Two Pages Magazine Makes Pictures Looks Perfect
Source: boredpanda
Showing posts with label picture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label picture. Show all posts
Equality minister Lynne Featherstone says faiths won’t be sued for refusing civil partnerships
Liberal Democrat equality minister Lynne Featherstone has said that church ministers will not be successfully sued for refusing to host gay civil partnerships.
Speaking this morning, she said that new provisions in the Equality Act “explicitly” say that faiths have the right to reject gay couples.
The government announced today that civil partnerships will be permitted in religious buildings and that consultation will begin on marriage equality.
Some faith groups have reacted angrily to the plans and a letter signed by five Christian groups – including the Christian Institute and Christian Concern – reiterated opposition.
It said: “When it comes to equality legislation, permission often turns rapidly into coercion.
“In a country where faith-based adoption agencies have been forced to close or cut their religious ties by equality law, where Christian marriage registrars can be dismissed for their religious views on marriage and where Christian B&B owners are forced to pay compensation to same-sex couples, Christians will need a great deal of reassurance that the government is not about to do something that will make their situation even worse.”
Ms Featherstone said: “Obviously there is a degree of anxiety from some of the religious organisations. In the words of the Act itself, it says explicitly, for the avoidance of doubt, that there is nothing in this Act which placed an obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnerships unless they wish to do so.
“By the same token, it is a step forward for religious freedom in that it gives the Quakers, the Liberal Jews . . . the freedom to do so.”
She added: “We’ve been very clear that we will not force religious organisations to host [civil partnerships] if they do not wish to.
“And nor do we believe that any minister who refused would be successfully sued under discrimination law.”
As well as religious civil partnerships, the government has also announced it will begin consulting on marriage equality.
Marriage equality is the official party policy of the Liberal Democrats and leader Nick Clegg supports a change in the law.
Ms Featherstone said that the plans have the support of the entire government and that there had been no resistance from Tory ministers.
“I am fully supported by all of government over these plans going forward,” she said.
When asked whether full marriage equality could be granted before 2015, she said: “I think that all depends on the consultation and how we work with people.
“Clearly there are some people who absolutely want heterosexual civil partnerships and homosexual civil marriage and that is something we will be examining.”
But she added that plans were still in “very, very early days”.
Ms Featherstone said her own support for marriage equality was “well on the record”.
Stonewall chief executive Ben Summerskill welcomed the announcement on civil partnerships but questioned the government’s commitment to gay marriage.
He said: “If there’s a genuine commitment to making progress in this area, it is painfully slow. Equalities minister Lynne Featherstone has explicitly said she would consult on proposals the government intends to implement in the lifetime of this parliament.”
Ms Featherstone responded: “I’m very pleased that Stonewall are so enthusiastic about the progress and I’m sure they will be supportive of the government moving forward on it.”
Terrence Higgins Trust’s Lisa Power awarded MBE
Lisa Power, the policy director of Terrence Higgins Trust, has collected her MBE from Buckingham Palace.
She joined the charity in 1996 and was honoured for services to sexual health and to the LGBT community.
Ms Power was given her honour by Prince Charles yesterday after being named in the New Year honours list.
She has 25 years of campaigning for sexual health and LGBT rights, having co-founded gay charity Stonewall and the Pink Paper.
She has also worked at the Lesbian & Gay Switchboard and as secretary general of the International Lesbian and Gay Association.
Gay footballer and co-founder of Stonewall FC, Aslie Pitter, also collected his MBE yesterday.
Government is ‘painfully slow’ on gay marriage says Stonewall’s Ben Summerskill
Responding to news that ministers will hold a consultation on giving gay couples the right to civil marriage, chief executive Ben Summerskill it would have to start now for changes to be implemented by in this parliament. Stonewall only added gay marriage to its campaigning objectives last October, eight months after the Liberal Democrat leader and deputy prime minister Nick Clegg declared his support for a change in the law.
Liberal Democrat equality minister Lynne Featherstone and other leading Liberal Democrat and liberal Conservative ministers are understood to be keen for gay couples to be able to marry.
In his strongest statement yet on the matter, Mr Summerskill said: “Stonewall fully supports extension of the legal form of marriage to lesbian and gay couples.
“We’re told that this will undermine the nature of marriage. However there’s no evidence that, if marriage is available to gay people, a single heterosexual will end up choosing to marry someone of the same sex, either by design or by accident.
“If there’s a genuine commitment to making progress in this area, it is painfully slow. Equalities minister Lynne Featherstone has explicitly said she would consult on proposals the government intends to implement in the lifetime of this parliament. If that is to happen by 2015, then consultation should begin now.”
Stonewall was instrumental in passing 2005′s civil partnership legislation but was slow to publicly support gay marriage.
