The press is abuzz about a report by Damien Ressiot in L'Equipe (30 Mar) alleging that swimmer Ian Thorpe "took a dope test in 2006 which revealed abnormally high readings for testosterone and luteinizing hormone (LH), both products figuring on the list of banned substances."

After conducting an inquiry into Thorpe's dossier and after further analyses the Australian Sport Anti-doping Authority (ASADA) decided to close the file, considering there was no conclusive scientific evidence on which to proceed. This opinion is not shared by the International Swimming Federation (FINA) which has appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in an effort to reopen the Ian Thorpe file.

As L'Equipe notes, "If the tribunal accedes to this request it will obviously create a certain malaise around the fantastic and emblematic Australian champion." Ressiot's article is fair, not sensationalist. It seems that few commentators seem to have noted a point made in the conclusion to his piece, that

the initial suspicions generated by these findings, however troubling they may appear, could turn out to be inconsequential. Given current knowledge there is no real scientific means available for pushing the case any further. Unless, that is, the FINA his holding other evidence or test results on Thorpe.

The only effect of all this may be to place Thorpe under a cloud with little evidence or reason -- which would unfortunately not be the first time he has faced unfounded suspicions of one sort or another.

This report from Amnesty International (I am a member) is instructive. Not only does it show the injustice of the Guantánamo Military Commissions, but the sheer incompetence of the process as well -- despite years of delay.

". . . a direct result of attempting to create a system of justice based on a roughly 200-page manual and which will operate in something approaching a legal vacuum . . . an afternoon that started with a request for increased resources for the defense thus resulted in the reduction of David Hicks' legal team by two-thirds due to regulations that had not been promulgated and rules that had not been tested"

USA: David Hicks pleads guilty on one count. AI observer attends arraignment at Guantánamo
27 March 2007, AI Index: AMR 51/052/2007

At a hearing in Guantánamo on 26 March 2007, in his sixth year of detention and at the start of the US administration's second attempt in the last three years to try him before a military commission, Australian national David Hicks pleaded guilty to one specification under the charge of "providing material support for terrorism".

This plea was made after years of indefinite detention, isolation and allegations of torture and ill-treatment, and after a day in which Hicks' legal representation was reduced by the military judge overseeing the commission. After the plea, proceedings were adjourned and were expected to be reconvened later in the week after the details of the plea had been worked out.

David Hicks was one of 10 detainees to be charged under military commissions established under President George W. Bush's Military Order of 13 November 2001. Those proceedings were halted in November 2004 by a US District Court judge, and ruled unlawful by the US Supreme Court inHamdan v. Rumsfeld in late June 2006. In early March 2007, David Hicks was the first person to be charged under the Military Commissions Act, legislation signed into law by President Bush on 17 October 2006 in response to theHamdan ruling.

On 26 March 2007, David Hicks was arraigned on charges that he had never previously faced, in a system whose rules were issued two months ago. He came into the commission room in tan prison uniform and flip-flops with his hair hanging half way down his back. At his table was Major Dan Mori, his military defense counsel, Joshua Dratel, his civilian defense counsel, and Rebecca Snyder, his assistant military defense counsel.

When the military judge, Marine Colonel Ralph Kohlmann, asked David Hicks if he wanted to keep his current legal representation, Hicks answered that he did, and that he wanted them provided with more assistance. What followed was a direct result of attempting to create a system of justice based on a roughly 200-page manual and which will operate in something approaching a legal vacuum.

Although the afternoon started with David Hicks asking for more support for his legal team, the result was the exact opposite. First, the military judge raised a challenge to the participation of Rebecca Snyder. While insisting that he was not issuing a ruling at this time, Colonel Kohlmann asserted that under his interpretation of the rules she could not represent David Hicks as military defense counsel since she was a civilian in the reserves. He gave David Hicks a choice -- Rebecca Snyder could stay and consult but not advocate on his behalf, or she could leave. David Hicks told the judge he did not want her at the table if she could not represent him.

Next, the judge raised an issue with David Hicks' civilian defense counsel of three years, Joshua Dratel. He stated that Dratel had not complied with the commission rules because he had not signed the necessary certification. Joshua Dratel argued that the qualification of a civilian defense counsel under the Rules for Military Commissions requires that in order to appear before a commission, civilian counsel shall "Have signed the agreement prescribed by the Secretary [of Defense] pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 949c(b)(3)(E)." The issue at hand was that the Secretary of Defense had failed to issue such an agreement. Colonel Kohlmann had issued an order that could be signed in its place, but Joshua Dratel argued that, not only was this order invalid since the judge did not have the authority to issue it, but also that it would violate Dratel's ethical obligations to sign an agreement that had not been created. Colonel Kohlmann, as he had previously with Rebecca Snyder, decided that Joshua Dratel did not meet the criteria necessary to practice before the military commission. Dratel was offered the opportunity to stay on as a consultant, to which he replied "I am not a potted plant." When asked if he wanted Joshua Dratel to stay on as a consultant, David Hicks replied "I am shocked because I just lost another lawyer", adding that he was left only with "poor Mr. Mori."

An afternoon that started with a request for increased resources for the defense thus resulted in the reduction of David Hicks' legal team by two-thirds due to regulations that had not been promulgated and rules that had not been tested.

These exchanges were observed by a room that included journalists, NGO delegates, Australian attorneys, Australian government and diplomatic officials, as well as David Hicks' father and sister. David Hicks is the only detainee at Guantánamo to have had visits from family.

At the hearing, Major Mori challenged the military judge's fitness to preside over the proceedings, arguing both bias and the appearance of bias. The judge ruled himself fit to serve, dealt with scheduling matters, and adjourned the proceedings.

Approximately three hours later, the commission was reconvened and David Hicks entered a guilty plea to one of two specifications of his charge of "providing material support for terrorism". The specification alleges that between December 2000 and December 2001, Hicks intentionally provided material support foral Qa'ida, and that this conduct took place in the context of an armed conflict. Yet the international armed conflict in Afghanistan only began in October 2001. The Military Commissions Act effectively backdates the "war on terror" to make offences committed even before 11 September 2001 triable by military commission.

David Hicks pleaded not guilty to a second specification, namely that during the same time period, he provided material support or resources for an act of terrorism.

The military judge questioned David Hicks as to whether his plea had been influenced by the removal of two of his three attorneys earlier in the day. Hicks replied that it had not. However, after more than five years of virtually incommunicado military detention, and facing unfair trial procedures, serious questions must be asked about whether such a guilty plea can have been a purely volitional act.

The maximum penalty that David Hicks faces is life imprisonment, but the prosecution has said that it does not intend to argue for a life sentence. Under the terms of a reported arrangement, Hicks would serve any prison sentence in Australia. The guilty plea thus begins a process which will end in his return to his home country, some predict before the end of the year. In this regard, what transpired yesterday can also be seen as part of an exit strategy from a source of diplomatic tension rather than of judicial proceedings at which justice would either be done or be seen to be done.

