Friday, March 05, 2010

Labour deselect Methodist councillor for refusing to canvass on a Sunday

Cllr George Reynolds (Colliers Wood, Merton Council) is, by all accounts, a loyal, hard-working, compassionate and caring councillor. He gives freely and abundantly of his time and serves the community assiduously on numerous committees, including Merton Council’s Appointments Committee, the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Panel, the General Purposes Committee, the Planning Applications Committee, the Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education and the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

You would think Labour would laud and honour such a good and faithful servant.

But Cllr Reynolds has been deselected as a candidate in the forthcoming local elections not because he objected to canvassing on the Sabbath on grounds of religious conscience, but because, as a pastor of his church, he is obliged to tend for his flock on Sundays and does not possess that particularly-useful divine attribute of ubiquity: the ability to be simultaneously here, there and everywhere.

A Conservative candidate for the forthcoming elections in Merton (Miles Windsor) has delved a little into the story:

“What I have heard, from reliable sources, is deeply concerning. Siobhain McDonagh, Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden, is well-known for her Sunday morning canvassing. That’s fine of course, if a little irritating for those residents whose Sunday mornings are sacred for one reason or the other. If she doesn’t maintain a personal faith and wish to attend church on Sundays that is her business. ‘So what’s the problem?’, I hear you ask.

“Cllr Reynolds is the pastor of a church and leads his congregation on Sunday mornings. Thus, he asked to be exempted from canvassing on a Sunday. A reasonable request most would think, especially as it isn’t just his beliefs that would be conflicted (although this would be reason enough) but also as it is his job. Siobhan wouldn’t agree it would seem. He has been de-selected.”

Cllr Reynolds is Lay Pastor at Tooting Methodist Church, and Cranmer has never heard of anything so outrageous as a Christian minister being deselected as a political candidate because his church commitments prevent him from carrying out political activity on a Sunday. This is one of the most outrageous anti-Christian manifestations of this appallingly oppressive and illiberal Labour Government.

And God knows there have been quite a few.

In many ways, Siobhain McDonagh is the immanent incarnation of the imminent persecution of all believers. It beggars belief that the political movement which had its roots in Methodism would reject a Methodist minister simply for putting his faithfulness to God over political service.

What on earth does the Christian Socialist Movement think about this?

Do they even care?

It is, of course, perfectly possible for Christians with church commitments to fulfil their political obligations on other days of the week. But no compromise was possible for Ms McDonagh. In the pursuit of her rabid secularisation agenda desperate attempt to be re-elected, it is the traditional Christian Sabbath which has to be defiled; it is Christian devotion which is subsumed; it is Christian ministry which is considered expendable.

Cranmer would bet his charred right arm that Labour would never have dared to deselect an imam who refused to canvass on a Friday while led the ummah in their essential duas.

The Methodists of Tooting say of themselves:

Who are we? A community of people, young and old, from many backgrounds and cultures, who believe and serve Jesus in varying degrees. We exist for ourselves - that's why we encourage and support one another in daily living. We also exist for those who don't belong to any church - that's why you are assured a caring welcome!

Labour also welcomes those from all backgrounds and cultures (especially in key marginals), but if your background is Christian and your culture requires you to put God first on Sundays, you’re not so welcome. Siobhain McDonagh exists solely for herself; she evidently couldn’t give a fig for those who belong to any church, and if you do, please don’t expect any kind of welcome from Labour.

Tooting Methodists do not claim to be better than anyone else. But we become better people as we grow in our understanding of God's pardon and love.

It seems the Mitcham & Morden Labour Party claim to be better than Christians, or at least better than those Christians who place church attendance on a Sunday above political campaigning. Doubtless Siobhain McDonagh could not possibly become a better person: she understands nothing of the love Labour’s lost.

We sing rather well, put passion in our preaching, and seek both to hate sin and to love fellow-sinners. We invite you to come and give us a try. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Labour no longer has music in its soul: they have passion, but their politics are perverted. They encourage sin by legislating to make it compulsory. The nation gave them a try in 1997; they ventured again in 2001, and again in 2005.

And gained nothing.

Cllr Reynolds has learned that he may not serve two masters. Labour has arrogated to itself a status above that of God, and they will not permit their candidates to serve Jesus to any degree: Labour will not tolerate idols.

His Grace has been informed that the official reason for Cllr Reynold’s despicable treatment is that he ‘could not fulfil his obligations’.

Perhaps it is time for the Christian voters of Mitcham and Morden to prevent Siobhain McDonagh from fulfilling hers in Parliament.

From the look of her, butter would not only melt, it would moulder and putrefy in her mouth. She has a website, of which she says: ‘It allows you to let me know your views and to find out what mine are and, importantly, what I'm doing about them.’

Well, we know what hers are. So Cranmer exhorts all of his readers and communicants to let Ms McDonagh know your views on this matter and, importantly, to ask her what she’s doing about them.

On her ‘About’ page she boasts that she holds ‘regular receptions at the House of Commons to honour the work of groups such as GPs, charities, churches, Residents Associations, School Governors, foster carers and the volunteers who run the Little League’.

Since she professes to ‘honour’ the work of churches, perhaps she might host a reception for the loyal Cllr Reynolds and his caring and compassionate congregants.

She won’t, of course.

Not even on a Sunday.

Commenting last year in Parliament about increasing prejudice and incidences of discrimination against Christians, Harriet Harman said: “This is really just a matter of basic good practice and common sense. There is nothing in any law or guidance that requires people to act daft.”

Siobhain McDonagh and the Labour Party in Mitcham & Morden are acting daft.

His Grace has never in his life campaigned for a Labour candidate.

But there is a higher principle at stake here.

Perhaps we should begin a petition for Cllr Reynolds’ re-selection?

UPDATE (16.00):

His Grace has received an email from Siobhain McDonagh MP, which he is happy to fisk:

I am Siobhain McDonagh, and I would like to confirm that this whole story is completely untrue. It is also deeply offensive and should therefore be removed.

The 'whole story' is not 'completely untrue'. It has been corroborated by members of your own local association. If you find it 'deeply offensive', His Grace might apologise, except that the causing of offence is not gratuitous and neither is it an adequate reason for the post to be removed.

Most offensively, it suggests I am anti-religion. Anyone who knows anything about me would be aware I am a Catholic who goes to church assiduously every Sunday. I am very angry that you have portrayed me as conspiring against anyone for their beliefs or religious observances. What you have written about me is hurtful and 100% false. It is hard to believe anybody with any true religious belief could be so nasty as you have been in your blog, or could so deliberately damage another person’s reputation without checking any facts.

Ms McDonagh, there is nothing in this post at all which suggests that you are 'anti-religion'. You are, however, a member of the most anti-Christian government we have had in three centuries. It is good to hear that you go to church assiduously on Sundays. However, His Grace assures you that your local party workers frown upon those who are 'unable to fulfil their obligations' with regard to the forthcoming elections, and that appears to include Sunday canvassing. Cllr Reynolds also prefers to be at church on a Sunday. Your local party, however, has suggested that this is not good enough as it indicates a 'lack of commitment' to the cause. There is no suggestion of a 'conspiracy' on your part, as you aver. Your local party workers are clearly intent on canvassing on Sundays for Labour councillors and for you. It appears to be a condition of (re)selection that candidates are obliged to fulfil this requirement. You may be unaware of this, but you should make it your business to find out what your party workers are being forced to do in your name. Perhaps, before you fire off shrill emails, it would help if you delved a little behind what your local party chairman might be telling you.

Your source is utterly unreliable. He cannot even spell my name correctly. This should have been a clue.

Well, His Grace did spell your name correctly, thereby correcting his source. If, however, care over such trivia is the means by which you determine veracity, the fact that His Grace both corrected Mr Windsor's spelling of your name and spelt it correctly throughout his article ought to give you 'a clue' about the reliability of the information.

Indeed, the story is completely untrue. To be clear, the rules of the Labour Party expressly forbid exclusion on religious grounds, and neither can any individual veto anyone else from standing. In any case, in the fact of this case, Cllr Reynolds has never been excluded from standing, and his religious beliefs and commitments never arose during the selection process. This wouldn’t have been allowed anyway. The simple truth is that, while they praised Cllr Reynolds for his past efforts as a Councillor, local Labour Party members ultimately chose other candidates. And at all stages it is Labour Party members who choose who they want their candidates to be, not MPs, with the decision made by secret ballot. But since the source of this story seems to have been a Conservative candidate, he wouldn't know that.

Unfortunately, you are repeating yourself. Simply to state that something is untrue does not make it so, notwithstanding that it appears to be sufficient for Labour politicians. We all know what 'the rules' say, and yet Harriet Harman is fully aware that these 'rules' against discrimination appear to apply to every religion except Christianity. You appear to believe that because something was not made overt (by straightforward question or written statement) that it could not possibly be so. Labour Party members chose other candidates, as is their right. But you must be aware that cabals of councillors (as many local associations become, including selection panels) can (and do) have their own agendas, and can (and do) remove any candidate they wish under a false pretext of, say, being unable to fulfil his or her obligations.

This whole story is politically motivated smearing, with no bearing in truth whatsoever, and you should take it down. It is completely untrue, causes great offence to the many Christian Labour activists who give up so much of their time to help their communities, and should be of great embarrassment to you.

His Grace has a little more integrity than you suggest, though he fully understands why you might find this story disturbing. However, your hyperbole undermines your argument. The story most definitely does have a 'bearing in truth', and it will not be taken down unless Cllr Reynolds requests for His Grace to do so. And to play the 'great offence to Labour Christians' card is utterly laughable. Your entire programme of government has been of one offence against Christians heaped upon another. One wonders how, as 'a Catholic who goes to church assiduously every Sunday', you square the teachings of your church and recent pronouncements by Pope Benedict with your profoundly anti-Christian, illiberal and oppressive programme of government. You have forced Roman Catholic adoption agencies to close. What did you do to prevent that, apart from go to Mass on a Sunday? You are about to force all Roman Catholic schools to tell pupils how and where they may procure an abortion. What did you do to prevent that, apart from go to Mass on a Sunday? You require that homosexuality be taught in a 'neutral' fashion, whatever that means. What did you do to prevent that, apart from go to Mass on a Sunday? Your party has legislated for fatherless children, animal-human chimeras, more research on embryos and refused to countenance a reduction in the upper limit for abortion. Going to church, however assiduously, is no longer evidence of spiritual regeneration.

It is very upsetting to be accused of anti-religious bigotry, and I hope you will be brave enough to apologise for airing this untrue story and for portraying me in the way you have. I also hope that you will retract the accusations completely so that they are not continuously repeated on other blogs or elsewhere.

Yours sincerely,
Siobhain McDonagh

Upsetting to be accused of bigotry? Yes, it most certainly is, as well His Grace knows. The problem is that Labour freely accuse anyone who objects to the teaching of homosexuality in schools as homophobic; if you object to the abundant provision of abortion you are sexist or misogynist; if you want adoption agencies to give children to heterosexual couples, you are bigoted; if you breathe a word of concern about all students (including Sikhs) being offered only halal meat in schools, you are Islamophobic. You get the picture. And it is your party which has created this claustrophobic climate by constructing a hierarchy of ever-competing and mutually-exclusive 'rights'. And time and again it is being seen that the rights of the world and his dog trump the rights of Christians, whatever the 'rules' happen to say.

What did you do to prevent this, Ms McDonagh, apart from assiduously going to Mass every Sunday?

If you were to ask Cllr Reynolds, you might just find that he thinks one or two of his own Labour colleagues are 'bigoted'.

Blessings in our Lord Jesus Christ,
++Cranmer

UPDATE 2 (17.15):

His Grace did have the courtesy to contact Ms McDonagh directly with further corroborative information. But he received this response:

Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:

MCDONAGH, Siobhain
The recipient's mailbox is full and can't accept messages now. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please try resending this message later, or contact the recipient directly.

An MP's mailbox is full?

UPDATE (18.20):

Ekklesia have done a sterling job of defending Ms McDonagh. Apparently, she is a devout Roman Catholic, and the extent of her devotion is manifest in the fact that she introduced the Clergy Disqualification Ten Minute Rule Bill by which the Rev Chris Bryant was able to take his seat in the House of Commons.

In addition, they say of Cllr Reynolds:

A friend has just spoken to George Reynolds, the councillor concerned, and reports:

"Although he was a Methodist lay pastor and a local preacher, he has recently been ordained as a minister of the AME Church of Zion and no longer holds any office with the Methodist Church. In his opinion this is why he was deselected – he refuses to canvass at all on a Sunday – but no one has directly told him that this is the reason."

So he is not a Methodist any longer. His situation has changed, and there seems to be a lot of speculation going on.