The charity was heavily criticised in September, even by some of its own co-founders, Michael Cashman MEP and Sir Ian McKellen, for appearing not to back the campaign while figures such as deputy prime minister Nick Clegg and Labour leader Ed Miliband had declared their support in articles for PinkNews.co.uk months before.
Last October, Mr Summerskill said the charity would not be “jumped into” declaring a position on the issue. In 2009, Mr Summerskill told PinkNews.co.uk that “lots of” gays and lesbians do not want the right to marry.
Gay marriage campaigners planned to protest at Stonewall’s annual awards in November but called off the demonstration after the charity announced that after surveying its supporters, it would add the issue to its campaigning objectives.
Stonewall has said it will not lobby for straight people to have civil partnerships, as campaigning for heterosexual rights is not part of its remit. It claimed that it could cost up to £5 billion in lost tax revenue.
The charity cited the need to ‘consult’ its supporters before officially campaigning for gay marriage. The government says it needs to complete a consultation on proposals to bring in gay marriage equality before tabling any proposed legislation.
Comment: Religious civil partnerships are the first step towards religious same sex marriages
For Rabbi David Mitchell, his true ‘partnership’ ceremony wasn’t in the registry office, it was in his synagogue. He explains why the government’s announcement of civil partnerships in religious buildings could be the first steps towards same-sex marriages in religious institutions, something welcomed by Quakers, Unitarians, Liberal Jews and from today the larger Reform Judaism movement.
On December 21st last year, unlike Elton and David, my partner and I forgot to celebrate our 5th anniversary. This wasn’t because we weren’t glad to have made history five years earlier when we were one of the first Jewish couples in the country to sign the Civil Partnership Register. It was because, for us, this amounted to a formal conclusion of a process we’d started five months earlier. I’m not saying that the events in the Barnet Registry Office were devoid of all significance, just that they were akin to the formal opening of a building after the premises have already been up-and-running for some months.
Our real ‘Partnership’ Ceremony took place on July 17th 2005 at a Reform Synagogue in London. We had originally chosen that date because it was never anticipated, by the then Government, that the legislative process for enabling Civil Partnerships would be as long or as arduous. We had hoped that as we could not celebrate our legal Civil Partnership in our Synagogue, we would, at least, be able to pop down to the Registry Office the same weekend as our religious ceremony. We really wanted to ensure that our new status as life-partners was legally recognised and protected.
As members of the Jewish faith, we were determined to formalise and celebrate our relationship within the context of a religious and cultural framework that resonated with our upbringing. Our Jewish Partnership Ceremony was a wonderful moment in our lives; all our relatives and friends attended the packed Synagogue and the three officiating Rabbis ensured that the proceedings were ritually robust and emotionally resonant. It was also an historic day for Reform Judaism in the UK, as it was the first same-sex ceremony to take place on one of their Synagogue’s premises.
Our choices were not for everyone in the Jewish LGBT community. Several of the couples we knew considered going down the same route as us, but then they decided to get married in Canada where they could have both their Jewish and Civil ceremonies on one day, in one location.
With today’s Government announcement, that Civil Partnerships can now take place in religious building and under the auspices of religious institutions, all that is now water under the bridge.
It has been well over five years since our Jewish Partnership Ceremony. In that time I have completed my training and I am now an ordained Rabbi working in a Reform Synagogue. My colleagues in the Assembly of Reform Rabbis UK have just completed a two year process of review which led us to release a timely Statement on Same-Sex Commitment Ceremonies. This Statement includes:
We wish to encourage and enable ceremonies which enjoy the same religious status as the heterosexual ceremony whilst recognising difference… We require, therefore, that Rabbis only conduct Same-Sex Commitment Ceremonies with a prior or concurrent Civil Partnership ceremony.
Today’s significant shift in Government policy will enable all those same-sex couples belonging to progressive faith communities to mark their love and commitment to one another within a religious context and liturgical framework. What is even more important is that these couples can now celebrate their unions in ways that resonate with the core values, traditions and practices of their families and communities. The very same values, traditions and practices that underpin their relationships and the homes they build together.
Yet I suspect that this is not the end of this long and fraught journey towards marriage equality for all. Civil Partnerships are, by the very nature of the word ‘civil’, supposedly devoid of all religion. Accordingly, what the Government may have actually sanctioned is a gently pitched process towards same-sex marriage in religious institutions. This move may not be welcomed by every religious body in this country, but it will certainly be welcomed by the Quakers and both the Liberal and Reform Jewish Movements.
Personally, as a Gay Rabbi, I cannot wait for the first Jewish couple to come knocking on my Office door asking me to officiate at their Jewish ‘Civil’ Partnership.
Donald Trump hints at presidential run as he comes out against gay marriage
US billionaire, star of ‘The Apprentice’ and Miss USA owner Donald Trump said on Tuesday he is not in favour of gay marriage, and is “incredibly tempted” to run for US president in 2012.
In an interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News, Mr Trump said: “I live in New York. New York is a place with lots of gays, and I think it’s great but I’m not in favour of gay marriage.”
Mr Trump, a registered Republican, did not give his reasons for opposing same-sex marriage, but said: “I’m a very conservative person. I’m very big into [sic] the military. I’m a great guy for defence. I’m probably as conservative as anybody on your show, and that’s probably going a very big step.” He also said he is “pro-life” and does not support abortion.
In 2009, he dismissed Miss California Carrie Prejean, an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage, for “failing to attend engagements”, but Prejean insisted it was because of her stance on same-sex marriage.
Mr Trump also criticised Obama’s economic policy that promotes international trade, and said America is “rebuilding China single-handedly” at the expense of the economy. He said: “Obama is not stupid, but could be a foolish man, and is certainly heavily lobbied.”
Mr Trump said he would make a decision on running for president by June, and added: “I love this country, [but] I hate what’s happening to this country.”
Virginia House panel says no to gay employment protections
A bill to ban discrimination against gay people in state employment has been killed by a Virgina House panel.
Currently, Virgina gives no legal protection lesbians and gays employed by the state, although it does offer employees protection from discrimination on the basis of race, gender and a number of other characteristics.
Sexual orientation was removed from the law last year and a bill tabled by Senator Donald McEachin sought to have it reinstated.
Yesterday, the Republican-controlled House General Laws subcommittee voted to kill it, plus another which sought to give health benefits to same-sex partners.
Delegate Todd Gilbert, the chair of the panel, had earlier said that if the issue was really a problem, people would be queuing out of the door to complain about it.
People did indeed queue out of the door yesterday to testify in support of the bill, Associated Press reports.
Some described how they had been pushed out of jobs after coming out, or were too fearful to reveal their sexual orientation.
Gay group Equality Virginia argues that private employers have long since recognised that anti-discrimination policies allow them to keep the best staff.
All of the states top ten private employers protect gay workers, it says.
The group adds that polls of the public have found that 85 per cent think gays and lesbians should be protected from discrimination in all workplaces.
Scott Mills: ‘Gay hatred is everywhere in Uganda’
The situation for gay people in Uganda was far worse than he expected, Scott Mills says.
Speaking to PinkNews.co.uk about an upcoming documentary, the gay Radio 1 presenter told how he feared for his own safety in the country.
Mills met anti-gay MP David Bahati as part of filming for ‘The World’s Worst Place to be Gay?’.
When the presenter said he was gay, Bahati became enraged and the film crew fled.
Later, they heard that Bahati had sent armed police to a hotel he thought they were staying at.
“I was really frightened,” Mills said. “It’s just something that you wouldn’t think would happen. It was a real shock to the system and we were told to lie low.”
He said: “I wasn’t aware before I went about what was going on in Uganda.
“I met gay people in safe houses because they had to flee their homes. The newspapers print their names, their photos, even what car they drive. These people are just hounded.
“It’s so bizarre that somewhere just seven hours away by plane can be so different.”
During filming, Mills met victims of homophobia and the pastors preaching against homosexuality.
“All the gay people we met had a story about how they had been tormented or attacked,” he said.
“There was a guy we saw in hospital, he had AIDS and was very ill. But because they knew he was gay, he wasn’t getting the right treatment. He’s dead now.
“Then there was a girl called Stosh, who had to go into hiding after her face was plastered across the newspapers.
“It’s all very well reading about these things but when you actually go to Uganda, you realise how bad things are. It was a lot worse than I expected.”
Gay people in Uganda have “an air of optimism”, he said. “But they’re faced with every pastor, every teacher in every school, saying the same thing.
“They think things will change but it’s going to take a long time.”
When asked how attitudes could change, Mills said: “I don’t really know. The West has been quite vocal and President Obama publicly denounced Uganda but [the preachers] still say homosexuality is un-African, that it is against the family.
“They think it was brought in by the West.”
Many of those he met had been accused of “promoting” homosexuality and “recruiting” children.
He said: “The pastors claim that gay people go into schools and offer children money but when you talk to the schools, they say it hasn’t happened. There’s no evidence for it.”
The film crew also saw first-hand the influence Western preachers have on anti-gay sentiment in Uganda.
“It’s all wrapped up in Christianity and evangelicalism,” Mills said. “And Americans come over to preach. We went to a sermon and saw a guy from Atlanta preaching gay hate.”
He added: “I went to Uganda with the aim of making a fair and balanced film but in two weeks, we couldn’t find any [non-gay] person saying that homosexuality was okay.”
‘The World’s Worst Place to be Gay?’ will be shown on BBC Three at 9pm on Monday February 14th.
Seven-year-old donates to LA gay centre because he thinks inequality is unfair
A seven-year-old has donated $140 to the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation (HRC) because he doesn’t think it’s right for gay people not to be treated equally.
The child, Malcolm, was given $140 by his parents to donate to the charity of his choice. He chose to split the money between the gay centre and the HRC.
The cheque was accompanied by a hand written note that read: “I am sending you this money because I don’t think it’s fair that Gay people are not treated equally.”
A note from the boy’s mother said: “To teach the importance of improving the world around him, Malcolm was given $140 to give away to the charity of his choice. After hearing a story on the radio about the mistreatment of gays and lesbians, Malcolm became both upset and curious about the issue…to help, he chose to split his money between the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation.”
David Kato buried as pastor condemns homosexuality
Ugandan gay rights campaigner David Kato was buried today but scuffles broke out at his funeral as the pastor urged gays to repent.
Mr Kato, who was murdered in his home on Wednesday, was laid to rest in his village near Kampala.
Around 300 people attended the ceremony, including around 100 gays and lesbians.
US president Barack Obama sent a message to mourners, calling Mr Kato a “powerful advocate for fairness and freedom”.
He urged Ugandan authorities to find and punish Mr Kato’s killers.
Mr Kato’s body was displayed overnight in an open casket at his parents’ home and mourners at his funeral today wore t-shirts with his picture on.
But reports say that the ceremony was disturbed when the pastor began urging gays and lesbians to repent.
According to Reuters, the unnamed pastor told the crowd: “The world has gone crazy.
“People are turning away from the scriptures. They should turn back, they should abandon what they are doing. You cannot start admiring a fellow man.”
Mr Kato’s friends angrily stormed the pulpit before the pastor was taken away.
The activist’s friends had to bury his coffin because villagers refused to do it, reports said.
He was killed several months after suing a newspaper for publishing his name, address and photo in a homophobic campaign.
Police say one man has been arrested and they are searching for another suspect.
However, they say his sexual orientation had nothing to do with his death.
G-A-Y founder has HIV test to raise awareness
G-A-Y founder Jeremy Joseph is shown having an HIV test and discovering the results in a photo diary for Boyz magazine.
The promoter said he took the test publicly to raise awareness of safer sex information for gay men.
In last week’s magazine, he was shown visiting Soho clinic 56 Dean Street and having a finger prick test, which gives results in just two minutes.
He is told by health advisor Richard Stack that the new tests look for the antibodies produced by the body against HIV. The tests are 99 per cent accurate, but a second, 20-minute test can be taken to rule out a false positive result.
Mr Joseph revealed his negative result in this week’s magazine, saying: “I can’t believe how quick and easy it’s all been.”
He had promised to be honest about his results, whatever the outcome, saying it would be hypocritical not to.
When asked by PinkNews.co.uk if he thought there was enough information about HIV tests for gay men, he said: “No, hence the reason for doing this article, by taking my HIV test.
“I didn’t even know that you could get a result that quickly. We need to remember that every year, a new generation of lesbians and gay men come on to the gay scene and if they aren’t getting the education at school, then the gay scene is a direct contact to lesbians and gay men, to try and get safer sex advice across.”
He added: “I’ve learned so much from doing this, so hopefully by doing this, I can get across what I’ve learned. You can never have to much safer sex information.”
Mr Joseph is aiming to raise £50,000 for the Elton John AIDS Foundation this year and hit the £35,000 mark today.
He is to run the Virgin London Marathon in April. Donations can be made at www.justgiving.com/G-A-Y
Comment: Religious civil partnerships are the first step towards religious same sex marriages
For Rabbi David Mitchell, his true ‘partnership’ ceremony wasn’t in the registry office, it was in his synagogue. He explains why the government’s announcement of civil partnerships in religious buildings could be the first steps towards same-sex marriages in religious institutions, something welcomed by Quakers, Unitarians, Liberal Jews and from today the larger Reform Judaism movement.
On December 21st last year, unlike Elton and David, my partner and I forgot to celebrate our 5th anniversary. This wasn’t because we weren’t glad to have made history five years earlier when we were one of the first Jewish couples in the country to sign the Civil Partnership Register. It was because, for us, this amounted to a formal conclusion of a process we’d started five months earlier. I’m not saying that the events in the Barnet Registry Office were devoid of all significance, just that they were akin to the formal opening of a building after the premises have already been up-and-running for some months.
Our real ‘Partnership’ Ceremony took place on July 17th 2005 at a Reform Synagogue in London. We had originally chosen that date because it was never anticipated, by the then Government, that the legislative process for enabling Civil Partnerships would be as long or as arduous. We had hoped that as we could not celebrate our legal Civil Partnership in our Synagogue, we would, at least, be able to pop down to the Registry Office the same weekend as our religious ceremony. We really wanted to ensure that our new status as life-partners was legally recognised and protected.
