Insulting the Pope

Pope Benedict XVI is due to visit Britain this year, he is due to be in Britain between 16th and 19th September 2010.

In amongst Foreign Office documents preparing for this visit is one outlining the 'ideas' from a 'blue skies brainstorming' session by civil servants suggesting that

the Pope be invited to open an abortion clinic and bless a gay marriage

and

the Pope's UK visit could be marked by the launch of "Benedict-branded" condoms.

and

the Pope could apologise for the Spanish Armada or sing a song with the Queen for charity.

It listed "positive" public figures who could be made part of the Pope's visit, including former Prime Minister Tony Blair and 2009 Britain's Got Talent runner-up Susan Boyle, and those considered "negative", such as Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney and prominent atheist Richard Dawkins.

This is the sort of smut to be expected from a pre-pubescent schoolboy, not a civil servant. It should not form any part of either cabinet or Prime Ministerial briefing or discussion.

The sender of this memo had, apparently, asked that

these should not be shared externally.

Of course they didn't want it 'leaked', but it was given sufficient importance to be

attached as one of three "background documents" to a memo dated 5 March 2010 inviting officials in Whitehall and Downing Street to attend a meeting to discuss themes for the papal visit.

They might not have wanted it 'leaked' but they still expected ministers to take their time to discuss these ideas, to take them seriously.

Is this, truly, an example of the best advice, the best ideas, that are given to Foreign Office ministers?

Oh, and no, this revelation has not come from the Mail. Every single one of these quotes is taken from from the BBC - which is, naturally, trying to downplay the importance, and the ignorance of those involved. They are saying that

It's clear that what the Foreign Office has called "this foolish document" did not reflect government policy. Its tone is clearly frivolous, and it came from junior officials.

There is a small element of caution though, because it notes

How serious and far-reaching the effect of the document is depends partly on how the Church itself responds.

The article clearly states that British Ambassador to the Vatican has apologised to officials there for what the Foreign Office refers to as

a "foolish" document [...] which resulted from a "brainstorm" on the visit, [and] did not reflect its views

It is also pointed out that this 'foolishness' was not enough to cost a job, because the individual concerned has been

put on other duties

The BBC also, Mrs Rigby notes, highlights alongside this article a link to one referring to a petition against the Pope's visit. That other article is dated 4th March 2010.

There's a message there, and Mrs Rigby doesn't like it.

She isn't a Catholic, but she knows people who are, and they would be devastated to learn of the utter disrespect shown by civil servants and those in high office to their church and to the man who sits on and beneath St Peter's throne*.

source - Wikimedia Commons

Imagine, for a moment, if you will, if any civil servant, in any national/local government or quango department in any town or city anywhere in the country had made a joke about a Muslim, let alone written something equivalent on paper and circulated it to government ministers.

Would they still be in their job? Would they still be being paid out of the public purse? Would any ministers be silent?

And would our streets be quiet?

Haven't the last thirteen years been enough? How far down do they have to drag this country before they go?

..........

*Throne = cathedra

....

Pope Benedict XVI speaks out against Harman's "equality" law.

This doesn't really need much of a comment :-

Pope Benedict XVI claimed that legislation introduced by Labour to end discrimination “actually violates natural law” because it stopped worshippers remaining true to their beliefs.

Rather than making society more equal, the Government’s new rules limited religious freedom, he said.

His strongly worded intervention in British politics comes after leaders of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England clashed with Labour over its Equality Bill, which they fear will make them admit homosexuals to the priesthood or face prosecution for discriminating against them.

In an address delivered yesterday [1st February] to 35 Catholic bishops from England and Wales, the Pope attacked Labour’s equality proposals. He said: “Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet ... the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.

 The article continues :-

It is also believed the law, intended to outlaw discrimination against any group in the “provision of services” from health care to shopping, would restrict the right of a church school to employ a head teacher who shared their faith, and would open the job up to members of any religion or atheists.

