End Technological Discrimination

Restore the right of pensioners to collect their pensions in cash if they like, instead of having to deal with banks where they increasingly need to remember pin numbers, use cash machines, and generally make use of confusing technology.

Stop local and national government from making information only available online and not communicating to the portion of the population that does not or cannot access the internet (this website being a prime example – where's the postal address to submit ideas? Can I find that address anywhere other than your website?)

Ensure government websites are available in low-bandwidth versions that work for the significant section of the population who still use dial-up internet access.

Stop the switch-off of non-digital TV and radio.

Stop companies and utilities from charging customers more to use paper or telephone based services than the cost of online services.

Why is this idea important?

Restore the right of pensioners to collect their pensions in cash if they like, instead of having to deal with banks where they increasingly need to remember pin numbers, use cash machines, and generally make use of confusing technology.

Stop local and national government from making information only available online and not communicating to the portion of the population that does not or cannot access the internet (this website being a prime example – where's the postal address to submit ideas? Can I find that address anywhere other than your website?)

Ensure government websites are available in low-bandwidth versions that work for the significant section of the population who still use dial-up internet access.

Stop the switch-off of non-digital TV and radio.

Stop companies and utilities from charging customers more to use paper or telephone based services than the cost of online services.

Review the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008

Review and revise the HFEA to end research on embryonic stem cells, which has produced NO feasible treatments for any diseases. Re-focus the money on adult and umbilical cord stem cell research, which has already produced promising treatments for leukemia, Crohn's Disease, heart disease, with other treatments in the pipeline.

I'm not suggesting the government has to say that an embryo has a complete set of human rights, but the government must at least acknowledge that there are many people, both religious people, medical ethicists and philosophers, who are deeply uncomfortable with the idea that an embryo is created with the specific purpose of being destroyed in research.

Proposed European legislation to change the rules on medical testing may make embryonic testing even more common, and it is necessary that we legislate now to prevent this further attack on the integrity of human life at its' origin.

Why is this idea important?

Review and revise the HFEA to end research on embryonic stem cells, which has produced NO feasible treatments for any diseases. Re-focus the money on adult and umbilical cord stem cell research, which has already produced promising treatments for leukemia, Crohn's Disease, heart disease, with other treatments in the pipeline.

I'm not suggesting the government has to say that an embryo has a complete set of human rights, but the government must at least acknowledge that there are many people, both religious people, medical ethicists and philosophers, who are deeply uncomfortable with the idea that an embryo is created with the specific purpose of being destroyed in research.

Proposed European legislation to change the rules on medical testing may make embryonic testing even more common, and it is necessary that we legislate now to prevent this further attack on the integrity of human life at its' origin.

Subsume the crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred into the existing, and perfectly adequate Incitement to Racial Hatred legislation.

The crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred was created to close a loophole in the previous law. The crime of Incitement to Racial Hatred already protected Jewish and Hindu people from hate-speech (being both races and religions) so the BNP decided to change their tactics to attacking Muslims (because Islam isn't a race and so they could get away with it).

 

As with the old adage, exceptions make bad law. The idea of this massive legal apparatus just to stop a BNP hate campaign that few will listen to is ill thought through. As a result of badly-drafted law, it is now illegal to criticise another's religious beliefs too strongly. Religion, unlike race, is based on belief, and is not merely a tribal affiliation – people should have the freedom to discuss the basis of their beliefs freely without fear, in order for religious groups to remain grounded in reason and avoid fundamentalism.

 

I propose that the crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred be abolished, and the crime of Incitement to Racial Hatred amended to cover not only those groups that are a 'race' by ethnicity, but also any group that views itself as connected by a filial bond in its' belief system (such as Christians, who see themselves as the adopted family of God, or Muslims, who see themselves as the spiritual descendents of Ishmael – this would also cover hatred against other groups like the Freemasons, who see themselves as brothers, or Americans, who are not a single race, but have a common affinity through their constitution and its values). This would mean it would still be a crime to incite hatred against Muslims just for being Muslims, but it would not be a crime to suggest that the belief in polygamy is a degrading idea to women.

Why is this idea important?

The crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred was created to close a loophole in the previous law. The crime of Incitement to Racial Hatred already protected Jewish and Hindu people from hate-speech (being both races and religions) so the BNP decided to change their tactics to attacking Muslims (because Islam isn't a race and so they could get away with it).

 

As with the old adage, exceptions make bad law. The idea of this massive legal apparatus just to stop a BNP hate campaign that few will listen to is ill thought through. As a result of badly-drafted law, it is now illegal to criticise another's religious beliefs too strongly. Religion, unlike race, is based on belief, and is not merely a tribal affiliation – people should have the freedom to discuss the basis of their beliefs freely without fear, in order for religious groups to remain grounded in reason and avoid fundamentalism.

 

I propose that the crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred be abolished, and the crime of Incitement to Racial Hatred amended to cover not only those groups that are a 'race' by ethnicity, but also any group that views itself as connected by a filial bond in its' belief system (such as Christians, who see themselves as the adopted family of God, or Muslims, who see themselves as the spiritual descendents of Ishmael – this would also cover hatred against other groups like the Freemasons, who see themselves as brothers, or Americans, who are not a single race, but have a common affinity through their constitution and its values). This would mean it would still be a crime to incite hatred against Muslims just for being Muslims, but it would not be a crime to suggest that the belief in polygamy is a degrading idea to women.

Repeal the Act of Supremacy of 1559

Repealing the Act of Supremacy to return the Church of England to its' proper place in full communion with the Pope and the Catholic Church. The Queen would no longer be the supreme head of a state religion, which is anachronistic in our current age, though she would retain the title 'Defender of the Faith', given as it was by an earlier Pope in recognition of the role of the monarch in protecting Catholic truth. The Act of Supremacy represents an assault on the conscience of every individual, requiring (at the time) all of Her Majesty's religious subjects to acknowledge the head of state as having a power over the Church which belongs properly only to God and to His appointed apostolic vicar the Bishop of Rome. Although religious toleration has been extended in the following 500 years, this assault is still inherent in our country's constitution. All of those religious freedoms for non-Catholics would remain if this one Act was repealed.

The Church of England could, as a whole, take advantage of the invitation offered by Pope Benedict XVI in his encyclical Anglicanorum Coetibus, coming home to the largest Christian Church in the world.

St Thomas More and all English Martyrs, pray for us.

Why is this idea important?

Repealing the Act of Supremacy to return the Church of England to its' proper place in full communion with the Pope and the Catholic Church. The Queen would no longer be the supreme head of a state religion, which is anachronistic in our current age, though she would retain the title 'Defender of the Faith', given as it was by an earlier Pope in recognition of the role of the monarch in protecting Catholic truth. The Act of Supremacy represents an assault on the conscience of every individual, requiring (at the time) all of Her Majesty's religious subjects to acknowledge the head of state as having a power over the Church which belongs properly only to God and to His appointed apostolic vicar the Bishop of Rome. Although religious toleration has been extended in the following 500 years, this assault is still inherent in our country's constitution. All of those religious freedoms for non-Catholics would remain if this one Act was repealed.

The Church of England could, as a whole, take advantage of the invitation offered by Pope Benedict XVI in his encyclical Anglicanorum Coetibus, coming home to the largest Christian Church in the world.

St Thomas More and all English Martyrs, pray for us.