As members of the Jewish faith, we were determined to formalise and celebrate our relationship within the context of a religious and cultural framework that resonated with our upbringing. Our Jewish Partnership Ceremony was a wonderful moment in our lives; all our relatives and friends attended the packed Synagogue and the three officiating Rabbis ensured that the proceedings were ritually robust and emotionally resonant. It was also an historic day for Reform Judaism in the UK, as it was the first same-sex ceremony to take place on one of their Synagogue’s premises.
Our choices were not for everyone in the Jewish LGBT community. Several of the couples we knew considered going down the same route as us, but then they decided to get married in Canada where they could have both their Jewish and Civil ceremonies on one day, in one location.
With today’s Government announcement, that Civil Partnerships can now take place in religious building and under the auspices of religious institutions, all that is now water under the bridge.
It has been well over five years since our Jewish Partnership Ceremony. In that time I have completed my training and I am now an ordained Rabbi working in a Reform Synagogue. My colleagues in the Assembly of Reform Rabbis UK have just completed a two year process of review which led us to release a timely Statement on Same-Sex Commitment Ceremonies. This Statement includes:
We wish to encourage and enable ceremonies which enjoy the same religious status as the heterosexual ceremony whilst recognising difference… We require, therefore, that Rabbis only conduct Same-Sex Commitment Ceremonies with a prior or concurrent Civil Partnership ceremony.
Today’s significant shift in Government policy will enable all those same-sex couples belonging to progressive faith communities to mark their love and commitment to one another within a religious context and liturgical framework. What is even more important is that these couples can now celebrate their unions in ways that resonate with the core values, traditions and practices of their families and communities. The very same values, traditions and practices that underpin their relationships and the homes they build together.
Yet I suspect that this is not the end of this long and fraught journey towards marriage equality for all. Civil Partnerships are, by the very nature of the word ‘civil’, supposedly devoid of all religion. Accordingly, what the Government may have actually sanctioned is a gently pitched process towards same-sex marriage in religious institutions. This move may not be welcomed by every religious body in this country, but it will certainly be welcomed by the Quakers and both the Liberal and Reform Jewish Movements.
Personally, as a Gay Rabbi, I cannot wait for the first Jewish couple to come knocking on my Office door asking me to officiate at their Jewish ‘Civil’ Partnership.
Comment: Happy Valentine’s Day, Melanie Phillips!
Happy Valentine’s Day to Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips, who used the romance of February 14th to urge against giving gay couples the right to marry.
Obviously struck by one of Cupid’s sharper arrows, she took the occasion to suggest that gay marriage could soon lead to people marrying their hamsters.
Having booted Jan Moir off the Twitter naughty chair with last month’s tirade about gays brainwashing children, she sets about trashing gay relationships.
It comes down to the same tired old argument – that it’s all about sex and procreation.
Forget about the many different kinds of relationships people have, the ways they choose to live, how they raise their children – or not – and even the fact that they have sex in different ways.
Usually, no one is quite crude enough to point out that straight people might be doing many of the same things as gay couples but in any case, what does it matter?
Melanie says: “The argument – that people with different sexual lifestyles must be treated identically – is exactly the same [as the argument for legalising bestiality]“.
She claims that in some parts of America, campaigns are underway for zoophiles’ sexual rights and the implication is clear that this must be a slippery slope.
To be fair, a disclaimer is included: “Before the hate mail starts, I’m not suggesting gays are on a moral par with zoophiles.” Clever, that.
Further down, she argues: “The sole reason marriage has universal value is that it is vital for the healthy nurture of the next generation. This is because children need to be brought up by the two people who created them.”
This argument conveniently sidesteps the thousands of children being brought up by loving gay parents and suggests – but fails to show how – future generations will be damaged by gay marriage.
And the fact that some married people are childless is not irrelevant. Old people, infertile people, terminally ill people and people who just don’t want sprogs marry, and their marriages are just as valid as any other.
But those demanding gay people, not content enough with “destroying moral and sexual norms”, want complete equality. And on this festival of amor!
Marriage would become a “meaningless joke” if Adam and Steve were permitted to stroll down the aisle, Mel writes, possibly envisioning the local church bedecked in a manner to make the Big Fat Gypsy Wedding girls nauseous.
“Truly, we are fast reaching the stage where upholding Biblical sexual standards will become the morality that dare not speak its name,” she fulminates, while jostling with Peter Hitchens for a spot at the front of the “silent majority”.
PinkNews.co.uk respects the fact that Ms Phillips, unlike many who share her views, argued her points in front of an audience of gay men and women last year. But we say she’s wrong.
In previous articles, she has argued that it is “victim culture”, rather than homosexuality as a concept, which concerns her. It is certainly wrong to see LGBT people as victimised on the whole, but it was only a few decades ago that being gay was illegal and grounds for chemical castration. It’s not about turning back time, it’s about righting wrongs for the future.
It’s still not clear how exactly gay weddings will “erode” marriage anyway. Will a blushing bride-to-be ever tell her handsome groom, “I’m sorry darling, but it would be completely meaningless now that Will Young and Joe McElderry have formed a gay pop super-union.”
Trust me, it certainly won’t affect mine, if the boyfriend ever decides to put me out of the misery of my bizarre surname. Furthermore, in case anyone is still wondering, you definitely can’t catch gay. Lord knows I’ve tried but I’m still a boring hetero, as the estimable Simon Pegg recently put it.
You may reject all of the nonsense of Valentine’s Day but it’s still our national day of love.
I’ll leave it to the Rev Sharon Ferguson and her partner Franka Strietzel to say: “Like most people in this world, we were brought up to believe that one day we’d fall in love and get married. This is what we want to do and our sexual orientation should not be an impediment.”
PinkNews.co.uk wishes all the very best of luck to everyone who popped the question to their significant others today. We sincerely hope you’ll have the choice of a marriage or a civil partnership when the time comes.
Good on the coalition but the plans are going to face serious opposition. Even if most British people are relaxed about the idea of gay marriage, religious leaders and some politicians won’t be.
David Cameron, some of his Tories and the Lib Dems seem genuine on this issue but yesterday’s leaking of the proposals gives the government some time to react to the inevitable anger. We’ll have to wait until the end of the week to get the real details and, of course, these are only proposals.
Back to Melanie Phillips – relax, old chum. You’ve got this issue well and truly between your teeth and are shaking it every which way like a dog with my old man’s walking boots. The sky is not going to fall in if gay couples wed. It’ll probably be far more tasteful that you imagine.
And Dave – please don’t jilt our readers at the altar.
Comment: Daily Mail ‘neo-Nazi’ gay cartoon incites hatred based on sexuality
PinkNews.co.uk reader Nick Lowe argues that the publication by the Daily Mail of a cartoon which depicts a gay couple checking in to a Christian run hotel as ‘neo-Nazis’ incites hatred of homosexuals. The cartoon showed two burly men holding hands with shaved heads, heavy boots and arms covered in tattoos. The man on the left has a swastika tattooed on his right arm.
Underneath, a line says: “Isn’t that romantic, George, dear? Mr and Mr Smith would like the bridal suite.”
The cartoon depicts two burly men with shaved heads, covered in tattoos and with ear piercings, standing at a hotel check-in desk. This in stark juxtaposition to their surroundings.
The man on the left has a swastika emblazoned on his right wrist and is shown looking sternly on, giving a thuggish, loutish, uncompromising demeanour to the couple as they stand holding their hands.
It shows two comparatively smaller, meek hoteliers looking on with bewilderment, shock and superior distain. The following dry, sarcastic comment is made:
“Isn’t that romantic, George, dear? Mr and Mr Smith would like the bridal suite.”
It is averred by the presentation, therefore, that the position of Christians who hold anti-gay views has validity because they appear respectable and, by contrast, the gay persons do not. This is clear association fallacy as it asserts that the qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association – thus the deduction is demonstrably invalid.
Contextualised with the current news, it implies that there is something inherently wrong, distasteful, disruptive and indecent about people who are gay and that they impose themselves on others in an overbearing, disrespectful way – just by being themselves.
By loaded insinuation, the cartoon implies that the private anti-gay moral views of some Christians, which are subjective, are being subjugated and usurped by the rights of gay persons not to have the dispensation of goods and services denied to them by a business entity, purely based on their sexuality. The two do not equate and are clearly separate concerns.
For all the rhetoric in this area, the equality legislation only ensures that the views of others, no matter how sincerely held, cannot be used to deny such dispensation of goods and services by a business based on immutable characteristics, such as sexuality. (In contrast to being a Christian, nobody chooses to be gay.)
The cartoon merely serves to stoke up anti-gay sentiment and resentment and, therefore, incites hatred based on sexuality.
Peter Tatchell: Don’t criminalise homophobic Christians
Where do we draw the line between religious freedom and free speech on the one hand, and public order and the protection of minorities on the other hand? Should people of faith have the right to express views that others find offensive and bigoted?
Christian street preacher Dale Mcalpine last month won £7,000 in damages, following his arrest and detention by the police in April 2010 for saying homosexuality is a sin. He had expressed his beliefs to passers-by in Workington, Cumbria.
As a result, he was charged with making ‘threatening, abusive or insulting’ remarks, contrary to the Public Order Act. A court case was pending, but was dropped. Instead, he was offered an apology by the Chief Constable, and compensation.
As a campaigner for gay rights, I disagree with Mr Mcalpine’s intolerant views. But as a defender of free speech, I endorse his right to express them. Indeed, I had offered to testify in his defence, had his case gone to court.
Freedom of speech is one of the hallmarks of a civilized society. Mr Mcalpine’s views were homophobic, but the fact that he was treated as a criminal for expressing them, shocked me. The officer who arrested him, although doubtless well-intentioned, interpreted the law in a harsh, authoritarian manner. Mr Mcalpine was neither aggressive, threatening nor intimidating. He did not incite violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) people; unlike some extremist Christians in Uganda and Nigeria.
The Public Order Act is intended to protect people from harm. Mr Mcalpine’s views – although they are misguided and offensive – caused no injury or damage to anyone. His intolerant views should be challenged but he should not have been arrested.
Contrast his case with my experience. In 1994, the Islamist fundamentalist group Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) held a mass rally at Wembley Arena. Its members advocated killing gay people and ‘unchaste’ women. They heaped hatred and abuse on Jews and Hindus. Together with five of my colleagues from the gay rights group OutRage!, I staged a peaceful, lawful counter-protest. It was six of us against 6,000 of them. Some members of HT threatened: “We will track you down and kill you.” Despite these criminal incitements to murder us, they were not arrested. We were. Our free speech was denied. We were charged under the Public Order Act. In contrast to Mr Mcapline’s case, the police did not drop the charges and apologise, let alone compensate us. It took nearly two years of lengthy, costly legal battles for me to finally win an acquittal.
I have long been passionate in my support for anyone who gets victimised by the authorities for expressing their views – even objectionable ones – providing they do so in a peaceable way and don’t advocate violence. Bigoted views should be rebutted by debate and protest, not by criminalisation.
This is why in 2006 I opposed the prosecution of Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the then general secretary of the Muslim Council Britain. He suggested, BBC Radio 4′s PM Programme, that gay people were unacceptable, immoral, harmful and diseased. This was disgraceful bigotry from anyone, let alone from a faith leader. There were calls for him to be arrested. But since Sir Iqbal had not advocated violence, I urged the police to leave him alone. Instead, I spoke out, explaining why his intolerant views were inaccurate and unethical. I won the argument. The police decided to not charge him.
A free society depends on the free exchange of ideas. All ideas are capable of giving offence, and some of the most important, profound ideas in human history, such as those of Galileo Galilei and Charles Darwin, caused a huge religious offence in their time.
Freedom of speech includes the right to criticise and mock, and to say things that many of us find offensive. I deplore the fact that millions of people around the world live with the threat of arrest, torture, imprisonment – and even execution – for expressing ideas that dissent from political and religious orthodoxy. This is why I have consistently defended the human rights of persecuted Christians in Pakistan and victimised Sunni Muslims in Iran, as well as hounded political dissidents in Russia and Zimbabwe.
Precisely the same logic underpins my reason for supporting Mr Mcalpine – and condemning the conviction and £1,000 fine imposed on another Christian street preacher, Shawn Holes, who was arrested in Glasgow early in 2010.
Mr Holes, an American Baptist evangelist touring Britain, told passers-by that, ‘Homosexuals deserve the wrath of God – and so do all sinners – and they are going to a place called hell.’ In court, he admitted breaching the peace by making homophobic remarks. He plainly distressed some people with his anti-gay tirade. But should he have been prosecuted? I believe not. In a democratic society, his arrest was wrong and the fine was totally disproportionate. Even people who commit robberies and violent assaults have been known to get off with lighter penalties. It was, in my view, an inappropriate use of the law.
Just as gay people should have the right to criticise religion, people of faith should also have the right to criticise homosexuality. When it comes to expressions of opinion, only threats and incitements to violence – and damaging libels – should be prosecuted. The police should concentrate on tackling serious crimes, instead of wasting public money on petty, distasteful religious ranters.
This is why I urge Home Secretary, Theresa May, to issue new guidelines, making it clear that the police should not arrest people like Dale Mcalpine and Shawn Holes. Causing offence to others is not a legitimate basis for putting a person on trial. After all, nearly everyone holds opinions that someone else might find offensive. If offending others is accepted as a basis for prosecution, most of the population of the UK would end up in court.
Freedom of speech includes accepting the right of other people to say things that we may find disagreeable and even offensive. It also involves keeping a sense of perspective. When Anne Robinson denigrated the Welsh – as she did in 2010 when she suggested they should be kicked out of their country and replaced by Liverpudlians – should we really expend our efforts protesting against a throwaway remark, when we could be campaigning against major human rights abuses, such as those in China, Iraq, Burma and Saudi Arabia?
There are, of course, occasions when personal views should be set aside for the sake of avoiding discrimination and maintaining harmonious community relations. The Christian hoteliers, Peter and Hazelmary Bull, in 2008 refused to let gay civil partners Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy share a room. On religious grounds, they did not want gay couples – or any non-married couples – to sleep together in their hotel. I defend the Bulls’ right to hold and express these views. If they chose to propagate them in the street, that’s their right to free speech. But if they are offering a service to the public by providing hotel accommodation, they should provide this service to all the public, without discrimination against anyone for any reason. If we allow them to forbid gay couples – and unmarried heterosexual partners – to sleep in the same room, a deluge of similar claims for exemption from the equality laws is likely to ensue.
We could have some Muslim and Jewish supermarket workers refusing to handle pork and some Christian solicitors declining to represent gay or Hindu clients – because of their religious beliefs. The world of business would grind to a halt, and civility decline, as various special interest groups demanded the right to discriminate. Our equality laws would soon be in tatters. Discrimination would become rampant again. No, thank you. I defend freedom of expression but not when it results in discrimination.
Free speech is precious. Only damaging libellous comments and incitements to violence should be crimes.
Let’s not forget that generations of people suffered to win us the right to freedom of expression; people like the martyred Bible translator William Tyndale and the jailed Chartist leader William Lovett.
It was Tyndale, a 16th century scholar and translator, who defied church and state by making the Bible more widely accessible to ordinary people, translating it from Latin into English. This incurred the wrath of both the Pope and Henry VIII – he also opposed the King’s divorces. Tyndale was accused of heresy and treason. Henry VIII had him executed.
Three centuries later, Lovett was a Chartist leader who demanded votes for working class people. Although his protests were peaceful, he was arrested for ‘riot’ and jailed for 12 months in 1839 on a trumped-up charge of seditious libel. He died in poverty.
We owe it to Lovett and Tyndale – and to the many other proponents of free speech who have succeeded them – to defend the right of people to express their opinions, even when we disagree with what they say.
Gay and adopted Daily Mail columnist slams Sir Elton’s decision to have a baby
Andrew Pierce, the consultant editor of the Daily Mail had penned a column criticising the decision of Sir Elton John and David Furnish to have a surrogate baby, despite being both gay and adopted himself.
Mr Pierce wrote: “I have no doubt of the couple’s ‘over whelming’ happiness and joy at the arrival of their son. I am quite certain that the child’s unorthodox parentage — he was born to an unidentified surrogate mother who had carried the child after being implanted with a donor egg from another mystery woman — will prove no barrier to the love the couple will lavish on him.
“Yet I can’t help feeling that his decision to become a father is another grotesque act of selfishness from Sir Elton, and that the child is a little Christmas bauble he and his partner have awarded themselves. How telling it is that he was born on Christmas Day.”
Mr Pierce in a sense echoes the sentiments of Christian fundamentalist Stephen Green who told the BBC that Sir Elton’s child is a “designer accessory” for the popstar.
However, unlike Mr Green, Mr Pierce does believe that gays couples should be allowed to adopt. He wrote: “I have two very good male friends who are in a civil partnership and have adopted a little girl. They will make wonderful parents not least because they are absolutely committed to each other, but also because one of them has given up his job to be a full-time parent.”
Mr Pierce points out that in almost ten years ago, Sir Elton argued that he was too old to be a parent, telling Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet: “I have come to the conclusion that it is too late for me. Had it been 20 years ago, then I would definitely have done it. I don’t want to be 70 years old when my daughter turns 16.”
In reality Sir Elton will be 79 when his son turns 16.
Mr Pierce argues that Sir Elton wouldn’t have been allowed to adopt a child due to his age, so paid to create his own.
“He [Sir Elton] is also an ageing, pampered, self-indulgent millionaire — look at the absurd names he and Furnish have given the poor child, for heaven’s sake!
“And it is the nagging suspicion that Elton — a man who is by nature an obsessive — has simply acquired a son to satisfy his latest fixation that I find repellent.”
Mr Pierce touched on his own personal story, writing: “as an adopted gay man, I have no interest in having children of my own — although I don’t denigrate those who want to.
“Let’s hope Elton John’s son gets the same chances that I had, which had nothing to do with money. My parents had little of that.
“What they offered instead was the love and support of an ordinary, hard-working couple who were always there for their children. How often will Sir Elton be there for his son?”
Freedom of Expression in Southeast Asia on the spotlight
 |
| Ou, Virak, second from right is speaking to journalists and freedom of expression advocates about freedom of expression in Cambodia and Southeast Asia during a seminar in Jakarta on Feb 9th, 2011. The Seminar titled "What Can I Say" is part of a BBC/ABC radio series which is launched on 8th Feb, 2011 in Jakarta and will start airing on ABC Radio Australia and BBC Radio World Service in four hours series. |
Click the link below to listen the audio program on BBC:
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
