Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

David Cameron says Tory party “has work to do” on gay rights

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Theo Grzegorczyk 16 Feb 2009, 10:38am

    The leadership might have changed face under Cameron, but the facts speak for themselves: 3 out of 4 Tory MPs voted against the hate crimes legislation. Cameron didn’t have the leadership to bring the party with him – and under a Conservative Government, I suspect we’ll hear a lot about “good manners” and “being polite”, while the Equality agenda quietly gets shelved.

  2. My interest in the attitude of the parliamentary conservative party to an equality agenda has been subordinated by my anger at the most corrupt and incompetent government I can remember.

    A shame but there you go.

    Unless you want more sleaze, more rank abuse of power, ID cards, illegal wars, economic madness, deceit, the list is frankly endless, then the best thing to do is vote against the Labour party, if that means voting conservative then I will do so.

  3. “There was a series of ways in which gay people were being discriminated against because they couldn’t get married, so there was a strong, logical argument for civil partnerships.

    Hilarious statement which goes right to the core of the stupidity of civil partnership. Translation. Gay people were discrimated against because they couldn’t get married so we support giving them something that is different to marriage but a bit better than nothing.

  4. Simon Murphy 16 Feb 2009, 11:06am

    What a stupid moron he is. If he thinks that supporting discriminatory legislation like Civil Partnerships is evidence of Tory support for equality then he is even more stupid or sly than I’ve previously thought.

  5. David Cameron sounds fine but frankly there are too many crackpots in its rank-and-file. Look at things like the Conservative Christian Fellowship http://www.ccfwebsite.com/about_us.html
    - and how they discuss homosexuality in their magazine, ‘the Difference’: http://thedifferencemagazine.blogspot.com/2008/06/gay-clergy-what-are-we-doing.html (well, why not have your say underneath this nonsense?)

    These are the people Mr Cameron should be talking to first. What I want to know is, what is his opinion of the Lilian Ladele case? Should charismatic leaders of Pentecostal and evangelical mega-churches in South London, for example, be able to preach hatred of homosexuality…..?

  6. I feel more sympathetic to Cameron than the above, but what I have serious doubts about is his ability to change his party. It still represents more than free market ideology and casino capitalism – it also stands for bigoted provincialism of every kind. Expect little movement on any front if they get back into power – the perpetually amnesiac electorate is likely to forget that financial deregulation and an unbridled City of London are things the Tories set up in the first place.

  7. Sister Mary Clarence 16 Feb 2009, 12:31pm

    You’re right guys, the Conservative are bound to withdraw from Europe and the equalities legislation it has forced on this country (and of course its free trade agreements, therefore plunging Britain into an even more catastrophic recession than the one Chancellor Brown has driven us into).

    He’ll no doubt stand cackling on the roof of the Palace of Westminster ripping up the Treaty of Amsterdam with his teeth whilst simultaneously wiping his arse with the Human Rights Act and forcing the UK delegates to the Council of Europe to walk a hastily erected plan out over the Thames.

    Take London as an example, half of Boris’ advisors and staff are gay, but all the other gays in the village are being rounded up of a night and interned facing chemical castration.

    The British Empire and self-rule fell many years ago, so I’m not quite sure what reality you’re all living in, but Labour’s commitment to equality stretches as far as is absolutely necessary and no further. Equality laws have been enacted only when they had to be. To be fair, we’ve not been the last, but we’re sure as hell not been the first. They’ve been about as truthful on that score as they have with the economy. It amazes me that whilst the masses might still be swallowing that crap, gay people, who have a real interest in changes that effect our lives so greatly have been so lazy that they haven’t taken the time to really understand what has been going on.

    People will always believe what they want to believe. I believe that David Cameron has stood up and told those in his party who do not believe that gay people should be treated equality that they will be treated equally whether they like it or not. I believe that in a party where the core vote is from generations not brought up with this idea that this was a significant step. I believe that Labour has never confronted those in its own party opposed to equality, like Ruth Kelly, for example, and if fact has turned a blind eye to it, even promoting her to Equalities Minister.

