If you were to stop people in the street and ask them to name a gay rights campaigner I would bet money they would name Peter Tatchell. For twenty years he has been in front of the media.
Yes, Sir Ian McKellan is more famous but I doubt most people would see him as a more prominent campaigner than Tatchell.
But Peter is a thorn in the side, not least to those who are quick to praise Labour and slow to critique it. Last year he had a very public word with Harriet Harman at Pride about LGBT asylum - 'why are we sending gays back to Iran?' This followed her being heckled as she spoke. Of course Harman made promises which were immediately forgotten about.
Most notable of those who don't like Tatchell are the gay establishment, those whom Labour have awarded gongs to. So it's unsurprising to learn that when Ten Downing Street hosts an event for Pride Month on Saturday morning Tatchell won't be there. Neither will he be at Mayor of London, Boris Johnson's soirée, according to Tatchell's tweet, despite being a patron!
Tatchell also says about another Downing Street event in March, held to dismiss the widely believed idea that Gordon doesn't like the gays, he was actively dismissed from the guest list.
An insider tipped me off that my name had been removed from the invite list, at Gordon Brown's personal request. He was apparently still angry that I had heckled him over his government's erosion of civil liberties, when he opened the Taking Liberties exhibition at the British Library late last year.
You could imagine that those invited into the golden circle are not exactly likely to say 'I'm not coming if Tatchell's not there' given that Peter says they're "tame apologists for Labour". And that is precisely what is happening.
Not that Tatchell gives a shit:
I don't do my human rights work to win awards, honours or invites. It doesn't matter to me that I haven't been invited.
What angers me is the principle - the way the Prime Minister invites and fetes mostly tame pro-Labour loyalists in the LGBT community. It is a manipulative tactic by an insecure government that knows its record on LGBT human rights is not as glorious as it claims.
And if the evidence of the Mayor's non-invitation is anything to go by "mostly tame pro-Labour loyalists in the LGBT community" deliberately exclude him precisely because he just so damned awkward.
My friend Peter Tatchell goes off on one in CIF about voter suppression, citing at length (natch) the MSM New York Times (and, god forbid, the BBC's US election coverage - see Newsnight, sigh ... )
Pointing to my previous post, quoting Arianna, about the game-changing role of the web in exposing Rovian tactics, this video from Brave New Films about ACORN becomes highly relevant.
This is not to say that they aren't trying all the old tricks, they are, it's Pavlovian (and Rovian). This is a very big part of the fired US attorneys/Gonzales scandal.
But the web and the increased ground-game and the huge lead in resources it has allowed Obama lends a huge edge to the bottom-up fightback against voter suppression. As shown already in Ohio.
This time it's not working.
Plus, as Andrew Sullivan points out in the video, here's one highly significant reason for the 'fraud' call, to explain the coming RepThug loss: we woz robbed.
Peter et al (BBC!), here's where it sits 15 days out:
Postscript: More on the 'ground game, HT: Ben Smith:
I am a lifelong Republican. I have served on the local county Republican finance committee in the past. I am not supporting the Republican presidential candidate for the first time in my life. I have been contacted during the primary by Rudy Giuliani. No other Republicans have attempted to contact me at all, with the exception of local Indiana candidates. I have had no contact from the Indiana Republican Party and no mail from the McCain campaign during the entire campaign.
The real story though, is about my 24 year old son.
He attended college at the University of Hawaii. He graduated in May. He enjoyed his last summer in Hawaii and traveled to China before returning to Indiana in early September. One week before returning to Indiana, he changed his cell phone number to an Indiana area code. After arriving at the Indianapolis airport, we drove home.
Two hours after his plane arrived in Indiana, he received a phone call on his cell phone. It was a local Obama campaign office. They welcomed him to Indiana and asked if he needed assistance in getting registered to vote. He did register and both of us have already voted for Obama.
How is it that an active Republican gets no contact from any Republican office or candidate (except the gubernatorial candidate) and a two hour resident of Indiana gets a phone call from the Obama office?
He has long experience of personally helping many, so he knows of what he speaks:
The failure to give refuge to the victims of genuine homophobic persecution is the single greatest blot on the gay rights record of Tony Blair's administration.
Too right. Jacqui Smith is complicit, as were her predecessors and let's not forget the gay and lesbian people in power who've stood by.
From my day-to-day work with asylum seekers, I hear first hand shocking stories about homophobic abuse and inhumane conditions inside the UK's asylum detention centres, including allegations of homophobic insults, beatings and sexual assaults. Frightened refugees, who have narrowly escaped death and seen their partners murdered, are treated like common criminals..
Asylum adjudicators nearly always turn down gay refugee claims, even when the person has presented evidence of imprisonment, rape and torture. Adjudicators often acknowledge their brutal maltreatment but advise claimants that they will not be at risk of repeat persecution if they go back home, change their identity, stop acting effeminately, never have sex and move to a remote part of the country where no one knows them. That way, says the Home Office, nobody will realise the person is gay and therefore they will not suffer persecution..
