40 Years And None The Wiser

It is the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots today. Sadly I bet more than 50% of young gay people in this country couldn't even tell you what actually happened there.

I can pinpoint the day I finally gave up on the idea of a gay community. It was the day that civil partnerships began. There were no protests. Barely a glimmer of dissent. It was all wedding bells and romance as the British GLBT community not only gave up on a dream of "equality" but also on liberation for all. The "community" quietly shuffled into a forced apartheid and one it would be very difficult to get out.

I admit my opinions are often highly influenced by the oft controversial Peter Tatchell, but I think it's more he manages to put them down in writing and have them make sense in a way I simply am unable to. Such as in this article to coincide with the Stonewall anniversary. I don't subscribe to all his ideas but true marriage freedom for all (whether you marry for love, or are just elderly spinster marrying to gain the same rights to property and protection) is one I am behind 100%. It's time the Government and society stopped deciding who can and can't have the special rights of marriage and allow each person the freedom to make decisions themselves.

That's why I've stopped believing in "gay rights" and instead now believe only in human rights for all. It's why I see the fight for gay marriage as not an end in itself but a step forward towards the liberation of all. I know, Americans are going "I told you so, it's a slippery slope! They'll allow minors to marry next, then men and dogs!!" Well sorry, but I still believe in the concept of "consent" too. Dogs can't give consent and children can't legally give consent either. So it's no slippery slope. It's something called "freedom". Freedom means allowing people to do things YOU DESPISE! Freedom does not come without pain.

I know that the world I desire, for instance, can never come into being with true freedom. A world where men and women are truly equal, where sexual orientation is no more exciting than whether you like marmite or not, where religion is a personal thing and where nationalism has given way to humanism. But thanks to human evolution these goals can not exist in a world of freedom. And I am prepared for that. Are you prepared to give up your world view to allow everyone to be truly free? I doubt it, I really do.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

The Problems Of Science In Mainstream Media

The major problem I have with science reporting (and there are more than a few issues!) is that they treat everything as "new". New study confirms/finds/discovers the following EXCLUSIVE. Except the following had been proved a million times before and it really shouldn't come as a surprise.

Take this news story: Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study. Anyone with a vague interest in science will know this is not a new thing!!! It goes on to suggest the study has found evolutionary advantages to homosexual behaviour, which the article treats as a revelation. Sorry guys, this too is OLD news.

I mean really if you have half a brain you'd think "Hmm... all these gay animals, it can't just be random." It's not. Each species involved has got to that point for various reasons. In a few it'll have no advantages, but in most it will and the advantage will be individually tailored to the species involved (like gay black swans, who find a female, breed with her, then drive her away and bring up the chick. With two males looking after the chick it has a higher likelihood of survival hence the evolutionary benefits). It's a no brainer. There's even a very extensive study published in 2006 on the evolution of homosexuality (here).

If only studies were reported with this in mind.

Maybe it's because I spend hours listening to sceptic/science podcasts every week, but the state of science reporting is something to be sad about (thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for Ben Goldacre)

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

English Democrat Mayor U Turn

Amazing how quickly politicians go from radicalism to keeping the status quo. The English Democrat Mayor of Doncaster, Peter Davies, has gone back on his plan to cut funding for pride. Whilst I don't applaud the decision to fund pride (I believe all suck frivolous things should be beyond the scope of Government, including any "national" parade), I do laugh at how quickly this one turned. Next we'll have the new BNP Euro MEPs voting for equal rights measures.

This, I think, disproves the idea that Mr Davies is not homophobic. I originally felt he was, based on the wording of his statement to stop the funding. If the cut had been because he believed in a reduced Government role in such community events and value for money for the tax payer, then he would not have gone back on it. Instead when he found that such events would benefit local businesses (if not all taxpayers) then he decided to continue the funding and forget his obvious dislike for the GLBT community in the name of more money for local business. Disgusting. Not only do taxpayers have to fund events they might not agree with (such as a St George's Day parade!) they now get to subsidise local businesses they might now wish to support!!

