Mike Judge 2013-05-23T12:34:42-04:00 Mike Judge http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=mike-judge Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Mike Judge Good old fashioned elbow grease. Cameron's 'Disco Dad' Push for Gay Marriage tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2590284 2013-02-03T19:00:00-05:00 2013-04-05T05:12:01-04:00 Mike Judge http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-judge/
Even supporters of gay marriage cringe at his dance moves. Blogger Iain Dale thinks the proposals are a far cry from direct 'equality' because matrimonial law will continue to have rules about consummation for straight couples, but none for gay couples. Mr Dale suggests the government did not want a bill that spelled out a precise definition of gay sex. He also points out that gay couples and straight couples will be treated differently when it comes to the laws of adultery.

Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell also thinks the proposals don't achieve true equality. Under the government's bill, a gay couple will have the option of a civil partnership or a gay marriage. But straight couples will only have marriage. There are some straight couples campaigning for the right to enter a civil partnership, and they're pursuing a claim of discrimination to the European Court of Human Rights. We all know that the judges in Strasbourg are capable of doing anything. By the way, if civil partnerships are opened up to straight couples it could cost the UK taxpayer £5billion because of the associated tax implications.

Given that David Cameron's plans for gay marriage appear to be making all sides cringe, who's pushing him onto the dance floor? Westminster insiders say it is his wife, Samantha. She comes from an aristocratic family of the metropolitan artsy variety, rather than the country horse and hounds variety. She's known to have socially liberal views, so much so that Government ministers have joked she has more of a liberalising influence on her husband than his coalition partner Nick Clegg. The prime minister's mother, Mary, was asked why her son is pushing a policy which is alienating so many traditional Tory voters. She replied, "I know. But David just won't be told."

Embarrassed by seeing their leader trying to bop like a teenager, party activists are leaving in their droves. Membership has plummeted by more than half since he became leader, and over 70 per cent of remaining members believe the issue of gay marriage is tearing the party apart. But it's not just the foot soldiers who are quitting. Experienced local association chairmen have quit too. We're talking about people with years of experience who have been faithful to the Party for decades. No leader of any organisation can afford to lose people like that.

But perhaps David Cameron thinks he's dancing to a different tune. He's not trying to appeal to his party, he's not even trying to appeal to the gay vote. He's trying to win those voters who are attracted by the hip and trendy metropolitan values. Ultimately, he is hoping that his disco-dad moves are a vote-winner. It's not working, according to polling which shows gay marriage could cost him 1.1million votes and up to 30 parliamentary seats. Much of that support is now going to Ukip, which has recently overtaken the Lib Dems as third most popular party. Gay marriage is a prime factor.

So while David boogies to the beat of redefining marriage, spurred on by his wife, the rest of the country collectively winces and shakes its head. It's time this disco dad got off the gay marriage dance floor, before he gets pushed off.]]> Atheist Teacher Dismissed Over Refusal to Conduct Religious Assembly in School tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2549478 2013-01-27T19:00:00-05:00 2013-03-29T05:12:01-04:00 Mike Judge http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-judge/
A statement by the teacher, released through his lawyer, said it was "his sincere belief that there is no such thing as God, and that he opposes all forms of organised religion. He cannot, in all conscience, be involved in an activity that promotes religion, much less an act of 'worship'. He simply asked his employer to accommodate his sincere beliefs, and is disappointed that this has resulted in his dismissal."

However, the head teacher of the school said, "We respect his atheistic beliefs, and he is free to exercise those beliefs, but it must not interfere with his duties as a teacher. Our equality policy is clear. We cannot allow our staff to refuse to take part in religious assemblies just because they disagree with religion. It is demeaning those pupils from a faith background and makes them feel like second-class citizens. We are under a legal duty to provide a religious assembly to pupils, and we expect all our staff to follow the law."

The Religious Alliance has supported the teacher's dismissal. A spokesman said: "When you are paid to do a job by the state, you have to follow the state's rules. Parliament passed the law that requires religious assemblies in schools and a teacher shouldn't be allowed to opt out just because he is an atheist. What's next? Will an atheist teacher be allowed to refuse to teach a child maths, just because that child is religious?"

But the British Atheist Council has hit out at the teacher's dismissal as "an appalling attack on freedom of conscience". A spokeswoman said: "There were plenty of teachers at the school willing to provide a religious assembly for pupils, no assembly would have been cancelled just because this one teacher asked not to be involved. To force this teacher out of his career is a huge over reaction - and speaks of something deeper, an anti-atheist undercurrent."

Who do you agree with? The school? The Religious Alliance? The British Atheist Council? I ask because the imagined story I outline above (and, yes, it is only an imagined story) fairly well mirrors that of Lillian Ladele, the Christian registrar who was dismissed from working at Islington Borough Council because she asked not be involved in the registration of same-sex civil partnerships. I say "mirrors" it because I have reversed the central belief which lies at the heart of the matter. In Lillian's case, it was her Christian belief that marriage is only for a man and a woman. In the scenario above, it is the atheist belief that there's no God and religion is wrong.

Lillian was employed by a public authority, Islington Borough Council. The council is required by law to provide same-sex civil partnership registrations to the public. But that doesn't mean every single registrar has to be involved. Not a single same-sex couple was denied, or would ever have been denied, a civil partnership registration because of Lillian's objection. The suggestion that this would have opened the floodgates to gay people being refused any public service is simply untrue. Yet, Lillian was forced out of her job - in fact her career - for asking a very reasonable question: I have a genuine contentious objection, it doesn't impact anyone else, so can it please be accommodated? The Civil Partnership Act does allow for that kind of flexibility - just as education law does not require all teachers to take part in religious assemblies.

I suspect some people's reaction to Lillian's case has nothing to do with the precise facts or the intricacies of the law. Rather, it's that some people don't like Lillian's essential belief about marriage; they don't think she should be allowed to hold the belief in public; they don't think the belief is worthy of respect in a modern democratic society; and they don't like anyone who sticks up for her. For some people, that's what all this comes down to: I don't like Lillian, her beliefs, or her supporters, therefore she ought to lose her job.

Not everyone thinks like that, but some do. Others are just going along with the crowd, others are keeping their head down for fear of being labelled as homophobic, others are confused by the falsehoods and untruths that have been circulated about this case, others couldn't care one way or the other. But I hope the scenario of the atheist teacher helps others to pause and have a genuine think about how we treat liberty of conscience in this country. If at the start of reading this post you were beginning to be outraged by how the school had treated the atheist teacher, then you ought to be appalled by how Lillian was treated. The true test of tolerance lies in how you react to the beliefs you don't like, not the ones you do.]]> Christians Win Right to Wear Cross, but Not to Believe in Marriage tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2479734 2013-01-15T19:00:00-05:00 2013-03-17T05:12:01-04:00 Mike Judge http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-judge/
I have been heavily involved in supporting one of those cases - that of Lillian Ladele - since the case first hit the headlines in 2006. So, I confess an interest, but it also means I know the case inside out. She is a Christian who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. She could not, in all conscience, get involved in the registration of same-sex civil partnerships. Her bosses at Islington Borough Council had plenty of registrars to provide a civil partnership service to the public, but decided to force Lillian to choose between her faith or her career.

She took her employer to a tribunal, and won outright. The tribunal also decided that Lillian had been horribly bullied because of her traditional beliefs about marriage. But that decision was overturned on appeal. It remained that way all the way through the British court system. The case ended up at the European Court of Human Rights. This week, five European judges dismissed the claim but two judges thought Miss Ladele should have won. There may yet be an appeal to the Grand Chamber (yes, it really is called that) of the European Court. So it rumbles on.

With the UK government in an unseemly rush to redefine marriage, the European court ruling in the Ladele case is worrying. People who believe in traditional marriage are at risk of being left out in the cold. Employees, particularly teachers and others in the public sector, risk being kicked out of their profession unless they endorse same-sex marriage. All the concerns about how the redefinition of marriage will hit ordinary people are proving to be true.

A fresh legal opinion produced by Aidan O'Neill QC for the Coalition for Marriage group confirms that teachers could be sacked if they refuse to endorse gay marriage in the classroom. Public sector chaplains who work in the NHS, the armed forces, or in universities, could likewise be given the boot. Local councils could be within their rights to stop couples from fostering if they believe in traditional marriage. Churches could be banned from using village halls if they refuse to do gay weddings. These are the kind of injustices that are likely to hit ordinary life if marriage is redefined.

Yes, there are a variety of beliefs about marriage in society. Yes, there are people on all sides of the gay marriage debate. But should your beliefs about that issue result in you being pushed out of your job? Should your career be abruptly ended because you think marriage is only for men and women? Is that a tolerant society that is embracing the true meaning of 'diversity'? I don't think so.

I'm delighted for Nadia Eweida that she has won her case, and secured the right of Christians to wear a cross at work if they want to. But I'm deeply concerned that the European Court seems unwilling to defend the rights of employees to act according to their deeply-held beliefs about marriage.]]> Osborne's Gay Marriage Fantasy Shows He's Got Too Much Time on His Hands tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2130028 2012-11-14T11:16:46-05:00 2013-01-14T05:12:01-05:00 Mike Judge http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-judge/ newspaper article on Tuesday.

We already knew the Chancellor was utterly out of touch with real voters. But his article in The Times proves it beyond doubt. In the real world, voters worry about mortgages, living standards, greedy banks, jobs and public services. But in Mr Osborne's creative imagination, he thinks redefining marriage will cause millions of voters to rush to the ballot box and vote for his party. UK polls show this is never going to happen. The Tories could lose up to 30 seats and over 1 million votes if they meddle with marriage.

Yet Mr Osborne pins his flimsy dream on the results of the US election, in particular on four state ballots which related directly to the marriage issue. You'd hope a Chancellor would, at least, be good with numbers. But it seems Mr Osborne has utterly misread the data. Those marriage votes took place in four very liberal states. Pro-gay marriage campaigners outspent their opponents by $20 million, a ratio of 4:1. Yet they could only win by the skin of their teeth. In other words, states which President Obama won comfortably came extremely close to voting against the redefinition of marriage. And, lest we forget, 31 other US sates have firmly voted against redefining marriage. 31-4 doesn't sound like a winning strategy to me.

Mr Osborne's take on the issue has been sharply criticised in the British press on Wednesday morning. The Daily Telegraph says:

George Osborne, the Chancellor, donned his party strategist hat yesterday to claim that if the Tories do not embrace gay marriage, it could cost them the next general election. He based this startling observation on his analysis of last week's US elections, when President Obama secured a decisive advantage over Mitt Romney among women voters.

Leaving aside the fact that it was probably the Republicans' anti-abortion stance that proved a more salient issue for women than gay marriage, such a literal read-across to British politics is dangerously misleading. In the United States, same-sex couples have far fewer legal rights than married couples. In this country, the Civil Partnership Act passed by the Blair government in 2004 removed any such distinctions. Mr Osborne is perfectly aware of this fact. He is also aware that there is little popular pressure in favour of gay marriage - on the contrary, there is widespread opposition - but that, too, is deemed irrelevant. The only point that matters here is political posturing. Mr Osborne wants to demonstrate that the Conservatives really are a "modern" party by picking a symbolic and needless fight with social conservatives.

He is playing a dangerous game. Six hundred thousand people have signed a petition opposing same-sex marriage. All faiths will mobilise against it because Church leaders are unconvinced by the Government's promise that they will not be allowed to conduct such ceremonies in any case. Ed Miliband has already said that they should - and human rights legislation would certainly ensure that test cases would swiftly be brought before the courts, both here and in Europe, raising the prospect of Churches being forced by law to conduct marriage ceremonies they do not recognise. Is that really what Mr Osborne wants?


And the Daily Express says:

IT IS remarkable that Chancellor George Osborne should find the time to pontificate about social issues, such as the abortion law and gay marriage, that fall way outside his Treasury brief.

Mr Osborne appears to believe that being "socially liberal" is the key to electoral success.

In fact, most voters believe fixing the economy and dealing with bread and butter issues about living standards are by far the most important tasks facing the Government.

Many longtime Conservatives are also fed up of seeing their party's leadership trampling on their beliefs and depicting anyone who doesn't embrace the full liberal agenda as a bigot.

Mr Osborne would be much better advised to treat being Chancellor of the Exchequer as a full-time job.

And if he is not prepared to do so then David Cameron should find somebody who is.


Well, quite. Sorting out the economy and the banks should be the only things on Mr Osborne's mind. But his daydreaming about redefining marriage shows he's got way too much time on his hands.]]> Teach Kids About Dangers of Porn, But Don't Let the Sex Ed Crowd Do It tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2022604 2012-10-28T19:00:00-04:00 2012-12-28T05:12:01-05:00 Mike Judge http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-judge/
Research recently released by the University of Plymouth shows that it is having a devastating impact on a generation of youngsters. Some children start viewing this stuff at age 11. Many become hooked on it. It twists and distorts their view of sex, so when they enter a relationship as adults their attitude to intimacy is warped. In the minds of young men, woman should behave like porn stars in the bedroom - because that's what they've watched since their childhood.

Sadly, many teenage girls believe they must perform exactly like that. Not yet emotionally mature, they go along with a boyfriend's relentless pressure to act out the fantasies he has been viewing on the internet. She poses while he takes pictures or videos. It's just for the two of them, he promises. But when he's dumped her for some other girl the images and videos get passed around his mates and, oops, get uploaded to the internet.

The explosion of free online porn, much of it populated with that sort of material, has alarmed many experts. Known as 'tube' sites, users upload their own made-at-home content. Because it's freely available, the sites rarely put any mechanism in place to block under-18s from viewing it.

In days when teenagers, and younger kids, often have laptops in their bedrooms or smartphones in their pockets, this material is all too easy to access. Parents try their best to manage their children's internet use, but many will be oblivious to the real extent of the problem. There has been talk that the government should impose an automatic block on all online adult content. If an over-18 user wants the block removed, they would have to request it from their internet provider. The problem is so great, that I believe we do need a solution like that.

Until then, isn't it a good idea to teach children about the dangers as part of sex education classes? Sorry, but I just don't trust the sex education crowd to do it properly. They've been part of the problem for decades. Take for example this latest project by a team of 'sexual health professionals' in Coventry and Warwickshire. They've developed a website and app aimed at kids as young as 13. It has tips on oral and anal intercourse, how to lose your virginity, and a body map of erogenous zones.

No doubt they think they're being edgy to grab the attention of hard-to-reach youths. But this value-free approach to sex is what has caused this mess in the first place. As adults we are supposed to give our children boundaries, and one of them should be don't mess around with sex. Parents would like to see more of this, but the sex education lobby dance around the issue of genuine parental involvement. Just leave it to the experts, they say. If mums and dads knew the half of what is really taught in sex education, they'd be horrified. Which is why I don't trust them to teach the risks of porn to 10-year-olds.]]> Christian B&B Was Right Not to Give a Gay Couple a Double Bed tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2011798 2012-10-25T19:00:00-04:00 2012-12-25T05:12:01-05:00 Mike Judge http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-judge/
For the same reason, I support the Scouts for not giving way. The Scout Association has had a religious ethos for 105 years and faith remains a core tenet of the movement. If you believe something is important, stick up for it. Good on 'em.

That's why I also back Susanne Wilkinson, the Christian who runs a B&B from her family home in Berkshire. She believes in the importance of marriage and so she doesn't want to give double beds to unmarried couples. She's trying to be true to her beliefs.

But last week a judge ruled that her policy was unlawful. The judge said it had discriminated against a gay couple, Michael Black and John Morgan. The judge accepted that Mrs Wilkinson's beliefs were genuine (i.e. not just a convenient excuse) and that she had also applied the policy to unmarried straight couples.

The judge, however, ruled against Mrs Wilkinson because the law has been written so rigidly in favour of gay rights. She was ordered to pay £3,600 in damages to Mr Black and Mr Morgan for injury to their feelings.

Mrs Wilkinson was just trying to be true to her deeply held beliefs. She was trying to be consistent. As she herself says, Christianity isn't just for church on a Sunday, it's for every area of life everyday.

Yes, Mrs Wilkinson opened her home to the public as a B&B. Yes, she wasn't forced to do it. But that doesn't mean she must park her beliefs, and it doesn't mean the house ceases to be her family home. This isn't some faceless mega-chain of hotels. She lives there with her husband and children. Surely, there should be a bit more flexibility so that people can live according to their own values under their own roof?

The fact is, we live in a society where different people have different beliefs about all sorts of things, including sexual ethics. All of us have an opinion about what's right and wrong when it comes to sexual behaviour. We all draw the line somewhere.

But the law is increasingly taking sides in this debate, and those who hold to a traditional belief about marriage are on the receiving end of the law's inflexibility. And there is a real danger that liberal dogma is being imposed on people who hold to more traditional values.

Just consider the ridiculous case of Adrian Smith, the housing manager who was demoted by his bosses at Trafford Housing Trust losing 40 per cent of his salary just because he said on his private Facebook page that gay weddings in churches were "an equality too far".

Mr Smith is trying to recover his lost earnings and his case was heard by the High Court in Manchester last week (it was due to be heard in the County Court, but it got an upgrade on the day of the hearing). The judge's ruling is expected in the next few weeks.

Clearly, it is time for an honest debate - a debate about civil liberty for people who go against the new liberal orthodoxy. Equality has begun to intrude on other people's human rights, and it is high time there was a bit more balance.]]>