I HAVE A DREAM ABOUT NEXT POPE

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

I have a dream about next Pope

Martin Luther King famously declared "I have a dream!". That dream was to unite black and white Americans as one equal family.

Well, I too have a dream. That whoever is elected the next Pope, will issue his first encyclical as follows: "That the distinction between Roman Catholic and Protestant be no more. For we are all Christians under God and thus, from this day forth, all Christians are welcome to take the sacraments at our churches."

It is sadly but a dream.

John Burrows, Humberstone

PM CRITICISED OVER FAILURE TO APOLOGISE FOR INDIA ATROCITY

This article appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

PM criticised for failure to apologise over India atrocity

Prime Minister David Cameron's decision not to apologise for the massacre of hundreds of Indian people in 1919 by troops under the command of a senior officer in the British-Indian Army has been criticised by Leicester's Sikh community.

Ordered by Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer, the troops shot into a crowd of thousands of protesters, including women, children and elderly people until their ammunition ran out.

Mr Cameron visited the site of the shootings in Amritsar, northern India, yesterday, signing a book of condolence and laying a wreath at the spot of the slaughter.

The first British PM to do so, he described the atrocity as "a deeply shameful event in British history".

However, Mr Cameron stopped short of an official British apology, claiming it would not be right to "reach back into history and to seek out things that we should apologise for".

"I think the right thing to do is to acknowledge what happened, to recall what happened, to show respect and understanding," he said.

The decision has sparked debate as to whether he should have issued a formal apology to the people of India.

Raj Mann, of the Leicester Sikh Alliance, had two great-grandfathers who served as British officers in the British-Indian Army.

He said: "It's very positive he acknowledged the 1919 massacre as a shameful and indelible stain on Britain's colonial history, but it doesn't go far enough.

"He needs to look at compensation and reparations for the families of the victims and we're disappointed with the level of apology he's given."

Mr Cameron visited the holy Sikh city, in the state of Punjab, during a visit to India to encourage business links. Before visiting the massacre site, he toured Amritsar's Golden Temple, the holiest site in the Sikh religion.

"Some commentators have argued this was a trade visit and it would have been a cynical apology, but I don't agree – I don't think that's right," said Mr Mann. "He had the perfect opportunity."

Amandeep Rai, also a member of the Leicester Sikh Alliance, said: "It's mixed feelings, to be honest. Mr Cameron didn't have to go to Amritsar and make any kind of statement or sign the book. It was kind of a half-baked sentiment.

"I'm not saying bridge-building is required, just some acknowledgement in the form of an apology."

Rushey Mead councillor Culdipp Bhatti, a former Punjabi national, who had family in the British forces, said: "Sikh soldiers fought and died for a country they had never been to and this is the reward they get.

"I think the Sikh people deserve an apology."

Mr Cameron signed the book of condolence at a permanent plaque in the Jallianwala Bagh public gardens, where the massacre took place.

Mr Cameron wrote: "We must never forget what happened here, and in remembering we must ensure the UK stands up for the right of peaceful protest around the world."

An inquiry commissioned by the Raj colonial authorities found 379 people were killed, though this has been challenged by Indian sources, who put the death toll at 1,000 or more.

REDP DISCUSS COLLECTIVE RESPONSE TO DRAFT POLICE & CRIME PLAN

A meeting at Leicestershire Centre for Integrated Living (LCIL) this afternoon with colleagues from the Regional Equality and Diversity Partnership (REDP) to formulate a collective response to the draft five-year plan produced by Police and Crime Commissioner, Sir Clive Loader.

As well as LCIL itself and Leicester Council of Faiths, The Race Equality Centre (TREC) and Leicester LGBT Centre are represented here today.

This is the second time we've got together recently to talk about the draft plan. We met collectively (along with a few other VCSE participants) at TREC last month, when we spoke to face-to-face with Sir Clive and members of his team. I'd read the plan through and made some extensive notes before that meeting and was able to make what I hope were some salient points. But not everyone who was there then had been able to read, digest and comment on the plan. So we thought it best to meet at this later date and put together a united response. That approach has always served our organisations well in the past and we have confidence that it should do so in this context too.

