Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Shadow equalities minister Theresa May to attend gay Tory conference event

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. the other half 17 Aug 2009, 9:19pm

    I’m sure that this doesn’t really show a commitment to Queer Rights…

    It’s windowdressing/ lieing/ sacrifising babies to Satan (delete where appropriate.)

  2. Easy for them when its preaching to those who believe their own rhetoric. Much easier say, than taking the time to seriously persuade the general public that they are serious about gay equality by voting accordingly for gay rights in parliament.

  3. I am sure Theresa May IS on side (she should quit the Tories and join a more Gay friendly Party!) After all she coined the “Nasty Party” phrase and I can see not evidence that its changed!

  4. May said: “we are a broad church welcoming new people every day”.

    Unfortunate metaphor, Theresa. It betrays where your little Queen-loving fox-hunting bishop-kissing aristocracy-grovelling Tory brain is really at, honey!

    I would still love to be there though. Just to watch her. Just to watch how uncomfortable she’ll be and how well, or not, she manages to mask it and hide it.

    Theresa May: one woman know gay boy needs as his Mummy!

  5. Theresa May: one woman NO gay boy needs as his Mummy!

  6. Matt Sephton 18 Aug 2009, 1:48pm

    Conference Pride will be a fab event! And with numerous Shadow Cabinet members (remember the Conservatives have TWO LGBT members whereas the Govt has NONE) in attendance together with openly-Lesbian Party Chair Margot James, it will be a night of partying to remember! I for one will be there!

  7. theotherone 18 Aug 2009, 1:49pm

    wow now you lot resort to slander.

    #You see the problem is that the Tories are doing more to show they’re serious about Queer Rights than Labour and you lot can’t argue against that so you resort to personal atacks.

    Gordo w-i-l-l be proud. You’ve earned a day’s wages boys.

  8. Umm.. exactly what has the Conservative Party done for Queer Rights. If anyone could point out one gay/lesbian-positive policy that the Tories have instigated or laid out, I’d be delighted to read it. Currently, most of the Conservative policies that they’ve laid out or are discussing seem to involve removal of gay rights (viz decreasing taxation for married couples but not for civilly partnered couples)

  9. Aw… I really wish I could go too. The Cons sound lovely don’t they? Just a couple of problems really. I vividly remember being treated like sh1t by them when they were in power and I continue to be treated like sh1t by the local town hall tories.

  10. Sister Mary Clarence 18 Aug 2009, 3:10pm

    “decreasing taxation for married couples but not for civilly partnered couples”

    Where’s that one come from – David Cameron has already stated that the same tax incentives will be given to civil partnerships and marriage

  11. Sister Mary Clarence 18 Aug 2009, 3:12pm

    “I continue to be treated like sh1t by the local town hall tories”

    Where are you loving then. Labour have lost control of almost all local authorities, so most people are living under Tory controlled local government, and frankly a lot of us have never had it so good

  12. @ Matt Sephton: If its the numbers game (you mention two LGBT Tory cabinet members over labour having none), then I’d rather see the numbers on the voting record. Legislation is where it counts, not numbers in the shadow cabinet.

  13. theotherone 18 Aug 2009, 7:19pm

    if you look on theyworkfor you you;ll see the voting record of Labour ministers.

    Shocking!

  14. What is coming from Theresa May is soundbites. She is simpily exployting pride in order to make the Conservative party to be gay friendly. In reality the Tory party have not changed and this very party should not be forgiven for Section 28 as well as thier very poor voting record on Gay Reforms collectively. Anyone attending the Paride event need to press for an apology for Section 28. Guests attending the event need to press for action against Tory M.E.P Roger Helmer in light of his foolsih remarks.

  15. Matt Sephton 19 Aug 2009, 9:51am

    Thanks for your comments, Suzi Sue. The Conservatives now have the biggest number of LGBT councillors and prospective MPs than ever before. With regard to Section 28, David Cameron has already apologised for this.

    (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/5710650/David-Cameron-says-sorry-over-Section-28-gay-law.html)

    The Party has also made it clear that Helmer’s comments are NOT representative of the Conservatives.

  16. Sister Mary Clarence it came out of a proposal from Ian Duncan Smith as part of his Centre for Social Justice work. Although it’s not established policy of the Conservatives, it’s certainly had a lot of discussion in the policy deliberations because Smith seems to dominate a lot of social policy for the Tories at the moment.

