Stonewall #bigotaward, Christian Concern, Barclays and Coutts controversy
It has been quite entertaining watching the Stonewall ‘Bigot Award’ controversy develop today.
It all began with a Christian Concern article entitled: Stop the bullying: Stonewall’s ‘bigot award’ this week, which noted the Stonewall Awards 2012 were being sponsored by some big names:
Sadly, Stonewall’s aggressive and mocking tactics don’t come as a surprise. But are household names – high-street bank Barclays, professional services company PwC and the Queen’s bank, Coutts (part of Royal Bank of Scotland) – really ready to join in?
Do these big British businesses really want to associate with such behaviour? Do their customers, employees, shareholders, Directors or the general public know what these companies are supporting? Let’s make sure that they do. The bullying needs to stop!
Christian Concern called for action in response to this.
It’s worth noting at this point that the bone of contention surrounded Christian Concern tying PwC, Barclays and Coutts sponsorship directly with the ‘Bigot award’. The awards feature ten categories and on the Stonewall Events page we read:
Hero of the Year – supported by PwC
Sports Award of the Year – supported by Barclays
Writer of the Year – Supported by Coutts
Bigot of the Year mentions no specific sponsor.
The Church Mouse Tweeted:
@godandpolitics pretty sure they are not involved. Suspect Christian Concern giving a highly spun version of events.
— The Church Mouse (@thechurchmouse) October 30, 2012
And Cranmer responded:
6. This award is by far the most high-profile and attracts significant media attention every year.
It is for that precise reason that Stonewall consistently go for high-profile journalists, celebrities or church leaders (how many Muslims have been nominated? Perhaps because it would frighten off the sponsors?..). Some Christian Bloggers and Tweeters might consider how one may sponsor the Academy Awards but claim to disassociate oneself specifically from the Oscar awarded to Best Actor.
7. One cannot.
8. Ergo, those companies who are sponsoring the Stonewall awards are sponsoring the ‘Bigot of the Year’ award.
Their logos are featured prominently on the Stonewall website, beneath the award page heading. The fact that their names are identified with specific awards in the typed information below is of no consequence. Visually, visitors to that page get the Stonewall Awards banner juxtaposed by the sponsors’ logos. The association is evident.
In a statement emailed to concerned members of the public, Coutts & Co said: “Coutts are sponsors only of Stonewall’s Writer of the Year Award and have in no way been involved in the judging or support of the Bigot of the Year category. We have advised Stonewall that we will be withdrawing our support of the awards unless they remove this category.”
Meanwhile, Mark McLane, Managing Director and Head of Global Diversity and Inclusion at Barclays said: “I have recently been made aware of the inclusion of a ‘Bigot of the Year’ category in the awards. Let me be absolutely clear that Barclays does not support that award category either financially, or in principle and have informed Stonewall that should they decide to continue with this category we will not support this event in the future. To label any individual so subjectively and pejoratively runs contrary to our view on fair treatment, and detracts from what should be a wholly positively focused event.”
I’d wager that most folk reading Cranmer’s article will miss the final paragraph, but it’s well worth highlighting:
And please also keep this in perspective, because some of those named companies are guilty of far worse crimes and more serious misdemeanours than throwing a few thousand quid at a self-congratulatory, bigoted gay-fest.
Cranmer is dead right, and it’s on this very issue that Symon Hill has blogged:
Christian Concern have this week criticised Barclay’s and a number of other banks. Now why would a Christian organisation criticise banks? I hope they would do so because of the banks’ role in the economic crisis, because of their tax avoidance, because of their exploitation of the poor in the interests of the rich and – most of all – because they are based on usury, a practice denounced throughout the Bible. The Bible condemns the exploitation of the poor and the practice of usury – lending money at interest or, more broadly, making money out of money – more than almost any other sins. Now we have an economic system built on usury.
But Christian Concern don’t seem to have a problem with any of this. They have not mentioned it.
I have to say, Symon is making a compelling and vital point here.
All said and done, my favourite response to the ‘Bigot Award’ was made by Alan Craig; himself a nominee:
“Nonetheless if I win the Award over the other candidates and if Stonewall invite me, and permit me without harassment to offer a proper acceptance speech, I plan to attend their Awards dinner and ceremony at the Raphael Gallery on 1st November.”
Love it!
October 30th, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Christian concern are only really concerned with the appropriate use of genitalia. It is a fairly limited remit!
