:
(a) Intentionally promote or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality.
(b) Promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality in a pretended family relationship.

Protestors Take to the Streets

There was a huge amount of protest over the Clause. It led to Ian McKellen's coming out just over 25 years ago, on 27 January 1988.  He did so on Radio 3 as a result of it and featured on the front page of the Gay Times.  It's extraordinary to think that "coming out of the closet" was such a political act back then for an actor.  It wasn't THAT long ago.. and it's weird to think that today Gay Times has pictures of 19 year old straight Olympic divers happy to get their kit off for their adoring gay male fans.

"Out of the closet and fighting"

Here are some pictures from rallies against the Clause.  These first two were in Manchester when LGBT protestors occupied Albert Square and Piccadilly Plaza.  Some had to be removed by firemen and weren't going to leave quietly:

Albert Square, Manchester, February 1988

Defiant Manc Lesbian taking on the Coppers

"Gay Proud + Angry"

Five lesbians chained themselves to the gates of Buckingham Palace on 8 March 1988 to coincide with the 70th anniversary of Suffragettes doing the same, and were joined by other protestors, some in period costumes!

Abseiling Lesbians

The two most high profile protests, however, were the abseiling into the House of Lords 25 years ago on 2 February 1988, and the invasion of the BBC Six O'Clock News (more on that later).

What happened in the dusty old House of Lords (remember, this was before the Blair reforms, when literally hundreds of ancient Tory hereditary peers could be wheeled in to fall asleep on the benches), was that the peers had just had a two hour debate on the Bill.  They voted 202 to 122 to pass it.  A group of protestors in the public gallery began heaping abuse on them, while four lesbians attached wires to the ironwork and unfurled two thin wires.  Three of them abseiled down into the chamber, shouting "LESBIANS ARE OUT!"  Three House of Lords Ushers, all retired naval warrant officers, tried to quell the protest and in the chaos two of the three abseilers walked out of the chamber.

Sadly no pictures of the protest exist, even though this was after filming was introduced in the House of Lords. This piece in the Guardian records it.  It has also entered this list of high-profile historic protests in parliament and has achieved somewhat legendary status.  They are still remembered fondly today:

So who were the abseiling lesbians?  Very little is known about them.  Click on this link if you want to see a copyrighted picture that shows the four women.  The woman on the right is Janet McLoughlin (not Jane as it says in the caption).  The tall woman at the back is a German woman who went by the name of Tim.  A third woman was Stella Blair (also quoted in the Guardian report) but it's not clear from the caption which one is Stella.  And the fourth remains nameless.  If anyone knows what they are doing now (and PLEASE check that they're happy for that information to be made public), do add a comment below.

Labour Peer Lord Monkswell, who had obtained passes for the women, was forced to apologise to the House a few days later.  His apology was reported in the Guardian.  He doesn't exactly sound sorry though: he declines to condemn the action, and he quotes a 12 year old girl as saying "This is just what Hitler did to the Jews."

BBC Six O'Clock News

The second famous protest was the invasion of the BBC Six O'Clock News on 23 May 1988.  This was the day before Clause 28 was enacted into law as the notorious and hated Section 28.  One woman managed to chain herself to Sue Lawley's desk and another was sat on by Nicholas Witchell.   It really is worth watching this video: Sue Lawley's composure is absolutely remarkable.  Do watch to the end because there's also an interview with the two women who invaded the studio.

(Direct link here if your browser doesn't work.  Firefox properly supports Blogger)

Even more amusing is this little sound clip (just for the first part). A man can be heard saying "Oh f*cking hell, we've got a nutter in the studio! Get them out!... Get security. Get security quickly!"

(Direct line here)

The final priceless thing from this event is the front page of the Daily Mirror the following day:

A Long Road

And there we are... it all seems like another world to me, though I remember 1988 incredibly well.  I was in the lower sixth form and struggling with my sexuality.  You can imagine what the grotesque manifestation of homophobia from the then Tory party did to young gay people of my generation.  I'm not sure I've ever forgiven them for it.

One immediate result of Section 28 was the setting up of Stonewall in 1989 to work within Parliament as well as outside to make sure nothing like this ever happened again, and of course to campaign for the repeal of Section 28 and other discriminatory laws.

Labour first tried to repeal the Section in 2000.  The Liberal Democrats and the Green Party also opposed the Section.  The attempt passed the Commons, but was defeated in the Lords following a campaign by Baroness Young (Conservative).  It was at this time that David Cameron defended Section 28 and publicly accused Tony Blair of being anti-family.  He added that Blair wanted to "promote homosexuality in schools". 

Section 28 sent out a message that the Government sanctioned homophobia; it endangered vulnerable children (because it appeared to prevent teachers from intervening in homophobic bullying); and it implied that gay people were dangerous to children.  Not one prosecution was ever made under it. The Section was repealed under Labour by the Local Government Act 2003. 



Michael Howard, who voted for the Bill, was Tory leader in 2005.  He told Attitude Magazine that "I thought, rightly or wrongly that there was a problem in those days" but added "Nobody’s fussed about those issues any more".  Never mind the damage it caused.  In 2006, Tory Chairman, Francis Maude, who himself voted for it, told Pink News that the policy was wrong and a mistake.

