Stonewall *insert rage here*

Back in May, when the newly formed Coalition Government announced a consultation for next year on transgender rights, part of me smiled and part of me sighed.

The part that smiled was obviously the part that feels transgender equality has progressed far too slowly. The part that sighed, however, knew that considering the rights of transgendered people separately from LGB rights would lead to opportunities for people and organizations to interfere. And I don’t mean that our transgendered friends would try to screw over the LGB population. In fact for too long LGB folks have spent far too much time fighting for their own rights and have left our transgendered fellow travelers in the lurch.

No, what I suspected would happen was that someone, such as Stonewall, would come along and see an opportunity to screw over the LGB community (and probably the transgender community to boot) by enforcing bit part solutions rather than common sense gender neutral amendments to gender specific laws.

Let me paint a picture:

One of the major arguments in favour of marriage equality is the awful situation our current separate but equal system leaves those who change their gender whilst in a marriage or civil partnership. Now imagine if you can “solve” that problem by writing into the relevant legislation that a marriage automatically becomes a civil partnership, and vice versa, the moment someone legally changes their gender. It still wouldn’t be equality but it sure helps shore up the failing arguments of those who wish to deny equality to everyone be they straight or gay, cis or transgendered.

But I thought I was being far too cynical, and only alluded to my paranoid concerns on this blog. But now we discover that Stonewall, an organization that DOES NOT REPRESENT TRANSGENDERED PEOPLE, has been advising the Government to pursue exactly this route. Stonewall aren’t just avoiding the subject of marriage equality, they are actively pursuing a very strange agenda to undermine it. It’s despicable.

Stonewall don’t stand up for equality. Their record on transgender rights is appalling. So what makes them think they have ANY authority to even DISCUSS transgender rights on a Governmental level??

I didn’t think it was possible but Stonewall has left me even more disgusted and depressed at their position.

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

Marriage Equality: Strangely Welcome Days Are These

In marriage equality news here in the UK:

Well the last week has been “fun” hasn’t it? First up we had the Stonewall fringe event at the Liberal Democrat conference where Ben Summerskill (of Stonewall fame, and of particular infamy here for many blog posts past) may have said he didn’t support marriage equality and civil partnership equality because of the cost and because of some incredibly ridiculous “feminist” arguments about the evils of marriage. I love it when men use feminist arguments to deny choice to men and… WOMEN! I’m always amazed that these people stand up and declare marriage to be an evil institution whilst insisting heterosexuals should not have access to civil partnerships and doing absolutely nothing to advance the cause of marriage reform or privitisation. It’s not just sad, it’s a blatant lack of consistency within their beliefs.

But in happier news Lib Dems, such as Stephen Gilbert MP and Lynne Featherstone (Minister for Equalities), stood up and defended marriage equality in no uncertain terms.

Then on Tuesday the marriage equality debate occurred at the conference itself which resulted in some strong arguments from the podium, followed by a near unanimous vote in favour of adopting marriage equality as party policy. This makes the Liberal Democrats the first party of the big three parties to adopt this position. Good times!

Brian Paddick illuminated an issue I had hitherto been unaware of. Many private pension companies have been treating civil partnerships as worth less than marriage with regards to pension arrangements for spouses after one has died. This is unacceptable and yet another clear sign marriage equality needs to be implemented to ensure no loopholes are available for companies to treat same sex relationships as second class.

In upcoming events:

On Monday there is another Stonewall fringe event at the Labour party conference. I’ve already received word that several members of the Rag Tag marriage equality pressure group (unofficial) will be there to try to get some clarification from Summerskill of his views (which I think he’s made quite clear in the past but that’s just because I’ve been paying closer attention for a longer period of time). I await the results of their enquiries eagerly (whilst I’d love to continue hating on Stonewall, realistically I think it’d be better if they admitted their mistakes and joined the crusade)

And LGBT Labour are currently trying to get a marriage equality debate on to the agenda at their conference, I hope that they can manage it as it would be quite the achievement to convert two parties to the marriage equality cause in the space of two weeks.

All in all, exciting times for marriage equality. Some are dragging their feet (Attitude magazine’s latest article seems to completely miss that Civil Partnerships are different to marriage in real legal and human ways) and this is, in some instances, getting it more attention (such as in the case of Stonewall). But I really think the movement towards marriage equality is growing and this bodes well for future political action.

I just have to say I no longer feel like a lone voice in the dark shouting and hollering about this issue. In fact the momentum has been taken up by far more articulate and awesome people than I and I can now rest assured the issue is being dealt with by some very competent campaigners.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Connecting Atheism And Nazism: Pope Irony?