October 30th, 2012 at 5:58 pm
I steer clear from such sites as Christian Concern – not unlike Anglican Mainstream, Life Site News.com (or Lie.Sleight.abuse.com, would be a better name…) and to a lesser degree Catholic Voices, so many of the articles are linked to sex in some shape or form. With Christian Concern, it’s mainly homosexuality. Why so much is made of something that affects so few? Surely, instead of pointing the bony, self-righteous finger of accusation there is much in everyday life Christians could be ‘concerning’ themselves with (as no doubt some do – it is Christian Concern that goes in for the easy righteousness of Queer Bashing, with article after article on its site in some way related to things pink (metaphorically or genitally… water finds its own level, as they say). You have to ask why the issue of homosexuality gains such a disproportionate attention.
According to Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus tells us:
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
Matt 7: 21-23 is also worth a look in…
I think what this passage tells us, is that bleating on about homosexuality is of little consequence. It is so rarely mentioned in the Bible, where as justice, ‘washing each other’s feet’, avoiding the sin of self-righteousness (in short pride) and looking down on others seeing them more sinful than oneself, are mentioned again and again. But we rarely read posts on the Christian Concern site (and its like minded siblings) calling its readers to do that which is personally costly – no, there is a disproportionate interest in ‘easy’ righteousness.
As an aside, what is ironic is that about the same time as civil partnerships came in in the UK, we began to see a fall in the divorce rate… Perhaps Britain will follow in the footsteps of some of our more liberal neighbours – and the odd liberal US state and go for gay-marriage; then we might really see the divorce rate fall… Alas it is only in the religiously conservative Western societies that divorce, single parenthood and teenage pregnancy seems to rule… Thank God for the Queers, at least in condemning them, the sex-obsessed writers of Christian concern have a handy scapegoat… A pity there isn’t such a quick fix Christian Concern could use when it comes to integrity…
I just might begin making donations to Stonewall again, I only stopped when it became too political… At least it does some good in the world, which is more than can be said for Christian Concern – now there’s the saddest irony of all.
October 30th, 2012 at 7:34 pm
“I steer clear from such sites as Christian Concern – not unlike Anglican Mainstream, Life Site News.com (or Lie.Sleight.abuse.com, would be a better name…) and to a lesser degree Catholic Voices, so many of the articles are linked to sex in some shape or form. With Christian Concern, it’s mainly homosexuality. Why so much is made of something that affects so few?”
Perhaps, dear chap, because you and your friends are so obsessed with it that policemen are now harassing Christians? But then you knew that…
Still, since you endorse unnatural vice, I doubt that a bit of deliberate dishonesty will bother you a bit, eh?
October 31st, 2012 at 8:45 am
Dear Roger,
Most people don’t think about homosexuality very much in every day life.
Perhaps I was immunised during my time working in almost entirely gay office, but people are just people with all of the woes and joys that life brings regardless of their sexuality.
One thing I would say, however, is that there ARE people in leadership in liberal churches who like to enhance the feeling of repression felt by some gay people as a way of encouraging them to identify with their the gospel (or their interpretation of it – a sort of post liberation theology). I find this equally as bad as Christian Concern and their ilk as its all ultimately about getting bums on seats (either here or in heaven) rather than trying to get to the truth of things.
October 31st, 2012 at 1:45 pm
“Perhaps, dear chap, because you and your friends are so obsessed with it that policemen are now harassing Christians? But then you knew that…
Still, since you endorse unnatural vice, I doubt that a bit of deliberate dishonesty will bother you a bit, eh?”
@ Roger Pearse – what a load of claptrap ‘you and your friends’ what’s that supposed to mean? Keep to your ancient texts and eulogising about a past that never existed, as you seem incapable of meaningful comment on present situations – unless you count Daily Mail reactionary conservatism as a constructive take on a subject…
Perhaps if Christians really were persecuted in the UK, the Gospel might stand a chance in this country. Instead we have fools who think tradition and historical precedence give them a right to respect and social and political power – and an obsession about other people’s sexuality… Lk 3:8 and all that…
P.S. Please demonstrate where I ‘endorse unnatural vice’? I eagerly await the power of your perception and perspicacity… Just because someone is homosexual, or even in a same-sex partnership does not mean that person is committing ANY ‘unnatural vice’ – except of course in the sex-obsessed mind of the prurient and the base minded… It must be a terrible burden to go through life with such a mucky mind…
Every blessing…