UKIP's LGBT grouping has been banned from marching in Pride. I was wondering who else we might ban? Catholic gay groups? Labour Brownites (he was after all against same-sex marriage until it became cool)? I wonder if we might ban anyone who ever held an opinion that "progressive" lefties dislike? We might get one or two floats and a smattering of feminist queers for Pride if we adopted that policy though...
Sigh.
Showing posts with label london. Show all posts
Showing posts with label london. Show all posts
Saturday, 6 June 2015
Wednesday, 2 May 2012
Burning Pictures Of Your Opponents Is Not The Done Thing
UKIP have been having a bit of a surge of late in both the polls and in defections to them. They are confident, fresh and a real contender for breaking out of the pack of minor parties at the polls tomorrow.
UKIP also aren't evil monsters, and most of them I deal with are not only polite but intelligent too. I don't buy the "UKIP are the BNP/EDL in suits" argument. There are real policies in that party, some of which even I find appealing.
However they don't like to put their best foot forward. When UKIP's Twitter RT'd a picture entitled "Campaign on fire in Soho" showing a UKIP burning a picture of Lib Dem candidate Brian Paddick, I tweeted
Now I don't think they were burning the picture because they were homophobic, although I admit that is the tone that has been taken by others on Twitter. They were burning it because they were thoughtless morons who don't like Brian Paddick (those two things can be exclusive but not in this instance I fear!).
Burning a picture or effigy of your opponent is, at best, idiotic and thoughtless. At worse it's malicious, hateful and nasty. It's not becoming of a party that hopes to take our country in a new direction. It's not becoming of any decent person. UKIP's response to this criticism? It's not homophobic. The person in the picture is gay. Does being gay excuse you from such an act? No. As I'm gay does that mean I get to go piss on war memorials, spit on posters or do any of the other rather classless things people do to "symbols"? No.
UKIP supporters should have said "No, that's not very clever is it. Sorry we'll have words." Or "Well it's not homophobic but I agree it's not very grown-up".
Alas, they accuse the Lib Dems of being childish whilst failing to take responsibility for the actions. I'd rather have a responsible, decent party in power than one that burns pictures of opponents then fights against criticism by playing the right-wings favourite dog whistle: political correctness gone mad.
And that "But they're gay" card has been played before. It means NOTHING.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
UKIP also aren't evil monsters, and most of them I deal with are not only polite but intelligent too. I don't buy the "UKIP are the BNP/EDL in suits" argument. There are real policies in that party, some of which even I find appealing.
However they don't like to put their best foot forward. When UKIP's Twitter RT'd a picture entitled "Campaign on fire in Soho" showing a UKIP burning a picture of Lib Dem candidate Brian Paddick, I tweeted
UKIP burn picture of gay man on the streets of Soho. lockerz.com/s/205836510 - There's definitely a headline in here somewhere.It was, mostly, in jest at the juxtaposition of the act, who was pictured and where it was taken. It was begging for a headline after all!
— Jason Kay (@JaeKay) May 2, 2012
Now I don't think they were burning the picture because they were homophobic, although I admit that is the tone that has been taken by others on Twitter. They were burning it because they were thoughtless morons who don't like Brian Paddick (those two things can be exclusive but not in this instance I fear!).
Burning a picture or effigy of your opponent is, at best, idiotic and thoughtless. At worse it's malicious, hateful and nasty. It's not becoming of a party that hopes to take our country in a new direction. It's not becoming of any decent person. UKIP's response to this criticism? It's not homophobic. The person in the picture is gay. Does being gay excuse you from such an act? No. As I'm gay does that mean I get to go piss on war memorials, spit on posters or do any of the other rather classless things people do to "symbols"? No.
UKIP supporters should have said "No, that's not very clever is it. Sorry we'll have words." Or "Well it's not homophobic but I agree it's not very grown-up".
Alas, they accuse the Lib Dems of being childish whilst failing to take responsibility for the actions. I'd rather have a responsible, decent party in power than one that burns pictures of opponents then fights against criticism by playing the right-wings favourite dog whistle: political correctness gone mad.
And that "But they're gay" card has been played before. It means NOTHING.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Sunday, 8 April 2012
Ken Livingstone Should Remember LGBT Rights Are Not Like Karma
Ken Livingstone has been a constant friend to the movement for LGBT rights. He fought against Section 28, he brought in the London partnership register (which earned him a great deal of respect from me!) and he's been there by our side when the going has gotten tough. No one can take that away from him. But like many people in Labour, he suffers under a major delusion. Because of his past unblemished record he thinks that he is immune to doing something wrong. Ben Bradshaw fell into that trap this weekend, and now Ken Livingstone has clearly shown his opinion of himself.
The thing that bothers me most is Livingstone's defence of Yusuf al-Qaradawi. I understand politicians often have to engage with people who they'd rather not. David Trimble and Gerry Adams for example! And there's nothing wrong with someone reaching out to another community, even to people who aren't all that pleasant. There's quite a difference though in defending their actions and refusing to accept the evidence that they aren't pleasant. All Livingstone had to say was "Yes, I understand the concerns but I felt it better to engage with him than to shut down a conversation". Instead he says:
"“No. I made no effort to change it, this is what he said, and if I’m asked to judge a person on what I hear them say, or what I read about them in The Sun, sorry but I’m going to believe what I hear.”
I.e. I don't believe he is homophobic! al-Qaradawi has called for the death penalty for homosexuals and this is well-known and documented here. Livingstone's continued defence of these comments shows that either he's not listening or worse he's lying!
He wants to be a Mayor for all Londoners, he even got my 2nd preference at the last mayoral election, but he is unable to admit his mistakes. This makes me very concerned for what he might do in the future and who he might welcome to London.
Livingstone does not deserve to be Mayor again. He suffers from foot-in-mouth syndrome even more than Johnson does (and that's an achievement!) and seems unable to back down once he's said something that comes out the wrong way. He has none of the characteristics of a good leader, and all the characteristics of a very divisive one.
Keep Ken out, for the good of all the communities of London.
*I'll admit I've had my issues with people not coming out in the past on this blog but at all times I was keen to stress it was because their actions (i.e. Nigel Evans) were hypocritical. People not coming out but also not doing anything to hurt others isn't something that bothers me, and I completely sympathise with why they may wish to stay in the closet.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
'I was getting a load of abuse, openly campaigning for lesbian and gay issues,' said Livingstone.
'Loads of people assumed I was gay and I got a lot of flack for all that because I wasn’t going to insult the gay community by saying there’s something wrong with being gay.
'And he [Paddick] was in the closet. I was doing it for decades before he came out.'I'm going to ignore the rather nasty implications of that comment (Straight person dictating that Paddick should've come out sooner*) as I don't think that's actually what Livingstone was trying to say (ditto for his gay banker comments and his very recent "riddled" with gays comment about the Tory party, yes I'm stretching "benefit of the doubt" to it's limits here). However it's clear Ken Livingstone thinks his past actions make him untouchable on LGBT rights. That, I'm afraid to say, is not the case. It's not karma; you don't build up brownie points. Being in favour of LGBT rights should be the default not something that makes you better than others.
The thing that bothers me most is Livingstone's defence of Yusuf al-Qaradawi. I understand politicians often have to engage with people who they'd rather not. David Trimble and Gerry Adams for example! And there's nothing wrong with someone reaching out to another community, even to people who aren't all that pleasant. There's quite a difference though in defending their actions and refusing to accept the evidence that they aren't pleasant. All Livingstone had to say was "Yes, I understand the concerns but I felt it better to engage with him than to shut down a conversation". Instead he says:
"“No. I made no effort to change it, this is what he said, and if I’m asked to judge a person on what I hear them say, or what I read about them in The Sun, sorry but I’m going to believe what I hear.”
I.e. I don't believe he is homophobic! al-Qaradawi has called for the death penalty for homosexuals and this is well-known and documented here. Livingstone's continued defence of these comments shows that either he's not listening or worse he's lying!
He wants to be a Mayor for all Londoners, he even got my 2nd preference at the last mayoral election, but he is unable to admit his mistakes. This makes me very concerned for what he might do in the future and who he might welcome to London.
Livingstone does not deserve to be Mayor again. He suffers from foot-in-mouth syndrome even more than Johnson does (and that's an achievement!) and seems unable to back down once he's said something that comes out the wrong way. He has none of the characteristics of a good leader, and all the characteristics of a very divisive one.
Keep Ken out, for the good of all the communities of London.
*I'll admit I've had my issues with people not coming out in the past on this blog but at all times I was keen to stress it was because their actions (i.e. Nigel Evans) were hypocritical. People not coming out but also not doing anything to hurt others isn't something that bothers me, and I completely sympathise with why they may wish to stay in the closet.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Between The EDL And The Religious Fundies: East End Gay Pride
In my most recent post I made clear my dislike, abhorrence even, of the English Defense League. As any long term reader will know one of my little "ticks" is my deep, near irrational, hatred for nationalism. Even just having the word "English" in the title is likely to put me off. There's little in their views or beliefs that I can find even remotely of interest.
And as most of you will know, I'm no fan of the religious especially those of a fundamentalist bent. If you base your beliefs on the irrational mutterings of just the one book then I'm afraid we're unlikely to get on. Especially if your beliefs include homophobia and other prejudices. It's just not my thing.
So you can imagine my moral confusion over the latest controversy: East End Gay Pride. It seemed simple enough. In February some stickers appeared declaring East London a "gay free zone". Some thought they were put there by Muslims, others by the EDL to show Muslims in a bad light. In any case it soon emerged a group was gathering to organise a pride event, supposedly to show that the LGBT community were here, queer and everyone better get used to it.
This group was, from the off, seen by many local LGBT groups as an EDL front, based mainly on Facebook postings. Many LGBT groups in the area, especially the more left wing ones, were aghast (mainly quite rightly really) that the EDL should be involved and were upset that a pride event might upset "community relations" (a concept that, to be honest, fills me with such a rage that I can barely begin to to express it in writing).
And eventually, in the last few days, things have descended to the point where the pro and anti camps have been arguing incessantly.
Today brought revelations from gay group Imaan that the principal organiser Raymond Berry had links to the EDL. Damning stuff, and he's quickly been removed from the official site for the April the 2nd event.
But this all leads me to the wonder: even if this event is totally organised by the EDL, something I don't believe and suspect some of the organisation is being done properly, it is clearly labelled as pride event, it's clearly labelled as being "non-political" (whether that's possible at an LGBT pride event is up for debate) and political signs are explicitly banned. So what is the issue?
The EDL obviously think, quite rightly too, that a gay pride event in the East End is one way to show up the homophobia of a great number (if not all) of Muslims in the area and no obvious political protest need be added to it. And instead of Muslims in the area, and their LGBT supporters, showing clearly this isn't the case by EMBRACING the event they are desperately trying to ensure it gets cancelled so as to avoid highlighting any controversy. They claim pride is meant to be about community cohesion and building links between groups. Where is this in the history books?
Pride is meant to be confrontational, in your face and argument worthy. It's meant to be about highlighting and combating homophobia. What possible reason could the local community have for not wanting this event, if handled correctly and not demonstrating Islamophobic tendencies in either discriminating against those involved or racist/insulting signs, other than homophobia? Absolutely, with the EDL involved, extreme caution must be used and concerns raised. But if the answers are "this is an LGBT pride event to show solidarity against the recent anti-gay stickers", then what's the problem??
So I have to say, with a little regret as I completely see where the local community and LGBT groups are coming from, "No to an EDL rally, YES to East End Gay Pride". I hope the LGBT community shows itself in force and makes sure this is a demonstration of hope over hate rather than just hate against another minority.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
And as most of you will know, I'm no fan of the religious especially those of a fundamentalist bent. If you base your beliefs on the irrational mutterings of just the one book then I'm afraid we're unlikely to get on. Especially if your beliefs include homophobia and other prejudices. It's just not my thing.
So you can imagine my moral confusion over the latest controversy: East End Gay Pride. It seemed simple enough. In February some stickers appeared declaring East London a "gay free zone". Some thought they were put there by Muslims, others by the EDL to show Muslims in a bad light. In any case it soon emerged a group was gathering to organise a pride event, supposedly to show that the LGBT community were here, queer and everyone better get used to it.
This group was, from the off, seen by many local LGBT groups as an EDL front, based mainly on Facebook postings. Many LGBT groups in the area, especially the more left wing ones, were aghast (mainly quite rightly really) that the EDL should be involved and were upset that a pride event might upset "community relations" (a concept that, to be honest, fills me with such a rage that I can barely begin to to express it in writing).
And eventually, in the last few days, things have descended to the point where the pro and anti camps have been arguing incessantly.
Today brought revelations from gay group Imaan that the principal organiser Raymond Berry had links to the EDL. Damning stuff, and he's quickly been removed from the official site for the April the 2nd event.
But this all leads me to the wonder: even if this event is totally organised by the EDL, something I don't believe and suspect some of the organisation is being done properly, it is clearly labelled as pride event, it's clearly labelled as being "non-political" (whether that's possible at an LGBT pride event is up for debate) and political signs are explicitly banned. So what is the issue?
The EDL obviously think, quite rightly too, that a gay pride event in the East End is one way to show up the homophobia of a great number (if not all) of Muslims in the area and no obvious political protest need be added to it. And instead of Muslims in the area, and their LGBT supporters, showing clearly this isn't the case by EMBRACING the event they are desperately trying to ensure it gets cancelled so as to avoid highlighting any controversy. They claim pride is meant to be about community cohesion and building links between groups. Where is this in the history books?
