And another thing…

THIS has never happened to me before: yesterday I received an email from the House authorities apologising for an “Error in division  241 on 9 November”:

I am sorry that there was a mistake that has come to my attention in the recording of this division.  Your name was marked down as voting Aye instead of Dr Evan Harris. I have contacted the Official Report who will correct the record in the bound Hansard volume and on the internet version. Please accept my apologies for this error.

I wasn’t actually aware of this message until today, but I was alerted to the fact that something was wrong when I met a colleague today while campaigning in the Glasgow North East by-election. “Did you come down to London on Monday just to vote against the government?” he asked.

Not me

“Of course not,” I replied. He then informed me that news of my “rebellion” had been discussed in the tearoom.

As it happens, there was a vote later on on Monday night which, had I been present, would have resulted in my rebelling against the government, in support of the so-called “freedom of speech” amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill (about which I have blogged before).

But I wasn’t present, and didn’t rebel on any vote – a fact which I have now communicated to my own whip (who was unaware of any such rumours anyway).

Why does it matter? you may be asking. To those who are of a political – rather than a party political – persuasion, it probably doesn’t. They probably imagine that the more often you vote against your own party, the better. That’s not a view to which I subscribe. I’ve voted against my party whip a total of twice since I was first elected. That’s twice more than David Cameron has voted against his party’s whip and a hell of a lot less than some Labour colleagues who seem to see themselves as in permanent opposition to their own party.

As for Monday’s mix-up, I’m glad someone noticed that I’m not Evan Harris, who (REST OF SENTENCE DELETED ON LEGAL ADVICE).

THE LATEST furore over homophobia is one I really don’t want to get frawn into. However…

Following my last post about a Tory smear against the Labour Party, "Jimmy" left the following comment:

Whilst sadly acknowledging that there will be homophobes in both the Labour and Conservative Parties, it would be interesting to hear his view’s on Lord Waddington’s (and Baroness O’Cathain’s) opposition to clause 61 of the Coroners and Justice Bill:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90518-0005.htm

Will David Cameron now prove that he means what he says, and openly criticise his colleagues in the Lords for their outdated and (I would argue) offensive views?

Jimmy is no doubt referring to the debate in the Commons on 24 March on the so-called "Freedom of speech" clause which was inserted into the Justice and Immigration Bill last year in the Lords by David Waddington. It was accepted by the government at the time due to lack of parliamentary time. But they used the opportunity of the Coroners and Justice Bill to attempt to remove it from statute. 

Essentially, Waddington’s amendment provided legal cover to those who merely criticise homosexuality and advocate desisting from it, making sure that such did not constitute the offence of incitement to hatred of homosexuals. Personally, I don’t see the point of telling a gay man he shouldn’t be doing what comes naturally, but I know some evangelicals who obsess unhealthily about this sort of thing and I don’t see the point in charging them with a criminal offence.

The point is, neither does the government. In replying to the debate in March, the minister, Bridget Prentice, said:

We need to protect groups that are the target of threatening behaviour intended to stir up hatred. We must also ensure that those who have concerns about some types of sexual behaviour are free to express their arguments and concerns in a reasonable way. They do not need to fear that they will be caught by the criminal law.

The government did not regard the Waddington amendment as homophobic, but merely as unnecessary to achieving the goal which both sides wanted: a freedom to criticise without fear of prosecution.

I supported the amendment, and joined Labour rebels and most of the Parliamentary Conservative Party in the lobby. The full account is here.

Jimmy and others will no doubt call me a homophobe, despite a strong record of supporting gay rights in the Commons and despite the fact that my aim, and the aim of other supporters of the Freedom of Speech clause, was identical to the government’s.

But feel free to call me a homophobe. It’s not true, and of course I will be offended. But hey, it’s your right to offend and my right to be offended. At the end of the day, it’s only words.