Well, if the fact that he has recently changed denomination is deemed sufficient to deflect from the real issues raised by this post, it becomes corroborative evidence of its veracity. Methodist, Roman Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, Church of Zion, whatever. It is his opinion that he was deslected for refusing to canvass on a Sunday. For other faiths, that is usually sufficient for a court hearing.

UPDATE (18.50):

Having just done a little research, it appears that Ekklesia have written and His Grace acquiesced in haste: the AME (African Methodist Episcopal) Church of Zion is a Methodist denomination. They have 'been in negotiations for many years to merge with the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church into a tentatively named Christian Methodist Episcopal Zion Church'.

Cllr Reynolds remains a Methodist, albeit of the African and Episcopal variety.

83 Comments:

Blogger Graham said...

Of course, one of the under-appreciated benefits of church attendance is rarely being in when the canvassers come knocking. Surprised that any party can afford to turn their back on any activist, never mind a sitting councillor, for such a reason.

5 March 2010 at 08:30  
Anonymous penlan said...

Obviously this woman believes that 1997 was Year Zero and the great Methodist Labour preachers of the recent past-Lord Soper,Mr Speaker Thomas etc, have no relevance in a Party which Harold Wilson believed in his time owed far more to Methodism than marxism.

5 March 2010 at 08:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a regular reader of His Grace, conservative evangelical Christian (with links to both CSM and Reform!) and Labour Councillor in Mitcham for relection I can happily inform readers the allegations in this story are untrue. But I suppose it is election time...

5 March 2010 at 08:57  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Or better still, Reynolds should join the Conservative party. What on earth was the silly man think he was doing being a Labour councillor? What did he expect?
I have little sympathy for him.
Petard and hoist by his own seem appropriate here.

On a similar note what's with the outpouring of grief for old Worzel?
Another silly man who, like A. W-Benn, was wrong all his life about nearly everything and whose life's work was a contradiction in terms: a freeborn Englishman dedicated to our enslavement by the socialist state.

5 March 2010 at 09:25  
Anonymous philip walling said...

In case you couldn't guess, that should have read 'What on earth did the silly man...?'

5 March 2010 at 09:27  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Socialists attack the conservative principle: Freedom of Association!

A pattern is now emerging; the Socialists are attacking the conservative principle of freedom of association. We recall the Catholic Cabinet minister Ruth Kelly (Lab.) who was pilloried for her association with Opus Dei (she resigned); we recall Italy’s Rocco Buttiglione. Appointed as the European Union’s next Justice Commissioner, Buttiglione raised eyebrows when he aired his traditional views on women, homosexuality, and the family. His controversial comments came during a three-hour grilling by the European parliament over his conservative religious and moral views – Buttiglione was dismissed (Catholics need not apply!). And now Cllr George Reynolds; deselected by New Labour for putting God first and not the Labour Party.

Applebaum, writing about the collapse of communism, in her Templeton Essay (April, 2008) wrote ‘Equally important [to the free market], and perhaps more important when it comes to human ideals and social fulfilment, is the liberty of association. For this is what permits civil society to grow outside the control of the state.’

Scruton in his Templeton Essay (January, 2009) stated:

‘Freedom of association is so evidently a part of individual sovereignty that you would assume that both conservatives and liberals endorse it. But this is not so, and for a very interesting reason. Associations make distinctions; they breed hierarchies; they foster competition; they are sources of local pride and individual aspiration. In other words, they are, potentially at least, the enemies of equality. Hence they are apt to fall under liberal suspicion.’

The values within the Church’s doctrines are hostile to Socialism. Socialism is hostile to Christianity. For example we believe individuals can voluntarily meet in community (at church), exercising our liberty of association.

The recent amendment to the Equality Bill in the House of Lords that ‘allows’ homosexuals to sue vicars for failing to bless their ‘marriages’ on consecrated ground is an attack upon this conservative principle: freedom of association. Freedom of association allows us to let our friends into church and lock the door on our enemies. The Socialists by passing these laws are using State authority not only to force their foot in the door; not only to drag our priests out and display them before the law courts but also by taking away our priests – destroying our Christian fellowship.

Protestants, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Evangelicals, Black Pentecostals, Chinese and Asian Christian fellowships in Tooting –defend our faith: EITHER THE CHRISTIANS LEAVE TOOTING OR THE SOCIALISTS DO!


[PS Lord Tebbit explains in the DT today what happened during the Equality Bill vote in the House of Lords – our side was intimidated. That is outrageous.]

5 March 2010 at 09:38  
Blogger Robert said...

We all know labour has more excuses then a time lord, they have a list of people they want and the Parachutes to drop them in. If this was a Muslim asking for a day off to pray he'd get it, sadly hard working councilors do not come high on new labours secret list

5 March 2010 at 09:52  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Dear Mr Singh

On the point again!

We must get people to see what's really at stake here, because most don't see it, or may actually want it.

There can be no such thing as a 'Christian socialist'. It is an oxymoron.
Yet the Labour party has, since its inception, until 1997, promoted itself as such: 'has its roots in Methodism' and 'Nonconformism' and so on.
Only recently (now that the project looks as if it has gathered critical momentum) has Labour begun to show itself under its true colours. It is a Marxist party (with a long-term plan and the sense of the inevitability of the 'forces of history' that such a philosophy imparts) that intends to subsume all human activity under the umbrella of the state, by whatever means necessary ('equality' is a convenient excuse).

Viewed in this light this government is not incompetent; it has spectacularly achieved its aims and will go on to further success.

The sickening thing is that a large part of the people seems to want what Labour offers them.

5 March 2010 at 11:12  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

Mr Walling

I agree and we must rid ourselves of them as soon as possible.

We must vote for Dave and live in hope. A hung parliament will not help the UKIP cause. Maybe when people start to see the true state this country is in (e.g. when unemployment starts to rise in the public sector) will minds be focussed on what exactly is the point of the EU. Unfortunately, we need adversity before UKIP can gain ground. In the meantime NuLab must be put to the sword.

We can only trust Dave's salesman's extincts and hope that he is keeping his powder dry.

5 March 2010 at 11:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace really must do a little research, herself is a former pupil of Holy Cross Catholic Girls' School and, according to The Times, is "devoutly Roman Catholic".

5 March 2010 at 11:39  
Anonymous opsimath said...

It's probably a cheap shot, but do you think, had the councillor been a Mohammedan, that the party would have deselected him for not campaigning on a Friday?

