h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Afternoon all,

I,m sure someone will leap up if I have got this wrong - but the Catholic church and its adoption agencies are to be given a 21 month period of grace to conform to the Equality Law which becomes effective this Spring.?

Why 21 months, and regardless of the period does this mean that is perhaps 'bad' legislation, since one group will now be allowed to ignore it, at least in one respect?

Novo

>>"Why 21 months, and regardless of the period does this mean that is perhaps 'bad' legislation, since one group will now be allowed to ignore it, at least in one respect?"

21 months is just a tidy figure, finishing at the end of next year.

Perhaps it would have been rather better to have announced that there wouldn't be any exemptions some time before the legislation came into effect, giving organisations time to decide what to do (change practice or close), and if closing to have an orderly shutdown.
However, since that seemingly didn't happen, even though I support the legislation, I can see the point of a transitional period for certain organisations, *especially* if hints had previously been made that there might be exemptions for them.

Is it because the adoption process can be extremely lengthy? If they are going to close, they may need that long to clear existing cases.
If not, I can't see that they should need that long to change their procedures etc. although I agree that some transitional period could be appropriate.

In my experience, organisations tend not to do any forward planning until they know something will be law, then still wait until the last minute to plan & implement necessary changes.

Hello Teasswill,

I understand your point, and Potholers too, about a period of time needed to effect a change.

But doesn't that make a mockery of our recent ( heated at times ) debate on effectively exempting this institution from the law prohibiting discrimination? Presumably nobody else will be able to discriminate?

Therefore is it an unwise or unnecessary piece of legislation, or was it just badly planned? Possibly just not thought through. Another example of Unintended Consequences perhaps.

Novo

I don't think it makes a mockery of the law, any more than having laws which don't come into immediate affect make a mockery of the law.

There's at least a valid case for not having adoption agencies closed down immediately (if that's what the Catholic Church would rather do once the law applies to them).

In the case of a regular business, having the hypothetical homophobic B&B shut down rapidly rather than be legal isn't really a great loss - they could return people's deposits, and would-be customers will just go and stay somewhere else. An adoption agency is a bit more than just a business.

However, were there an adoption service run by a non-religious agency which excluded same-sex couples, they'd have an arguable case for a similar transition period to the Catholic agencies.

Hi Potholer,

I am really not sure about this.

I, personally, originally felt that the law was ill concieved. I felt (as you know) that as a matter of conscience based on their faith , the Catholic Agencies should be exempt. Rather as Sikhs are exempt from M/C helmets.

I believe that the Catholic agencies already place children with single gays but not gay couples. It is arguable that there is no 'real' difference, but that is the Church's take on it.
So technically would they be breaking the law anyway, since they could be said not to be discriminating against homosexuals per se?

Again from a personal view whilst I accept your reason for 21 months, but why not 36, 0r 48?

We certainly don't want to re-visit a hypothetical small business, but in the other exemption example, Sikhs were not exempt for 21 months, but till are ?

So is it a law with holes in it?

Novo

Novo

Many, many laws come with transitional periods in them. It is a very normal thing to do - allow those with particular difficulties to adapt.

The difference between the Sikh/helmet issue and the RC/homosexual issue is that the Sikhs are taking the risk themselves - the Catholics are discriminating against others. Big difference.

sprout

>>"I, personally, originally felt that the law was ill concieved. I felt (as you know) that as a matter of conscience based on their faith , the Catholic Agencies should be exempt. Rather as Sikhs are exempt from M/C helmets."

Thing is, with Sikhs and helmets, while the point of general laws on mandating use of helmets, seatbelts, etc is clear, if someone is granted a helmet exemption, it isn't going to affect anyone apart from them (and possibly their dependents). It's basically a case of one person and their individual beliefs/opinions.

It's entirely different to the case with services, which are by definition something that happen involving multiple people, who may well have different opinions.

>>"So technically would they be breaking the law anyway, since they could be said not to be discriminating against homosexuals per se?"

They're discrimnating on the basis of sexuality.

If I were to do business with any straight people, but only with very rich gay people, I'd be discriminating on the basis of sexuality, just as I would be discriminating on the basis of sex if I had a policy of employing men of all classes, but only posh women.