Yesterday's proceedings do not bode well for the 60 to 80 people that the government claims it will prosecute under the military commission system. The proceedings reaffirm the need to close the Guantánamo detention camp as a matter of urgency and to end the lawlessness that it has come to symbolize.

The military commissions should be scrapped. Guantánamo detainees should be charged with recognizable criminal offences and brought to fair trial before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, such as a US District Court, or else released with full protections against further abuse.

Jumana Musa observed David Hicks' arraignment for Amnesty International. She is a lawyer and a staff member of Amnesty International's US section. She is a fluent Arabic speaker.

For further information, see USA: Justice delayed and justice denied? Trials under the Military Commissions Act, AI Index: AMR 51/044/2007, March 2007, http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510442007.

David Hicks was a fool to get involved with the Taliban and I have no idea of whether or not he is guilty of a heinious crime, but it is clear that the process to which he has been subjected casts great discredit on the US and Australian Governments. This piece from GetUp! "as originally published in the independent online journal Crikey on March 27, 2007."

After the legal drama in his initial hearing today, David Hicks surely would have reflected on the fact that years after his initial plea of innocence, he was still locked in a cell 1.8m squared. Any normal Australian, facing a system weighted so heavily against them and broken by five years of unimaginable privation, is likely to have signed a document that would get them out of Guantanamo--regardless of their guilt or innocence.

David Hicks' guilty plea is not justice served, nor does it necessarily reflect Hicks' guilt -- it is simply further evidence of a rank system, and Australians can smell it from afar.

Almost every eminent jurist and legal body in the country has condemned a tribunal that has more in common with a circus than justice. Australian and international jurists agree this system was designed to guarantee convictions. It should come as no surprise, then, that it has. It reflects a system that is no more than justice on the make--offending basic legal principles of independence and impartiality.

This is evidenced by the shenanigans at today's arraignment. Hicks' civilian lawyer was dismissed as he refused to sign a document that compromised his own ethical standards. It would also be highly unusual in any normal court for a counsel to question the presiding judge over their impartiality--as Major Mori had to, concerning Judge Kohlmann's rulings.

This is what happens in a flawed system where the tribunal, the "jury", the chief prosecutor, the charges and the plea agreements are determined by the executive branch of government--the same Administration with so much invested in Hicks's conviction.

The Australian Government should not think today's guilty plea lets them off the hook. They have diminished Australia by legitimising an unfair system by allowing an Australian--guilty or innocent--to languish in detention for five years, only to face a severely compromised legal process.

On 15 March 2007 the European Parliament voted, by 36 votes to 24 with 1 abstention, for a resolution condemning a wide range of human rights and democracy abuses in Nigeria. This replaced a joint draft resolution, supported by several political groups, which focused on the single issue of a draft law in Nigeria seeking to ban same-sex marriage and criminalise homosexual activity.

In its resolution

. . . whereas the Nigerian Parliament is currently examining a Bill entitled the 'Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act', imposing a five-year prison sentence on anyone who 'performs, witnesses, aids or abets the ceremony of same sex marriage', but also on anyone involved publicly or privately in positive representation of, or advocacy for, same sex relationships; . . .

the European Parliament

. . . Calls on the Nigerian Parliament not to adopt the proposed 'Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act' in its current form, since it contains infringements of the basic human rights of freedom of expression and opinion, in particular since it envisages a five-year prison sentence for anyone involved publicly or privately in positive representation of, or advocacy for, same sex relationships; . . .

The European Parliament's press office has an article on the resolution and there is a (multilingual) transcript of the short debate.

In its recently published statement to the Anglican Communion listening process -- a statement approved by its Primate, the Most Revd Peter Akinola, The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) says unequivocally that it supports anti-gay measures currently going through Nigeria's parliament. The legislation will deny freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and association to gay and lesbian people and their supporters. Condemned by its own words, the Nigerian church says,

In Nigeria the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act 2006 is passing through the legislature. The House of Bishops has supported it because we understand that it is designed to strengthen traditional marriage and family life and to prevent wholesale importation of currently damaging Western values. It bans same sex unions, all homosexual acts and the formation of any gay groups. The Standing Committee of the Church of Nigeria has twice commended the act in their Message to the Nation.

The Church Times recently ran an advertisement by the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement in which they describe Nigeria's bill as an example of modern slavery. The advertisment says

Should it (the church) support the end to the slave trade? Some said 'no' and turned to the Bible for justification. But just as the Church was able to search its soul and overcome this to support the abolition of slavery, it ought to be able to support justice and inclusion for lesbian and gay people.

Shamefully the Anglican Primate of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, has promoted this legislation, condemned by UN officials as "an absolutely unjustified intrusion of individuals' right to privacy" which goes against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

LGCM recently asked the Archbishop of Canterbury why the Primates had not condemned the Nigerian law at their recent meeting in Tanzania. In reply, Dr Williams wrote: "I don't think there was a chance of getting an agreed statement out of the Primates on this subject at the moment. I don't take any pride in that, but it's a fact."

Anglican Communion News Service has announced that "Listening Process Summaries" are now available online.

The culmination of months of work on what is known as "The Listening Process," a process begun in response to the mandate of Lambeth Conference 1998 Resolution 1.10, and subsequent Primates Meetings, is now set out on the Anglican Communion website for use around the Anglican world. The Anglican Consultative Council, at their meeting in Nottingham, requested the appointment of a facilitator for this work.

Each of the summaries has been compiled in co-operation with the Primate of that Province. Facilitator Canon Phil Groves of the Anglican Communion Office said, 'The summaries have drawn upon public statements and further research. Each Primate has approved the final text.'

The Australian statement is commendably frank. Although there has been substantial work on the doctrinal and hermeneutical issues, the statement indicates a lack of effort and achievement to advance the listening process itself. The highly decentralised nature of the Australian church has largely left it to each diocese to decide what to do, if anything. A few have done something, some have done a little, and most have done nothing.

This is the text of the Australian statement:

The Anglican Church of Australia has responded to Lambeth Conference 1998 Resolution 1.10(f) through research publications prepared by the General Synod doctrine Commission. The first, Faithfulness in Fellowship: Reflections on Homosexuality and the Church, published in 2001, offered 10 essays on various aspects of the issue. A study book based on the essays and published in 2003, was designed for parish use. Lost in Translation? Anglicans, Controversy and the Bible, a further set of essays reflecting on aspects of biblical interpretation as it impacted the issue, was published in 2004.

Its response to clause (c) of the same resolution, on the commitment to listening to the experience of gay people, has not taken the form of a national process. Nor have diocese-wide processes generally been adopted; where they have been, they have faced some difficulties. Three of the 23 Australian dioceses have undertaken broad based programs, located either within Synod meetings, clergy conferences, or in directed parish programs. In other dioceses, "listening" has been initiated at parish level mainly. In the majority of dioceses, however, the listening initiative has been the diocesan bishop's, with most bishops taking seriously the need to listen carefully to gay people in the church at least, and in some cases, in the wider community as well. Most diocesans have been keen to offer sensitive pastoral care whenever possible, and have encouraged their clergy to do likewise.