Somehow I think not - and that this is quite typical of Labour's hatred of Christianity, whatever the flavour.

5 March 2010 at 11:44  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

s/extincts/instincts/

Freudian slip?

5 March 2010 at 11:44  
Anonymous PrimlyStable said...

"The recent amendment to the Equality Bill in the House of Lords that ‘allows’ homosexuals to sue vicars for failing to bless their ‘marriages’ on consecrated ground"

Which amendment would that be then? Because the one from Lord Alli that was passed on Tuesday does nothing of the sort.

Why do you have to resort to lying to make your case? It's not very Christian, is it?

5 March 2010 at 12:04  
Anonymous John Malcolmson said...

Dear Mr Walling

//The sickening thing is that a large part of the people seems to want what Labour offers them.//

You have identified what is sometimes referred to as Labour's "client state." Many of these people are quite happy with the imposition of equality: it removes from them any need for aspiration, any requirement to exercise their conscience or take a moral view on any matter, and replaces the presumption of personal accountability upon which the functioning of a free nation is predicated with a "top-down, do as we say" approach.

By the same token the contraction of our liberties is of no concern to them: for example, why should restrictions on freedom of speech be of any consequence to somebody who chooses not to exercise that freedom?

The client state is complemented by (and there is a significant overlap with) what might be termed the "complacent" state. The complacent state comprises people who are ostensibly good, responsible citizens: they work hard, pay taxes and comply with the law. They (especially the younger element) have the notion, often reinforced by the media, that Labour governments are somehow "fairer" than Tory ones. But the most depressing thing about them is that they take the blessings of living in a democracy for granted because they've never known anything else.

Many of them people will wake up to what is happening eventually, but by then it will probably be too late.

5 March 2010 at 12:10  
Blogger D. Singh said...

We conservatives!

We conservatives are for liberty, security and freedom. They, the socialists, are for intimidation, coercion and exclusion.

We are for personal responsibility framed by moral injunctions encouraging self-restraint. They are for undermining the family through license and interfering with our children through sex education.

We are for the great principles laid down by Magna Carta envied by lawyers around the world arguing the case for security and freedom. They are for centralised command and control.

We are for limited government so that all men may grow in self-government. They are for the Home Office circular – so that no man may use his initiative.

We are for the ingenuity of local people to establish their own schools safe in the knowledge that their children will learn self-mastery. They are for the bog standard comprehensive facilitating anarchy.

We are for our nation-state, the standard bearer of liberty through ages past, inspiring millions trapped under tyranny. They are for the taming of the ferocious British lion in the EU zoo.

We believe that all men were created in the image of their Creator and are therefore equal before the majesty of the law. They believe in a hierarchy of rights that degrades decency.

We believe that chance and opportunity happen to all affording equality of opportunity; that the first to climb the mountain, to win the race is awarded the prize. They believe in a crushing equality with prizes for all so that no man is honoured.

We are for the children who leap in the womb, at school and on the street and refuse to leave the weak and vulnerable defenceless. They are for killing the child and assisting suicide.

We stand upon Liberty’s wall and hear our country’s trumpet call. They open the city gate and bid our enemies in.

We believe government must fear the people and that it is under the rule of Magna Carta. They believe they are the law.

We will help any friend and oppose any foe both domestic and foreign. They go round the globe apologising and offering concessions and smiles.

We believe in our future. They believe in death as a solution for tomorrow.

We, believe.

5 March 2010 at 12:34  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

Mr Singh

Amen.

5 March 2010 at 12:41  
Blogger English Viking said...

How strange that this man's Christian conscience will not allow him to work on Sundays but it will permit him to ally himself with various traitors, liars, thieves, warmongers, homosexuals and other such nefarious characters in the Labour party.

Don't be yoked to unbelievers, you mind end up like Lot.

5 March 2010 at 12:57  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Extract from The Daily Telegraph’s report 3 March 2010 for PrimlyStable:
Part 1 (of 2)
But under an amendment to the Equality Bill tabled in the House of Lords by Lord Alli, a homosexual Labour peer, the ban on the events taking place on religious premises will be lifted.
The amendment states that national faith groups will not be forced to carry out civil partnerships.
But it is feared that same-sex couples would be able to use the protection from discrimination guaranteed - under the Equality Bill or the Human Rights Act - to take legal action against individual clergy in their parish if they refuse to “marry” them in a local church.
The Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, the Bishop of Winchester, said: “I believe that it will open, not the Church of England, but individual clergy, to charges of discrimination if they solemnise marriages as they all do, but refuse to host civil partnership signings in their churches. Unless the Government does something explicit about this, I believe that is the next step.”
The Bishop of Bradford, the Rt Rev David James, warned during the debate of the “unintended consequences” of the move.
He said that although it was being presented to “simply be an available option” to some religious groups, he was “not so confident” that it would remain that way.
Lord Waddington, a former Home Secretary, said: “If this amendment were carried, it would only be a matter of time before it was argued that it was discriminatory for a church incumbent to refuse to allow a civil partnership ceremony to take place when the law allowed it.”
In an argument backed by Lord Tebbit, he said that a clergyman “prepared to register marriages but not to register civil partnerships would be accused of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of services and pressure would be brought to bear on him to pocket his principles and do what he believed to be wrong”.
Lord Waddington said “without doubt there would be the risk of costly litigation” under the Equality Bill or the Human Rights Act.
Last night Don Horrocks, Head of Public Affairs for the Evangelical Alliance, which represents thousands of churches across Britain, said: “We understand the Lords’ desire to allow a few liberal religious groups to have freedom to follow their consciences. But neither must other religious groups be forced to betray their consciences by facing lawsuits if they fail to allow a civil ceremony.”
Under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, homosexual couples are allowed to hold civil partnership ceremonies in register offices and approved venues such as stately homes and hotels, but they were banned from doing so in churches while the events were not allowed to be religious in character.

5 March 2010 at 13:09  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Part 2
In the amendment to Harriet Harman’s controversial Equality Bill tabled by Lord Alli late on Monday night, the ban on religious premises was lifted. It was passed on a free vote by 95 to 21, with only two of the bishops – the Lords Spiritual – taking part.
The amendment stated: “For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act places an obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnerships if they do not wish to do so.”
But the fear is that the protection from discrimination in the 'provision of goods or services' guaranteed in the Equality Bill will mean that homosexuals could take legal action against clergy who refused to hold the ceremonies in their church.
Andrea Williams, the director of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “We have seen countless cases where, as a result of similar sorts of legislation, religious adoption agencies have been forced to close and Christians have been forced out of their jobs for acting according to their beliefs.
“This amendment was brought in by a few peers literally at the 11th hour – at 10.59pm – with no proper debate, and yet it fundamentally changes the very nature of civil partnerships.
“There is no doubt that the homosexual lobby will now test it: they will apply for ceremonies in churches and when the minister refuses they will challenge him under the law.
"This is a further blurring of the definition of civil partnerships, which are becoming equivalent to marriage and churches are being forced to treat them as such."
Mike Judge of the Christian Institute echoed fears that the amendment could leave clergy facing costly law suits.
"We are very concerned about this and it’s a very alarming proposal," he said. "Even if this amendment says on the face of it that it only applies to those who choose to perform civil partnerships, that will not end up being the case and clergy will end up facing very costly legal bills in order to defend themselves against law suits.
"The Government has failed to understand the nature of religious liberty and has treated faith as nothing more than a matter of personal devotion. Now Christians feel let down and ignored. This is another step in the process of trying to force religions groups to abandon their core beliefs."
The amendment has yet to be approved in the Commons and Baroness Royall, the leader of the Lords, warned it would "not work in practice", by blurring the line between marriage and civil partnerships.

5 March 2010 at 13:10  
Anonymous Robert Eve said...

What else do you expect from Labour?

5 March 2010 at 13:45  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Spot on again Mr Singh,

We are facing a cult of death, which we must fight against with everything we have
The key to it, I believe, is we have a generation in power that believes it is the end of the line. Knowing they can't live forever, they will, like Samson, pull down the temple with them.

5 March 2010 at 13:46  
Blogger Ben Stevenson said...

"Anonymous said...
As a regular reader of His Grace, conservative evangelical Christian (with links to both CSM and Reform!) and Labour Councillor in Mitcham for relection I can happily inform readers the allegations in this story are untrue...."


If you want us to trust you based on your inside information of the situation, then put your name to your post. Anyone can claim to have knowledge of a situation if they remain anonymous.

5 March 2010 at 13:50  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Walling

' Knowing they can't live forever, they will, like Samson, pull down the temple with them.'

Outstanding.

5 March 2010 at 14:15  
Blogger Demetrius said...

Perhaps Ms McDonagh is not conversant with the history of the Labour Party. What is the saying about people who forget their own history?

5 March 2010 at 14:18  
Blogger D. Singh said...

They read the Communist Manifesto and repeat at breakfast:

‘Four legged animals good.

‘Two legged animals bad.’

5 March 2010 at 14:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am Siobhain McDonagh, and I would like to confirm that this whole story is completely untrue. It is also deeply offensive and should therefore be removed.

Most offensively, it suggests I am anti-religion. Anyone who knows anything about me would be aware I am a Catholic who goes to church assiduously every Sunday. I am very angry that you have portrayed me as conspiring against anyone for their beliefs or religious observances. What you have written about me is hurtful and 100% false. It is hard to believe anybody with any true religious belief could be so nasty as you have been in your blog, or could so deliberately damage another person’s reputation without checking any facts.

Your source is utterly unreliable. He cannot even spell my name correctly. This should have been a clue.

Indeed, the story is completely untrue. To be clear, the rules of the Labour Party expressly forbid exclusion on religious grounds, and neither can any individual veto anyone else from standing. In any case, in the fact of this case, Cllr Reynolds has never been excluded from standing, and his religious beliefs and commitments never arose during the selection process. This wouldn’t have been allowed anyway. The simple truth is that, while they praised Cllr Reynolds for his past efforts as a Councillor, local Labour Party members ultimately chose other candidates. And at all stages it is Labour Party members who choose who they want their candidates to be, not MPs, with the decision made by secret ballot. But since the source of this story seems to have been a Conservative candidate, he wouldn't know that.

This whole story is politically motivated smearing, with no bearing in truth whatsoever, and you should take it down. It is completely untrue, causes great offence to the many Christian Labour activists who give up so much of their time to help their communities, and should be of great embarrassment to you.

It is very upsetting to be accused of anti-religious bigotry, and I hope you will be brave enough to apologise for airing this untrue story and for portraying me in the way you have. I also hope that you will retract the accusations completely so that they are not continuously repeated on other blogs or elsewhere.

Yours sincerely,
Siobhain McDonagh

5 March 2010 at 14:56  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Then why have you posted anonymously. Send us your e-mail address so that we can examine your authenticity.

Or are you a certain Charles Chaplain?

5 March 2010 at 15:07  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

If the poster 'Anonymous' is indeed Siobhain McDonagh, then a retraction, an apology and a withdrawal of the blog item are the least that should be done.

Apart from the need to adhere to truth, and the potential unjustified damage that may be done to Ms McDonagh's reputation, you also need to consider your future credibility, and the perceived integrity of this blog.

I would not support Mr Singh's rather aggressive demand for an email address -- something that is not required of any other poster. 'Anonymous' is more or less the default name for people unaccustomed to commenting on this blog, and simply putting a name in the Name/URL option would prove nothing.

5 March 2010 at 15:27  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Anabaptist

There is nothing on 'her' website - yet she posts in this public forum?

There is somethin amiss here.

5 March 2010 at 15:32  
Blogger D. Singh said...

And in any event why did 'Charles Chaplain' not email privately?

5 March 2010 at 15:34  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Am I being obtuse, Mr Singh? When you say there is nothing on 'her' web site, what do you mean? Here it is:

http://siobhainmcdonagh.org.uk

There's plenty of stuff on it.

And why should she email privately when the offence (if it is one) has been committed publicly on this forum?

5 March 2010 at 15:47  
Blogger Ben Stevenson said...

Anabaptist,
I believe D Singh is referring to nothing on Siobhain McDonagh's website about the allegations made against her, rather than no content at all.

5 March 2010 at 15:58  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Thanks Ben. Obviously I was being obtuse. Although possibly D Singh might have been rather clearer if that was his meaning.

However, I still think it unreasonable to expect somebody whose web site demonstrates that she is probably not quite up to speed with web site design and technology, and who finds herself (in her opinion) traduced on a public blog, to mount an immediate rebuttal on her site, especially when she can go straight to the 'source' and object on the blog itself.