>>"Again from a personal view whilst I accept your reason for 21 months, but why not 36, 0r 48?"
If there's going to be a phasing-in period, it's always possible to suggest a different timescale. Any timescale will have *some* arbitrary/subjective element, since there isn't going to be a magic formula to arrive at the one perfect figure.
However, unless one actually has some worthwhile argument as to why some other period would be significantly better, it may appear one is simply throwing up problems for the sake of it rather than actually trying to make a contribution.

In other words, *why* 36 or 48?

Thanks Sprout and Potholer,

I realised at the start that I was laying myself open to the accusation of raising it for its own sake.

Not the case, truly.

I was curious to see the reaction, and I thank you for yours (all) and assure you that I accept your premise(s)

Novo

*Personally* speaking, admitting to great ignorance of how adoption agencies operate, I'd have guessed a year or so may be enough to tie up most loose ends.

I'm assuming the Catholic church isn't going to change its mind, but I guess how it goes about ceasing operation may yet be to be decided - are they simply going to shut down operations, transfer them to be outside the church, merge them with some other agency, etc.
Presumably there are people who could be useful in secular agencies, if their personal feelings allow them to work in a non-discriminating agency, and I suppose it may be useful to transfer some records and any work-in-progress to some other agency.
Negotiations for how such a handover might happen could take some time, though I suppose they might also tend to expand to fill out any time available. Were there to be any mergers with external agencies in late 2008, there's plenty of time for adjustments to be made to 2008-2009 budgets.

I guess 21 months is at least long enough that the church can't really complain about it not being long enough and expect other people to agree with them unless they have a very good argument. If they can't sort some decent transition arrangements out in that time, people will likely consider that's down to spite and/or incompetence rather than being rushed, and that may be part of the *political* decision regarding timescales.

You still don't explain why people should be able to override laws based on conscience?

Certainly, as individuals, if the laws contradicts you on something you feel very strongly about, you ought to break it. The legal system, however, has to go with the laws it has as best it can, assuming they are correct until the legislature corrects them.

That's how a society of parliamentary representation is supposed to work: it tries to find laws most acceptable to most people, and if at the end of that a particular law isn't acceptable to you, then tough, you're overridden, try not to get caught.

Morning Bouncy,

I should have used the word faith or belief perhaps, rather than conscience.

But there have been many who have avoided 'the law' on such a basis. Take Consciencious Objectors for example. They were drafted into the forces, but carried stretchers and medical suppies instead of guns. They didn't have to fight, except to fight to save lives.

That to me is sensible.

I don't question that we should all stay within the law, or risk the consequences. I was intigued at the 21 months, The point being that if it is OK not to conform for 21 why not 36 .. after all the rest of us will have to obey. So I was getting other reactions to a paradox.

I have always understood the role the law plays in shaping attitudes and subsequently behaviour towards minorities and the disadvantaged, but the law of itself doesn't change entrenched attitudes, only the outward manifestation. So a good law has to be one to which all can subscribe.

Novo

Novo, CO's, unless I'm mistaken, were required to join the armed forces, not to fight. Of course it's possible to be a non-combatant in the armed forces, so there's no conflict there. Also, if they refused to *join* the armed forces, they were punished.

Re the 21 months thing, it seems perfectly reasonable that there is a delay when it can affect some people. If the catholics decide to shut down their adoption services on April 1st, it will hardly benefit society, so it's in the interest of the children to have a poor service, rather than none at all.

<>

It won't change many attitudes instantly, but it *will* over time. A good law means racists can't act in a racist manner in the workplace, but it's still a good law.

>>"But there have been many who have avoided 'the law' on such a basis. Take Consciencious Objectors for example. They were drafted into the forces, but carried stretchers and medical suppies instead of guns. They didn't have to fight, except to fight to save lives."

And, as Richard Dawkins points out in 'The God Delusion', religion had special treatment then.
If someone without religious belief had wrestled with the issues over a long period of time and finally concluded that they couldn't justify taking a life, and could eloquently explain themselves, they could face an uphill struggle to convince TPTB that they should be exempted from having to kill people. If someone had a Quaker parent and claimed to be a Quaker, even if they were pretty ignorant of any moral arguments, they might have had a rather easier time.

>>"The point being that if it is OK not to conform for 21 why not 36 .. after all the rest of us will have to obey."

I guess it depends how the law is written.
Will it say "... Except Catholics (or Christians, or believers in general) for the first 21 months.", will it be drafted to allow exemptions up to 21 months for anyone running certain kinds of services, or something else?

Maybe it's better waiting until we see what the law actually says?

In any case, the 36 rather than 21 question is *presumably* answered by TPTB thinking that 21 months is long enough for a decent orderly transition for anyone actually interested in having an orderly transition.

I think its reasonably reasonable to extend a transition period that refelects the nature of the work being done by adoption agencies.

Not only is the work before an adoption of very important to the wellbeing of the children but folow up care and assesments are vital too. This wiil have to be handed over to suitable bodies. Hopefully two years will be long enough for the transition of staff to other bodies from the church run agencies and recruiting of extra staff in othe bodies where this is not possible. then there is the hand over of the case work to be considered.

The current news of the chaos at some airport checkins of a new level of tax retrospectively charged is enough to show why hard and fast rules in any arena let a lone higly sensitive ones can be a very bad thing.

one love

There is a 3 month training period before adoptions are allowed to go through - except in exceptional circumstances, this period though frequently extends.

And adoption agencies discriminate on many grounds already - for example a conviction for violence would exclude one - even if it was merely for being part of a football crowd, and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Similarly being reported to Social services would exclude you - even if you were unaware of it.

Catholic agencies only handle about 3% of adoptions anyway, however they handle something like 70% of the most difficult cases.

>>"And adoption agencies discriminate on many grounds already - for example a conviction for violence would exclude one - even if it was merely for being part of a football crowd, and being in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Unfortunately, a conviction, even an unfair one, is often taken as implying guilt. I don't see a meaningful analogy with gay couples, especially if an agency potentially accepts single people of the same orientation. A civil partnership is hardly the same thing as a criminal record.

Thing is, discrimination (in the sense of just making choices) happens all the time. The law tends to oppose it when it becomes discrimination (in the sense of making unfair or unreasonable choices).

>>"Catholic agencies only handle about 3% of adoptions anyway, however they handle something like 70% of the most difficult cases."

I'd be intrigued where those figures come from.
I assume there isn't a serious bias towards Catholic parents producing such children in the first place?
Do the large majority of difficult adoptions get passed on to Catholic agencies even if the source parents aren't Catholic, and wouldn't have thought of approaching such an agency?
Are many people who adopt such children Catholic?

from:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1996785,00.html
>>"According to the church, there are a total of 12 Catholic adoption agencies in England and Wales, which are responsible for about 4,000 voluntary sector adoptions."
>>"Around 32% of the children they place for adoption are classified as having special needs."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/26/ngay226.xml

>>"One in three children placed by Catholic adoption agencies in 2002-03 had special needs, compared with seven per cent of children placed by local authorities and 24 per cent placed by other voluntary bodies. Many of the agencies have been operating for decades and between 1989 and 2003 placed 3,170 children in England and Wales and approved 3,110 families as adopters."

Interesting figures there - if they square up, I guess it means the 4000 figure is over a long timescale.

However, *IF* they are only responsible for 3% of adoptions, and 33% of their placements have special needs compared to at least 7% for all other agencies, that'd mean they dealt with less than 15% of special needs placements.

Do they really specialise in *special* special needs placements, does the 70% figure come about as a result of some Chinese whisper, or what?

Actually they came from Barnardos.

I believe they have people who are prepared to accept children of limited lifespan.

Whether this is because of their religion, I am unable to say, I am merely repeating things I was told when undergoing training for fostering.

If the general special needs figures from the papers I linked to are correct, it's certainly possible there is still a special category of 'most challenging' which the Catholic agencies specialise in.

However, a lot would depend on how large such a category was. If it was 15 children/year, and the Catholic agencies handled 70% of them, that'd only be 10 children.
Also, if the Catholic agencies closed, (or moved outside the Church) would the people who now adopt the most challenging cases stop doing so?