Chris Coghlan, the Liberal Democrat MP for Dorking and Horley was denounced by his Roman Catholic priest before his congregation and banned from communion after voting in favour of the assisted dying bill.
The Observer reports that Chris has described his treatment as "outrageous" and complained to Richard Moth, the Bishop of Arundel and Brighton.
In a short comment piece for the paper, Chris says:
I was moved to receive messages of support from constituents. A couple wrote: “Our faith and our belief in our Church community is based on Jesus Christ and the truth within scripture showing love and compassion.”
This pressure on me and my family did not deter me from voting with my conscience. Quite the reverse, in fact. But I know I am not alone among MPs with faith who faced the same pressure. One MP who is Christian told me she was “overwhelmed” by the strain it had placed on her.
It is my fervent hope that no MP succumbed to that pressure and either voted contrary to their own conscience or, perhaps more likely, abstained from voting at all to avoid the kind of consequences I have been subjected to. I hope not, but I cannot of course be sure.
What I am clear about is that while people inside and outside parliament are absolutely entitled to their religious beliefs and have every right to take into account what their faith may or may not have to say on the subject, it is our duty as MPs to decide what is the right thing to do out of compassion and a commitment to justice and human dignity.
Well said, Chris.
More generally, it's interesting to speculate whether such conduct towards an MP by a religious minister could constitute contempt of parliament.
Parliament's laws apply to everyone in the country, to Christians and atheists alike. This priest's behaviour should remind us all why the primacy of Parliament is so important; we are a democracy, not a theocracy like Iran. This priest should be forced to come to the Bar of the House of Commons to explain his behaviour.
ReplyDeleteStrong Disagree from me. Mr Coughlan has chosen to belong to an organised religion that has its own rules and observances. That's his prerogative. He chose to take an active stance against one of their core beliefs. It's as if he voted against their version of a "three line whip", and so they've expelled him. Seems entirely reasonable to me. Dragging the Priest in front of the House of Commons looks a bit seventeenth century to me - the Catholic Church (not my religion, incidentally) doesn't take its doctrinal position based on the beliefs of members of the British House of Comons.
ReplyDeleteThe MP should vote how he thinks fit. But the priest is correct for not giving him the benefits of the club, he wants to be a member of that he is breaking the rules of.
ReplyDeleteThe priest tried to coerce the MP to vote according to his wishes. The priest is one man, he gets one vote just like the rest of us. He attempted to trump the votes of the rest of the MPs constituents. That is unacceptable. Threatening and bullying an MP in this way is surely a breach of Parliamentary Privilege. The priest should be summoned to the bar of the House of Commons to apologise
ReplyDeleteSorry Jonathan, but on the conclusion of your post, I have to totally disagree with you. While the behaviour of the priest towards Chris where he was "denounced by his Roman Catholic priest before his congregation" is clearly reprehensible, the views of the Catholic church are clear on this and as members of a party that believes in the strength that diversity brings to our community none of us should be condemning that inevitable consequence of diversity manifest in that decision.
ReplyDeleteI personally am by no means 100% on either side on this matter, seeing very clearly the agony, pain and suffering of some people in later life as something we should do everything we can to prevent and accepting that no-one other than the sufferer should have the final say in having an assisted death. However, based on decades of experience where I have seen supposedly adequate protections in systems be steadily undermined over time, and knowing that there are sadly many people out there who will try to pressure elderly relatives to their view of what is an acceptable end, I know the comforting views on assisted dying presented in parliament will not be the reality in all cases.
Finally, I would point out that as a lifelong Liberal and Lib Dem, I have held parliament in contempt on many occasions, probably peaking during the time of Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock etc during the Covid crisis, but only slightly higher now, and I really would challenge anyone including yourself to justify even simply speculating whether such behaviour could a system that could constitute contempt of parliament.
We have to remember that is precisely the sort of thinking that was behind Project 2025 - along the lines of "What Laws can we twist beyond all recognition in order to justify actions that normal Laws absolutely preclude?”
We are now seeing that thinking in action.
I would hope you (and Laurence) might reconsider that as being counter productive.
David
I'm not sure what it is you are disagreeing with, David. The Lords and the Commons are the sole judges of what constitutes contempt of parliament. You may not like that, but it's a fact.
DeleteThe offence is not about people expressing a low opinion of parliament: it's about obstructing its members in the course of their duties. These days it is more often used against the government rather than individual citizens.
Nevertheless, I can well imagine that if religious ministers were seen to be putting pressure on individual MPs to vote in a particular way, then there would be a move to find them in contempt of parliament. There has in recent years been widespread discussion of the dangers of undue religious and spiritual influence on voters, so the idea is in the air.
If a Labour MP votes against the wishes of his sponsoring Trade Union, and the Union therefore decides to de-select him, is that Contempt of Parliament?
ReplyDeleteAnyone can be found in contempt of parliament and parliament is the sole judge of the matter, so it could be. And I take your point that any principle you state here can't apply only to religious ministers.
Delete