I don't see what purpose would be served by doing things at second-hand and third-hand, especially when, if she is right, it is second-hand reporting that has led to this alleged slur on her character, motives and actions. She has -- if it is indeed she (and we have little reason to doubt that it is) -- admirably fronted up and spoken directly to the one who has (allegedly) traduced her.

I think that speaks better of her than a web site denial would have done.

Furthermore, if the allegations are untrue, why should she want to ventilate them on her own web site?

5 March 2010 at 16:42  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Anabaptist

The correct thing to do here is for her to e-mail His Grace privately and then His Grace can take any action. And if he does not do so, or thinks it unfit or improper, then she can air the issue in public.

She would then have overwhelming moral superiority.

After all if a fellow has made a mistake you would pull him to one side; would you not?

5 March 2010 at 16:50  
Blogger Matt Wardman said...

There's a lot of humbug in this story, your grace.

5 March 2010 at 16:53  
Blogger English Viking said...

I hope she is offended, and every other 'Christian Labour activist' (an oxymoron if ever there was one) with her.

She is partly responsible for the utter devastation inflicted on this nation by the useless half-wits currently in power.

Perhaps if she spend more time considering how offensive it is to a parent to have a child brought back from Iraq, in a bag, because her insane masters like invading other countries, she would not be so prissy.

5 March 2010 at 16:53  
Blogger D. Singh said...

It appears His Grace has been quoting a candidate:

http://mileswindsor.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/george-reynolds/

5 March 2010 at 16:53  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Dear Mr Singh, you wrote:
'The correct thing to do here is for her to e-mail His Grace privately and then His Grace can take any action...After all if a fellow has made a mistake you would pull him to one side; would you not?'

So why didn't you email her privately, using the facility offered by her web site?

Or did you?

5 March 2010 at 16:58  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Anabaptist

Why would I as a third party want to e-mail her. In any event she has made it clear that she will not speak to His Grace or Mr Singh.

5 March 2010 at 16:59  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Gentlemen,

Ms McDonagh has emailed His Grace, and he has duly fisked.

5 March 2010 at 17:06  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

An understandable, but regrettable sentiment, Mr Viking. She, like every other MP who supported the invation of Iraq, shares the blame for that criminal enterprise, and that includes the Tories who supported it, and who largely continue to claim that they were right to do so.

However, that doesn't have anything to do with accusing her of colluding to remove from political office a man whose scruples prevented him from canvassing on a Sunday. That is an entirely separate issue.

If she is falsely accused in a public forum she has every right to complain and ask for the withdrawal of the accusation. I can't see how that can be described as prissy.

5 March 2010 at 17:09  
Blogger D. Singh said...

That's odd of her. She has made it clear on her website that she does not speak to non-constituents.

Unlike Miles Windsor, the Conservative candiadte who invites anyone in the world tp leave comments on his website.

5 March 2010 at 17:09  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Very good and honourable.

Can we have another article - I need my intellectual fix?

Please.

5 March 2010 at 17:12  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mr Singh, you ask:
'Why would I as a third party want to e-mail her'?

Because you, as a third party, have seen fit to include yourself in the conversation (which is your right).

But after all if a gel has made a mistake you would pull her to one side; would you not?

5 March 2010 at 17:13  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Anabaptist

I did not realise she had made a mistake. I proceeded on the available evidence.

5 March 2010 at 17:17  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr D. Singh.

No.

You appear to be overdosing.

It is the season of Lent.

5 March 2010 at 17:18  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mr Singh

I was paraphrasing your own advice concerning the lady.

5 March 2010 at 17:19  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Very good, Your Grace and Mr Anabaptist.

5 March 2010 at 17:20  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

'An MP's mailbox is full?'

Her box runneth over...

5 March 2010 at 17:30  
Blogger brett said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5 March 2010 at 17:32  
Blogger English Viking said...

Anabaptist,

I'll take no lectures on my sentiments from you, and certainly not from a Labour liar either, who has got the brass neck to bleat about being 'offended' whilst being part of a regime which is offensive to just about everybody who doesn't work for it, or is supported on benefits by it.

As His Grace has pointed out, the blog is supported by corroborating evidence (and it wasn't sexed up, either). It is a typical, cynical, cheap Labour trick to try to claim the high ground by painting your opponent as a this, that or the other. Bonus points can be scored if an 'ism' can be bandied about.

This dreadful woman has attempted to hide the truth of the shenanigans going on in the run up to the Labour defeat in the GE. She has attempted to browbeat His Grace for revealing her blasé attitude to the truth and her complicity in gerrymandering candidates. She is partly responsible for the hundreds of thousands dead and dying in foreign lands, for the economic wasteland her friends have created, for the 15,000,000 babies murdered under her party's regime, she is a hypocrite of the first order, claiming to be Christian whilst ignoring the warnings and commandments of Christ, and not just ignoring but willfully disobeying them and encouraging others to do the same.

Her very presence is offensive to me, let alone her words and deeds.

PS Don't think me a fan of the Tories either. They are all guilty.

5 March 2010 at 17:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just to clarify things, I can confirm that I know Siobhain and she is the genuine poster of the letter to Cranmer. Like me, she appears as Anonymous, as she has no intention of subscribing.

She did email Cranmer asking for him to have the humility to remove this post, but an hour later he still hadn't done this, so she posted her email for all to see.

If anyone is bothered to actually contact her, including Cranmer, I'm sure she can put them straight.

This whole story is a gigantic nonsense and a terrible smear on her reputation. You may not like her take on Christianity, but it is sincere, and she is not half as nasty as Cranmer's intolerant ravings about her make him sound. She's actually an astonishingly popular local MP with a reputation for hard work and getting things done for her constituents.

If Cranmer's untruthful account is picked up elsewhere, for instance in the real media rather than just on blogs, that would reflect very badly on him.

He wasn't at the meeting concerned, and neither was his source, and he should admit so. Anyone who was there will confirm that this story is 100% rubbish.

So Cranmer, well done for putting back the credibility of fellow Christians, but particularly yourself.

5 March 2010 at 17:41  
Anonymous William Wallace said...

If this is indeed Ms McDonagh who has posted as above then she merits an apology here.

5 March 2010 at 17:43  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Aaarrgghhhh.

Do you not see how utterly dense these Anonymice are.

His Grace does not usually bother with them, but if the Anon who posted above at 17.41 bothered to read the TWO updates, INCLUDING the response he received HOURS AFTER attempting to email Ms McDonagh directly (saying her Mailbox is FULL), he or she might apologise...

No?

Thought not.

5 March 2010 at 17:46  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr William Wallace,

So she may, if what she wrote were true.

Please read His Grace's fisk.

5 March 2010 at 17:48  
Anonymous William Wallace said...

Sorry the term "fisk" is new to me.

She says his role as a Methodist minister played no part in the deselection decision.

You know better?

5 March 2010 at 17:57  
Anonymous Tony B said...

>Ms McDonagh, there is nothing in this post at all which suggests that you are 'anti-religion'.
Bahahaha - oops

5 March 2010 at 17:59  
Anonymous philip walling said...

I know nothing personally of Miss McDoughnut, but she is a member of a criminal cabal that has taken over this country and is imposing its immoral will on me and millions of people like me.
I am obliged to comply with whatever they see fit to turn into 'law' on pain of criminal penalty; so it strikes me that I should be able to fight back with whatever I have available: the truth and satire, ridicule and, above all humour. They don't do humour these socialists.

Were Miss McD. the assiduous Catholic that she claims to be she would resign from her disgusting party immediately.

Knows she nothing of honour? How can she continue in a party that not only supports, but enforces through the law, abortion at 26 weeks, homosexual 'marriage' and 'adoption' and forces through ('Lord' Ali's amendment) that will result in individual priests being humiliated and criminalised for adhering to the Faith that she claims to support so assiduously.

The woman is either stupid, or immoral or a hypocrite; which is it Miss McDonagh? It is intellectually and morally incoherent to claim 'Christian socialism'.
Can she explain how she can be both? She is either one or the other, and from her behaviour she is clearly the other.

5 March 2010 at 18:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cranmer should give up on a bad job and leave well alone.

Will he admit his so-called "corroboration" could not have been from anyone who was at the very meeting he has been describing?

That's because it simply didn't happen.

Go on, admit it, your source(s)weren't there, were they?

The rest is all supposition, insinuation and sour grapes against other Christians who don't share your world view.

Persisting with this is just ruining your reputation.

5 March 2010 at 18:08  
Anonymous circus monkey said...

Loyal, compassionate, hard working and caring? What's he doing working for a bullying, arrogant and vindictive party then?

5 March 2010 at 18:23  
Blogger D. Singh said...

The Fact is Miss McDonought is a member of New Labour which persecutes us Christians.

The pro-homosexuality alws her party has passed attack all religious communities.

It is a fact that London's Christianity is supported by black Christians and if they withdrew - Christianity in London would collapse overnight.

That is why she and the socialists by passing anti-Christian, pro-homosexual, legislation attack black Christians, and is indirectly racist - in that context.

That is why socialists are acquiring a reputation in London as racists.

5 March 2010 at 18:25  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Anon said, "Your Grace really must do a little research, herself is a former pupil of Holy Cross Catholic Girls' School and, according to The Times, is "devoutly Roman Catholic".

Anon, you didn't read Cranmer's post, did you? He gives ample reasons to show that Shevawn (can't be bothered to look it up) cannot be devoutly Roman Catholic, with or without the inverted commas.

5 March 2010 at 18:34  
Anonymous William Wallace said...

Back to the substance of the matter.

Was this gentlemen deselected, in some sense with Ms McDonough's agreement, because his duties as a minister of religion precluded canvassing on a Sunday morning?

If not, then an apology is in order.

ps for the avoidance of doubt, I am not a member or supporter of the Labour Party

5 March 2010 at 18:37  
Blogger I am Stan said...

Loving your work Your Grace.

5 March 2010 at 18:37  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

I once had the doorbell rung obn a Sunday morning. It was a copuple of doorstep evangelists.

'I'd love to stay and chat' I said. 'But I'm off to church'.

They looked somewhat bemused.

5 March 2010 at 19:28  
Blogger Jimmy said...

Wonderful stuff. It does appear that the Church's position on bearing false witness is a lot more relaxed nowadays. So a councillor deselected and decides the only possible reason could be religious persecution. Manna from Heaven (if you'll pardon the analogy) for the nuttier end of the right wing . The funniest part though was the smearee's apparent belief that she might get an apology having declared her allegiance to the Whore of Babylon to a blogger calling himself Cranmer.

Remember, conservative blogging means never having to say you're sorry.

5 March 2010 at 19:42  
Blogger D. Singh said...

If conservative blogging never means having to say sorry. Then one cannot be a Conservative blogger.

5 March 2010 at 19:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If party politics ever made a difference in the past, which is doubtful, if most surly, and self-apparently makes far less these days.

QUOTE

"I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few."

Amen to that.

In my opinion there has only been one prime minister in office during my lifetime who even came close to trying to achieve the above.

Thatcher and many of her closest political associates where deeply anti-establishment. But as we can now see the establishment was always going to win in the end. It was always only a matter of time, and timing.

Cameron is not only a Tony Blair double, he is Edward Heath incarnate.

Party politics is for FOOLS, very nasty people, or the foolishly mislead.

We are now entering into the post democratic age, some of you may have even noticed this unavoidable fact of life. A New World Order that will leave the so called old Ist world more repressed and to a large part more enslaved then either the old 2nd or 3rd ever have been.

Will we care?

Will we even notice?

Will we even end up mind controlled into seriously believing that this is a good, or indeed a well deserved outcome?

Will we be allowed to live long enough to see it fully happen?

Will we do anything about it, before the seeming inevitable happens?

I only know the answer to the last question, and that is most self-evidently NO.

For it is not the sheep's fault it was born a sheep, nor the lions fault it must eat said sheep to survive. Darwinian survival of the fittest, and certainly the most
intelligently well informed.

There is none so blind as those who refuse to see.

There is none so ignorant as those who refuse to learn.

There is none so rudely ignorant and deserving of their fate, as those who talk tin hats and lizards when someone else is desperately trying to save their souls from eternal spiritual damnation, as well as terrestrial extinction.

5 March 2010 at 23:22  
Blogger OldSouth said...

Congratulations, Your Grace! I was wondering when the gloves would finally come off between you and the Labour political machine. It appears that moment has come.

The hysterical email from Siobhain McDonagh MP was just perfect: I disagree with what you say, therefore it is untrue! You nasty, nasty man, saying those nasty things about me, a good church-lady!

Stop it I say(foot-stomp)! No, I mean it(double foot-stomp!)!!


Hang tough, Your Grace, and keep us laughing in the meantime.

6 March 2010 at 01:29  
Blogger 嘴唇 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6 March 2010 at 06:42  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

This is just another pathetic smear - perhaps you should be asking some hard questions of your source.

I have a lot more experience of Labour Party meetings than Cranmer - and if anyone tried to deselect a councillor on the grounds stated my guess is that they would immediately be put in their place, and probably be remined in double quick time of Harold Wilson's quote (and statement of fact imo) that the "LAbour Party owes more to Methodism and Marxism".

If Cllr Reynolds really has been treated in the manner stated I would suggest that he make a complaint immediately to the Party's General Secretary as such behaviour is clearly counter to the Party's rules.

6 March 2010 at 08:44  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

As for your complaint about Siobhain McDonagh's mailbox being full - perhaps it has something to do with you telling people to post there?

6 March 2010 at 08:46  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Gees, I go out for the day and this is what I come home to? I can't leave you alone for five minutes before all hell breaks loose.

6 March 2010 at 09:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmm. As a Tory Councillor I would like to believe this story, however.....

The selection of council candidates is usually a matter for the constituency party who have an overall veto/approval function, then the local ward membership who would interview each ward candidate and vote by secret ballot. As far as I am aware this procedure applies accross all parties including the Labour Party.

How much influence the local MP has is debatable. Most MPs if they are sensible would not get involved. So although there may be dark doings in the local ward Labour Party, there is no evidence to say that the MP was involved or responsible.

There could be other factors as well - including personality clashes, maybe he was not as assiduous in his duties as his supporters make out...

Of course this does not detract from the fact that the current Labour Party is anti Christian in general.

Mind you I have never understood why the Labour Party canvasses on Sunday mornings. The Tory Party canvasses on Saturdays and week day evenings. On Sunday morning 10%of the voters are at Church, 90% are still in bed/their pyjamas and not keen on opening the door...

I think even politicians are entitled to some private 'me' and family time and Sunday morning and evening I regard as sacrosant.

6 March 2010 at 12:14  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Has anyone else noticed or is it just me: the Socialists are becoming very sensitive on the subject of religion.

Normally they are just abusive.

6 March 2010 at 12:30  
Blogger Theresa said...

Have to say that I don't understand people canvassing on Sundays either. Anyone who is involved in grass roots politics knows that this is a dead day for canvassing; if you do get anyone in, they're generally not very pleased to see you. Saturday is the same; you're competing with football, Harry Hill, X Factor, CSI Miami and everything else.

6 March 2010 at 14:32  
Blogger Roger Pearse said...

Don't take "Ekklesia" at face-value -- it's merely a handful of campaigners for getting homosexuality and other leftist ideologies into the church. They are not believers in any sense worth discussing; rather agents of the secularist establishment in religious clothing. They do love to garb themselves so, to claim the name of Christian while attacking Christianity, these enemies of the church, don't they?!

6 March 2010 at 17:17  
Blogger D. Singh said...

This is Siobhain McDonagh Voting Record

Judge for yourselves whether she is pro-Christian or anti-Christian:

Voted against Section 28

Voted for an incitement to religious hatred offence in 2001

Voted for reducing the homosexual age of consent to 16

Abstained or was absent on the vote for allowing greater freedom for religious broadcasting

Voted for research using human cloning in 2000

Voted for preventing euthanasia

Voted for the Civil Partnership Bill

Voted against extending the Civil Partnership Bill to cover siblings

Voted for restricting the parental right to smack

Voted for allowing unmarried and homosexual couples to adopt children

Voted for the Gambling Bill

Voted for the Gender Recognition Bill

Voted against including protection for churches and religious organisations in the Gender Recognition Bill

Voted for reclassifying cannabis to class C in 2003

Voted for the Second Reading of the Religious Hatred Bill on 21 June 2005

Voted for the Third Reading of the Religious Hatred Bill on 11 July 2005

Voted against the Lords amendments to the Religious Hatred Bill on 31 January 2006

Voted against keeping the presumption that religious charities provide public benefit

Abstained or was absent on the vote for increasing the number of regional casinos from 1 to 8

Abstained or was absent on the vote for requiring practitioners providing contraception or abortion to a child under the age of 16 to inform his or her parent or guardian

Voted for the Sexual Orientation Regulations which restrict religious liberty

Abstained or was absent on the vote for the Termination of Pregnancy (Counselling and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2007
Abstained or was absent on a series of votes for reducing the abortion limit from 24 weeks in 2008

Abstained or was absent on the vote for a ban on creating saviour siblings in 2008

Abstained or was absent on the vote for a ban on creating animal-human hybrid embryos in 2008

Abstained or was absent on the vote for keeping the requirement to consider a child's need for a father before fertility treatment in 2008

Abstained or was absent on the vote for providing information and offering counselling to women considering abortion for foetal abnormality in 2008

Voted for abolishing the blasphemy laws in England and Wales

Voted against a free speech amendment to the 'homophobic hatred' offence in 2008

Voted for reclassifying cannabis to class B in 2008

Voted against a free speech amendment to the 'homophobic hatred' offence in March 2009


She is clearly anti-Christian and against of other faith communities.

6 March 2010 at 20:17  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

"The Tory Party canvasses on Saturdays and week day evenings."

Not where I live they aren't - I had the great pleasure of delaying two of them for c40minutes while they were performing the devil's work a month ago. Very interesting how racist they became with only a little encouragement.

7 March 2010 at 08:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No smoke without fire Siobhan.If it is true then its the shaming of your party that a good, hard working member of his community should be treated so shabbily and discourteously. Sunday is a day of rest and reflection and certainly not a day of pest and deselection.

7 March 2010 at 21:39  
Anonymous Oswin said...

'tory boys never grow up' - probably because they are obliged to live in a New Labour world of fantasy, and dissemination and incredulity?

8 March 2010 at 17:35  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Oswin at 5.35 pm

You have definitely got the 'big picuture'.

Superb comment.

8 March 2010 at 19:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is a reason for Miss McStationery's inbox being full... She happens to be my MP and I would be rather remiss in my duties as Sir Olly Cromwell not to have "Cromwelled" her a few times. To those of you who have tried contacting Madam WHSmith I do apologise... But a point has been proven...She doesn't check her emails, and nor do a lot of other MP's for that matter....


Her pencilsharpenership may be receiving a visit from myself this weekend as there is some sort of workshop, I'm just trying to confirm her attendance and I should be there....

Anyone have any questions they'd like to put to this envelope gum addicted woman?

12 March 2010 at 16:35  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older