Liam Byrne insists leaked letter from Eric Pickles office shows ministers ‘haven’t been straight with the House of Commons’ Ministers have been accused of repeatedly misleading MPs about the impact of their £26,000 cap on welfare payments after it emerged that Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, secretly warned the plan would cost more money than it saved and increase homelessness by 20,000. Liam Byrne, the shadow work and pensions secretary, insisted that Pickles’s comments, set out in a letter from his private secretary to No 10 that was leaked to the Observer , showed that a succession of ministers “haven’t been straight with the House of Commons”. They have either dismissed claims that the cap would increase homelessness, or insisted its likely impact was impossible to quantify. The benefit cap, announced by George Osborne, the chancellor, to the delight of the Tory right at the Conservative party conference last autumn, is one of the most high-profile and controversial of the government’s myriad welfare reforms. The welfare bill still has to go through the Lords and Pickles’s letter will embolden peers seeking to amend it so the cap is less punitive. The letter, sent on Pickles’s behalf by Nico Heslop, his private secretary, explicitly says welfare cuts could make 40,000 families homeless. “Our modelling indicates that we could see an additional 20,000 homelessness acceptances as a result of the total benefit cap. This on top of the 20,000 additional acceptances already anticipated as a result of other changes to housing benefit,” Heslop wrote. The letter was sent in January. Since then, ministers and officials have made a series of Commons statements that Labour believes are hard to square with what Pickles was telling No 10 in private. Those highlighted by Labour include: • The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) publishing an impact assessment in February saying that it was “not possible to quantify” the cost to local councils generated by the welfare cap and the likelihood that it will require councils to house some families made homeless. • Grant Shapps, the housing minister, citing the DWP’s impact assessment when specifically asked by a Labour MP if he had an estimate of the number of households that would be made homeless as a result of the benefit cap. • Maria Miller, a welfare minister, telling Karen Buck, a Labour MP, to “get real” when asked about the impact of the benefit cap on homelessness. “I do not accept that the policies we are advocating will have the impact on homelessness that she talked about,” Miller said. • Chris Grayling, another welfare minister, saying: “I do not deny that the benefit cap may result in individual cases of housing mobility [ie, people having to move], but I do not believe that the measure will exacerbate [the problem].” Byrne said on Sunday night: “The idea that you can go out and say that there is no further evidence that you are aware of, four months after the Department for Communities wrote to the prime minister saying there was different evidence, is breathtaking. “We want answers from Iain Duncan Smith [the work and pensions secretary] in the House of Commons about why his department hid official government evidence that his policy would make 40,000 families homeless.” Byrne’s colleague Caroline Flint, the shadow communities secretary, said: “It has become clear that while Eric Pickles defends his government housing policies in public, in truth he doesn’t believe in them. The public and parliament have a right to know why time and again his department dismissed the very same housing concerns he secretly raised with the prime minister.” It is understood that Labour will try to force Pickles and Duncan Smith to respond to an urgent question on this in the Commons chamber on Monday. But it is up to the Speaker, John Bercow, to decide whether to accept the move. In the letter, the Department for Communities and Local Government suggested that the impact of the policy could by ameliorated by ensuring child benefit is not included in those benefits that count towards the cap. But on Sunday , the DWP, which is in charge of the plan to impose a £26,000 cap on the total amount of benefits than can be claimed in any year by an unemployed family, confirmed that Pickles’s proposal had been rejected and that child benefit would be taken into account when the cap comes into force in 2013. In the letter, Heslop also claimed the benefit cap would cost the exchequer money. Although it was projected to save £270m, that sum “does not take account of the additional costs to local authorities (through homelessness and temporary accommodation),” he said. “In fact, we think it is likely that the policy as it stands will generate a net cost.” He also said that up to 23,000 affordable rental units could be lost because the benefit cap would stop developers charging the rents they wanted, giving them less incentive to build property. The DWP said it did not recognise the figures in the letter, and did not accept the cap would increase homelessness. “You know what councils are like – when they have concerns, they are very vocal about it,” one source said. “The cap only comes in at £26,000 and that’s equivalent to a gross income of £35,000 for a family that’s working. And the minute someone enters into part-time work, they are exempted from the cap,” the source went on. “There might be some people who have to move to a less expensive area. But that doesn’t mean they won’t have anywhere to live. We are very optimistic about the behavioural change that this will bring about. We have already started to change housing benefit. And have you seen droves of homeless people? No, you have not.” The Department for Communities said Pickles was “fully supportive of the government’s policies on benefits”. A source said Pickles had not personally raised the issues set out in the letter with cabinet colleagues, either formally or informally. A spokesperson for the DWP said: We cannot carry on with a situation where people on benefits can receive more in welfare payments than hard-working families and where a life on benefits robs people of achieving their potential. No one needs to be homeless because of these reforms. Many working families live on this amount of money.” Welfare Homelessness Eric Pickles Andrew Sparrow guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Rural poor hope for the return of billionaire Thaksin Shinawatra after election Suk Somboon village turned red in the early hours of Thursday morning, when its 200 residents gathered and chanting monks made offerings. They tied scarlet thread around neighbours’ wrists, put up flags along the roadside and erected a metal sign declaring their new status. “It’s a red district anyway. The point is the symbolism,” said Kwanchai Praipana, a prominent redshirt leader from Thailand’s Udon Thani province. “The aim is to show we want justice, democracy and Thaksin [Shinawatra] to return.” Hundreds of north-eastern settlements have proclaimed themselves “red democracy villages” since today’s general election was announced, in the latest evolution of the anti-government redshirt movement. It highlights a bitter division that claimed more than 90 lives last year and is focused on one man: the former prime minister, whose beaming face adorns Suk Somboon’s new sign. Thaksin Shinawatra – who was the owner of Manchester City FC for 15 months from June 2007 – defines Thai politics even from 3,000 miles away in Dubai, where he lives to avoid a jail sentence for abuse of power. The redshirt-associated party Puea Thai – led by his sister Yingluck, but Thaksin’s in all but name – is on course to beat the incumbent Democrats. Jon Ungpakhorn, an activist and former senator, warned last week : “There is a clear danger of violence on a scale closer to civil war if either side is provoked by extreme measures – for example, if a Puea Thai election victory were to be derailed by a legal judgment or military coup, or if a Puea Thai government were to swiftly facilitate the return of a defiant Thaksin Shinawatra by means of amnesty and pardon.” Prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, arriving for his party’s final, rain-drenched rally on Friday, said: “The core issue is whether the Thai people want to move the country forward beyond the conflict created by and surrounding one man.” But Professor Thitinan Pongsudhirak, director of the Institute of Security and International Studies at Chulalongkorn University, suggested that the underlying issue was the awakening of a marginalised grassroots electorate that is challenging the political status quo. Thaksin, a former telecoms tycoon who recently told Der Spiegel he had “barely a billion” left , might not seem an
Continue reading …Renowned American intellectual accuses the Venezuelan leader of concentrating too much power in his own hands Hugo Chávez has long considered Noam Chomsky one of his best friends in the west. He has basked in the renowned scholar’s praise for Venezuela’s socialist revolution and echoed his denunciations of US imperialism. Venezuela’s president, who hasrevealed that he has had surgery in Cuba to remove a cancerous tumour, turned one of Chomsky’s books into an overnight bestseller after brandishing it during a UN speech. He hosted Chomsky in Caracas with smiles and pomp. Earlier this year Chávez even suggested Washington make Chomsky the US ambassador to Venezuela. The president may be about to have second thoughts about that, because his favourite intellectual has now turned his guns on Chávez. Speaking to the Observer last week, Chomsky has accused the socialist leader of amassing too much power and of making an “assault” on Venezuela’s democracy. “Concentration of executive power, unless it’s very temporary and for specific circumstances, such as fighting world war two, is an assault on democracy. You can debate whether [Venezuela's] circumstances require it: internal circumstances and the external threat of attack, that’s a legitimate debate. But my own judgment in that debate is that it does not.” Chomsky, a linguistics professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, spoke on the eve of publishing an open letter (see below) that accuses Venezuela’s authorities of “cruelty” in the case of a jailed judge. The self-described libertarian socialist says the plight of María Lourdes Afiuni is a “glaring exception” in a time of worldwide cries for freedom. He urges Chávez to release her in “a gesture of clemency” for the sake of justice and human rights. Chomsky reveals he has lobbied Venezuela’s government behind the scenes since late last year after being approached by the Carr centre for human rights policy at Harvard University. Afiuni earned Chávez’s ire in December 2009 by freeing Eligio Cedeño, a prominent banker facing corruption charges. Cedeño promptly fled the country. In a