From this little paragraph it would appear that this is yet more woolly-worded legislation. It would appear that Harriet wants Christians to be able to be head teachers in Islamic schools, Jewish schools and so on - and vice versa.

That'll go down well.

It will be interesting to see reports of the very first test case.

Mr Tatchell, who seems to have been fairly quiet lately, has become something of a seer and speaks on behalf of the British population :-

Benedict is likely to make highly partisan political criticisms during his visit. Most British people will not welcome a meddlesome pontiff who opposes our equality laws.”

Sorry Mr Tatchell, many people would think your comments rather presumptive - the "British people" can speak for themselves. You're likely to be quite surprised by the popularity of the Pope's proposed visit.

Andrew Marr listened to Gordon Brown.

Mrs Rigby didn't watch the Andrew Marr/Gordon Brown interview but she read a few reports and found the transcript here - The Andrew Marr Show

The transcript doesn't show the body language, it doesn't fully show the interruptions and, of course, it doesn't show the intonation either. It doesn't need to, the words are enough to get Mrs R into a flap. She could write pages, but will be strict with herself.

She noticed that Mr Brown used those little comparisons again, imitating St Francis. He said

Where there is wrongdoing, it will be exposed.
Where people need to be punished, they will be punished.
Where repayment needs to be made, it will be made.

Mrs R doesn't believe him one little bit. These are empty words.

He was, of course, talking about MP expenses. If he believes he's punished wrongdoers then he must have done it in secret because Hazel Blears is still there, Jacqui Smith is still there, Alistair Darling is still there and so are Balls/Cooper, three-house Hoon and the rest of the sleazy crew.

Punishment doesn't happen outside government either. Criminals are wandering the streets knowing they're untouchable because they're too nasty or too minority-group to be challenged. It's the normally law-abiding, ordinary folk who feel the wrath of this government's target-driven agenda.

He said :

In a free society, open information and open society is the key to a proper democracy being accountable. I've always supported that.

As Old Holborn pointed out last week, Labour policies have ensured that we are now listed 5th in the world's "Most Electronic Police States", with China, North Korea, Belarus and Russia pipping us to the post. Even the BBC has articles saying UK is sliding unwittingly into a Police State. Ex-MI5 people say the same, so it must be pretty bad.

Mrs R certainly doesn't feel any safer knowing her every move is being monitored and recorded. She wasn't in the least reassured to count at least 7 CCTV cameras pointing at the railway ticket queue at Gatwick Airport. She didn't feel less at risk whilst having to stand in front of a camera after checking in for a flight, nor when she had to take off her shoes and walk barefoot on filthy carpets - she just felt vulnerable, that she was being monitored, checked and recorded for no particular reason other than because they said so. This sort of thing makes the hairs on the back of Mrs R's neck prickle. It's creepy, and it isn't nice to be presumed capable of doing something nasty.

Mrs R can't imagine the people whose planning objections have been rejected, and who have been threatened with prosecution for making racist statements, believe they live in a democracy - where all views are taken into account.

Mrs Rigby doesn't believe the mother who is facing prosecution for trying to get her child into a good school thinks she lives in either an "open society" or a "proper democracy". Mrs R wonders if Mr Brown knows what those word means.

As for "open information" - he was joking, surely!

Is this the same "open information", enabled by Freedom of Information legislation, from which government exempted itself - whilst at the same time writing new laws that pass onto the statute books tucked away in Statutory Instruments instead of being subjected to the proper scrutiny of Parliamentary debate?

This is a government of list makers, of data collectors and bean counters. Mrs R doesn't think much of the information is of use to anybody other than a statistician, there is too much of it and it's held in too many separate places. But, the law enforcers will be able to use it to instantly punish wrongdoing. Ordinary people can't say, "Sorry, it was a mistake, I messed up," as can MPs with their financial claims.

Ordinary people will soon need to :-
* fill in lengthy forms to be able to travel to the Isle of Wight;
* hand over their most personal and intimate information to an un-named individual before being allowed to leave the country to travel overseas;
* have to pay a fixed penalty fine and provide personal details to a badge-wearing park keeper who didn't like the way they took a picture of some trees, because kids might be playing somewhere nearby.

Thanks to this government ordinary people can be found guilty, and summarily punished, on the say-so of a single individual and without benefit of judge and jury.

Mr Brown mentioned political reform.

Mrs R would welcome political reform - reform that ensures that those who make the laws are not allowed to set themselves above the law.

Mr Brown says he was,

brought up in a household where integrity and telling the truth and doing everything honestly was what really mattered.

Well, gosh! So were both Mr and Mrs Rigby, and so have the Rigby children. Look where it's got them!

Never-been-in-trouble Mr Rigby Junior has, for the privilege of working hard, been given a lovely set of undergraduate loans that will total at least £21,000, plus interest, after three years - not allowing for books, stationary, travel costs etc..

This wonderfully benevolent government will soon let the English Universities charge even more, just in time for Junior Miss Rigby to pay the bills - whilst students in Scotland will continue to get free higher education. It seems remarkably like academic apartheid and conditioning that personal debt is normal.

Everything the Rigby family touches is taxed, and taxed at least once, but with little to show for it.
* The road outside Rigby house is potholed, but the council won't look at them without being sent exact measurements.
* We Rigbys have never had a new car, so won't hand in our old bangers.
* Draughty old Rigby house doesn't qualify for cheap insulation, so the Rigbys wear thick jumpers and feel guilty for failing to conserve energy.
* Rigby's recycle, but their rubbish will be weighed in case there's too much.
* Rigby's council taxes are used elsewhere in the country (read here and here) where wage-earners are apparently less well-off.
* Rigby children (just the two) have never been eligible for any state support to help them with schooling/uniform/books/transport.
* Senior Rigbys' pension provision is terrifyingly low, but there'll be no chance of them borrowing their way out of trouble, and printing money for private use is illegal.

We Rigbys have been honest, have shown integrity.

Mr Brown refers to his "Presbyterian Conscience."

Blair found God after he'd resigned, and after carelessly shredding his expenses receipts. He does God so well that he has his own Faith Foundation, and reckons he can advise the Pope how to sort out Roman Catholicism.

Derek Draper was recently reported as being a practicing Christian. Pah! He didn't have much morality when he was manipulating words to make it look as if he'd attended a top university, nor when he was playing around with nasty emails.

In Mrs R's experience no God likes their religion being used as a smokescreen.

For these people, including Mr Brown, to have so conveniently found religion, and Christianity, at a time when ordinary British people are losing their jobs for offering up a prayer or wearing a crucifix is, she thinks a little bizarre and amazingly convenient timing which will perhaps help endear them to our more Catholic neighbours in Europe - which is where they may be looking for their next job.

Mrs R is, sadly, a cynic.

Imitating St Francis?

Mrs Rigby often watches Prime Minister's Questions. When she watched the recording yesterday evening she heard Mr Brown say something that stayed in her mind. It wasn't because of what he said, but because of the way it was phrased and also how he said it.

It's taken her a little while to track that brain itch, but she's now sure exactly what his phrases reminded her of.

Mrs R has copied what is written in Hansard, but has changed the layout a bit.

... Where people are being taken on, there is help available.
Where people are on short time, we are providing help
Where people have become unemployed, we have announced ...

Mrs R thinks, with its' comparative phrases and how it was spoken, it is remarkably similar to the Prayer of St Francis which is here. Mr R thinks she's probably stretching things a bit, but she's adamant that this is how it sounded to her at the time it was spoken - and this is her blog, so she can say what she likes!

Now, Mrs R knows Mr Brown is often referred to as "the son of the Manse", but this is the first time she's heard any real hint of that background in his speeches. Maybe he got some ideas when he visited Pope Benedict XVI?

And a separate comment - Details of yet another scheme? Wouldn't it be some help if all the other schemes that have been announced over the last few years were actually up and running, and providing the "real help" where it's needed?