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from

his wishlist

Health and Safety Craziness

I believe health and safety to be an extremely important thing. The amount of lives lost in accidents is still far too high but, thanks to health and safety legislation and awareness, is a lot lower than it could be. We've come a long way from sending 9 year olds down the mines.

But sometimes I am disgusted by the stupidity of some people in this country. Case in point, the following article about a Diet Coke advert.

A TV advert which showed pop singer Duffy cycling through a supermarket has been cleared by an advertising watchdog after health and safety complaints.

Eighteen viewers complained the singer, from Nefyn, Gwynedd, was not wearing reflective clothing and her bicycle had no lights in the Diet Coke commercial.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) also said four viewers worried children could copy her behaviour.

What are these people doing watching television in the first place? 1) many adverts and television programmes include fantasy elements, which strangely aren't covered by the same health and safety concerns as REAL LIFE. 2) why are the 4 people watching television? If they fear their children might copy this then surely their children might copy allsorts of violent, disgusting and surreal things too. Why write in about this one advert when they should just be calling for a ban to all television, books, radio and stories of any kind lest their children run off into a forest leaving only a trail of breadcrumbs behind them? Sweet Jesus it is stupid.

And there are so many examples of people who instead of taking health and safety seriously and instead act like mindless jobsworths. There's an 83 year old lady told she is too old to load a dish washer, for example.

Don't these cretins understand that whilst they are dotting the i's and crossing the t's they are also leading to a backlash against health and safety, which threatens the very way of life we are now accustomed to. Grrr....

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

Gay Rights... In Housing???

We live in a country with rather draconian rules about equality. Draconian in that some times they lean a bit too heavily in favour of minority groups, in my opinion. But whatever my opinions on these things are, they do have practical benefits and us LGBT people are fairly well protected in terms of services being provided to us not being adversely affected by homophobia.

So suggestions like this one which suppose that members of the GLBT have specific needs in such areas as housing makes me a little annoyed. I can see a very strong case for disabled people (mental and physical disabilities) having specific housing needs. It goes without saying. But do LGBT people really have them? I don't think so and to even suggest such a thing beggars belief. Just because I fall in love with people of my own sex does not influence my needs for housing. One commentator valiantly suggests some issues:

"- we want our identity and lifestyle choices to be respected in our dealings with our housing provider, and its staff. We shouldn't need to anticipate homophobic attitudes, any more than we'd expect to encounter racist or sexist ones, and it shouldn't get to the stage of having to complain about it."

Erm... Yes. So does everyone! What identity? We each have our own identities and I would hope, as long as they weren't aggressive ones, that any housing association would respect everyone's right to their own identity. Lifestyle choice? Erm... do gay people have a particular lifestyle choice? I find the suggestion offensive.

All people, regardless of any other factor, should not expect to be treated rudely or badly just because of some irrational dislike on behalf of their landlord. Why should the GLBT community be particularly targeted? It should be a universal thing.

"- we want a sympathetic and effective response to homphobic hate-crime, bullying and harrassment, and neighbourhood purtsuits."

Hate crime is something I've always had a problem with. A crime is a crime. You vandalise something and say your neighbour is a slut, it's a crime. Call them queer and it's a hate crime. Does not make sense to me at all. A crime is a crime, and should be discouraged and punished as necessary. All tenants should expect sympathetic responses to bullying and harassment. Effective responses are also desirable although the way housing is currently run might be more of a pipe dream. But a universal one!

- we want recognition that domestic violence and happens in same-sex relationships just as much as straight ones, and practical help and support when it does.

Again, shouldn't this be true of everyone? Female on male violence is one particularly ignored one.

- we want recognition of the particular difficulties faced by young gay people, who are often especially vulnerable to homelessness, exploitation, abuse, and danger.

And other young people aren't??

- when we are old, we want our sexuality to be treated with dignity and respect, and not as if it and we have grown invisible.

What does this mean? Shouldn't everyone be treated with respect regardless of age and sexuality??? Do you want people to be like "Oh you're gay AND old. CONGRATULATIONS!!!" as if it is somehow noteworthy? All folks of advanced years are sexual creatures, because (shock horror) they are still the bloody same people they were when they were "young". It's not something that should ever need to be acknowledged.

