A spokesperson for the Scottish government said: ”The Scottish government is disappointed at this decision”.
From this statement and Alex Salmond’s recent defence of the disgraced Cardinal, it is becoming clear that he and the SNP are more pro-Catholic bigotry than they are pro-equality.
The Catholic adoption agency was found to be unlawfully discriminating, so how on earth can the Scottish Government say that it is “disappointed” with the decision of the Scottish Charity Regulator, a decision that was based on law.
Is the SNP Government suggesting that the Equality Law should be broken?
The SNP has over the years, despite its claims to be pro-equality, consistently supported those who support inequality and gladly taken large donations from arch-homophobes like Souter. I judge people and organisations by their actions, not just their words.
The charity decision to uphold the original ruling is the only one that could be taken to comply with the law.
The SNP appears to be similar to UKIP then.
As the decision to uphold the original ruling was the only one that could be taken to comply with the law, the statement by the Scottish government is so incredibly unbelievable! It is “disappointed” that the law was complied with!
James & Bill, I agree entirely about the SNP. I first noticed this in 2007 when they accepted £500,000 from Brian Souter – I stopped voting for them that day. Since then, I have been astonished at the number of incidences of homophobia in the SNP.
They do deserve credit for bringing forward legislation for marriage equality, but even here they aren’t as pro-gay equality as they seem. They took months to decide whether to legislate it for it in the first place and are subjecting it to unprecedented scrutiny.
Roseanna Cunningham is the minister responsible for marriage law of any kind in Scotland, yet she has refused to deal with it and has not been disciplined. Also remember that she was made a minister after her hateful and bizarre speech in 2006 about gay people “goes against 1000 years of nature’s design.”
I don’t think the SNP are actively homophobic, but they do seem to turn a blind eye to homophobia and side with religion (especially the catholic church) over gay equality.
Yes Bennie, I agree. They probably don’t set out to be homophobic (well, apart from Roseanna Cunningham, who should have been expelled) but certain things they do (like saying that they were “disappointed” with Scottish Charity Regulator’s decision and Salmond’s defence of the disgraced Cardinal) indicates that they are only too willing to defend homophobia. What’s worse is that they appear not to realise that they’re giving that impression. It shows an incredible lack of judgement and insight. Completely out of touch. If I were living in Scotland I couldn’t vote for them either.
I used to vote for them, James, until that day in 2007 when I saw on the news that they’d accepted Souter’s money. As a self-respecting gay man, I could no longer vote for a party which happily accepts money from a nasty homophobe who used his vast wealth to try and intervene with a democratically elected government back in 2000/2001, with his so-called referendum on keeping Clause 2a (Section 28) on the statute books. Absolutely sickening.
I’ve raised the matter with various people in the SNP over the last 5 years or so, but I never get a satisfactory answer, in fact, usually I don’t even get an answer at all. It’s interesting that not one person in the SNP (MSP, MP, MEP, Councillor or member) has ever spoken out about the party accepting Souter’s money. I can only conclude every single SNP member is happy to be funded by a homophobe.
When this story was first reported two months ago, a motion was lodged in the Scottish Parliament in support of St. Margaret’s by SNP MSP John Mason. Of the 8 MSPs who supported it, 6 are SNP and 1 is a former SNP member. The other MSP is a Conservative.
I knew so little about the SNP, Bennie. It’s only recently that I’ve had my eyes opened. I had thought that they were advocating a Scotland for All, an independent nation based on equality and respect for fellow Scottish citizens. How wrong was I?!! They now appear to me as siding heavily with Scottish establishments and traditionalism (e.g. religious authority).
The party’s support for equal marriage must be a sham public display of faux progressiveness as their funding by Souter, failure to expel an overt homophobe (Cunningham), support for the Catholic adoption agencies to break the law and Salmond’s defence of O’Brien suggests that they’re far from being progressive. If I were a Scottish citizen and supported independence I still don’t think I’d be able to vote for such an untrustworthy party.
Well done to you for challenging them.
James, the SNP’s support for equal marriage is very recent. They only decided to discuss the issue at the 2011 Scottish Parliament election, when they pledged to hold a consultation on it (which they did) and they then subsequently decided to bring forward legislate (which they are currently doing). So I do think they deserve the credit for doing it.
However, when they launched their first consultation, they didn’t state unequivocal support for it, instead saying they tended towards it but would wait and listen to all views (even those of homophobes & bigots) before making up their minds. That really annoyed me.
It’s also interesting to note that during their first term in govenment from 2007-2011, the SNP didn’t take the opportunity to legislate for equal marriage when it arose via a public petition. The Petitions Committee advised them to do it, but the SNP government repeated 6 times that it was not a priority and they had no plans to do it.
Typical “we’ll have to close now” commentary from their spokesperson.
No, you don’t have to close. You can continue helping children be adopted (which is a noble cause), just STOP DISCRIMINATING.
They’d rather turn their backs on children needing loving homes.
I hope this means the catholic adoption charity will close.
Considering the catholic church’s horrific record when it comes to its abuse of children, I think that the catholic church cannot be trusted with the welfare of vulnerable children.
This is one of the charities, bigoted homophobe Tim Loughton made reference to in yesterday’s committee hearing on equal marriage, defending their right to deny access to gay couples adopting, as a matter of faith and conscience and insisting they should not be penalised. He thought it was shameful and a violation of religious freedom. What Loughton, Burrowes and Shannon want is a total opt out for anyone who doesn’t want to provide services to gay and lesbian people without fear of prosecution or subject to legal fees.
What are the odds that this agency is going to shut itself down and start crying about how it was “forced” by the state to close.
And the church is going to cry the persecution line, while not putting so much as a penny of it’s vast fortunes towards keeping the agency open.
Absolutely. The anti equal marriage bigots will spin this out of orbit as another abuse of religious freedom card.
The catholic church lacks the moral authority to be responsible for the welfare of children.
A spokesperson for the Scottish government said: ”The Scottish government is disappointed at this decision.
And who was this spokesperson I would like to know. Is he/she talking for the whole of the SNP?
It does appear as if the Scottish government is supporting St. Margaret’s to have the right to discriminate against gay people. The National Secular Society, whose initial complaint led to this ruling, is concerned about the support the Scottish government is giving St. Margaret’s.
There is no reason for this adoption to close rather than simply comply with the law. Another catholic adoption agency in Edinburgh, St. Andrew’s, complied with the law back in 2007/2008 and the church severed all links with it. It’s still operating today.
If St. Margaret’s closes, then the people who run it and work there are admitting they are homophobic bigots.
The adoption of children is a matter of supreme public interest. In a liberal democracy under the rule of law any criterion other than strictly empirical and rational knowledge of the welfare of children applied to their adoption is not acceptable.
On these grounds all avowedly religious organisations should be legally barred from arranging adoptions.