Census time is almost upon us again. It does seem that every ten years, someone pops up with what they think is a wonderfully subversive idea to put something in the box that asks “religion”. In the past we’ve had “Jedi”, and this time around there is a move (encouraged by the likes of Amy Lame and Ben Summerskill of Stonewall) to encourage gay and lesbian Brits to put “lesbian” for their religion. And of course there is the obligatory Facebook page for it as well (you can see it HERE) which Stonewall supports and promotes.
Quite frankly, people like Summerskill should know better – but of course this is the very same man who refused to support marriage equality for gay and lesbian people then inexplicably changed his mind and said the government was not moving fast enough when in fact moves towards full equality are already underway.
The Facebook page states:
“‘All local councils in England and Wales rely on census population statistics to define the needs of their community and help make sure they get enough government funding to serve it. How much they get is directly related to how many and what kind of people the census shows live in their area.”
Stonewall argues that “there isn’t a specific question to identify the needs of LGBT people in Britain” and therefore, we should all put “lesbian” as our religion to make ourselves be counted.
This reasoning is flawed on many levels so lets start with the most ridiculous first. Stonewall have not explained, in any way, how counting the number of gay and lesbian citizens will lead to ways to “identify the needs of LGBT people”. It can’t. Its a census. It merely counts people. That’s all it does. It cannot – and was never designed to -”identify needs” of any group to that degree.
Of course, the thinking behind this is rather lazy because it assumes that LGBT people are a homogeneous group with the same or relatively similar needs. What utter rubbish. It is for this reason that I have always despised the shorthand term “LGBT” or any of its derivations that now include, apparently, a “Q” and sometimes an “I”. It dumbs the argument down to the level that Stonewall is encouraging. The “GLTBQI” community is so diverse I question whether or not it can even be called a “community” – there are rich and poor; black and white; marginalised and advantaged, professional, blue collar and unemployed, abled and disabled and everything in between – in short, we are just like the rest of society.
Isn’t this the thrust of what Stonewall have been arguing all these years? Haven’t they been saying that being gay is of no real consequence to they way we live our lives, and the contribution we make to society? Odd, then, that they are now effectively saying that we need to be separately counted so that the government can “meet out needs”. What these “needs” may be – over and above public services that we all use – or how on earth the government could meet them by counting us in a census is a moot point and one that goes unanswered by this lazy and self indulgent idea.
But the second reason this idea is ridiculous – and dangerous – is the way the statistics are counted. The British Humanist Association in their excellent campaign “If you are not religious – for god’s sake say so!” points out, any answer to the question about religion then COUNTS you as a religious person. Putting “lesbian” will do just that, too. Any entry other than “no religion” or “chooses not to answer” will count towards the number of people professing a religion. Or, to put it in the way the figures will be used by religious lobbyists – it reduces the percentage of people in the UK who profess no religion. That’s dangerous and misrepresents the reality of modern Britain. It is of no consequence to government policy of “GLTBIQ” issues, and it serves no one but the religious lobby.
Ben Sumerskill, Stonewall’s Chief Exec, fully supports this nonsense. In a bulletin published recently, he states:
“We hear via the lovely Amy Lamé on Twitter that lots of people are planning to give their religion as ‘lesbian’ in this month’s Census, protesting at the absence of a question on sexual orientation. The Census is designed to ‘help allocate public spending fairly’ and gay people contribute more than £40 billion a year to the cost public services. Our deliberate exclusion by the civil servants responsible is gratuitously offensive.”
Offensive it may be, Ben. But quite frankly, I do not see how giving the religious lobby in this country one more statistic to use against us is in any way helpful. Ben, do you remember when the Pope visited the UK and how we all protested about that? Do you remember feeling outraged that millions of pounds of taxpayers money was used to pay for the visit of that “Nazi” as many called him? I do. Well, that very same religious lobby will take the figures on the next census and will say “Only X% of people in the UK profess no religion” in order to justify massive transfers of taxpayers money to religious schools and organisations, and for funding of religious “leaders” visits like the Pope.
And everyone who has been foolish enough to put “lesbian” as their religion will be partly responsible because you won’t have been included in that “no religion” figure. You’ll be grist to the Pope’s mill. Inflating a homophobic Imam’s advantage.
Is that really what you want?
You say it’s gratuitously offensive, Ben and Amy? Well, I think that’s exactly what your irresponsible idea is. I suggest you publicly withdraw it. Now. Before too many misguided people decide to do as you suggest.
Is there a religious lobby in this country?
You’re joking, right?
There’s a huge unelected religious lobby in the House of Lords for starters…they’re called Bishops.
Nope. It’s a genuine question.
I hear what you are saying, and I’m no expert on the House of Lords, but there are relatively few Bishops in there I think. Wiki – which of course may be right or wrong – tells me 26 out of 792.
I just don’t get the feeling there’s a strong or organised religious lobby here in the UK. (Unlike perhaps in the US, where the GOP and the Evangelical Right seem to have more concrete & cultural links.) The Christian community in the UK seems to be to be more – literally – a broad Church, with divergence of opinion on almost everything , both spiritual & temporal.
…and if there’s a lobby, who are the voices organising it? The Bishops only have the ear of a portion of the greater Christian community.
I’m absolutely not looking for an argument, but am genuinely intrigued by the notion you’ve thrown up in this (excellent) post, Brent.
J
Hi Johnny and thanks for the comment. I know you are not after an argument and I appreciate any feedback!
Firstly, the issue of the Bishops. Well, yes, there are only 26 of them. But to my mind that is 26 too many. Why on earth should the Anglican Church have ANY say whatsoever on the passage of laws, especially when they are unelected? Don’t forget, they don’t just vote – on some occasions they actively lobby and pressure peers and the government on issues they don’t agree with. I think, on democratic principles, that’s wrong.
As for the “religious lobby” in the UK – it is most certainly getting stronger, more powerful and most importantly, richer of late. You may recall there have been several cases in the courts recently where religious people have claimed that they should have the right to discriminate against gay people because it is “against their religion”. I can think of at least three off the top of my head, and I am sure there are more. First, there was the registrar in Islington who refused to do civil partnerships and was sacked – she took the council to tribunal and won, but thankfully this was reversed on appeal. Then there was the case of the Christian B & B owners who refused a room to a gay couple, in breach of the law. And just a couple of weeks ago there was the case of the Christian couple refused the right to adopt because they said that they did not believe homosexuality was an “acceptable” lifestyle – thereby damning any child of their who may turn out to be gay to an upbringing of misery!
All of these people were well-funded in their legal fights, and it wasn’t their own money they were using. The Christian Legal Centre funded them all (link HERE).
So what, you might say – they all lost in the end. Well, yes maybe. But in doing so, they have dragged public bodies through a costly and time consuming process when I think such scarce public resources should be spent on public services – not fighting religious nutters!! And while all the examples I have cited have ended in defeat for the religious – this may not always be true. Already, we can see they are using these defeats as “evidence” of the oppression of religious people in the UK, as a way to lobby government to relax discrimination and equality laws in their favour.
The Christian Legal Centre is just one example of the kind of groups that have sprung up in the UK. So don’t be under any illusion that there is no “religious lobby” in the UK. There is.
I’m sure that some amendments to the Equality Act fell or passed because of the Bishops.
Hey Brent, quick question.
You state “Its a census. It merely counts people. That’s all it does. It cannot – and was never designed to -”identify needs” of any group to that degree.”
But I have received a leaflet with my census, from the government, telling me that the census is intended to help identify the needs of my community, particularly with regard to the provision of healthcare, policing, education etc.
I’m totally confused now. Surely, if you’re only counting people, you don’t need to know their religion?
Thanks for the comment.
Perhaps your confusion is because you didn’t read what I’d written properly. I say it is not intended to identify the needs of any group “to that degree”. Those last three words are important yet you seem to have ignored them.
Of course I’m not saying it isn’t intending to identify community needs. It is. I’m just saying it cannot possibly hope to identify the needs of the “gay community” because I do not think such a thing exists in a meaningful sense. If I fall in front of a bus, I need to know where the nearest hospital is. My sexuality is irrelevant. Equally, if I had kids, then the council needs to provide schools whether I am gay or not.
I think perhaps your definition of “your community” is somewhat narrow. Are you suggesting that “your community” is only other gay people? I don’t. I’m a citizen of the UK first and a gay man second. When I think of “my community” in terms of the census, I think about my neighbours in the borough of Islington, gay, straight, black, blue and purple. They are my “community” in those terms. That’s what’s meaningful for planning purposes.
Perhaps you can point to something specific about being gay that requires specific council serves where that need could not be identified in other (and more accurate) ways?
As for religion – well I never actually said anywhere that I agree with them asking that question, or that it serves a valid purpose, did I? But it’s there, whether you or I think its a good idea or not. So answering anything other than “no religion” (if indeed that’s the case) it as I say, counterproductive.
On that note: how would YOU recommend a gay Christian answers the question on religion then?
Christian…
What about if he wants to “protest” (as Amy and Ben suggest) about not being counted as a “gay man”? Perhaps being a British Christian is more important to his identity than being gay?
Ah. I kind of agree with you, but I feel irrationally disliked.
As a trans woman, I derive a huge amount of strength from my Quaker friends. Shortly after I transitioned last year, I marched with the Quakers at my first London Pride (because I didn’t want to be part of this or that divisive splinter of the ‘community’). It was good, especially when we walked past the odd people with the shouty voices and the bigoted posters telling us that God doesn’t like us.
As a Quaker, I look no further for divinity than myself – and the people around me. It has been empowering as I walk through London to look for that of God – or the divine, or goodness, because I actually don’t know what it is inside me and other people – in anyone walking towards me. It allowed me to smile, not to feel so afraid, to start off with “what do I like about you?” and most often to get a smile in return.
The eight or nine women in my tiny meeting, in their sixties and seventies, accept and love me just as I am. We don’t do God very much, but we know that there’s something special about each of us (and not just the nine or ten who sit together, sometimes snoring, on Sunday mornings).
The trouble is, as a member of the evangelical Christian wing pointed out on Radio 4 when challenged (“If Quakers can accept same-sex marriage, why can’t you?”), there are only a few tens of thousands of us. We’re a minority in gentle decline. We don’t evangelise, we hardly advertise and it seems bloody difficult to become one.
Is it such a bad thing to be religious? Because becoming a Quaker and beginning to live our testimonies of truth, peace, equality and simplicity feels like the most modern thing I’ve ever done.