“Male homosexuals are to be free to enjoy themselves going to Kylie concerts, drinking exotically-coloured cocktails and talking about boys with their straight female mates” – Supreme Court judge Lord Rodger on why gay and lesbian asylum seekers should be given the right to stay in the UK.
Posts Tagged ‘Gay Rights’
Chris Grayling truly is a numpty.
I don’t think his comments are actually especially controversial or surprising considering that there are plenty of people in both the big parties who delight in giving all sorts of privileges and exemptions to the religious.
But the incident is yet another example of Mr Grayling attracting negative headlines for the Tories.
He had dodgy expenses claims, he compared Moss Side to ‘The Wire’, he mistakenly described the appointment of General Sir Richard Dannatt as an adviser to the Conservatives as a “gimmick” and he was lambasted by the UK Statistics Authority for his misleading interpretation of crime figures.
The man is a walking political disaster-zone. Why does David Cameron keep him in his Shadow Cabinet team? Poor judgement, methinks.
Ex-PR man David Cameron had a bit of a public relations disaster this week when messing up an interview with a journalist from Gay Times.
Trying to argue that the Conservatives are now gay-friendly, Cameron is embarrassed when he’s asked about the not very pro-gay rights voting record of Tory MEPs and he is forced to admit he does not know what they’ve been up to.
After saying he takes a firm line on supporting gay rights as human rights, he then gets himself in a muddle by trying to argue that he allows free votes on gay rights matters.
Watching him squirm and backtrack is cringeworthy. Not very polished, to say the least. And his committment to gay rights must be questioned.
Nick Griffinfuhrer of the BNP was also interviewed about gay rights this week. Iain Dale (himself gay) somewhat controversially decided to interview Nasty Nick.
The result is at once infuriating and entertaining.
Why is the BNP so anti gay?
We’re not drastically anti gay. We were, but it was just a reflection of white working class culture of the 70s and so on. Its unfamiliar, it’s odd and I’m afraid it is creepy. Grown men kissing in public is creepy to most people. You don’t often see it but if you do see it, it’s not a matter of homophobia, it’s odd and you have to explain it to little kids and so on – that’s strange. We’re not anti gay. I took over a party which had a total ban on homosexual members. We’ve got gay members now and people know who they are, but it’s don’t ask don’t tell.
Why should it affect anything?
Because it does affect because of the actions of the militant gay lobby.
Who are about as insignificant as the number of terrorist muslims…
All muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are muslims and as for gays, not all gays are militant and want to shove it down everyone’s throats…
…so to speak…
Indeed. And force sex education on young children, and of course isn’t just a gay thing, it’s a leftist break up of the family. It’s Marxist in origin, but it’s the rainbow alliance of Marxists and gay activists and so on. There is a hetrophobia amongst some of those people when they refer to us as ’breeders’ and so on.
Amongst about a quarter of a per cent.
I know its a very small number.
You are generalising…
…but you were asking where it came from and that’s where it came from. The simple fact is that the party that I took over had a policy of persecuting gays in the party, and was homophobic and also had a policy of re-imposing the 1968 ban on homosexuality. The position we have moved to which has taken some doing because there are people who didn’t like it, wouldn’t change the old reactionaries, the gays in denial. Different people fought it tooth and nail and accused me of all sorts of selling out and wondered: ‘is he a fag himself?’ We are now in a position where we simply say what people do in private amongst consenting adults is their affair and their affair only and that the state has no right to either have a window into men’s souls.
Would you reverse civil partnership legislation?
Yes, but that’s not to do with wanting to persecute homosexuals. Marriage is between a man and a woman and rearing their own children is not perfect but it’s the best model and basis for a society. So therefore, the civil partnership between a faithful stable and gay couple just as a civil partnership perhaps between two elderly sisters in terms of inheritance and so on, they have to be, regrettably be collateral damage, because you have to put the family above everything in order to say: this is what our society aspires to. Marriage is only between a man and a women and ideally with kids.
But a civil partnership isn’t a marriage.
I know it’s not but it’s part of the left’s war against marriage and the family. I find it hard to grasp people who are essential conservative with a small c who can’t get the point that most of what’s been done to our society been deliberately done by a hard core Marxist left who have infiltrated their ideas into all aspects of our society.
I accept that could be the case with some things but to normal people who just think stable relationships, whatever kind they are, are a good thing for society…
I agree it’s better if two gay men are in a stable relationship rather than cottaging all over the place.
Further evidence, if any was needed, that Griffin is a bigot, an idiot, and a nutter.
It is precisely because events like this one are still happening today that I wince whenever I hear someone claim anything along the lines of ‘peace has been brought to Northern Ireland’.
Just because terrorists are no longer able to carry out major campaigns of violence in mainland Britain, it does not mean that politics in Ulster have been pacified. Sometimes I feel as if our London-centric mainstream media forgets this.
There are still significant numbers of people there who believe they are justified in engaging in political violence when the democratic process does not go their way. It sadly looks like incidents such as the one that occurred earlier today will remain fairly routine for the forseeable future.
The revelations about Iris Robinson, however, have been far from routine.
Last week the gay-bashing, evangelical Christian MP and wife of Northern Ireland’s first minister revealed that she had been battling depression and would be retiring from politics. It then emerged that she had attempted suicide and had had an affair. Soon enough, we were all reading in amazement that Iris Robinson (60) had been playing away from home with a 19 year old. And now it seems like dodgy finances were involved and Mr. Robinson has some uncomfortable questions to answer.
I agree completely with Peter Tatchell on the Robinson revelations:
“I’m sorry for the pain that Iris Robinson has suffered but she’s a hypocrite. Even now, despite her own adultery, she expresses no regret for her harsh, judgemental moralising against gay people. She is sad and two-faced.
It is terrible that Iris Robinson has been driven to attempted suicide and a mental breakdown. I feel very sorry for her. But it is a great pity that this painful experience has not softened her heart towards the suffering of lesbians and gay men.
Even now, she expresses no regret for her harsh, judgemental moralising against gay people. Iris seems as unforgiving as ever. She’s still unrepentant about her homophobia.”
More than most parts of the UK, Northern Ireland is a place where religious fanatics have a strong presence in politics. It’s inevitable that incredible examples of hypocrisy amongst the most powerful and high-profile God-botherers will come to light now and again.
This all reminds me of similar stories from the US, such as when it came out that staunch racial segregationist Strom Thurmond in fact had a black daughter. Or when it was discovered that fundamentalist conservative preacher Ted Haggard had been playing around with male prostitutes and crystal meth.
Ok, maybe not quite as extreme an example of hypocrisy (Robinson’s lover was a bloke rather than a lady, after all), but still getting there.
I can only assume that I’m unable to get to the Press Complaints Commission website at the moment because it’s crashing under the weight of traffic caused by all decent-minded folk wanting to protest against Jan Moir’s horrendous article in today’s Daily Mail.
Moir – apparently an “award-winning journalist” – speculates over the recent death of Stephen Gately and basically seems to think that he died because he was leading an irresponsible gay lifestyle.
In a weird argument that surely only a very bigoted or very stupid person would find convincing, she uses the deaths of Stephen Gately and Kevin McGee as evidence of the undesirability of civil partnerships.
Even if one ignores the homophobic aspect of her article, Moir’s insensitivity is astonishing. She appears to be accusing Gately’s mother of lying about the cause of Gately’s death. Gately’s mother insists that her son’s death was caused by fluid on the lungs, the result of a previously undetected heart condition. This view is backed up by the post-mortem, as Moir has to admit (maybe the Daily Mail legal team forced her to insert a reference to this?).
Yet Moir writes:
“Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one. Let us be absolutely clear about this. All that has been established so far is that Stephen Gately was not murdered. And I think if we are going to be honest, we would have to admit that the circumstances surrounding his death are more than a little sleazy.”
Disgusting – how does this woman sleep at night? Oh yes, that’s right: in an expensive bed paid for by the scum at the Daily Mail who give Moir money to write this twisted nonsense.
I cannot help but agree with the response of the excellent Enemies of Reason blog: “Someone as decent and ordinary as Gately dies, yet Jan Moir lives. It’s just not fair.”
UPDATE: Another triumph for twitter?
Everything was going well. The sun was shining; the beer was cheap; the Unicum was disgusting; and the comradeship was of the greatest quality.
I remember we were sitting in a cafe close to Heroes’ Square in central Budapest having a well-deserved rest after an arduous morning doing something or another when we noticed that the police were erecting metal fences in the street around us. In-fact access to the main thoroughfare of Andrassy Avenue was blocked off by multiple rows of these barriers.
Taking the hint that something might be going on, one of the more enterprising members of our group asked a nearby police officer what was happening. She was told that Budapest’s gay pride march was taking place and it was supposed to be ending at Heroes’ Square shortly.
My own experience of gay pride activities had been minimal but I associated them with carnival-like atmospheres, people wearing outlandish costumes and generally having fun. Sticking around to watch the parade therefore seemed like a good idea.
Needless to say, all at Paintbrush Towers are very supportive of Pride, which is going on today.
I was looking through the political intertubes, and found some evidence that not everyone might share our view.
I wish gay people would leave it to the privacy of their own homes, trouble is they don’t, thus Gay pride marches and all that rubbish.
Would you like to try to explain the weird goings in a Gay pride march to a child?
I have nothing against homosexuals if that is the life they want. I do, however, object to homosexuality being pushed so vigorously, especially at young children… As for heterosexual families, you only have to look at history and modern day research to find that heterosexual families provide the greatest stability for children and nations.
Section 28 was a quintessentially liberal measure.
This clause was not designed to prevent equality, but to prevent inequality. The key word is ‘promote’. The threat perceived at the time (right or wrong) was from militant homosexuals who were not content with equality but trying to promote and therefore elevate the status of homosexuality. Please look at the wording of the legislation.
Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material
(1) A local authority shall not—
(a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;
(b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
No, not my neighbour Boris, but the newly elected Mayor of Doncaster, Peter Davies.
Peter Davies stood for the English Democrats, the party whose membership mostly consists of reactionary pub bores. He claims to have been a founder member of the mighty Campaign Against Political Correctness. He wants to pull Doncaster out of the European Union and suchlike. You get the idea.
Other blogs have covered this, but it is so heartening to see the idiocy of this right-wing populist being exposed that I cannot resist copying and pasting the transcript of his recent radio interview here.
(Hat tip to Welcome to the North)
Toby Foster (BBC Radio Sheffield): Thanks very much for joining us. I said that we didn’t see it coming – did you see it coming? Did you expect to win?
Peter Davies: Well, well not really. A great friend of mine told me the night before I was going to get a great shock, and that I would win. I was thinking of saving the deposit at the time.
Speaking at a Downing Street reception for the LGBT community Gordon Brown said:
“What I saw in America tells me what we have got to do. This Proposition 8 in California, this attempt to undo good that has been done, this attempt to create divorces for 18,000 people who were perfectly legally brought together in partnerships.
This is unacceptable and this shows why we have always got to be vigilant, always got to fight homophobic behaviour and any form of discrimination.
I want to say to you all, you have broken new ground, you have shown what can be done, you have shown how you can change opinion in our country, you have shown how the legislative process, by your pressure, can respond.”
This was apparently the first ever official Number 10 reception for LGBTers. I find that surprising and a little bit disappointing – but better late than never!
Further good news on this front: the Christian registrar who thinks gays are sinners has lost her appeal against an employment tribunal’s rejection of her bid for discrimination damages.
Islington-based bigot Lillian Ladele originally won her discrimination claim in a case which threatened to set all kinds of dangerous precedents. The implication was that councils would have to accommodate the prejudices of their staff – even if that completely undermined the staff member’s ability to carry out their basic duties – all because a prejudice dressed up as religious belief is seemingly more acceptable than run-of-the-mill, common-as-muck hatred.
It is a relief that the legal system has seen sense here. We can all sleep soundly knowing that, in this case at least, the Christian fundamentalists bankrolling Lillian Ladele’s legal efforts have wasted a lot of money.
However, as Gordo says, we have always got to be vigilant!
Israelis will be going to the polls tomorrow in an election which looks likely to be a good one for the right-wing parties.
The journalist Chas Newkey-Burden is a staunch philosemite (i.e an enJewsiastic lover of semitic peoples, even though not one himself). Infact he takes his philosemitism so seriously that his entire blog is now based around it.
Now I’ve always thought that it does not make it any easier to solve conflicts such as Israel-Palestine when people choose to view the division in black and white terms; granting all their empathy and support exclusively to one side and completely neglecting to consider whether the other side might have any sort of point. Sunder Katwala of the Fabians talks about this sort of mindset here.
The usual way to deflate these people’s over-simplistic arguments is to ask them if they seriously consider the side on which their loyalties lie to be faultless. For example, when someone is banging on with bulging eyes about Israeli evils why not draw their attention to reports suggesting that those Islamo-fascist bastards Hamas also murder Palestinian civilians, so perhaps the situation is not as straightforward as Israelis = bad, Palestinians = good.