  17. the other half 19 Aug 2009, 11:09am

    but Darrien DC has said that it won’t happen or do you not think that the man who forced mps to make humiliating public apoligies over expenses, sacked people from the party and forced through a policy to cut mps pay will roll over on this one?

  18. lithotomist 19 Aug 2009, 4:04pm

    Matt Sephton, are you really suggesting that the Tories have two shadow cabinet members who are gay while the Labour government has no gay members ? I know you lot resort to the lowest forms of dishonesty but that bit of news will come as a real surprise to Labour’s Peter Mandelson, effectively the Deputy PM right now, Ben Bradshaw, gay minister for Culture, Media & Sport and gay Cabinet member and Labour Chief Whip Nick Brown. Honestly, if you must lie, try to make it something that can’t be so easily disproved.

    And by the way, I note that you Tory Boys continue to ignore the very fundamental question about Tory MEP Mr Helmer: if as you’ve said he’s a nutter and not representative of the Tory party or its members or policies, how is it that he’s been selected, reselected and prioritised as a candidate over so many years ? Is it that the Tories don’t know what they’re doing ? Or that they had an absence of mind spanning many years ? Or are you just misleading us about Mr Helmer and his position in your party ?

  19. theotherone 19 Aug 2009, 5:20pm

    ah yes The Dark Lord: a man so ashamed of his sexuality he sued Mathew Parris for mentoning it. Some role model that…then there’s his atempts to force anyone without children to work split shifts and unsociable hours then the rampent mysoginy of his time leading the sorry show when Gordo was away where women where told that they should get pregnent between 16 and 18 rather than go into education, when they where told not to go into teaching, when Lesbian sexuality was trashed for all to see.

    Yup he’s a great fvck1ng roll model.

  20. lithotomist 19 Aug 2009, 9:11pm

    Once again, the Tory Boys are reduced to telling lies, because their own case is so weak. Just to give one example, Peter Mandelson never sued Matthew Parris – go on, if he did, you can provide the evidence, but the fact is, you’re making it up again ! even prior to Parris talking about it on Newsnight, the tabloids had always talked about ‘Mandy’ being gay, and he makes no bones about it; Matthew Parris was in the closet for years and came out so quietly that nobody noticed, and he loyally served the Thatcher woman while not being ‘out’, so he’s hardly a role model.

    And still no Tory Boy explanation of how Mr Helmer got to be an MEP, I see !

  21. theotherone 19 Aug 2009, 11:56pm

    sorry, threatend to sue.

    BTW: Parris came out quietly? He discussed in in one of his colloms, The Dark Lord had to be dragged out of the closset screaming and shouting and took two years from the date that Parris outed him untill he openly discussed his own sexuality.

    Shame anyone?

  22. theotherone 19 Aug 2009, 11:57pm

    BTW: I’m no Tory and don’t change the subject. Helmer has been critisised but not the Labour Ministers who voted against Queer Rights.

  23. lithotomist 20 Aug 2009, 8:39am

    Still not true – try producing evidence that Mandelson even threatened to sue Matthew Parris – it just ain’t there. And If I had to choose between Parris – who stayed in the closet and served the Thatcher government which imposed Clause 28 on us, only for him to come out years later; or Mandelson, who was part of the Labour govt that introduced a number of reforms in our favour, who was openly talked about in the tabloids as gay, who was therefore not ‘outed’ on telly in October 1998, and who was fine about his sexuality being discussed in a book by Donald MacIntyre which came out only months later – well, I know who I’d chose. And it ain’t Matthew “Clause 28″ Parris.

    I also note you smear but can’t name all these ‘Labour ministers’ who you claim ‘voted against queer rights’ – you’re really long on the smears and short on the evidence.

    And I ain’t changing the subject bringing up the refusal of you Tory Boys to produce answers about your MEP bigot Mr Helmer – it’s just that you Tory Boys keep dodging the issue.

  24. theotherone 20 Aug 2009, 4:44pm

    I must withdraw from this discusion for my own reasons however in one respect you are corect: I can not provide evidence of a threat to sue Parris and may have been confused as P Mandelson did threaten to sue when his sexuality was discussed (Google it.)

    Likewise Parris is often claimed to be guilty over clause 28 but wasn’t that the year he walked out of parlament? I beleve that was over Clause 28.

    As to Labour ministers voting against Gay Rights: this is a matter of public record and, as I said, I am withdrawing from this debate. Have a look for yourself and you’ll see who voted against Gay Rights on the front benshes.