We each have certain things to say about our own areas of interest and expertise, as well as highlighting issues around more general equality matters. So we'll all be contributing to this collective response. Chino Cabon, Senior Race Equality Officer at TREC, is going to write it on behalf of the four organisations and submit it to Sir Clive before the deadline in a couple of weeks. Sir Clive has scheduled a revision of the plan in September as part of its life cycle. We hope that our comments will be considered for that - and that we'll be involved in further consultation and discusion.

PIG'S HEAD MAN SPARED JAIL

This article appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Pig's head man spared jail 

by Tim Healey

A man who placed a pig's head at the door of a community centre used by Muslims has been given a suspended prison sentence.

Liam Ferrar (24) appeared at Leicester Magistrates' Court for sentencing yesterday, after pleading guilty to religiously aggravated harassment.

Ferrar went to Thurnby Lodge Community Centre, in Thurncourt Road, Leicester, in the early hours of December 26 and placed the severed head by the locked doors.

The head was facing worshippers from Muslim group As Salaam as they arrived at the centre that morning for prayers.

District Judge John Temperley, sentencing Ferrar to 12 weeks in jail, suspended for 12 months, told him: "You were well aware of the significance of your actions.

"You knew what you did would cause great distress. Indeed, that was your intention."

"The pig's head was positioned in such a way it could not be avoided by all those, including, potentially, young children, who had the misfortune to enter the building that morning.

"It is easy to imagine the shock, distress and disgust they would have felt.

"But the harm you caused goes further. Others in the community and beyond would also have been affected when news of the incident spread, prompting profound alarm, fear and insecurity."

The offence was committed at a time when protests were being held outside the community centre over plans by Leicester City Council to allow As Salaam take over a disused Scout hut nearby.

Mr Temperley said Ferrar would have been "keenly aware" of that background.

He said: "It should have been obvious what you did was intimidatory and would only serve to inflame an already tense and volatile situation."

He said the offence was so serious only a custodial sentence was justified. But Ferrar's remorse, previous good character, work in the community and the fact he was "highly unlikely to appear before a criminal court again" meant the sentence would be suspended.

The judge ordered Ferrar to complete 250 hours of unpaid work and pay costs of £85.

Ferrar had been to a party before he planted the head, which he had acquired at a barbecue the previous summer and kept in a freezer at his home in Brook Road, Thurnby Lodge.

Louise Cox, prosecuting, said Ferrar was a member of the Forgotten Estates group "that has been involved in protests about the use of the Scout hut".

Ferrar, who had acted as a liaison between the group and police and was seen by officers as a "calming influence", was recognised on the centre's CCTV footage.

After being arrested on December 28, he "became tearful" and confessed.

Ferrar's solicitor, Stephen Morris, said his client was deeply ashamed of what he had done and had distanced himself from Forgotten Estates.

He said Ferrar was concerned at the lack of facilities in the area and coached a junior football team for which he paid for items from his own pocket.

When the judge said the sentence would be suspended there was a sigh of relief from Ferrar's family and supporters.

After the hearing, Maxine Williams, licensee of the Stirrup Cup pub and a founding member of Forgotten Estates, said: "I was pleased for Liam that he is not going to prison.

"He is a good chap really."

As Salaam imam Moulana Mohammed Lockhat said: "We are happy justice has been done. We hope this will discourage anyone else from taking part in acts which promote religious and racial hatred."

Mr Morris said: "My client wishes to apologise to the As Salaam Trust for any distress his actions have caused."

Read the judge's comments in full here:

R v Liam Ferrar

Leicester Magistrates Court

18th February 2013

District Judge Temperley

Sentencing remarks

You have pleaded guilty to an offence of intentional harassment contrary to s4A Public Order Act 1986. The offence was religiously aggravated. In the early hours of Boxing Day last year, you placed a severed pig’s head outside the entrance doors to the Thurnby Lodge Community Centre, a building that has been used as a place of worship and Madrasah by a Muslim prayer group for approximately three years.

