At Last People Are Waking Up To The Tactics Of The New Puritans

It is a shame anything involving Germaine Greer and her vile comments about transgender people seems to have helped bring some sanity back to the world of political commentary. As we have seen there has been a new puritan spirit rising across the nation as politicians try to ban/filter porn, suppress sex workers freedoms and ban some magazines. And it isn't just in those sort of initiatives one can see it... there's a creeping sense of conformity drifting back across various aspects of our lives. Just look at the adulation given to same-sex married couples and their kids on the gay news outlets for an example of this (having children isn't exactly pioneering, my other half has 4).

Anyway. After some students sought to ban Germaine Greer from giving a talk at a university because, well let's be frank, she's a really horrible person there finally seems to be a few more voices rising up to defend free speech (even if its hers). Ironically many of these voices are ones who didn't stand up against porn blocks or other infringements of our freedoms, but hey the number of Labourites standing up for marriage equality prior to 2010 could be counted on one hand. These things change gradually. Referring to the neo-progressives as a cult is pretty much on the nose except I don't really like the word cult. One person's cult, is another person's religion. Certainly neo-progressives, with their love of woo and hatred of the atheist movement, share much with the religious.

Howard Jacobson has also got the measure of the latest type of prude.

Our country is in a censorious mood. The more educated we are, the less we are prepared to tolerate views contrary to our own. Shake any institution of higher learning and a dozen boycotters will fall out of it. If the academic community gets its way, we will soon all be speaking with a single voice.

Others are also getting a sense of just how far things have already gone. In universities the students are cleansing their courses of anything that might offend.

Using tactics like trying to get someone fired to silence them (then getting upset that their own businesses might get hurt in the blowback), we are seeing the real "morality" these puritans are preaching.



But more are starting to stand against the shaming.


Nick Cohen says it all here.

Polyamory Now Legal In Utah

I wrote last year about the Brown's of "Sister Wives" fame and their campaign to end Utah's regressive laws on "religious cohabitation".

Utah has, I'm sure you'll know, a long and complicated relationship with both the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and polygamy. In the 19th century polygamy was a central tenet of the LDS Church and they played a cat and mouse game with federal authorities to keep the "Principle" alive in Utah. By the 20th century the federal authorities had won and the LDS Church gave up the "Principle" in order for Utah and the church itself to commence normal relations within the Union.

By the middle of the 20th century the LDS Church was busy rebranding itself and, in so doing, sort to ever further distance itself from its polygamous past. It did this with the help of Utah state authorities and passed, in 1973, a law which banned living with more than one person as if you were married.

“A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.”

Not only did this allow authorities to intervene in some cases of abuse among fundamentalist Mormons, it also became a rod to beat those who were causing harm to no one else. A couple of years ago the Brown family themselves fled their beloved Utah home and settled in Las Vegas in order to avoid jail for the adult members and family separation.



Now the Brown's have won a victory that will allow others of their faith to practice non-legally binding plural marriage without fear. This is absolutely fantastic news, marking another step forward for freedom. It may be appealed however so fingers crossed this ruling is a keeper.

As predicted last year Lawrence v. Texas (which ended US state's anti-sodomy laws in 2003) played its part:

“Consensual sexual privacy is the touchstone of the rational basis review analysis in this case, as in Lawrence.”

Gay rights lead to human rights. Good times!

Tom Daley: Label-Free

I know, I know. Tom Daley's announcement that he's in a relationship with a man will fill enough column inches this week to reach to the Moon and back (twice). "Isn't he brave?" "Isn't it about time we stopped caring?" etc. etc. And there will be article after article about the difference between homosexuality and bisexuality. Plus, of course, you'll have the homophobes on social media (or "trolls" as the media will erroneously call them) who will I'm sure get a column or two devoted just to them. Just look at them go already.

So before tomorrow's papers are published I thought I'd just get in my own little comment. I don't need to say the above, because it is all so predictable as to be irrelevant. But what I do what to discuss is Tom Daley's distinct lack of labeling himself. Though some were quick to label him, such as Pink News briefly identifying a man who likes both men and women as gay, he did not do so himself.

It might seem strange that someone like me, who openly calls himself gay, would be so happy to see someone NOT refer to themselves as "gay" or "bisexual". I remember the very moment I first accepted my sexuality. My first thought was "I'm gay". It was a powerful talisman, a way to ward off the demons of some imagined future homophobia. Some people like to say "I don't define myself by my sexuality". Not me. I was happy, proud and overly eager to label myself and consider my sexuality an open and shut case.

But life is so much more complicated than labels. And "gay" is definitely a label that no longer says what we want it to say.

I'm not just thinking of the campaign to keep gay "gay" launched by Will Young and, ever conservative, Stonewall. Their aim to stop the evolution of language is not just doomed to fail because its nigh impossible to do that, but also possibly because "gay" no longer does what it says on the tin.

I feel like I've straddled two distinct periods of "gay culture". When I headed out on to the scene at the age of 14 (but the height of 6" so easily avoiding those ever vigilant bouncers) there was still a bit of secrecy about the whole affair. Gay bars were listed in the back of Gay Times, some with instructions on how to get in (Ring the Doorbell). There were gay clubs here in Kent that were hidden out in the countryside where no one not in the know would find them. Gay bars were GAY bars and woe betide anyone else trying to get in (due to my height and choice of rather butch dates, I was often counselled by wary bouncers that the establishment was a gay bar *wink wink* *nudge nudge*). And then I met Jim and I stepped back from the scene. And whenever I've put my head back into it, I've found it radically different. Gay guys who'd never heard of Section 28. Heterosexual people taking over the bars (my Mum even tells me about her trips to what was Folkestone's gay bar). Bars closing and cruising moving from set defined spaces to mobile phone apps. It is a whole different world.

Mark Simpson wrote on this phenomenon in "End of Gays". It really is a revolution and it is still going on. It pleases me to think that young guys today can just "be". They don't need to label themselves, they don't need to limit themselves with labels.

Tom Daley has stated he's in a relationship with a guy. But he's said that if things changed in the future, so be it. That seems so much more realistic than pretending relationships can only be based on some rigid unchangeable sexuality. Sexualities do change. And relationships can transcend sexuality. The world is a complicated place and labels can just over-simplify things to the point that they just cause confusion.

All power to Tom, and shame on those who want to label him. If he decides to label himself in the future, so be it. But for now Tom... just be who you are.

The Hypocrisy Of @TheCooperative Over #LoseTheLadsMags Astounds Me

Yesterday The Co-Operative group advised a gathering of Lose The Lad's Mags supporters in Parliament of why they supported the campaign to remove lad's mags from shops.

"Decision 2 #losetheladsmags wsn't based on puritanical views but solely on the opinions of our customrs & membrs" Gotta <3 @TheCooperative
— Making Herstory (@MakeHerstory1) October 15, 2013

This follows their active removal of certain lad's mags from their own shelves. At almost the exact same time as the gathering in Parliament, Attitude Magazine was holding its annual awards ceremony. I was rather staggered to see this little gem (and not just because of the futility of such an empty gesture...)

The Community Award supported by @TheCooperative goes to Russian LGBT community. We stand in solidarity with them always. #attitudeawards
— Attitude Magazine (@AttitudeMag) October 15, 2013

Yes, you read that right. The same group who have removed lad's mags due to customer complaints feel no sense of irony in supporting a gay magazine's awards ceremony! "But they aren't the same thing!" I hear heteronormative folks scream (especially those who think us gays are nothing but fluffy desexualised little bunnies here for their amusement).

Please do tell me how Attitude Magazine ISN'T sexualising, objectifying and, if you believe the rubbish about sexualisation of adults, "dehumanising" models (NSFW links follow, which I think says a lot!) here or, even more so, here. The front page headline "McFly Go Frat Party Wild" is, of course, a sign of the world of difference between Attitude and Nuts "Real Girls Of Sports Undressed".

Now this isn't to say I'm criticising Attitude magazine. I used to be an avid "reader", but our politics have drawn quite far apart and I don't read it anymore. It serves a purpose for part of our community, just as lad's mags serves a purpose for some young heterosexual and bisexual men (and a few lesbian or bisexual women).

The Co-Operative must be quite right. Their move against lad's mags is not a puritanical campaign (though it has puritanical outcomes), it is instead an ill-thought out move against certain depictions of women with no thought given to why the same sort of depictions of men aren't also treated in the same way. Many supporters of lad's mags state they just want to protect their children from early sexualisation. But they never seem to worry about their kids getting sexualised by gay mags. Funny that... almost as if they haven't really thought this all through....

Student Unions Opposing Atheist Freedom Of Expression

Students just aren't what they used to be. Maybe they never were the rebellious, course work shy, last minute crammers stereotypes portray. I remember my brief stint at university being fairly memorable, involving the removal of bras in record time (undefeated champion, I'll have you know) and a disturbing game known only as "Nervous". Good times, good times. 

Alas such fun seems completely beyond the comprehension of the stony faced union enforcers who rule at fresher's fairs. 

Last year the University of Reading's Atheist, Humanist and Secularist Society was kicked out of their fresher's fair for naming a pineapple Mohammed. It is hardly the most sophisticated way to start a conversation but I can see what they were aiming for. But they didn't just provoke a debate about blasphemy, they were basically accused of it (blasphemy is showing contempt for that which is held as holy which, by definition, upsets believers and the RAHSS was accused of upsetting people). The Reading University Student Union has now forced out the RAHSS by attempting to get them to agree to not upset anyone ever again ("Just shut up you blasphemers!"). 

Meanwhile, in another rather unsophisticated move, the LSE atheist group decided to wear "Jesus and Mo" t-shirts to their fresher's fair this year. I find the Jesus and Mo cartoon strips pretty boring and don't really see the attraction. But different strokes for different folks and all that. Well it hasn't gone down too well. Even when they covered up the t-shirts with censored stickers today they appear to have been intimidated by student union officials and security whilst leaving the fair.  

Having your beliefs insulted isn't nice. We all accept that, and understand it. But having my relationship dismissed and insulted by other's beliefs is also not very nice. That is the world we live in, one where grown ups have to put up with some people not being nice. We can moan about it, shout about it, but silencing others just because you don't like what they say isn't a sign of a healthy free society. It is the sign of a disturbing authoritarian mindset that is creeping into a lot of "progressive" thought (again).

One Law For All's excellent document "Siding with the Oppressor" shows how the left are starting to move from preaching tolerance for all beliefs into actively siding with the more extreme wing of Islam over pretty much everyone else (including Muslims and ex-Muslims alike). 

Thankfully Maryam Namazie isn't going to let the LSE just ban free speech without at least a token fight, and will be attend a debate on the burqa there on the 15th of October in a Jesus and Mo t-shirt. I hope there will many people there to support her.  

When Did LGBT Folk Become The People We Hated?

Last month marked 36 years since Mary Whitehouse took Gay News to court for publishing a blasphemous poem. 29 years ago Gays The Word was raided for obscene materials. Right now attempts to filter the internet and ban "sexualised" images in public are likely to lead to more attempts to stifle free speech by LGBT people (see, for example, the way mobile phone companies block legitimate LGBT websites). 

We've been fighting for freedom for decades. I'm thankful, very thankful, to those who came before me that I came of age in a time when things have been less difficult (the only really homophobic incident I can think of is having stones thrown at me for holding hands with my then boyfriend). But even so the history of the struggle still influences the way I think. 

Unfortunately this history of oppression, for daring to say and do things of which mainstream society didn't approve, has singularly failed to stop some LGBT people becoming just as EVIL (and I do not use that word lightly, but use it I must) as Christians ever were (and are). 

We've had cases for the last ten years or so of preachers being harassed and arrested by police for doing things of which mainstream society does not approve. Be it speaking in public (Adrian Tippetts brilliantly defends the right of Tony Miano to be horrid in public here), leafleting (Stephen Green, shudder) or emailing (see the latest instance involving Alan Clifford here) it would seem religious nutters are getting a bit of a hard time. 

Anti-gay public speaking is offensive, to me at least. I remember one particular instance of a guy with a megaphone in Trafalgar Square that left me so angry and hurt that he could say such things in public. But I didn't do anything because I believe in live and let live (and the looks on the faces of the many other random people in Trafalgar Square showed me his message was not winning any hearts and minds, quite the opposite in fact). 

We have suffered police interference in our freedoms for many, many years. We should be standing side by side with anyone suffering similarly. But, as it would seem with the Alan Clifford issue, it is now LGBT people colluding with the silencing, shaming and persecution (for even though this is not quite at the levels of persecution faced by Christians elsewhere it is persecution nonetheless) of others. 

I remember when the LGBT group at a company I worked with was chastised by the company after a gay employee reported us for using the word "queer". When I attended the next meeting everyone was deeply apologetic towards this person (who had never, and did never, attend a single meeting of our group). I never attended another meeting, finding this cowardice in the face of idiocy to be too much to bear. When did we become the bad guys? When did we think that policing other people's thoughts and speech was in anyway acceptable? 

I understand the hurt these people cause. I really do. They deserve to be shunned by society and ignored by decent people everywhere. But we cannot silence them because we don't like what they say. The way to beat them is to defeat their arguments and win over more people to the side of sanity. 

I've spoken of the boot being on the other foot now. We've won so many battles that the power truly is in the hands of those on our side. But we must remember what the boot felt like from the receiving end and never use it. 

We have an opportunity to show just how superior we are to those who killed, persecuted and hurt LGBT people over the last few centuries. We can be the better people. We must be the better people. 

If that means I stand in support of Alan Clifford, anti-gay hatemonger that he is, then so be it. Freedom isn't just for those we agree with. It isn't just for us. It cannot be. Don't let us become the people we hated. 

2013 Britain Is Not East Germany But...

Let us not kid ourselves. We are not living in the world of 1984. We are not in a position to cry out for freedom as if we're being oppressed. Though it is easy to compare our western civilisation to German Democratic Republic, such a direct comparison is an insult to the true horrors inflicted upon some East Germans by the GDR, such as Miriam in Anna Funder's heartrending book "Stasiland: Stories from Behind the Berlin Wall" who was arrested as a teenager for putting up posters against the regime, who tried to flee across the wall but was captured and imprisoned and who, once released, met and then lost the love of her life, Charlie, as he was arrested and possibly murdered.

We are not there yet. But East Germany does stand as an example of the terror of state intrusion into the private sphere, the malignance of the bloated bureaucracy needed to carry out that intrusion and the stifling of the free press, free movement and free expression of a people "for their own good".

Caron Lindsay rightly asks why our Government is still using the authoritarian parts of Labour's Terrorism Act in the wake of the David Miranda arrest. Perhaps more concerning is the recent raid on the Guardian's offices (and I'm not fan of the Guardian these days) to destroy hard drives held there.

Our Government is attempting to get Internet Service Providers to auto-filter content on the internet. For now we'll be able to ask that the filtered material is shown. Again this is a cause for concern, another little thing that (like the Terrorism Act) could be used in unintended (and possibly harmful) ways.

The treatment of such dangerous people as trainspotters and photographers, the attempts to silence the press, the detention (briefly or more long-term) of innocent (or as we now call them "suspect") people are deeply worrying indicators of the health of our liberty. We must rally against these intrusions, especially where they are shown to have no benefit. How many trainspotters have been found guilty of terrorism? How many photographers have turned out to be doing recon for Al-Qaeda? What stories has the Guardian printed that, other than being a offense to good taste and right thinking, have threatened anything other than the reputation of certain US government agencies?

We must ask more questions like this. We must question the accepted narrative of the anti-terrorism laws. We must fight against Government overreach.

We are not East Germany. Let's keep it that way.

Lose The Lad's Mags Is Heteronormative!

I hate the word heteronormative. Like "trigger warning" and "privilege", it rubs me up the wrong way. I did use it, very reluctantly, in my last post and it even rubbed me up the wrong way then. It does, however, sometimes serve a purpose.

Why, oh why, am I talking about a word that I really don't want to use? Because of this blog post from a supporter of the "Lose the Lad's Mags" campaign.  It argues that "lad's mags" are heteronormative. I have to say in opposition that the blog post itself, and the entire "Lose the Lad's Mags" campaign is heteronormative. I argued last post that feminism can be very heteronormative and here we have a very clear example.

1) Not discussing, and laughing off any attempt to discuss, the covers and content of gay magazines within the overall debate IS heteronormative.

At this point in the argument defenders of the campaign state that gay magazines are nothing like "lad's mags" and the content is far more coherent than that your average copy of Nuts (agreed!), but this undermines two arguments the campaign use.

i) that the covers of "lad's mags" aren't acceptable viewing material for children (an argument that totally ignores the "sexist" content)

and

ii) the covers of lad's mags are demeaning to women working and shopping in places that sell them and could constitute sexual harassment. This is the main thrust of the legal argument Lose the Lad's Mags are using!

So yes we do need to discuss gay mags if simply because their covers are often just as sexual as lad's mags and should absolutely be treated in the same way as them.

2) The blog post insists on referring to lad's mags as porn (and finds the only reason one would not want to censor them is because men "need to access porn in a supermarket.", which again ignores the women and non-heterosexual men defending lad's mags [a heteronormative assumption if ever I've seen one]) and asks if porn is allowed in supermarkets where is all the gay porn?

I have to wonder at this point if the writer thinks gay men buy the Naked issues of Attitude and Gay Times just for the travel, fashion and music sections. Does the writer think that these magazines are "safe" because the writer thinks gay men are "safe"? The implications of considering half naked women to be porn but not the Naked issues of gay magazines are horrendous. It speaks to the "gay men aren't real men" meme and desexualises gay men. That is heteronormativity.

3) The post completely ignores the fact that bisexual men (and anecdotally I've seen bisexual/lesbian women mention this too) also read lad's mags. It is not just heterosexual men who read these magazines.

The post also then criticises how bland the range of sexuality offered by lad's mags is and then dismisses the idea that any other sort of sexuality should be allowed in a magazine either! No sexuality allowed in the supermarket, thank you very much. We should also remove condoms and lube from the lower shelves too.

The sanitisation and desexualisation of society continues. Puritans will obviously be overjoyed to hear of this. But as has been shown before, such efforts often have terrible results, especially against us sexual minorities. And it doesn't get much more heteronormative than that!

Why I Am Not A Feminist

I'm nobody special so there shall be no profound truths, and no reinventing of the wheel, here. But I felt it was time to write up why I personally disassociate myself from the word "feminist".

It isn't easy. I support women's liberation. When I say women's liberation, I mean total freedom. Freedom from the need to conform to other's demands, freedom to choose who they associate with, what activities they partake in, what career they choose. Of course freedom doesn't mean any of us get what we want (life is never that simple) but we should have the chance at least.

What does that mean in practice? It means that I support the right to choose. Not just on abortion (abortion is something I personally struggle with; a woman's right to choose is not) but also if a woman wishes to choose to be a stay at home mum, all power to her. If she wants to get involved in sex work, then so be it. If she wants to fly to the Moon and be bloody super awesome, then Hell yes.

In short I want for women what I want for myself (and all men). The right to be individuals, with their own personal wants, needs and dreams.

I just don't see feminism as supporting that. Over the last few weeks I've seen self-described feminists say that women don't have the right to choose to work as models (of the "glamour" variety, although I've always thought it must be way more glamourous not to be a glamour model and instead to be someone, well, glamourous). This is because, supposedly, such work is not good for society as a whole. I am disturbed by this argument which seems to be a rehash of the very worst of the pro-life arguments. By arguing from "the greatest good" position, feminism is simply splitting hairs with "traditionalists" (for want of a better term and to avoid insulting people with more puerile terms) over what women should be allowed to do.

I've also seen it said that feminism will "liberate" men from their stereotypical roles. What this really means is that feminism wants men to NOT do anything those "stereotypes" represent and that feminism has no intention of allowing the freedom for men to choose not to conform (or conform if they wish!). This isn't liberation. That is like freeing some political prisoners (consisting of a few conservatives, a few liberals, lots of communists and a Monster Raving Loony party member) and then telling them they must now conform to one political worldview from now on and declaring this to be a "liberation". Truly the gay rights movement and the concurrent metrosexual revolution has done far more to liberate men from conformity in the last 20 years (although seems like there is a new conformity forming, damn it) than feminism has managed in 50.

Feminism is heteronormative. Studies on porn and lad's mags and their effects on men and women tend to completely overlook the use of gay porn and gay magazines by men and women. I've had feminists tell me that the reason for this is because the historic subjugation of women makes a man sexualising a woman quite a different thing to a man sexualising a man. That it does. Thus it must be something far more complicated in society than the sexualisation of others that causes the just concerns feminists have. The argument that sexism is endemic in society just makes me want to shout "I know!" and remonstrate forcefully with the person making that argument to show them that ergo their attempts to ban porn and lad's mags are attacking not even symptoms let alone the cause of sexism in society. Heteronormativity is hardly a new thing in feminism, it has been going on for many years.

Feminism is too much dogma and not enough facts. Feminists are keen to point out studies that suggest lad's mags sound like rapists (but not enough like rapists to stop men from choosing to identify in a blind test more often with comments by rapists than lad's mags, sounds like lad's mags might be restraining men rather than the other way round!) but don't present evidence that banning lad's mags (and/or porn) has had a positive effect in other societies. Some evidence certainly suggests the effects are anything but good for many of us. Calls for them to rethink don't just come from "men who just want their porn", they come from women who want their sexual freedom. It is a similar, but even more lopsided, problem when it comes to feminist views on prostitution.

And a surprisingly large number of feminists are transphobic.

I know what you are going to say: Jason, there is more than one flavour of feminism. Sex-positive feminism! Don't tar everyone with the same brush. I accept that my use of the word feminist above does tarnish everyone with the same brush. I know lots of people who describe themselves as feminist who wouldn't share any (or at least a majority) of the beliefs above. But the problem is that, to me, feminism as a concept has become tarnished. I don't think feminists are evil. I think they have some very worthy aims. But I believe that the methods and ideology that are used to get to the feminist "utopia" are not justified and will ultimately fail.

Ultimately feminism divides people, fails to speak up for 50% of the population (at least) so can hardly be considered "liberating" and relies too much on a puritanical certainty that some things are inherently bad. It ignores individual choice, and fights against women's right to choose how to live their lives.

So no, I'm not a feminist.

Important Question Of The Week: How Much Cleavage Is Too Much? #losetheladsmags

Some of the things I say below do not actually reflect my opinions. I don't feel I need to point out which bits... 

So as Lose The Lad's Mags campaign makes advances ahead of their 24th August action day it is time to start asking some important questions. These apply regardless of whether we're talking about the "modesty bag" solution favoured by the Co-Op and Tesco or the full on ban on lad's mags proposed by the campaign.

1. How much cleavage is too much? 

As we look to the future and the possibility (though slim given the falling popularity and circulation figures of magazines) that a new magazine may come out that is found by some to be as equally onerous as a "lad's mag", we must consider what criteria we use to decide whether it is acceptable for normal sale or needs to be restricted.

What level of cleavage is acceptable? How much of a leg can be shown? Who is the judge of this criteria? What are their motives? Will we need some sort of new organisation to review magazines before they go on sale to make sure they are within the guidelines? Will the women in the photographs be asked for their opinion? Will these criteria be equally applied to all magazines like Cosmo etc or is it only certain magazines?

2. When does the Lose The Gay Mags campaign begin? 

"As a male I would prefer a more positive image of women in the media, where they are equal to men" #whyisigned #losetheladsmags
— UK Feminista (@UK_Feminista) August 6, 2013

Well they aren't really equal to men unless similarly sexualised images of men, as contained in most editions of Gay Times and Attitude (and especially in their Naked specials), are treated in the same way. Though, in my personal opinion, they also contain some brilliant articles they are heavily sexualised publications (just check out the back of Gay Times) and promote a poor body image to young gay guys (if you think along those lines).

If sexualised images of women cause men to be more likely to physically or sexually abuse women, then surely the same must apply to gay men. Thus such magazines should be controlled as well. Any suggestion otherwise would surely be a form of anti-gay prejudice on a couple of levels:

i) young gay guys aren't in need of protection of the display of sexualised images of men when girls are.
ii) suggests gay men aren't as "dangerous" as straight men which, though in our favour, is a way of saying gay guys aren't "real men"

So don't be homophobes, ban gay mags too!

3. With a focus on such images are we to extend the same requirements we decide in question 1 to all forms of media and beyond?

So if sexualised images of women aren't allowed on magazines, will we extend the requirements to cover or remove such images to newspapers, the internet (a really tough version of the Great Firewall of Cameron?), advertising (just as some Muslim men take to blacktaping over adverts), television (Baywatch!) and beyond?

Will women need to cover up in public? Now that we've established that it is the way that women dress and look that causes sexism, violence and a whole host of other evils (victim blaming of the highest order) surely we need to enforce standards of dress in public? No bikinis, no short skirts. The basic "women are asking for it" sort of stuff, right? Just to be on the safe side.

4. As we've now decided women don't get to do what they wish with their bodies or choose their career freely, what else can't a woman choose? 

Wannabe topless models pleading to save the Lads Mags from extinction cos without them they'll have no future job.A career at Greggs awaits.
— Warren Hall (@MrLasso) August 4, 2013

No modelling, no sex work. If we accept these are things that women shouldn't be able to choose (and I'd hope you feel the same about men) then I wonder what else we might need to restrict for the greater good? Many Christians have, in the last few days, joined the battle on social media to help lose the lad's mags. I'm sure they could think of one or two things that women shouldn't be able to do.

5. What will be the standard for success? 

As with any initiative, we must have a goal. When will we celebrate the defeat of the lad's mags? When we notice a related drop in rapes against women or domestic violence? When women break through the glass ceiling of a business thanks to the evil magazines being removed? We need to know so we can scientifically check the results. Because this campaign isn't about dogma but real, detectable improvements in the quality of women's lives, isn't it?*

*unless said women rely on or wish to be modelling

Down With This Sort Of Thing! From Slut Walks To The Magazine Burqa

Remember the SlutWalks?

"You know, I think we're beating around the bush here," said Toronto Police Constable Michael Sanguinetti "I've been told I'm not supposed to say this - however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised."

Those words unleashed a wave of angry protests by women and men eager to show that what a person wears does not excuse (or encourage) rape. The responsibility for sexual violence is on the perpetrator and not the victim. These empowering and, from a marketing standpoint, very successful marches certainly got the message across.

The idea that women’s clothing has some bearing on whether they will be raped is a dangerous myth feminists have tried to debunk for decades. Despite all the activism and research, however, the cultural misconception prevails.

So said Jessica Valenti. I very much agree with her. There seemed to be a shift in feminism towards the empowerment of women to be who they wished to be and to dress how they wished to dress. Critical voices (about how dressing in this way was only playing into the hands of men) were in the minority. Freedom was just around the corner (with a lot of work still to go on reducing sexual violence of course but it seemed like a new dawn of actual equality was coming).

Alas. What a difference a couple of years make. Gone is the belief that women should look and dress how they wish without fear.

"the 'lads mags' targeted at young male readers typically feature highly sexualised images of women that blur the lines between pornography and mainstream media. At the same time, they promote an idea of male sexuality as based on power and aggression, depicting women as sex objects and including articles that feature strategies for manipulating women."

Cover up girls. Ok so it doesn't actually imply that. But... Here is what Object has to say about a woman's right to choose to appear in "revealing" clothing (or lack thereof) on camera (rather than in public).

Mainstream media outlets glamorise the ‘porn star’ life. For example even though much research shows that prostitution is overwhelming abusive and exploitative, the media friendly story is still one of the ‘Belle du Jour’ fantasy of a successful and glamorous call girl. Instead of showing the realities of lap dancing, page 3 or prostitution, the media focuses on discussions on women’s choice to participate in the sex industry.  

Actually, the issue of choice is complex. We have to look at all the factors which influence our choices, including the way that the media and popular culture glamorises the sex industry. Even if we could establish that it truly was a genuine and empowering choice of a woman to go into one of these industries, the harmful impact that their normalisation has on society makes the issue much bigger than one of individual choice.

So women, you don't get a choice. You have been brainwashed. You must comply. Surely this applies to the SlutWalkers too? They have been socialised into believing it is okay to dress the way they did but really they need to cover up as they are just doing what men really want?

If a woman is depicted in a sexualised manner in photos and text and this leads to sexism and higher rates of sexual violence (as some have been arguing over Lose the Lad's Mags) then logically women who dress in, and I'm not suggesting I accept this description in anyway, what could also be perceived to be a sexualised manner then this surely only plays into the hands of the patriarchy and leads to an increase in sexism in society at large. Ergo women should not just be covered up and treated in a non-sexualised way in photos and text BUT in meatspace too. 

Of course the argument against this will be that women in magazines are NOT making a positive decision to be depicted the way they are (which obviously denies the self-awareness and individual freedom of the women in those pictures) whereas women on the street are (even though Object have clearly shown above that this may not be the case). 

Meanwhile... Tesco have restricted purchasing Zoo and the like for the over 18s only. Don't worry gays... they've confirmed there are no age limits on Gay Times. See men have the right to dress and behave as they wish. Phew!

Not sexualised in any way. 

Are The Drewitt-Barlow's Striking A Blow For Equality Or Fighting Against Religious Liberty?

Though they have mentioned this before it would appear that the Drewitt-Barlow's, regulars on day time television and same-sex parenting pioneers, really are going to sue the Church of England in order to enable them to marry in a CofE church.

Among a certain kind of Twitter user this has already evoked the reaction one would expect. Not only are there grumpy statements of "we knew this would happen" but some are already acting as if the Drewitt-Barlow's have won the case and churches all over the country are now being forced to marry people they don't want to.

To them I'd say: hold your horses! One lawsuit doesn't make a persecution. Maybe express your opposition and wait and see the outcome before becoming convinced the world is out to get you. Some Christians don't just wear a cross, they carry it on their back and act like they are being marched off to their crucifixion. Do they want to build a coalition with those who want to protect them or just be all self-pitying? I'm guessing the latter.

Meanwhile back in the real world. I've no doubt that Tony and Barrie Drewitt-Barlow sincerely wish to get married in their local church. And I've no doubt they sincerely believe it is their right, especially given the onerous fact that we have an established church in this country who previously had the requirement of marrying anyone in their parish (within reason). But I also believe they are wrong to be pursuing change within the Church of England in this manner.

Forcing people to do things against their wishes (unless they are taking our money without our own free choice of who gets it, i.e. Government employees) goes against the spirit of what the LGBT rights movement has worked for throughout its life. And if you don't agree with that then try: I personally think it goes against the spirit of what the LGBT rights movement should have been working for. The right to choose freely, the right to be true to yourself, the right to live in peace. These are cherished things all reasonable people should support.

Change must come from within anti-LGBT religious organisations. As an atheist I've little interest in changing what a church supports. But I'd hope that if you were interested in that sort of thing, you'd do so from the inside. The Church of England has procedures for change, though these work at a similar speed to cooling lava I accept, and it is through these procedures (as the Government has suggested) that changes such as supporting same-sex marriage should be made.

Forcing an organisation to accept something they don't wish to risks creating a martyr complex, and many Christians have a big enough one of those already. Suing the church is bad for the church (as it doesn't come to terms with the change through internal debate), bad for LGBT rights (as we become the bad guys) and bad for freedom in general. If we are to have the freedom to love who we wish, then we must allow others the freedom to worship as they wish.

Have we not learnt anything from those who despise us on how to be better people than them?

The Last Time Puritans Were In The Ascendant, It Didn't Go Too Well For Us Gays

I thought we'd won. The same-sex marriage debates showed the impotency of the old right-wingers, those stalwarts who opposed every happy thought and every freedom. We were free, free at last!

But the forces of conservatism come in many guises and whilst we were defeating the elderly conservative contingent, the right-on feminist contingent snuck in the back door and started agitating with "Down With This Sort Of Thing" placards.

David Cameron, that "liberal conservative" Stonewall were swooning over the other week, has reiterated his support for a "porn filter" which will filter more than just porn and should be better know as the Great Firewall of Cameron. Meanwhile Labour MPs and liberal journalists have spearheaded a campaign to get a "Report Abuse" button added to Twitter (which shall itself become a form of abuse in no time at all). And the Lose The Lad's Mags campaign has convinced the Co-Op to demand lad's mags self-censor or be dumped.

What does this have to do with an adult homosexual who isn't abusive on Twitter? Well I see such moves as preliminary movements in a general anti-sex and anti-freedom campaign. Real problems, such as rape, are being used to frown upon modern sexual freedom in general. Missing from that article were "Girls please don't drink, it leads to sin" and "Girls, stay away from parties and wait until you are married". But they pretty much went without saying.

The Nationwide Festival of Light was organised by known homophobes, such as Mary Whitehouse, as an ultimately unsuccessful campaign against "sexploitation" and violence in the media. Whitehouse later went on to sue the Gay News for publishing The Love That Dares to Speak its Name (she won). Her legacy waned with the poor leadership of Christian organisations but is renewed under new "liberal" leadership.

I'm not the only one to link Mary Whitehouse to modern campaigns.

"And, although the political assumptions underlying their quickness to take offence might be very different (the individual foot soldiers of this latter-day green biro brigade would certainly be alarmed to look in the mirror and see those familiar horn-rimmed glasses staring back at them), are the mobs of angry Tweeters who patrol our cultural landscape in search of a word said or written out of turn really anything other than Whitehouse’s digital inheritors?"

So I look with concern at any moves backwards towards a time when women had to cover up and everyone had to watch what they said. Gay men didn't fair too well under such regimes.

Not only was our poetry found unsuitable, but our book shops were raided and the number of men we had sex with at any one time was policed. Do you think "magazine shields" won't be used against depictions of gay relationships? Don't you remember how past internet filters had a bias against LGBT websites (naughty or nice!)?

It is time to prepare ourselves for the puritan's next steps. We won't be too far down the list, although our old allies like the trans folk and sex workers will probably still get it in the neck well before we do. Then it'll be our turn. Our Tumblr posts, our tweets, our magazines, our sexual habits. They'll be demanding we all wait until marriage for sex (now the same-sex marriage bill has passed), and give us disapproving looks if we lust after hotties. It is already happening, talk of eating disorders caused by representations of muscular men and the like.

Sigh. There I was planning for the rest of the decade and suddenly I'm right back in the 80s. Damn it!

 

Are Women Unable To Be Trusted To Make The Right Decisions?

I've been brought up by my Nan and my Mum to believe women are my equals. I work in an overwealmingly female workplace (and industry). The people I know personally who I most admire are all women. But the messages I've been getting from feminists over the last weekend seem to be completely at odds with my beliefs.

What do I mean? Well it seems "young girls" (for which read 18 year old women) aren't capable of making decisions about what to do for work until they are 21. Doesn't anyone think this infantalises women somewhat? Are you really saying that a 20 year old man doesn't have the ability to choose whether to get photographed naked (as Chris Mears, not a model, did recently)? Because you must think that is unacceptable if a 20 year old woman couldn't choose the same thing.

Some feminists are saying women don't actually have the capacity to choose because of their socialisation and the fact that an individuals right to choose is trumped by society.

 • But what if it’s a woman’s choice to be glamour models or lap dancers?  

Mainstream media outlets glamorise the ‘porn star’ life. For example even though much research shows that prostitution is overwhelming abusive and exploitative, the media friendly story is still one of the ‘Belle du Jour’ fantasy of a successful and glamorous call girl. Instead of showing the realities of lap dancing, page 3 or prostitution, the media focuses on discussions on women’s choice to participate in the sex industry. 

Actually, the issue of choice is complex. We have to look at all the factors which influence our choices, including the way that the media and popular culture glamorises the sex industry. Even if we could establish that it truly was a genuine and empowering choice of a woman to go into one of these industries, the harmful impact that their normalisation has on society makes the issue much bigger than one of individual choice.

The pro-life activists out there just nodded in agreement.

Homosexuality and male objectification really throw a spanner in the works of these arguments. To accept that women are unable to make a conscious, fully aware decision to work in the sex industry, porn or as a glamour model, one must hold that either:

1) People such as Zeb Atlas are also unable to make this decision. He's a straight man who does gay porn. If men and women are equal and sex work is always (or mostly) exploitative, he must be a victim too.

or

2) Men and women are inherently unequal and that men can choose this for themselves but women (for some unknown reason) do not have the ability to do so. 

Perhaps there are other options, rendering this a false narrative, but I really cannot accept either one of the above proposals. Men are quite capable of choosing to flaunt their bodies for the pleasure of others as a job without being victims (which is not saying some aren't, nothing is so black and white). And, I believe, women are equal to men and thus also quite capable of making informed choices about their lives (whilst some may well be exploited). 

I've spoken before about the lad's mags issue but it has reared its head again with the Co-op threatening to drop them unless they "cover up" in some sort of magazine burqa. Why not Attitude and Gay Times? Do they consider heterosexuality more "dangerous"? Or do they just think women should be covered up but men can flaunt their body all they like? I'd go as far to suggest that by treating male homosexuality as "safe" in comparison they are being somewhat homophobic. I know that seems a bit topsy turvy ("Oppress me please!") but sometimes I find some "right on" people think us gays are all safe and cuddly and desexualised. Really we are just as sexual as any other man. 

I'm never, ever going to stop fighting for the individual. The right to choose how you live your life is paramount. I believe women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. More importantly, I believe women have the capacity to choose what to do with their bodies. Can we please stop acting as if women are delicate little flowers who don't know what is good for them? It is extremely patronising and if you think men get the wrong messages from porn, can you imagine what messages boys are picking up from some of the arguments I've pointed out above? 

UK Sleepwalking Into Censorship? More Like Running Into It At Full Pelt

We do not live in a free country. We all know that. Our libel laws are ridiculous. Our freedom of speech is curtailed should we be "offensive". We live under the gaze of corporate and Government officials. Even some websites are blocked. But we can at least try to hold on to some of the freedom we do have; we aren't Saudi Arabia or China after all.

But won't somebody think of the children? Every debate seems to revolve around those special transient state human beings under the age of 16. Marriage equality was bad because "children need a mother and a father" (we all saw what happened to Lot's daughters after their Mum died after all). And an open internet is bad because children might see things they shouldn't. And when we say "see things they shouldn't" we don't necessarily mean "what their parents or their future informed selves wouldn't want them to look at" but rather we mean "what the Government and ISPs have decided they shouldn't look at".

And we aren't talking about just porn here. Much has been said about how David Cameron's anti-porn filters will not work (and that the case that porn is harmful is still not firmly made). But more needs to be said about how these are not just porn filters. These opt-out filters will almost certainly default filter things from websites about suicide and self-harm through to "extremist material". Who will decide what constitutes extremist material? I find a book that discusses incest, murder, genocide, praises family breakdowns and proscribes execution for the smallest of crimes very distasteful and extremist. But are ISPs really going to block the Bible? Will Scientology websites be blocked? Or Greenpeace? Will the Rapture Ready forums be off limits? Or Queerty? Where will the line be draw and will it be fixed or ever changing?

Isn't it optional though? Yes of course it is. For people like me it'll be optional. Sure we'll then appear on some list at an ISP somewhere and the police will occasionally check whether a "person of interest" has his/her filters on or off as a way of deciding whether to investigate further (because it'll be a sign they are up to no good of course!). But it is optional. Will it be optional for women with controlling husbands? Or for men with overbearing wives? Will it be optional for kids in a religious household? Will it be optional in web cafes? Will it be optional in houseshares or when you are renting a room which comes with wi-fi? "Oh could you remove the filters for me?" will be regarded as "I wish to do something very naughty online". Who is going to ask it in anything other than the most open relationships and friendships? The Governments continued conflation of child abuse pictures, simulated rape imagery and porn does nothing but shame those who just want the Government to leave our internet alone and hardly promotes an honest conversation in the home.

I said 3 years ago when this was first proposed that porn was the litmus test of freedom. Sadly I didn't have the foresight to see that the Government wouldn't be satisfied with just porn. This isn't even a slippery slope argument... these extra options will go live with the porn filters.

As a Lib Dem I'm very, very ashamed that these proposals have come from a Government containing members of the party. And I'm equally saddened to see so many social conservatives who've spent the last year moaning about their freedom of speech suddenly so enthusiastic about censorship. Well when I say "saddened" I mean "unsurprised and slightly amused". They are predictable buggers.

UKIP Aren't Just Wrong On #EqualMarriage, They Are Very Confused

***Edit, I have since carried out further research showing UKIP's legal argument regarding the ECHR is completely without merit. See here***

I have a great deal of respect for the libertarian position on marriage, a position Steve Baker MP has written about before. Indeed, I was only writing last post about my own dilemma in both supporting equal marriage and wanting Government out of the whole business. So take it as read that I hold no animosity towards those who stand back from the marriage equality debate for some related ideological consideration (be they anti-marriage queer radicals, or purist right-wing libertarians).

I even have respect for those who oppose equal marriage because it goes against their personal beliefs. Do not think I don't understand where you are coming from even if I think you are completely wrong and that attempting to enforce your beliefs on my relationship isn't something I find endearing.

But there is one anti-equality argument that I cannot put up with. It is the hypocritical "faux-libertarian" argument most typically spouted by UKIP supporters. I've dealt with this before in a rather light-hearted look at David Coburn's Pink News article back in March (my commentary can be found here). When, earlier this month, UKIP released their latest comments on their marriage equality policy I didn't feel the need to elaborate further but today I've seen David Coburn and others using his article and his sexuality to defend that same policy. That, I felt, needed a response.

They start their 15th November 2012 post bigging up their libertarian credentials with the bizarre comment that this is why they support civil partnerships. Civil partnerships are a Government issued contract and are in no way "libertarian"!

They then summarise the Government's current proposals (which may change shortly, I admit) to only legislate on equal civil marriage. They rightly point out that many LGBT people are religious and may find these proposals unsatisfactory and may even take the case to the courts to allow them to marry in religious premises. This I understand completely, and suspect it is quite likely that a couple may well do this in these circumstances and probably with the support of Liberal Judaism, Unitarians and the Quakers.

That is when they make a few leaps of logic and assumption without providing evidence.

1) They suggest that this hypothetical court case would lead to the Government FORCING churches to marry same-sex couples. 

That is quite a leap indeed, surely you would think that if the case was successful the Government is more likely to open up religious marriage equality whilst allowing continued protection for the dissenting religious organisations? Personally, based on fact that "civil marriage" is more an imaginary concept than a legal one I suspect the Government may well include provisions allowing this in the original legislation.

2) This being UKIP, they suggest these authoritarian changes would be foisted on the country by the evil European Court of Human Rights. 

I quote:

We believe that, give.n (sic)  the current nature of the European Court of Human Rights' attitude to such matters, there is a very strong likelihood that the Court at Strasbourg will agree that it is an unlawful discrimination on those grounds and order the United Kingdom to introduce laws which will force Churches to marry gay people according to their rites, rituals and customs.

Hmm... what are the current attitudes of the ECHR towards equal marriage? They do not feel the need to compel countries to give marriage rights to LGBT people. Channel 4's FactCheck does a good summary on this. They are right to point out that several European countries have introduced equal marriage and there has be no similar legal case as predicted by UKIP. It's all pointless speculating and only serves to remind us that the law should be carefully written to protect religious liberty (for both those who want to marry same-sex couples and those who don't).

3) UKIP then express shock at suggestion Government might ban religious organisations from marrying same-sex couples.

If the Government has it in mind to forbid Churches from marrying gay people, that would be a monstrous piece of tyranny: let Churches and faiths decide for themselves.

Don't tell UKIP this as they might faint, but that is the current situation! Allowing Churches and faiths to decide for themselves involves giving them the legal right to marry same-sex couples but not forcing them to use it. This sort of mind-bending logic really does make me wonder who wrote this policy and whether it is more from opportunism than belief in opposing equal marriage.

After this they continue to moan and speculate about how evil forcing churches to marry same-sex couples would be. Based on no evidence. Nothing. Nada. Oh and then they say "It is not a priority" (put a pound in the "Overused Argument" jar please).

It is a policy that flies in the face of libertarianism, lacks critical thinking and appears to be written by someone who doesn't really oppose equal marriage but just wants to appeal to people who do. It is extremely hypocritical for UKIP to complain about the Government not allowing religious organisations to marry same-sex couples at the same time as opposing equal marriage. It is a conflicting and hastily written piece.

Coincidentally it was published not long before UKIP's Croydon North candidate Winston Mackenzie and their leader Nigel Farage made the issue part of the Croydon North by-election. Shame on them.

UKIP need to make a decision. They need to do one of three things:

1) oppose marriage equality completely on the basis that same-sex relationships are "different" to opposite-sex ones
2) step back from the debate and make a libertarian case for marriage reform.
3) embrace marriage equality as a marker on the long road to liberty.

Their current policy shows them up as exploitative, ideologically dodgy politicians of the worst kind.

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

On #equalmarriage I'm Totally Two-Faced

I've always been open about the fact that I unexpectedly fell into supporting marriage equality. Labour pissed me off. There I was happily being all radically queer in my early twenties and along they came and instituted civil partnerships. At the time I found the idea of marriage to be cold and dreary, yet Labour had some how managed to make formalised same sex relationships seem even more so! I wasn't going to put up with that.

And that was how I went from someone who couldn't even conceive of marriage as being part of his future to being someone who devoted way too much of 2010 to bugging people about getting the right to get married. I've obviously mellowed in my old age.

Sometimes I get so caught up in monitoring the arguments, spreading news and insulting Labour that I forget about what I really want. I was thinking about that on the way to work the other day. Personally, I don't really feel the need for Government affirmation of my relationship to my beloved Jim. I am, and this may surprise you Dear Constant Reader, an old romantic when it comes to the concept of marriage. To me it is more important that Jim and I believe we are married. Even though I'm certainly not Christian any longer and I've, with reluctance, left my pagan ways behind me, I'd love a sweet little ceremony somewhere with family and friends. But it doesn't need to be led by any official figure.

In fact, and this is where I get controversial, I find the concept of the Government and institutions giving married partners benefits above and beyond what single and unmarried couples get a bit disturbing. I want the Government out of relationships entirely. People should be free to associate, contract with and love whomever they wish (or to not do any of those things). Marriage should be something people and organisations sort out themselves for whatever purpose they want it for. They can be married in their own eyes, in the eyes of others or in the eyes of their God(s).

I've dealt with this before, and explained why I still fight for equal marriage. But I do always feel very two-faced. It helps that anti-equality activists often use arguments against romance to defend their policies. They often believe marriage between one man and one woman is a "social good" and this is why it alone deserves Government backing. This keeps me on the straight and narrow and reminds me that the fight for equal marriage is one that's pushes back against such an authoritarian understanding of Government. I do not want a Government that decides to reward one group over another. Government should be there only to arbitrate disputes, defend property and persons against attack and support those who really can't support themselves. It is not there to socially engineer a utopia and especially not one particular version of utopia.

I'm in too deep to hold myself aloft from what a younger version of me might have considered a petty skirmish. When marriage equality becomes reality I may well shed tears and I will most certainly, Jim willing, head down to our local registry office to formalise our relationship. It shall be a happy day, I have no doubt.

But I shan't stop there. I'll still be writing letters and bugging people for many years to come in the hopes of one day getting a little closer to the dream of a country where people get to love how they wish and no one feels the need to get involved in their relationship.

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

Remember Maria Miller, Religious Freedom Works Both Way

I very much welcome Maria Miller's commitment to protecting churches who choose not to marry same-sex couples. It is right that we protect religious freedom.

“To make sure there is no element of doubt, we would be legislating to protect the rights of religious institutions to continue to have freedom on this matter.”

But is she really dedicated to religious freedom? Given the proposals remain only about "civil marriage" (a novel legal concept I understand) doesn't she feel the proposals themselves aren't supportive of religious freedom?

How can we say it is right that LGBT friendly religious groups be banned from holding legally recognised same-sex marriages? Is it right that if they wish to hold even a civil partnership they may end up paying higher fees or that they may be denied the right to at all due to health and safety concerns (even though they carry out marriages in their building already!)?

If Maria Miller and the Coalition Government really believe in religious freedom they will put forward proposals for full marriage equality with the correct safeguards in place to protect all those unwelcoming groups who want nothing to do with it. Otherwise their claims to be concerned about religious freedom will be shown to be no more than subservience to certain religion's views over others.

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

The Right To Discriminate: Is Nick Griffin On To Something?

Until the world develops a better social media meteorological prediction tool, we are left at the mercy of the occasional Twitterstorm. This week's storm brewed after Nick Griffin made some foolish comments about organising some sort of "justice" mob to accost the winners of the long running Bed and Breakfast dispute.

I've discussed this dispute, whereby a same-sex couple were denied a double-bed in a Bed and Breakfast by the Christian owner, before but I feel it has become necessary to re-evaluate where I stand 2 years on.

The USA has been in the grip of so-called "culture wars" for a long time and it has only ramped up over the last decade. What has happened there, religious schools sacking secularists or University's sacking someone over their stance on equal marriage, is now happening here. We must find a solution, and soon, before the culture wars cause permanent damage to our society.

The debacle is just one example from this week of discrimination. An 11 year old "atheist" (i.e. just someone who doesn't wish to swear a duty to God, nor the Queen but nobody is perfect) has had his request to join the Scouts denied. Turns out you can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and be a member but no belief is just not allowed. Meanwhile the housing association manager demoted because he said he disagreed with churches holding same-sex marriages on Facebook has taken the housing association to court. No one has yet pointed out his stupidity in getting upset about something that is, alas, not on the agenda. Oh well, still seems a tad harsh.

As these three cases suggest this is not a one-sided issue. Attempts by anti-marriage equality activists to paint Christianity as some persecuted characteristic ring hollow when they do already (i.e. in the case of the Scouts) exactly what they accuse secularists of wanting to do. But this equally applies to the secularist side too!

We live in a country where hotels still describe themselves as for gay men only (just without the "No Straights Allowed" signs), where bars deny heterosexuals entry (and I have been on the receiving end of that because I, and my police officer date for the evening, "looked" straight) and where people offering out flatshares dictate what gender, sexuality or race (!) they would like prospective flatmates to be. Is that right or wrong?

In the last couple of years I've discussed this issues with others. Many have defended the idea that gay hotels and bars should be allowed to discriminate so that they are "safe places" but also said B&B owners don't have the right to discriminate over who stays there! And in a similar vein you will see Christians getting severely annoyed at cases such as the housing manager being demoted but fighting tooth and nail to ensure Christian schools can deny employment to LGBT people. I cannot bear this hypocrisy any longer. Either we must live in a country where no one has the right to discriminate at all (an unlikely situation given our species seemingly innate desire to hate each other) or where people do have the right to discriminate (a deeply troubling and dispiriting prospect I accept).

So it is time to decide: will liberals accept that gay bars can't discriminate against heterosexuals or will Christians accept they can be demoted, fired and mocked for their beliefs if they conflict with their employers? If not then perhaps they need to reexamine their positions.

Although I think we can all agree that "Girls get in free" nights at bars and clubs are tragic. Agreed?

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

I Agree With Gordon Wilson But I Don't Think He Agrees With Himself #equalmarriage

Gordon Wilson, former leader of the SNP, is just never going to be on the same page about marriage equality as this liberal unionist.

He has come out firmly against it before and is now set to be even clearer at an upcoming Coalition for Marriage SNP Conference fringe. He said to BBC Scotland:

"What you have to watch is when the state believes that it has a superior claim to tell its own citizens what to do and what to think."

I couldn't agree more. The state must never demand people do something (or not do something) without extremely good reasons (such as criminalising murder). Freedom must be a guiding aim of any Government.

Unfortunately Gordon Wilson's concept of the Government keeping it's nose out of other people's business is that the Government should not allow people to do things he doesn't like. In fact he feels it is fascistic of the Government to allow people to do things he disagrees with. He also thinks it is fascistic not to enforce the will of the (supposed) majority upon those who want to live in a way they disagree with.

I think he may want to refer to one of Benito Mussolini's definitions of fascism:

Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.

I have a great deal of sympathy with people who are worried they might have to marry icky gays or not be allowed to be nasty about them in front of children (even if I wouldn't want to go down the local for a pint with them). Their right to be utter bastards (and my right to call them such, after Lord Carey's Nazi comments I've stopped caring about being nice) should be protected and we must ensure any future legislation ensures that nobody has to do anything they don't want to. But whining about Nazi marriage equality enthusiasts and fascist Government proposals for equal marriage does not strengthen the case for religious liberty.

By attacking the right to marry whom you please rather than a state mandated definition of who is acceptable, you allow the Government the right to make that decision and others. What happens when they decide which God you get to worship? Either you believe in the freedom to live and believe how you wish, or you believe that majority opinion and/or Government authority can control your choices.

It is time for the anti-marriage equality campaigners to understand exactly what they are saying when they compare us to fascists.

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