Cabinet reshuffle: Chris Grayling appointed Justice Secretary causes controversy
Twitter is all of a flutter as news breaks that Chris Grayling has been appointed as Justice Secretary.
Apparently he is the first non-lawyer as Lord Chancellor since Archbishop of York under Queen Mary in 1558.
Aside from this, folks such as Symon Hill of Ekklesia have Tweeted in response:
The appointment of Chris Grayling as Justice Secretary is an insult to gay and bisexual people. He defended homophobes in secret recording.
This secret recording relates to comments he made suggesting that B&B owners should have the right to turn away gay couples. Here’s the offending remarks:
“I personally always took the view that, if you look at the case of should a Christian hotel owner have the right to exclude a gay couple from a hotel, I took the view that if it’s a question of somebody who’s doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn’t come into their own home. If they are running a hotel on the High Street, I really don’t think that it is right in this day and age that a gay couple should walk into a hotel and be turned away because they are a gay couple, and I think that is where the dividing line comes.”
As you can imagine these comments caused outrage at the time and that outrage is being resurrected as a result of Grayling’s appointment.
September 4th, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Pity those shrieking “outrageous” can’t be prosecuted for inciting hatred (which is what they are doing).
September 4th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Sayeeda Hussain Warsi to represent faith and communities, but will continue to be a member of the Cabinet as Foreign Office minister.
Grayling outrage, to be brutally unpolitically correct Warsi is about as far removed from my idea of faith and community as a political placement could be, not to mention the possibility of an inherent Islamic slant concerning British foreign policy.
September 4th, 2012 at 3:35 pm
What about the thief David Laws being appointed Minister for Children? I think Cameron is really trying to rub our noses in it. What does a gay man know about children?
September 4th, 2012 at 6:54 pm
Hmm, “What does a gay man know about children?”.
There’s an outside chance he was one. Perhaps he knows some, maybe he has siblings, nephews, nieces. Just perhaps he has a postgraduate degree in child psychology, numerous years experience in youth work and a longstanding career in a children and families social work team.
I am not suggesting he has this experience or that he is the best candidate for the job. I am, however, challenging the general assumption that someone’s sexuality means they can have no relevant knowledge or experience.
September 4th, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Jill,
Don’t worry, it will be easy to demonstrate you are not homophobic. You just need to give us a link you where you made a similar objection to his predecessor, the single & childless Sarah Teather MP.
September 5th, 2012 at 11:17 am
“What does a gay man know about children?”
Nothing, obviously. I’m a gay man and I once taught children for a considerable number of years, but I know nothing whatever about children.
September 5th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
@Jill – I would advise actually getting to know a few gay men, instead making some of these – at times laughable, at times frightening – comments you litter around the internet. There are – this may spook you – many gay men who have children! Or who are foster or step parents.
That aside, perhaps you need to think about just what a daft and (as is often the case) prejudiced and ignorant comment you have made.
David Cameron is the Prime Minister – let’s have a look at his background, son of a stockbroker and a JP, grandson of a baronet, he was privately educated at a preparatory, Eton and then on to Oxford and then straight into politics, as a researcher. You could ask, what does this man have in common with the vast majority of the population? Precious little, I should imagine.
Michael Gove was a journalist before entering politics, you could ask, what does he know about education? What connection does Theresa Villiers have with Northern Ireland, yet she is its cabinet minister?
I presume, following your flawless logic, Rosemary West, would be a better candidate, as she has had children and therefore would be far more capable… Thank you for sharing your wisdom…
September 5th, 2012 at 2:12 pm
[...] add to this New Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s previous off-the-record comments have been dug up again as have the views of new Culture and Equalities Minister, Maria [...]
September 5th, 2012 at 2:46 pm
I know plenty of gay men – more than most people, I suspect – and most of them are not remotely interested in children.
Throwing up Rosemary West is a complete red herring. Children are much safer with women. (Look up evidence in children’s homes, scouting organisations, Catholic Church etc.) I think this is a role for a woman.
This seems like a deliberately provocative move, to rub our noses in it.
September 5th, 2012 at 7:14 pm
‘To rub our noses in it…’ in what, pray? The inverted pride, victim mentality of reactionary Christians who suffer chagrin just because they don’t automatically command the respect and social standing they think is theirs by right?
Elsewhere on this blog or another, you make a comment that there will be fewer incidences of child abuse in the RC church because the RC no longer allows homosexuals to become priests. Now that is just an expression of a warped mentality – the belief paedophilia and homosexuality are intrinsically linked (and doesn’t explain why girls were also sexually abused by RC priests!). Oddly enough, the most likely person to abuse a child is a near relative – brother, father, grandfather, step-father, uncle… and of course, mother – most children are abused in their own homes. I am sure it is comforting to believe children are most at risk of sexual abuse from wicked homos on the internet, working in children’s homes, or scouting organisations or the Catholic Church etc. But the truth is, statically, the most likely locus of abuse is the familial home.
Homosexuals (as we’re seeing again and again across a broad range of churches) are becoming a convenient scapegoat, their opprobrium a ready-to-wear outward righteousness. This consistent smear and hate campaign on the part of some of our Christian brethren goes hand in hand with attacks on liberalism, as the cause of ‘the rot’ in society (tho’ we live in far more wholesome societies now, than at any other time in history – read some social history before contradicting this remark!).
The odd thing is, that all conservative, reactionary Christians are doing, is passing the buck, for their own failures. If the churches are empty (or emptier than they were) whose fault is that? If no one listens to Christians, whose fault is that? Instead of point the finger, it is time to hold up a mirror and just see what is repulsive, to the vast majority of the Britons, about the church? Ask most people who profess a nominal faith why they don’t go to church and many will tell you that it is church goers that put them off… Well looking at the above, is it any wonder…
September 6th, 2012 at 9:18 am
Fr Richard, if you have read my comments on other blogs you will know that I know full well – and have pointed out myself many times – that most child abuse happens within the family circle. But we are not discussing that, are we? We are discussing putting a gay man in a position much more suited to a woman – at a time when they are considering women-only shortlists to get more women into government.
Actually, I wish to slightly revise my previous post, and prefix ‘women’ in the penultimate paragraph with the word Conservative (big C) (the sentence about women being more suitable). Thinking over last night about women in politics generally I cast my mind back to the ghastly Harriet Harman and her link to the Paedophile Information Exchange and the NCCL campaigning for the age of consent to be lowered to 14, for incest to be decriminalised and sexually explicit photographs of children to be made legal. For those with short memories, that story can be read here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html
Further back than that there was the equally appalling Margaret Hodge, who refused to deal with the paedophile ring operating in Islington children’s homes, preferring instead to smear and vilify the abused children. And who was then, astonishingly, appointed Minister for Children. For those with short memories, read here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-229953/If-iota-shame-Mrs-Hodge-youd-resign-now.html
Well, thank God that at least Lynne Featherstone (who I believe to be from the same mould) has now gone as Equalities Minister, to be replaced by a more sensible Conservative woman.
September 6th, 2012 at 9:27 am
Oh, and here is an article from one of the abused boys from the Islington children’s homes. Note these chilling paragraphs on the stranglehold of political correctness.
(Quote) The far-Left council had actively recruited men who claimed to be gay to run its homes, and declared that “gays” did not even need references or professional training or experience.
But the men who flocked forward were not gay – they were paedophiles.
A 1995 Government-ordered inquiry confirmed that no action was taken against these evil men because “the equal opportunities environment, driven from the personnel perspective, became a positive disincentive for bad practice”.
In plain English, anyone who raised abuse concerns about the men running its children’s homes was “anti gay”.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-518672/Haut-la-Garenne-Why-abuse-level-happen-again.html
September 6th, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Jill:
I have no firm opinion about whether or not David Laws is a good appointment as Minister for Children. I have to admit that if I were Prime Minister, I would probably, like you, think the position better occupied by a woman. But when you say that “We are discussing putting a gay man” – rather than simply “a man” – “in a position much more suited to a woman”, you seem to be implying that a gay man is a priori MORE unsuitable for the position than a straight man. There is no good reason to think so.
September 7th, 2012 at 10:33 am
Jill
Thanks for this. I fully agree the excesses of the far Left in London’s boroughs in the 80s are unforgivable. Yet the problem you note is a systemic failing, where there were not enough checks and balances made and some unscrupulous people made use of this and equal opportunities rhetoric for their own ends.
In some ways this has echoes of the current vogue of some employees crying religious discrimination; that this or that employment policy resulted in their victimisation, when it could just be they are crap and/or obnoxious staff!
On a personal note, in the first few weeks I took over as manager of a faith-based (Christian) residential home for younger adults with physical disabilities I dismissed a member of staff whom I discovered was a convicted paedophile (oddly enough he’d been a residential social worker in a children’s home…). He had been appointed because of systemic failings of the Christian organisation not to carry out police checks on staff with access to vulnerable people or ask probing questions about gaps in a person’s employment record. How it came to light was, as the new manager, I did an audit of all appointments made before I’d taken up my job – I noted a gap in this particular employee’s record and made some enquiries. The charity had a weak equal opportunities policy, particularly around sexuality and gender – there was little ‘political correctness’ as you call it. So what was the failing here? Was it because it was a Christian organisation? No – it was because of poor management prior to my appointment; though I have worked for several Christian and one Jewish organisation where I’ve seen similar systemic failings – or religious nepotism leading to unsuitable appointments. I think, on balance, religion did blind some people to their professional responsibilities and accountability. I suspect in the case of Islington debacle noted above, that political and ideological beliefs resulted in similar ‘blind spots’. But that doesn’t mean ‘gay man = paedophile’, it was just a case of poor management and a political culture that unscrupulous scum took advantage of – as was the case in the Christian run home I managed.
The Roman Catholic (and other churches) are not famed for their liberal employment practices – yet child abuse flourished within churches and various residential homes (run by men and women). Why was it able to continue for so long? Was it because of the ‘he stranglehold of political correctness’. No it was because of systemic failures within these organisations and the shocking arrogance and ineptitude of people in authority.
I think, Jill, that perhaps your own judgement is skewed by your obvious prejudice when it comes to gay men and political views that are not your own. The incidents you have quoted demonstrate how dangerous it is to allow one political and ideological view point to dominate in local government (just as the illustrations I have given show that even faith-based organisations fall foul of similar (and just as devastating) poor governance); they do not suggest that gay man are inherently unsuitable to work with children (just as the example I have given does not demonstrate that faith-based organisations are inherently badly managed).
September 7th, 2012 at 10:51 am
Jill, if it was your intention to make a point about the lack of women in government that would indeed be fair comment. Unfortunately this was not clearly made in your initial comment and has certainly not been inferred by others. Equally the failings of ministers, local government, and church organisations in relation to abuse cases cannot be levelled at gay men but at those concerned.
Furthermore, there is a vast under-reporting of cases involving women in abuse and neglect cases. Clearly the statement “Children are much safer with women” is not based on first hand knowledge of Children & Families social work caseloads.
The problem is one of generalisation: one group is more or less suited to a particular role/more or less likely to commit abuse. Certainly have robust procedures and screening in place but select *individuals* on their personal merits, skills and experience. If you had directly addressed, in detail, any concerns with these in relation to David Laws rather than making a sweeping statement I very much doubt you would have received the subsequent responses.
Kind regards.
September 8th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
This is all very tedious, having to explain in words of one syllable what I think is glaringly obvious.
Women are far more ‘tuned in’ to children and their needs – especially young children – than men. This is a biological fact, not just my opinion. It’s the way we are made. Fathers will be more ‘tuned in’ to children and their needs than non-fathers, no matter how much training they have had. I think most fathers would agree with me here. (Fathers are still crucial to children’s development, but in a different way.) So it seems to me that the worst possible option is to choose for this job someone who is not interested in women and fathering children.
I know very little about David Laws other than that he is a thief (I wonder if he would have got off so lightly if he had been funding a mistress instead of a gay lover?) and it is possible that he will do a good job – that remains to be seen.
September 8th, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Whatever the skills and qualities needed for good parenting, it is at least debatable whether they are the ones necessary for doing a good job as Minister for Children. Having now refreshed my memory on the details of this case, I would say that the dishonesty that this man practised over his parliamentary expenses is a far better reason why he should not be allowed this or ANY OTHER post in government, and if you go to the Pink News website, you will see that there are plenty of other gay people who think so too.
I can quite understand that some old people who have spent their entire lives imprisoned in the closet may now find it psychologically impossible to break out of it. I can equally understand that young people who are still dependent on anti-gay parents – although the number of such parents is continually diminishing, thank God – and/or who are still not quite sure about their sexuality, may not yet be ready to come out and indeed would be well advised to postpone doing so. But in this day and age and in this country, I would feel rather suspicious of anyone else who elects to stay in the closet, when there is absolutely no need to do so – although I realise that that is what you, Jill, would prefer them to do. Staying closeted indefinitely means that you will end up treating both yourself and other people badly, and it will almost inevitably lead to lies and deceit, if not, as in this case, to actual fraud. And since the overwhelming likelihood, especially if you are a public figure, is that you will be “outed” sooner or later, it certainly sets a very bad example indeed to young gay people.
September 9th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
This is all very tedious, having to explain in words of one syllable what I think is glaringly obvious.
prejudice, n.
Preconceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience; bias, partiality; (now) spec. unreasoned dislike, hostility, or antagonism towards, or discrimination against, a race, sex, or other class of people….
homophobia, n.2
Fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality
Job 15:6