David Cameron voted against the repeal of Section 28.  In 2009, 21 years after its introduction and 6 years after its repeal, he finally apologised on behalf of the Conservatives for the Section.  He accepted it had been "offensive to gay people".


A Different World

It is a different world in this country today.  There is still bullying in schools, there is still homophobia in the workplace and we have seen a disgusting amount of it from (certain) Church figures relating to the issue of marriage equality.  There's also an enormously long way to go in the fight against outright violence towards trans* people.

However, the days when people were openly proud of their homophobia have gone.  We have an equal age of consent and anti-discrimination work protection.  It's no longer permissible for a hotel owner to shout in someone's face  "We'll not have any of that here" as happened to my friend Henrietta and her girlfriend not so long ago.  People go to lengths to deny they are homophobic, even if the content of what they are saying blatantly is.

My experience is that young gay, lesbian and bi people are growing up feeling much more secure, balanced, and happier than ever was the case.  It's not across the board, but I genuinely think it is the case broadly speaking... and it is a wonderful thing.

Marriage equality is of course going before the House of Commons on Tuesday.  The Prime Minister supports it, despite a groundswell of anger from grassroots Tories.  I wonder how many MPs who do vote against the proposals will look back in 25 years on marriage equality, as the likes of Howard and Maude do now on Section 28?  Let's hope the hateful rhetoric of those times will be a thing of the past during the debate, that the measure will pass, and that we don't even have to call on the help of abseiling lesbians into the House of Lords during the process :-)




Huge thanks to my friend Anya (@anyapalmer) for suggesting and editing this post, and for providing me with loads of the source material. 

Leviticus

It's a fabulous name: "Leviticus".  Sounds like an extra from the Life of Brian - perhaps a Centurion colleague of Biggus Dickus.  It's the third book of the Old Testament and it actually means "relating to the Levites" (the priestly Hebrew tribe).  Its very name has that Old Testament awe and divine "smite them" power about it.

We all presumably know the two passages most quoted from Leviticus:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination (18:22);

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them (20:13). 

Why do we know these passages?  Because they are routinely trotted out by homophobes, predominantly traditional or evangelical Christians as proof of the "sinfulness" of gay people.  I have seen Norwich Reform Church* Members picketing Norwich Pride handing out leaflets based on the text to young gay and lesbian people.  The leaflets state that faithful marriages are the best way of countering Aids (along with wearing modest clothes), that homosexuality is a "perverted and degrading violation of normal human relationships" and that gay people must "repent".  They also say that the "medical, social and emotional consequences militate against the legalisation of homosexuality at any age".  Yup: they'd like to make homosexuality entirely illegal for all people in Britain, based on their reading of the Bible.

What we also (hopefully) know is the fabulous selectiveness with which the two passages are quoted.  They are part of the "Holiness Code" that was allegedly passed down by God, via Moses, to the Children of Israel.  My understanding is that they are a set of rules by which Biblical Jews should lead their lives.  There is a lot of scholarly debate about their applicability today, given that the Levitical priesthood and rules for animal sacrifice which are covered by them ended two thousand years ago, in AD 70, with the destruction of the Temple by the Romans.

Here's a lovely link to a post by @jamesrbuk that sets out some of the things that Leviticus bans: yes, it covers eating (or touching) a pig, eating shell food, trimming your beard, selling land permanently, wearing clothes with mixed fibres, having a tattoo, picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard, reaping to the edge of your field, eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it, etc. etc.

"Protestors point out: We Can Quote the Bible Too"

The point has been made a million times, but it's worth emphasising.  When Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are quoted to justify denying LGBT people rights, where is all the outrage about Christians tucking into a prawn cocktail in their local Indian restaurant?  Why aren't people out holding placards calling for the death of non-virgins?  If you're going to live your life by the letter of this stuff (or more to the point tell others they should do so) then adopt all of it, not just the bits that suit your prejudices.

My former boss, a devout Orthodox Jew, was quite straightforward in his analysis: the Holiness Code is a set of rules for Jews.  What we "goyim" (non-Jews) do is absolutely no concern of his.  His job is lead his life following the rules of the Old Testament, which included tolerance and compassion to all people.  He certainly extended a kindness and liberality to me which plenty of Christians could learn from.

Selectivity

The selectivity of quoting the above passages is gob-smacking.  It does not, of course, just extend to Leviticus.  Those who feel the need, frequently choose other passages of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) to justify their views, prejudices and sometimes hatred.  The Dutch Reform Church in South Africa based its support of Apartheid on the Bible and only felt the need to apologise in 1992. Clearly a lot comes down to how you interpret Biblical passages and this changes over time.  It is also subject to human fallibility and disagreement (the World Council of Churches expelled the South African church because they did not accept the biblical justification to treat black people as inferior, for example.)

Much more recently, the Tory MP for South West Bedforshire was quoted this week in the Guardian as follows:

This is quite fabulous.  Selous is of course talking about moves to legalise same-sex marriage.  One of the passages he selectively quotes from, Mark 10, goes on to set out Jesus' views on divorce:

¹⁰ When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. ¹¹ He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. ¹² And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

We remind ourselves of the fact that the Church of England was set up to facilitate the divorce by Henry VIII of his wife, Katherine of Aragon, in order to marry Anne Boyeln.  Remarriage is adultery and to allow divorce is "directly contrary to what Jesus said."

There is no doubt Selous is a devout Christian.  He is a trustee of the Conservative Christian Fellowship and sits on the group "Prayers for Parliament".  This group asserts that "the real power to change this land rests not in 10 Downing Street or in the Palace of Westminster.  It rests wherever you bow your head in prayer to the Almighty God who is sovereign over all."  He voted for Nadine Dorries' anti-abortion bill in 2011, voted to reduce the abortion limit to 12 weeks, and voted against the abolition of the crime of blasphemy, both in 2008.  It is not known, however, whether he enjoys prawn cocktails.

We also do not know what Tories like Selous think of passages like Matthew 19:24:

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

If we are going to change the land based on the Bible, this is a fairly powerful and little passage.  There's not much arguing against what it is saying.  How about a private member's bill from a Christian Tory MP to introduce an income tax of 90% on investment income, guys?  We need to save those rich people's souls and get them into the kingdom of God after all.

Nor can we say too much about Acts 4.32-35 which seems to be advocating in really quite clear terms an extreme form of socialism.  Anyone for that? Conservative Christian Fellowship?  No?  Oh.
 
You get the point.  I could go on and on if I wanted to.  The use of the Bible by people such as the Norwich Reformed Church or Andrew Selous MP is selective, manipulative and disingenuous.  They themselves do not lead their lives by the strict (and often contradictory commandments) of the Old and New Testaments, but they will choose passages from both to tell other people how they should lead their lives and to seek to prevent them from having the sames rights that they do.

Reform, Liberal and Masorti Judaism

The Reform and Liberal synagogues have clearly stated that they wish to marry same-sex couples in the eyes of God.  They have already been doing so for some time in the United States.  Remarkably, today, the Masorti ("traditional") synagogue movement in the UK hinted that it too might join them.  Masorti is the broad equivalent of the American Conservative Judaism movement.

If it does so, we have a really interesting triple whammy of three Jewish movements in this country wanting to marry same-sex couples.  It is wonderful, not just for the LGBT members of these synagogues who wish to marry, but because it is a massive slap in the face to the traditionalist and evangelical Christians who use the Old Testament Leviticus rules to justify their homophobia.  As I understand it, the theology behind the acceptance by the synagogues of same-sex marriage is that the Torah is a living book and set of commandments: it should not be taken to be rigid code that never changes.

Leviticus is undeniably a set of rules by which Jews seek to lead their lives: these are THEIR rules.  If three synagogue movements have studied them (Judaism is really quite good at this type of thing) and say it's okay by them in 2012 for gay people to get married (and even have sex without being put to death!), that really should be quite significant for anyone who believes in these things.  I don't see how bigoted Christians can keep banging on in the same way they have in the light of this.

Why am I getting into all this?

And on that last note, I just want to emphasise one thing.  The position of these Synagogues  is significant for "anyone who believes in these things".   I'm no theologian but I can recognise the highly selective and debatable use of Biblical passages.  I can chuck back the snippets I know and quite easily pick logical faults in the likes of Andrew Selous MP's arguments.  However, why am I even doing so?

Religion is in steady, dramatic and seemingly irreversible decline in this country.   This piece in the Guardian sets it out well  Fewer than 1 in 10 people who even says they are a Christian has been to church in the past week.  Even the Telegraph is under no illusions: the Church of England risks being wiped out.  WHY, frankly, is any MP in a highly secular country seeking to deny me my basic civic right to marry, in 2012, based on a passage of the Bible that he happens to believe in?

I am an atheist who believes that aspects of the Bible give us extremely powerful moral guidance.  Seen as a whole ("What would Jesus do?") I have no doubt it can offer wonderful, compassionate, loving and inspiring direction.  I also believe, though, that these qualities can exist just as well in people who do not believe in a deity, and that frequently atheists can be more "Christ like" in their deeds than some so-called Christians. 

The purpose of this post is not to bash all Christians or to mock their belief.  What it seeks to do is to highlight the problems of using the Bible as your bible.  Mixing your literal application of faith with law making is fraught with problems, particularly given the fact that faith is inherently open to differing interpretation over time, and the situation is made worse when there is selective quoting.  Of course some MPs will be guided by their Christian faith in the decisions they make.  If they think that their interpretation of this faith speaks for the country at large (or even for all Christians), or they "quote" it as the main reason to deny people rights of itself, however, I believe they are making a mistake.

Advice

The next time some wise-arse quotes Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 at you and says that the Bible makes clear homosexuality is a sin, hand them a bacon sarnie and point them in the direction of this blog post.  Their argument is flawed from start to finish.  And they shouldn't wear poly-cotton.  Not because of Leviticus, but because it doesn't breathe half as well.

The tattoo refers to the Leviticus "ban" on homosexual acts

* For the avoidance of doubt, the NRC is not affiliated to the much more inclusive and open United Reform Church.