During the Holocaust thousands of LGBT people were tortured, persecuted and killed. The Nazi's views of family life and focus on procreation rendered those with different sexualities to suffer a great deal (along with many other groups of untouchables be they Jews, Communists, democrats, Jehovah Witnesses, Roma, the disabled, the list goes on).



So it was ironic to hear Pope Benedict XVI criticise atheism and link it to Nazism despite atheisms modern form. His hatred of LGBT folk, his focus on the family and on procreation (which leads to higher STD levels in countries who take his demand they do not use protection seriously), is concerning.

Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny” (Caritas in Veritate, 29).

Some atheists, like me, actually believe in REAL religious freedom. As I said in my last post, I'm prepared to stand up for even the most bigoted person's freedoms. I don't want anyone to be killed, I have no great idealistic dream of nationalism (in fact I despise nationalism), and I don't believe in Social Darwinism.

So who is more like the Nazis? The Pope who seeks to control LGBT people by supporting retrograde laws to keep us in a repressed role in society. Or me, an atheist, who believes people should be free to believe what they like, to practice their religion how they like, and to moan about upstart heads of major religions whenever they like?

Personally the world I hope for, one free from intolerance and stupidity, is a world away from the dark dreams of the Pope for a world where everyone agrees with him.

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

The Final Insult

Not only do we have to fund the State visit of Pope Benedict XVI, but now his Cardinals get to fling insults at our country whilst our Government must maintain a welcoming diplomatic front so as not to upset the Pope!!

One of the Pope's senior advisers has pulled out of the papal visit to Britain, after reportedly saying the UK is a "Third World country" marked by "a new and aggressive atheism".

Cardinal Walter Kasper, 77, made the remarks in a German magazine interview.

The Vatican said the cardinal had not intended "any kind of slight", and was referring to the UK's multicultural society.

It added that he had simply pulled out of the Pope's visit due to illness.

The German-born cardinal was quoted as saying to the country's Focus magazine that "when you land at Heathrow you think at times you have landed in a Third World country".

He also was reported to have criticised British Airways, saying that when you wear a cross on the airline "you are discriminated against".

Vatican sources said Cardinal Kasper was suffering from gout and had been advised by his doctors not to travel to the UK.

The Pope is spending four days in Scotland and England, starting on Thursday.

The BBC's correspondent in Rome, David Willey, said the cardinal's reported comments were "a slightly clumsy thing to have done on the eve of the visit".

However, he added that he did not think it would have much effect on the Pope's trip to the UK.

Would somebody please inform Her Majesty that she has a great deal of backing if she wanted to "forget" he was coming to visit and spend a relaxing, long weekend in Balmoral. Really, we wouldn't mind, Ma'am!

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

Supporting Free Speech Hurts, That's Sort Of The Point

When I was growing up it was illegal (or at least everyone thought it was) for my school to teach me about homosexual relationships, illegal for me to join the Armed Forces, there was no possibility of partnership rights (and still no legal ability to get married), even when I turned 16 it was illegal for me to have sex! I can only thank those involved in the fight (individuals, political parties, and charities) who helped secure the freedoms I and many other gay men and women enjoy today.

This is why I am very keen to fight for others freedoms. Be it the struggle for marriage equality, transgender rights, or even the rights of religious bigots, I will be there. I have always taken Niemoller's famous quote (or perhaps misquote) to heart:

First, they came for the Jews. But I was not a Jew, so I did not speak up.

Then they came for the communists.

But I was not a communist, so I did not speak up.

Then they came for the trade unionists.

But I was not a trade unionist, so I did not speak up.

And when they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out for me.

This is why I've always seen it as deeply important to stand up for people's freedoms to speak and do as they please. If I'm not prepared to stand up for others liberty, I do not deserve my own.

The case of Paul Shaw (warning this link goes to Christian Voice's website. Please wear applicable safety equipment) is yet another example of an over reaction by those who don't care for free speech and by the police who should know better.

What he said was pretty odious and obnoxious:

I believe for example that homosexual and lesbian acts are immoral and that the law should reflect that; by making them unlawful as they once were; and so acting as a deterrent to such behaviour.

The concept of homophobia is nonsense and a play on words; it is not and has never been a phobia! A phobia is an un-natural fear; whereas a rejection of perverse behaviour; is a righteous godly fear; that fears to do wrong because it knows that there are consequences and punishment otherwise! This is the most pronounced example of a nation that has lost its way ..

I doubt he has any redeeming virtues and suspect he is a poor excuse for a decent human being. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to voice his weird, batshit crazy opinions. Why on Earth did anyone think to themselves "I need to report this to the police"? It wouldn't even cross my mind. I read far harsher stuff every single day online on a great many different issues. I've never even considered contacting the police about it. Instead I write up my own responses to them. That is how things should be done in a society which holds individual freedom up as something to aspire to.

No wonder the fight for LGBT liberation is so lacklustre at the moment. Has our community decided that instead of fighting prejudice and bigotry in the press, in the streets and in peoples homes they will simply use the police as proxies to silence and make martyrs of our opponents?

We need to find our fighting spirit again to hold people like Paul Shaw to account, not hide behind stupid laws and hope the bad people will just shut up. It's not going to happen. We need to win hearts and minds, and we need to stand up for Paul Shaw's right to be an offensive git. If we don't, how can we take the moral high ground? What defence will we have if the shoe ever gets back on the other foot?

We need to be better people than these religious fundamentalists. Becoming the new fundamentalists is not the way to do it.

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

John Amaechi and The Crunch Bar

John Amaechi, a tall, handsome former NBA player, has been refused entry to the Crunch Bar on Manchester's Canal Street because he was "big, black and could be trouble".

Racist and discriminatory? Yes. As someone who is about the same height as Amaechi (6'9", 6'10") but white I too have had similar issues at gay bars. Either I've been denied entry as they thought I might be a straight troublemaker (only ever solved when one of my more "acceptably gay" mates would come out and rescue me), or given conspiratorial whispers by the door staff who'd ask me things like "Mate, you know this is a bar full of queers right?".

John Amaechi (a man whose autobiography shows to be one of the sweetest, soft natured people around) should not have been denied entry to a gay bar. I'd hope the LGBT population of Manchester show him some solidarity and stop patronising the Crunch bar. Hit them where it hurts and frequent places with less racist, heightist door staff.

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

The "Priority" Agenda

One of the anti-marriage equality types favourite "throw a spanner in the works" moves is to point out, rightly, there are more important things to be fighting for. No we're not talking jobs, peace and helping those in need (all of which I would personally state are more important) but we're talking on an LGBT rights front.

What about homophobic bullying?, they cry. Don't you think overturning the blood donation ban is more important?, some do indeed scream. We need to get our priorities straight, they lament.

Of course I think this is all ridiculous, for various reasons.

1) Many of the issues that are brought up, such as tackling homophobic bullying, are already on the Government's agenda. We are no longer in a situation of fighting for them, but are now in a position of keeping an eye on the implementation of these policies.
2) These issues don't exist in a vacuum. We are not in a position where we can pick and choose what rights we want. There is no apprenticeship for freedom. The issues are all related, and all about how society at large views LGBT people. We don't have an option of choosing to fight homophobic bullying now and then fight for marriage equality next. Both are intrinsically linked. We cannot change the hearts and minds of children in the playground if they can see adults are not treated equally.
3) We can fight for more than one thing at a time! Did we say "Well let's not worry about gays in the military until we've got the age of consent equalised?" in the '90s?? No we did not. The fight was fought on many fronts. We won those battles.
4) Prioritising one issue over another serves only to alienate those who have different personal agendas. It is an unnecessary hindrance to a cohesive message of equality.

I despise those who have "priorities" when it comes to equal rights for all citizens. As if THEY know what is more important to each and every person. Just because I focus on marriage equality as my "cause celebre", it does not mean I think it is more important than a great many unresolved LGBT issues.

Not only do I support solving the issues the Coalition have highlighted in their "Working for LGBT Equality" paper, but I also support campaigns to overturn the British blood donation ban, to overturn Labour's transphobic elements in the Equality Act, and to repeal Labour's homophobic Amendment 70. And then there are transgender rights which are, still, sadly maligned and given little support.

What really irks me about those who prioritise rights is that they don't really seem to believe it. In a majority of cases it's just because they are opposed, for ideological reasons, to marriage equality. They hate marriage and don't want anything to do with it... even if it means stopping other LGBT people from getting it too. It drives me mad!!

When marriage equality becomes a reality I shan't be happy. Because other rights remain to be fought for, other homophobic laws remain to be overturned, and other issues more important than any of those (like homelessness, poverty, crime) remain to be fought against. My priority is a better world, one I'll never stop hoping and fighting for.

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