This offence was to some extent planned, premeditated and targeted. You were well aware of the significance of your actions. You knew that what you did would cause great distress, indeed that was your intention. On your version of events you had acquired the pigs head several months earlier. If that is true, your decision to keep it suggests that you either you or someone else had an offence such as this in mind. The timing of the offence may have been random but it was in my view clearly premeditated. The fact you were under the influence of alcohol is not a mitigating factor.

The pig’s head was positioned in such a way that it could not be avoided by all those, including potentially young children, who had the misfortune to enter the building that morning.

It is easy to imagine the shock, distress and disgust they would have felt. The witness statements I have read bear testimony to the serious impact of your actions. But the harm you caused goes further. Others in the local community and beyond would also have been affected when news of this incident spread, prompting profound alarm, fear and insecurity.

In sentencing you I cannot ignore the context in which the offence was committed. For several months protests had been taking place outside the community centre. The police have been involved and as a result there are a number of cases currently before this court.

Whilst I do not suggest you were involved in any of those incidents, as a leading member of the so called Forgotten Estates Group you would have been keenly aware of the background and you would have appreciated better than most the likely effect of your actions in this wider context. It should have been obvious that what you did was intimidatory and would only serve to enflame an already tense and volatile situation. There was a real risk that your behaviour could either prompt others to exact retribution or encourage others to behave in a similar way.

It is not disputed that initially you were seen by the police as a reliable point of contact and in their words a “calming influence”. I accept that you disassociated yourself from the Forgotten Estates Group because you were concerned that it was being hijacked by others with more sinister motives.

I take account of the fact that you are a young man of previous good character. You have never been in any trouble with the police before. The character references I have read do you great credit. You regularly give your time, energy and money to good causes and to helping others.

I also accept that you have demonstrated genuine remorse and regret for your actions. You cooperated with the police and pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.

I have read the pre sentence report prepared by the Probation service and noted their recommendations.

Weighing up all these factors and applying the Sentencing Guidelines I conclude that this offence is so serious that only a custodial sentence is justified. Were it not for the element of religious aggravation a community penalty would be appropriate. But this is an offence where the targeting of a particular religious group is the most serious factor and consequently a custodial sentence is inevitable.

However in view of your considerable personal mitigation and the fact that you are highly unlikely to appear before a criminal court again, I will suspend the sentence.

I have reduced the sentence by one third to reflect your guilty plea. The sentence I impose is 12 weeks imprisonment suspended for the period of 12 months. There will be one community requirement attached to the order, namely that you will undertake 250 hours of unpaid work.

You will also pay costs of £85.

THIS WEEK'S VISITORS (1,766)

Regular update on the number of pageviews received from different parts of the world in the week just ending.

1. United States 631
2. United Kingdom 400
3. Russia 330
4. Poland 175
5. France 63
6. Ukraine 59
7. Spain 37
8. Germany 30
9. Sweden 23
10. India 18

This week's total: 1,766 (last week: 1,681). These are aggregates of figures from the top ten countries only. Blogger's analytics doesn't show the numbers of pageviews below the tenth-ranking country and they don’t show the cumulative total including those additional countries, which is undoubtedly larger than the number shown above.

The world map at the top of this post is the graphic that I see on the stats page. The darker the green, the more pageviews from that country. I can see different versions of that map for "now" (i.e. in the last two hours), "today", "this week", "this month" and "all time". They're updated each time I look at them.

THUG SPAT ON WOMAN WHO WAS WEARING A HIJAB IN HUMBERSTONE ROAD, LEICESTER

This article appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Thug spat on woman who was wearing a hijab in Humberstone Road, Leicester

A thug spat at a woman in the street apparently because she was wearing an Islamic head scarf.

Police have appealed for help tracing the man, who targeted the woman in Humberstone Road, near Leicester city centre.

The 20-year-old woman was walking near to the St Matthews service station when she noticed three young men approaching her.

One of them spat on her as they passed by and the three began laughing as they walked away.

Officers have released a CCTV image of three people they want to trace.The incident happened shortly before 1pm on Monday, February 4.

Pc Dave Adams said: "The victim felt upset and frightened following the incident and feels that she was targeted because she was wearing a hijab.

"We will not tolerate people feeling intimidated and frightened on our streets and I would urge anyone with information to call us as soon as they can.

"The road was quite busy at the time of the incident so there is a possibility that passers-by and passing traffic may be able to help."

The three suspects are white, 18 or 19 and of slim build.

One was wearing a peaked cap and another was wearing a black hooded top.

Contact Pc Adams on 101 or Crimestoppers, which is anonymous, on 0800 555 111.

RELIGIOUS CENTRE PLAN TO GO AHEAD

This article appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Religious centre plan to go ahead

Plans to build a place of worship and education centre look set to be approved despite neighbours' objections.

Goodwood Community and Education Trust wants to put up a three-storey religious centre, with a 19m-high minaret and 31-space car park.

It would be at the corner of Gamel Road and Davenport Road, Goodwood, Leicester, where temporary cabins have served a similar purpose for five years.

The redevelopment plan – for a former pub site – will go before Leicester City Council's planning and development control committee on Thursday. Senior planning officers are recommending the scheme be approved.

However, 33 people have signed a petition opposing the plans and six sent in letters of objection. They said the site was not big enough, would be too noisy and would create traffic and parking problems.

Carol Wellborn, of Davenport Road, said: "We've lived here for 50 years, but every Friday can't get a parking space in our own street.

"The big thing for me is the buses. During prayer times on Friday, the roads are blocked. It means buses can't get through. They are a lifeline to the many elderly people in this area.

"My neighbours are Sikh and Muslim and I have no problem with that, but my view is there are enough mosques.

"This place would be ideal for a youth or community centre, which people are crying out for – something everyone could use."

A Harringworth Road resident, who did not want to be named, said: "They say they're a community centre, but a tenants' association meeting the other day was the first time in five years they've invited us in.

"Come prayer time, it's impossible to park."

Another resident said: "Thirty-one parking spaces is nowhere near enough."

If approved, hours of use will be from 7.30am to 11pm on most days and conditions would prohibit parking on verges and live or amplified music or calls to prayer.

In his report, planning director Andrew Smith said: "I consider a new building and car park would greatly improve the appearance of this prominent corner plot.

"The proposed conditions would help to minimise the impact on nearby residential properties."

ANGER AS FAMILY TOLD TO TRY HINDU FREE SCHOOL FOR PLACE

This article appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Anger as family told to try Hindu free school for place 

A family have been told to send their five-year-old two miles away to the city's Hindu free school after they were informed three local primaries were full. 

Micayla Dodd and her partner, Ryan Thompson, moved from Thurmaston to Lymington Road, in Netherhall, in October, along with Micayla's daughter, Grace, five. 

They have since been told none of their three nearby primaries, including Scraptoft Valley, at the end of their road, has places. 

Leicester City Council has instead suggested the family apply to Krishna Avanti Primary, which is more than two miles away, in Spencefield Lane.

The family said they would prefer Grace studied closer to home than this school, which has a Hindu ethos and takes half of its pupils from the Hindu faith.

Krishna Avanti Primary said it "promotes educational excellence, character formation and spiritual insight through holistic, responsible lifestyles and a vegetarian diet, as well as a curriculum that integrates yoga and meditation".

It draws on the teachings of the Indian Saint, Sri Chaitanya, to "emphasize equality, love, compassion and selflessness that stretches across all faiths".

Mr Thompson said: "I have nothing against the faith, but, it's not the type of school we would consider sending Grace to. It's disgusting the local authority can't find a local school to send her to and is suggesting one that's not even part of the local authority."

Krishna Avanti is the city's first free school and has control of its own finances and curriculum. In keeping with its Hindu ethos, the school provides only vegetarian food.

Mr Thompson said: "It's not good enough that although we applied in November for a place, Grace still doesn't have one, let alone that the only one available is Krishna Avanti, and not any of the three schools close to where we live.

"The council needs to do something about the fact there are no places.

"Grace was thriving at her old school, Church Hill Infants, and now she's really withdrawn. She had lots of friends there and the best thing to do would have been to start her new school straight away.

"Now, she's scared about going to a strange place where she doesn't know anyone. She's lost all her confidence."

A spokesman for the city council said it was only obliged to ensure there were a sufficient number of places within the local authority area.

He said: "This includes voluntary-aided, trust and free schools, as well as academies and community schools. We are not obliged to provide solely community school places.

"We were unable to offer a place at any of the applicant's three preferred schools as they were all fully subscribed and advised that places were available at the nearby Krishna Avanti Primary. We also advised the applicant of their right to appeal the decision.

"We're exploring a range of options to increase capacity and create additional primary places across Leicester. This work is ongoing and it's too early to discuss in detail."

The council needs to find thousands more primary school places to tackle a shortage caused by an increase in the city's birth rate and more people moving to the area.

Options could include some secondary schools taking pupils from the age of four and expanding some schools for pupils aged four to seven into all-through primaries.

WORLD FAITHS ADVISORY GROUP AT LEICESTER UNIVERSITY, FEBRUARY 2013

A meeting of the World Faiths Advisory Group (WFAG) at the University of Leicester's Chaplaincy Centre (The Gatehouse, University Road) this lunchtime.

Present today are Rev Canon Dr Stephen Forster (Coordinating Chaplain), Ian Snaith (Chair, WFAG), Chris Sharp (Equalities Adviser to the University of Leicester) and Resham Singh Sandhu (Chair of the Sikh Cultural and Welfare Society, Vice Chair of Leicestershire Interfaith Forum and past-Chair of Leicester Council of Faiths).

With Chris present at today's meeting, it makes sense to talk about the World Faiths Advisory Group's relation to the University's management of equality issues. Under the terms of the Public Sector Equality Duty, the University of Leicester - like all public bodies - has to apply itself to three aims of the general duty:

• To eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010. By removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics.
• To advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. By taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected groups where these are different from the needs of other people.
• To foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. By encouraging people from protected groups to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is disproportionately low.

 

We discuss the possibility of establishing a Religion or Belief Forum, which would function alongside hose already operating at the university in relation to other Protected Characteristics as enumerated in the Equality Act 2010. If such a forum existed, it would free WFAG from having to be involved in governance issues and allow this group to make progress on issues that fall within its specific remit. I am able to speak to the meeting in support of this idea. It's been my experience that the Protected Characteristic of Religion or Belief is taken more seriously an treated with more respect when it is see in context with the other Protected Characteristics, rather than trying to stand alone outside the general scheme of things or to make special pleading on grounds of exceptionalism.
 

 

 

 

BBC RADIO LEICESTER: SAME SEX MARRIAGE & ASIAN FAITH COMMUNITIES

This evening I'm live on BBC Radio Leicester, discussing the response of the city's Asian faith communities to the Commons vote earlier this week on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill with Kamlesh Purohit (photo above). Kamlesh broadcasts music, entertainment, news and features of special interest to an Asian audience every Sunday between 1800 and 2000.

We're joined in the studio by Paul Fitzgerald, Equality and Inclusion Officer at Leicester LGBT Centre.

Our appearance together here this evening follows on from a chat I had with Kamlesh's producer, Dimple Patel, when we met at the Student Volunteering Fair in Leicester College earlier this week. Once we'd agreed that this had the potential to be a good feature on this evening's show, I recommended involving Paul (my counterpart at the LGBT Centre) especially as he is coordinating the new Multi-Faith Support Group there. Paul and I meet up an hour or so before the show in the Almanack at Highcross so we can have a wee chat and avoid going on air cold. When we meet there, I recognise Paul from last week's edition of The Big Questions broadcast from Leicester, on which he made a memorable contribution to the discussion on same sex marriage. Here's a transcript of the interview:

KP: And talking of dealing with issues that affect you, there was one issue this week which exercised many minds, I can tell you, and got a lot of people talking. Because this week, MPs voted in favour of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, which will enable same sex couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies. However, no religious organisation will be forced to conduct same sex weddings. Many religious organisations, including the Church of England, are strongly opposed to gay marriage, so what support is there for Asian gay people in the Hindu, Sikh or Muslim communities who’d like to get married but feel that their faith community may not support them?

Well in Leicester, the Council of Faiths and the Leicester LGBT Centre have been working positively with people of all backgrounds, including Asians, who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender with faith communities: a very complex but very important issue. So I am delighted to say that joining me in the studio now are George Ballentyne, from the Leicester Council of Faiths, and Paul Fitzgerald, who is from the Leicester LGBT Centre.Chaps, a very good evening and thanks to you both very much indeed for joining us to talk about this very important issue. George, if I can start with you – because you work with faith communities and leaders in Leicester – we’ve spoken to you in the context of the Leicester Council of Faiths many times before. In your experience, what has been the response to the marriage bill and gay marriage, particularly within the Asian communities in Leicester.

GMB: Well it’s a very interesting topic to try and deal with just now because of course the actual parliamentary process isn’t complete yet, the bill has to go through the House of Lords, to get Royal Assent. So you could say well the dust hasn’t settled and it’s not yet time for organisations to make a complete and systematic response. Now that doesn’t mean that people don’t have opinions right now about it and certainly it’s been something which has been a topic of conversation and discussion amongst the faith communities. And, as you can imagine, the diversity of Leicester being what it is, there’s no single response really from the Hindu community or the Sikh community; there has been from the Muslim community, I think which is quite well known, but there … I think if you were looking for a consistent, systematic response, you and your audience will know that there’s not going to be a single kind of spearhead comment that will say everything for those communities.

KP: But isn’t that frightening because, like you say, you know, it’s not quite law yet because it’s go through the House of Lords as well before it’s ratified, but nonetheless, you know, progress has been made, this is the second reading of the Bill, so you would expect the faith communities at least to have got the ball rolling in some way.

GMB: I think the ball might be rolling but it’s not actually come out into the open yet. And I always say, particularly in situations like this in the studio, that I’m an employee of the Council of Faiths, I’m not a member, I’m not a Director, I can’t make policy or set the direction for the Council of Faiths, but I would stress really that over the past five years that I’ve been in post, we’ve worked very constructively, very positively and very collaboratively with the LGBT Centre. We’ve been members of the Regional Equality and Diversity Partnership together. And it’s quite often an interesting event that we’ll do things together and people will automatically assume that we should not be collaborating, that faith identity and sexual orientation as an identity should be things which are mutually antagonistic – and they’re not; people have both these things going on in their lives, we recognise that and work together.

KP: That’s the reality isn’t it? That is the reality. Paul, Paul Fitzgerald, from the LGBT Centre, what do you make of what George is saying because I suppose you kind of see it from the other side, you deal with gay Asian people in Leicester all the time. [PF: We do] What is the feeling amongst that community?

PF: I think the vast majority of feeling is one of rejection, that they can’t be honest and open with either their families or certainly their leaders within their chosen faith. To do so carries great risk, you know, family honour is hugely problematic, letting the family down, feeling that, you know, they’re going to have to go along with the process of getting married to sort of prove their sort of heterosexuality. There’s so many problems on so many levels with a lot of the community, particularly with men. The women tend to be more silent if I’m honest, gay women, unless they make contact with other gay women, remain very isolated. It’s the gay men that have the bigger issue with us who come to the Centre, talk to us about the problems they’re experiencing, the sort of issues that are affecting them, from their, you know, from whatever religious background they ‘ve come from. But certainly their families are hugely problematic in sort of coming out to them, and letting them know what’s been going on.

KP: So for those people, does the marriage bill complicate the issue even further? Because at the moment you have civil partnerships, so people can coexist together and they have certain rights, the fact that there’s now this possibility of a marriage bill coming along puts added pressure on them because they may feel they want to get married but they don’t get the support from the communities – either the family or the religious communities - isn’t this just kind of putting just another, another – if you like – kind of iron in the works?

PF: I think it is. We’re a long way from, you know, a large number of religious organisations accepting same sex relationships and equality across the spectrum. I think all this does is add weight to their levels of concern, their levels of angst for want of a better term, because they can’t come out, they can’t be open, they can’t be honest with, with, about who they are. I think it will mean, in essence, very little to them because they still won’t be able to go through the process of approaching their religious leaders to help conduct a same sex marriage. We’re 25-30 years away from that happening, I think, in the UK at the present time.

KP: So in many ways, for those people who may – who are of Hindu and Sikh backgrounds and they may want to choose to get married in their religious establishment, it’s not going to happen anyway so isn’t this just a waste of time for them?

PF: No, because I think equality is very important. I think if we continue the path that we’ve chosen, to make our world, our country, human beings more aware of equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights then I think that somewhere in the future along the way we will open those doors where people can feel that they can approach their leaders, to have the opportunity to get married, if that’s the choice that they make [KP: George –] We have to start somewhere we have to start one step.

KP: Absolutely, it’s a right, in a democracy, they have a right. Do you think the faith communities, in many ways, are afraid to deal with this very difficult issue which is perhaps why we haven’t heard anything definitive from them or is it just, like you say, early days at the moment because it’s not been – it’s not gone through the House of Lords, it’s not been ratified yet.

GMB: It’s not just early days in terms of the parliamentary or the legislative procedure. This is something that’s going to play itself out, you know, like Paul said there, over the course of a generation or more. I think it’s going to be very interesting to see how the young people in the communities respond to this changing landscape, how they might ask for clarification or challenge the leaders and elders in their own community. It’s very difficult to explain to a young person why people of the same sex can’t get married in Britain today. They just look at you like you’re an idiot if you try to explain what the legal or the Canon Law reasons are for this, and it’s going to make a big change in our society and all the faith communities have to respond to a changing social environment. I cannot say, I cannot predict what that might be. I think it’s also important to remember that within the law there is protection for those organisations, they cannot be forced to conduct a religious ceremony for a same sex couple.

KP: But isn’t that something, you know, organisations can hide behind then? In other words, because they don’t want to confront this very difficult issue, they can turn around and say, we refuse to allow this to happen because it’s – you know – not allowed in the religion.

GMB: Well you could say that they are maybe hiding behind it, but the government has placed it there as a shield and as a protection for those organisations which cannot, in good conscience, conduct a ceremony like this and it would be quite interesting – I don’t, I mean, you know – your wedding day is supposed to be the best, most memorable day of your life, or the most memorable several days of your life, and it’s impossible to imagine why someone would want to force a priest to conduct the ceremony. You don’t want to be married by someone who is, as it were, biting their tongue while they’re doing the ceremony. It should be positive and loving and collaborative and supportive. And I think the situation now there – it’s just in a complete flux. We can’t really say anything meaningful about it for quite a long time to come.

KP: But in reality Paul, how does this transpire in reality, because you talked about the pressure young people are on. On the ground, because you deal with gay Asian people all the time, you know – are they under stress, you know, is it sort of putting their health at risk? What – How does it transpire?

PF: Well it’s not just young people, it’s people across the age spectrum. Of course it materialises in their physical and emotional well-being being severely compromised. High rates of suicidal ideation – which is the thought of suicide – we know there have been suicides across the UK as a direct result of trying to be something that you’re not. That happens across all communities, not just within the Asian community. But your sexual orientation , fundamentally, is a big part of who you are. It’s not the only thing, but It’s an absolutely vital component that brings the whole together, where people feel comfortable and confident in themselves. And if one part of you is having to remain hidden and you can’t be true and honest to yourself, first and foremost, let alone anybody else, that will have and does have a detrimental effect on both your physical, psychological and emotional well-being.

KP: Okay, well on a final note then Paul, if faith community leaders listening to the programme this evening, what one thing would you say to them in the context of the marriage bill?

PF: Please come and talk to us at the Centre. We take on board anyone’s values, anyone’s particular beliefs, we’re not there to sort of dictate one way or the other , what we want to do is have meaningful dialogue – and George does some amazing work with the Council of Faiths to bring that collaboration and those communities together to talk openly and honestly and move things forward. You can move mountains just with discussion. We don’t have to all agree that everything has to be absolutely perfect, but we can move things forward with genuine concern for the well-being of our community.

KP: Dialogue; dialogue is the way forward. Okay, Paul Fitzgerald from the Leicester LGBT Centre and George Ballentyne from the Leicester Council of Faiths, thank you both very much indeed for joining us this evening.