Lust in Translation?

[steepholm]

Well, that makes things so much clearer! Apparently the Pope has now said that condoms are acceptable in some circumstances, where they are being used simply to prevent the spread of infection rather than as a contraceptive. The example he gave, speaking in German, was that of a male prostitute. However, his words are being published in Italian, where the word for 'prostitute' is feminine - or so said Lavinia Byrne on R4 this morning.

So where does that leave people - such as female prostitutes, say - who may be using condoms in order to prevent infection, but might also be preventing conception as as a side-effect? Is that okay, or not? It doesn't help that the whole discussion takes place under a big umbrella condemnation of prostitution in and of itself. If anyone can explain what the Pope's position actually is, I'd be interested to hear it.

Meanwhile, the UN has removed being gay from the list of unacceptable reasons to execute people. What price the Charter of Human Rights now?

Oh, and Vince Cable has now declared that he and the other LibDems who signed a pledge reading "I PLEDGE TO VOTE AGAINST ANY INCREASE IN FEES IN THE NEXT PARLIAMENT", and who are now, in the next parliament, planning to vote for an increase in fees, did not break a promise because, and I quote:

"We are not just those persons, which we were.
And, oaths made in reverential fear
Of Voters, and their wrath, any may forswear.
And, as true deaths, true marriages untie,
So LibDems’ contracts, images of those,
Bind but till coalition, death’s image, them unloose.
And having purposed change, and falsehood, we
Can have no way but falsehood to be true."

"Vain lunatic" just about covers it.

Comments

[drasecretcampus.livejournal.com]

Which presumably means a prostitute with a male client can use a condom, but not with a female client? Or okay if the female is postmenopausal? Or not at the particular part of the month?


Oh, and thank you, UN.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

It's this kind of lawyerly weaselling that gives politicians such a bad name. I thought Vince Cable was better than this, but I'm not really surprised to find he isn't.

[gillo]

If anyone can explain what the Pope's position actually is, I'd be interested to hear it.

Missionary, at a guess.

As for Vince, I am bitterly disappointed in him. and in the LibDems. I seriously have no idea which party I can vote for now.

And the UN? Is it really any surprise that bigotry rules the day there? They're probably not that bothered by child labour or prostitution either.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Missionary, at a guess.

I walked into that!

[gillo]

You really did.

[sheenaghpugh]

But I thought the Pope was (officially at least) against gay sex as well? I'm hugely confused, Ted...

As to Cable & Co, they remind me very much of the farmers in Co Down who produced statistics for the government's representative to show that they urgently needed new roads because trade had gone up so much. Next week they were back with more stats, showing that they urgently needed grant-aid because trade was so poor. The civil servant pointed out that this hardly tallied with the stats they had shown him the week before, whereupon their spokesman replied with a beguiling Hibernian smile, "Ah well ye see, last week's figures wiz produced for an entirely different purpose."

[sovay]

If anyone can explain what the Pope's position actually is, I'd be interested to hear it.

I do not know, but I suspect I still won't like it.

Meanwhile, the UN has removed being gay from the list of unacceptable reasons to execute people.

That is nauseating.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

So let me get this straight. Manifestos are only binding if you're in opposition?

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

That seems to be the idea. Unless, perhaps, by "I" he meant "A future LibDem government that has enough seats not to need to go into coalition". Which is not the usual meaning of the word.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

Actually, come to think of it, this problem isn't new. The Wilson governments were noted for ignoring their manifestos.

In the US, party platforms, as we call manifestos, though - in the past - often wrestled over fiercely during the conventions that write them, have absolutely no weight at all and are completely ignored even during the rest of the campaign, let alone in government. Their function during the wrestling process seems to be purely to demonstrate factional strength. Since the parties have become more internally coherent ideologically over the past few decades, even that's faded away, though you'd think platofrms would become more important.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

It's true - and I've not forgotten that when Labour first introduced fees, and again when they increased them, it was in both cases a direct betrayal of a manifesto promise of their own. Alas, I know such things happen - though not usually quite so soon after getting hold of the greasy reins of power. Still, there's no harm in pointing it out when it does. And I think it's Cable's brazen attempt to tell us that black is white that's particularly nauseating here.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

One thing you could say for the Wilsonites - when they blatantly changed course, they didn't try to trumpet it as moral virtue, they just ignored the question. I believe the same could be said for Heathean U-turns.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

The other point, is that it's not only a manifesto commitment that's been broken, but also a much-trumpeted set of personal pledges, many of them (such as Clegg's, which I linked to) held aloft for the cameras while members of the students' union looked approvingly on. So, while Cable may be offering a semi-effective defence of his party, it remains a fact that he and the other individual MPs about the break their individual promises are liars.