Don't Trust Them

A very large part of me finds people like Ken Mehlman and Crispin Blunt disgusting. Feeling like that isn't right, but it doesn't make me stop feeling that way. These politicians have same sex attraction (I don't wish to call them gay as, to be honest, I don't think they deserve that title) yet spent their time in office calling for LESS rights for LGBT people.

For example. Crispin Blunt:

In 2001, Mr Blunt voted against not only the equal age of consent, but also against gay couples adopting. He also voted in favour of the bill designed to make it harder for lesbian couples to have equal access to IVF treatment.

He did not vote on the repeal of Section 28 as he was absent at the time. However, Mr Blunt did vote in favour of civil partnerships and the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation Regulation) which prevents discrimination against LGB people in the provision of goods and services.

And Ken Mehlman:

When Mr Bush became president, Mr Mehlman followed him to the White House as political director and later ran the re-election campaign which used the device of citing state ballot initiatives against same-sex marriage to help galvanise conservative voters.

I cannot begin to express the personal anger I feel towards these... these TURNCOATS.

But there is another part of me that says "Calm down Jae, it's only politics". That part seeks to remind me of the personal difficulties these sort of people must go through. It tells me all about homophobia springing from self hatred. It reminds me not to cast the first stone.

So I admit, there must have been so much pressure on both politicians from allsorts of angles. It must have been hard. But this doesn't stop me from using the same argument I used about Penny Wong and Angela Eagle: never, ever, trust a politician who cannot even stand up for their own personal liberty. There's a difference between closeted politicians and closeted politicians who actively work against LGBT rights for themselves and for everyone else. If you can't stand up for your own freedom, if you can't bring yourself to say "Wait a minute guys, I can't be a part of this campaign.", then you won't be able to stand up for others who aren't like you. You won't be able to stand up for those who put their vote in the box next to your name (and those who you represent who didn't!).

So be kind to Blunt and Mehlman. Remember that it must have been hard for them. But also remember they don't deserve positions of power.

Anyway, I apologise for my grumpy tone. I'll not be about so much for a while. Don't worry, my fight for marriage equality is coming offline with me. Today I received a letter from Emma Reed, Head of LGB and T Equality at the Equalities ministry, basically noting my feelings have been included as part of the religious civil partnership consultation. Later this week I shall be sending lots of letters to Stonewall's "corporate sponsors" inviting them to discuss their sponsorship with Stonewall viz-a-viz their inequality stance. Mean spirited, I know, but in keeping with my mood on the subject right now. Play nice children!

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Ed Miliband's Last Word On Marriage Equality And The Labour Leadership

Whilst Ed Miliband had come out with some broadly positive wording about supporting marriage equality previously, his article today in Pink News shows his now unambiguous support. Thus all five Labour leadership candidates now offer a much more progressive view on LGBT rights than Gordon Brown. They aren't perfect, and personal positions aren't party policy. But this is brilliant step forward on the road to freedom.

Well done Labour. I think you might be getting back on the right track. Now about your stances on civil liberties....

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Irish LGBT Activism Still Has Some Punch

Whilst LGBT activism in the UK have descended into mainly being about pride partying (with the occasional misdirected political attack against other LGBT people who you don't agree with, as happened at Bristol Pride this weekend when LGBT Labour decided it was more fun to be bitchy and score political points than be united) or surveys on who is the best role model for LGBT Youth (yes Stonewall AGAIN), in Ireland there appears to still be some people fighting for actual equality.



Last month Ireland's own Civil Partnership Bill was signed into law. But LGBT activists aren't prepared to settle for second best there. LGBTNoise and other groups are taking part in a March for Marriage at 2pm. It is good to see some principled campaigning for equality on these islands, even if it is outside the borders of the United Kingdom.

May their march be a resounding success and help keep hope for marriage equality alive.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Yes To AV

You know I'm not one for compromise. Sheesh, it's been 5 years and I'm still bitter over civil partnerships. I like reforms to be bold and as complete as possible. So no, I'm not overly enamoured with next year's alternative vote referendum. I'm a proportional representation supporter and, like many, I support the single transferable vote as the "best" system. Not perfect, I hasten to add, but I think it is the best.

Unfortunately the question that will, if the legislation gets passed, be asked in May 2011 is not about STV, it's all about the Alternative Vote: 

Do you want the United Kingdom to adopt the 'alternative vote' system instead of the current 'first past the post' system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?

It's the answer to that question that I (and you) need to decide on. But before we can, there's a lot of controversy over the legislation. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill is contentious for a number of reasons. The first is the date the referendum is due to be held on. It coincides with other elections, and people feel that the message may be diluted or people confused due to the campaign getting mixed in with others.

On the people getting confused front, I have to say I'm very dubious about this argument. We've managed to run different elections on the same day without confusion (except in some cases where there are different voting systems being used at once). And many US states manage to hold various elections and "referendums" on the same day without anybody screaming "I just don't understand!!!". But the idea that the message might get mixed up with the election campaigns is one that has merit. Alas I think it does make sense, both for turnout reasons and for financial reasons, to hold the AV referendum at the same time as other elections. It's another compromise, but we've already made one massive one (AV over PR!) so why people seem more worried by this than the basic fact PR isn't on the ballot, I don't know!

The more controversial part of the Bill is to do with constituency sizes. The proposal is to bring down the number of constituencies to 600, and to equalise the size of the electorates in each (as far as possible).

Part of this controversy centres around some claims that this is "gerrymandering", ignoring completely that the Government will not actually carry out the boundary review but simply set the rules for it. I will not address these concerns as they are, quite simply, partisan attacks.

The more sensible and considered criticism of this reform is that the boundaries may cross natural borders and local Government jurisdictions, a headache for candidates, campaigns and electorates. Also there's issue with the speed of this reform (taking place just before a census), and with it's ability to calculate the number of electors in a region. There's a good piece on this on Open Democracy. I'm not going to answer these criticisms because I wholeheartedly agree with them and hope that these can be worked out in the debates and votes in Parliament *chortles merrily to himself about the idea that MPs might focus on sensible considerations*

So whether the Bill gets passed is still up for argument. Let's imagine if it does. I think there will be a few camps in the AV referendum including:

For the Yes vote:

• Those who favour AV as their system of choice
• Those who favour PR but are putting their faith in AV as a "step in the right direction" 
• Those who favour PR, know we're not going to get it just yet, so are supporting the campaign as a last resort (that's me included)
• The "liberal" partisans of the Coalition who see this as just another battle against anti-Coalition sorts. 

For the No vote: 

• Those who favour FPTP as their system of choice (right wing Tories, some Labourites) 
• Those who favour PR and are NOT going to compromise (they have my sympathies, but I suspect this will be a very small, invisible grouping) 
• Tories who are outraged by the Coalition and wish to thumb their noses at it
• Labourites and other anti-Coalition "lefties" who wish to "hurt" the Lib Dems because of their "betrayal" 

I think those who favour FPTP are actually a small group as the status quo really doesn't really inflame one's soul. So, based on where I think the various camps sit, the strength of cohesive, passionate argument certainly seems to fall on the pro-AV side. The danger is allowing "politics" to get involved. 

We all saw and felt what happened in the country during the expenses scandal. A dislike of politicians generally and an urge among a lot of people for change. This is what helped create the "Clegg bubble" that so excited us all during the election (even if it came to nothing but a small increase in the Lib Dem vote). People were desperate for "another way". The AV campaign must embrace that feeling, and try to be as sensible, unpartisan and creative as possible. 

I live in a constituency where a Tory being elected is as predictable as the Sun rising in the morning. That shouldn't be the way politics works. The majority of us who didn't vote for the Tory should still get a say in our representative in Parliament. It's so simple a message, and it's the one major argument that I see getting people onboard with the Yes campaign. It needs to focus on FPTP's role in corruption (across the parties), in it's inability to shift MPs of certain parties in certain areas, and it's lack of choice. 

That's why I want AV (I'm under no illusions it's a "stepping stone" to PR). I want the right to be able to say that if my first preference doesn't win by more than 50% of the vote (and neither does anyone else) then my vote can go to someone else (who might not be my favourite but is preferably not a Tory). So I'll be voting Yes in the AV referendum and I'll be happily campaigning for the Yes campaign here in Folkestone and Hythe. 

If we can avoid it becoming a partisan issue, once (and if) the relevant legislation is passed, and get support from sensible pro-AV people in all the parties, we can win the argument. Because the arguments for FPTP aren't up to much. The only thing that stands in the way is if the referendum becomes a referendum not on our electoral system but on whether you like the Government or not. If that happens, it will be a great stain upon our political party system, and a great shame for democracy.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Damian Collins Would Be A Republican

Welcome to Folkestone and Hythe in 2010, where we have elected a Tory MP who thinks he'd be a Republican if he lived in the USA.

I can't decide what's more concerning: his ignorance that the Tory party is probably more left wing than the Democrats, or his ignorance of what the Republicans actually stand for.

If he really is a Conservative because he wants to be "free", then his support of a brutally socially conservative American party seems completely bizarre. Let's see some Republican fun:







So does Damian Collins wish to get rid of the NHS, deny climate change and overturn the Race Relations Act?

I think those are the questions we in Shepway need to start asking.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Stonewall Need To Sack Their Public Relations Director

I apologise for my recent absence. I can assure you, it's for the right reasons. I am back in paid employment and making myself useful. Once I've got into the swing of things I'll be back ranting and raving about marriage equality, Tories and my (reserved) love of the Liberal Democrats.

In the meantime we've had a rather interesting list of comments from various LGBT rights organisations on the issue of marriage equality published by Pink News. Interesting both in that all support marriage equality, and that Stonewall (one of my favourite groups to criticise) refused to give it's opinion.

Stonewall have given their opinion to me and, out of fairness, I'll repeat what they said: They are not against marriage equality, they just don't think it's a priority. This is a position I find bizarre. And one it seems more and more are finding strange too.

Check out Zoe's journal and Stephen's Liberal Journal for more.

Normal service shall resume this weekend.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Links Of Interest

With a new job beginning tomorrow I'm in no mood to write a blog post. Instead I present a few links to articles I've liked today:

An Open Letter To The Labour Party - I like. A lot.

The roots of '8: The Mormon Proposition' - Mixing marriage equality and, my current obsession, Mormonism. Can't lose!

"The Abominable and Detestable Crime Against Nature": A Revised History of Homosexuality & Mormonism, 1840-1980

Why gay marriage is a fundamental right - From a Tory. The times, they are a-changing.

Judge us on five years, not a 100 days - Some guy called Nick Clegg talking about cooperation and getting on with fixing our country's problems. I don't know who he thinks he is, some upstart third party leader with delusions of grandeur. ;)

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist