Reader comments · EXCLUSIVE: Boris Johnson courts gay vote · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


EXCLUSIVE: Boris Johnson courts gay vote

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Keith McDonnell 23 Sep 2007, 9:54pm

    The fact that this site is allied to the Tories, makes this so-called interview a sham. Get real…

  2. Yep Keith,, there is indeed a noticeable bias toward the Conservative Party by the owners/writers of this website…frankly, it’s fairly obvious.Seeing as the vast majority of current Conservative MPs have contributed, basically nothing, toward us having achieved gay equality in this country… perhaps the owners of could have a good look at the reality of current party politics.

  3. Sister Mary Clarance 24 Sep 2007, 8:48am

    If you don’t like the site gents you can always vote with your feet. The Morning Star might be more up your street. While you’re at it you might want to read the Treaty of Amsterdam, to find out where the equalities we are currently are beginning to enjoy really come from. Then if you’re heads aren’t too overloaded from all that non fiction have a troll through Peter Tatchell’s website and you’ll better understand why we only saw change when Europe decreed it rather than when Labour actually first came to power.New Labour are obviously playing you two like a fiddle.I suppose the story below has been spun by pinknews as well has it:Clearly you’ll vote for who you want to, but if you scratch the surface you’ll find you have a better understanding of what is going on in the world – bit off the wall, but maybe give it a go.

  4. Come on guys – just because a newspaper or channel doesn’t exactly reflect your views doesn’t mean its biased – if you find views expressed challenging then good – its doing its job. Its called the free press and long may it continue. As a community there are strong signs we are moving away from the simplistic and naive gay politics of the 1980’s whereby left-of-centre = good right-of-centre = evil. The younger generation of gay people are just as likely to be Conservative, LibDem, Green or Labour centre-right supporters now rather than the old far-left protest-politics of yesteryear. Its an inevitable process – we’ve won pretty much all our equal legal rights – and are very grateful for the contribution of the campaigners of 10 and 20 years ago. However as the world moves on, so does the gay political identity and affiliations. The article on Boris was fair, balanced and very topical, he could be leading London in 8 months time so we want to learn more about where he stands. Lets have more of them!

  5. PS Sister Mary Clarance and her views are a breath of fresh air – ever thought of a career in politics?

  6. A good interview, like it. Like sister says, fair, balanced, etc. I’ve got one bone to pick with Boris however (or at least, one that I’m going to go into):”The point I’m trying to make to you is I loathe acts that encourage hatred of groups. But sometimes the very measures we take can kind of stir things up rather than produce harmony”Isn’t this the line the government took in the 1950s and 1960s concerning laws against racial discrimination? the kind of ‘ignore it and it’ll get better on its own’ tactic? And look what happened then!

  7. Sister Mary Clarance 24 Sep 2007, 10:05am

    Ps Eddy – I used to have a career in politics (helping spin for Labour).

  8. The problem with Boris is that he’s a shambles, one day he says one thing, the next day he back-peddles.He’s not a typical Evil Tory/Nazi, he’s just a posh boy with nothing better to do than dip in and out of politics.He should stick with what he does best, light entertainment – he’s really very good at that (sincerely).He’s an accident waiting to happen in politics, the Tory old guard are more than capable of manipulating the floppier members of their party (just look at Cameron) and they’ll chew up Boris and spit him out.The true Tory mindset was beautifully demonstrated by Widdicombe on Sunday morning TV, where she took the opportunity to hurl her homophbic opinions at us in the name of religion.Think of people like Boris as an Air Freshener, they are used to mask the smell of shit but they don’t last – the shit is still there and in this case it can be seen smeared all over the opposition benches.What use is a mayor that doesn’t function properly at 10am? Can you imagine this clown in the event of a terrorist attack? “Sorry old chaps, I never go out before 11am and a quick snifter of gin…” etc etc?

  9. Robert, ex-pat Brit 24 Sep 2007, 12:10pm

    Eddy, there’s one right we have still yet to win, the right to marry and the right for heterosexuals to enter into a civil partnership if they choose not to marry. THAT would be true equality! Its not over yet and none of us should be complacent thinking we have all our rights, we don’t.

