THEGAYUK

Category: The Political Debate

  • OPINION | Putin’s Peace Prize

    Having allowed myself some time take in the news of Putin’s Nobel Peace Prize nomination I find I have reached no greater conclusion than the; ‘What the what?’ of my initial reactionary facial expressions.

    But let’s allow credit where is credit due here, please. First off all taking into account the merits of the individual case; outrageous skirting of human rights aside.

    For his work in the promotion of conflict resolution and the supported maintenance of peace and tranquillity, both at home and abroad; Putin receives nomination. For stopping bloodshed through political discussion; Putin receives nomination. For being a generally all-round nice guy who continuously advocates for a more resolved and peaceful planet; Putin receives nomination, and I think we would all agree that any such works from an individual are beyond acceptable cause to receive such a resounding applause.

    However, the merit of any case has its failings and here, laden in controversy, one barely knows where to begin. Putin is currently serving a 6 year term as president of Russia following a change of law that increased presidential term-age (theoretical term, that one) from 4 years, in 2012, amidst claims of fraud and irregularity by, both, opposition activists and the wider political community.

    In 2006 Putin received widespread condemnation for, what was considered as, a crackdown on Media Freedoms in Russia, following the shooting of an independent Russian Journalist who had exposed corruptions within the army and its conducts in Chechnya.

    In 2012 Putin backed stricter legislations of the Russian LGBT community, with further laws on Homosexual propaganda coming into place in 2013 and all the generally ongoing palavers there with.

    To name but a few.

    Now one could argue, here, that the very “blood shed” by Russian individuals striving for the right to live; speak and love freely, is cause enough to deny a claim for such an honour. Furthermore, the application of this law to visiting ‘non-Russians’, whose privilege to express and speak themselves with the same freedoms, perhaps, as they would enjoy at home, well…one could argue that that dissolves the claim for peace and tranquillity amongst all people on the “planet”. Not to mention the Russian role as the main supplier of arms to Basha al-Assad’s regime, in Syria.

    So we have, here, a man who’s every claim to honour is subject to rebuttal of the highest order. For, there appears to be very few instances where the promotion of such peaceful and resolved conflict, have not been undermined or undone by the very actions of his own legislation within government which, at the most basic level, aim to dissolve the rights of Humans to enjoy the privilege of a free life.

    To allow, to the point of promotion, such hatred and discrimination to exist; openly and in your name, opposes the very essence of peace and the very notion of prize. The ability to nominate an individual regardless, therefore, raises into question the very essence of what the Nobel Peace Prize is and, furthermore, taking into account not only recent but historical nuances in nomination, the validity of its award.

    The current atrocities faced by individuals in Russia for the pure nature of their love seems cause enough that such a nomination could barely even be considered that, surely, would be the Nobel Peace Prize in action?

    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 | #HateDoesNotPay: Russian’s Shortsighted Homophobia

    So Putin hates homos. We all know that – he has made it very clear and the Anti-Gay legislation plaguing Russia has been referenced across the LGBT and mainstream medias. The human rights and social welfare implications are dire but what about a colder, less humane, and perhaps purely financial interpretation?

    So, let’s ask – do we reckon Putin has thought this through? Does he understand the social and economic impact state-sponsored homophobia will have on the country? Does he hate money as much as he hates homos? I doubt it.

    The pink pound is estimated to be worth £6 billion per year in the UK, and over £350 billion of pink money was spent globally in 2012. Russia is missing out on this trade as discerning gay consumers will not be flying to Moscow or St.Petersburg, and many will also be boycotting Russian products at home. Indeed Chief Executive Officer for SPI (which owns Stolichnaya Vodka) Val Mendeleeva has publically explained that although some ingredients used to make Stoli do come from Russia, “the Russian government has no ownership interest or control over the Stoli brand that is privately owned by SPI Group.” It is interesting to see that he has made it very clear the company “fully support and endorse your [lgbt community] objectives to fight against prejudice in Russia. In the past decade, SPI has been actively advocating in favor of freedom, tolerance and openness in society, standing very passionately on the side of the LGBT community and will continue to support any effective initiative in that direction.” Clearly the boycott, even if slightly misdirected, does have an impact. Perhaps that is an angle Russia might listen to?

    And what about the labour force contributing to such businesses? How productive are people when they cannot be themselves? Various organisations have argued that 6-10% of the UK population is lesbian, gay or bisexual. Assuming that the UK is roughly representative of other European countries (and not a homo-hot-spot) then that means there could be 8.6 – 14.3 million lesbian, gay or bisexual Russians. Even a conservative medium estimate leaves over 10 million employees not giving 100% to their work, social or personal lives.

