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.