Christianity Is Not The Saviour Of Secular, Liberal Society

There is well-founded concern among LGBT folk of Islamic prejudice against us. And it's a topic not without it's controversy as the East End Gay Pride fiasco showed. It's certainly something that needs more discussion and, even more importantly, action given the anti-gay poster "campaign" and the faux gay "frighten the Muslim vote" leaflets of late.

However I draw the line at what I see as a "brewing" reaction among certain LGBT people; namely a desire to get back to "good old British values". It's the equivalent of a collective thought along the lines of "Bugger, look at what we've done. We beat the Christians into submission and now look what's taking their place!" We saw some of that in the rhetoric from some supporters of the East End Gay Pride. Now we have a Telegraph piece being even more explicit.

Last weekend, the papers convulsed over the case of a Christian GP, whose avowedly Christian approach to medical practice had been found to involve, er, discussing Christianity. I'd rather discuss antibiotics, but still: the overreaction is a displacement activity, isn't it? We can safely worry about peaceable, well-meaning Christians, and demand a more and more un-Christian state, because that's what all rational people want, isn't it?

Not me, not any more. I'm not a believer. But to paraphrase G K Chesterton, when a Christian society stops believing in God, it's not the case that it will start to believe in just anything. If you want to see what does fill the vacuum, get on the bus to the dear old East End.

Well I feel I must cry "Bullshit!" at the top of my lungs to all who can hear. This view of Christianity as somehow "nicer" than Islam is more a case of wishful thinking rather than a sensible piece of political positioning.

I come from the rather coldhearted, but at least consistent, position that ALL religion is (at best) silly. There are many kind hearted souls who believe all sorts of weird and unusual things who I have no personal problem with. There are also all sorts of nasty people who believe all sorts of weird and unusual things who I do have a BIG problem with. Deciding who falls into which (admittedly blurred) category is not a case of finding out which imaginary sky fairy they worship. It's a case of listening to what they say, and seeing what they do and making rational decisions based on that.

Item: Homosexuality is still deeply controversial even among the relatively liberal Christian sects,

Item: Homosexuality's still seen as something to be cured by some true believers

Item: You only need to read some of Warren Throckmorton's writings on what one Christian gets up to in the name of his saviour to see how some Christians give those "radical Muslims" right-wing types are so scared of (and left-wing types a little too eager to court) a run for their money.

Even Richard Dawkins, a man who I find is usually right but damn smug about it, has fallen into this fallacy of "Christianity = good, Islam = bad".

We didn't spend years fighting Mary Whitehouse and her brigade of moralising numpties just to give up in the face of another challenge. This isn't a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" moment. There's just another enemy of secular Britain to add to the one's we've always had. We must work with secular, liberal minded people of all faiths, and of none, to fight intolerance everywhere be it in the form a rabidly anti-religious atheist, a Muslim fundamentalist, the EDL or the Pope.

The saviour of our secular society will be our secular population!

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

Chris Bryant's Fighting The Wrong Fight Again

Chris Bryant returned to one if his favourite topics (last picked up by me here); religious readings and music in civil marriages.

His support for heterosexual liberty would be endearing if it wasn't for his past acceptance of the separate but equal civil partnerships:

I do not want same-sex relationships to ape marriage in any sense—several people have used the offensive phrase—because they are different. Although the two share similar elements, they do not have to be identical, so the legal provisions should be distinct. Source

He seems to be offering conflicting messages, on the one part pointing out civil partnerships are not the same as marriage (and also now belatedly, and once he was out of a position to be influential in the matter, calling for marriage equality) but on the other suggesting civil partnerships give additional rights to LGBT folk which is unfair on heterosexuals and this needs to be changed. Indeed, I agree. It's just sad Chris Bryant has taken this long to realise.

Perhaps he doesn't know, it's always possible, but the Government is about to begin a consultation on opening up civil partnerships to heterosexual couples and marriage to same sex couples. Perhaps he might add his suggestions to this consultation. Perhaps he might fight for some legislation to amend the pertinent marriage acts to allow same sex couples to marry at which point he would have a perfect opportunity to also amend marriage law to allow religious texts and readings.

Two birds. One stone. Sadly I think Bryant, as I said in this post, isn't really interested in marriage equality and just gives lip service to it. His obsession with, again, creating a "separate peace" on this issue (i.e. solving just a small facet of the problems of our currently discriminatory partnership rights system, which he helped create and as quoted above approved of), rather than a complete overhaul to create equality for heterosexuals and LGBT people, is indicative of his lack of vision or leadership.

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

The Closet: The Glory And The Hypocrisy

The Closet, and the inseparable Coming Out experience, is a near-universal commonality between LGB people throughout the world. This powerful shared experience is paradoxically unique to each individual. At once it marks us a person and as a member of a group. This makes reactions to negative discussion of individuals and their own "Closets" often rather illogical and emotional.

I've nothing against the Closet in general. No one chooses to be "in the Closet". It is where people are forced to be. And I've always said you are never more than one question away from a Coming Out moment (in my case "Do you have a girlfriend?"). When I criticise closeted people in the public eye, it's not because I am critical of anyone who is hiding their sexuality for any reason but because their situation is rare and full of symbolism worthy of discussion. I hate having to state this, but I need to because I know from past experience even thinking of suggesting we don't allow Coming Out to erase the political sins and missteps of people's pasts is akin to ripping up some commentator's most beloved teddy. I understand how traumatic it can be, but that doesn't mean we should go lightly on those who have things to answer for.

Take Nigel Evans MP for example. He came out in December 2010. When I dared suggest we berate him for his past transgressions (i.e. support for Clause 28), which now seemed that much worse in the light of his personal circumstances, I was told I couldn't imagine how hard it must of been for him. My heart still bleeds. I never did receive a response from him when I asked exactly how he thought, based on his comments, Clause 28 would protect children and, especially, LGBT children. I suspect his silence is because that was a hastily created excuse to cover up for the real fact; he voted with the whip and had no scrupples about the problems it'd cause LGBT kids. This is the man we should have compassion for? Since then he had an interview with Rhona Cameron:

RC: It does stun me that you can be gay and be in the Conservative party. How did you feel as a young person knowing you were gay, being involved in a party that put into force draconian measures like section 28, and the legacy of that? The reason people like me were bullied at a young age, which affected me for the rest of my life, was because we grew up in a climate of persecution and oppression. Are you telling me that when you heard the beginnings of section 28, you didn't take a hit for that, you didn't feel something in your heart?

NE: No, because I was going through denial, and what I would describe as my Neanderthal phase. It was just stupid, I clearly wasn't thinking. I probably thought, wrongly, that this is what the public want and we should concede it [Evans backed section 28, and once voted against lowering the age of consent]. Of course, I was completely wrong. I said it when I came out, I showed absolutely no leadership, whereas David Cameron has. When you say you can't work out how there are so many gays in the Tory party – David is hugely instrumental in that, because of his approach to gay issues and equality.

Oh, he was in denial! Forgiven. I think not. I have a great deal of respect for those who have deeply held beliefs that oppose my own. I have a deep respect for those who are persuaded by force of argument to change their beliefs.  But to simply say "Oh well I was in denial and it was what the people seemed to want" to explain a political decision is, as I said in my original post on Nigel Evans, spineless.

Then we have David Laws. Unlike Nigel Evans, Laws didn't come out; he was dragged out. Also unlike Nigel Evans, Laws has an exemplary Parliamentary record on LGBT rights. So at least he wasn't a hypocrite whilst in the closet. I think Laws dealt with his situation with dignity considering what happened last year, and I don't really have a problem with him personally. But again, his supporters dragged out the "glory" of the Closet to attempt to excuse his actions with regards to his expenses. And this is where we get to the crux of my problem with some people and the Closet. Their coming out experience is used, sometimes by them or as in this case by their supporters, as a shield to stop criticism and derail debate. Coming out is not something to be glorified, people who come out aren't heroes. Coming out is something we should be ashamed has to still happen in our country. Coming out should be viewed as a necessary evil. We need to stop treating those who come out with kid gloves. All gay, bisexual and lesbian people have to do it, constantly. Sympathise by all means, but don't suggest some millionaire coming out is somehow as damaging as some working class kid in a secondary school. It's insulting. Well at least Laws admits, like Evans, his errors.

Did his obsessive wish for secrecy send a poor signal to gay young people? “Yes I regret that. I don’t think that as an MP and somebody who was education spokesman for the party that I set a very good example in that regard,” he says.

It's 2011. You can come out now. You should have come out 10 years ago. You're not safe now but some of us who came out decades ago can tell you, it's a bloody lot safer than it used to be.

Also it's really time people stopped using their sexuality as an excuse for their other transgressions (looks at Chris Bryant and his expenses issues in 2009 for example). It's insulting to every decent LGBT person out there.

