You are here: Home / Archives for justice

Who is the fairest of them all?

16 October 2010 By Leave a Comment

I suppose that the idea of the political parties squabbling to represent themselves as the fairest of them all is something which we should welcome. Yet there is something about the current scrapping over public spending cuts which seems faintly unsavoury and its getting in the way of trying to think through different solutions to problems.

Now, I don’t like paying taxes. Who does like paying taxes? Yet the truth is, I think that moderating the cuts by asking everyone to pay a bit more in tax just might be a better option than the rather narrow choices that we are being presented with at the moment. And what kind of taxation am I talking about? Mirror, mirror on the wall, which is the fairest tax of all?

Holding up that question like a mirror to society, I find myself sure that direct taxation (ie income tax) is the fairest of them all. I don’t find that view represented by any of the political parties at the moment. It is hard to hear much talk of reducing poverty, redistribution of wealth or of trying to build a society where social security, free health-care and universal free education are the common goals. I also hear no narrative except the cuts agenda. We are all the poorer for it.

The proposal this week that the brightest and best of our young people (in England at first, but there is a danger of it coming here too) be saddled with tens of thousands of pounds of debt at the start of their working lives is a grim warning that some battles already seem lost. The widespread acceptance of student debt is a cultural change I never wanted to see in the first place. The idea of making it so much worse is utterly frightening and seems to me to be very far from leading us to the best possible solutions for education.

Filed Under: Blog
Tagged With: , , , ,
Leave a Comment

Sermon – Quality of Mercy

23 August 2009 By 11 Comments

Here is this morning's sermon about the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie Bombing. Much of what I said is in the text below.

As I am preaching this morning, I want to take you on a journey. Not a journey from one place to another. Not a journey particularly from one idea to another. Rather a journey from one poet to another. We are going from Shakespeare to Burns today.

And can I say that I feel very comfortable attempting Burns this week. One of the most interesting things I have done in the last few days is to take part in the filming of something called the Glasgow Gospel. It is an attempt to retell the gospel in Glasgwegian. I was delighted, I can tell you to be cast as one of the religious leaders whom the child Jesus met with in the temple. And proud beyond measure when they gave me a speaking part. It must be because of my obvious local accent

I’m going to take the first reading, Solomon’s appeal for wisdom and use it quite unashamedly as a starting point, a place to leap off from. Like leaping from a diving board into the main news of this week which has caused such comment here in Scotland over a deed that was done in the skies over this diocese.

Let us begin with Shakespeare. [Read more...]

Filed Under: Blog
Tagged With: , , , , , ,
11 Comments

The Jury is Out

2 December 2008 By 19 Comments

Now, the question is this: if you were accused in court of doing some nefarious deed, would you want to see me on the jury bench?

Well, that is not quite the question. The question is really whether or not you think that clergy should have an automatic right to be exempt from jury service if they wish it. Currently the law in Scotland is that clergy can be called for jury service but they have the right (as do a small number of people in other roles) to opt out if they choose.

The thing is, the Scottish “government” is currently carrying out a consultation exercise asking precisely this question. The consultation ends on 11 December and I was surprised to hear about it yesterday. It is the kind of thing that I think the General Synod Office might have alerted clergy to.

It is actually quite a tricky question. Undoubtedly, one wants juries to be representative of the general population. The rational behind the exemption clauses is twofold. Firstly people are automatically exempt from jury service if they have certain roles within the criminal justice system. Secondly, some people can opt out because they have roles in society that are deemed to be such that it serves the public good more to have them at work than sitting in court on a jury.

Clergy are complicated. (I know, I know). They can be involved in all kinds of ways both officially and unofficially in the justice system. Some people would think their job very necessary and others in society think them to be parasites.

Would it be acceptable to you to find that a particular priest was unable to take a funeral because they were on jury service?

Most people would accept that clergy need time away on holiday. (Though this is sometimes resented deeply too). It is also pretty hard for a lot of clergy to find cover at the moment too.

I think I am in favour of keeping the current system but I find it a harder judgement than when I first started to think about it.

The questions that the consultation raise are very interesting though and something that all kinds of people connected with the church might think about responding to.

I note in passing that Fr Dougal does not seem to be chosing to opt out this week. He might have a thing or two to say about this topic, though not of course about his actual experience.

I also note that the other roles which have the opt out include: members of the armed forces, MPs, MSPs, doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives, pharmacists and vets.

The consultation document is here. The relevent section is here.

What do you think? As the court hears what you are accused of and you raise your eyes nervously towards the jury, do you want to see me, in a clerical collar perhaps, sitting there?

Filed Under: Blog
Tagged With: , ,
19 Comments