    Lastly: The Dark Lord took two years after being outed by Parris to discuss his sexuality openly. You can check the dates on wikipedia if you don’t beleve me.

  25. theotherone 20 Aug 2009, 4:45pm

    BTW: I’m not a Tory (I’ve not voted for a major party in over 10 years) or a ‘Boy.’

  26. lithotomist 20 Aug 2009, 5:48pm

    Oh dear, running away but spreading even more falsehoods on the way out ! Yeah, go see wikipedia’s peter mandelson entry – under personal life it’ll say the tabloids always talked about his sexuality (and he didn’t sue them), Parris ‘named’ him in Oct 98 and a book being written even at that time, published April 99 with Mandelson’s agreement, talked at length about his sexuality.

    Your posts mark you down as a Tory Boy, even the running away after trying to smear mandelson and Labour ministers, you produce no proof, no names or dates, not even any evidence as to why Matther Parris left Parliament – just generalities and Tory smears. None of you lot have had the guts to either confront or admit to the Helmer situation, which is a fact here and now.

  27. Interesting debate this; almost as good as the House itself; yheeeerrehh! phaaawww! etc and so forth! Or like the game you play when you are drunk, would you rather sleep with Gordon, David or Nick (no contest I would have thought;-)) But to be serious Its all well and good for DC to apologise for section 28 when cuddling up to the right wingers in Euroland who would have us all marched into the gas chambers again! Come on Thersa Darling if you really want to play with the gays and be taken seriously, cross the floor and do yourself a favour!

  28. Sister Mary Clarence 21 Aug 2009, 5:46pm

    lithotomist – check the comments on that story, have you noticed one of us Tory boys jumping to Helmer’s defense? The bigoted little sh*te is going to be looking for work shortly, I’m absolutely sure.

    That of course being one of the big differences between The Torys and Labour – you step out of line and you get the boot, unlike some of the festering old crooks and liars in the Labour Party.

    Helmer is a relic from a bygone time and has shown he is not prepared to move with the party. As a paid up member of the Tory party I’m more than happy to condemn him.

  29. theotherone 21 Aug 2009, 6:41pm

    I did say I wasn’t commenting on this story any longer and, returning to it, I find you could not resect this and also refuse to reserch the areas i have highlighted.

    It is you who is behaving like a yahoo.

    Typical of the socalled British Left – I’ve seen it a million times in meeting after meeting, group after group. One group I was a part of receved threats from righton men because we where ‘clouding the issue’ by discussing Feminist issies around the G8.

    Your a typical British Left thug and with this I say goodbye.

  30. lithotomist 22 Aug 2009, 5:32pm

    Oh, pull the other one, theotherone – all you’ve done is repeat your disgraceful behaviour, trying to smear me this time but STILL producing no evidence whatsoever to support your earlier smears ! Just in this one thread, we’ve had you telling lies about Peter Mandelson (twice) and trying to smear other Labour politicians, but never, never producing verifiable facts, we’ve had Matt Sephton insinuating that there are no gay Cabinet members when the fact is there are three, and Sister Mary Clarence blathering and producing more smears, but still refusing to answer the specific question I posed about the Tory Party andit’s relationship to Roger Helmer, their MEP – which was, to restate it again for those too blind to see: if, as you say, he’s a nutter and not representative of Tory party policy or party members, how is it that he’s been selected, re-selected, given priority as a candidate and continues to serve with David Cameron’s blessing, as a Tory MEP ? Did you choose him repeatedly by accident, or while asleep, or are you party colleagues just hoping we stop noticing ? And if he isn’t sacked very soon as you promise he will be, will you stop your propagandising for the party who gave us Clause 28 ?

    It’s shameful, theotherone, for you to try to smear me as a thug, when all I’ve done is pick you up on your repeated lies and your failure to produce evidence. So run away, coward, run away, and keep your untruths to yourself.

  31. Sister Mary Clarence 22 Aug 2009, 7:47pm

    lithotomist – not entirely sure amid all the ranting what you’re are theotherone to provide, however if its ministers voting aginst (gay) equalities legislation:

    In 1998, Jack Straw vetoed an amendment to the Crime & Disorder Bill that would have extended the tough new penalties for racist attacks to all hate crimes, including those motivated by homophobia. Gay Labour MP Stephen Twigg spoke against this amendment in committee.