    I believe that Labour’s faux-commitment to equality can also be evidenced by its continued expulsion of those seeking sanctuary from persecution because of their sexuality, knowing full well that their policy is likely to result in torture or death. Relying on legalisation from the 50s, whilst arguing that more up to date equalities legislation is gray.

    New Labour is marching steadfastly further and further to the right and like some creeping sickness people are blind to it. The recession/depression we are plunging into is going to undo all of the benefits we have come to enjoy on the last few years and people become bitter and resentful of anything different as they struggle to find jobs to support themselves. I suppose this will be Cameron’s fault too.

    With the introduction of Labour’s Enabling Act two years ago, the most terrifyingly dangerous piece of right-wing legislation parliament has ever passed, we’ll be lucky if we ever see an election again. If invoked we probably will start seeing in internment of some sections of the community, just like we did in the 30s when the last Enabling Act was passed into law, but I’m sure as long as its not our section, some on here will still be happy to carry on blindly supporting.

  8. Sister Mary Clarence 16 Feb 2009, 12:32pm

    sorry, ‘erected plank’

  9. People, please email Tony Grew at Pink News and beg him to get rid of this ridiculous black-text-on-dark-grey! It’s so difficult to read.

    Tony Grew

  10. well i think i trust David Cameron with gay rights, but have to say i don’t tyrust the party at all, guess i’ll be voting labour agin at the next election…….

  11. Crikey Sister Mary Clarence, you sound so right wing that Ruth Kelly could be your buddy and you could even be the eager beaver who changed Titian’s entry in Wikipedia, so in thrall to your Dear Leader are you. Bless, it is all so sweet.

    And yes, David Cameron is in part responsible for economic crises. But not this one, the last one when he was a special adviser to Norman Lamont (of Je Ne Regrette Rien fame). He keeps such lovely company that man, he really does. At least having f–ked up the economy once, Cameron ought to know how not to do it again. But that is no guarantee

  12. Rob Alexander 16 Feb 2009, 2:56pm

    Cameron’s support for civil partnerships is not proof of anything other than he values the votes of LGBT people. Once in power, people like Tebbit would reverse all the equalities we have gained over past years.

  13. Kevin Peel 16 Feb 2009, 2:58pm

    The Conservatives are the same nasty party they have always been. Cameron’s rhetoric on gay rights is as empty as his economic policies and even if it wasn’t his backbenches are still chock full of gay hating bigots who will ensure that the tory party never moves past the dark ages on such progressive issues. Labour have brought in some fantastic legislation to protect the rights of the LGBT community. Are we there yet? No. But I know which party I want fighting my corner.

  14. Vulpus_rex 16 Feb 2009, 3:54pm

    It is depressing the number of people who will roll over and let the labour party tickle their tummy simply because the Labour party has handed out a few sweeties.

    Such unthinking, uncritical obediance is no doubt what the Labour party intended however,when Gordon has finished incinerating the value of the pound and screwed every business in the country so there is no cash to pay the 51% of the adult population who now rely on the state for their income, (either through benefits or public sector work), will you be quite so happy about our new right to sleep with a sixteen year old.

    What is even more depressing is the evidence all around of the social disharmony, decay and injustice propagated by the labour party and this is all to be considered acceptable because they might give us a few more “rights”.

    Given a choice between a few more “rights” for me or a prosperous society that values all its members,and functions in a civilised manner, I’ll take the latter and vote for any party that will undo all the harm done by labour.

  15. Simon Murphy 16 Feb 2009, 4:01pm

    It’s quite scary that people seem to forget how viciously homophobic the Tory party has always been. Even David Cameron’s so-called commitment to equality is meaningless when you look at his own shameful record on gay issues which have required a vote in parliament.

  16. Ah vulpus_rex, you have succh a short memory and such a large amount of invenctive it is almost touching. And you could be Sister Mary Clarence in disguise. When you say that Labour is incinerating the value of the pound, remind me, who was it who achieved £1 = $1? Why, step forward Cameron heroine Margaret Thatcher. Trust me, Margaret Thatcher did more than any post war PM to incinerate the value of our currency.

