By this, I am referring to the BBC poll that asked whether homosexuals should face execution, commenting on the situation in Uganda – who are voting on whether homosexuality should be ‘punished’ by death. Of corse they shouldn’t, and opening the question up provides legitimacy to the idea that it is a right question to even be asking. Imagine asking if it is ok for jews to face execution? – I am sure that wouldn’t even cross the minds of the BBC to ask.

The editor of the BBC website, David Stead said:

“We agree it is a stark and challenging question, but think that it accurately focuses on and illustrates the real issue at stake. If Uganda’s MPs vote to proceed with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, they will bring legislation that could condemn people to death for some homosexual activities.”

This misrepresents the need of debate however. Yes, debate is needed, but only debate around how to STOP this. Discussion even tending to support it should not be given the air to breath. It is simply disgusting to toy with the suggestion of whether homosexuals should be executed. On what premise do heterosexual people have to say that homosexuals should be killed? Absolutely none. Sexuality is a social construction, it is not some innate force – sexual acts and sexual identities are social constructed. What harm is homosexuality doing to the people of Uganda? Absolutely none, except from necessary blurring of the distinctions between ‘natural’ and ‘peversive’ sexaultiy. The BBC poll risks undermining the advances that people such as Peter Tatchell have actually put their life in danger to achieve (Tatchell has recently had to pull out of being a Green candidate due to brain injuries sustained campaigning on issues such as anti – homophobia in countries such as Zimbabwe and Russia).

The bill specifically proposes:

“the death penalty for those having gay sex with anyone under 18, or while infected with HIV/Aids, or with someone who is disabled, or for being “a serial offender”. Stating that “same sex attraction is not an innate and immutable characteristic” (taken from The Times.)

The discussions around sexuality being ‘innate’ relates to my comments above. Furthermore, there is further discrimination within the bill against those with AIDS and those who are disabled. The AIDS = homosexual rhetoric is clear, which is something our society has not successfully eradicated either (such as how gay men are unable to give blood, for example).

Trying to justify the bill, Uganda’s ‘Ethics and Intergrity’ (how ironic) minister claims that:

“I do understand in [the west's] case homosexuality is normal but here it is totally repugnant, it is repulsive, it’s not something you would want to do if you have your normal faculties functioning. But there you are, in other societies it is different.”

His ‘justification’ can be used clearly to highlight their flaws in their ‘innate’ argument. If heterosexuality was so ‘innate’, then why would homosexuality be a common practice amongst all societies? What would he do if his daughter or son (if he has any) was homosexual? Would he freely kill them?

And if that wasn’t enough, Rwanda are also set to hold a vote of whether to criminalise “”[a]ny person who practices, encourages or sensitises people of the same sex, to sexual relation or any sexual practice.” Where is the world going? I have several gay friends and to think of them being executed and criminalised for liking the same sex, makes me sick. The vote is supposedly occurring today, i have had a look around and have found nothing of yet, so i can only assume the debate is still taking place.

I would love there to be an easy way to produce an international law to protect people’s rights, not only homosexuals, but all minorities and majorities basic human rights. To hear talks of killing homosexuals is scary. I seriously hope that the bill will not pass, if not, I feel intervention by the UN for example, will need to be stronger then just saying they will stop building an AIDS research centre in Uganda. The international community would have to act tought to stop the inhumane killing of innocent people.

Peter Tatchell after Mugabe's thugs had their say...

Now that’s such a mean title…

But the last part is definitely true.

The news yesterday that Peter Tatchell will not be standing for the Greens at the next election in the seat of Oxford East will, I’m sure, have raised a wee cheer at Lib Dem Towers in Cowley Street.

Tatchell says his reasons for not standing are related to a beating he was given by Mugabe’s thugs several years ago, which has left him with long-term effects. That is very sad, of course, and I wish him all the best.

But, wearing my partisan hat, I believe this is good news for the Lib Dems. Oxford East is a squeaky Labour-Lib Dem marginal, which Labour just about kept hold of last time with a majority of of just 963. Boundary changes since then have, according to Anthony Wells of UK Polling Report, made this even more favourable to the Yellow Peril.

