Balance and Fairness - a tough old nut to crack

(Picture: Centre for Social Justice)

It has been our intention throughout this project to formulate as balanced coverage as possible in the run-up to the election.

We wanted to look at the politics of sexuality, and how far decisions and attitudes at Westminster have the ability to alter the freedoms of homosexual and transgender people to live their lives with peace and respect.

Yet this strive for impartiality has been difficult; Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the majority of minority parties (with the obvious exceptions), have not only avoided any gaffes, but have a generally pro-LGBT stance. Indeed, we mentioned the cross-party support for an Equality Bill amendment that only went some way to protecting LGBT people from harassment – an area where no major party has made as big an effort as needed.

Yet no party has been exposed as much as Cameron’s new Conservatives over a disunited party line regarding homosexuality.

The interests of balance and fairness falter at the feet of social equality and justice, as we face the prospect of a government steeped in archaic convictions about the issue of same-sex relationships.

Philippa Stroud is a Conservative candidate for Sutton and Cheam, and is likely to win the seat. She heads (rather ironically) the Centre for Social Justice, a think-tank established by the former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith, and popular with David Cameron, forming the basis for much of his policy on family. This rising star in the Tory ranks is said to have a good future ahead of her in the party.

Yet the interesting thing about Stroud is, following her return from charity work in Hong Kong, she founded a US-style Evangelical Church in a bid to pray away the gay; actively using prayer to combat the ‘demons’ within homosexuals.

The King’s Arms Project - established in 1989 - has helped alcoholics and drug addicts overcome their addiction by forming a relationship with Christ. It has also counselled LGBT people through their experiences (what are actually periods of denial). They are manipulated to believe homosexuality can be ‘cured'.

This link is a thread of stories listing countless ailments cured through prayer at the King’s Arms church (http://www.kingsarms.org/cm/content/category/6/21/78/)

As reported in the Observer on May 2nd:
_______

"Abi, a teenage girl with transsexual issues, was sent to the church by her parents, who were evangelical Christians. "Convinced I was demonically possessed, my parents made the decision to move to Bedford, because of this woman [Stroud] who had come back from Hong Kong and had the power to set me free".

"She wanted me to know all my thinking was wrong, I was wrong and the so-called demons inside me were wrong. The session ended with her and others praying over me, calling out the demons. She really believed things like homosexuality, transsexualism and addiction could be fixed just by prayer, all in the name of Jesus."
_______

If Philippa Stroud is elected, it is very possible that within a few years she could be holding significant offices of Government (if a Tory majority is achieved). This is worrying for the gay community and other people who support minority rights – such religiously motivated thinking is not dangerous because it is a belief, it is dangerous because it is a belief that is all too often transferred into practice.

Evangelical Christianity should be respected and treated as any other religion, and be followed freely. Yet in the corridors of power, do we really want a woman so certain of God’s will to cure the gays, with any significant influence on social policy?

In her book 'God's Heart for the Poor', Stroud mentions a girl, Mary, who had experienced domestic violence: "We discovered further layers of the tangle when she admitted to previous lesbian relationships and to being on the receiving end of abuse from her family," adding that: "No wonder she was in such a mess!"

The Tory campaign of ‘change’, and ‘we can’t go on like this’ are as elusive as the views on homosexuality within his party. Sure, Stroud isn’t even an MP yet. But her think-tank status and friends in high places can only mean she is a popular and up-and-coming Tory star.

OK, we aren’t exactly being impartial in our approach here. But it has been our intention to bring the gay rights debate to Newcastle in a way that raises questions about the motives of people in power and how their potentially bigotry stances on homosexuality are capable of changing the way gay people live their lives.

Chris Grayling MP, who voted for the Equality Bill, says B&B owners (who are running a commercial business) have the right to turn away gay couples.

Julian Lewis MP, the shadow defence minister, is against lowering the age of consent for homosexual men to 16.

Philip Lardner PPC, said that homosexuality was not normal behaviour, suggesting that teaching homosexuality as part of sex education was wrong, as homosexual relationships were not an equal choice to traditional marriage. (He has since been suspended (according to his website he was suspended because of threats from 'militant homosexuals', and is standing as an Independent on a 'Common Sense' ballot: http://www.philiplardner.com/index.html?_ret_=return).

And the Tory leader could not answer questions relating to his party’s stance on equality legislation in both Europe and the UK, as he tries to distance himself from the far-right Polish homophobes, the Law and Justice Party – the Conservative’s European ally.

Perhaps the slogan “We can’t go on like this” was an internal memo gone AWOL; the Tory’s are clearly not united as a party along the lines of equality and ‘fairness’ for everyone in our society – be it economically, socially or in terms of sexuality.

Tories' sudden pro-LGBT move before the second TV debate

(Picture: Guardian)

A day before the second leaders' television debate, Conservative party leader David Cameron had made a sudden announcement that he would send Nick Herbert, the party's shadow environment secretary and "the most senior gay member" of his team, to Poland to persuade the party's highly conservative ally in the European parliament, the Polish Law and Justice party, to change their views on sexuality.

Cameron also said Herbert would attend a gay rights march in Warsaw in July. He reportedly said: "We would not join with parties that had unacceptable views. But we do recognise that, particularly in central and eastern Europe, there are parties that have still got some way to go on the journey of recognising full rights for gay people. We are helping them make that journey."

Considering the proximity of Cameron's announcement to the second television debate, it is thus not surprising that his move was widely seen as a last-minute resort to prevent himself from possible attacks by Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg on the Tories' alliance with right-wingers in the EU.

The message from Cameron was clear - the Tories are committed to transforming itself into a more moderate party, and is helping their extremist allies in the EU in doing so as well. But will the voters buy his story?

In a commentary this morning, Toby Helm of the Guardian wrote:
"Fascinating, first of all, because the announcement comes hours before tonight's TV debate on international affairs, in which the Tories' new alliance will be a major point of discussion.

"But fascinating also because last autumn, when journalists first began to point out that the likes of the Polish Law and Justice party (PiS) were homophobic (anti-gay views are central to its Catholic fundamentalist view of life) they were attacked by the Tory media machine for being part of a Labour-led smear operation. The stories were nonsense, they said, and Labour-inspired lies."

An Observer's news report earlier this month revealed that the Conservatives had in a 2007 internal report concluded that the PiS and other parties now in the new grouping in the European parliament did have homophobic and extremist tendencies. The internal report also warned the Tories about forming an alliance with such parties. Despite all this, the Tories decided to join the group anyway.

If what Cameron claimed last night - that his party was committed to help change their EU allies' homophobic views - was right, wouldn't it be easier to just make a decision in 2007 to not befriend the extremists in EU? After all, what is the reason of forging friendship with someone you already know might not be a suitable friend, and then suddenly deciding to take the pain of changing your friend's attitude and thinking?

It would not be difficult to comprehend if the LGBT community questioned Cameron's sincerity in tackling the issues on LGBT rights, for his party has somehow showed inconsistency in its stance towards the issue.

Whatever Cameron's intention was, dispatching Herbert to Poland may do little help in changing the LGBT's perception on the Tories' perception on LGBT.

Big Gay Flashmob at Tory Election HQ

(Photographs copyright (C) 2010, Peter Marshall, All rights reserved.)

A large cluster of pink balloons marked the Conservative Party Election Campaign HQ on Millbank this Monday for the 'Big Gay Flashmob' which was organised by Tamsin Omond and Peter Tatchell and advertised through Facebook. Well over a thousand had signed up on for the event there, with others possibly attending and although rather fewer actually made it on the day it did make a fairly impressive crowd.

Omond who is standing for parliament in the 'To the Commons' campaign in Hampstead and Kilburn, had created the Facebook event and organised it, introducing the two speakers. The first was a young woman who had worked for the Conservative Party on gay rights but had resigned because of their attitudes on the subject and no longer supports the party.

Leading gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell of Outrage! who had worked with Omond to publicise the event was given a huge welcome by the crowd and told them of the disappointing meeting he had had that morning with shadow chancellor and Conservative campaign manager George Osborne.

The Conservatives have come up with only two policy promises on gay rights - to erase from criminal records all past convictions for gay sex offences that are now legal, and to have 'zero tolerance' over homophobic bullying in schools. While he welcomed these, he said they did not amount to a great deal and there were too many people still in the party who appeared homophobic - including Chris Grayling who suggested that Bed and Breakfast owners should be able to refuse gay couples. He along with the others taking part in the protest would like the Conservative Party to "come out" with some gay-friendly policies, actively promoting gay rights and equality, and to stand up against anti-gay elements in the party.

The Conservative record is one of lip-service to gay rights at election time but of voting against gay rights, and the infamous 'Section 28' which banned local authorities from "promoting homosexuality" still rankles - and many Tories voted against its full repeal in 2003. Despite a charm offensive towards the gay community by Cameron - including a public apology last year for the party's former behaviour with Section 28 - many still feel the party is basically anti-gay. And they showed it at this event by the repeated chanting that they would never vote Tory.

There were also several times during the party that everyone present was invited to kiss and most seemed pleased to do so, and it was clear that everyone present - although feeling very seriously about the issues - was determined to have fun.

The Conservative HQ was locked and deserted, but there were some Conservatives present and they provided some free ice cream for the party-goers. Doubtless too some of them came and wiped off the many slogans that were chalked on the walls of the building and the pavement outside.

(reference, www.indymedia.org.uk)

Tories under attack from ‘Big Gay Flashmob’

Anger at Conservative Chris Grayling's homophobic comments has manifested, with more than 1,000 anti-homophobia protesters expected to gather outside the Conservative election campaign HQ tomorrow. (Sunday, April 11, 2010).

They have joined a Facebook group calling on members of the public to voice their anger at the Tories recent “mixed messages” on gay rights in a “Big Gay Flashmob.”

It follows Tory MP Chris Grayling's confession that he supports the right of B&B owners to refuse accommodation to same-sex couples.

The theme of Sunday's carnival-style street party is "David Cameron: Come Out! (on gay rights)....David Cameron, what are your gay rights policies?"

"Right now, the Tories don't have any official lesbian and gay rights policies," said LGBT rights activist Peter Tatchell.

"The Conservative Party annual conference has never voted for gay equality and there are no gay rights policies in any Tory policy document. The Conservatives are offering the gay community no new measures to remedy the remaining vestiges of homophobia.”

Co-organiser, lesbian environmental activist, Tamsin Omond added that David Cameron was remaining silent on what he would do for gay people if he became Prime Minister.

“We want to know,” she said. "Sunday's street party will be a lot of fun. We hope David will join us. This is his big opportunity to end the confusion and outline his policies to ensure gay equality. We want him to join us - and to bring Chris Grayling too.”

The rally comes as a blow to the Conservative party. With this year’s general election predicted to be one of the closest in years, the front-running party leaders have been making targeted efforts to court gay and lesbian voters, with efforts somewhat thwarted by Chris Grayling.

The rally is planned to take place tomorrow, on Sunday April 11 from 2pm outside the Conservative election campaign HQ, 30 Millbank, SW1P 4DP.

A reflection on LGBT discrimination

Unlike my fellow group members Yen and Jialing, I have grown up and spent my whole life within the UK.

Britain, particularly in comparison to China and Malaysia, is hailed for its open democracy and its tolerance. Accordingly, my views and my experiences are wholly different to theirs. I have never been taught that homosexuality is wrong, indeed I can recall my school specifically teaching us the opposite. My Brother's godfather is gay, as are several of my friends. I do not believe this is anymore a defining characteristic than where they live or what they do.

'LGBT' has become a label, a stigma that some find it difficult to look beyond. Thus how 'open' and 'tolerant' is Britain truely? Why should, for example, racism or sexism have such profound connotations when homopohobia still remains, to an extent, almost accepted by our so called 'tolerant' society. Susanne Wilkinson's attitude towards Micheal Black and John Morgan is undeniable evidence of this. For such behaviour to be condoned by Chris Grayling is a worringly reflection of the installed backwards-thinking of those we have trusted to place in power. This response would have unequivocally been deemed outrageous had the couple been black or disabled, thus why should homosexuality strike a different chord?

Perhaps it is a case of people being afraid of what they don't understand, a note that has rung true for many cases of discrimination. Yet what I find particularly poignant is that the phenomenon of 'homophobia' can, at times, be very much restricted to the male gender. I don't know how many boys I know who have urged female friends to kiss, or who have sought out that kind of explicit material on the internet. Yet should the same behaviour come from two men, a polar opposite and extremely hostile reaction is incited. Have lesbians become more socially acceptable, in a manner purely to satisfy heterosexual men's fantasies? Perhaps the question should be put, had Mrs Wilkinson been presented with two women would her reaction have been the same? Indeed had it been a man running that Bed and Breakfast, would he not have accepted those two women with pleasure?

These are just speculations, based on my own experiences of perceived notions of homosexuality. I look forward to expanding such experience and knowledge throughout this project, and have thus far found it extremely illuminating. The chance to talk to the Green Party, especially in light of the pre-General Election political fray that is ongoing currently, is one I believe will lend particular insight. It can only be deemed as my own ignorance, but before reading the Green Party's Manifesto, and exploring the subject further I was relatively unaware that such LGBT discrimination could, and still does take place to such a worrying degree. I relish the chance to find out more, and perhaps in our own minor way, try to make a difference.

Tory Chris Grayling exposed on attitude to gay equality rights

(Source: Guardian)

Following revelations in my previous post regarding B&B owner’s refusal to allow a gay couple to stay on her premises, it has become clear that politics is not above prejudice.

Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary has illustrated his ignorance for the very law he voted in, and would have to uphold if the conservatives are to win the General Election.

The party is amid a potentially crucial row over statements recorded secretly exposing Grayling’s remark that “people who ran bed and breakfasts in their homes should "have the right" to turn away homosexual couples”, it was reported in today’s Guardian online.

The recordings are a direct indication that leading Tory party members and potential future cabinet ministers are out-of-touch, displaying all the hallmarks of prejudice and old-school thinking on equality.

The recording – that will be featured in our video interview with the Green Party’s Andrew Gray who is campaigning for an advancement of LGBT rights in the political as well as social sphere – could damage Cameron’s attempts at re-branding his party as a modern, liberal and socially accepting party of government.

Grayling said: "I personally always took the view that, if you look at the case of should a Christian hotel owner have the right to exclude a gay couple from a hotel, I took the view that if it's a question of somebody who's doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn't come into their own home."

The common argument here, along with the majority of Daily Mail online user comments (this is a blog, so I am happy to be able to make such observations without editorial lines to consider!), is that there remains a distinction between a hotel and a B&B.

Fiona from Stoke-on-Trent says: “If I ran a B&B I most certainly would not allow dogs or children under 10. Would anyone go running to the press & say I was wrong. Don't think so.” - disallowing dogs does not equate to discriminating against human beings.

S. Page from Chesterfield states: “We all have our own views on delicate subjects like homosexuality and if we can't assert those views in our home then something is radically wrong.” - here again we see the confusion with what constitutes a home and a business.

These statements back up Chris Grayling’s approach to the matter, but they are inherently flawed in their logic and on their understanding of the law. Yes, there is a distinction between home and hotel. Yet as soon as you provide any form of goods or services for profit, you immediately blur those lines.

As Grayling pointed out: "If they are running a hotel on the high street, I really don't think that it is right in this day and age that a gay couple should walk into a hotel and be turned away because they are a gay couple, and I think that is where the dividing line comes."

This is in complete contradiction to the Equality Act (2007) which, as Ben Summerskill of gay rights group Stonewall states:

"...is perfectly clear. If you are going to offer the public a commercial service – and B&Bs are a commercial service – then people cannot be refused that service on the grounds of sexuality. No one is obliged to run a B&B, but people who do so have to obey the law."

He told the Guardian: I don't think anyone, including the Tories, wants to go back to the days where there is a sign outside saying: 'No gays, no blacks, no Irish.'"

Grayling voted in favour of legislation that put the rights of everyone's freedom to buy goods or services without discrimination. This discrimination falls under sexual orientation as strongly as it does race and ethnicity.

It is a potentially damaging case for David Cameron in the final month before the election – expected to be announced by Gordon Brown on Tuesday.

Moreover it has proven that even those at the heights of power, responsible for not only advancing our rights as human beings, but protecting the rights of the most vulnerable in society, are capable of the same level of prejudice and bigotry and ignorant remarks and ideological inclinations as some members of the general public. Remarks that entire communities of people – gay and straight – have been fighting to end in a supposedly tolerant, democratic and liberal society.

B&B refuse gay couple, police investigate

(Picture: BBC)

As a prime example of discrimination at work in modern day Britain, a gay couple visiting friends were turned away from a Berkshire Bed & Breakfast on the grounds of their sexual orientation, it emerged today.

Michael Black, 62 and John Morgan, 56 from Cambridgeshire, were refused a double bed at The Swiss B&B in Cookham, as police investigate what gay campaigner Stonewall has called 'an open-and-shut discrimination case'

The proprieter of the B&B Susanne Wilkinson admitted to the BBC that it was against her policy to accommadote same sex couples - a policy that breaches the Equality Act of 2006.

It is illegal for a business to refuse goods and services on the basis of sexual orientation, gender or race, and this case is no exception.

Mrs Wilkinson told the BBC:

"I don't see why I should change my mind and my beliefs I've held for years just because the government should force it on me.

"I am not a hotel, I am a guest house and this is a private house."

Mr Black has said that he was surprised at being turned away, having not experienced homophobia himself since coming out in 1974.

"This was the first time either of us had experienced homophobia at first hand, despite being aged 56 and 62. We were shocked and embarrassed.

"Mrs Wilkinson saw us both before we got out of the car and immediately acted in an unwelcoming, cold way, but my boyfriend and I were polite and friendly.

"She said if we'd told her in advance she would have told us not to come."

Thames Valley Police are looking into the incident.


This example is a real indication that discrimination is at work in Britain today. It is situations like this that highlight the importance of workable legislation that is committed to advancing the interests of all groups in society, and protecting them from bigatory, discriminatory and humiliating behaviour.