    Your sterling efforts to defend the Tories is so, so touching

  17. It’s difficult to take Cameron seriously when he seems to have no idea of the difference between debt and deficit. Either that or he’s deliberately deceiving people. Thick or liar? Either way, not what you’d want in a leader.

  18. Sister Mary Clarence 16 Feb 2009, 10:08pm

    Simon, are you sure you actually know what right wing is. I think you’ll find right wing is ….

    Trying to remove the centuries old right to trial by jury.
    Attempting to increase pre-charge detention of suspects to seven weeks
    Introducing an Enabling Act giving executive authority to one person to repeal, defer or introduce any law without reference to Parliament
    Authorising the illegal searches and detention of opposition Members of Parliament caught doing their job
    Indefinite incarceration of foreign nationals in detention centres
    Allowing covert selection of pupils for secondary schools
    Dog eat dog, “everyone gets a choice” admissions into hospitals.
    Yelling the rallying cry of the BNP, “British job for British people”

    New Labour has long deserted every socialist principle that the Labour Party once stood for. They have prostituted their beliefs like painted whores ever more scandalous and they become ever more desperate to cling on to power at any cost.

    I am old enough to remember when the Tories were last in power, but I’m also old enough to remember why they came to power in the first place. The time was right for the Tories to go when Labour came to power, but New Labour sold us a lie. That people fell for it them I can well understand. How anyone can, with all that has gone on over the past two or three years, still have any faith in them beggars belief. This country is on its knees, British jobs for British people is only the start.

  19. Most younger gay Londoners I know are going to give Cameron and the Conservatives the benefit of the doubt and support them at th next election. Its interesting to note the generation divide in the gay community – gay guys in their 20s and 30s are far more conservative than those in the middle age who constantly hark back to previous Tory governments of the last century, which to be honest us younger gay men don’t find relevent.

    We are looking to the future not the past of 30 years ago and given the moral (and economic!) bankruptcy of the present Labour government, coupled with the modern liberal views of Cameron & Boris towards our community, our generation of gay electors will be largely voting Conservative.

  20. I am still amazed that the labour party can plum new depths of corruption and incompetence yet there is a hard core of support who deliberately choose to ignore how rotten they are.

    It is fascinating that the hook that they hang their support on is the concept of “rights”, when on this very day it became illegal to take a photograph of a policeman.

    The idea that because of something Margaret Thatcher did 20 years ago the gay community should lose the power of critical judgement and ignore the stench of new labour is frankly hilarious.

  21. I think Sister Mary Clarence has been on the ceremonial wine again. The European caliphate which has infected our legal process has destroyed it. We used ot have a vein of “reasonableness” running through our legal system now we just have the weight of the lobbyist.

    A really equal society, 10 years prison for photgraphing a policeman as of yesterday, terrorists who would like nothing better than to kill as many gays as they can and who scammed their way into getting a UK visa unable to be deported thanks to the Human Rights Act, terrorist legislation used for drug searches and Icelandic banking, no public worker ever giving any information due to “Data Protection” (they never seem to know what section of the DPA, do they?), the Thought Police, Newspeak, committing an offence by saying something.

    We’ll “learn some lessons but keep our jobs and pensions” for every Baby P tortured to death, because Guantanamo is so much more important

    Yes, great society – more George Orwell than Utopia

  22. Kevin Peel 17 Feb 2009, 5:01pm

    Thomas – what liberal views?! Boris scrapped the LGBT advisory group and funding for Soho Pride and referred to same sex partnerships as ‘beastiality’. David Cameron voted against pretty much all equality legislation, not to mention the VAST majority of his front and backbenchers.

  23. Sister Mary Clarence 17 Feb 2009, 5:36pm

    Kevin, can you tell us exactly what Ken’s LGBT Advisory Group actually did? I seem to remember at the time, everybody who wasn’t on it, seemed quite pleased to see it go. Perhaps you could run through a list of its achievements.

    Also, could you actually talk us through why our council taxes should be used to support a drug fest and piss up in Soho every year. Again I think the argument was made at the time, that if the local bars want a day when their cellars get drunk dry, perhaps they could maybe contribute towards the cost of it. Personally I’d rather the money was spent on a few extra policemen on hand to assist should anyone decide to liberate my wallet from me on my way home off my head on mind bending love drugs and three parts to the wind, having donated a week’s wages to Mean Fiddler and/or Bass Charrington.