    With Russia’s economy showing signs of weakness, workers need to perform better and be happy to invest back into goods and services. With industrial output declining in early 2013 (for the first time since 2009) and foreign direct investment subdued, perhaps Russia’s unpredictability and lack of commitment to the rights of its nationals is having a cost. Further economic issues, such as inflation, increased in the second half of 2012 and is set to remain high for 2013.

    Furthermore, if you had the choice wouldn’t you leave? And who has those choices in life usually? Is it Russia’s affluent? Perhaps they will be able to escape first and take their money somewhere else. And is it a stretch too far to assume that not all Russians are homophobic? Galop, London’s LGBT community safety charity, highlights that over 1000 homophobioc hate crimes take place in London each year – does that mean everyone in the capital is partial to a bit of gay bashing? I’d hope not! And would Putin carry out the attacks we see in the news personally?

    But who will ask these questions of him? Is anyone able to pose these questions? #hatedoesnotpay @VladimirPutin

     

    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 | Outrage and Fear: The Return of ‘Section 28’

    By now most of us will be aware of the news that some schools in the UK have Section 28 style policies regarding sex education. While it’s not a complete return to the dark days of the actual Section 28, it is a worrying discovery and one that concerns me enormously.

    I was at school from 1989 until 2002. That was the period in which Section 28 was in force, eventually being repealed in 2003. While the law banned the promotion of homosexuality, it actually did more than that and had damaging consequences for gay youth. I was one of them.

    I went to a Catholic school so there was no sex education of any kind, but there was very much a culture of homophobic bullying. Whether someone was gay or simply perceived to be, their life would be made hell and the teachers would turn a blind eye to it. I was one of those kids perceived to be gay.

    I came out to friends when I was 15, but I was never out to anyone at school. In primary school I was racially bullied for having a dark skinned Mum and a white Dad, but as we all moved on to secondary school and it was more noticeable that my only friends were girls, the bullying soon became homophobic.

    Daily taunts about my perceived sexuality became the norm. The teachers could see and hear what was happening but never once intervened. In particular I remember a school trip to Devon. During the week long trip it was absolute hell. I had to share a room with several boys in my class and put up with their name calling. On the bus home it all came to a head.

    The other lads began singing homophobic songs at me. The song ‘YMCA’ was changed to ‘why is he gay’, and the dance track ‘Til I Come’ by ATB (gives you an indication of how long ago it was) was changed to ‘Til I Bum’. It seems quite silly and I laugh about it now, but at the time it hurt and did a lot of psychological damage. The teachers on the bus could hear what was going on. I asked them to tell the other boys to leave me alone. The teachers ignored me. I had to put up with the taunting for four hours and had no escape.

    Another occasion was when I had an altercation with a boy in my year. It was Monday morning and I had spent the weekend with my then friend. Alone on a Saturday night, we became intimate. On return to school on Monday morning I was greeted with hostility from him. I was called a “f**king poof” and he kicked me. My response was to punch him, so that is what I did. I’m not proud of how I responded, but I couldn’t take the bullying any more.

    The teacher had been out of the class when the incident occurred but soon found out about it. I was summoned to the Head of Year’s office to be reprimanded. I explained what had happened (not the intimacy leading up to what happened, but the fact I was called a homophobic name and kicked first). The Head of Year told me that he did not want to hear about that and then suspended me for being violent. I appealed to him but it fell on deaf ears. I was ordered to leave school immediately.

    At that point I was devastated. I had already begun harming myself because I could not take the homophobic bullying and that situation tipped me over the edge. From my perspective the teachers were letting it happen. They knew exactly what was being said and done, yet did nothing to stop it. It was the same for other gay kids at my school. They were also taunted and bullied in front of teachers, but got away with it.

    I’ve opened up about my experiences because I want to show what damage Section 28 style regulations can do to gay youth. They have the potential to cause lasting psychological problems and that it why I am so outraged. But not only am I outraged; I am also fearful. I worry about today’s gay youth having to go through the same experiences that I and other gay people went through during the period of Section 28. It wasn’t just about sex education; it shaped the whole culture of the school. History cannot be allowed to repeat itself.

    I currently run an LGBTQ youth support charity. One of the things I am trying to do is engage in dialogue with local schools to find out exactly what they do to challenge homophobia and work with them on improving that. Most schools now have anti-bullying policies that include challenging homophobia, but the cynic in me sees those policies as being a facade rather than something that is actually implemented. Engaging with local schools has proven to be incredibly difficult, with most not responding to my letters or returning my telephone calls. However, the one school that did get back to me was the school that I went to.

    I had been particularly strong in my letter to them, detailing my experiences and wanting to know what they were doing now to challenge homophobia. It appeared to do the trick and I was invited into the school to speak to the Head Teacher.

    I took along one of my volunteers who also went to the same school. That person is a trans male coming towards the end of the transition process. Together we spoke about our experiences and outlined what we feel the school must do to prevent today’s youth going through the same experience. The school welcomed the suggestions and have promised to work with me on some anti-homophobia/transphobia initiatives. Whether it happens is another thing, but it has been a positive step. The school seem to genuinely want to improve the way they deal with homophobia and now have a ‘respect’ day where sexuality and gender identity is discussed just as openly as race, religion and disability.

    In another positive twist, I bumped into one of my former teachers at an awards ceremony last year and received an apology from her for not intervening when I was being bullied. She specifically blamed Section 28 and said that her “hands were tied”. I accepted the apology as I believed it to be sincere. And yes I did cry a little bit.

    It appears clear what needs to be done regarding these Section 28 style policies. There needs to be intervention from the local education authorities and Ofsted to get clarification of exactly what the policies mean. Also as a society we need to be vocal and say that this is not something we will stand for; that we will not allow another generation of gay youth to be persecuted.

    But to end on a positive note, I am aware of one school in Warwickshire that has an openly trans pupil who is now living as a female and is allowed to use the female changing rooms and toilets. That pupil has not been bullied and is one of the most popular and loved people at the school. The teachers have worked with the pupil’s family on helping that person live openly as a female and begin the process of transitioning. So although we only tend to hear the horror stories and negatives, let’s also keep in mind that in general things really are getting better.

    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 | Attacked For Being Gay or Attacked For Being There?

    In my last article I talked about the rise of online ‘trolls’ but something that has been around for much longer than trolls are perpetrators of hate crimes; either through the press or via the traditional old fashioned face to face method.

    Unfortunately it’s something that goes on far too frequently and has probably even gone on in front of you without you ever realising. But what is a hate crime? And how is a hate crime any different from any other sort of threatening or violent behaviour?

    In a previous life I used to work in a gay bar and you would get all walks of life through the door on any given night. Some nights, namely mid-week when drinking on a school night is usually a bad idea, it used to be fairly quiet and it gave you the opportunity to catch-up on any cleaning or get chatted up by the regulars. Well, they would try to chat you up… can’t blame them for trying right?

    One night however a guy came in who, on the face of it, seemed like a general body from the street that was coming down to the local gay bar to escape the wife / girlfriend / home life; someone that you wouldn’t turn away or guess that they were out to cause trouble or had issues. As the night went on he became more and more frustrated and pushy with staff and customers so was eventually asked to leave. Upon leaving (after much protest and farting about) he proceeded to through all 16 odd stone of himself against the bar door in an attempt to break it down all the while shouting profanities. When that didn’t work, he moved onto the bin outside and tried to throw that against the bar windows.

    Somehow he missed the windows (I’m still not sure how) and as if by magic (or really bad luck) managed to hit and dent the front bonnet of my car.

    Now, anyone that takes any pride – at all – in their car would know the pain and distress that I went through in that moment. What had my car done to him? And how did he know it belonged to me? Or was it a case of “wrong place, wrong time”?

    The police were called, he was duly arrested and statements were taken and on the whole the support the police provided was fairly helpful and engaging. However, when it came to processing the attack under a relevant law it was classed as ‘criminal damage’ and not as a hate crime. This baffled me somewhat as it transpires he wasn’t escaping the family home for evening but instead had just been ‘released’ from the local homeless shelter and was, by all accounts, looking for a target for his next attention fix. The argument at the time was that they didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute under hate crime legislation however there was more than enough for criminal damage and were more likely to get a positive result at the Magistrates Court.

    In that regard they were correct, it went to court and he was forced into a programme, several hours community service and forced to pay mine and the bars repair bill and a small amount of compensation. While I don’t question the outcome (as he was made to pay) for me it raises questions of, well has the reporting of hate crime become a side thought because it just doesn’t lead to “justice”? In this instance, we were more likely to get “justice” by pursuing another criminal offence? What do you need to do therefore to prove that a crime is a hate crime?

    Another example was of a local magazine (although the more accurate term is “local rag”) that usually printed ‘laddish’ type articles designed to make the lads laugh and girls look at the wedding and pampering adverts that were often in there. Usually it printed run of the mill every day jokes or funny stories, nothing that would cause mass offence. Except in one addition, the editor decided to print an article on “10 signs that you aren’t manly”, or something along those lines. One of which stated that if you looked after yourself, or went down the gym or took care of your appearance in any way you were clearly not worthy of the title ‘real man’, and was indeed a ‘homo’.

    A few local LGBT groups, including myself as a private citizen and some friends, all wrote to said editor and asked, politely, that he issue a retraction and reconsider his general approach to the tone of his magazine. These emails and letters went ignored for a week or two until instead he chose to publish each and every one of them and add his own personal commentary about how we all lead sad lives and ‘trust the homos to get their knickers in a twist’.

    Naturally we weren’t happy, even more so as he had just printed out letters with no prior notification or consent (Data Protection breach anyone?). We complained to the local police and were quoted some clause of the Hate Crimes law that said what he had done didn’t qualify as a hate crime. If I recall, they were trying to say that because he hadn’t targeted a person it didn’t qualify? But he was targeting a group of people? Surely that’s what a hate crime is? (Apparently not).

    We also wrote to the Press Complaints Commission who said that because he wasn’t registered into their “opt in” regulation that they couldn’t help or intervene. All we could do was encourage people not to buy the magazine and seek support from some of the shops that had the stands in the windows and doorways. We couldn’t stop him from circulating his nonsense but at least we stopped it being handed out in key places in town.

    Apart from the incident at the bar I have never suffered a “major” hate crime against me. For this I am very appreciative, but I ask myself the question – what about all the times someone has called me “FAGGOT” or hurled abuse because I’m walking to the cinema holding my boyfriend’s hand? Technically would these be classed as hate crimes? They never cause offence to me personally because I don’t value or respect their opinion. Therefore it just washes right off my back. But when you see some of the nastiness in this country (or indeed the world), not only to the LGBT community but also ethnic minorities and social classes, you think why would you do such a thing? Where does that “hate” come from? What has caused you to hate in such a way?

    Last time I checked the LGBT community wasn’t an historic empire that had occupied your lands, or been slave owners or even caused any wars. So what makes a “hate criminal” do the things he does? Should we feel sorry for them as they clearly have some deep rooted issue that uses any distinction as a scape goat to vent at?

    I’ve always been curious about why people do the things they do. Why someone is shy, or why someone is confident. Sometimes its genetics, but sometimes it’s what their life has made them. And in these instances what sort of a life could create such a willingness to hate in such a way?

    By the way, is it a crime to flirt with a police officer when he’s taking your statement? I didn’t mean to, he was just very nice and comforting in my time of need. I don’t think he noticed… well he didn’t arrest me or even ask me out for a drink. Which is a point, must work on my flirting strategy…

     

    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 | Infamous 5 – the Reform Section 5 campaign

    I’m curious about the genuine aims of the campaign http://reformsection5.org.uk which is seeking to remove the potential to criminalise ‘insulting words or behaviour.’

    The campaign wants to influence the Home Office to amend Section 5 of the Public Order Act but I am perplexed as to whether this group, a disparate band of crusaders, is keen to promote positive, free speech or simply want the right to insult whoever they want without consequence.

    Is Section 5 really so abused by the authorities? Does it actually limit our ability to challenge each other? Or is abolishing the rights of the public to be offended and ‘insulted’ in favour of a right to freedom of speech justified?

    The Public Order Act 1986 is an Act of Parliament which was designed to stop actions which can undermine the order and safety of society. It criminalises ‘disorderly behaviour,’ and aims to prevent the use of ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words’ or the use of signs and displays which are likely to cause ‘harassment, alarm or distress.’ Sections 1-4 of the Act cover several elements including riot, violent disorder, affray (fighting), fear or provocation and causing intentional alarm or distress.

    It is Section 5, with a particular focus on ‘insulting’ language and behaviour, which has curiously united several, often warring factions of British society; I struggle to remember a time where The Christian Institute, National Secular Society and indeed Peter Tatchell have agreed to such an extent.

     

    Why would any group protest against a piece of legislation which, if removed, would essentially allow their critics the right to undermine and verbally abuse them?

     

    Is it that this law truly undermines freedom of speech as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights? Not necessarily. Are the irregular and carefully selected examples used by the campaign representative of the law’s use? I doubt it. Even the website’s choices are not accurately representative of the situations cited.

     

    Let’s look at one which may impact TheGayUK readers. The campaign describes ‘an elderly street preacher [who] was convicted under Section 5 for displaying a sign which said homosexuality was immoral.’ Actually, the sixty nine-year old’s sign said ‘Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism’ which could be a call to action, a threat, an incitement.

    Equally, the campaign misrepresents the Vegelenzangs case as simply ‘a conversation with a Muslim guest about Mohammed and Islamic dress for women’ in which they actually undermined the hijab as ‘bondage.’

    In fact, of the three thousand convictions between 2001-2003 under Section 5, the site can only name a few where the law was seen to be stretched or maybe misinterpreted. Does that mean the law should be abandoned or elements dropped?

    Perhaps it should be a case of advising and guiding the public, police and courts on how the law should be used. The Police have been accused of misusing the powers in Section 14, notably during the 2009 G-20 protests in London where journalists were forced to leave the protests – but that still exists!

    Another argument of the campaign is that ‘insults’ are not important. Leader of the UKIP Party in the United Kingdom, Nigel Farage even feels that ‘people must be free to insult and be insulted’ – glad I don’t know/socialise with/work for him! Several other endorsers of the campaign rightly highlight that higher levels of harassment and discrimination are criminalised elsewhere by the Act or the New Equality Act 2010.

    Further Sections of the Public Order Act also require any protests to have provided written notice to the police who can still impose conditions or indeed prohibit a procession if it will cause ‘serious disruption to the life of the community.’

    Section 16 Part 3A of the Act specifically protects the public from words, signs and actions which may incite harassment based on race, religion and sexual orientation.

    So maybe we are all still protected without Section 5 but it has to be of this level.

    Do you want to be protected from a protest outside your house? Of course. But what if your neighbour decides to greet you with an insult each morning and won’t stop if you ask them to? Should we all be able to withstand a few insults? Sure. But how many insults are too many? Look at the disproportionate rate of LGBT teen suicide – is that one way of telling us that insults hurt?

    But does it have to get to that level before the authorities notice or can help?

    Let’s get down to what matters here. What is this all about? Do we really care – and will it impact me? I think it will and I’ll tell you how. I am concerned that the broader legislations above do not cover the more creative abusers. If a fellow bus, train or tube user decides that you might like to be reminded that you are in fact ‘gay’ does that mean they should be arrested? They weren’t inciting hatred, just stating the obvious perhaps? Or what if ‘poof’ is their choice today but not accompanied by any further undermining or personal perspective on whether that is a good or bad thing – can we complain?

    Could the police do anything?

    A street preacher can point at you menacingly as you hold your partner’s hand. He can’t be arrested for that. But what if that was the first time you did it and it put you off, or it was detrimental to your relationship, your confidence. Or what if someone else sees this and suppresses their feelings, or worse it reinforces or activates any latent homophobia?

    What if you observed these actions and no one was the target or victim? David Davis, MP for Haltemprice and Howden, wants to know ‘who should decide who’s insulted?’

    I say we all have that right.

    I say insulting behaviour is the grey area that homophobes like to operate in – they think they can get away with it. Is it acceptable to be offended? Of course it is. But, if the law is changed and you complain to a police officer there’s not much they can do about it.

    We all have the right to campaign, protest and provoke thought but do we have this right at the expense of others? I’m curious as to how insulting materials have to be before they are considered a criminal offense or of inciting hatred.

    Is undeterred or unchallenged hurtful language a sign of more physical and violent aggression to come? Gordon Allport (1954) argues that ‘anti-locution’ or badmouthing, insulting and stereotyping is the start of discrimination on his scale for the manifestation of prejudice.

    This then escalates to avoidance, discrimination, physical attack and extermination. How much protection do we need from each other, and at what stage? Maybe it is more about everyone taking responsibility. We should all challenge disorder which may be in the public, and our own, interest as the first level before it escalates.

    What if someone decided to mimic you, standing there looking fabulous with your oversized man-bag draped over your arm? People might laugh – everyone is having a good time – who could be insulted? They are free to insult you, and if you were a reasonable, stable human, you would appreciate it as their right. Or is that what the Reform Section 5 campaign would like to believe? Maybe the campaign should be challenging why people feel the need to insult each other, rather than trying to facilitate for more of it.

     

    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.