  10. Denis, London 24 Sep 2007, 12:36pm

    So Boris Johnson considers himself libertarian by comparing gay marriage to a union between “three men and a dog”.Surely this is at best confused and at worst, an affirmation of every stereotype that exists around gay men? Its completely backward to consider this comment justified because it describes the “loving relationships” that exist between all kinds of people, as he puts it.At least he admits that this might get him into more trouble – not sure that this is the kind of person the lesbian and gay community needs as mayor, and certainly sounds pathetic when compared to Livingstone, who has been a staunch, consistent defender of our communities for 20 years, including when it was not fashionable or politically expedient to do so.I fear that Boris has not thought through why we are so concerned about his defence of section 28 – it was a criminal act on the part of the tories, and it is unacceptable that he defended it in 2000, labeling it “labour’s appalling agenda”. The fact that he refuses to apologise, stating “Anyway I think it’s all bollocks and the sooner we get over it the better” is highly insensitive. Stonewall highlights the shocking levels of homophobic abuse in schools – couple this with the fact that so many young lesbian and gay people attempt suicide, and one can see that if you are, as Boris states, against homophobic violence, you would bend over backwards to condemn the Tory position on Section 28 and its modern-day legacy amongst young people. Boris fails on all counts in this respect.Im glad that Boris accepts London’s fantastic record of “ being a place gays feel … safe”. He might want to consider the opinions of Lesbian women, who are not mentioned once in his comments– I suppose he has not, to my knowledge, previously attacked Lesbians as he has Gay men, so perhaps they dont need u-turn in his bid for mayorality? Glad that the current Mayor does not share this approach.

  11. Boris who? Thats what they will be saying in a year. He’s a pathetic excuse for a Tory and epitopises everything we have been fighting against for 20 years. His views as are Camerons, change with the wind. London would become the worst city in the world and not the best under the Tories.

  12. When Boris starts giving the red carpet treatment to genocidal islamic clerics who openly advocate murdering us (hell, even the Nazis tried to hide their extermination camps a little), then I’ll worry.Until then, I’d vote for him in preference to any 2 faced weasel whose advocay of gay rights extends as far as it affects their chances in the ballot box.

  13. ” – and I was uncertain on the issue – I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men; .” — “They have gone back through thousands of articles, millions of words, to try to find to demonstrate I am something that I am not.” — When a politician complains that he has been taken out of context but then makes absolutely no effort to set the record straight as to what he REALLY meant with the statement that was supposedly taken out of context, it is nothing more than a tried and true political rhetorical tactic intended to distract and play victim while not actually addressing the concerns of those who take his words at face value. Mr. Johnson played the card like a pro and the PinkNews reporter fell hook, line and sinker for the bluff.You would think that if “they” have only found “a FEW phrases that they can take out of context” that he would be willing and eager to set the record straight and put those FEW phrases in to the proper context but alas that doesn’t seem to be the case.He admits that he made the “three men and a dog” statement but then claims that his words were taken out of context. He makes no effort to put his admitted statement into context he supposedly intended but the interviewer moves on to the next question without challenging him. FAITE ACCOMPLI! Just as he wanted! He never actually addressed the problem but came off looking like he did. How slick.As a libertarian myself I am particularly offended by his bogus attempt to explain away the offensive “three men and a dog” statement as if it was a statement of support based on libertarian principles. That is complete and total bull sh*t and I’ll explain why. 1) First off, the TRUE libertarian position on marriage is that the government has no business endorsing or subsidizing ANYONE’S relationship status or giving coupled people of any kind, priority treatment over single people. 2) The fall back libertarian position is that, since government recognition of relationships, in the form of marriage, is a fact and unlikely to be rescinded, then ALL people and all relationships between consenting adults should have the same right to recognition and benefits regardless of the sex, family relationship or number of the parties involved but 3) would not support a relationship between an adult human and a child or an animal or ANY person or living thing unable to make an informed judgment or give consent for themselves precisely because it would be a violation of the child, animal or handicapped person’s rights. 4) he began the statement with the words, “If gay marriage was OK…” which means that if you are going to expand the privilege to “the gays” then you have to extend it to everyone. That was a clever attempt at sounding libertarian but it falls short. If he had said, “If heterosexual marriage is OK…” and then continued as he did WITHOUT the dog reference THEN he would have been speaking as a libertarian and I would fully support his explanation. To make it sound as if letting gays marry is the tipping point for a libertarian should be offensive to libertarians and it should be offensive to gay people that he is trying to scam them with his bogus claims and clever double speak.I’m not a Londoner and I’m unfamiliar with London politics but I can smell a rat from a mile away and this man smells like a sack full of river rats.I certainly don’t think that PinkNews is a conservative mouthpiece but I do agree that this interview was pretty toothless and lacked much to be desired from a purely journalistic point of view.

  14. Robert, ex-pat Brit 24 Sep 2007, 8:06pm

    Zeke you’re absolutely right. He’s not much different than right wing conservatives in the U.S. who say that by allowing marriage equality for gay citizens will be opening the door for someone marrying their pet or committing polygamy. Its absurd and nothing more than pandering to fear and agitating for homophobia. Their argument is paper thin, getting thinner by the day as we see more David Vitter’s and Larry Craig’s emerging from their party. I can’ wait for Larry Flynt to expose the remaining 33 before the November 2008 election.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.