As the BBC saw fit to accede to the request by Lambeth Palace not to broadcast the section of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Today interview with John Humphrys the other day dealing with Iraq (on the grounds that Dr Williams hadn’t been forewarned about the intention to ask him about any topic other than the row over gay bishops), I have downloaded for my own education some extracts from a speech and an article by Dr W from his web site that, if put several times through an interpretative mangle, yield some blurred clues to his views. Clarity doesn’t seem to be among his undoubted virtues. Watching several of his series of interviews on television on recent Friday evenings, I’ve mostly been unable to make out what he’s saying: I recognise the individual words that he uses, but can’t make sense of them in his particular combinations. And this has nothing to do with my wholesale ignorance of theology: Dr Williams was in each case speaking and writing of straightforward political and moral issues for, presumably, a non-specialist audience.
I resist the temptation to express a view on the outcome of the Archbishop’s extraordinary conference of Anglican primates (unfortunate term but a gift to cartoonists) on gay bishops, or on his handling of the affair of the celibate gay would-be suffragan bishop of Reading . I have already got into deep trouble by saying what I think about those matters, and have retired hurt, reminded that I’m a pagan outsider who can’t be expected to understand these matters and that they are not simple, as I thought they were. But judging by last week’s "Any Questions" and "Any Answers", the Archbishop and his C of E haven’t exactly emerged from these debates and decisions smelling of roses, at any rate in the nostrils of ordinary chaps of both genders who, like me, take a simplistic view of these rather straightforward matters. One caller suggested that what was needed was some leadership. I thought he had a point.
It seems to me that the right — and simple! — course is to legislate to make it illegal to discriminate in any sphere, including employment, promotion, etc., against persons on grounds of sexual orientation or practices, and to take care not to grant immunity from the ban to the churches (or other religious bodies). Legislation on these lines seems very close to being achieved, although immunity for churches, etc., is still (as I understand it) being hotly debated. In November 2002 the DTI published a consultation document entitled "Equality and Diversity – the Way Ahead". As part of the consultation exercise the DTI published draft Regulations – the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 and the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (due to come into force in December) – which made it unlawful to discriminate against employees on the grounds of their sexual orientation, religion or other beliefs. The consultation period ended in January 2003. The DTI has made some amendments to the draft Regulations and laid them before Parliament for approval on 8 May 2003 . Sadly, the amendments include an exclusion clause (Clause 7) exempting religious organisations from the regulation’s provisions. I’m told by a friend who’s actively engaged in the campaign against the churches’ exemption that the Government pushed them through both Houses despite the unprecedented doubts expressed, after a public grilling of DTI officials, by the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which accepted virtually all the objections he and others had hastily managed to put before them (three memos in three days) to question the legality of the draft concocted to placate the Anglican and RC Bishops. They were enacted on 26 June and come into force on 2 and 3 December. But first the NUT, and then, after the TUC Conference, seven other unions, decided to challenge the offensive provision before the courts and sought Judicial Review (this had to be done by 26 September, ie within three months of the Regulations being made). It’s not known when this will be heard, or whether indeed the court might refer it to the European Court. If the Government loses, the churches and mosques will be in well deserved difficulties.
In the same context it’s interesting that the Court of Appeal recently found that legislation was discriminatory in treating same-sex partners less favourably than unmarried heterosexual couples. Having considered the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights 1950 and the Human Rights Act 1998, the court held that a schedule to the Rent Act 1977 was discriminatory in providing the survivor of a same-sex partner relationship with a less secure tenancy than the survivor of an unmarried heterosexual couple. A resolution of the European Parliament has declared that "it will not give its consent to the accession of any country that, through its legislation or policies, violates the human rights of lesbians and gay men". The writing is on the wall, and it’s very difficult to discern any grounds for exempting the churches. At the very least it would effectively get the Archbishop of Canterbury off the hook on which he seems to have impaled himself.
Some readers of this may well ask why on earth I spend time exploring and trying to fathom the meaning of the views of this prince of mumbo-jumbo, however good and spiritual a person, on an issue which most of us surely regard as (a) morally crystal clear and (b) essentially trivial. And I have a feeling that they would be right.
Did Tony Blair keep his promises on the question of war with Iraq without the authority of the UN Security Council? As the transcripts of two television broadcasts confirm, he twice gave a clear commitment on BBC television, on 26 January and 6 February, 2003, to David Frost and Jeremy Paxman respectively, that he would not take Britain into a war with Iraq without the authority of the UN unless (1) there was approval for it on the part of a majority of the members of the Security Council but (2) that approval had been blocked by an "unreasonable" veto cast by one or more of the Council’s permanent members. In the event, neither of Mr Blair’s conditions was satisfied: there was never a majority in the Council in favour of the use of force at that time, and so the question of a veto, reasonable or otherwise, did not arise. The draft resolution submitted by the US and UK seeking the Council’s authority for military action was never put to the vote, because its sponsors knew that if put to the Council for decision, it would have failed through lack of the necessary minimum nine votes in favour. A negative vote by a permanent member would not constitute a veto in those circumstances, since the resolution would have failed in any case. There was no UN authority for military action, and neither of Mr Blair’s conditions for going to war in that situation was satisfied. Yet a few weeks later, Britain joined in the attack on and occupation of Iraq. It seems surprising that in the welter of accusations and counter-accusations over truth and lies on Iraq, the media and the politicians have so far failed to pick up the plain breach of these promises, even though — as the transcripts show — they are so fully documented.
We have a maintenance and insurance contract with an insurance company for our central heating and hot water system. When we moved house, I had to change it to the different system. I did it over the phone with the company, including re-confirming the direct debit arrangement. They promised to send me the new documentation, including the insurance certificate with my new policy number and details. Three months later: no documentation has arrived, but the monthly premium starts to be deducted from my bank account. I tried telephoning them: waited for more than 45 minutes on a premium line (8p a minute, not crippling but not cheap) and still got no reply. No web site, no fax number — only an office address in Wimbledon . It so happened that we were going to Wimbledon that afternoon to the cinema. So we called in at the office of the insurance company. It was the office of a much bigger insurance company of which ours was evidently a minor subsidiary. The receptionist said someone would come down and see us in reception on the ground floor. We sat and read the FT until at last an attractive young woman, about 25, with a seductive smile, appeared. How could she help us? I complained about the unanswered but protracted telephone call. She was so-o-o-o-o sorry about the long wait on the telephone and the failure to answer. If I sent my telephone bill to Customer Service colleagues she was sure they would refund the cost. It was just a temporary problem with the telephone system and should be fixed any moment now. Was I sure I hadn’t received my policy documents? Oh, she saw. That must be a slip-up by their records section. She was really most sorry. Ye-e-e-es, she might be able to make a copy for us then and now. Would we bear with her while she just slipped back upstairs and had a look for the papers?
15 minutes later she was back with a photocopy of an internal office document that did at least give some details of our policy, including the policy number, but no, she couldn’t unfortunately give us the actual document right now, it was held in a different office. Ye-e-e-es, she supposed I could keep the photocopy of the internal document and take it away. She would make absolutely sure that we received our proper documentation from her records section at once. And I must remember to send that telephone bill to her colleagues in Customer Service: would I like her to give us their address, which was near Bedford? I showed her my old policy document from our old house which showed Customer Service as being at the Wimbledon office in which we were sitting. For the first time, she became flustered. Oh — how odd… no, they aren’t here… Bedford … Then inspiration struck. Of course! All their mail came here first and then was forwarded to Bedford. Was this to ensure that prompt attention to their correspondence was impossible? (Light laugh. Playfully pats my knee.) Was there anything else at all that she could do for us?
- Just have that documentation sent to us without further delay.
- Of course! No problem! Good-bye!
Three weeks later, no sign of documentation, but the direct debits continue to work like clockwork.
The feeling of utter powerlessness in the face of the incompetence, avarice, negligence, lack of answerability and sheer arrogance of big and little business – of capitalism, you might say – is deeply depressing. We are all victims of it and there’s nothing at all we can do about it. Endless waits on telephones that are never answered (but the proceeds of which calls are shared between the non-answering company and the telephone company) are now almost universal. The hell with the customer! Letters sent by snailmail simply lie unanswered and even if you can get through to a human being on the telephone, you never get anyone who will admit to being able to find your letter, and you never get through to the same person twice. None of them has a surname. None of them admits to having a direct line with his or her own number. Their supervisors and managers are always out, will certainly call you back when they come back, never do. Few of these companies nowadays have e-mail addresses: the nearest thing is a page on the web site, if any, in which you can write in a message and "submit" [!] it: and three days later, you get an automated standard reply which is totally irrelevant to your question or complaint. If the matter is sufficiently serious, you can sometimes track down the name of the Chief Executive or Chairman, and even get a home address or e-mail address for him (it’s always a him), and send him a furious message. You then get either an angry reply saying that writing to him at home was a gross intrusion, or an apologetic interim reply saying that he had been disturbed to read of your dissatisfaction with their service, had passed your message to his Director of Complaints, and had asked him to reply to you direct. And that’s the last you hear of it. But the time and effort required even to get that far are simply too great to resort to every time you experience lousy service. So you put up with it, grind your teeth, and remind yourself to nationalise the lot of them when you’re elected Master of the Universe. (Nationalisation won’t make the service any better, but it will serve them right.)
O brave new world, that has such bastards in it!
Once again we’re threatened with the introduction of ID cards. An English friend in Spain tells me that a Spanish identity card “doesn’t actually give you rights or permission to do anything; it just proves your identity and nothing more.” Very different in that case from the kind of UK card now being actively campaigned for by Messrs Blunkett and Blair: indeed, they actually want to call it an “entitlement card”, a memorably Orwellian euphemism. Without producing one, people won’t be able to get their state benefits even if otherwise entitled to them. In practice all sorts of busybody will undoubtedly demand to see the card before providing a service. The objection to them rests mainly on the grounds that the card’s chip, in addition to containing biometric data such as a photograph of the holder’s iris or fingerprint, will contain a raft of other information, including copious data from the driving licence, tax and criminal records, national insurance and NHS records, and any security information. There’s a genuine fear that all this information will be accessible to any arm of government, so that the police will be able to see your tax records and the tax authorities will be able to see your criminal and pension records, and so on, thus demolishing the cardinal principle that all information on citizens should be available only to those by or for whom it has been recorded and to no-one else. It’s also doubtful whether the card holder will be allowed to view the information in his chip to check its accuracy.
Another objection, as mentioned before in Ephems, is that the card is designed among other things to “stop” people pretending to be someone other than who they are. But if people pretend to be someone else for purely personal reasons which don’t entail any criminal offence (such as obtaining money under false pretences), why on earth shouldn’t they? If I want to stay at a hotel with a young lady (or indeed an old one) who isn’t my wife, and we want to check in as Mr & Mrs Charlie Chaplin, why should the state stop us, by giving the hotel the ability to demand to see our ID cards with our real names? If I want to go on holiday and assume a different name and character – or even gender, although as it happens that doesn’t appeal to me — to escape from a painful reality or just to amuse myself, what business is that of the Home Secretary or the local police?
Advocates of the scheme are already dragging out that hoary old justification for every kind of state intrusion into our lives that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." But lots of people have something to hide, and why should they be prevented from hiding it, so long as they don’t hide it in the streets and frighten the horses?
Few people apart from illegal immigrants and crooks have any problem over establishing their identity when necessary, especially now that the new driving licences have photographs, and passports slip easily into pocket or handbag, and most people have credit and debit and store cards and utility bills. Very little benefit fraud depends on false identity and the police acknowledge that professional crooks would have little difficulty in forging or stealing and adapting cards anyway. The legal obligation to have (and at some point therefore to be able to produce) a card would provide another golden opportunity for the harassment by cops and bureaucrats of the young, ethnic minorities, the indolent or stupid, the careless, the old, and other undesirables. Information is power, and power unnecessarily put in the hands of state authority is invariably going to be abused sooner or later.
Several members of the Cabinet seem to be actively opposed to David Blunkett’s scheme. But Tony Blair has spoken publicly in support of it[1], so that’s probably the end of the argument. Mercifully it will take so long to set up, with hordes of people refusing to allow their irises to be photographed or their finger-prints taken, and refusing to pay the £40 a head ID card tax (yes, the Treasury have reportedly ruled that it will be recorded as a tax and will therefore count towards the tax level statistics which are a major battleground between the parties), that by the time it’s up and running, most of us older fellas will be dead.
PS: the Independent newspaper has now reported that the Prime Minister has decided to shelve the whole scheme in the face of strong opposition from within the Cabinet. But this is not confirmed by Mr Blunkett, who says he still hopes to secure agreement to his proposals.
[1]: “And in a world of mass migration, with cheaper air travel, and all the problems of fraud, it makes sense to ask whether now in the early 21st century identity cards are no longer an affront to civil liberties but may be the way of protecting them.” Tony Blair, Speech at Labour Party Conference, 30 September 2003 .