There is, in my mind, no doubt that a strong Green campaign in this seat would have affected the result next time. After all, in 2005 the Green candidate got 1,813 votes – twice the majority. It’s not a huge leap of imagination to suggest that if those 1,813 people were asked to recast their ballot in mind of what the result was going to be that many of them may have shifted over to the Lib Dems, particularly given the position of the parties on Iraq and top-up fees, which were massive issues in seats like this one.

Next time, Peter Tatchell’s mere presence, never mind his formidable campaigning skills, would have given the Greens a bigger profile. Maybe he was even standing as a spoiler to the Lib Dems chances. After all, he’ll probably never forget that by-election in a hurry.

But now he’s gone. And this, if you’ll pardon the historical pun, will be yet another straight choice for the people of Oxford East.

In the balance of things, it is a seat that the Lib Dems should obviously win against a failing Labour government. Nick Clegg will surely visit the constituency. He probably hopes all of the marginal battles were like this one. And it should be enough. If they cannot win a seat like this, then it will be an extremely bad night: and a seat total of 30-40 would be expected.

Winning this seat, and seats like it, are part of the calculation for the Lib Dems to make up the ground that may well be lost in LD-Con marginals, where the temptation of voting for David Cameron will just be too great for the locals, fools that they are.

The only unknown. Will Labour take my advice and try to rally the core vote?

If they did, this is the kind of seat (believe it or not) where it might just work…

Peter Tatchell has highlighted this alarming article on Huff Post and the video below it, concerning the links between US Christians and those in Uganda bringing forth legislation to legitimise the murder of Gays. I hadn’t followed this issue, until now, but the fact it is going on in the 21st century, aided and abetted by US Christians is outrageous.

This is another clip from the Rachel Maddow show which explains more. It is staggering.

As someone who has campaigned on this blog for better child protection procedures and for tougher sanctions against abusers, I can categorically state that one of the most important challenges facing policy-makers is how to protect children.

The NSPCC reported earlier this year:

The statistics show there were 20,758 incidents where under-18s were recorded by police as victims of sex crimes … The number of offences recorded against girls was six times higher than the number against boys.

So around 85% of kids who have been recorded as having been molested, according to police, are girls, and 15% are boys; and many of these children are aged 15 and 16. A most disturbing recent trend has been the rising number of women molesting children (for example, Vanessa George and various teachers who abused teenage boys). Worryingly, the likes of Peter Tatchell are campaigning for an age of consent of 14:

QUOTE

I believe the time has come for a calm, rational reassessment of the age at which young people should be lawfully entitled to have sex. We need this debate because the current age of consent of 16 ignores reality.

An age of consent of 14 might be more realistic and reasonable than 16. If sex at 14 is consensual, and no one is hurt or complains, is criminalisation in the public interest? Is it in the 14-year-old’s interest? It is fair?

UNQUOTE

Considering the shocking NSPCC statistics (and we may be in more for bleak news in an early 2010 press release from the charity), and despite the despicable campaigning by people of Tatchell’s ilk, we must protect girls and boys from abuse.

How can we do this? First, the age of consent must be defended; in reality, it should probably be higher; but, at the least, it should not be lowered – to lower it would not only expose more 14- and 15-year-olds to abuse, but would lead to a failure of prosecution against molesters of those children who are slightly younger, i.e. 12- and 13-year-olds.

Second, it is important to move beyond the simplistic view that we should merely ‘tick boxes’ and only stop those on the sex offenders register working with kids, via CRB checks, i.e. those who have been detected. We need a strategy to deal with the undetected, and to protect children from those who are potential abusers.

Third, and as a way of enacting justice as well as providing a deterrent, convicted child molesters should be subject to a whole-life tariff. The current strategy of reintegrating them into the community simply is not working, as demonstrated by the recent Panorama documentary as well as by the appallingly high reoffending rates (and that does not include undetected activity), as well as the disgusting shenanigans of perverts on the Internet.

Does our political class have the guts to tackle this pandemic?

Last Wednesday along with other AI volunteers I hosted a stall on LGBT Rights. The occassion was a talk by Peter Tatchell on gay rights and a film entitled ‘Beyond the Pink Curtain’ which highlighted homophobia and a lack of protection from discrimination for the LGBT community in Eastern Europe. The main action at the stall was a postcard to the Lithuanian embassy opposing the homophobic legislative amendments have been put forward for consideration in Lithuania to criminalise the ‘promotion of homosexual relations in public places’. You can take action on this issue by visiting http://www.amnesty.org.uk/actions_details.asp?ActionID=629

I would like to say thankyou to the organisers of the SHOUT Festival in Birmingham for inviting us to have a stall.

Peter Tatchell

Echoing something which has recently happened in the Italian LGBT media, Peter Tatchell has gone on record criticising broadcasters here in the UK for portraying homosexuality as exclusively camp. He’s mentioned such flamboyant characters as Graham Norton and Alan Carr to get his point across.

In a similar Italian case recently in the media, the director of an LGBT online media publication has openly criticised the producers of the Italian version of Big Brother for never having included a “next-door type” gay character in the programme’s 10-year history, his implication being that the flamboyant, openly gay character in the current series is too camp and should be considered a transgender.  Mr De Giorgi stated that “Maicol doesn’t represent us” and his letter was echoed by a number of groups that have popped up all over Facebook to the same tune. The very camp twentysomething-year-old has indeed once mentioned feeling like a woman in a man’s body but he’s never stated his intention to transition and has always defined himself as gay.

In the UK Tatchell declared: “I am not saying Graham Norton and Alan Carr should be taken off TV. I am just fed up with the way this camp, cliched stereotype is mostly the only one that gets broadcast”.

Alan Carr

He may have a point on this. Mainstream media have often loved portraying gay men as ubercamp funny characters as this seems to be the model that tends to please and entertain straight audiences the most. It is the model that doesn’t challenge the assumption that real men should be manly: “me Tarzan — you (better be) woman”. So if a gay man is camp, he’s not really a man, and proper manly men can continue acting the real man’s stereotype and have a civilised, modern good time enjoying a tolerant laugh at or with these other varieties of male humans: the homosexuals.

The fact that this way of thinking is behind our current gay comedy genre is, in my opinion, a given. Whether TV producers are entirely to blame for this is a different story altogether. Entertainers like Norton and Carr are hugely successful and, I would assume, not being forced to act camp. I for one thoroughly enjoy following both and would define Graham Norton as bitchy rather than camp but that’s beside the point. The issue here is that it is absurd to blame those who are camp for campness being comforting to heteronormative society. There is nothing inherently wrong with being camp or feminine and we should only ask ourselves the reason why non-camp gay men don’t appear more frequently on TV. Or do they?

Derren Brown

Well, I could never have told you this myself because I must admit I don’t know much about TV personalities but others have pointed out in online forums that the list of non-camp TV celebrities is indeed quite long. I won’t mention them all here because it seems rather silly to list names of people, simply because I’m being told that they are gay but I will mention the name of one I do know very well of: Derren Brown.

I’ve seen Derren on TV many times and I know he’s gay. Yet, when I heard what Tatchell said I didn’t think of him at all, in the same way Peter probably didn’t think of him when he said what he did, the illusionist’s sexuality being something that’s hardly relevant to what he’s known for.

So I must wonder: when Peter Tatchell zeroes in on camp characters judgmentally using them as demonstration of society’s lack of non-camp gay models but fails to mention the many non-camp celebrities whose non-obvious sexual orientation seems irrelevant, isn’t he actually himself demonstrating to us what the real problem is? Gay people are only taken as such when they act the gay out. The positive non-camp gay role models inhabiting our ideal world might actually already be here but regrettably, in an unfortunate catch-22 scenario, they’re just not acting camp enough for us to take any notice of them.

By Oliver Farrimond

VETERAN human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has called on Alex Salmond and the SNP administration to legalise same-sex civil marriage in Scotland.

He also condemned the “disproportionate influence” of the Catholic Church on the Scottish Government, saying that church leaders were “out of touch” with ordinary Catholics.

Tatchell, who has campaigned on gay rights issues for more than 40 years, was speaking ahead of his appearance today (17 Nov) at a National Library event with former Bishop of Edinburgh Richard Holloway.

In an interview before today’s event, he claimed that while Scotland had previously been seen as leading the way on gay rights, particularly in repealing Section 28, in recent years it had been “slow” on certain issues.

Tatchell, 57, said: “The ban on same-sex civil marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships is a form of sexual apartheid – one law for gays and another for straights.

“I appeal to Alex Salmond and the SNP to lead the way by legislating same-sex civil marriage in Scotland.

“I hope Scotland will pioneer marriage equality and show-up England’s failings on gay human rights.

“Scotland led the way on repealing Section 28 but it’s been a bit slow on issues like child adoption by lesbian and gay couples.

“But the Catholic hierarchy seems to have disproportionate influence with the SNP government.”

Responding to Tatchell’s call for legalised same-sex marriage, a Scottish Government spokesperson said: “The law already allows same sex couples to register and formalise their relationship by forming a civil partnership.

“The rights and responsibilities that flow from civil partnership largely mirror those that flow from marriage.

“While we listen to representations on such issues, we have no current plans to amend the law in this area.

Inclusion

“The Scottish Government promotes equality and inclusion for the LGBT community in Scotland, and Ministers right across government regularly attend and support LGBT events.

“An LGBT equality seminar in Brussels, the national LGBT conference in Dundee, and the annual Gay Pride event in Glasgow last year are just a few examples.

“Indeed, last year, this government was the first Scottish administration to have a Minister – Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon – address Pride.”

Since his first experiences as a gay rights campaigner in London in the early 1970s, Australian-born Tatchell has earned worldwide recognition for his tireless championing of a wide variety of causes.

No stranger to controversy, Tatchell has seen his media profile surge in recent years thanks to a series of high profile incidents in pursuit of his campaigning goals.

In 2001 he attempted a citizens’ arrest on Zimbabwe leader Robert Mugabe, and in May 2007 was assaulted by anti-gay rights protestors during a march in Moscow – although he has said previously that he is not deterred “one iota” from returning to Russia to protest.

And although he counts murdered Catholic Archbishop Oscar Romero and revered US Catholic Dorothy Day as two of his political inspirations, he is a vocal critic of the Vatican on many social issues, and gay rights in particular.

He said: “Most lay Catholics are not homophobic – it’s the church leadership that’s the problem.”

‘Bigoted’

“Successive Catholic leaders have made inflammatory, bigoted statements about gay people which would not have been considered acceptable if they were made about people who are black or Jewish.

“I am really saddened that the Scottish cardinal and many of his priests and bishops endorse legal discrimination against Scots who are gay and lesbian.

“The Vatican and the Catholic hierarchy in Scotland are out of touch with most Catholic lay people in their position on contraception, fertility treatment and gay human rights.”

However Peter Kearney, spokesman for the Scottish Catholic Church, hit back fiercely at Tatchell, calling his remarks “demented ravings”.

He said: “I challenge Peter Tatchell to give a single example where the Scottish Catholic Church has opposed legislation and won.

“Actually, I would argue that the influence of the Scottish Catholic Church is disproportionately UN-successful.

‘Demented ravings’

“Here are some examples in the last 10 years: In the section 28 debate, the Catholic Church opposed the legislation – and lost.

“In the 2003 Sexual Health Strategy debate, the Catholic Church opposed the legislation – and lost.

“In the debate over civil partnerships, the Catholic Church opposed the legislation – and lost.

“If he had even the most transient experience with the realities of Scottish politics, he would know this.

“Frankly, his assertions sound like demented ravings.”

Although his political career to date is chequered – he left the Labour Party in 2000, and was denounced by Labour leader Michael Foot in 1981 – he was announced in 2007 as the Green Party’s candidate for the Oxford East constituency.

A long-time proponent of electoral reform, he is a member of the pressure group Vote for a Change – and argues that the Scottish voting system far outweighs its “rigged” Westminster counterpart.

He said: “The Westminster voting system is a disgrace to democracy.

‘Rigged’

“No British government since World War II has won a majority of the popular vote, and every single Prime Minister has won power on minority support.

“In the 2005 general election Labour won less than 40% of the vote, but claimed nearly 70% of the seats.

“That’s not democracy – it’s a rigged election system.

“The Scottish election system is for more representative and fair, because the number of seats won by each party corresponded more clearly to the number of votes for each party.

“I am campaigning to get the Scottish system adopted for elections to the House of Commons.

“Scotland has led the way, and Westminster must follow.”

Tatchell was speaking as part of the National Library of Scotland’s “Inspirations” series of events, where famous figures discuss their careers to date.

The Respect Annual Conference was held in Birmingham this year.

The Respect annual conference took place in Birmingham on Saturday with 210 delegates attending. The event revolved around the three key themes of our general election campaign: anti-racism and defense of multiculturalism, opposition to the cuts agenda of the mainstream parties, and international solidarity.

The opening session was introduced by Respect party leader Salma Yaqoob. Salma laid into New Labour for creating the conditions under which the BNP has grown; with its attacks on the Muslim community and increasingly anti-immigrant rhetoric.

Salma Yaqoob

She described how, since 9/11, Labour has resisted any examination of the disastrous role of its own foreign policy in creating a homegrown terrorist threat, leaving the impression that there is something intrinsic to the religon and culture of British Muslims that presents a threat to British society. She cited Jack Straw’s attacks on Muslim women who wear niqab; the attacks on mainstream Muslim organisations like the MCB and MAB for “sitting on the sidelines” in the fight against terrorism from the former Secretary for State for Communities, Ruth Kelly; and the Preventing Violent Extremism agenda, now described by Liberty as the ‘biggest spying operation’ since the Cold War.

Conference delegates

Similarly when Gordon Brown says that he wants ‘British jobs for British workers’, or ‘local homes for local people’, or curbs on immigration, he is stoking the fires of fear and intolerance that the BNP are the primary beneficiaries of. Salma challenged myths about immigrants being responsible for the recession or shortages in housing and concluded by emphasising Respect’s twin track approach in tackling racism: On the one hand, upholding and defending multiculturalism and challenging all forms of racism; and on the other hand, challenging the social inequality that allows the politics of resentment and division to breed.

The following discussion was by far the best of the conference. Not only was the quality of contributions largely very impressive, but they also conveyed a deep sense of commitment to tackling racism and an engagement in that struggle.

George Galloway

The second session was introduced by George Galloway, focusing on the recession and the politics of an alternative to economic crisis. Unfortunately, the discussion became distorted by those advocating the yet to be born ‘son-of-No2EU’.

An account of what followed, by an observer from the Green Left, accurately conveyed George’s response: ‘Galloway absolutely hammered No2EU in particular for standing against Peter Cranie in the North West… and refused to entertain any talk of coalition with the son of NO2EU.’ In addition to hammering NO2EU for effectively letting the BNP in (‘if the left had united it would have been Peter Cranie on Question Time not Nick Griffin’) he was scathing about the exaggeration being peddled about son-of-NO2EU. Contrary to claims by Ian Donovan, there were not ‘three national unions’ supporting this initiative; the reality was that three national union secretaries addressed a meeting in a personal capacity on working class political representation. George predicted the FBU would not support any so-called ‘new coalition’ and ridiculed the idea that the Prison Officers Association were now in the vanguard of building a far-left of Labour alternative, saying this would come as a bit of a surprise to any prisoner, especially those black, Irish or Muslim prisoners who had been on the receiving end of dealings with ‘screws’.

A sharp tone was adopted by both George and Salma towards an increasingly marginal current of opinion in Respect that sees our future as part of a coalition of the far left. The tone reflects the degree of frustration with an argument, just 6 months before a General Election, over backing a coalition with no name, no policies and no electoral credibility.

Nick Wrack

It also reflects a clear difference of strategy. As both George and Salmaexplained, we are focused on building unity and working with others, but we reject the narrow conception of left unity that gives pride of place to organizations with absolutely no popular support. Respect’s former National Secretary, Nick Wrack, came in for particular criticism, with Salma pointing out the irony of his calls for ‘left unity’ when he was one of those insisting that Respect should stand against the Greens in the North-West European region.

The message was delivered loud and clear: we wish all those who want to join the ‘coalition with no name’ well on their journey, and where we can establish friendly relations with any other progressive party or coalition we will do so, but we have an opportunity to advance the left by getting Respect MPs elected. If we fail, it will not be for the want of trying.

Andrew Murray

The final session was introduced by Andrew Murray who received a standing ovation for his passionate call for opposition to the war in Afghanistan and for Respect to use its strengths to help Stop the War reconnect with its core support. He was followed by Francisco Dominguez from the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign, who painted a vivid picture of the Bolivarian revolution 10 years on, the threats it faces, and the importance of international solidarity. Finally, Kevin Ovenden outlined exciting new developments in Palestinian solidarity, describing the way that Viva Palestina was fast becoming a global campaign, finding new and significant support in Malaysia among other places, and deepening its productive relationship with the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign.

Delegates vote

There was genuine and sharp debate at this conference. And the outcome was clear. Respect’s leadership is absolutely determined that the influence of the ultra-left will remain marginal. There is no place for the kind of political sectarianism that is indifferent to a Tory victory or bitterly hostile to cooperation with the Green Party. Such views, often articulated by politically irrelevant grouplets of the far left, are an obstacle to the growth of a radical party of the left. The potential for a serious radical and left-wing party will be determined by its ability to speak to the millions who are essentially disillusioned Labour

Respect Conference

supporters, and its ability to provide convincing alternatives to the politics of war, racism and cuts.
I fully expect the new National Council, on which the more sectarian voices are a shrinking minority, to drive through this perspective more forcefully in the coming year.

A report by Ger Francis

[Videos for this event will be available soon. Picture gallery on the Birmingham Respect facebook group: here]

Additional reports:

Respect Conference – Andy Newman, Socialist Unity (15.11.09)

Respect Conference in Birmingham today – Derek Wall (Green Party), Another World is Possible (14.11.09)

I have followed Peter Tatchell’s political career for decades, and one thing has always struck me about him, he’s a very keen activist and highly principled.

I and others might occasionally disagree with the emphasis that he puts on certain issues, but Peter Tatchell is principled and that is rare in politics, where ends are used to justify the means.

Peter puts himself in great physical danger for his belief, and that is even rarer, so I was sadden to read the lack of support for him by posters over at Socialist Unity blog.

In fact, Peter is being attacked, for holding clear and principled views without malice, by various armchair activists and shouty “anti-imperialists”.

Peter’s column in the Guardian.

The BBC asks an all too obvious question: Is gay bashing on the rise?

Q&A: Peter Tatchell

Stand up, be counted and go to jail

Update 1: It seems that the SWP have their knives out for Peter, as suggested by a post on the SWP’s premier blog, Lenin’s Tomb. I think that partly explains the venom from some posters at SU blog, they are just following a Party “line” like mindless automatons.

Update 2: Dave Osler has chipped in with his characteristic sarcasm, although I suspect many won’t understand the none too subtle point that he’s making.

A new biography of Malcolm X has been published and used, not really reviewed, in an article in the UK’s Guardian newspaper (see here) as part of the UK’s Black History Month.  Malcolm – The Life of a Man Who Changed Black America by Bruce Perry has been both hailed as a corrective to the “autobiography” as told to Alex Haley and castigated as a hatchet job.

The article asserts, based on work done in the new book, that Malcolm X was bi-sexual, although he abandoned same-sex relationships following his marriage. Amongst its sentences is the following:

While Perry did not make Malcolm’s sexuality a big part of his biography – in fact, it is a very minor aspect – he did not shy away from writing about what he heard in his many interviews.

The article’s author, Peter Tatchell, alas does not follow this balance. His entire piece is about sexuality, the need for the honoring of black homo- trans – and bisexuals and their role in black history. He argues that there is a deliberate “denialism” of the influence of anyone other than heterosexuals.

This is odd, but it illustrates how agenda driven interests can distort and confuse dialogue in the public square. To support his agenda of more being made of sexuality Tatchell cites a book which he admits makes little of it. What to label this all-too-common maneuver in argument? Here’s my suggestion: Pie-phobia.

Pie-phobics focus on a narrow slice of evidence and ignore the whole pie. Admittedly in the real world the chances are that a slice of apple pie will faithfully represent the entire pie. But, to press the analogy, humans are complex pies and even more complex when the pie deals with human interaction. By no means, in the temporal realities of human affairs, can it be assumed that the flavor and texture is constant.

Faith summons its people to sniff out prejudice and deliberate distortion and to condemn them. Pie-phobia is a form of both. Tatchell is a perfect illustration. Thus, he shines as an example of what he seeks to condemn.

A diversion of sorts to look at an article by Peter Tatchell as controversial as he gets appearing in the Guardian newspaper.

Peter Tatchell – Malcom X was bisexual, get over it