Waiiiiit a minute, say what?!

In the UK we have a teenage pregnancy problem. It is easily the worst in the whole of Europe.

We have this amazing policy in the UK which is the best way to prevent teenage pregnancy is to make sure everyone in the UK knows how to have sex. Now to me sounds like the least logical argument ever to stalk the corridors of power.

To me that is the same as; teach everyone to hotwire and car crime will go down. Or teach everyone how to shoot and gun crime will go down. Not only does it not make sense it is obviously going to make things worse and anyone could see that... anyone.

Up until now however I have always been under the illusion however that in the US, where as the behest of the religious Christian majority they teach abstinence, the situation was just as woeful. There I was lead to believe, just as here the clinics are filled with young mothers who are on their 13th unexpected pregnancy and their abstinence policy is ineffective.

But lone behold this is lies. While the pregnancy rate isn't great over in the US it has been consistently coming down since its peak in 1988

[Ventura SJ, Matthews MS and Curtin SC, Declines in teenage birth rates, 1991-1998: update of national and state trends, National Vital Statistics Reports, 1999, Vol. 47, No. 26; The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Sex and America's Teenagers, New York: AGI, 1994; and Maynard RA, Kids Having Kids,Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 1997.]

Teen births, pregnancies and abortions are all constantly and almost unceasingly decreasing in the US under the policy of teaching ABCs (Abstinence, 'be' faithful, contraception, in that order).

Meanwhile in the UK, the country of 'enlightenment' we have a report stating:

"The Government-backed scheme tried to persuade teenage girls not to get pregnant by handing out condoms and teaching them about sex ...

research funded by the Department of Health shows that young women who attended the programme, at a cost of £2,500 each, were 'significantly' more likely to become pregnant than those on other youth programmes who were not given contraception and sex advice."

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1198228/6m-drive-cut-teen-pregnancies-sees-DOUBLE.html#ixzz0ftV1BuCZ]

Well, I didn't see that coming! (on a minor note, £2,500pp, who was giving the seminar, Richard Branson!) Strangely this program originated in New York, it is just a pity they didn't try importing the ABC program instead.

Still you can understand really, just because something is tried and tested, just because it works well and would cost about £2,499pp less to implement than the other scheme that doesn't mean that is should be trialled in the UK does it!

The [in]equality bill.

The Times headline reads: "Churches win fight over discrimination". Harriet Harman has backed down and said she will not try and push the 'Equality bill' through Parliament again.

Well this is interesting, why would an 'equality bill' be prevented from becoming law? It has the word 'equality' in it and everyone likes that, right?

Essentially what was being pushed through was actually an amendment, it is a piece of law to force Churches to employ people that it deems inappropriate. Harriet Harman said that 'exceptions would be made' for ministers and priests, but essentially the other positions would of course have to be open to anyone, positions such as youth workers or the church accountant.

Now while I don't know of any church that could let alone would ensure that its accountant is Christian (unless it has an accountant amoungst its members) I am at a complete loss as to how a youth worker is different from a minister. Surely if they are leading in any real role it is essential they behave in a certain manner, just like the minister. Maybe I'm making a mistake and youth workers aren't actually roles models for the youth they lead? I don't think so though.

Does it make any difference if you have a youth worker or a minister telling you not to drink too much and then going out and getting drunk every Friday night down the local for everyone to see? I think not.

While Harriet Harman's attempts maybe considered admirable when considered in the light of 'equality' and fighting in the name of fairness, in the practical light of day the concept is hideously flawed.

Allow me to give an example of what I mean, would you think that it was unfair to give the post of head of the National Black Police Association to a black person? No, of course not, it is logical. In fact you would consider it rather remarkable if they chose a white person.

What about Stonewall hiring a person to work with 'youth' who while professionally would support the cause made it known publicly that they hated homosexuals? No, that would be ridiculous.

Would you let someone who spends most of their time intoxicated run a campaign for the government about sensible drinking, or even a temperance campaign? Not if you're sane.

The fact underlying all these points is that adhering to certain beliefs or behaviour is sometimes necessary for someone to be able to do a job, especially that of youth work, not even that of a youth worker.

The fact is if they don't adhere to that belief or behaviour they just won't be able to do the job in the same fashion as someone who does. Pretending otherwise it a logical fallacy for those who only like discrimination their way.

I know this sound unnecessarily harsh on Ms Harman and those of her ilk, but lets be honest it is true. I don't complain that I wouldn't be elected head of the Association of Libertarian Feminists because I know if they did elect me it wouldn't make sense. The same applies to churches.

Some see the equality bill as applying solely to homosexuals. But it doesn't, it applies to adulterers, alcoholics, the violent, and a host of requirements that are noted specifically in the Bible. Some of these things aren't illegal, but they would still need to be filtered out for someone to work in a church (you would hope).

I don't know why out of all the organisations mentioned in this article Harriet Harman feels the need to pick on churches specifically, but it appears that she isn't going to take it further, so on that well done to her. Maybe in future if people are going to force illogical equality upon us they would do it 'equally' and then maybe they will see what a baseless move it would be!

N.B.

Speaking of discrimination, isn't that would interviews are about? You have a number of candidates and you have to discriminate between them. I will will be discriminated against because I didn't go to Oxford for my undergraduate and others will be discriminated against because they don't have degrees. Isn't that the point? When it comes to working in a phone shop I would hope they would discriminate against people who don't have an interest in phones and in boxing I would imagine they discriminate against people who aren't violent. What about discrimination against the lazy, the stupid etc. Does a gym have to consider a trainer who is fat, smokes 50 a day and has an unhealthy lifestyle, or can you discriminate against them based on that lifestyle choice? Where is the line drawn?