CommonSpace columnist Caitlin Logan takes a closer look at Tim Farron’s voting record and says it’s not as simple as it seems
IT HAS been hard to miss the coverage in recent days in which Liberal Democrats leader Tim Farron’s views on gay people and same-sex relationships have been questioned.
Realistically, the Lib Dems’ chances in Scotland are almost negligible, but apparently we are still a part of the United Kingdom, and I recall with a sense of wonderment the seemingly alternate universe of 2010 when I actually did vote Liberal Democrat and may have even posted some stuff about Nick Clegg on Twitter.
In light of this, I still feel it’s worth addressing two fallacies: that Tim Farron’s voting record on these issues is positive, and that his personal opinions on “social issues” like abortion and same-sex relationships don’t matter.
This is something of a rerun of discussions which were had when Farron was elected leader of the party in 2015, which were never quite resolved.
Read more – Tim Farron: Five things worth knowing about the new Lib Dem leader
To recap, Cathy Newman asked Farron in a Channel 4 News interview in July 2015 if he thought gay sex was a sin. Asking the question three times, she received three responses which have more or less been echoed over the past week:
1. “It’s not our views on personal morality that matter.”
2. “To understand Christianity is to understand that we are all sinners.”
3. “My rights are your rights, whatever you believe, whatever I believe.”
That clears that up then.
Fast forward two years later to the announcement of the snap General Election last week, and Newman thought she’d have a go at getting a fourth answer to the same question.
It’s not only on LGBT issues where Farron’s beliefs have led to perceived conflicts with his position as a liberal leader.
Farron mercifully assured Newman that “over the next six weeks I’m not going to spend my time talking theology”, and, pressed on whether his position is still that “we’re all sinners”, he said “as a liberal, I’m passionate about equality- about equal marriage, about equal rights for LGBT people.”
This left more than a few people asking why, for the love of Cathy Newman, the man still couldn’t answer the bloody question.
Interviewed on Peston on Sunday this week, Farron was pushed to give a clear response and, while he emphatically stated that “being gay is not a sin”, he was again circumspect on the “gay sex” issue.
Farron suggested that “in America it appears you have to invent a faith in order to be seen to be a serious candidate for anything. In this country it maybe appears you have to pretend you haven’t got one to be taken seriously.”
Asked the question again on Sky News on Monday, Farron confirmed he was “not going to give you an answer” because “one’s personal faith is one’s personal faith. What counts is your actions and beliefs in politics.”
Finally, under mounting pressure, Farron told BBC political correspondent Eleanor Garnier the he didn’t believe gay sex was a sin and acknowledged the subject had “become an issue”.
“Abortion is wrong. Society has to climb down from the position that says there is nothing morally objectionable about abortion before a certain time. If abortion is wrong, it is wrong at any time.” Tim Farron 2007
It’s not only on LGBT issues where Farron’s beliefs have led to perceived conflicts with his position as a liberal leader. In a 2007 interview with the Salvation Army magazine, War Cry, Farron stated: “Abortion is wrong. Society has to climb down from the position that says there is nothing morally objectionable about abortion before a certain time. If abortion is wrong, it is wrong at any time.”
Last week a spokesperson assured iNews that “Tim supports a woman’s right to an abortion. He will defend the existing law.”
Farron has repeatedly cited his liberalism as the reason he supports LGBT rights, on which he points out his party has an excellent record. Presumably we are to believe the same is true of abortion.
Farron’s defenders have argued that his own voting record proves that he has put his personal beliefs to the side, and even some who are seemingly not supporters of Farron or his party have argued that his personal beliefs shouldn’t matter.
Voting record on LGB rights
So, first let’s take a look at the suggestion that Tim Farron’s voting record has been unaffected by any personally held, socially conservative beliefs.
While Farron says that he supports equal marriage and points out that he voted for it in the second reading, he abstained in the third and final vote on the bill. This was no accident, but a decision which he has explained several times, including on Peston on Sunday this week, as being because “there were no protection conscience clauses in there”.
The problem is, that’s just not true. Right up there in clause 2 of the Act is the “religious protection” clause which says that a person “cannot be compelled by any means” to conduct, be present at, otherwise participate in a same-sex marriage or consent to a same-sex marriage being conducted.
The Act specifies that a “person” includes religious organisations, but does not include registrars. An amendment was added through this to the Equality Act (2010) to ensure that opting out would not constitute a breach of the sexual orientation protection.
In 2008, Farron voted for an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill to prohibit restrictions on “urging persons of a particular sexual orientation to refrain from or modify conduct related to that orientation”.
In 2008, Farron voted for an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill to prohibit restrictions on “urging persons of a particular sexual orientation to refrain from or modify conduct related to that orientation”.
Clauses 4 and 5 added further protections by stipulating that religious organisations would have to choose to opt-in for their premises and celebrants to be involved in conducting same-sex marriages.
This hardly amounts to “no protection”, but Farron was probably talking about the fact that three additional amendments which he voted for failed to be added to the bill.
Those amendments would have:
a) Included registrars within the same protections as religious celebrants and organisations (essentially meaning that same-sex couples could legally be left with nobody agreeing to marry them),
Do read this a few times over. You might find it acts as a form of conversion therapy, so to speak, away from any inclination to support the Liberal Democrats under Tim Farron’s leadership.
b) Added that conscientious abstainers would be protected against any legal proceedings or less favourable treatment from any public authority, and
c) Amended the Equality Act (2010) to state that the protected characteristic of religion may include “a belief regarding the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman”.
The lack of these amendments was enough for Tim Farron to effectively withdraw his support for equal marriage four years ago. Citing similar concerns around insufficient conscience protections, Farron also voted against the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations in 2007.
In 2008, Farron voted for an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill which would have prohibited restrictions on “criticism of or expressions of antipathy towards, conduct relating to a particular sexual orientation, or urging persons of a particular sexual orientation to refrain from or modify conduct related to that orientation.”
Do read the above a few times over. You might find it acts as a form of conversion therapy, so to speak, away from any inclination to support the Liberal Democrats under Tim Farron’s leadership.
Voting record on abortion
There are also a number of notable votes and abstentions on abortion which make it
hard to believe the claim that Farron truly “supports a woman’s right to have an abortion”.
In 2006, Farron voted to reduce the legal abortion limit from 24 weeks to 21 weeks. In 2007 he voted in favour of compulsory counselling and a seven-day period following counselling before a medical professional could effectively sign off a woman’s right to have an abortion.
Looking at the finer details of Farron’s voting record, it’s pretty clear that personal beliefs can’t be separated from voting behaviour as easily as he’d like people to think.
Looking at the finer details of Farron’s voting record, it’s pretty clear that personal beliefs can’t be separated from voting behaviour as easily as he’d like people to think.
In other words, while he wanted to restrict later abortions, he also wanted to delay them from taking place at all—presumably (keeping in mind the comments he made the same year about abortion always being wrong) out of some misguided notion that women could be counselled out of wanting to have an abortion in the first place.
Farron has since been absent on numerous other votes relating to abortion, including one this year which formally decriminalised abortion. It seems fair to understand that Farron is now opting out of votes based on his own’consience’.
Are women really to be content with the fact that Tim Farron, the leader of a liberal political party, will simply not show up to protect their reproductive rights?
Looking at the finer details of Farron’s voting record, it’s pretty clear that personal beliefs can’t be separated from voting behaviour as easily as he’d like people to think, and it takes a lot of blind faith (for want of a better phrase) to believe this will change in future.
And if it does? Well, I’m not sure the notion that someone will adopt favourable positions publicly in the name of political expedience is quite as noble or comforting as Tim Farron thinks it is.
Do personal views matter anyway?
The other debate which has arisen out of all this, which calls to mind a favourite essay topic of any political theory lecturer, is whether being liberal means we have to accept Farron’s personal views.
I, for one, believe that Tim Farron is entitled to his opinions, to express them privately and even publicly if he wishes. But it’s not a question of what the man is permitted to believe, say, or refuse to say; it’s a matter of whether it’s sensible or appropriate for a purportedly liberal party to have someone with those views at its helm.
And more to the point, is this someone who self-proclaimed liberals want to be voting for?
I’m of the opinion that words matter, and that silence matters, too. When it comes to public figures, particularly those we choose to represent us and our principles, this has to matter.
Greater attention has been drawn in recent months to the issues of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying in schools, with the Scottish Government voting to establish an LGBTI education working group just last week.
People who would defend Farron, and certainly those who would vote for him, need to consider what message they want to send about whose rights, dignity and respect they believe are expendable.
It’s great that politicians are ever more eager to show their support for progress on LGBT inclusion. It’s great that Tim Farron will say he supports LGBT rights – those words matter, too.
People who would defend Farron, and certainly those who would vote for him, need to consider what message they want to send about whose rights, dignity and respect they believe are expendable.
But when there are LGBT people, of all ages, who still face discrimination and social isolation, who struggle to come out, or to accept themselves, the fact that the Liberal Democrats and their supporters are happy to be represented by someone who took years to publicly say that acting on same-sex attraction is not a sin – well, that’s downright shameful.
I have argued before that the media and politicians have a duty to lead by example in creating a more inclusive and accepting society. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think Farron’s views – or his voting record – are achieving this.
Are young people really to believe that, on the one hand, it is morally wrong for gay people to act on their feelings, but that they should treat them equally anyway? It’s a logical fallacy, and it hasn’t worked out too well thus far, in this country or the world over.
People who would defend Farron, and certainly those who would vote for him, need to consider what message they want to send about whose rights, dignity and respect they believe are expendable. Farron’s silence may be more important to those it actually affects than you think.
Is it worth ignoring all this to get the Tories out?
This is a short one. It seems there are people (mostly in England) who think that voting Lib Dem is a good alternative to the Tories, preferring not to vote Labour under Corbyn.
Just a friendly and extremely obvious reminder that the years of 2010 to 2015 did in fact take place; it was not merely a nightmarish dream, and it really wasn’t that long ago.
The Liberal Democrats’ voting record during that period, when they could have actually wielded some power for good over the Tories, as well as their subsequent continued refusal to criticise some of the Tories’ most right wing policies, should be enough reason for anyone with as much as a pinky toe on the left side of the political spectrum to avoid them like the plague.
But that’s just my personal belief.
Picture courtesy of Liberal Democrats
Check out what people are saying about how important CommonSpace is: Pledge your support today.
