The Tories hiding under a bushel
The right of a woman to have control over her own body is likely to come under attack once again in the event of a Conservative majority in the Commons, no matter how small, according to an article in this morning’s FT.
Intriguingly, the paper reports that the opposition of Tory MPs’ and candidates to abortion is not the result of deep religious convictions:
One party adviser described the anti-abortion sentiment within the party as being an aspect of “right-wing political correctness. They think it goes with the package: pro-nuclear power, pro-nuclear weapons, pro-army, pro-life.”
How strange! A few years ago, who would have seen the Right returning to 1980s FCS levels of ‘right on’ behaviour? Although I am both a liberal and a Christian, I believe that I should use my brain, my reasoning and my conscience to think things through for myself, rather than simply buying into a ‘box set’ of policies.
More worrying is the attitude of the Christian minority within the soon to be Conservative parliamentary party, if the behaviour of their cheerleader Nadine Dorries is to be believed. Nadine says that her politics are ‘informed by her Christianity’, whilst adding:
“if you mention God in an argument in the UK, you lose,”
I’m not sure that’s true. I’ve never invoked God or religion to back any of my political arguments, knowing that whatever relevance they may have for me, they are not necessarily of relevance to others. Still less do I want to try to win an argument on the basis that my God’s bigger than your God. In my experience, most people are comfortable with the insertion of God and/or religion into an argument, unless the protagonist claims divine intervention or omnipotence.
The FT also notesthe comments of a leading anti-abortion activist, who said that the skills and support of the Christian Medical Fellowship and the Lawyers Christian Fellowship were “absolutely indispensable … but we could never acknowledge their role. Never. People would never take us seriously again.” It is always a bad day for democracy when both our representatives and those who seek to influence them hide their true colours. And you would have thought that if people thought that they were truly acting on the Word of God, that they would seek to let people know, rather than hide their light under a bushel.
But the comment that worried me most of all within the longer reportage was another from Dorries. She says that another reason that she avoided talking about faith in parliament is out of fear it will set a precedent by which Muslim MPs could express, and eventually impose theirs.
“There is no place for sharia law in Britain and as politicians we have to be aware and vigilant to ensure that we don’t ease or facilitate its acceptance”.
This woman is a Member of Parliament. Does she have no understanding of how the executive, legislature and judiciary work in this country? Maybe more to the point, does she not understand the meaning of discussion, debate and democracy? As a Christian, I am just as worried about any group of Christians attempting to impose their religiously inspired views on this secular country as I am about Sharia law. And the fact that either or both groups are using clandestine means to try to bring about their wishes is more than a little disconcerting.
Related posts:
- Politicians, don't hide your light under a bushel!
- So he’s gay, so what – but can Reigate’s Tories get over it?
- Tories running out of excuses
Comments
14 February 2010, 10:31 am
I’ve been thinking about this post and how to respond to it for most of yesterday, I also had another read through the FT article as well.
I guess that there is a general principle that what guides one moral or ethical direction is ones own business, it’s how those principles are demonstrated that is important. The risk with bringing $deity into any discussion is that it immediately ends up in a competition about whose deity is bigger, better, more real, so in a very practical context ”bringing god in” means that one has lost, it’s no longer about implementation.
That said the blinkered, ill-informed and downright offensive position that Dorries takes does betray a very simplistic understanding of Islam, and quite a disturbing demonstration of the penalties of the current political system. She claims to be a Christian, yet she will betray Christian principles by not speaking about that in an effort to stifle the opportunity for another follower of the same deity to do the same. So she adds moral cowardice to the list as well.
For what it’s worth, Sharia is not law per se, but a description of how the Q’uran and Hadith are interpreted to guide ones life. I’m not clear on whether she really doesn’t understand what she’s talking about or whether a clearly discriminatory position is part of her own electoral strategy.
What crystalised it this morning was reading a statement on Neil Gaimans journal (http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html), on a different subject:
“If you accept — and I do — that freedom of speech is important, then you are going to have to defend the indefensible. That means you are going to be defending the right of people to read, or to write, or to say, what you don’t say or like or want said.”
The prospect of members of any potential governing party taking such an explicitly censorious approach is quite disturbing.