Pride is meant to be confrontational, in your face and argument worthy. It's meant to be about highlighting and combating homophobia. What possible reason could the local community have for not wanting this event, if handled correctly and not demonstrating Islamophobic tendencies in either discriminating against those involved or racist/insulting signs, other than homophobia? Absolutely, with the EDL involved, extreme caution must be used and concerns raised. But if the answers are "this is an LGBT pride event to show solidarity against the recent anti-gay stickers", then what's the problem??
So I have to say, with a little regret as I completely see where the local community and LGBT groups are coming from, "No to an EDL rally, YES to East End Gay Pride". I hope the LGBT community shows itself in force and makes sure this is a demonstration of hope over hate rather than just hate against another minority.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist
Monday, 3 May 2010
Lib Dem Flashmob - Trafalgar Square
So after a morning in Blackheath stalking Nick Clegg, I popped by Trafalgar Square to witness the London Liberal Democrat flashmob. Certainly got some attention from where I was standing and seemed to go very well. Although one man watching asked "This is all very well, but anyone here able to tell me who this Nick guy is?". Bless him.
Saturday, 31 October 2009
Trafalgar Square Vigil For Ian Baynham
Whilst I was on holiday in Berlin, the GLBT Network at work was formed. Having put my name down for it, I was invited to our first "event" which was to go as a group to the vigil in Trafalgar Square in honour of the life of the recently murdered Ian Baynham and all other recent victims of hate crime. There was only 4 of us (Stephanie, Paul, Cosimo and I) plus Stephanie's partner, so after gathering ourselves at First Out Cafe, we headed down to Trafalgar Square where a very large crowded had gathered.Sandi Toksvig lead the events with various friends of Ian Baynham, Sue Perkins and many different representatives of organisations including the only politicians, Labour ministers, Chris Bryant and Maria Eagle.
It was deeply moving and the musical tributes by both the Gay Men's Chorus' of various cities and the London Gay Symphony Orchestra were touching. We did our part by distributing candle's (and card to protect one's hands!) around the little part of the crowd we'd found ourselves in. This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist
Saturday, 14 February 2009
Unionists Shame
God darn it. Don't you hate civil servants and their stupid ideas. They proposed "solutions" to stopping Scotland laying claim to the North Sea oil fields. They suggested even sowing a movement for independence in the Orkney's and the Shetland's.
I am, as you all well know, a unionist (small u) and believe in the continuation of the Union. But I do not believe in treating those in northern Britain with suspicion or fear nor in treating them as vassals. It should not even have crossed the minds of the British civil servants to consider a situation where an independent Scotland might lay claim to the fields and suggests a level of cynicism, English nationalism and bad faith in the higher echelons of our Government.
That is disgusting. And when I share the same opinion as the leader of the SNP, we all know it has to be pretty darn awful a thing to have brought our opinions into alignment.
The Union is surely doomed if people in positions of power fail to respect the unity of our island and instead try to put one regions rights above another. As always I find myself more and more disheartened at the prospects for the survival of our country for many more years. Let me be the first to say that if our Union does fail I am starting the Kentish Nationalists movement to try to ensure we don't end up dominated by the sorts of career civil servants who come up with stupid ideas like those released today who seem to be so prevalent in London.
I am, as you all well know, a unionist (small u) and believe in the continuation of the Union. But I do not believe in treating those in northern Britain with suspicion or fear nor in treating them as vassals. It should not even have crossed the minds of the British civil servants to consider a situation where an independent Scotland might lay claim to the fields and suggests a level of cynicism, English nationalism and bad faith in the higher echelons of our Government.
That is disgusting. And when I share the same opinion as the leader of the SNP, we all know it has to be pretty darn awful a thing to have brought our opinions into alignment.
The Union is surely doomed if people in positions of power fail to respect the unity of our island and instead try to put one regions rights above another. As always I find myself more and more disheartened at the prospects for the survival of our country for many more years. Let me be the first to say that if our Union does fail I am starting the Kentish Nationalists movement to try to ensure we don't end up dominated by the sorts of career civil servants who come up with stupid ideas like those released today who seem to be so prevalent in London.
Friday, 12 September 2008
Foxes: Friend or Foe?
I'd like to comment on a post over at the London Word titled Seeing Red on London's Foxes.
I don't know about you but around where I live there are lots of foxes. Most times Jim and I return from a late session down the local a fox will run across our path and it's not unusual to hear a vixen screaming at odd hours of the morning. My downstairs neighbours often see them in the middle of night prowling through our garden and when the new rubbish collection system was introduced we worried that having foods in one bin would only cause the foxes to become overly enthusiastic about pushing the bins over (a worry we needn't have had!). So needless to say they make up a small part of our life here in the city.
Now Jo Lamiri brings up a good question: are we, as city folk, prepared to put up with the slight inconveniences (ensuring rubbish is thrown away securely and doors and windows are closed where necessary) foxes impose upon us? Should "nature" and "human civilisation" be mutually exclusive?
She suggests a cull might be in order to bring down fox numbers in the city. Personally I think that would not only be a telling testament against our own humanity but we would lose some of the precious few joys of life here in the city.
I've lived out in the countryside and I can tell you foxes are extremely shy. The only times I got to see them was either from a train (they just love the human free and rabbit rich zones around those train tracks!) or a chance encounter in my youth whilst out fishing or poaching. So I can not tell you how much I appreciate the opportunity to live so close to them here in London.
And it's not like foxes in the city are a new thing, it's just until recently the cities were so awfully disgusting that nature had decided to give us a wide berth. Now that things are becoming greener nature is increasingly returning and urban fox numbers are increasing.
The Greenwich Phantom has a lovely section on Greenwich Wildlife. What are pests and what are wonderful additions to our environment? Who decides? Should we make allowances for those creatures who add colour to our city and put up with the inconvenience? We're not talking about diseased rats here, I can see a practical reason to control their number. And we're not talking bears. We're talking about creatures who are not putting human life at risk and are at worst making some streets a little messy because somebody didn't secure their rubbish!
I would love more nature in the city. More places other creatures can live and thrive. The concrete, the tarmac, the endless pavements... wouldn't it be nice to have even more green oases to admire and enjoy? Sometimes in our eagerness to have a simple, convenient, sanitised life we can throw out the beautiful, the romantic and the interesting. Surely being human is the very antithesis of simplicity or convenience. After all this writing I think two quotes will sum up what I'm trying to say far more clearly than my poor writing skills could.
Leave the foxes be, killing them just to have an easier life would be criminal.
I don't know about you but around where I live there are lots of foxes. Most times Jim and I return from a late session down the local a fox will run across our path and it's not unusual to hear a vixen screaming at odd hours of the morning. My downstairs neighbours often see them in the middle of night prowling through our garden and when the new rubbish collection system was introduced we worried that having foods in one bin would only cause the foxes to become overly enthusiastic about pushing the bins over (a worry we needn't have had!). So needless to say they make up a small part of our life here in the city.
Now Jo Lamiri brings up a good question: are we, as city folk, prepared to put up with the slight inconveniences (ensuring rubbish is thrown away securely and doors and windows are closed where necessary) foxes impose upon us? Should "nature" and "human civilisation" be mutually exclusive?
She suggests a cull might be in order to bring down fox numbers in the city. Personally I think that would not only be a telling testament against our own humanity but we would lose some of the precious few joys of life here in the city.
I've lived out in the countryside and I can tell you foxes are extremely shy. The only times I got to see them was either from a train (they just love the human free and rabbit rich zones around those train tracks!) or a chance encounter in my youth whilst out fishing or poaching. So I can not tell you how much I appreciate the opportunity to live so close to them here in London.
And it's not like foxes in the city are a new thing, it's just until recently the cities were so awfully disgusting that nature had decided to give us a wide berth. Now that things are becoming greener nature is increasingly returning and urban fox numbers are increasing.
The Greenwich Phantom has a lovely section on Greenwich Wildlife. What are pests and what are wonderful additions to our environment? Who decides? Should we make allowances for those creatures who add colour to our city and put up with the inconvenience? We're not talking about diseased rats here, I can see a practical reason to control their number. And we're not talking bears. We're talking about creatures who are not putting human life at risk and are at worst making some streets a little messy because somebody didn't secure their rubbish!
I would love more nature in the city. More places other creatures can live and thrive. The concrete, the tarmac, the endless pavements... wouldn't it be nice to have even more green oases to admire and enjoy? Sometimes in our eagerness to have a simple, convenient, sanitised life we can throw out the beautiful, the romantic and the interesting. Surely being human is the very antithesis of simplicity or convenience. After all this writing I think two quotes will sum up what I'm trying to say far more clearly than my poor writing skills could.
What humbugs we are, who pretend to live for Beauty, and never see the Dawn! ~Logan Pearsall Smith
Man's heart away from nature becomes hard. ~Standing Bear
Leave the foxes be, killing them just to have an easier life would be criminal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)