In those dioceses where more broadly-based listening processes have been tried, reports suggest it has been difficult to discern the experiences of gay people, either because the processes involved did not enable this kind of listening, or because gay people felt too vulnerable to speak publicly. In some cases, responses to gay people who attempt to communicate their experiences have been insensitive. This has happened in synods and other wider church gatherings, and not just in parishes. Some dioceses have hesitated to introduce broader listening programs because of this. Understandably, bishops are reluctant to expose vulnerable people to insensitivity. The Church, it seems, is not a safe place for gay people. As one diocesan spokesperson has commented, the "listening process" in his diocese 'became a time of "shouting" rather than listening'. Though some bishops of rural dioceses have suggested that insensitivity may be partly a product of a conservative rural environment, the evidence indicates that it is also a factor in large city contexts. The Anglican Church in Australia may need to reflect seriously on this situation and how to overcome such insensitivity.

As part of an investigation carried out on behalf of the General Synod Standing Committee, a group of 20 gay Anglicans -- clergy and laity -- expressed the view that any process that exposed them to public labelling as homosexual people would not allow them to speak freely and confidently of their experience as gay Christians. Clergy in particular felt vulnerable about "outing" themselves in the present climate, even with sympathetic bishops. They suggested that if the Church was serious about listening to gay Christians, then it needed to adopt a two-stage listening model:

(1) Each diocese should establish a "listening" process that invited gay clergy and laity to speak of their experiences as gay people and Christians in a confident environment, where the only non-gay person present was an independent lay facilitator. The facilitator's written record of their experiences would take particular care to protect their anonymity.

(2) This written account could then be offered to the wider Church.

This poll from the Canberra Times is just one indication that Australians are deeply disillusioned about the fairness of American "justice" under George Bush. Though few may have have much respect for David Hicks personally, they have utter contempt for Bush and the way his administration has dealt with Hicks and his fellow Guantanamo prisoners.

On 26 March 07 in Geneva the International Commission of Jurists and the International Service for Human Rights are launching the Yogyakarta Principles, a set of principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Principles were developed and unanimously adopted by a distinguished group of human rights experts, from diverse regions and backgrounds, including judges, academics, a former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN Special Procedures, members of treaty bodies, NGOs and others. The Rapporteur of the process was Professor Michael O'Flaherty.

Much of the preparation took place at an international seminar at Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta in November 2006.

The Yogyakarta Principles address the broad range of human rights standards and their application to issues of sexual orientation and gender identity. These include extrajudicial executions, violence and torture, access to justice, privacy, non-discrimination, rights to freedom of expression and assembly, employment, health, education, immigration and refugee issues, public participation, and a variety of other rights. Each Principle is accompanied by detailed recommendations to States. The Principles also emphasise that all players have responsibilities to promote and protect human rights.

• The Preamble acknowledges human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity, establishes the relevant legal framework, and provides definitions of key terms.
• Rights to Universal Enjoyment of Human Rights, Non-Discrimination and Recognition before the Law: Principles 1 to 3
• Rights to Human and Personal Security: Principles 4 to 11
• Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Principles 12 to 18
• Rights to Expression, Opinion and Association: Principles 19 to 21
• Freedom of Movement and Asylum: Principles 22 and 23
• Rights of Participation in Cultural and Family Life: Principles 24 to 26
• Rights of Human Rights Defenders: Principle 27
• Rights of Redress and Accountability: Principles 28 and 29
• The Principles set out 16 additional recommendations.

Australia take note.

As far as I'm concerned, The Age (Editorial 19 Mar 07) can have the last word on the Santoro debacle.

The Prime Minister's own position in this affair is regrettable. It centres on one question: why was Senator Santoro appointed a minister in the first place? . . . In truth, Santo Santoro, once called a "factional godfather in the Liberal Party", was more likely appointed to the ministry on factional grounds, to satisfy party requirements rather than being the best person for the job. As it happened, and presuming Mr Howard knew of the senator's background, the senator's appointment put political convenience before any need for checks and balances on past performance. The Prime Minister must accept some of the blame for appointing a minister with a questionable record.

I've been reading through The Best Australian Poems 2006, edited by Dorothy Porter (Black Inc., 2006). One of the poems that took my attention is by Judith Bishop, "Still Life with Cockles and Shells" (first published Australian Book Review, n.279, March 2006.

I was surprised to learn later that it was the winner of the ABR Poetry Competition for 2006. Maybe I'm not so hopeless as poetry critic as I'd supposed!

I'm still trying to find a reproduction of the picture Bishop discusses in her poem.

Still Life with Cockles and Shells

(Italian, c.17th; Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna)

Life breathes in this painting like a child
pretending not to be awake,

or a skink metamorphosed to a stone
but for the flutter in its flank.

You have to lean and listen for the heart
behind the shining paint,

the lips half-open, and the glittering eye.

Velvet of the night. A bald parrot on a parapet
watches to the east.

Ships listing on the waves
neither leave nor approach.

Someone has slain
five other birds: beaks, half-closed,

agonise in all directions.
A wash of unearthly light limes the sunken feathers.

What dreams the painter makes: I seem

to see inside the night
after Apocalypse,

when every soul has risen and sped off,
the violent seas at rest,

ships anchored and abandoned,
shells emptied of their monopods.

Or else the world has ended, but in
some other way;

and the parrot turns to give her
human greeting to the dawn.

Judith Bishop

Why Liberation from Dictatorship May Take Some Time

Our Great and Fearless Leader
(may His Name be forever praised!)
like a wise farmer has planted
many fields full of ears

In the particles of dust
from the sandstorms
He is also present; if we would breathe
we must do so very carefully

In those distant clouds
in the heavens above us
hidden cameras record
our every activity

Even the birds on the city rooftops
as well as those in the distant villages
cock beady eyes and fly swiftly
to inform Him of all that we say

Now foreigners come, bearing (they tell us) freedom
-- but freedom is only a word we have heard fluttering like a feather
on the lips of the dying

Bruce Dawe
The Australian, 14-15 Jan 06

(Picture from "What to do about Mugabe" by Peter Roebuck, in Eureka Street 17(5), 20 Mar 2007.)

This lifted from Gareth Saunders' Taking the Episcopalian (Scottish, that is).

Where on God's earth do ecclesiastic outfitters dig up their models?! You know, those people employed to model cassocks, albs and the like for their catalogues?

All was not lost when the thurifer set fire to the sacristy carpet. The Mother's Union used the remnant to fashion a new cassock for Fr Hugh.

Very many thanks to John Lewis for spotting this one (source: F A Dumont, p.59). He writes: "Have you seen the latest catalogue from F A Dumont? Laugh? I nearly sprinkled myself with holy water."

Ha, ha, ha . . . gasp . . . ha, ha, ha . . . Quite so.

Traditionally, Shrove Tuesday -- Mardi Gras or 'Fat Tuesday' -- is the last day for eating fat before giving it up for Lent.

Fat is a Lenten issue was the headline on a piece by Rose Prince in The Tablet (3 Feb 07) just before this Lent.

Prince notes that today's fats are extracted not only from animals, but from oils pressed from plant sources like palm kernel, soya, sunflower, coconut, rapeseed (canola), maize, peanut and olives. Some of these can be nutritious if taken in moderation as unprocessed cold-pressed 'virgin' oils. But too often they're processed into products laden with deadly 'transfats'. Vast areas of forest have been felled for plantations to produce oils that end up in junk food like potato crisps.

But the Fat is a Lenten issue headline struck me another way. For too long, I'd been half heartedly thinking of shedding weight. Why not make weight loss a Lenten discipline?

So I have. But it'll take longer than Lent. Maybe by next Advent, I should be close to my target.

Yes, Advent, a time of new beginnings. Hopefully by then there will be 'not too much' of me.

Associated Press, and Swedish English language newspaper The Local report (16 Mar 07) that the Church of Sweden's leaders are willing to allow gay people to marry in church on the same basis as heterosexual couples, although they are "unsure" whether to call the unions marriage.

An official government report proposing changes to marriage laws is to be presented shortly. It is expected to call for all couples to be given equal marriage rights.

Bishop Claes-Bertil Ytterberg, spokesman for the Swedish Church Assembly, said that if the report proposes a law change to allow homosexual weddings, the church will support it and will open its doors for same-sex ceremonies. But it will be up to individual ministers to decide whether to perform them. The bishop said, however, that the church will not use the term 'marriage' ('äktenskap' in Swedish) to describe the unions, keeping it reserved for unions between a man and a woman. "The word 'marriage' is so closely linked by tradition to the relationship between a man and a woman,".

Since 1994, Sweden has recognized civil unions between homosexual couples, but not marriage. A gay couples can have a civil partnership blessed in church, but its legal force is provided by a civil ceremony.

In 2005 the Church of Sweden it decided to allow a church ceremony to mark a civil union and an English version of the liturgy has been published. It includes these introductions:

Love is a gift from God. Faithful love strengthens community, grants help and a joy to us all, providing mutual support and deepened affection in good times and in bad. You have chosen to live in partnership, to live in trust and love, to be responsible for each other (for home and children) and to stand faithfully at one another's side. Therefore your union needs the help of God, and should be cherished in tenderness and care.

or

Love comes from God. The ability to love is God's gift to humankind. Entering into partnership is a shared undertaking to preserve and deepen your love for each other, to share each other's lives in good times and in bad, to create a warm and welcoming home together, (where children receive the security they need). It means being faithful to one another, to live in trust and love. Therefore your union needs the help of God, and should be cherished in tenderness and care. In prayer and worship, in the word of God and the sacraments you will find strength for your journey together.

. . . and these prayers

Source of love, eternal God, creator of heaven and earth, when you created all things, you also created humankind to live in love. You gave us grace to be stewards of all you created by your love. In Christ you gave us an example of faithful love and friendship, and you are with us all days of our lives, Look mercifully upon this couple who stand before you and ask your blessing. Help them to live in love and peace, in faithfulness and companionship, and with respect for each other. Enfold them in your grace and power and grant them eternal glory in the life to come. Through your Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord.

or

Heavenly Father, we thank you for this day, for the joy and hope it brings. We pray for NN's and NN's union. Let their lives together be filled with trust and respect for each other. Help them to create a warm and welcoming home, Where (children can live safe and) friends and family find fellowship. In times of hardship, bring them closer to you and to each other. Help them to forgive one another and grant them day by day joy and strength from your hand. Through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Meanwhile, the Council of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada has decided that the question of whether dioceses may decide for themselves whether to allow the blessing of same-sex unions, will be in turn be decided by General Synod through resolutions requiring the approval of a 60 per cent majority of the members of the orders of bishops, laity and clergy (or 60 per cent of dioceses if a vote by diocese is requested).

The method of decision by resolution has been chosen in preference to adoption of a canon (church law), which would require a two-thirds majority in two successive meetings of the General Synod. Nonetheless, the final decision on the method of deciding rests with the General Synod itself.

Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, expressed support for the resolution way of deciding, saying, "I want this present synod to make a clear decision rather than a course that will put it off for another three years."

In 2004 the triennial Synod voted to defer decision on a motion to "affirm the authority and jurisdiction of any diocesan synod, with the concurrence of its bishop, to authorize the blessing of committed same-sex unions." General Synod members subsequently asked the Primate's Theological Commission to give its opinion on the question. The Commission released the St. Michael Report, in spring 2005. It concluded that the blessing of same-sex unions is "a matter of doctrine," thereby giving General Synod, not diocesan synods and bishops, the final authority to decide whether such blessings should be allowed in parishes. It will be up to the General Synod to determine whether it will accept the report as authoritative.

In a press release, Davis Mac-Iyalla, Director of Changing Attitude Nigeria, is warning other countries that the passage of Nigeria's anti-gay legislation could cause significant problems for other countries.

The restrictions in the bill are so draconian and oppressive that it could result in a potential flood of gay Nigerians fleeing to other countries. The main targets would be other countries that Nigerians often travel to, such as Britain.

"Already we are seeing an increase in homophobic behaviour and attacks, because people feel they can get away with it. The climate is already becoming intolerable. Unless the government tones down its language and cancels the bill, we are going to see a flood of refugees as people flee for their lives". Over the last few months, since the bill has been proposed, Davis Mac-Iyalla has already received a series of death threats regarded as credible and has been forced to go in to hiding.

"We are already getting reports of an increase in attacks on people who are merely suspected of being gay--people who are not even being 'caught in the act'. This climate of fear will simply drive many people to take desperate measures to find somewhere--anywhere--where they can at least live without imminent fear of death just for existing. For many people, even being the prospect of being an illegal immigrant in Britain will seem preferable to a life of perpetual terror and suffocating oppression in Nigeria."

Changing Attitude Nigeria has already received a report of an increasing number of Nigerians seeking English partners on gay dating websites in recent months as gay Nigerians try to seek safe passage out of the country.

Mr Mac-Iyalla noted that the population of Nigeria is about 117 million, among who must be hundreds of thousand of gay people. "If only a fraction of those sought sanctuary elsewhere, that would still create a headache for countries that Nigerians would naturally flee to", said Davis. "Some of the oldest passages in the Bible, Exodus, remind us that when people come under intense oppression in one land, a natural response is to flee to somewhere more hospitable."

Though it's early autumn, the roses that lost most of their leaves in the hailstorm just two weeks ago are putting on new plum colored leaves, in between the leaves that were torn by the storm. In two months they will shed them again for winter.

In a highly politicised policy area such as Australian Government support for aged care, public servants spend a great deal of effort preparing briefings, speeches and reports for the Minister, answering questions from the Minister's Office, and generally protecting the Minister's back. So it is disappointing when the Minister cannot keep his own affairs in order.

Queensland Senator, the Honourable Santoro Santoro, has resigned in disgrace from his job as Minister for Ageing, because of his failure to declare his share holdings as required by Senate rules and the Prime Minister's guidelines. Howard is justifiably angry. As usual, Michelle Grattan gives a fair summary in The Age. In the SMH, Alan Ramsey asks whether this disaster and more must be making Howard feel a little punch drunk.

Besides its main story, The Australian burst into column after column about the affair, recalling Santoro's attacks on the ABC when he was backbencher, and saying that Howard is being undermined, that this scandal exposes a "factional underworld" in the Queensland Liberals, and that there will be more scalps before this is done. The PM faces a dilemna in selecting Santoro's sucessor.

Senator Santoro concluded a lettter to his constituents concerning his resignation by saying that he "will remain at your service as an elected representative." Ironically, Santoro was not elected, but appointed to the Senate to fill a casual vacancy and is yet to face the electors. He is the only Senator appointed to the Ministry without having first been elected by the people.

I share *Christopher's strong concern at the failure of the leadership of the Anglican / Episcopal churches to say anything about the likely passage by the Nigerian parliament of appalling laws against homosexual people and those that support them. (The Anglican Church of Canada is an honourable exception. The Episcopal Church of the United States, along with some other Anglican churches, has made clear its opposition to the criminalisation of homosexuality in general, but has not yet specifically addressed the Nigerian law.)

Still less has anything been done to counter the disgraceful support given to the legislation by the Anglican Primate of Nigeria, Archbishop Akinola, and his Nigerian church colleagues.

I also share with *Christopher a fear that "in the press for 'organic unity' the last doors and windows are being closed off for disagreement."

What I knew to be "Anglican" will disappear to be replaced by a conciliar infallibilism coupled with evangelical fundamentalist theological commitments--the worst of Rome and Geneva. This is not "Anglicanism" but something entirely new and frankly more disturbing than Rome or Geneva because hegemonic in conformity of thought and practice in a majoritarian way.

Exactly so.

*Christopher's words should be read in their full context, including an Update he has written. He says that

Should this legislation be passed, with only one constituent Church of the Worldwide Anglican Communion, the Anglican Church of Canada, having formally objected as a whole, the name "Anglican" and "Episcopalian" will become synonymous with an inability to handle disagreement honestly and openly without punitive measures, without resorting to vile persecution.

For this and other reasons, should the Nigerian legislation become law, *Christopher proposes to

forswear using the terms "Anglican" and "Episcopalian" to describe myself until a firm turning away from (repentance) in word and deed occurs, and repudiation without qualification is voiced in the highest echelons of this constituent Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole. This shall be a part of my fast for a season, even if it should be a lifetime.

As I understand him, *Christopher would not want to leave the Episcopal / Anglican church nor would I. Where would one go? I have always believed faithfully staying put--'stability' in more traditional terms--to be very important to my personal walk. I have only once left a congregation for any reason than moving to another city (five times) or the closing down of the congregation itself (once).

But, in the face of what has been happening (and not happening), to identify oneself as 'Anglican' becomes increasing difficult, wearing the label, so to speak. *Christopher asks himself whether "disassociation is proper or the best strategy."

Perhaps not . . . Resistance certainly is, especially that of the firm but gentle "no" so characteristic of Benedictine tradition that holds our way of life together accountable to someone more than ourselves.

I'm all too clear that the Church is a mix of sinning saints, myself among them. It's not about purity, but there are matters that cannot simply be gone along with without seriously threatening the very heart of what it means to be Church. This is one of those matters, and it reaches to the heart and soul of koinonia in ways similar to the way the Deutsche Christian went along with the National Socialist state or the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa was considered excommunicate by the wider worldwide councils of churches for its support through theologizing of Apartheid. We can disagree about much, but to harm bodies in the Body is anathema. This is not the way we go about urging one another or correcting one another or questioning one another as fellow images of God. That these bodies are already some of the most reviled in many parts of our Communion and world only adds to the sting.

. . . I cannot and will not go along with the mealy-mouthed apologias, the handwringing, the silences by our bishops, including our primates while this draconian legislation nears passage. The passing of this legislation and refusal to object is a scandal to the Good News of Christ Jesus and makes it all the more difficult for those of us who care about bringing the Good News to God's lgbt children to do so in its quot;Episcopalian"/"Anglican" wrapping.

Agreed.

So what to do?

I have the privilege of being a member of our diocesan Synod, and our national General Synod. These are the only bodies able to speak for the whole church locally and nationally. Yet they meet only yearly and three-yearly. Dr Aspinall, the Australian primate, is highly respected but the diverse nature of our church makes it impossible for him to speak for anyone but himself. The national standing committee never says anything publicly. The Anglican Church of Australia is voiceless.

Well, I can at least write to my Bishop and maybe put something before the local Synod. That will be too late to be of any real use. But I think there is a fair chance the the Synod of the Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn would be at least willing to speak in support of its gay and lesbian brothers and and sisters in Nigeria. It will be interesting to see if I am right.

Something like this, perhaps:

Resolved, that this Synod of the Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn, noting the [likely] introduction in Nigeria of laws denying freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and other human rights to gay and and lesbian people and those that support them;

1. is disappointed and ashamed that:
   
   
   • the leadership of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) has supported such laws;^[1] and
     
     
   • the leadership of the other churches of the Anglican communion has largely been silent in response to the [proposed] laws and the Nigerian church's support of the laws;^[2]
     
     
2. unequivocally affirms the human rights and freedoms expressed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights;^[3]
   
   
3. is opposed to the Nigerian law and encourages other Anglicans to oppose it;
   
   
4. disassociates itself from any decision or action by any Anglican or other church in support of the Nigerian law; and
   
   
5. requests its delegates to the forthcoming General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia to seek the General Synod's support of a resolution in similar terms.

1. Message to the Nation / Communiqué, Standing Committee of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), Aremo, Ibadan 22-35 February, 2006.
2. The Anglican Church of Canada has stated its opposition to the Nigerian laws. While not mentioning the Nigerian laws directly, on 4 March 2007 the Executive Council of Episcopal Church (of the US agreed to "urge the US government to grant asylum to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals, or those advocating for their civil rights, who seek such protection, and commit the Episcopal Church to aid in their resettlement."
3. Applicable articles of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights include Articles 1,2,7,12,18,19, 20(1) and 29(2):
Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status . ...
Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
Article 29 (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Explanation

The Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Bill/Act 2006 of the Federal Republic of Nigeria prohibits and refuses recognition of "same sex marriage"including "the coming together of two persons of the same gender or sex in a civil union, marriage, domestic partnership or other form of same sex relationship for the purposes of cohabitation as husband and wife." Celebration of "same sex marriage" in any place of worship is specifically prohibited. However, this proposed resolution of the Synod of the Diocese of Canberrra and Goulburn is directly concened with this ban. It is acknowledged that the churches are not of the one mind on such matters.