Truly, it is time we all moved beyond this stupidity, and start fighting for universal rights. If one wants housing to be tailored to specific needs, then that should be done on an individual basis. You don't go installing a ramp on every disabled home as not every disabled person is in need of one. You tailor it to their needs. That should be true of everybody, not just specific "special interest" groups.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

It's Liberation Day!

To those British folks down in the South Atlantic, today marks 27 years since the end of the Falklands War when the British territories of the South Sandwich islands, South Georgia islands and Falkland Islands were freed from the clutches of an invasive force sent to occupy them by a military dictatorship.

As someone born after these events, and who is a bit of a liberal/leftie, I have noticed quite a lot of criticism of the Thatcher Government for their part in the events. And I'm not talking about criticism of the fact they paid little heed to warnings about an Argentinian invasion or their general handling of the war. But actual criticism of us going to war in the first place. The Socialist Party, Militant, the Communist Party, Tony Benn. All were against it because, get this, we'd never been interested in the Falklands Islanders before (sadly pretty true) and thus this war was all about a capitalist countries (that's us by the way) prestige. Maybe it was. But that is all "grand idea" sort of stuff. Back down out of the clouds of ideology, on the ground, we had a couple of thousand people who had NO ONE ELSE to look to for their right to live freely in the lands of their fathers under a Government of their choosing. If we hadn't gone, what would have become of them?

Whether Thatcher was going to war to protect the people or to protect the interests of an elite few, it doesn't really matter. Ultimately our forces defeated the invaders and liberated the islanders. Duly humbled, we decided that maybe the Falkland Islanders did deserve a bit more money and protection than before. And duly disheartened the Argentinian regime which had decided to invade the Falklands as one of it's last ditch attempts to hold power, fell to a democratic one.

This was not a imperialist adventure, this was fight for the right of self determination for the people of those islands. We must always remember that, and be proud that our country, when called upon to do it's duty, did not shy from it.

The Falklands War is one of the few wars in the history of the United Kingdom that I can truly say was a "just war". If you have a problem with that one, then the Second World War must be really difficult to stomach.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

UKIP Sure Knows How To Pick It's Candidates

If they are not stealing the public's money then UKIPs candidates for election are linking gay people to paedophilia. What a nice man Mr Mike Mendoza is! But more tellingly he thinks gay people don't like football.

I don't think Mike Mendoza (UKIP candidate for Hove's Goldsmid ward, and possibly PPC for Hove) is prejudiced. I believe he just lacks intelligence and has a rather limited set of life experiences. One need only to walk past most gay pubs (as opposed to the more nightclubby bars) during a big footie match and you will find it busy with fans (just the other weekend I saw our local Ye Olde Rose and Crown filled to overflowing during a match). I remember during the World Cup 2006 squashing into the old Ku Bar on Charing Cross road with a bunch of gay guys watching a match, there was no way to get to the bar, no more than a foot of space between the screen and the front of the crowd (oh, who needs memories when I blogged about it!). Now I hate football. I can't stand it. I prefer rugby myself, I'm not a crazy rugby fan but I certainly enjoy watching it over a nice pint of cider.

I certainly know plenty of gay guys who follow football, who love it, who even attend their local teams obscure fixtures. Let's not even start on lesbians and how many of them love football!!

So we are left to believe Mr Mendoza is just extremely dumb. Why are UKIP allowing him to run? Do they have an equal opportunity policy for the stupid? Can they not find someone who doesn't think your sexual preference influences your love of sport or immediately mean you have a liking for children? UKIP describe themselves as a libertarian party, and obviously Mr Mendoza is just living by that ideal of being free to express his views. I support that. But really should UKIP be putting him forward as a candidate when his views are so obviously wrong? He didn't lie, he just hasn't got a clue. What other things in life, more important things, is this man also ignorant of? Not the best person to represent the good people of Hove, me thinks.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist