THEGAYUK

Category: The Political Debate

  • OPINION | Celebrity Big Brother: I feel I’ve been watching a long-running pro-Tory commercial

    Big Brainwashing. Why does Big Brother want us to love dangerous Ann Widdecombe?

    Yes, I admit it: I’ve been watching Celebrity Big Brother for the first time in years. Hearing it was the Year of the Women I was intrigued. Hearing that there were, to be frank, political discussions hooked me. Little did I know what was in store.

    Well, about that whole Year of the Women debacle I can be short: they never meant it did they? If they did the selection would have been better. (Almost) all of the women selected were lovely and admirable in their own way, but were they the perfect choice to represent the whole of womanhood?

    Not according to the audience who voted three out in the first week and another three in last Tuesday’s eviction. But even ignoring that: the year of the women basically ended when the men entered the house … or even before that: the moment Ann Widdecombe entered and opened her mouth.

    The reason why she was ever asked to represent in “The Year of the Women” is questionable, as she has always made it blatantly clear she is no supporter of the female sex.

    She even admittedly left the Anglican Church to become a Catholic because she did not like their decision to accept women vicars.

    On her first night in she revealed she was basically against fighting for female rights or equal payment and victim blamed rape victims.

    She then upset trans contestant India by misgendering her, even though she was corrected several times by both India and other housemates.
 She later also branded Prince Harry’s fiancee Meghan Markle “trouble”, saying the actress’s background and attitude made her “uneasy”.

    Which for other contestants should have been enough to be voted out first, if you think about it. But not this time. No-one seemed to even bat an eyelid, and the media reported it as if the comments came from a funny old aunty, not a former Tory politician and media personality who still has quite a lot of influence: she still writes books and columns and is often wheeled out to defend unpopular Tory policies.

 Then Courtney Act (or Shane Jenek) entered the house, and things got even worse: the Ru Paul’s Drag Race contestant was met with eye roles and disapproving looks from the start. Every conversation about gay rights or feminism was met with contrary statements tuts or more eye roles. Even when the other girls talked about things that had upset them or made them uneasy she refused to show any empathy.

    Things got even worse once Courtney struck up a firm flirty friendship with Andrew Brady. This friendship with Brady was labelled “disgusting” by Ann, and their funny play fights were what made her choose the pair as the ones to be up for eviction. She thought their actions were sexual claimed they had “brought the whole house into disrepute” and then upset Brady by suggesting his mother and grandmother would be upset by it.

    Strangely it was not Ann who was edited as the bad guy in this, but according to the media, it was Andrew for being so upset he called her the c-word. Sure, not the nicest thing to call someone, but when pushed past the breaking point in a place like that tempers run high. The fact that a lot of housemates had admitted to feeling restricted by Ann’s constant judging, her eye-rolls and facepalming seems forgotten or ignored – even by most housemates themselves.

    This was not the first time Big Brother and the media twisted events to let Ann get off scot-free. Year of the ‘bad editing’ and year of the ‘feeble excuses’ would have been a better label. Or … year of protecting the sexism and homophobia apologist … Because frankly, that is what I feel I have been watching.
 Actually, I don’t know WHAT I’ve been watching beyond a long-running pro-Tory commercial. 

Several housemates have claimed that Ann seems to get a favourable treatment where edits are concerned. (The edit CBB chose to make of a conversation Andrew and Shane had during a very late night ‘Live from the house’ broadcast compared to what was shown on the official CBB show seems to support this.)

    Also, the way the show went out of their way to create another non-existent homophobic row to deflect from Ann was a clear indication of how protective they are of their ‘star’; John Barnes was edited to look homophobic in a conversation with Courtney.

    Even though the poor man, who had very intellectual LGBT rights conversations on the show, was obviously talking about what older straight men usually think about gay men. The media did pick up on this in a big way, even though Courtney expressed on camera what a great conversation she had with John.

    Meanwhile, more and more people in and around the house became “protective of Ann”; she was so entertaining and funny. She was harmless; it was pantomime, she was close with bisexual Amanda Barrie; it was all a joke.

 A strange long-running joke then. A joke who wrote a column to support conversion therapy.
 A joke who voted against: Gay adoption, Equalising the age of consent, Repealing Section 28, Civil partnerships, Equality Act, Making it easier for lesbian couples to access IVF.

    She is also against abortion and once agreed with the view that even in case of women who get pregnant because of rape, a life is still a life.

    She calls herself “a defender of the unborn”.

    In the recent past, she even supported capital punishment and a move to shackle pregnant prisoners in hospital.

 Looking up the housemates online before going in Courtney might well be surprised by the views of Ann and had every right to ask her about it.

    When she was a member of the House of Commons, she was a representative of us, the people so she should be willing to debate and admit what she did and why. There is no need to protect her from this; she chooses to appear on reality TV time and time again.

    She chose to go in this house, knowing that there would be debate and made herself a target by goading people like Courtney and Andrew by constantly eye rolling everything they did. She clearly revels in upsetting and placing small ticking bombs that she keeps kicking until they explode, but when they do she blames the injured party for being ‘too sensitive’ and then shuts down, expecting her protectors to finish the job. A neat political trick.

    It is remarkable that a person like this is hailed as a “loveable granny” in edits. For most of the time, this series was the “Ann” show, where housemates seemed to always chat about how “funny” and “adorable” she was. Sometimes this continued on into the Bit On The Side studio, where after a while people even forgot to add the, “I don’t agree with her views”, disclaimer that they’d added at the start.
 There is the strange feeling of it being ‘the year of the conservative’ where the housemates and audience alike are sucked into her views and being to repeat them.

    Quietly, Ann trained everyone in the house to look at her for approval… once she achieved that, she made the correlation that she was like Mum or Grandmum. She gave rewards and punishments. Then gradually escalated the levels of what they weren’t allowed to do, thus shutting out everyone who had anything bad to say about her. To disrespect/disagree with Ann would be like doing that to your own loved ones and made the person questioning the rules seem wrong and vindictive. And if you do a Twitter search it seems as if it’s working. Ann is hailed for her views and convictions by a good many people.

    The main excuse Ann apologists seem to use is ‘she’s old, and people were like that back then.’

    Excuse me? Were they really?

    Pardon me, but Ann Widdecombe is 70, not 101, She is not from the pre-war or Victorian age. She is my mum’s age; a woman who fought for equality for women, race and LGBT. If she heard someone like Ann back then, she’d clipped her around the head.
 Ann Widdecombe grew up in the ‘Swinging 60s’, she is younger than Mick Jagger and most of the Rolling Stones, younger than the remaining Beatles. She is as old as Marianne Faithfull – who was raised a convent girl but became a poster girl for bisexual liberation.

    These were the decades of protesting, feminism and sexual liberation – she might not have been part of it, but she can’t pretend she never heard of it. She certainly can’t brainwash people into believing that her attitude was the norm back then amongst her peers.

    The worst thing is seeing other LGBT members make those excuses for her, sucked in by the “funny old lady” act. No Amanda, Wayne, Rylan, Biggins, Russell Grant – this was not the norm back then. Shame especially those who are her age: why shame your whole generation?
 People like Elizabeth Taylor, Joanna Lumley, Barbra Streisand and most of the cast of Grace and Frankie are her peers as is Barbra Windsor.

    All these people believed and still believe in gay rights and general equality, even the nuns in the original Call the Midwife books were more open-minded than she is.

    What the heck Amanda especially; how difficult is it to understand that gay people did not have the right to marry in the very recent past and that this was because of people like Ann who voted against that. Be friends with her if you must, but don’t say that she and her opinions had nothing to do with your rights! Even on the show Widdecombe still insisted: “Marriage is between a man and a woman.”

    She uses her status to create her own little pantomime in which she is the star, knowing that this will continue to give her a stage to present her dangerous opinions… It’s a trick card Donald Trump played as well during the elections.

    It has nothing to do with how ‘things were back then’, as this was clearly not the case amongst her age group; it has to do with a narrow-minded woman who enjoys being the villain when it suits her, knowing it keeps her in the media. She uses her status to create her own little pantomime in which she is the star, knowing that this will continue to give her a stage to present her dangerous opinions. It even seems to make her popular with every generation. It’s a trick card Donald Trump played as well during the elections.

    Like Trump, Ann too showed she is still vindictive, placing Maggie Oliver up for eviction because of past political clashes. Maggie – who everyone expected to go far was barely seen during her time on the show. “I was talking about police, zero hour contracts, poverty and homelessness and those conversations haven’t been showed,”

    She came out of the house saying Ann had ‘no compassion for the homeless or poor’ and is a ‘misogynist’.

    “I don’t hate Ann,” she said. “She’s a powerful woman, and I believe that she is a misogynist.
 She’s playing a very clever game. She is very intelligent, but emotionally she is not. 
My views on politicians are widely reported, and Ann has proved every comment and stereotype that I have made about people in positions of authority. 
I don’t believe [her lack of empathy] is her fault, she has lived a privileged life.

    Emotionally she has never evolved. Politically she is very smart, but she has lived in a world of men. She has shown that in the fact she is quite vocal on her views about women.”

    In a way, this is bigger than Big Brother as this is a small window into the state of the world right now. It reveals how easily people give up their own opinions and freedom and how much intolerance towards those that fight for equality there still is.

    The catchphrase of this year’s Big Brother is “respect your elders”. Of course, you have to have respect for those that came before you; so many people fought for your right to exist and a lot of the freedoms we have now. But when someone is disrespectful or hurtful to you – judging you before they have even met you. You are allowed to voice your opinion. No-one is allowed to belittle or hurt anyone, no matter who they are and what their age is.

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • COMMENT | Terrorism: Is the media part of the problem?

    “COWARDS ATTACK AGAIN”

    I really don’t understand the mentality of the media. Fighting terrorism includes you. The media makes me sick with the number of times they re-run the same newscast. This is publicity for terrorism. Free publicity no terrorist organisation could afford. Primetime advertising. When will you realise that in your haste to earn a buck you are just a glorified marketing man of the terrorist.

    What a shocking and terrible intrusion into the grief of the families of the dead to see the location and the belongings of their loved ones in disarray bloodied and on the street, on every channel hour after hour. Have some respect.

    When unarmed people are gunned down, blown up or mown down in a country that is at peace in the name of a cause and religion, that is not a holy war. It is cowardice. War requires armed combatants fighting against each other to defend their beliefs. This is not a state of war there is no glory in massacring innocent people, it is a crime against humanity.

    Delusional fanatics are traditionally told one of 2 stories, especially suicide bombers:

    1. They will be protected from the fire and explosion by their God to emerge victorious.
    2. This is a route to glory and everlasting paradise.

    In the absence of surviving suicide bombers and it generally being accepted their pebble dashed remains stay at the scene, the first would appear to be a lie.

    The second poses the question, is this is the route to glory and eternal paradise and it is such a desirable place to be; why have your leaders not gone before you? This lack of willingness to tread the path to the ultimate goal by those who endorse it would suggest it too is a lie.

    There is too much procrastinating among politicians; now is the time for a political “cough and drop test” to see who has the balls to take stronger action.

    If the UK and the USA really do have a special relationship I would like to see shared policy-making to protect our citizens in both countries. United we stand.

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • COMMENT | Utter Trash: Lord Tebbit, Pollution does not create transgender people

    Former chairman of the Conservative party Lord Tebbit has claimed air pollution is making people transgender. Probably the most offensive and mind-boggling suggestion I have heard in my whole life.

    Personally, I think air pollution is polluting this narrow-minded man’s brain and causing him to make completely ludicrous claims.

    He also claimed that transgender people were a new phenomenon, stating he could not recollect any such individuals among his fellow pupils at school. Maybe, Lord Tebbit, this is because you attended a posh private school where you were wrapped in cotton wool and sheltered from the real world.

    If you’d lived a normal person’s life, seeing the real world, I’m sure such claims would not even enter your head. You’ve only got to read a factual novel or even watch a historical drama or documentary and you’ll be educated in the fact that transgender is not a new phenomenon.

    He says his theory that air pollution triggers being transgender, is the belief of some scientists. Now, I have Googled and researched into this and it’s very unclear exactly which scientists he is referring to. There seems to be no scientific evidence to support his claims. Probably because even a non-scientist, such as myself, can work out that his theories are simply narrow-minded bigotry.

    In an attempt to absolve his bizarre and offensive opinions, he said that he knows “voicing such thoughts will probably bring coals of fire upon my head.” I’m sorry Lord Tebbit but even anticipating that what you are saying will cause offence offers you no absolution.

    Last week, Mrs May said and I quote, “Homophobia, biphobia and transphobia have still not been defeated and they must be.” Yes, I agree with you, Prime Minister. They must be. Maybe a good first step will be ridding the Conservative party of such people as Lord Tebbit. And then you may stand a chance.

  • COMMENT | Religious bigots don’t deserve to keep their jobs

    The Archbishop of Sydney has said that religious believers could lose their jobs if same-sex marriage is legalised in Australia. If these religious believers are acting bigoted or being narrow-minded, then quite frankly, they don’t deserve to keep their jobs.

    He went on to say those religious believers could also face discrimination suits and bullying if the bill is passed. But what about the bullying and discrimination homosexuals have faced for years? He clearly doesn’t care about the homosexuals facing this. Hypocrisy. And such a caring attitude for a religious leader. Please excuse my sarcasm.

    He told worshippers that the government should “keep out of the friendship business and out of the bedroom.” Maybe he should take his own advice and keep out of the situation also. What right does being the Archbishop give him to interfere in friendship and bedroom matters?

    “The state has no business telling us who we should love and how, sexually or otherwise.” In his arrogance, he is, ironically, showing support of same-sex marriage. Thank you for that Archbishop. For once, we might actually agree on a point. No one should play God and tell anyone who they can love or marry. Pun intended. The fact we still need to vote on such matters is a disgrace in itself.

    This delightful human being carried on saying that it’s best for children to have a mother and a father. So Archbishop, what about the poor children who have been bought up in a single parent family because one parent died? Or the awful stories we hear of children being sexually abused by their mother and father?

    I’m no genius, but that is clearly not best for children. Issues in our society are not so black and white. It’s not a simple case of stating children should have heterosexual parents, one being a woman and one being a man.

    In my eyes, it’s best for children to have a role model who cares for them and loves them unconditionally and teaches them right from wrong. This could be a single parent or a mother and father or a mother and mother or a father and father.

    He continued in his arrogant preaching by saying if marriage is redefined, it will be very hard to speak up for real marriage anymore. What is real marriage, Archbishop? Beg my pardon for my simplistic views, but I thought marriage was the joining of two people who love each other whilst committing themselves, for richer, poorer, in sickness and in health etc.

    He said the vote had implications for religious freedom. This is actually so angering because the vote actually has massive implications for human freedom. The freedom for people to marry who they want to marry.

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • COMMENT | Has world politics just become a p*ssing contest?

    Is the “Dick of Death” a world leader with a tiny todger? Is the world just having a bad hair and small penis day?

    I look at some world leaders and question if they have a mirror or have ever taken advice on styling? For example, have you seen the coiffes sported by some in the political elite? In the name of sweet mercy, someone get these blokes a haircut, a makeover or at the very least a hat or baseball cap.

    I don’t think people are waving in support of their leaders, they are pointing and laughing. Perhaps it is the hairstyling of one particular leader that brings his people to tears as they know they have to imitate and copy it if they are to stay alive.

    Often those who are under-endowed have an inferiority complex. It is why the term BCSD (Big Car Small Dick) was coined in the Julie Walters film Personal Services. I think some substitute a big car with a big arsenal of nuclear weapons.

    In the interest of world peace should their not be a doctor somewhere who measures the penis size of prospective leaders? If they are “Hung like a hamster”, sporting only a tiny todger then they should be pointed in the direction of other careers, vetoing their political aspirations and attempts at world domination or destruction.

    The combination of bad hair and a small co*k has a damning potential for the continuation of world peace. I am thinking of starting a funding page to get these boys a spa day. In privacy somewhere they could measure each other up, get a cut and blow dry and be pampered. We are talking Queer Eye For The Straight Guy, the diplomatic mission

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • COMMENT | A “Sassy Gay Republican” is being dragged over healthcare, but it’s his support for the alt-right which should concern us

    Life comes at you fast and furiously, as one gay conservative recently discovered following a horrifying auto collision.

    A Twitter user who called Alex, who bills himself “Sassy Gay Republican” went viral after establishing a GoFundMe campaign to help pay medical bills he alleges his insurance is unwilling to cover. This in itself is an all-too-common occurrence in the United States, where healthcare is not considered a fundamental right but a luxury.

     

    For argument’s sake, though, let’s assume everything Alex is saying is true, because it provides an interesting news angle into something the gay community needs to reckon with: the growing number of young, white gay men attracted to the far-right and neo-fascist movements.

     


    First, let’s clear something up. Debating Alex’s views on health care misses the wider point and is, in fact, a waste of time. He isn’t a hypocrite. Alex has said he is against state-funded healthcare but has no problem begging strangers online for a handout.

    American conservatives opposed to public health care contend that individuals are responsible for their own medical coverage, and charity (including crowdfunding on sites like GoFundMe) is one way to do that. The argument isn’t that people shouldn’t willingly pool resources to help one another, but rather that they shouldn’t be forced to pool resources through taxation, which is what socialised medicine requires.

    Regardless of what you think about the state’s role in providing healthcare (and I fundamentally disagree with Alex here), but he’s not a hypocrite. This is ideologically consistent.

     


    Yet debating this one point is to miss the forest for the trees. While this whole incident raises a lot of interesting questions – about healthcare, about the role of Twitter in political discourse, about the power imbalance between celebrities and the rest of us (Chrissy Teigan helped this story to go viral) – the most jarring question is why Alex is a Trump-supporting “redhat” to begin with. How did this young white gay man arrive at such a radically different worldview to the majority of our community and why do so many other young white gay men seem to be following down the same path?

    I touched on this earlier this year in an essay for my blog, The Curious American. It largely piggybacks off an article by Laurie Penny which discusses her experiences with Milo Yiannopolous – the standard-bearer for the gay hard right – and his acolytes. Since then, several other pieces have been written on the gay attraction to neo-fascist movements in the US, UK, and Germany. In an article for the New Yorker (which later appeared at The Cut), Maureen O’Connor explains that “gay men are remarkably prominent – if not exactly abundant – in the alt-right universe,” mentioning Yiannopolous, the journalist Chadwick Moore (whom I wrote about for the Independent in February), and “Twinks 4 Trump” founder and Gateway Pundit blogger Lucian Wintrich as standard bearers of this homofascist movement.

    O’Connor, as I did in my essay for The Curious American, links the gay appeal of the “alt-right” (which to be clear is really just doublespeak for far-right, neofascism, and white supremacy) to a hypermasculine yet camp aesthetic. It sounds paradoxical, but it makes perfect sense that hypermasculinists such as Trump would appeal to camp, flamboyant men like Yiannopolous and Wintrich who fetishise “Daddy” (as they call Trump) and Black men (in the case of Yiannopolous).

    In doing so, they knowingly play on the stereotype of Black men as “bulls” who are hypersexual and dominant – a trope that goes back to Jim Crow when Black men were painted as sexually predatory and a threat to white women and white womanhood. Meanwhile, other gay men swoon over the leader of the so-called “alt-right movement” Richard Spencer, who has been held up as a far-right sex symbol by even the mainstream media.

    Still, other gay men are attracted to the far-right movements currently gaining traction in the mainstream because of an innate Islamophobia. Trump and his ilk used the Pulse massacre – in which an American-born Muslim slaughtered 49 people at a gay dance club in Orlando – to stoke Islamophobia within the gay community. It worked remarkably well, not just in the United States, but abroad. As CNN reported earlier this month, many German gay men are turning to the hard-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party because of anti-Muslim prejudice. The party opposes same-sex marriage, yet that doesn’t matter to their gay supporters who view Islam as a violent, existential threat to themselves.

     

    While ISIS clearly has some medieval views on homosexuality and routinely throws gay men off roofs, this is like comparing Ugandan Christians (who routinely execute LGBT people) to MIke Pence, whose own evangelical beliefs are used to justify his opposition to LGBT equality. In America, the majority of Muslims think it’s fine to be gay – far outstripping their evangelical Christian counterparts.

    In Britain, the picture is bleaker – just over half of British Muslims polled think homosexuality should be illegal while most Christians have liberalised their views on homosexuality since 1990. But when you look at hate crime statistics, most anti-gay violence in the US, UK, and Germany is perpetrated by non-Muslims – complicating the argument that Islam is the greatest threat to Western gays, regardless of polled views.

    Which brings us back to Alex, whose tweets (two of which I’ve posted above) illustrate a deep but unwarranted Islamophobia. Whether this was the primary motivation for him to support Trump, I don’t know. After all, whilst he’s vehemently pro-Trump, he seems to oppose Vice President Mike Pence, who is notoriously homophobic and anti-gay.

     

    This really underscores a key point. Many of these gay men who are fascinated with the alt-right are turned off by traditional conservatism as defined by the Tory Party in the UK, Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats in Germany, and the Republican establishment in the USA. That is a conservatism that plays on outright prejudices (making opposition to same-sex marriage a key platform, for example) whilst the “alt-right” – while nearly universally opposing LGBT civil rights – feigns acceptance and even borrows from gay culture (with the camp shtick of Yiannopolous and Wintrich and the hypermasculine ideal of others).

    Indeed, Alex himself, in a filmed diatribe released following his viral tweets, says that his sexuality isn’t an issue at Trump rallies. Yet this anecdote isn’t backed up by any polling data currently available: 59% of Trump supporters oppose same-sex marriage according to a Rasmussen poll from June. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll earlier this month found only 37% of Trump voters back equal marriage.

     

    Alex is but one young man, but he is indicative of a larger trend of white gay men moving to the far right. His sudden viral fame provides an excellent jumping off point not to debate the merits of crowdfunded healthcare but rather to ask ourselves, as a community, why so many of our young men are being drawn to a decidedly anti-LGBT, anti-Muslim movement.

    This is something the wider LGBT community is going to have to grapple with over the coming years, and while I fully recognise I don’t present many answers here, I think it’s time we start talking about why young white gay men like Alex are radicalising, and what it means for the wider LGBT movement. Because right now, these alt-right gay men are driving the entire community towards a head-on collision with fascism.

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OPINION | When will the mainstream media ask Theresa May if she thinks gay sex is a sin?

    Yesterday the media was awash with gay sex. In fact, I’ve never heard so much said about gay sex by the UK’s media (well not since Queer As Folk in 1999).

     

    Tim Farron has had a weekend of it.

    Probably never in the history of the world has one straight-identified man had to think about the sex that goes on between two people of the same sex than Tim Farron after the endless barrage of questioning, from the media, on the sinfulness of gay sex.

    And as though Farron is the authority of sin anyway and his say is final.

    Over the weekend, one interviewer asked him, it seems proudly, 11 times in an interview to clarify whether he actually thought “gay sex” was a sin, the interviewer even brought up Leviticus, shellfish (Tim’s a Vegetarian) and mixed fabrics.

    Listening to the questioning, exactly what do they mean when they say “gay sex”? Do they mean anal? Because actually isn’t the question then: do you think anal sex is sinful – because guess what heterosexuals have anal sex too.

    What does the mainstream media mean when they say “gay sex”? Do they mean anal? Because actually isn’t the question then: do you think anal sex is sinful? Because guess what, heterosexuals have anal sex too.

    Channel 4’s Cathy Newman asked him four times, Preston on Sunday morning (on a Sunday morning of all times) also asked him…

    Don’t we have an answer? He spelt it out loud and proud in Parliment no less. “I do not” he answered with conviction.

    He doesn’t think being gay is a sin. With “gay sex” being part of being gay doesn’t that technically answer it?

    Aren’t there more pressing questions of Farron that should be asked?

    The mainstream media’s fascination with this line of question is mindboggling. I also had no idea that the mainstream media could talk and question, at length, with authority, on this subject.

    When it comes to other matters concerning the LGBT community more often than not, it’s all quiet. For instance, how long did it take for the Chechnya gay detention, torture and killing story to break through? Some parts of the media haven’t even yet reported on it.

    Well, I’ll tell you what I want, the same media now needs to ask the same questions to Theresa May. She’s a committed Christian, just like Farron. She’s also used her Christianity to justify decisions more openly than any other politician has done of late. So shouldn’t we be asking her what she thinks of a bit of bum fun?

    I think that questions about her decisions on LGBT equality prior to 2004 should be probed.

    Whilst Farron’s record on voting on LGBT rights is good, granted not perfect, his party’s stance is exceptional. If you want to read Lord Paddick’s explanation on Farron’s abstention of same-sex marriage 3rd reading click here)

    Ms May’s not so much and as for the Tories, well, history speaks for itself.

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

     

  • OPINION | Religion Can Have A Place In Politics

    “Tim Farron is a homophobe”. At least, that’s what has been blowing up Twitter the past few days.

    This is due, more recently, to him again dodging a question about homosexuality from Cathy Newman on Channel 4 News and whether or not Mr Farron believed it was a sin. His response was about as reassuring as your one night stand telling you it’s “probably not chlamydia”. He paused, grimaced and managed simply to say that he wouldn’t make theological pronouncements. Cathy Newman was asking him because, after asking the same question in 2015, he responded: “in Christianity, we’re all sinners”. Bravo. This doubling-down on avoiding the question led to a big debate about the importance of one’s religion when you’re running for office.

    But what’s the precedent on this? Well, Prime Ministers have always discussed their faith. Britain, by tradition, is a Christian country so it was always a political point to be scored. Tony Blair was famously religious and even admitted, during an interview with Michael Parkinson, that he prayed to God over the Iraq War. Yet, Blair is considered a Gay Icon and even won an award from Gay Times. Blair, as Prime Minister, ushered in a raft of LGBT-positive legislation such as civil partnerships, the right to adopt, the equal age of consent, the repeal of section 28, ending the LGBT Armed Forces ban as well as stringent hate crime laws and the Gender Recognition Act. Never once did the public consider his religious beliefs to be in the way of his progressive ideals.

    So let’s look at Tim Farron again. What is different between his awkward response to the gay question to that of Corbyn’s homosexuality-as-a-choice gaffe? Farron did an interview with GQ in 2015 where he asserted his viewpoint, despite his religion “I’m not a religious leader; I’m a political leader. I think that everybody is utterly equal. People should be free to love who they want and marry who they want. But I don’t go making theological pronouncements.”

    These days, we are all so quick to judge but it’s understandable. Heinous crimes have been committed throughout history against LGBT people on the basis of religion. We’ve seen in America the debate about same-sex marriage and how it’s not ‘what God intended’. Homosexuality as a sin is something that seems to be the only thing most religions agree on. Therefore, I feel like LGBT people almost have a Pavlovian reaction to religion – where we hear the word God, we assume hate will follow. But that isn’t fair. We have to accept that, sometimes, our politicians are allowed to change their minds.

    Look at Hillary Clinton who in 2000 commented that “marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.” Sure, she continued by saying that same-sex partnerships should enjoy the same rights but it still wasn’t out-and-out support that we saw from her during her 2008 Democratic nomination campaign and subsequent 2016 Presidential campaign. Tim Farron’s record is admittedly sketchy. He voted in favour of same-sex marriage but in 2007 voted against the Equality Act and in 2013 abstained from a third reading of the same-sex marriage bill. Also in 2007, he gave an interview to the Salvation Army’s War Cry magazine about abortion stating he felt, “abortion is wrong. Society has to climb down from the position that says there is nothing morally objectionable about abortion before a certain time. If abortion is wrong, it is wrong at any time.” However, he then said that, “the standards that define my personal morality as a Christian are not the standards of public morality”.

    This again raises an interesting question of how genuine someone’s belief in something needs to be. Tim Farron might be anti-abortion or even anti-LGBT rights but his party supports choice and supports LGBT equality. Should we trust somebody who only believes in something politically and not personally? Does it matter? Essentially, it all comes down to trust. Tim Farron’s personal beliefs right now have not dictated his political beliefs but, if he were Prime Minister, would that change? He would have to make big decisions where he would likely turn to his religion and to God, as Tony Blair did, for the right answer. Tony Blair always made it clear that he believed in equality. Tim Farron seemingly believes it’s the right thing to believe politically. There’s a difference.

    Well, it’s always going to be tough for LGBT people to believe a religious candidate is a candidate that would represent them. Yet, at the same time, it would be equally discriminatory for us to judge people solely on their religion.

    But what about religious politicians in general? Well, it’s always going to be tough for LGBT people to believe a religious candidate is a candidate that would represent them. Yet, at the same time, it would be equally discriminatory for us to judge people solely on their religion. Religion in the modern day is becoming flexible. The Pope himself has stated that ‘God is not afraid of new things’ and continues to try to modernise the Church’s views on homosexuality and divorce (despite hesitation of the Synod). We cannot put all religious people in a box but at the same time, we’re right to be vigilant. Decades of persecution on religious grounds has taught us to be hesitant when it comes to politics and religion.

    Tim Farron’s gaffe is no worse than Corbyn’s, personally, but the difference is that Corbyn has a strong track record of voting for equal rights. I strongly believe we must judge our politicians on how they vote more than what they say. I understand, it’s not nice to hear a politician to even hint that homosexuality is a sin, especially when you think about the effect it has on younger LGBT people. But the lip service politicians give for votes (where being ambiguous means they can play both sides) is different completely to how they ultimately vote in Parliament. When it comes to politics, actions always speak louder than words and it is vital that everybody research candidates and their voting stances because, ultimately, the biggest God any MP prays to is their electorate.

    If you want to see how your MP has voted on a wide range of issues, check out www.theyworkforyou.com.

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OPINION | Banning homophobes from stadiums is not the answer

    Apparently, there’s a school of thought that if you hide something under a rock or you stick a head in the sand, the problem goes away.

    Banning homophobes from stadiums isn't going to help

    Except it doesn’t.

    So this week there’s been a lot of talk about banning homophobes from sports’ arenas and stadiums if they shout anti-gay, homophobic, biphobic or transphobic abuse and I’m flabbergasted. Since when did banning anything actually solve any problem?

    And who exactly is the banishment going to help?

    Whilst I agree that something must be done to solve the anti-gay culture that you’ll find on many of the UK’s sports’ grounds. This toxic environment means that gay or bisexual sports stars and athletes find it impossible to come out – why are there so few openly gay or bisexual sportsmen and women?

    But isn’t this part of the problem? There’s a complete dearth of out and proud athletes in sport, particularly men. There’s a handful of noteworthy sports professionals in diving, a sprinkle in rugby and absolutely none in football. Perhaps if we had more out and proud players homophobic fans would be exposed to other types of gay or bisexual men – not just the overtly camp fodder that entertainment formats on TV rely on to provide entertainment. Some could argue that stereotyping feeds into a homophobic mind frame. Gay and bisexual men, still in 2017 aren’t seen by some as “real men” but campy, effeminate and weak and these people need education. We are all types, shapes, sizes, colours and creeds – and all of us are worth protecting.

    Organisations that own the grounds have a responsibility to keep its patrons safe but it does not, I believe, hold the remit to educate or punish people with bigotted opinions. That responsibility lies with the police and society. Homophobes need education. Not the naughty step and time out.

    That’s why I would advocate an anti-discrimination workshop for those who are found guilty of hate speech – whether it’s gay, religious, race or other hate speech. These classes could run just like the speed awareness classes – when you’re caught speeding.

    You’d pay £100 for the class, money which could be ploughed into running the courses. On that course, you’d be given the opportunity to learn about discrimination and it’s damaging effects. You’d learn about equality and other lifestyles. Once you’ve completed the course you’d be allowed back.

    Surely this would be a better option than banning a homophobe indefinitely and letting him fester in his own hatred, as he watches the match in front of his TV. How does this help the LGBT+ community?

    It doesn’t. Instead, he’ll continue to live in his own echo chamber, feeding his own negativity.

    I agree with MP Damian Collins, who chaired the Culture, Media and Sport Committee who found that there should be “a zero-tolerance approach to the use of all homophobic language and behaviours”, but the sanctions that are implemented against those who are homophobic must be thought out as to not exacerbate the problem.

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, it’s management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OPINION | When it comes to “Choicegate”, Jeremy Corbyn’s a Hypocrite, not Homophobe

    Recently Jeremy Corbyn gave a speech to launch LGBT History Month.

    Jeremy Corbin Garry Knight England CC

    In a barnstorming speech he discussed his history of standing up against LGBT persecution and how, though things have improved, we should never be too relaxed when it comes to fighting for our rights. Then, he ended his speech with this:

    “Our defence of you is a defence of all of humanity and the right of people to practise the life they want to practise, rather than be criminalised, brutalised and murdered, simply because they chose to be gay, they chose to be lesbian, they were LGBT in any form.”

    What followed was immediate anger from LGBT people on the left and on the right. The use of the terms “practise” and “chose” is something that can be quite inflammatory because that sort of language is often used by anti-LGBT people who seek to harm us via correction or conversion therapy as well as being the go-to phrase for bigots everywhere. So surely this means “homophobic” Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn must resign immediately?

    No. Look, what he said was wrong. I am absolutely sick of seeing it being explained away as Corbyn ‘mis-spoke’ because he had his speech in front of him. He would of practised that speech, ran through it with his team and they would’ve all had input on it. He’s a politician, a smart man who knows the importance of words. This sort of language has a detrimental effect and, as Jeremy has realised, cannot be unsaid.

    I am not a fan of Jeremy Corbyn. I think he has destroyed the Party. However, this is a man who has consistently and unrepentantly voted in favour of rights and freedoms for LGBT people. He has supported everything from same-sex marriage to same-sex adoption. He continues to argue for the rest of the UK to get in line. He is not a homophobic man and it would be unfair to accuse him of being so.

    What he and his supporters are, however, are hypocrites. This is a man who has openly supported regimes in which LGBT people were persecuted. When he died in 2016, Mr Corbyn referred to Cuban despot Fidel Castro as a ‘champion of social justice’. Castro once referred to being LGBT as a ‘deviation incompatible with the revolution’. Castro bragged of his genius when setting up cruel work camps where many gay men, without so much as a trial, were sent with little food or water to work camps. They received telegrams telling them they’d been called up for service, only to be rounded up with other men like them and captured. How is that social justice, Mr Corbyn?

    In his speech which launched the aptly named ‘choicegate’, Mr Corbyn denounced the UK strengthening any relationship with other countries, particularly via trade deals, where the Government in that country were anti-LGBT. It was a thinly veiled and unsubtle reference to Theresa May’s recent visit to the US. Yet, Mr Corbyn was set to travel to Turkey in a pre-Brexit referendum speech where he was set to demand that Turkey join the EU. This visit and speech was scrapped in fears that it would give the Leave campaign more ammunition. Turkey is another country with a spotty LGBT history as its President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, last year lambasted the Western world for prioritising gay rights and animal rights over the lives of Syrian refugees.

    Mr Erdogan said,

    “Shame on those who in the West divert their sensitivity to the so-called freedoms, rights, and law shown in the debate over gay marriage away from Syrian women, children, and innocents in need of aid. Shame on those who divert their sensitivities to the living space of the whales in the seas, seals, [and] turtles away from the right to life of 23 million Syrians. Shame on those who put their security, welfare [and] comforts ahead of other people’s struggle to survive.”

    LGBT rights and animal rights being treated as one of the same. Same-sex marriage considered a ‘comfort’. Yet Corbyn wanted them to join the EU?

    Jeremy Corbyn is not a homophobe. Choicegate is a complete storm in a teacup without measured debate. I do not believe he ‘misspoke’ but simply just didn’t consider the power of the language he was using. He is absolutely an ally and the LGBT community on both the left and the right would be wrong in attacking him as being anti-LGBT.

    Yet, my biggest gripe is that Mr Corbyn and his supporters are openly lambasting Theresa May’s relationship with Trump whilst they sit back and allow Mr Corbyn to praise people who have committed heinous crimes against their LGBT population. Trump recently reaffirmed commitment to President Obama’s 2014 Executive Order to protect LGBT rights in the work place and then swiftly leaked a proposed Religious Freedom Executive Order which allows LGBT people to be discriminated against by businesses and other entities based on their sexuality. Mr Corbyn would be absolutely right to say that, if the US Government does proceed to introduce anti-LGBT executive orders and laws, that the UK must strongly consider our relationship. But, in the meantime, he must also remember the old adage that one should get their own house in order before telling others what to do with theirs.

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, it’s management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OP ED: Cameron had us believe that the Tories had changed but in the end… it’s just business as usual

    OP ED: Cameron had us believe that the Tories had changed but in the end… it’s just business as usual

    David Cameron painted a picture at the turn of this decade. The Conservatives were new, brand new and very gay-friendly. But as it stands we have three out of five PM candidates whose voting history on LGBT rights is deplorable (or non-existent) and two who have a fair weather relationship with the gay community.

    Painted as the party that brought in same-sex marriage, David Cameron would have had us believe that the Tories had finally changed.

    But it seems all he had actually created was the almost perfect veneer.

    Modern, forward thinking and accepting, but like all veneers, it’s what’s behind all that shine that really matters and what I’m seeing is rotten.

    With the departure of Cameron, we’re on the edge of having a country run by those who either wouldn’t vote on LGBT issues – so beneath them apparently is our humanity  that they wouldn’t even vote on life changing legislation, or those who, some might say are sheep in a wolf’s clothing, having had a long history of voting consistently against gay rights – and then almost like a light switch, all change, just like that.

    And while voting for equality for the LGBT community is commendable and admirable if it’s just lip service or a ploy to further career prospects – I’d rather not have you on our side. I’d rather deal with one face rather than two, at least you know where you stand.

    It’s becoming patently clear that same-sex marriage, the most historic piece of legislation this decade and one of the cornerstones of Cameron’s progressive Tories, was only won because of the coalition government with the Liberal Democrats.

    It might surprise you to find out that the majority of Conservative MPs voted against marriage equality including two of the current Prime Minister candidates: Stephen Crabb and Liam Fox. Michael Gove voted yes for gay marriage but then was absent for other key elements that would complete that equality.

    In total 136 Conservative MPs voted against the ability for gay and lesbian men and women to be treated equally under the law.

    Andrea Leadsom couldn’t be persuaded either way. She found parts of the new law “unacceptable” and abstained from the vote. In fact, she’s not voted on any LGBT legalisation since her 2010 induction to parliament.

    So here we are, five candidates, all vying for the top spot in Westminster. All of them have dubious voting, three of them clearly aren’t in our corner despite any backtracking they may have done in the past few days – and for this we, as a community, need to be worried.

    If nothing else the vote on the EU has lifted the lid on a Britain that many of us thought we’d left behind in the last century, we’ve had racial and homophobic tensions on the streets – with an increase of hate crime being reported, Brexit it seems, has given some on that side of the argument a feeling that open bigotry is acceptable.

    I’ve written to all five candidates about allaying legitimate fears our readers have put forward about LGBT protections as a new government forms – nearly 24 hours later – nothing.

    Like all veneers, the shine is only skin deep and eventually, it will crack. If we’re not careful it’s wholly possible that our rights, our freedoms could be rolled back.

     

    The opinions expressed in this comment piece may not reflect those of the management or editorial of THEGAYUK. If you’d like to write a comment or column for THEGAYUK click here.