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

IDAHO: Lib Dems In Government = LGBT Rights Win

Lynne Featherstone talks about what the Coalition has done and plans to do in an effort to push forward the evil gay agenda. (We're coming for your children next...)



And ILGA-Europe published a "Rainbow Map" which gave the UK top marks on LGBT rights (when compared with others, no European country got full marks) moving up from joint 6th place last year. The fight for freedom continues... but we're closing in...

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

This Is Likely To Be The Least Popular Post I've Ever Written; Republished

Republished as Blogger lost it during their recent issues...

Sure, that title is rather presumptuous given the hatred poured out on me after that time a post of mine was quoted in the Guardian insulting Simon Hughes. That was not a fun time. But I suspect, among my fellow Lib Dems, this post will be met with hostility, defensiveness and censure.

Let me get the "Don't hate me too much" stuff out of the way first.

I do not hate David Laws. I do not, in fact, have strong feelings in either direction regarding him. Despite my reading of his 1997 election leaflet here in Folkestone and Hythe being one of my earliest political memories, he's just not been on my political radar.

And I do not think he intentionally robbed the public purse for financial gain. I do not think he is in the same league as those who flipped their homes or used their expenses for frivolous things. I am firmly of the belief most of them have got off scot-free and I find this disturbing and upsetting.

And I applaud David Laws for accepting what he did was wrong

I accept the conclusions of the Inquiry and take full responsibility for the mistakes which I have made. I apologise to my constituents and to Parliament. Each of us should be our own sternest critic, and I recognise that my attempts to keep my personal life private were in conflict with my duty as an MP to ensure that my claims were in every sense above reproach. I should have resolved this dilemma in the public interest and not in the interests of my privacy.

However, from the moment these matters became public, I have made clear that my motivation was to protect my privacy, rather than to benefit from the system of parliamentary expenses, and I am pleased that the Commissioner has upheld that view.

I have also, from the very beginning, made clear that I believed that my secrecy about my private life led me to make lower overall claims than would otherwise be the case, and this has been confirmed by the Parliamentary Commissioner and by the Committee. The taxpayer gained, rather than lost out, from my desire for secrecy, though I fully accept that this is not an adequate reason for breaking the rules.

This last year has been a difficult one, and I am grateful to family, friends, constituents and colleagues for their support and understanding.

But...

I am deeply disturbed by the defence many, not Laws himself I hasten to add, are making for Laws' behaviour and against his punishment. The defence stinks of special pleading and is very unbecoming.

1) attempting to hide your sexuality is not a get-out of jail free card. I'm sorry, I know I can be heartless about closeted men in power, but it's not acceptable to think that one can bend the rules to hide some personal secret. I don't care if it'd upset his family to find out the truth about him. That's their failing. There are rules that need to be followed and using his sexuality to suggest they shouldn't have been followed is an insult both to him and to gay men in general. He made a bad decision, he has accepted he made a bad decision. Move on, and stop trying to drag his sexuality into it.

2) just because others were not punished doesn't mean you shouldn't be. Some are aghast that David Laws is being punished whilst worse offenders got away with it. I too am aghast; aghast they got away with it. We should be campaigning to get them properly punished not for leniency on David Laws to ensure some sort of bizarre fairness.

I understand the urge to defend someone who, according to all reports I've heard, is a lovely, charming man. I'm sure he is a good person, I've no reason to believe otherwise. But he made a mistake, and he is, with great dignity I must say, making up for it. This is the situation as it stands, please STOP bemoaning this fact as if it's a travesty of justice.

Every time someone, through a great love for David Laws personally, stands up and declares how awful and wrong the decision to suspend him is, they serve only to remind the public of the "private club" nature of politics and of the selective defence for someone based on your personal feelings rather than what is right and what is wrong. If you remember during the expenses scandal many Labour blogs were full of this sort of stuff "But they are such a lovely person, I'm sure they only flipped their home because....". We aren't interested in excuses. A person in such a position must be beyond reproach OR prepared to take the consequences.

I hope David Laws returns to front bench politics, I believe he'd be an asset to our Government and our country. But I also hope he and others learn from his mistake.

Don't hate me too much...

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

No Apologies: LGBT rights and UK Politics Rantathon

I often wonder if the LGBT community isn't it's own worst enemy. We allow all sorts of morons to speak on our behalf on a national level, who really don't hold our interests at heart. Stonewall is, of course, one such example but I think they've pulled their head in a little sheepishly after last years stupidity and are keeping a lower profile politically. Sadly some individuals and organisations are still working against the community at large's interests in pursuit of their own rather narrow agendas.

Step forward Iain Dale. Anyone who follows me on Twitter knows I try to have as little to do with this man as possible, to the point of reminding people to, please God, not retweet his stuff into my timeline. I'm sure he's a nice enough fellow but I've not seen any evidence of that and thus have been perfectly happy to ignore his writings and tweets. But after it appeared in my timeline a few times yesterday I gave in and read an interview So So Gay did with him.

How, then, is the Coalition performing – particularly on gay rights? Before the election, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats made a number of pledges to gay people about, for example, considering marriage equality and deleting criminal records for homosexual ‘offences’. A question about marriage equality draws a quick response. ‘To me, a civil partnership is a marriage in all but name. If the Government wants to call it marriage, fine – but I can’t understand why people get so hung up about it.’

Yes. That old chestnut. He even called me out on it on Twitter asking me what the differences were, and suggesting it was all "semantics". Yes, Mr Dale, it's only semantics when you have your marriage dissolved because you change your gender. Doesn't affect anyone really does it? What an appalling thing to say. I thought I'd let that pass without further comment (beyond sending him a link to the relevant post on this blog), he's of little interest or importance in the grand scheme of things after all.. and then So So Gay printed a little Coalition debate piece today.

Tom Burke, chair of LGBT Labour said:

We are also calling for marriage equality for same sex couples. Civil partnerships were a significant step forward in the legal rights of lesbian and gay people. The time has come to build on this and to give same sex couples the right to get married on a comparable basis as heterosexual couples. It would also ensure that married trans people can transition to their new gender without having to divorce. The government has kicked the issues into the long grass, whereas we think it’s time for action.

A couple of points there:

1) the article is written to suggest marriage equality is Labour policy, it's not. It's just LGBTLabour's only very recently (last year) adopted policy!

2) "The time has come" totally gets my back up. It suggests there is no right to equality. It's all about getting what we can, when we can, at the discretion of others. It's what I was hearing from Labour for 5 years "Now isn't the time to be fighting for marriage equality". How fucking insulting is that? I don't often swear but I think the situation calls for it.

3) "The government has kicked the issues into the long grass, whereas we think it’s time for action." - This issue wasn't even on the Government agenda, LGBT Labour's agenda or anyone else's agenda in the House of Commons this time last year. It was only through the HARD WORK of activists on the ground during the Labour leadership elections and other opportunities, and through wide publicity given by Pink News to the Stonewall troubles and other marriage equality stories that we have even got them to give us a consultation. They aren't kicking it into the long grass and, in fact, equality supporters IN the Government are desperately pulling the issue out of the long grass (too slowly for my liking I admit) from where it had been despatched by New Labour in 2004.

And then it gets worse:

The only reason why gay rights would take a back seat in this Tory-led government is if Cameron and Clegg allowed it to; it would be their choice to let equality slip. Traditionally the Liberal Democrats have been very supportive of LGBT rights, but I know from former Lib Dem members who have joined the Labour party how disillusioned they are with Nick Clegg and with the fact that the Lib Dems in Parliament are supporting Tory policies, and working with people like Theresa May who voted against gay adoption in 2008 and opposed the repeal of Section 28.

This is total utter bollocks. An attempt to link the Coalition's troubles with trust (over tuition fees etc.) to the Coalition's record on LGBT rights is a disgustingly partisan attack. There is no excuse. Can you see now why I despise Labour's constant harping on about being the LGBT community's best friend so much? They use us, for political point scoring and nothing more.

The Coalition have, with issues on each move I agree, stopped deporting gay asylum seekers, partially lifted the gay blood ban, begun a consultation on marriage equality and removed the convictions of men for "sexual crimes" that are no longer crimes. Each one of those has not been done perfectly. But then again Labour's record was exactly the same so attempting to point score is pointless. We must continue to press for perfection.  For a new blood donation policy that is about sexual health rather than sexuality. For more oversight on what is happening to LGBT asylum seekers, for a faster move towards marriage equality and for a total deletion of spent criminal convictions for things that are no longer illegal. But let's not pretend the Coalition hasn't already done a lot for LGBT people in a very short amount of time. I remain hopeful that with the sensible support of some in Labour this can continue.

It's time the LGBT community started truly speaking up rather then letting these partisan, divisive and out of touch politicians speak for them. I cry out for the day we get a decent LGBT rights organisation working for our rights. And even more for the day it's no longer needed.

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

One Day

If you know where this is from let me know... credit where credit's due. 

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