More troubling is the support of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) for section 7 of the law, which says that:
"1. Registration of Gay Clubs, Societies and organizations by whatever name they are called in institutions from Secondary to the tertiary level or other institutions in particular and, in Nigeria generally, by government agencies is hereby prohibited.
"2. Publicity, procession and public show of same sex amorous relationship through the electronic or print media physically, directly, indirectly or otherwise are prohibited in Nigeria.
"3. Any person who is involved in the registration of gay clubs, societies and organizations, sustenance, procession or meetings, publicity and public show of same sex amorous relationship directly or indirectly in public and in private is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a term of 5 years imprisonment."

Sub-section 7(3) in particular is a dangerous violation of basic human rights and should be opposed by the churches, not supported.

On 23 February 2007 Senior United Nations officials^[4] stated^[5] that the proposed legislation would endanger the lives of those engaged in, or believed to be engaged in, same-sex relationships, who would as a result of the law be "more susceptible to arbitrary arrests, detention, torture and ill-treatment and expose them even more to violence and attacks on their dignity." They said that the proposed law, heard before could deny any person taking part in a same-sex relationship the enjoyment of their economic, social and cultural rights.

The United Nations officials also stated that the legislation contravenes several Articles of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Article 1, which declares that '(a)ll human beings are born equal in dignity and rights,' would be breached, as the Nigerian law codifies discrimination and persecution on the basis of sexual orientation. Freedoms of assembly and association, as well as individuals' freedoms of expression and opinion, would be denied. Local advocates of human rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people could also be imprisoned under this law, if passed.

4. Hina Jilani, the Secretary-General's Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders, Doudou Diène, Special Rapporteur on Contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Yakin Ertürk, Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, and Paul Hunt, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
5. United Nations Press release HR/07/25, 33 February 2007

Postscript: David van Biema set out the history of the Nigerian lawa and Archbihop Akinola's involvement in Time (8 March 07).

The Anglican Primate of Nigeria, one of the most powerful churchmen in Africa, needs to clarify his stance on a Nigerian anti-homosexuality bill he initially supported, which assigns a five-year prison term not only for practicing gays, but also for those who support them. Akinola either needs to publicly renounce, in strong terms, his early support of the bill's punitive clauses and to amplify the rather tepid concern he later expressed about them, or else he needs to explain why he's not doing so . . .

The Nigerian legislation was introduced in 2006, and promptly embraced by almost every church in that country. This included Akinola's, which does nothing without his say-so. Akinola's acceptance of the bill caused considerable discomfort in the 73-million member Anglican communion -- even among fellow conservatives, some of whom undertook a quiet campaign to change his mind. . . .

The Nigerian bill, although troubling, did not seem worthy of more than a couple of paragraphs when I wrote a recent profile of Akinola, for two reasons: By last December, it was considered unlikely to pass, partly due to international outcry -- the U.S. State Department, for instance ,expressed concern. And within days of the Virginia vote, Akinola moderated his view. In a welcoming letter to the Viginia churches -- also released in Nigeria -- he admitted, "We recognize that there are genuine concerns about individual human rights that must be addressed both in the framing of the law and its implementation."

In the heat of Nigeria's presidential election campaign, however, the bill has been revived. According to Stefano Fabeni of the Washington-based organization Global Rights, the Nigerian legislature is supposed to be considering a new, "harmonized" version of the bill, that may or may not include the five-year penalties. Fabeni also asserts that on February 14, during a discussion of the issue, the Christian Association of Nigeria, to which Akinkola's church belongs, argued in favor of letting the penalties remain. In any case the old version, with penalties, has already passed two readings in both houses of the National Assembly, and will become law if it passes a third reading in the Senate. The deciding vote could take place at any time within the next few weeks. So, now would be a good time for the habitually forceful Most Rev. Akinola to be a bit more forceful.

A few months ago, Nigerian religion expert Abieyuwa Ogbemudia said to my colleague Gilbert daCosta, "It is incredible for any church to even tolerate homosexuality and survive in Nigeria. Your church would be dead in the water." Akinola, however, has proven himself in the past to be a brave man. He took a strong and important stance against Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo's bid for an extraconstitutional third term. He needs to be brave again and speak out against the penalties in the Nigerian bill. If he truly has concerns about human rights, he should express them with vigor. Failure to do so ought to prompt his new Virginian congregants to give a second thought to their choice of Akinola as their shepherd.

The death of John Inman is sad.

Not much has was seen of him here except his famed role in the hit TV series Are you being served? His campiness as menswear assistant Mr Humphries was ourageous for its time and criticised by some as a sterotype -- but the show was funny and attracted huge ratings.

Inman and his partner of 33 years, Ron Lynch, joined together in a civil partnership in 2005, making Inman's sexuality public after decades of ambiguity. As recently as 1999 he had insisted that he was heterosexual.

The wonderful Kenneth Williams was another actor, perhaps more successful than Inman, who rejoiced in exaggerated campery in his performances, but was apparently troubled by his sexuality.

This odd ambiguity -- acting out an exaggerated 'gayness' in TV and theatre, and nervousness of it in real life -- was perhaps a symptom of an oppressive society that now, at last, is beginning to change.

Matthew Parris in in Times Online (10 Mar 07):

I raise a salute to that lifesaving human compromise, the open secret. . . . For gay men in the 20th century the open secret was sometimes literally a lifesaver. It was the narrowest of territories: the half-acre that lies somewhere between absolute denial and outright confession, between dishonesty and disgrace. This was a hard place to be in 1970, a narrow line to walk. If our oh-so-modern, who-gives-a-damn, 21st-century gays, of whom I am one, suppose that these men were not brave, that they were not trail-blazers, not part of the struggle, then we don't know the half of it.

And some of us, it seems, don't. Already I hear the cry -- "living a lie", "set back the cause", "self-oppression", "an insulting stereotype" -- from a gay lobby that has taken about five minutes to forget what a dark age England was for us, what light an Inman, a Kenneth Williams, a Danny La Rue or, from America, a Liberace brought into it, and how outrageous, how valiant, those people were.

About five minutes to forget, too, that the people who wanted these men taken off the stage, screen and wireless, were not the gay-rights campaigners but the bigots and guardians of conservative morality. "Sexual perversion", they said, wasn't entertainment: it was wicked and dangerous -- and bad taste. The BBC, contemplating making a series of Are You Being Served?, tried at first to insist that Mr Humphries was removed.

How fast we forget context. Always a bit of a giggle to their own era, the Inmans, La Rues and Williamses of the last century are now disowned by their newly brave inheritors: the lately and boldly Out.

John Inman's breath had barely left his body before right-on spokesmen for that imaginary thing, the "gay community", were berating the "self-oppression" and "stereotyping" of homosexuals that Inman's Mr Humphries helped to reinforce. His smutty innuendo, his jokes about fairies and handbags, his limp wrist, camp wit and simpering delivery are, they claim, everything we need to shed.

Yes, they are. Of course they are. They are now. But they weren't then. Then they were a light in the dark. Between the words, these men insinuated a wordless language of their own; they made a nonverbal statement, a shyly comical way of saying: "This is who and what I am; this is my tribe -- and, look, I'm famous and life is fun." . . .

Thus did the shame and the ghetto depart, taking with them (but slowly) the tagging and the typecasting.

We gays can shed these stereotypes because we have outgrown them, because we have won the space and public respect to dispense with prison clothes and walk out of the virtual ghettos in which gay people used to bunch for mutual affirmation. We don't need to belong to a gang any more, to drink in the same pubs, congregate in the same occupations or dress or talk in ways designed to help us recognise each other, and help the outside world to guess without the unpleasantness of having to ask. We are no longer under siege. Everything can be talked about today. But yesterday, when things weren't said, things had to be said without words. Men like Inman found the showbiz shorthand to do it. God rest their souls.

Editorial -- Denying Rights in Nigeria New York Times (8 Mar 07)

A poisonous piece of legislation is quickly making its way through the Nigerian National Assembly. Billed as an anti-gay-marriage act, it is a far-reaching assault on basic rights of association, assembly and expression. Chillingly, the legislation -- proposed last year by the administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo -- has the full and enthusiastic support of the leader of Nigeria's powerful Anglican church. Unless the international community speaks out quickly and forcefully against the bill, it is almost certain to become law.

Homosexual acts between consenting adults are already illegal in Nigeria under a penal code that dates to the colonial period. This new legislation would impose five-year sentences on same-sex couples who have wedding ceremonies -- as well as on those who perform such services and on all who attend. The bill's vague and dangerous prohibition on any public or private show of a "same sex amorous relationship" -- which could be construed to cover having dinner with someone of the same sex -- would open any known or suspected gay man or lesbian to the threat of arrest at almost any time.

The bill also criminalizes all political organizing on behalf of gay rights. And in a country with a dauntingly high rate of HIV and AIDS, the ban on holding any meetings related to gay rights could make it impossible for medical workers to counsel homosexuals on safe sex practices.

Efforts to pass the bill last year stalled in part because of strong condemnation from the United States and the European Union. Now its backers are again trying to rush it through, and Washington and Brussels need to speak out against it. Nigeria is Africa's most populous country and one of the most politically influential. If it passes a law that says human rights are not for every citizen, it will set a treacherous example for the region and the world.

As usual, the Scots say what needs to be said, in a few words, sensibly and courteously.

Statement from Changing Attitude Scotland

Published March 6th, 2007

Changing Attitude Scotland welcomes the opportunity to respond to the recent Communiqué from the Anglican Primates issued in Tanzania.

In particular, we welcome:

• the news that the Listening Process is making progress in some provinces and we affirm the urgent need for a process of listening to the experience of lesbian and gay people, to begin in the Scottish Episcopal Church;
• the fact that the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church has gone on record as saying that our College of Bishops believes that the US based Episcopal Church has already made an adequate response to the requests made of it by the Windsor Report.

However, we are saddened that:

• notwithstanding their commitment to listen, the Primates did not take the opportunity to meet with any openly gay or lesbian people during their meeting, even though they were happy to meet with those who are opposed to the inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the church;
• the Anglican Communion has been broken by the actions of those Primates who refused to receive communion during the duration of the Primates' Meeting;
• the final communiqué has presented an unreasonable ultimatum to the US based Episcopal Church;
• the communiqué has nothing to say to condemn the actions of the Church of Nigeria in its support of proposals to criminalize gay and lesbian people in Nigeria.

Much has been made of the fact that if the US based Episcopal Church draws back from its full inclusion of lesbian and gay members, then Primates from foreign jurisdictions who have made incursions into the USA may feel able to withdraw. We believe that maintaining the integrity of artificial ecclesiastical territorial borders is not worth the sacrifice of the integrity of an inclusive church.

On the same day that Changing Attitude Scotland received the communiqué from the Primates Meeting in Tanzania, another significant document was received--the new liturgy for blessing same-sex couples from the Church of Sweden. The Church of Sweden is in full communion with the Scottish Episcopal Church. Through its own synodical process, the Church of Sweden has now agreed a text for the blessing of gay people. We note that there has been no condemnation of the actions of the Swedish Church from the Anglican Primates during this extensive process nor from any of the bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church. We are glad that this is so and recognise that this illustrates very clearly that the actions of the Primates towards the US based Episcopal Church are primarily political rather than theological.

It is our experience that whilst Anglicans angrily debate human sexuality to the detriment of God's mission in the world, God is quietly and persistently raising up gay and lesbian people of faith in all denominations and with a full rainbow spectrum of theological outlooks. Furthermore, increasing numbers of lay and ordained, straight and gay people have come to the belief that being gay or lesbian is no bar to being baptized and therefore no bar to full participation in Christian life and ministry.

Mr Tim Wilson is a research fellow at "free market thinktank", the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne and a specialist in trade liberalisation, globalisation, intellectual property, and foreign policy. In the The Australian (7 March 07) he argues that there is nothing radical about equality of opportunity and that Prime Minister John Howard's conservativism would justify Howard giving strong support for same-sex couples.

It's no surprise that the Prime Minister is considering reforming access to government benefits for same-sex couples. Based on his own brand of conservatism, John Howard should support equal recognition for same-sex couples.

In 2005 Howard gave a speech to launch the publication The Conservative. He articulated his interpretation of conservatism, its values and how it is held in Australian society. The Prime Minister discussed the role of institutions and said conservatives "believe that if institutions have demonstrably failed, they ought to be changed or reformed". There is little doubt the institutions charged with respecting the legitimacy and choices of same-sex couples have failed them. Government institutions are perpetuating discrimination against same-sex couples in superannuation law, Medicare payments, migration law and taxation. Liberal values and a belief in small government should promote downscaling these benefits, but if they are to be available, they should be provided without discrimination.

. . . Howard aligned his personal values to the values of average Australians: "(We) live in a classless society (where) a person's worth should be determined by a person's character and hard work." Those Liberal MPs pushing for reform have shown that, as yet, the PM's words have not been put into practice. . . . Same-sex couples have paid their taxes, taken responsibility for their lives and are active contributors to society. Unlike other debates in society, the lapse in mutual obligation in this debate is not on the [part of?] individuals. The Government cannot say the same for itself.

. . . Pushing gay rights is hardly Howard's wheelbarrow, but the move to provide government benefits to same-sex relationships shouldn't cause social conservatives discomfort. . . . Whether conservatives believe sexuality is by choice or design, respecting individual choices is a shared position of conservatives and liberals.

So far so very good, but then Mr Wilson's anti-Labor slip begins to show. He goes on to argue that in the case of the ACT's civil unions legislation, disallowed by the federal government, "The ALP used the gay community as patsies to try to retrieve its credibility on gay issues."

The ACT Government's bill was designed to enrage the federal Government and be overturned for Labor's political benefit. Had a state [as distinct from territory] government passed the same bill it may have stood, but sections would likely have been in conflict with federal law and the federal government's constitutional responsibility to define and establish marriage.

This is simply ignorant balderdash. I carry no brief for federal Labor's (nearly non existent) stance on equality for gay and lesbian people, but the ACT Government cannot be accused of Machiavellian motives in this. Nor would its legislation be unconstitutional.

Voters may not support gay marriage but they don't believe same-sex couples should be locked out of government benefits. Debate on gay marriage has been suffocated by a failing to consider why government is regulating marriage in the first place.

Quite. Government regulates marriage because it seeks to regulate the availability of the financial advantages that it gives to those who are married. If the Government wants to support parents and their children, that is a separate question. But the Government should either abolish marriage, remove its financial advantages, or remove discrimination in access to marriage.

The annual Archibald prize for portraiture is always controversial and attracts much fanfare; this year it has been won by John Beard for a portrait of artist Janet Laurence.

I am always more interested in the Wynne prize for landscape painting of Australian scenery, announced at the same time. Beard was last year's Wynne Prize winner.

The 2007 Wynne Prize has been won this year by Philip Wolfhagen for his Winter Nocturne IV. Sadly the NSW Art Gallery does not show the other Wynne finalist on its website, but this is Wolfhagen's winning entry.



These are Wolfhagen's
Devil's Den Elevations 2000,
High Ground 2001
and a section of Archipelago 2003.

They all depict the Tasmanian coastline.

The Prime Minister's Office has apparently confirmed reports (e.g. in The Australian of 2 March), that he is considering legal changes to remove discrimination against same-sex couples in areas such as welfare, superannuation and tax. Mr Howard's office is coordinating a proposal for Cabinet and governbment departments are preparing costings. (An election is coming and the Government has money to burn.)

There has been a concerted campaign for action by some by some senior Liberal party MPs. More than 60 pieces of federal legislation specifically deny financial and work-related rights and benefits to same-sex couples.

ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell says that Howard government would actually bolster the case for recognising same-sex partnerships if cabinet ended discrimination against gay couples in areas such as tax, superannuation and welfare. Mr Corbell said he had not seen the details but would support any move to combat discrimination against same-sex couples. There would also be no reason to deny same-sex couples rights in other areas such as having a legal ceremony to recognise their relationship. "If you're prepared to give legal recognition in some ways, you should be prepared to give legal recognition in other ways as well," Mr Corbell said.

The proposed changes come despite the Howard Government's decision to twice reject attempts by the ACT Government to make civil unions legal in the territory. ACT chief minister Jon Stanhope says he will "wait and see", telling IBN News on 2 March that any progress towards ending bias against same-sex partnerships is very welcome. But it remains to be seen how far the Prime Minister will go. Mr Stanhope said

[I]t is deeply disappointing and distasteful that the Prime Minister seems determined that when it comes to social recognition, same-sex couples should forever be second-class citizens, entitled to lesser recognition and unable to publicly celebrate their enduring relationships.

Indeed, so determined is Mr Howard to ensure that same-sex couples are not accorded real as well as symbolic equality, that he has gone out of his way to overturn the very first law in the country that delivered such equality, and is now threatening to overturn the second attempt to legislate.

Advocacy groups are similarly sceptical.

I'm sceptical. It is now several years since the Government promised unequivocally to remove discrimination against same-sex couples in the superannuation scheme that covers its own employees. There has been no action whatever.

The Howard government has no credibility on these questions and will not be believed until change is actually implemented.

And what is the Labor leader, Mr Rudd, saying? Nothing.

Except for the Labor party in the ACT, the Greens and the Australian Democrats are the only parties with any credibility on same-sex relationships.

Members of the General Synod of the Church of England be congratulated on the civility and quality of their debates on 28th February (my birthday), the Synod's first extended debates on human sexuality for nearly 20 years.

As John Ward, a member of General Synod and chair of the General Synod Human Sexuality Group, said "There are no winners or losers. I am delighted that we can now be in dialogue without fear and that lesbian and gay Christians are affirmed as full members of the Church. I believe that through prayer and communication something changed yesterday in Synod"

The AP report by Thomas Wagner, published in The Guardian summarises. I've also lifted details of the discusion from Thinking Anglicans, mostly for my own future reference. (This is supposed to be a scrapbook!). I am wondering how this might play out in Australia's only-once-in-three-years General Synod later this year.

The Church of England's assembly on Wednesday affirmed existing teaching that homosexuality is no bar to full participation in the church but avoided the fractious debate within the Anglican Communion about accepting gay sexual relationships.

A motion approved nearly unanimously by the governing General Synod disposed of language including a commitment to "respect the patterns of holy living to which lesbian and gay Christians aspire," but affirmed "that homosexual orientation in itself is no bar to a faithful Christian life or in full participation to lay and ordained ministry."

Bishop Michael Perham of Gloucester had urged the synod not to take a side in the debate about whether people in gay relationships can be good Christians or, as in the U.S. Episcopal Church, serve as a bishop. "This is not the moment -- it is very clearly the wrong moment -- to shift our formal position and give any sense of winners and losers on an issue on which we are finding it hard to reach consensus," Perham said.

John Ward, a gay member of the synod who supported the amended version, had asked the assembly "to say explicitly that we can and should have an open and Godly dialogue with one another about human sexuality and that we should create a safe place for this to happen without fear." Ward, whose voice trembled at times during the debate, also said: "I have experienced people in this synod who are afraid to be seen sitting next to me."

The Rev. Mary Gilbert, who sponsored the original motion, said she was happy with the outcome as creating "an open, careful listening process about the issue of lesbian and gay Christians."

The morning vote followed two hours of emotional debate between liberal and evangelical synod members. Liberals emphasized Anglicans must support gay Christians, who they said were an important part of the Church of England, and oppose any prejudice they face. Evangelicals unsuccessfully tried to halt the debate with two procedural motions that were voted down. Some said Scripture was clear that only sex between married, heterosexual couples is permissible. Others argued that being gay should be defined as a choice, not a natural condition determined by their genetic makeup.

After a 2-hour afternoon debate, the General Synod approved a second motion that acknowledged some church members' criticism of Britain's Civil Partnership Act. It came into force in 2005, legally recognizing same sex relationships and allowing gays to virtually marry. The synod said it understood the government acted to protect gays from discrimination, but said it should have "done so in a way that avoided creating a legal framework with many similarities to marriage."

The synod scrapped a more radical motion, proposed by the Rev. Paul Perkin, a member of the evangelical group Reform, expressing "deep concern" that the act "undermines the distinctiveness and fundamental importance to society of the relationship of marriage."

Perham said the church was at a delicate moment, following the meeting of Anglican leaders earlier this month in Tanzania, which included Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, spiritual leader of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion . . .