Social Issues – Additional news and reports (March 2009)
The following are important articles on recent social issues which, for lack of space, could not be included in the March 2009 issue (issue 10) of Affinity’s social issues publication, The Bulletin.
CONTENTS
[1] The Life and death of Jade Goody
[3] More employees making “religion and belief” claims
[4] New guidance could threaten evangelical teachers
[5] Free speech protection dropped from Bill
[6] Children’s Commissioner in abuse row
The Life and death of Jade Goody
When the Millennium dawned in the UK, no-one had heard of Jade Goody, a dental nurse in Bermondsey. In the years since then, however, she became a media figure of increasing prominence, culminating in her death on 22 March 2009 at the age of 27.
There were two factors which led to her dramatic change in status. One was Jade’s own craving for fame, and the other the fact that she fitted the profile which Channel 4 were looking for to drive forward its reality TV ambitions in the Big Brother series.
Like Princess Diana before her, Jade became “famous for being famous.” She was not gifted, had achieved nothing and continued to achieve nothing. At one time she was ridiculed for her ignorance, it being reported that she thought Rio de Janeiro was the name of a person, and that she did not know what asparagus was. In spite of such shortcomings, if shortcomings they were, she merely became more and more exposed to the media spotlight, and as a result her name became familiar to the vast majority of people in the UK. This turned her into a marketable product, and with the help of her publicist Max Clifford she struck lucrative media deals which will more than provide for the education and comfortable support of her two young sons.
In all the above she was no different from any of the burgeoning industry of minor celebrities, from weather forecasters to presenters, and from panellists to contestants, whose only claim to fame is the fact that they appear on television, and whose perceived identity and worth is wholly defined by what they appear to be on television, and by the entertainment value which this provides for the viewer.
However, in Jade’s case there is a big difference. In August last year she was diagnosed as suffering from terminal cervical cancer, and in the months leading up to her death, the constant health bulletins and related news stories gave her a uniqueness among the diverse ranks of minor celebs. Such was the personal focus upon her that her death on Mother’s Day was followed by the release of a tribute by Prime Minister Gordon Brown who said of her: “She was a courageous woman both in life and death and the whole country has admired her determination to provide a bright future for her children.”
The deaths of many high achievers whose lives were wholly spent to the nation’s benefit have not been acknowledged by Prime ministerial tributes, and the fact of Gordon Brown’s intervention in this way is by itself indisputable proof of the power of the media, and testimony to how far Jade Goody had climbed from the unspectacular confines of the Essex dental surgery.
Ironically it will be the death of Jade Goody, rather than her life, which will leave a meaningful legacy. As a result of the publicity surrounding her illness and death, many young women who would not otherwise have done so are responding to the cervical cancer screening programme. This will lead to treatable conditions being discovered in time, and a reduction in the number of early deaths from this type of cancer. For this we can all be greatly thankful.
What are the wider lessons, if any, to be learned from the life and death of Jade Goody?
The celebrity culture, which did not exist 40 years ago, has crept up on us apace, and now rivals politics, catastrophes and sport as the stuff of news coverage. Celebrities as a whole, and individual celebrities in particular, have become part of the essential fabric of what appears to be important in life. Their flimsy, shallow and ephemeral contributions to the public square, and the way those contributions have been presented and promoted, have impoverished the nation’s character, worth and self-perception. For many people the constant media focus on a range of individual celebrities has created a strong vicarious element to life, which means that people’s own joys, sorrows, anticipations and reactions are conditioned by the lives of other people, rather than by the circumstances of their own lives and by their own experiences.
Evangelicals can, wittingly or unwittingly, trespass into this parallel universe. Being aware of the icons and influences of the media world may be helpful in understanding and engaging with our fellow-man, but we need to beware of being guided by its stars. In fulfilling our responsibilities to God we have to set our own agendas, rather than taking any of our bearings in life from the packaged products of programmes and people created by the media world. Explicitly and implicitly, the media world is always talking up the significance of the celebrity culture. We need to talk it down.
Some evangelicals regard it as important that they have met a celebrity. It isn’t important, but the supposition that it is buys into the national perception that celebrity is significant.
If we do cross paths with celebrities, for whatever reason, we should view them as ordinary unique individuals, without the cloak and image in which they have been dressed and packaged for the sake of their media identity.
Jade Goody was not ultimately a celebrity. She was Jade Goody, made in the image of God, rather than in the image of the media, and answerable to the God who made her.
Rod Badams
Goodbye Bush, Hello Obama
Eight years as the most powerful politician in the world is enough for anyone – and so declared the American people last November. The Bush years have certainly provided us with comedic value plus, it must be said, a decent bioethical stance. We had hoped for more – a pro-life majority in the Supreme Court and a legal challenge to Roe v. Wade would have been welcome legacies. But ‘Dubya’ held the line on other life issues. For example, he extolled the benefits of adult stem cell technology and his stand against abortion was unequivocal.
What can we expect bioethically in the next four years from President Obama? Sad to say, nothing much good. The shift from a Republican to a Democrat leader will be all too clear. Already senior appointments in the new administration reveal the direction the US is now taking – the liberals are back in power.
Obama’s promise in his inaugural address, ‘to restore science to its rightful place’ is regarded as code for a reversal of some of Bush’s interventionist agenda. And as if to prove the point on 23 January, just three days into the new Presidential regime, the privately-funded biotech company, Geron, announced that it had been granted approval to conduct the world’s first clinical trial of a therapy for spinal cord injury using human embryonic stem cells. And if that seemed like ‘old science’ outshining ‘new politics,’ Obama promptly, that is, on the same day, refuted any such notion by overturning the Bush ban on funding overseas agencies that promote abortion as part of a ‘woman’s reproductive health.’ This opening move by Obama was certainly not calculated to bring about harmony among the abortion-sensitive US electorate – it should be remembered that at least 58m did not vote for him.
The new President and the Democratic leaders in Congress are also set to repeal the Bush administration’s ban on federal government funding for embryonic stem cell research, announced in August 2001. But, though such a revocation seems inevitable, it could prove to be an acrimonious and stumbling start for the new White House team. Besides, lately there has been an unprecedented rush of news reporting successful treatments using adult stem cells, which has proved to be something of an embarrassment for the ‘embryonic’ supporters. Such radical legislation, but not the political ideology, may be put ‘on hold’ for a while.
During the Bush years, the US government has been spending more than $200m a year on abstinence-only sex education. This will doubtless stop. Its replacement will be a comprehensive, value-free, pill and condom scheme, just like ours. And we all know where that will lead.
During his last days in office, President Bush signed a Provider Conscience Rule. This allows men and women to opt out of medical procedures that conflict with their consciences. For instance, it protects doctors who object to performing abortions and pharmacists who refuse to supply the morning-after pill. This is likely to be challenged and probably repealed in the days ahead.
The abortion front looks the bleakest. Obama has been labelled as the most pro-abortion President ever. His new transition Cabinet is going to be stuffed with pro-choice fellow travellers. For a start, there is Hillary Clinton, the new secretary of state and an outspoken supporter of abortion. Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, is no better. The names of Melody Barnes, Dawn Johnsen and Ellen Moran may not be readily recognisable, but they have previously either worked directly for the US abortion industry or strongly support it and they will be hugely influential in the running of the White House. Among many others is Alta Charo, Obama’s new ethics adviser, a powerful advocate of abortion and human embryo experimentation.
Well, with friends like these, the Obama years are heading in only one direction. The inevitable bioethical damage, which is destined to become ‘the new normal’, will also become (almost) irreparable. Even so, we must continue to pray for Barak Obama and his team – may God grant that they come to reverence all human life. Perhaps the President should remember that he came from a broken home, abandoned by his father, while his single mother struggled to raise him – what a candidate for abortion he must have been.
John R Ling
More employees making “religion and belief” claims
In January this year the Chartered Management Institute issued a press release indicating that there had been a sharp increase in the number of cases being brought to employment tribunals on grounds of religion or belief – from 480 in 2005-2006 to 600 in the year to 31 March 2008.
Concerned about the possible implications of this, Affinity’s Social Issues Team raised a number of questions with the Tribunals Service under the Freedom of Information Act.
The answers have shown that the bland figures are somewhat misleading. While it is confirmed that there were 608 employment tribunal claims in 2007-2008, 198 of these were subsequently withdrawn by the claimant and 233 of the remainder were settled with the help of Acas. Of the remainder, 37 were struck out by the Employment Tribunal (most probably because the circumstances of the claim did not meet the criteria for the Tribunal’s jurisdiction) and 43 dismissed at a preliminary hearing.
This leaves just 97 which went to a full hearing, of which only 14 were successful.
However, it is still obviously a concern that 608 people should have been motivated by their experiences at work to lodge a claim in the first place, on the grounds of religion or belief, with an Employment Tribunal. Wanting to assess the significance and nature of these claims, the Affinity SIT asked the Tribunals Service how many of the 608 cases involved a Christian issue, how many a Muslim issue, and how many a religion or belief issue other than Christian or Muslim.
The SIT also asked for a breakdown under these headings of the 97 Tribunal decisions. However, none of this information is available under the FOIA, as UK Courts and Tribunals are not public authorities for the purposes of the Act. The SIT is now attempting to obtain this information by another route, though this will take some time. Anything we discover will be reported in a future issue of The Bulletin.
New guidance could threaten evangelical teachers
A new code of practice governing teaching in the UK is under consideration and could pose a threat to evangelical teachers.
The General Teaching Council, which sets standards for teaching in the UK, has proposed that official guidance to teachers should include the statement: “Registered teachers …. promote equality and value diversity in all their professional relationships and interactions.” The proposed new guidelines have been the subject of a GTC consultation, with all interested parties, which closed on 27 February 2009.
In its own response to the consultation, Affinity has argued that, instead of adopting the proposed new wording, the GTC should retain the wording of the current official guidance, which states: “Teachers … place particular importance on promoting equality of opportunity – challenging stereotypes, opposing prejudice, and respecting individuals regardless of age, gender, disability, colour, race, ethnicity, class, religion, marital status or sexual orientation.”
Christians have never had a problem with treating individuals equally, but they would take issue with any requirement to promote lifestyles and values which are inconsistent with biblical principles. They would also not agree with any expectation that all values were always to be regarded as being of equal worth.
Unless the draft guidance is re-phrased, evangelicals involved in teaching could be at risk of complaints or accusations in respect of their attitudes or conduct, and at worst of being refused registration as teachers.
Following the consultation, the final version of the new guidance is expected to be announced in a few months’ time.
Free speech protection dropped from Bill
A “free speech” clause, which would have given specific legal protection to those discussing or criticising sexual conduct or practices, was removed from the Coroners and Justice Bill by a vote of the House of Commons, by 328 votes to 174, on 25 March 2009.
Evangelicals have been contending that the clause was needed in order to make it clear that there would be no police investigation of incidents in which people had merely expressed criticism of particular sexual attitudes or practices.
The precise wording which has been removed from the Bill is as follows: “For the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”
The removal of this clause does not automatically mean that a person criticising sexual conduct is automatically guilty of an offence, but it does take away a layer of protection, and make it more likely that there will be allegations made against individuals which the police will decide to investigate.
The removal of this clause will make it more likely that evangelicals, for instance, will be deterred from making public statements on the subject, in case such statements lead to complaints. This voluntary restraint is known as “the chilling effect.” It causes people to refrain from doing perfectly legal things because of uncertainty over whether those actions might be unlawful.
A similar free speech clause is contained in the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, and for this not to appear in the section of the Coroners and Justice Bill governing social conduct in respect of the issue of sexual orientation is inconsistent.
The Coroners and Justice Bill will now go to the House of Lords, which will vote on it in May. An attempt is likely to be made by former Home Secretary Lord Waddington to restore the clause to the Bill.
Children’s Commissioner in abuse row
The Children’s Commissioner for Northern Ireland, Patricia Lewsley, who has been criticised for pursuing a campaign against smacking in the Province through the courts, at public expense, has become involved in another controversy, following an interview with the Belfast News Letter.
In that interview, she is quoted as saying that smacking a child, with the best interests of the child as the motive, is “entirely the same thing” as setting out deliberately to harm a child.
Social Issues - Additional News and Reports is published by the Social Issues Team of Affinity
PO Box 246, Bridgend CF31 9FD and edited by Rod Badams
(Tel. 01858 411554; Email: )