This is the reality of how some gay people are dealt with by this government. I, for one, don't want these fellow gay people ignored — I can't ignore them, I can imagine myself in their shoes and I know full well how lucky I am to have been born here.
As Peter explains:
The Home Office does not explicitly accept persecution on the grounds of sexual orientation as a legitimate basis for gaining asylum.
Unlike Amnesty International, who will fight for persecuted gay people, and some other European and other governments.
Our government, which preaches human rights via the Foreign Office, has done much to advance gay and lesbian rights. Two years after this article it is time that someone in government did something about this stain - of blood - on that record.
Peter Tatchell told the Independent: "It is just the latest example of the Government putting the aims of cutting asylum numbers before the merits of individual cases. The whole world knows that Iran hangs young, gay men and uses a particularly barbaric method of slow strangulation. In a bid to fulfil its target to cut asylum numbers the Government is prepared to send this young man to his possible death. It is a heartless, cruel mercenary anti-refugee policy."
In a rare BBC story about this issue from last year, one Iranian gay man who was deported in 2003 describes how the ill treatment began as soon as he touched down in Tehran. Here's another story about a man who shot himself between the eyes with an airgun rather than be deported.
“Do you practise homosexuality with men? Take that homosexual man and throw him off the mountain.”
“If I were to call homosexuals perverted, dirty, filthy dogs that should be murdered, that’s my freedom of speech isn’t it? They’ll say: “No”, I’m not tolerant. But they feel that it’s okay to say something about the Prophet.”
“Homosexuality is an abomination against Allah, and all mankind, and I will never condone it. Even though this is the case, I do not believe in disobeying the law when it comes to the way people deal with homosexuals.”
“They talk about integration. There is an overt as well as covert plan, a programme, they talk about, they talk about (sic), ‘you need to integrate’, if you don’t you’re a freak, you’re strange, there’s something wrong with you! Like, like (sic) if you have something against homosexuality they’ve got a name to call you now. You’re a “homophobic” man! There’s something wrong with you! Not with this gay, sorry, a homosexual (laughter) . Which part of this society are we supposed to adopt as our life? Which one?”
According to Stonewall's Recent Report on the situation of ruined life chances for young gay people in schools:
Seventy five per cent of young gay people attending faith schools have experienced homophobic bullying. Half of teachers fail to respond to homophobic language when they hear it. Thirty per cent of lesbian and gay pupils say that adults - teachers or support staff - are responsible for homophobic incidents in their school. Less than a quarter of schools have told pupils that homophobic bullying is wrong.]
All those quoted claimed their words were used 'out of context' or they were merely quoting book extracts and that's not what they really thought.The Muslim Council of Britain leaped to their defense — these would be the same MCB who actively supported Clause28, and opposed every law reform such as adoption, partnerships and equality for lesbians and gays under the law.
"Some of the MCB's tirades against lesbians and gays echo the homophobic hate language of the BNP."
“One reason the MCB refuses to participate in Holocaust Memorial Day is because it objects to the ceremony including a commemoration of what it dismisses as ‘the so-called gay genocide.' The MCB regards the murder of gay people in Nazi death camps as unworthy of remembrance."
The footage starts here. I personally found it very hard to watch..
The West Midlands Police have just announced their reaction to the program:
The police investigation initially looked at whether there had been any criminal offences committed by those featured in the programme and following careful consideration by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), West Midlands Police have been advised that there is insufficient evidence to bring charges against those individuals featured within the programme.
West Midlands Police acknowledge the concerns that some parts of the programme may have been considered offensive, however when analysed in their full context there was not enough evidence to bring criminal charges against any individual.
ACC Anil Patani for West Midlands Police said: "As a result of our initial findings, the investigation was then extended to include issues relating to the editing and portrayal of the documentary.
"The priority for West Midlands Police has been to investigate the documentary and it's making with as much rigour as the extremism the programme sought to portray."
The police investigation concentrated on three speakers and their comments in the programme. CPS reviewing lawyer Bethan David considered 56 hours of media footage of which only a small part was used in the programme. She said: "The splicing together of extracts from longer speeches appears to have completely distorted what the speakers were saying.
"The CPS has demonstrated that it will not hesitate to prosecute those responsible for criminal incitement. But in this case we have been dealing with a heavily edited television programme, apparently taking out of context aspects of speeches which in their totality could never provide a realistic prospect of any convictions."
The CPS was also asked by the police to consider whether a prosecution under the Public Order Act 1986 should be brought against Channel 4 for broadcasting a programme including material likely to stir up racial hatred. Miss David advised West Midlands Police that on the evidence available, there was insufficient evidence that racial hatred had been stirred up as a direct consequence of the programme. It would also be necessary to identify a key individual responsible for doing this together with an intent to stir up racial hatred, which was not possible.
West Midlands Police have taken account of this advice and explored options available to them and has now referred the matter to the broadcasting regulators Ofcom as a formal complaint.
West Midlands Police has also informed Channel 4 of this course of action.
In other words, because the programme was edited and because we don't think there's a law we can use this makes calling for lesbians and gays to be killed not the point. Instead 'community cohesion' is paramount.
These would be the same police and government which has tolerated murder music, dancehall reggae which is all about how to kill gays and lesbians. It isn't the government or the police which is shutting that down, it's grassroots activism.
I don't believe for one second that all Muslims want me dead — I know Muslim people as mates for one thing — but clearly some do and I can't see why they shouldn't be dealt with the same as the reverse situation.
It's hard to see this as doing anything other than reinforcing the second-class status of lesbians and gays, actually undermining 'cohesion' because it's 'one law for them ... ' and actually encouraging hate speech because clearly it's tolerated.
I find myself agreeing with Charles Moore, Editor of The Telegraph, of all people. He takes apart the 'context' argument to reveal something worse underneath:
I do not know whether the Dispatches programme is right in every detail. But it clearly raises serious, important questions - about extremists in our midst, about the way apparently moderate organisations give them shelter, about the Saudi Arabian network that supports them.
What security agencies call "thematic analyses" show that, at present, the problems of Islamist extremism are particularly acute, especially in prisons and universities, in the West Midlands area.
Yet the West Midlands police and the Crown Prosecution Service decide that the target of their wrath should be not people who want to undermine this country, but some journalists who want to expose them.
Postscript: Just redited this a few days later as it had fair few typos. Truth is, I usually recheck for such things but this subject was one I just didn't want to think about again, having felt quesy but determined to post about. Why? a/ these people make me feel unsafe, b/ it's a reminder to an old queen like me that - no - the police aren't really to be trusted (as was clearly understood before but now they make claims). It's also a reminder to me just how tolerated hate speech really is - and hence how far we've really got to go. Which is depressing.
The head of one of World's largest companies has been outed: — by a treacherous rentboy he met through an Escort website and who shopped him to the Daily Mail.
"For the past 41 years of my career at BP I have kept my private life separate from my business life.
I have always regarded my sexuality as a personal matter, to be kept private," Lord Browne said in a statement.
Yeah god queen, you tried to nail that closet shut but the Internet was just too tempting wasn't it.
I agree with Peter Tatchell's take though — .
I can see no demonstrable public interest grounds for the Mail on Sunday – or any other media – outing Lord Browne. He wasn’t being hypocritical or homophobic. If he was denouncing gay people or advocating anti-gay laws – or if he had authorised the victimisation of BPs’ gay employees - that would be a justifiable reason to expose his sexuality and double standards. I would have outed him myself. But I am not aware that Lord Browne was homophobic. He may have shown moral weakness by not coming out, but hiding in the closet – however lamentable - is not ethically of the same order as endorsing homophobic prejudice and discrimination.
The lessons from the fall of Lord Browne are: don’t lie or cover-up, and it is best to be honest and open about one’s sexuality
Browne's catch was that bloody website (and probably the danger it represented, there's something all so predictable about the Rich and the Wild Side) ..
"My initial witness statements, however, contained an untruthful account about how I first met Jeff.
"This account, prompted by my embarrassment and shock at the revelations, is a matter of deep regret. It was retracted and corrected.
"I have apologised unreservedly, and do so again today.
For this, he forgave his pension rights of 15 million pounds and resigned early. Poor sod. Paul Dacre be damned to hell and all who sail with him.
"This is a voluntary step which I am making to avoid unnecessary embarrassment and distraction to the company at this important time.
"I have spent my entire working life with BP, and want to thank everyone for their dedication, loyalty, support and hard work in creating one of the worlds finest companies.
"I shall not be commenting on my personal issues further. I wish to pursue my personal life in private."
Parsing ... 'So there'. 'Now f***off'.
One positive consequence might be business looking again at it's gay staff. According to James Harding, Business Editor at the Times.
Lord Browne’s decision to keep his sexuality a private matter during a lifetime at BP was a personal choice that says more about the code of the man than the values of the company. But the implication of his discretion is that there would have been a price to pay for openness.
Clearly, there is an element to this that is generational. Forty years ago, when he joined the company, the business world would not have accepted a gay chief executive. The view today, of course, is that the world has moved on and grown up: investors, executives and board directors pay no attention to sexuality when promoting people in the company. So why is it the case that there are so very few chief executives or, for that matter, board directors of FTSE-250 companies who are gay – and comfortable to say they are gay?
The dispiriting conclusion must be that so many people still do not bring their real selves to work.
@PubSecBloggers