    Whilst I fully appreciate they too are suffering as much as the rest of us from the effects of Gordon’s Great Depression, I can think of many other things my council tae could be spent on than filling their coffers

  24. Sister Mary Clarence 18 Feb 2009, 4:55am

    Just to hammer home the Labour right wing socio-facist point, to quote the Independent:

    Dame Stella Rimington, the former head of MI5, has accused the Government of exploiting public fear of terrorism to restrict civil liberties.

    Her comments came on the same day as a report published by international jurists suggested that Britain and America have led other countries in “actively undermining” the rule of law and “threatening civil liberties” in the guise of fighting terrorism.

    The 73-year-old said: “Since I have retired I feel more at liberty to be against certain decisions of the Government, especially the attempt to pass laws which interfere with people’s privacy.

    “It would be better that the Government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism: that we live in fear and under a police state.”

    She said: “The US has gone too far with Guantanamo and the tortures. MI5 does not do that. Furthermore it has achieved the opposite effect: there are more and more suicide terrorists finding a greater justification.”

    The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) said the legal framework which broadly existed in democratic countries before 9/11 was “sufficiently robust to meet current threats”.

    One worrying development, says the report, was that liberal democracies such as the UK and US have been at the forefront of advocating the new aggressive policies and that has given totalitarian regimes the excuse to bring in their own repressive laws.

    The report stated: “The framework of international law is being undermined… the US and UK have led that undermining.”

    The ICJ “received evidence that intelligence services… effectively enjoy impunity for human rights violations. In addition… state secrecy or public interest immunity have been used to foreclose civil suits and hence remedies to the victims of such abuses.”

    Mr Chaskelson, chairman of the panel, said: “… we have been shocked by the extent of the damage done over the past seven years by excessive… counter-terrorism measures…”

  25. Crikey Sister Mary Clarence, you have gone in there and really stood up for individual freedoms, liberty and the rights of the individual. So who was it who:

    steamrollered through the abolition of the GLC whatever anyone else thought?;

    curbed the power of the trade unions;

    used the power of the state to spy on her opponents (does this sound familiar yet) during the Miners strike;

    passed any number of EEC Treaties without asking the general public (along with John Major);

    and, for an encore, allowed her name to go forward to be leader of her party for God knows how long?

    Yes, all these nasty little wheezes were perpetrated by Margaret Thatcher, that defender of freedom and democracy (unless you disagree with her in which case God help you).

    I am no supported of New Labour but let’s have no more obsequious humbug about the erosion of human rights, democracy and so on when the Tories were at it too. And believe me they will be again.

  26. Lord Waddington’s amendment is a very important part for the maintenance of freedom of speech in this country. Read the entire Bill. We must not be selfish and must keep this amendment in the law! Do not feed people with fairytales so that they resist essential for the society things! Please, less egoism!

  27. Sister Mary Clarence 19 Feb 2009, 5:24pm

    So Simon even with all that that you have mentioned in mind, Stella Riminiton and the International Commission of Jurists still made the comments they did.

    Hopefully that will actually open a few eyes to how bad things have really got.

    After all, even Margaret Thatcher never introduced an Enabling Act. It is the most dangerous piece of legislation that this country has had on the statute books in centuries.

  28. Oh for heavens sake Sister Mary Clarence, let us be clear about enabling legislation. It is introduced in a principal Act and gives others the power to make regulations (statutory instruments) which have the force of law in the same way that Acts do. They are laid before Parliament for approval and made law on a resolution of both Houses.

    Governments of all colours have for centuries passed enabling legislation, including Margaret Thatcher. She found it convenient to dump the detail of the Poll Tax in the regs, Parliament having given the Secretary of State for the Environment (as was) power to make such regulations, for example.

    So, as is usual with your rants, you are wrong and talking bollocks when the facts are held up to the light.

    If you really want to know how your rights can be eroded without so much as a by your leave, look up Royal Prerogative. Orders in Council (made by The Queen on the advice of ministers) have the same force as SIs but have no need to go through Parliament. Now that is truly dangerous. Campaign against those and I will be impressed.

  29. Sister Mary Clarence 21 Feb 2009, 10:03am

    A few words from some others about what the Bill actually means:

    While the legislative and regulatory reform bill had a “fine aspiration” of cutting excess regulation, ministers should have know that the powers it gave them to amend existing laws “was constitutionally questionable”.
    Our main conclusion is that constitutional change, particularly, should be made only by parliament through primary legislation, not ministers using delegated powers,” said Lord Holme, the chairman of the committee.
    “The simple fact that ministers failed to recognise the profound constitutional importance of the legislative and regulatory reform bill does not inspire confidence that they would not use delegated powers to introduce constitutional change in the future, without even realising what they are doing.
    “The way this bill has been handled shows that with our unwritten constitution, simple legislative proposals can drastically affect our law making system and the fundamental relationship between parliament and ministers.”
    Lord Holme of Cheltenham

    “The new bill marks the end of true parliamentary democracy; in its effect, it is as significant as the US Congress last year abandoning the Bill of Rights”
    John Pilger

    “We’re teetering on the brink of an elective dictatorship”
    Simon Heffer

    “Titanic Bill to sink Parliament”
    Corporate Watch

    Lawyers wary as new Legislative Reform Bill expands Government powers. Lawyers have expressed concern that the new Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill will give the Government unprecedented powers to make and change UK laws at will.
    The Lawyer

    The bill extends ministerial powers to rewrite laws and make new ones without the troublesome business of securing parliamentary approval.
    The Guardian

    Abolition of Parliament Bill
    The Green Party

    I’m glad you’re so comfortable with it Simon when so many others aren’t and however much you spout on here about others introducing Enabling Acts, or muddy the waters with examples of this or that, it is clearly you who doesn’t understand what has gone on. I can only assume you are referencing your postings from a history book published by New Labour, author possibly and Mr Brown or maybe Mr Blair.

  30. Sister Mary Clarence 21 Feb 2009, 10:46am

    Clause I of the Act provides power for a Minister of the Crown to make provision, by order. An order can make provision reforming legislation. ‘Legislation’ includes local as well as public general Acts, and subordinate legislation as well as primary legislation.
    Clause II of the Act states that orders can amend, repeal, or replace any legislation. “Replace” means that legislation may be repealed by an order made under clause 1 and may be replaced by freestanding provision in the order.
    Subsection (2) provides that an order made under clause 1 can amend, repeal or replace legislation in any way that an Act of Parliament may do, including conferring functions (expressly including the function of legislating). Provision made by order can also modify existing functions or transfer functions to another person.
    In short the government can introduce any legislation that it wishes to (para 1) or can amend, replace or repeal and legislation is wants to (para 2). It can also transfer responsibility for any area of government to any other person.
    Now if the government wanted to, as it said, introduce legislation to remove redundant and out-dated legislation from the statute books without the need to go through the lengthy process of parliamentary procedures as they previously stood, why not confer responsibility to a cross party sub-committee to do the house keeping? Whilst still a risky and business it would be infinitely safer than allowing the ruling party executive authority to change laws at whim – particularly a government that has in recent years wrestled with the ability to carry out it actions within the confines of the law so regularly.
    Simon, are you really so comfortable with giving Jacqui Smith the authority to repeal legislation that says the can’t beat, gag and tie foreign nationals, in the UK fleeing persecution, that she has decided to remove from the country in the middle of the night, before their case has been heard in court?
    The only reason that Gordon Brown’s leadership has not been challenged is because there is scarcely any senior member of government who has not had their reputation tarnished by getting caught with their hands in the till. Has any one of them lost their job? Peter Mandleson has been in and out of that cabinet like he’s on elastic. No crime is unforgivable under New Labour.
    The Tories are slowly moving forward and many of them have a lot of catching up to do, but so many gay people are fixed on thirty years ago they are not focussing on what is happening now. Introduce a bit of European legislation they were obliged to and New Labour is our best friend. Well New Labour is looking more fascist as every day passes and people need to start looking behind the facade before its too late, assuming its not already.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all