televised broadcast the president, who had taken a close interest in the case, called the judge a criminal and demanded she be jailed for 30 years. “That judge has to pay for what she has done.” Afiuni, 47, a single mother with cancer, spent just over a year in jail, where she was assaulted by other prisoners. In January, authorities softened her confinement to house arrest pending trial for corruption, which she denies. “Judge Afiuni has suffered enough,” states Chomsky’s letter. “She has been subject to acts of violence and humiliations to undermine her human dignity. I am convinced that she must be set free.” Amnesty International and the European parliament, among others, have condemned the judge’s treatment but the intervention of a scholar considered a friend of the Bolivarian revolution, which is named after the hero of Venezuelan independence, Simón Bolívar, is likely to sting even more. Speaking from his home in Boston, Chomsky said Chávez, who has been in power for 12 years, appeared to have intimidated the judicial system. “I’m sceptical that [Afiuni] could receive a fair trial. It’s striking that, as far as I understand, other judges have not come out in support of her … that suggests an atmosphere of intimidation.” He also faulted Chávez for adopting enabling powers to circumvent the national assembly. “Anywhere in Latin America there is a potential threat of the pathology of caudillismo [authoritarianism] and it has to be guarded against. Whether it’s over too far in that direction in Venezuela I’m not sure, but I think perhaps it is. A trend has developed towards the centralisation of power in the executive which I don’t think is a healthy development.” Chomsky expressed concern over Chávez’s cancer and wished the president a full and prompt recovery. Chomsky’s book Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance became a publishing sensation after Chávez waved a copy during a UN address in 2006 famous for his denunciation of President George W Bush as a devil. Its author remains fiercely critical of the US, which he said had tortured Bradley Manning, alleged source of the diplomatic cables exposed by WikiLeaks, and continued to wage a “vicious, unremitting” campaign against Venezuela. The Chávez government deserved credit for sharply reducing poverty and for its policies of promoting self-governing communities and Latin American unity, Chomsky said. “It’s hard to judge how successful they are, but if they are successful they would be seeds of a better world.” Leonardo Vivas, co-ordinator of Latin American initiatives at the Carr Centre, said that Afiuni’s case was the most prominent example of the erosion of justice in several Latin American countries. The centre hoped that Caracas would now heed Chomsky. “He is one of the most important public intellectuals in the US and is respected by the Venezuelan government.” The decision to lobby publicly was taken because quiet diplomacy had limits, said Vivas. Chávez, who is convalescing in Cuba, has a reputation for lashing back at criticism, raising the risk that the Afiuni initative could backfire. “That could happen,” said Vivas. “But that would mean recognition of the problem.” Chomsky’s letter Judge María Lourdes Afiuni has suffered enough With this public letter I want to express my open support of the liberty of judge María Lourdes Afiuni, detained in Venezuela since December 2009. In November of last year I was informed of her situation by the Latin American initiative of the Carr Centre for human rights policy at Harvard University. Ever since, I have been directly involved in mediation efforts with the Venezuelan government, with the purpose of releasing her from prison through a gesture of clemency by President Chávez. Judge Afiuni had my sympathy and solidarity from the very beginning. The way she was detained, the inadequate conditions of her imprisonment, the degrading treatment she suffered in the Instituto Nacional de Orientación Femenina, the dramatic erosion of her health and the cruelty displayed against her, all duly documented, left me greatly worried about her physical and psychological wellbeing, as well as about her personal safety. Those reasons motivated me in December 2010 to address, jointly with the Carr Centre, a petition for an official pardon from the president in the context of the yearly presidential amnesties. In January I received with relief the news that Venezuela’s attorney general had suggested house arrest for judge Afiuni given her fragile health condition, which ended up with emergency surgery. Being in her house with her family and with adequate medical attention has been without doubt a significant improvement of her situation. However, judge Afiuni has suffered enough. She has been subject to acts of violence and humiliations to undermine her human dignity. I am convinced that she must be set free, not only due to her physical and psychological health conditions, but in conformance with the human dignity the Bolivarian revolution presents as a goal. In times of worldwide cries for freedom, the detention of María Lourdes Afiuni stands out as a glaring exception that should be remedied quickly, for the sake of justice and human rights generally and for affirming an honourable role for Venezuela in these struggles. For the above reasons I want Venezuelans to be aware of my total solidarity with judge Afiuni, while I affirm my unwavering commitment with the efforts advanced by the Carr Centre in Harvard University to release her from imprisonment. At the same time, I shall keep high hopes that President Chávez will consider a humanitarian act that will end the judge’s detention. Hugo Chávez Noam Chomsky Venezuela Human rights Rory Carroll guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …AP reporter Errin Haines couldn't possibly think that being black makes you an un-serious presidential candidate. She's black. But that was the mysterious echo in her (mostly positive) story on GOP contender Herman Cain . Perhaps she meant that a black Republican can't possibly be anything more than a token or a gimmick? Her third paragraph: Already losing some of his cachet to tea party favorite Michele Bachmann, Cain, the lone African-American GOP candidate, is trying to win over a party that hasn't had a black nominee. Sidestepping race as an issue in his campaign may have helped him gain momentum in recent weeks, but whether he can turn vigor into votes will depend largely on voters' ability to look past his skin color and perceive him as a serious candidate. This is probably not what AP wrote when former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun ran a very long-shot campaign for president on the Democrat side eight years ago. Haines found experts who correctly said Cain's appeal isn't so much to race as to a stubborn, successful American overcoming race and other obstacles to become a major success in business. Near the end, Haines talked of racial remarks that have “raised eyebrows.” It wasn't anything near the Jeremiah Wright kind of gaffes, but she had her eyebrows raised: Cain's candidacy has not been without gaffes, and he has made a few racially tinged remarks that have raised eyebrows. Last month, Cain was quoted as saying that blacks “can't afford to” join him at tea party rallies and other conservative events. In campaign footage, he is seen with tea partyers across the country, warning, “To all of those who say that the tea party is a racist organization … eat your words!” Last month, after referring to himself as “the dark horse candidate,” Cain invoked the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. when he began his speech to the Republican Leadership Conference with the words, “I have a dream” of GOP victories in the House and Senate in 2012 and said he would be the next president of the United States. At times, Cain seems to enjoy flirting with race. He is fond of saying that he “left the Democratic plantation years ago.” At a recent campaign event in Atlanta, he told the crowd that when asked by a reporter what distinguished him from his fellow GOP candidates, he answered: “One of the biggest differences is the color of my … eyes.” At the same meeting, during a lull in the questioning, Cain sang the spiritual “Wouldn't Take Nothing for My Journey Now” in a velvet baritone. The mostly white audience ate it up. How do any of these qualify as “gaffes”? Saying you would never allow a Muslim in your cabinet, that's a gaffe. Haines doesn't understand that Cain has appeal in part because GOP voters and Tea Party activists are very eager to prove they're not the racists that the NAACP and liberal journalists insist they are.
Continue reading …Dominique Strauss Kahn released without bail: Judge asks Prosecutors to re-examine charges Dominique Strauss-Kahn released on $1 million bail iggy_ann says: Breaking News: Dominique Strauss-Kahn Released From House Arrest; Accuser May Have Lied… http://goo.gl/fb/mULvB
Continue reading …Georgia fire officials say a house exploded in Hall County Friday morning. They say the 5000-square foot home on the lake was flattened and there were three people in the house during the explosion. All three were taken to the hospital. (July 1)
Continue reading …On Thursday's CBS Evening News and Friday's Early Show, CBS glossed over President Obama's aim to break a campaign promise with a proposal to raise taxes on people who make less than $250,000 a year. Both Chip Reid and Bill Plante noted that “the White House is also insisting on…a limit on deductions for people…making more than $200,000 a year,” but didn't reference the Democrat's 2008 tax pledge. Near the end of his report, which aired 44 minutes into the 6 pm Eastern hour, Reid highlighted the Obama administration's push for tax hikes: REID: Democratic sources familiar with the negotiations say the President now wants more than $400 billion in tax increases as part of the deal . The biggest piece by far- $290 billion- would come from limiting deductions for couples making more than $250,000 a year and individuals making more than $200,000, who the President referred to in yesterday's press conference as millionaires and billionaires . Just over 12 hours later, the senior White House correspondent gave a similar line during his report on the stalemate in the budget/debt ceiling talks and named other tax increase proposals: PLANTE: Bipartisan talks, led by Vice President Biden, have identified more than a trillion dollars worth of spending cuts over ten years. But the White House is also insisting on revenue increases – a limit on deductions for people the President called millionaires and billionaires, would apply to anyone making more than $200,000 a year , and raise $290 billion over ten years; a change in accounting practices, 60 billion [dollars]; elimination of oil and gas loopholes, 45 billion; elimination of an interest deduction for hedge funds, 20 billion; elimination of the corporate jet loophole, 3 billion; a total over ten years: 418 billion. During the first presidential debate between Obama and Senator John McCain on September 26, 2008, the then-candidate promised that ” if you make less than $250,000, less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see one dime's worth of tax increase .” That very night, after the debate concluded, ABCNews.com actually pointed out that ” Obama misleads on $250,000 tax claim ,” explaining that ” Obama has called for higher taxes on income, capital gains and dividends for individuals making $200,000 per year; his tax plan imposes higher taxes on couples starting at $250,000 a year .” One might conclude that the President has consistently misled since he made that statement almost three years ago. But CBS certainly hasn't gone out of its way to point this out. The full transcripts of Chip Reid's report from Thursday's CBS Evening News and Bill Plante's report from Friday's Early Show: 06:44 pm EDT SCOTT PELLEY: The negotiations over the U.S. debt crisis have apparently descended to insults. Yesterday, the President said his daughters work harder on their homework than the Congress does on the budget. Today, one Republican senator suggested Mr. Obama needs medication. All of this as the nation careens toward defaulting on its debts in about four weeks. Chip Reid has the latest. CHIP REID (voice-over): Republican leader Mitch McConnell today politely invited President Obama to visit the Senate. SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL (from speech on the Senate floor): Come on up to the Capitol and meet with Senate Republicans. REID: Kansas Republican Pat Roberts was a little less polite. SENATOR PAT ROBERTS (from press conference): So, maybe, if he'd just take a Valium and calm down and come on down to talk to us, it might be helpful. REID: Both senators said they want to explain to the President that there is no chance Republicans will support tax increases as part of a deal on increasing the national debt. But White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the President has no interest in talking about what will not pass. WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY JAY CARNEY (from press conference): That's not a conversation worth having. What we need to have is a conversation about what will pass. REID: Despite Republican resistance, Democratic sources familiar with the negotiations say the President now wants more than $400 billion in tax increases as part of the deal. The biggest piece by far- $290 billion- would come from limiting deductions for couples making more than $250,000 a year and individuals making more than $200,000, who the President referred to in yesterday's press conference as millionaires and billionaires. The sources also say that while August 2 is the final deadline for passing a deal and avoiding a economic meltdown, it will take time to get it through Congress. They say that means an agreement in principle needs to be reached by about July 22, just over three weeks away. REID (on-camera): Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said today he's canceling next week's Fourth of July recess, to work on the debt deal. But, Scott, sources on Capitol Hill tell me there's very little they can do until the President and Republican leaders resolve their impasse over taxes. PELLEY: Thanks, Chip. 07:06 am EDT HILL: President Obama heads to Camp David today for the Fourth of July weekend, after turning down Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's offer to meet with Republicans over the budget stalemate. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante has the latest this morning on those negotiations. Bill, good morning. BILL PLANTE: Good morning to you, Erica. Well, now, the talks are stalled, so both sides are playing to public opinion. Senator McConnell delivered his invitation to the President from the Senate floor, and the White House, just as publicly, said no thanks. JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY (from press conference): What the Senator invited the President to do was to hear Senate Republicans restate their maximalist position. We know what that position is, and he also invited them to hear- invited the President to hear what would not pass. That's not a conversation worth having. PLANTE (voice-over): After the President's taunt that Congress was away too often, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that the Senate would forego its July Fourth break, and instead, work on a deal to raise the debt ceiling and balance the budget. SEN. HARRY REID, MAJORITY LEADER (from speech on Senate floor): It's very important that we do this. That moment is too important, the obstacles too steep, and the time too short to waste even a moment. PLANTE: Bipartisan talks, led by Vice President Biden, have identified more than a trillion dollars worth of spending cuts over ten years. But the White House is also insisting on revenue increases- a limit on deductions for people the President called millionaires and billionaires, would apply to anyone making more than $200,000 a year, and raise $290 billion over ten years; a change in accounting practices, 60 billion [dollars]; elimination of oil and gas loopholes, 45 billion; elimination of an interest deduction for hedge funds, 20 billion; elimination of the corporate jet loophole, 3 billion; a total over ten years: 418 billion. Republicans say all those ideas are dead on arrival. SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, MINORITY LEADER (from speech on Senate floor): The Congress isn't going to approve hundreds of billions of dollars in tax hikes. It's simply not going to happen. PLANTE: And Republicans let it be known they were unhappy that the President was out of town at political fundraisers, instead of meeting with them at the Capitol. SEN. PAT ROBERTS, (R), KANSAS (from press conference): Maybe if he'd just take a Valium and calm down and come on down and talk to us, it might be helpful. PLANTE (on-camera): Well, each side is obviously trying to make sure that the other gets the blame if this doesn't work. But Democrats familiar with the negotiations tell CBS News that they remain confident there will be a deal. They say the drop-dead date is about July 22, in order to have something by August 2, which is the deadline. That means that you can expect three or four more weeks of all this public posturing, while, maybe, behind the scenes, there's actual talking going on. Erica? HILL: Just what everybody wanted to hear, three more weeks of it. Bill Plante at the White House this morning- Bill, thanks.
Continue reading …Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh had more fun Friday with what Mark Halperin said on “Morning Joe” the previous day. In Limbaugh's view, you can't call Obama the D-word on MSNBC, but you can debase conservatives however you want including saying they're “racist, sexist, bigot homophobes” (video follows with transcript and commentary, minor vulgarity warning): RUSH LIMBAUGH: Now, the White House says that that remark was inappropriate. The White House says it's inappropriate. White House spokesman, Mr. Claire Shipman, Jay Carney said that “the comment was an inappropriate thing to say about any president,” except George W. Bush. Well, he didn't really say that, but you know damn well if Halperin had called Bush that name they wouldn't even have apologized. “White House spokesman Jay Carney said the comment was an inappropriate thing to say about any president. Carney also said he had expressed that sentiment to network executives. Halperin quickly apologized on the air Thursday. MSNBC suspended him indefinitely hours later. MSNBC also said Halperin's comment was completely inappropriate and unacceptable. The network apologized to Obama.” So let's take a look here. The word “dick” inappropriate. But the Republicans will hurt disabled kids is totally permissible. The Republicans will hurt college kids. The Republicans will take food out of old people's mouths. Totally appropriate. The Republicans want to take Social Security checks away from old people, totally appropriate. Paul Ryan will push your grandmother to her death over a cliff in a wheelchair, totally appropriate. The rich are selfish, mean-spirited, extremist racists, totally appropriate to say. Conservatives are racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes, totally appropriate to say. It is totally appropriate to make up quotes I never said and attribute them to me. It's totally appropriate for left-wing sportswriters to invent things I never said, that's totally appropriate. As NewsBusters reported Thursday, on MSNBC you can also call a sitting president “a murderous' 'fascist' even muse about putting the President on trial for war crimes, so long as that president is a Republican.” And, as Limbaugh pointed out Thursday, you can also call the President the D-word on MSNBC as long as he's Republican. But you better not do it if he's a Democrat.
Continue reading …House of Bishops to review its policy on civil partnerships and same-sex relationships The Church of England has said it is reviewing its approach to same-sex relationships and whether gay priests in civil partnerships should become bishops, its most significant work on the subject for years. According to a statement from the House of Bishops, there is a “theological task to be done to clarify further understanding of the nature and status of these partnerships”. The bishop of Norwich, Graham James, said the “last substantive engagement” with the issue of homosexuality was in 2005. “Contrary to popular perception the House of Bishops has spent very little time in recent years discussing homosexuality. The House has now agreed the time has come to commission two new pieces of work.” There will be a moratoria on nominating gay clergy for the episcopate to avoid “pre-empting the outcome of the review” said the statement. The review will glean information from an initiative launched in 1998 designed to listen to the experiences of gay and lesbian Anglicans around the world. Recent months have seen fresh debate within the Church of England about the issue of homosexuality, which has riven the Anglican Communion. The Guardian revealed in May how the House of Bishops were unable to agree if a gay priest would ever be eligible for nomination to the episcopate. Last month, in a legal response to the government’s consultation on civil partnerships in places of worship, the church said it would only allow such ceremonies if and when its General Synod agreed. Both instances, predictably, inflamed tensions between liberals and conservatives. The latest announcement comes days after the launch of a traditionalist group, Anglican Mission in England, “dedicated” to setting up new churches. Its aim, it said, is to support “those who have been alienated so that they can remain within the Anglican family” and offer alternative leadership where Anglicans are “in impaired communion with their diocesan bishop”. The group has announced it has three clergy, ordained in Kenya, who are ready to minister to disaffected conservative evangelicals. Anglicanism Religion Christianity Gay rights Riazat Butt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …In the third of his series Jason Burke reports on growing tensions as clergy oppose incremental moves away from conservative Islam Part two: ‘A very different society from Egypt, Tunisia or Syria’ Part one: Stability, security and Iran On a Friday at one o’clock, Sheikh Saad Bin Naser al-Shethri is leading prayers in a small mosque in an upmarket neighbourhood of Riyadh, the Saudi capital. The faithful fill two floors, listening to the cleric’s sermon on the true sense of the traditional greeting ” salaam aleikum ” – peace be upon you. This, Shethri says, means love thy neighbour. It is a moderate message from a man who even in fiercely conservative Saudi Arabia, home to the most rigorous strands of Muslim practice in the world, is considered a hardliner. Only 18 months ago, Shethri, 46, was fired from the country’s high council of religious scholars by King Abdullah, who has ruled the kingdom since 2005. His offence was to have criticised the king’s decision to allow male and female researchers to work together at the new multibillion pound science university built outside Riyadh. The king had called the university, a key part of Saudi Arabia’s drive towards economic modernisation, a “beacon of tolerance”. Shethri retorted that “mixing [genders] is a great sin and a great evil … When men mix with women, their hearts burn and they will be diverted from their main goal [of] education.” Shethri remains unrepentant. In an interview with the Guardian, his first with a western newspaper, he says the duty of religious scholars is to advise sovereign rulers but also “to make governors fear God if they err from the right path and to remind them of God’s punishment if they continue to err”. In an implicit criticism of the hugely wealthy royal family, Shethri said the Qur’an teaches money should not be admired nor should the rich be envied. The poorer you are, he said, “the less you will have to account for in this life and the next”. Such tensions between the descendants of Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, the tribal chieftain who unified the warring states of the Arabian peninsula to form Saudi Arabia in 1932, and the country’s clerics are not new. Having used fanatical Wahhabi religious fighters to conquer his new kingdom, Saud crushed their subsequent revolt and did a deal with the country’s ultra-conservative clergy that has endured to this day. The religious establishment was allowed substantial independence, the control of key ministries and a share of the wealth of the kingdom. In return, in crisis after crisis, it has come to the aid of the family, buttressing its authority with fatwa – religious opinions. So in 1991, clerics declared US troops could be based in the kingdom. After the 9/11 attacks, in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, religious scholars in the kingdom repudiated al-Qaida’s extremism, grudgingly accepted some changes to schoolbooks that encouraged intolerance, and co-operated in restricting the flow of money from Saudi Arabia to radical organisations. This year, as demonstrations unseated leaders in Tunisia and Egypt and threatened many more, they told the faithful that protests against their rulers would be un-Islamic. “Relations between the royal family and the clergy are very good,” says Turki al-Sudeiri, editor of the loyalist al’Riyadh newspaper. But such support is often grudging. Shethri is not the only cleric to dislike the current king’s moves towards incremental reform. The most conservative part of Saudi Arabia is al-Qassem province, a 250-mile drive west across the desert plateau from the capital. Cities here have seen repeated challenges to the authority of the Saud family. There were riots when women’s education was introduced in the 1960s and in the 1990s the province was a base for the “awakening” movement of radical clerics who inspired and influenced Osama bin Laden. Here both the house of al-Saud and establishment clerics close to the current king are seen with unspoken suspicion. From al-Qassem, “Riyadh looks like Paris and [the relatively tolerant port city of] Jeddah looks like Bangkok,” says one Saudi reformer. But there is variety in even al-Qassem’s conservatism. Ibrahim al-Duwaish runs a social science institute in the small town of As Rass. The 41-year-old religious scholar uses an iPhone and says he enjoyed his time in the UK last year, where he admired the orderly traffic and numerous universities – although not public drunkenness at weekends. Once a firebrand reactionary and now seen locally as a relative moderate, he says there is nothing wrong with women driving in theory but that he opposed it in practice because women taking to the road would cause too many accidents. Equally, Duwaish welcomed the change new communications technology has brought to the kingdom as the internet means he can employ women at his institute. They are able to work from home and still avoid contact with men who are not their husbands or immediate family, he says. “If you ask women all over the world if they prefer a mixed environment or to be away from men, they would choose the latter,” Duwaish, whose centre was one of the first to publish a report on domestic violence in the kingdom, told the Guardian. As elsewhere in Saudi Arabia, As Rass has changed immensely since Duwaish was a child. The last four decades here have seen a huge transfer of population from the countryside to small towns and into cities, a leap in material comfort and the demolition of almost every building that pre-dated the vast oil wealth of the 1970s. Forty years ago most women and many men could not read. But there is nostalgia for times past. As Rass was a “quiet town where everybody knew each other”, Duwaish, remembers. “It was so pure, so quiet.” The growing number of heritage projects in Saudi Arabia indicates such sentiments are widespread. The As Rass municipality recently opened a “traditional” museum in the corner of a shopping mall where a former soldier wears traditional dress and makes old-fashioned coffee for visitors who sit on rugs. More than 80 visitors come every day,mainly young people curious about their heritage. The museum is a good initiative, said Duwaish, the cleric, because “when traditions disappear overnight, people react badly”. One such reaction in recent decades has been violent extremism. Saudi Arabia was hit by a series of al-Qaida-inspired attacks between 2003 and 2004, prompting widespread reform of the security services and hundreds of people being rounded up. Some of those responsible were veterans of militant training camps in Afghanistan, others were new recruits. Recent years have been calm, however. “The problem has now almost disappeared,” said Abdulrahman al-Hadlaq, a Ministry of Interior criminologist who works on radical Islam in the kingdom. “Al-Qaida here is dying. Public awareness is much higher, security is stricter.” More than 10,000 people have been arrested on terrorism charges, sometimes on flimsy evidence, human rights campaigners say. Many senior extremists have fled to Yemen. Last week, the trial of alleged militants accused of an assault on a housing compound full of expatriates in 2003 started. Dozens of death sentences are expected. Less serious offenders are dealt with more leniently. Hadlaq runs a team of counsellors, psychologists and clerics who work to rehabilitate former militants at a centre on the outskirts of Riyadh. Since it opened in 2007, hundreds of recently released prisoners, all convicted for militant activity, have “graduated”. Recidivism rates, Hadlaq said, were around 10% for those involved in support activities or who had travelled to Iraq to fight American troops there but approached 25% for the 123 Saudi citizens who had been incarcerated in Guantánamo Bay. Many of these “Gitmo veterans” now head the Ministry of Interior’s wanted list, according to General Mansour al’Turki, a senior official. Several are now leaders of the “al-Qaida in the Arabian peninsula” group, based in Yemen. Yusef al’Rabesh, 32, is one “Gitmo veteran” who has been successfully “rehabilitated”, however. Detained like many others by American troops in Afghanistan in late 2001, he spent seven years in US custody before being released without charge. Rabesh claims he was in Afghanistan looking for his brother, a Taliban fighter. American military authorities said he was a trained combatant. In detention in Afghanistan and then in Cuba, “the [Americans] hit me, dragged me, chained me like a dog”, Rabesh said. “We were treated worse than animals. But the rehabilitation programme took this black experience away.” On his release, the government found Rabesh a job as a manager in a taxi company, a wife in his hometown of Burayda al Qassem province and provided tens of thousands of dollars for the wedding. He now “better understands Islam”, he says. “There are legitimate reasons for jihad in our religion but I have learned that no private person can say that a jihad is justified. It can only be the Islamic scholars who make that decision according to certain conditions,” he said. Last week, Prince Nayef, the most conservative of senior princes and minister of interior, told a local audience that terrorism had “wronged many, damaging the image of Islam, the Arabs and in particular the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” Nayef is head of the religious police who continue to enforce, even if less brutally and intrusively than previously, Saudi Arabia’s fierce puritanism and is known to be opposed to any major social reforms in the country. The erosion of Saudi Arabia’s deep conservatism is a reality but is neither a uniform nor linear process. It is extremely unlikely even the more moderate elements within the royal family will seek to accelerate the pace of reform and risk alienating the clerical establishment. Should Prince Nayef succeed – he is currently 76, third in line to the throne and eleven years younger than the king – most analysts expect a new reactionary atmosphere. Many Saudis will be pleased. “You have democracy. We have our religion,” said Abdallah al’Utaiba, 32, a camel dealer who listened to the news of the Arab spring uprisings on a radio in a tent in the dusty hinterland on the fringes of Riyadh. “You have lost your traditions. We have not. It is better that it stays that way.” Saudi Arabia King Abdullah Islam Arab and Middle East unrest al-Qaida Global terrorism Religion Middle East Jason Burke guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …