Papa VS UK

[powerdegre]

Il papa attacca il governo britannico su una legge sull'uguaglianza passata lo scorso, una legge che promuove l'uguaglianza "viola le leggi naturali".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8492597.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7133053/Pope-attacks-Labour-laws-on-equality.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/01/pope-condemns-british-equality-bill

Per la cronaca, l'Equality Bill e' roba dello scorso anno in cui il governo ha voluto legiferare contro la discriminazione, maggiori info qui:
http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_bill.aspx
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/020/10020.1-7.html#j004

A me sto papa rimane sempre piu' sulle balle...


Almeno dalla parte dei comuni stan cominciando a licenziare chi si rifiuta di compiere il suo dovere sulla base del proprio credo.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1194454/Registrar-demoted-receptionist-refused-marry-gay-couples.html

[Alkabar]

Il papa attacca il governo britannico su una legge sull'uguaglianza passata lo scorso, una legge che promuove l'uguaglianza "viola le leggi naturali".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8492597.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7133053/Pope-attacks-Labour-laws-on-equality.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/01/pope-condemns-british-equality-bill
Per la cronaca, l'Equality Bill e' roba dello scorso anno in cui il governo ha voluto legiferare contro la discriminazione, maggiori info qui:
http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_bill.aspx
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/020/10020.1-7.html#j004
A me sto papa rimane sempre piu' sulle balle...
Almeno dalla parte dei comuni stan cominciando a licenziare chi si rifiuta di compiere il suo dovere sulla base del proprio credo.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1194454/Registrar-demoted-receptionist-refused-marry-gay-couples.html

Ma vabbeh, tanto lo sai che in UK l'influenza dei cattolici non e' la stessa che in Italia. Quindi esprima quel che gli pare, Tories e Labour continueranno a fare i cazzi loro senza tante remore :).

Mi hai ricordato una delle cose buone dell'UK.

[powerdegre]

Ma vabbeh, tanto lo sai che in UK l'influenza dei cattolici non e' la stessa che in Italia. Quindi esprima quel che gli pare, Tories e Labour continueranno a fare i cazzi loro senza tante remore :).
Mi hai ricordato una delle cose buone dell'UK.
Ne sei sicuro?

http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/government-suffers-equality-bill-defeat/
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000736.shtml

Pubblicazione ufficiale, amendments 97->100
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/index/100125.html#contents

[Alkabar]

Ne sei sicuro?
http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/government-suffers-equality-bill-defeat/
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000736.shtml
Pubblicazione ufficiale, amendments 97->100
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/index/100125.html#contents


Guarda pero' come parlano:



Amendment 97E seeks to offer priests the same employment protections in relation to their sexuality as other members of society. As the law stands, an individual cannot be sacked for simply being gay, except, as I explained at Second Reading, one class of people-and that is the clergy. At Second Reading, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester suggested that the way in which faith communities operated is sexuality-neutral. But the church's stance was based on an intolerance towards sexual relationships outside marriage, whether they were gay or straight. I said then that I thought the right reverend Prelate was mistaken, and I am pleased to clarify the point.

What the law actually says is that an exemption is made for,

"a requirement related to sexual orientation".

Sexual orientation is not the same as having sex inside or outside of marriage. This is not semantics, and it is at the heart of what I am seeking to correct. Simply by being gay, the law allows religious organisations-in this case the employer-to sack a priest, in this case the employee. So even where a gay man takes a vow of celibacy, the law still allows for his dismissal. The law is not about adultery; it is not about sex outside of marriage; it is not even about gay sex. It simply allows for the dismissal of the individual for being gay. I am not sure that is what we intended when we wrote the Bill. It is like saying it is all right to be sacked for simply being black. How can that be right?

There are very few people who do not know of gay members of the clergy. In fact, I suspect from the letters I have had that the Church of England is full of them. It has to be asked: what is the purpose of this law? Why is it there? Let me tell you what a law like this does while it remains in place. It creates a climate of fear and insecurity. It is a threat. It does what all nasty bits of discriminatory law do-it wields the power to destroy somebody's life, but it holds it in reserve.


Be in no doubt-this is an unpleasant and spiteful provision, in my view unintended to be so. Ever since I made it clear that I was going to bring forward this amendment, I have had many discussions from people inside and outside the church. Many have quoted Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. But all rights flowing from that convention have a caveat that limits their effect, as long as they do not disturb other people's rights. Article 9-or, indeed, Article 8 which protects gay people from discrimination-does not apply when looking at this provision. A policy of "don't ask, don't tell", if you are gay, but keep it under wraps or risk losing your job, is simply wrong. It will never be right. That is the reality which gay priests, whether they are celibate or not, must face every day. It is a fear that they live with. This is the persecution which I believe we should seek to fix in this Bill at this time.


I hope Amendment 119A will be less controversial. Its intention is to remove the prohibition against civil partnerships taking place in religious buildings. I shall repeat that: it is to remove the prohibition against civil partnerships taking place in religious organisations. It is a straightforward amendment. It does not seek to force religious institutions to host civil partnerships

25 Jan 2010 : Column 1199

and I would not intend it to. It simply has to be a matter for them to decide whether or not they wish to do so.

There can be no doubt, however, that civil partnerships have been a huge success. I suspect that many noble Lords will have been touched in some way by the range of civil partnerships that have happened in the community. Noble Lords put through this House a really significant measure. I want to reiterate my thanks to the many noble Lords who helped that provision find its way on to the statute book.

In July last year, the Quakers passed a resolution which, in effect, would allow civil partnerships to take place in Quaker meeting houses. I know that other religious groups are seeking to follow suit, such as Liberal Judaism, the Metropolitan Community Churches and the Unitarian Church. It seems rather perverse that the law prevents them from doing so: the law no longer respects religious freedoms; it seems to be dictating religious behaviour, which cannot be right.

At Second Reading, I was heartened by the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, who mentioned that he might be more sympathetic to the amendment. The support of the church on this provision to remove the prohibition would be a simple and generous step to take. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, hoped to speak on this amendment, but unfortunately she has been detained. She asked me to make it clear that she would have supported it and that she wanted to speak in this debate.

I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will think very carefully about supporting the amendment and will give it further consideration, as it will benefit the lives of many people of faith. I beg to move.


Forse al riguardo dell'UK mi girano solo i maroni... se un politico puo' dire questa cosa senza essere segato a mezzo, deve essere un paese piuttosto avanzato... mah, ho ancora un bel po' di tempo per decidere...

[Alkabar]

Ahhhhh, ho capito ora cosa stavano cercando di fare.

Ma va, davvero ? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:. Sarebbe stato troppo bello se passava, sai che rosicata che si faceva la chiesa cattolica :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:.

Si Power concordo con te, sto papa non mi piace per niente.

[Miave]

mmh? riassumi plx

[Gil-galad]

Considerando la visione "moderna" di Benedetto XVI è probabile che stia ancora rosicando per Enrico VIII...

[powerdegre]

mmh? riassumi plx
In pratica questo Bill promuove l'uguaglianza, ovvero la non discriminazione.

Quando ti presenti per un lavoro non puoi essere discrimanto in base a niente che non siano le tue capacita' lavorative, non puoi scartare nessuno perche' nero, gay, musulmano, etc...

Questa cosa ovviamente non e' piaciuta alla chiesa, quando assumono qualcuno vogliono essere liberi di non poterti assumere semplicemente perche' sei gay, divorziato, o quel che gli pare, con una legislazione del genere andrebbero in corte un giorno si e l'altro pure.

Il papa quindi s'e' esaltato e sta venendo (a spesa di noi contribuenti inglesi) in visita in terra d'Albione perche' i diritti dei gay ledono ai suoi diritti religiosi, vuole quindi che il governo non caghi il cazzo negli affari della chiesa.

Pare che gli abbian dato ascolto, in quanto con una mozione del 26 gennaio guidata dalla Baronessa O'salcazzo han cambiato alcuni articoli lasciando alle autorita' religiose la capacita' di pregiudizio laddove ci sia roba per loro immorale.


Una piccola rivincita' laica l'abbiamo con gli statali, in quanto ci son gia' stati un paio di casi da quando hanno aperto i matrimoni gay in cui dei funzionari cristiani si son rifiutati di celebrare sulla base della loro fede, la corte gli ha detto chiaro e tondo che quello e' il loro incarico e loro non possono rifiutarsi di svolgere il loro lavoro, che scelgano quindi tra la fede ed il lavoro. Son finiti licenziati o spostati ad altri incarichi ove il loro credo non possa far danni.



Scusa ma piu' corto non m'e' riuscito fartelo :cry:

[Eltarion]

I
Una piccola rivincita' laica l'abbiamo con gli statali, in quanto ci son gia' stati un paio di casi da quando hanno aperto i matrimoni gay in cui dei funzionari cristiani si son rifiutati di celebrare sulla base della loro fede, la corte gli ha detto chiaro e tondo che quello e' il loro incarico e loro non possono rifiutarsi di svolgere il loro lavoro, che scelgano quindi tra la fede ed il lavoro. Son finiti licenziati o spostati ad altri incarichi ove il loro credo non possa far danni.


Interessantissima questa cosa. Vale anche per quei medici "cristiani" che decidono di non praticare aborti?

[powerdegre]

Interessantissima questa cosa. Vale anche per quei medici "cristiani" che decidono di non praticare aborti?
Con questi precedenti, in teoria potrebbe succedere.

Considera che sono precedenti stabiliti da un paio di corti che potrebbero aprir la strada ad altri casi simili, ma rimangono decisioni arbitrarie ed in tal caso qualcuno potrebbe anche decidere diversamente.