    Before the 1997 election, Labour declared its intention to lift the ban on lesbians and gays in the military. However, within 10 days of winning office, Labour ditched that pledge. For over two years, it fought tooth-and-nail in the European Court of Human Rights to maintain homophobic discrimination in the armed forces. In the European Court of Justice in 1998, the government fought successfully to uphold the right of the military to deny queers equal treatment. The ban was eventually lifted only because the European Court of Human Rights ruled it illegal, forcing Labour to accept homosexuals into the army, navy and air force.

    PROTECTION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION – In 1998, Labour vetoed an amendment to the Human Rights Bill, which sought to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and HIV status. None of the out lesbian and gay MPs voted for this amendment.

    EQUALITY AT WORK – Labour has three times scuppered legislation to stop discrimination against queers in the workplace. It blocked the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill in 1997, and in April and July 1999 it thwarted similar amendments to the Employment Relations Bill.

    SEXUAL OFFENCES – During the passage of the 1998 Crime & Disorder Bill, Labour manoeuvred to prevent attempts by backbench MPs to scrap three sexual offence laws that apply only to gay sex: the gross indecency statute outlawing many forms of consensual gay relations; the criminalisation of gay sex involving the presence of more than two people; and the homophobic bias of the Sex Offenders Act, which results in men convicted of consenting homosexual relationships with 16 and 17 year olds being branded as child sex abusers, while men involved in heterosexual relations with girls of the same age are not penalised at all.

    NO MORATORIUM ON PROSECUTIONS – After the House of Lords overturned the vote for an equal age of consent in July 1998, Jack Straw refused to use his discretionary powers to initiate a moratorium on the prosecution of 16 and 17 year old gay men and their partners, insisting that prosecutions must continue because it is “the law of the land”. And prosecutions did continue, with a 19 year old man being jailed for consensual sex with his 16 year old boyfriend

    EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES – In May 1999, the government blocked attempts to strengthen
    the equal opportunities powers of the new Greater London Authority (GLA), including powers to promote gay equality and tackle homophobic discrimination. Only after months of pressure did Labour grudgingly agree to give the GLA some limited powers to pursue equal ops

    PENSION RIGHTS – Labour used its voting muscle to reject a proposal in October 1999 by Lady Turner of Camden to allow lesbians and gays to inherit pensions on the death of their partner, leaving hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples without legal rights

    (source: petertatchell.net)

    I know this doesn’t always relate solely to front bench ministers, but is often the whole sorry lot of them, but as Peter has researched, they’ve not supported su when it has suited them not to.

  32. Sister Mary Clarence 22 Aug 2009, 7:53pm

    “Sister Mary Clarence blathering and producing more smears”

    Please also clarify the ‘smears’?

    In relation to his selection – try looking at when he was selected to stand for the 2009 Euro elections and when he made his recent comments about homosexuality. Its not rocket science and surely you don’t need theotherone to talk you through it.

    Anyway, back to the point in hand – you have accused me of producing smears – get your teeth out of theotherone for a minute of two and explain yourself.

  33. Sister Mary Clarence 22 Aug 2009, 7:59pm

    While you’re at it on the Labour Good, Tory Bad thing – could you just talk us through the Miranda Grell saga? After twice being found by the courts to have destroyed the life of a gay opposition councillor in East London with lies about paedophilia forcing him to flee his home in fear of his life, are you able to explain why she wasn’t sacked from any of he roles working for the party, leaving her to resign with an option of returning to political life when all the hoo-har subsided? Can you tell us what you have to do you actually get the push?

  34. Sister Mary Clarence 22 Aug 2009, 8:01pm

    Apparently its not sufficient to get caught flogging your vote in the House of Londs to an undercover reporter for a small schooner of sherry and a packet of Senior Service – so what exactly is the straw that breaks the camel’s back with New Labour?

    Please enlighten us lithotomist.

  35. Sister Mary Clarence 23 Aug 2009, 5:45am

    While we’re at it, come to think of it, could you run us through why the Labour government still considers it acceptable to repatriate gay people to countries where the regime is often likely to torture and/or kill them, using the provisions of a 1950s Refugee Act, rather than using more obvious, more recent Human Rights Legislation to allow them to stay here?

  36. SMC would have to do a lot of convincing me before I vote Tory, but I find her analysis in post 31 extremely insightful. I am extremely annoyed with Labour’s hypcritical electioneering tactics aimed at the LGBT community, in which they deceitfully attribute a whole range of LGBT freedoms to their being in power. Most hypocritical is the lifting of the ban on gays in the Armed Forces.

    Frankly SMC, you should write to Private Eye about this. And maybe a petition signed by all those who were affected in any way by the military ban between 1997 and 2000.

  37. theotherone 23 Aug 2009, 1:10pm

    Ok if you want proof about The Dark Lord:

    ‘It was back in 1987, before Mandelson became an MP, that he was first outed by The News of the World in a front page story headlined, “My love for gay Labour boss.”‘

    “Why Mandy Won’t Let Sexuality Queer the Pitch”, Punch, 31 January 1998.

    I expect you won’t get back now and can I ask you to not be so thugish in future and allow me to retret from posting if I feal the need to.

    You might be a Labour Lover but you ain’t no Gentelman.

  38. Sister Mary Clarence 23 Aug 2009, 3:48pm

    Adrian, certainly would try to convince you to vote Tory, but I would certainly urge people not to vote Labour.

    I’m disappointed that so many gay people blindly believe the first thing they are told without questionning. The gays in the military things wasn’t even a particularly low key thing, it was quite headline news at the time, and yet they would still have it they ‘gave’ us that equality – yeah, with the European Court holding a gun to their head!!!

  39. I don’t know why you’re all arguing about who’s party has the bigger dick, they’re all the same anyway! And no, that isn’t just a cliche, it’s true!

    The very system of ‘politics’, i. e ‘one side VS another’ is designed in such a way that the population will always be unhappy and hence always vote; therefore always needing a Parliament, MPs, MI5, MI6 and all the establishment-related crap that goes with it.

    Why do you think nearly every party in opposition, whether it be Cameron now or Blair in the early 1990s, campaigns with the slogan ‘CHANGE’? We always want ‘change’ because the system is designed to keep us paying taxes, engulfed in fear of crime, unhappy, under control and hence keep this rigmorole going forever! Therefore, when offered ‘change’, we jump at the chance! Look at Obama’s ‘change’ campaign and then look at what he has/will change(ed) = NOTHING!!!!!!!

    “Drawing attention to struggles between political systems, ideologies, races, and classes obscures the historical struggle for power and wealth. This creates confusion and stirs up contention among the ranks of the disadvantaged majority, enabling the global elite to preserve stolen wealth and power. The two-party system of checks and balances in the legislative branch has been rendered powerless and has become a facade of freedom and den of debauchery. The mindless masses are spoon-fed a daily diet of deception and distractions, until the horrifying final phase of total global tyranny is implemented”

    —– Why do you think Peter Mandelson, or whoever, slamming another political opponent gets more ‘news’ (I use that term loosley) coverage than a U.S drone plane killing hundreds of civilians, ordinary people, in a village in Afghanistan?

    It’s all a distraction and in the mean time the oligarchs of big business, big banking and big pharma are swallowing up nation after nation in CIA/MI6/Mossad backed coup d’etats and business deals.

    Every day on the news Russia and Iran are demonised (sometimes rightly so) because they’re two of the few countries left who are not puppets of the Anglo-American business/military Empire. Why do you think the EU (which is a federal state in all but name) is allowing/wanting poor countries like the Ukraine, Turkey, Bulgaria to join when all they will do is add debt and poverty? Because the goal is to drive Russia’s borders and sphere of infulence back nation after nation, whilst completely encircling her allowing that ‘Son Of Starwars’ to be pointed at her, a provocative act if ever there was one.

    Why do you think our media, like the ‘independent’ BBC showed footage of ‘Russian’ soldiers in Georgian villages during the Russo-Georgian war; which later turned out to be Georgian soldiers in their own villages?! A war, wherein the U.S puppet Georgia actually attacked Russia for no reason!

    All of this is going on in the world, and yet here we are, arguing over who’s favourite political party is the best.

    Political parties, who are all taking civil liberty after civil liberty away from us. Political parties who don’t object to 80% of our laws coming from Brussells. Political parties who would rather argue about who’s stimulus package is best, whilst ignoring the fact that the U.S Federal Reserve ( a PRIVATE BANK by the way) where this collapse came from had a blank cheque given to it by Obama, and has now subsequently revealed that it cannot account for 8 trillion dollars. Political parties who think nothing of the fact that we’re the most watched nation on earth.

    We’re now being controlled to such an extent that we can’t put our rubbish out without fear of being fined. Not one political party has fiercely objected to this psychological warfare of control.

    Wake up!!!!!!!!!!!

  40. theotherone 23 Aug 2009, 5:08pm

    oops! Copied the wrong bit: he threatend to sue them for the story (deleted that by acadent.)

    Just look on Thatchel’s site.

    Lesebella: you are, to an extent, corect but let us also examine what is happening in these countries you say are being deamonised:

    the deniel of free elections, the use of force and intimidation against their own citizens, the extrajuditial killing of political oponionts and Queers. Iran has said it wants to wipe Isrial off the map and hosts events denieing the Holicaust, Russia bombs Chechinia and allows other Eastern European countries to freeze in winter if they don’t give it truck loads of cash.

    They’re evil places.

  41. I agree theotherone, these countries do themselves no favours atall.

    But how can we even dare take the moral high ground when we’re responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths?

    Our governments don’t care about these people’s rights. If we did, we wouldn’t have our arm around Saudi Arabia as if it were our kid brother when they treat women like dogs and have a 2000 strong House Of Saud royal family whilst the rest of the population is in backward poverty. If they cared, they would send the troops in to Zimbabwe and free their people.

    Iran has been bullied and battered by us since the fifties. We installed the Western-friendly Shah Of Iran who’s security force Savac murdered and tortured thousands. The Iranian’s revolted and threw him out. We sold nerve gas to Saddam Hussein (later our ‘enemy’) specifically to attack Iran for it’s ‘defiance’ i.e for having the temerity of putting their own government in. During the Iran-Iraq war of the 80s the U.S shot down a boeing civilian aircraft carrying over 200 normal Iranians going on holiday to Dubai. Over 60 children were on that plane. The U.S said they did it because the plane didn’t identify itself as ‘civilian’. A claim proven incorrect when Dubai airport played the radio transcript which shows the Iranian plane specifically identifying itself as a civilian aircraft. And just months ago, the CIA and George Soros sponsored ‘green revolution’ in Iran failed. (The ‘orange revolution’ of the Ukraine and the ‘rose revolution’ of Georgia were also US funded colour-coded ‘revolutions’ designed to get these countries away from Russian influence).

    We, the West, do all of this to Iran and then wonder why they become more radicalised and hate us?! If I were Iranian, I would feel much safer with someone like Ahmadinejad in, atleast he stands up for the Palestinians and Iran.

    Ahmedinejad didn’t actually say that he wanted to ‘wipe Israel off the map’, this is another Western propaganda tool designed to demonise him and Iran:

    Before we get to the infamous remark, it’s important to note that the “quote” in question was itself a quote— they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office.

    THE ACTUAL QUOTE:

    So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi:

    “Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.”

    That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word “Regime”, pronounced just like the English word with an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase “rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem).

    So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing. That’s because the word “map” was never used. The Persian word for map, “nagsheh”, is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase “wipe out” ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran’s President threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”, despite never having uttered the words “map”, “wipe out” or even “Israel”.

    THE PROOF:

    The full quote translated directly to English:

    “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”.

    Ahmedinejad specifically referred to the current Israeli regime. Not Israel as a whole.

    It’s a game of chess, at the cost of people’s lives.

  42. Brian Burton 23 Aug 2009, 5:42pm

    Lezabella,
    The voice of reason and good sence. People never wake up! untill they are having their toes stamped on. The world Gay movement is getting stronger, much stronger than I have ever known it. So, If the Torys are simply touting for the ‘Gay Vote’ and if they are on a deceit mission. Gay UK organisations should be able to take counter measures and create a campagne to embarrass them. Besides, every experiance is of value and whatever is said about the Torys, they are, like Labour and any other Political Party, an experiance! We all seem to live on our emotions, as far as Gay Rights are concerned. All political parties have a past, they all pretend the future will be rosy-and why not? They are no better than trollops flirting with this faction and that faction. At all costs, they have to appeal to our imaginations, or they are limited in their century. But we know their minds just as sure that we know ourselves. The one good thing about the past Lezabella, is that it is the past! Success is a science; If you create the conditions, you get the result.

  43. theotherone 23 Aug 2009, 5:54pm

    ‘They are no better than trollops’ – a little mysoginistic.

    I’m no fan of any political parties but what’s your alternitive?

  44. “We, the West, do all of this to Iran and then wonder why they become more radicalised and hate us?! If I were Iranian, I would feel much safer with someone like Ahmadinejad in, atleast he stands up for the Palestinians and Iran.”

    You cannot be seriious Lezabella. The Islamofascist Iranian regime, after stripping the electorate of their right to get rid of the predient whom nobody voted for, is now torturing and murdering protesters, as witnessed during the protests, and stories of horrific experiences are coming out all the time.

    The Times, 11 august: just one of many examples

    “Iran’s parliament has been forced to launch an investigation after claims that protesters arrested during a government crackdown on demonstrations have been raped in prison.

    Mahdi Karroubi, one of two rivals defeated by President Ahmadinejad in the discredited June election, said he has received reports that some male and female prisoners were raped in custody.

    The opposition leader laid out the allegations in a letter to the ex-president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in his capacity as head of the Assembly of Experts. Mr Karroubi said he was given the information by former military commanders and other senior officials.

    The crackdown has already fuelled public anger because of allegations that detainees have been tortured and abused in custody, including several who died. “

  45. Brian Burton 23 Aug 2009, 10:10pm

    Theotherone….Get Lost you Fundy Frump!

  46. I’m going to be upfront- I don’t trust Western news sources. The BBC posted a picture of a pro-Ahmedinejad rally in Iran and airbrushed the signs out and called it a ‘green rally’ which it wasn’t and later had to take down. The BBC and all of the other Western news agencies were also complicit in the lie of mis-quoting Ahmedinejad as I’ve shown above.

    Nevertheless, I’m not blind, I’m well aware of Iran’s failings, but after installing a murderous puppet in the fifties and stealing their oil, nerve-gassing them via Iraq, shooting down their civilian planes and then deliberately, make no mistake, deliberately, mis-quoting thier leader can you understand why their people hate the West? Imagine if Iran had shot down a U.S or British commercial airliner with over 200 people on board. We would never be able to forget it, there would be (rightly so) a minute’s silence every year and yet, most people in the West are not even aware of or don’t care about this outright act of aggression and murder. Those people had done nothing wrong but have the unfortunate luck of being born Iranian, same as the Iranaians Saddam murdered with OUR nerve gas.

    As for the elections, I’ve already had this debate with you wherein I explicity pointed out how Ahmedinejad won by roughly the same margin as his last landslide (I wonder if George Bush could say that when he ‘beat’ Al Gore, ah Western democracy eh?), how the protestor’s signs are conveniently in English, how ‘green’ became the colour of the revolution, much like in the Ukraine and Georgia, and how a few thousand protesting in Tehran, a city of over 10 million, is nowhere near a majority uprising.

    I don’t doubt some protestors were tortured and raped, pretty much like the ‘suspected terrorists’ we’re flying around the world to secret death camps. With MI6 co-operation and approval.

    My point is we have absoloutely no right to take the moral high-ground after the despicable acts Western governments do in our name.

  47. Brian Burton 24 Aug 2009, 5:52am

    Adrian T.
    Iran has hated Britain along with the USA since they deposed the Shar off his peacock throan. Nothing will change there in Iran as long as there is a Cleric as ‘Supremo’ in charge. The rest of Iran’s political system is no more than a rubber stamp for the ‘Supremo’s’ dictats!

  48. Yes Lezabella we have already had the debate – you weren’t convincing last time and you aren’t convincing this time round. Mousavi losing in his home district was unheard of. Mousavi was way ahead in the polls just before the election by 54 to 39 percent, and the next week loses 34-63. Really, what’s more likely? The numbers, made up out of thin air, are a way of the government rubbing it in the face of the population, who want change, and want to rid themselves of theocratic fascism.

    As for moral high ground, well America and Britain do not systematically machine gun its protesters in the streest, nor cart them off to prison to torture, rape and murder them, like what has been happening on a large scale in Tehran.

    ANOTHER TALE OF SYSTEMATIC ABUSE OF PROTESTERS – RAPED AND MURDERED BY IRANS FASCIST REGIME
    The 15-year-old boy sits weeping in a safehouse in central Iran, broken in body and spirit. Reza will not go outside — he is terrified of being left alone. He says he wants to end his life and it is not hard to understand why: for daring to wear the green wristband of Iran’s opposition he was locked up for 20 days, beaten, raped repeatedly and subjected to the Abu Ghraib-style sexual humiliations and abuse for which the Iranian regime denounced the United States.

    “My life is over. I don’t think I can ever recover,” he said, as he recounted his experiences to The Times — on condition that his identity not be revealed. A doctor who is treating him, at great risk to herself, confirmed that he is suicidal, and bears the appalling injuries consistent with his story. The family is desperate, and is exploring ways of fleeing Iran….”

    Reza is living proof of the charges levelled by Mehdi Karoubi, one of the opposition’s leaders, that prison officials are systematically raping both male and female detainees to break their wills….”

  49. the other one 24 Aug 2009, 11:09am

    see there was a nasty man in charge in the 70′s in Iran…

    so that excuses the present leader denieing the Holicaust and raping and murdering anyone that dosn’t suport him? It’s got noting to do with how they feal about ‘the ewst’ but how they treat their own citizens.

  50. the other one 24 Aug 2009, 11:11am

    oh and brian: what was your alternitive? You never answerd my question.

  51. the other one 24 Aug 2009, 11:52am

    and one last thing: how does this effect the fight for Queer Rights in the UK?

    Are we being led up the garden path by the Left again? The Left who told us that they would take care of our issues and the issues of every minority group if we just helped them this time…

    To be honest it’s not just the left it’s everyone but the left has a wonderfull place in history regarding this: they said this to women in the Left and then ignored their issues only for the women to strike out on their own. Lets take our cue from the Feminists and have our own liberation rather than waiting on others.

  52. Brian Burton 25 Aug 2009, 3:03pm

    other one,
    What is Queer Rights as you so Queerly put it? Can’t Slime-Ball idiots like you find employment to keep you from cruising GAY sites looking to get your JOLLIES. MONKEY CHOPS!!!

  53. Adrian- I posted a poll last time we spoke about this from a truly independent Western source, which said Ahmedinejad won by over 60% of the vote, this paragraph is from Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East writing in Time Magazine:
    “Before we settle on the narrative that there has been a hard-line takeover in Iran, an illegitimate coup d’état, we need to seriously consider the possibility that there has been a popular hard-line takeover, an electoral mandate for Ahmadinejad and his policies. One of the only reliable, Western polls conducted in the run-up to the vote gave the election to Ahmadinejad — by higher percentages than the 63% he actually received. The poll even predicted that Mousavi would lose in his hometown of Tabriz, a result that many skeptics have viewed as clear evidence of fraud. The poll was taken all across Iran, not just the well-heeled parts of Tehran.”

    Baer goes on to state, as I did last time, that the few thousand protestors were mainly students and middle-class members of the intellegentsia; not the ‘ordinary’ Iranians. No scenes filmed amongst poorer Iranians were ever shown.

    Ahmedinejad won by roughly the same votes as last time, subsequently Hillary Clinton has admitted the U.S, thorugh various front organisations, had funded Mousavi.

    If you want to see a true election fraud, look at George Bush’s ‘win’ against Al Gore!

    If it was truly a fraud, do you not think there would be more than a few thousand protestors, considering Iran has a population of over 70 million? It doesn’t add up.

    Does that excuse the treatment of these protestors? Ofcourse not! The Revolutionary Guard is not something to be scoffed at, I’m aware of it.

    However, and this is my answer to you too theotherone, we must look back at history, the 70s and the Shah. Why? Because if we hadn’t installed this murderous puppet in the first place for the sole purpose of stealing their oil (via British Petroleum) the Islamic Revolution would never have happened. Savak (The puppet Shah’s secret security force) tortured and murdered at will.

    This was what WE the West forced on the Iranian people to steal their oil. The Islamic revolution was a response to that, the same as Lenin after the Tsars – Lenin was never, ever wanted by the majority of Russians and the Bolshevik party was never truly popular, same with the Ayatollah. At that time anything would of been better than seeing your country’s wealth being stolen and political opponents murdered.

    The Islamic laws there are nothing in comparison to Saudi Arabia’s, and yet I don’t see you all up in arms about that. Maybe that’s because you’re not fed a daily dose of propaganda via the BBC, Sky News et al like you are Iran?

    Tell me, what you both think of the deliberate mis-quote and lie regarding Ahmedinejad and ‘wiping Israel off the map’, and then tell me why you still believe Western news sources without question.

    Our good friend and ally Saudi Arabia, where a woman, who must be in a burkha, cannot even leave the house without a male relative let alone work. They can’t even drive alone!

    But that’s the difference isn’t it? Saudi Arabia is our ‘friend’, Iran is not.

    We have Guantanamo bay, torure flights to Eastern Europe, blanket and cluster bombing of Iraq (a war on a lie!), daisy cutter bombs used in Afghanistan, un-manned drones wiping out whole villages in Afghanistan, a strong alliance with Saudi Arabia, and you still think we, the West, can take the moral high-ground against Iran, a country we’ve bullied and meddled with for over 50 years? Please!

    My point is I know Iran is far from perfect, but to then wage the wars we have and love Saudi Arabia as our governments do, is pure hypocrasy.

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