Tatchell ignored. Always his best state .. in my experience.
So Aviad – you’re happy that this bill discriminates against us then? Do you really think your think your personal grudge against someone is more important than equality? How selfish.
SO the government says there is no reason to include sexual identity & gender identity in this legislation eh? How about the flip-side of the coin…is there any reason NOT to include gender & sexual identity in the legislation? If its neither here nor there, then surely it would be better to have included it.
The government says that LGB & T people are already protected under current laws, but recent (and less recent) criminal cases have shown that LGBT people are not receiving justice on a par with other crimes involving prejudice as an aggravating factor. I might not agree with Mr Tatchell on everything, but I do agree with him on this issue.
“”It addresses harassment on the grounds of race, gender and disability but not on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is not inclusive at all.”
I don’t understand why sexual orientation hasn’t been included. The implication is that it’s already covered under other laws, but the same could be said for race and disability, for example. It just seems weird to omit sexual orientation when other things are included. It also sends out the message that it’s not serious.
So Aviad – you’re happy that this bill discriminates against us then?
Did I say that? And who says that I have a grudge against Tatchell? They are all vacuous assumptions on your part.
Who is to say that I wasn’t saying that he is at his fighting best when he is ignored by the establishment?
Thankfully, Charlie, we can’t all be as boorish as you so very clearly are.
Pink News: “Other groups, such as Schools Out and GALHA, along with the Liberal Democrats, have also raised concerns about why LGBT people are not included in harassment protections.”
Evan Harris spoke in a Commons debate on 11 May 2009 and said (excerpt):
In public, the Government have rightly accepted that there is a difference between homophobic or religious hatred and, for example, racial hatred, because the offence involved is very narrow. They have recognised that free speech can be impeded. I am sure that I would not agree with most of that speech, but I recognise that some religious organisations, for example, need to be able to explain their views on sexual orientation or the religious beliefs of others. Similarly, I have argued for amendment of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which criminalises the use of insult as being likely to cause distress, goes too far and could lead to bizarre prosecutions or investigations by the police. I hope the Government will recognise the point. They have made an exception in cases of religion and homophobia, and they are right to do so.
Does the above indicate the Lib Dems don’t want the law to protect LGBT people against harassment? I asked DELGA some time ago but didn’t get a reply.
It’s important to understand that when the Govt claim “no-one provided any evidence of a need to go further” what they mean is “we have dismissed all the evidence that was provided”.
The Equality Network provided evidence to the Govt, both in response to the original Govt consultation in 2007, and earlier this year, of harassment of LGB people by goods and services providers, of harassment of trans young people in schools, and of discrimination and harassment against non-transsexual transgender people. Our evidence included both statistics and personal testimonies.
Other groups gave similar evidence. The Govt have dismissed the significance of our evidence.
Hmmm, now when David Cameron occupies number 10, lets see him do something about it if he claims his party is for LGBT equality. Don’t expect anything of course, they’re hardly progressive either.
When the gay community was under the Tories last time round we had plenty of activist’s who were unpaid and carried out demonstrations and such like. But now having had the good times under the Labour party with having plenty of money put our way, plenty of those previously unpaid activists have now taken the Queen’s Shilling (so to speak) and have taken Job’s in Gay rights. But unfortunately they have had to walk a fine line between not upsetting those employers and fighting for gay rights and in some cases they lean over towards creeping for employment and ignoring gay rights.
Peter has often Spock out against these Snuggler’s (creeps) and this news story would seem to be a backlash against him for speaking out.
At one time anybody could have had meetings with the authorities, but not now. Now you would have to be a member of an Approved Partner Agency to have meetings with the authorities.
With this ression some of those Snuggler’s are now deafening homophobic discrimination.
You know who!
@Aviad – Sorry, I must have missed your point. I thought you were saying that Tatchell should be ignored. If you’re saying that he’s at his strongest when he’s angry, then I’d certainly agree with you on that.
Wow, they really dropped the ball on this one. This equality bill is an absolute disgrace. I was hoping that the government would prove me wrong, but they’re still as ignorant, biased and hateful as ever. And I really doubt things will be any better under the Tories. Looks like it’s shaping up to be a slow couple of years for us.
Cleggy (#9) I will admit to a Scottish Govt-funded salary and consider myself very lucky to have it after 23 years of LGBT activist work, mostly for nothing! But the Equality Network has always been clear that we will tell the Govt what LGBT people need and want, even if they don’t want to hear it, and we will say when we think the Govt have it wrong. Hence our clear submissions to the UK Govt on the missing protections in the Equality Bill, and to the Scottish Govt on the need for same-sex marriage.
We’re also committed to giving LGBT people in Scotland maximum say with the Scottish Govt, for example by organising conferences, meetings etc with officials and Govt ministers that are open to all who support LGBT equality.
All these bloody Equality Bills and Anti-this-and-that legislation, the legisllators are playing hop-scotch in a mine field. There is always the disatisfied and always will be. Legislate untill the cows come home but wheather it is of any real use is never very evident. All legislation can be skirted round and made to look silly like the Fox-hunting Bill. That dose not invavidate Peter Tatchell’s endevers to get things right. Knowing PT, he’s quite a tenacious opponent. Even when his ‘Gay News’ publication was sued for ‘Blastphemy’ and he was threatened with a jail sentence, he still fought like a Lion. I can’t help admiring him but I do not agree with all his methods.
Well Charlie and Aviad, I for one think he SHOULD be ignored. The man is nothing but an antagonising, left-wing idiot. I for one am sick and tired of everyone immediately turning to this pillock every time a decision needs to be made. It seems we are stuck between the rabid machinations of Tatchell and Outrage! that just want to stir up sh!t, and Stonewall, who the most ineffective, apathetic bunch of mutual back-slappers on the planet. It’s about time someone offered a well-balanced, politically unbiased group of representatives for the gay cause.
Will you cut that out, MONKEYCHOPS.
We all know who you are, an ex-gay alcoholic schizophrenic cybersapce shapeshifter (E.G.A.S.C.S. for short) whose only fun in life is disrupting the threads on PinkNews.
You don’t really care about anything except grabbing the spotlight and keeping it as long as you can, eh honey.
If you really want to be noticed, why don’t you try gathering up all the copies of the Wolfenden Report in the UK and making a great big bonfire with them at Charring Cross? Bring fireworks and a vodka martini, or two, or three. Prefer gin, do we? Well, OK.
What ‘seems to be’ the problem with Peter Thatchell anyway?
Aren’t you the guy who believed that the footage of the American Moon Landing in ’69 was genuine – on the EastEnders’ thread?
You left there so fast after I plugged you up that I didn’t get a chance to tell you that my father was smarter than your father cos the best part of you ran down your father’s leg.
But I ain’t bitter.
MonkeyFacechops, You will get more than Moonies from us!!
I always feel so sorry for Rob
Jean-Paul Bentham / Brian Burton
Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not whoever this ‘monkeychops’ is. Perhaps it is actually you who are the said sad ex-gay alcoholic schizophrenic trying to distract attention from yourselves.
Making accusations which are false, and which you can’t back up, simply because you don’t happen to like what I say, is nothing more than trolling at its lowest level – so I suggest that you take a long hard look at your own actions before you use these forums to accuse and make threats. This is doubly the case when I haven’t even addressed any of my comments to either of you, or commented on anything either of you have said.
Now kindly go and get a life you sad verbally incontinent imbeciles.
Strange how Jean-Paul Bentham & Brian Burton always seem to post one after the other on all the discussion threads they contribute to. Are they in fact one and the same person? Hmmmmm
You did have a father, innit.
What ‘seems to be’ the problem with Peter Thatchell anyway?
I don’t actually have a problem with Peter Tatchell – and if you had actually bothered to read – rather than let your tragic paranoia get the better of you and simply go on the attack with your inane drivel – you would have realised that.
As I have already explained to Charlie, I think Peter Tatchell is at his best when fired up by not getting the attention he thinks he should be getting.
You really are a nasty piece of work. Isn’t it strange that when someone like you accuses, the cap seems to fit the accuser so much better than it does the accused?
Excuse me but you do ‘seem’ to have a problem with Peter Thatchell.
The only thing you don’t “seem to have” a problem with is how to make your stupid remarks as ambivalent as possible, you twit.
You did have a father, right.
You know everything, Monkeychops, so tell me this: Does Peter Thatchell “seem to have” a legitimate complaint or doesn’t he? A “yes” or a “no” will do, although you “seem to be” prepared to disrupt yet another thread to hold onto the brilliance of the spotlight, eh sweetie. Just don’t look directly in the light, that’s a good cybersapce shapeshifter scizophrenic cruel little s.o.b.
But I ain’t bitter. Please don’t take this the wrong way!
Hello Mark, or is it Monkeychops again:
Stick around; you ain’t seen nothing yet!
And what is your opinion on Peter Thatchell’s complaint against the way the Equality Bill is formulated?
My, if you all don’t have a relevant thing to say about the Equality Bill, I’ll just run along to my mambo class.
I generally regard Peter as a necessary extremist who makes it easier for the rest of us to negotiate the third way; but on this occasion I think he is bang on the money.
Now, we have heard what your many alter ego’s have got to say on the matter; but what do YOU think – or had you, in your haste to abuse others, forgotten that your rabid ‘Jean-Paul Bentham’ persona hadn’t yet expressed his views?
I am not surprised Peter or anyone never receives a response from the Equality Minster and/or her team. I wrote to the minister some time ago on a HIV related matter and still await a response.
Jean-Paul: We all have our opinions, and we all have a right to voice them. Your constant bitching on here is even more annoying than the people you are trying to barrack,. More so you have already accused one person on here of being MC before realising you had got it wrong, (ie: me) and now you look to embarrass yourself yet again. Please, in the nicest possible way, either stick to the topic under discussion, or shut the f_ck up.
@ RobN (15): ‘It’s about time someone offered a well-balanced, politically unbiased group of representatives for the gay cause.’
1. No one is politically unbiased.
2. There is no (singular) ‘gay cause’.
2. If you feel so unrepresented, why not do this yourself?
Several trans groups DID raise exactly the concerns that Peter Tatchell has about the lack of harassment protection for Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Trans people. We also questioned the pernicious exemptions for religious organisations, members clubs, schools and colleges, insurance companies, armed forces and government bodies. There is even an exception allowing businesses to discriminate against LGBT people if they can ‘prove’ employing us could affect their profits. Funny how Angela Eagle didn’t know we did raise objections, isn’t it?
I can only conclude that she is referring to the questioning of Ben Summerskill by the Commons Committee…Lynne Featherstone MP was on the panel and asked Ben whether LGBT people need protection from harassment…Ben said there was no evidence that such protection would be helpful and that Stonewall only asks for things that are really necessary. Thanks Ben.
1. Tell that to all the civil servants. By their very nature they HAVE to remain unbiased. And there are thousands of them.
2. I use the term “gay cause” as an alternative to the oxymoron “Gay community”, because there is no such thing.
3. Just because I propose a concept does not mean I wish to even go near that can of worms. I’m sure there are many out there that would though, without trying to grind their own personal axes.
Apparently, one of the reasons for leaving LGBT people out of the Equality Bill is that the government’s so-called ‘Women and Equality Unit’ dismisses us as (and I’ll quote their exact words here) “a lifestyle choice”.
Now I’m puzzled here: if they consider us a “lifestyle choice” and, therefore, do not deem us significant enough to be afforded legal protection under their new soopa-doopa, all-singing, all-dancing oooh-sooo-*radical* Equality Bill, then why, by contrast, do they afford the legal protection of freedom of religion?
After all, since the government is a guarantor of freedom of religion then doesn’t this mean that they’ve automatically made religion a “lifestyle choice” and, therefore, likewise have to exclude it in order to maintain the authenticity of the ‘Equality’ bit in the title of their Bill?
1. Fighting homophobia is a political issue, so every gay rights activist comes to this with a political perspective. Gay rights activists are not civil servants – although civil servants definitely operate according to their own political agendas, regardless of the government in power.
2. ‘Gay cause’ falls foul of the same one-nation-under-a-blanket homogenisation as ‘gay community’. As the debates on this site prove, there are vast differences of opinion between non-straight people. No one person can represent the ‘gay cause’ because there is no singular ‘gay cause’. Hence:
3. The more people devote their time to combating homophobia from across the political spectrum, the better. But everyone would still come to this with their own axe to grind, because wanting to tackle homophobia is itself an ‘axe to grind’. Homophobia (and, I would argue, everything else) is a political issue.
This whole thing is a farce anyway, because the government have brought in this so-called “equality bill”, whilst allowing anyone with religious beliefs to opt-out. This essentially completely nullifies the aforesaid bill in a single swoop, because the single largest cause of homophobia originates from organised religion. They open spout homophobia and encourage anti-gay activity, and have been a carte-blanche approval to do so because politicians don’t want to upset religious followers generally, and Muslims specifically.
It’s all a pointless exercise anyway, If I “hate” someone for whatever reason, no amount of legislation is going to change my views. All it can do is prevent me from voicing it.
Charlie: If I call you a poof, is that political? No. It’s a personal insult. If teachers educate children to respect diversity, is that political? No. It’s only politicians and idiots like Tatchell that politicise these things. I don’t deny that politics is one way of turning round events, people and opinions, but it is not the only way. If people see that a gay person being beaten up in the street is not a party issue. It’s not a Tory vs Labour fight, it is a cross-party, apolitical human right.
Britney: “Apparently, one of the reasons for leaving LGBT people out of the Equality Bill is that the government’s so-called ‘Women and Equality Unit’ dismisses us as (and I’ll quote their exact words here) “a lifestyle choice”. ”
Is that correct? My eyes are boggling reading that.
We all know who you are, an ex-gay, homophomobic, alcoholic, schizophrenic, cybersapce shapeshifter (E.G.H.A.S.C.S. for short) whose only fun in life is disrupting the threads on PinkNews.
Excuse me but you do ‘seem’ to have a problem with Peter Thatchell.
The only thing you don’t “seem to have” a problem with is how to make your stupid remarks as ambiguious as possible, you twit.
You know everything, Monkeychops, so tell me this:
Does Peter Thatchell “seem to have” a legitimate complaint or doesn’t he?
A “yes” or a “no” will do, although you “seem to be” prepared to be as ambiguous as possible to disrupt yet another thread and hold onto the brilliance of the spotlight, eh sweetie.
Just don’t look directly in the light, that’s a good cybersapce shapeshifter scizophrenic – cruel little s.o.b.
Don’t make me laugh. I’m going to a funeral.
how can lesbians, gays and bisexuals get ignored? Britney says that the woman and equality unit pushes the lie that it’s a lifestyle choice
@Iris – is what you have quoted true? If it is then why hasn’t someone done something about removing the people and the department or whatever else has to be removed? This is not good at all. Where can we get more info about this?
Snugglers, I must remember that.
Well where I live the arse licking creeps, sorry snugglers, have excluded long term volunteer gay activists from local gay groups so as not to offend the authority pay master funders.
Cleggy was 100% right
“unsatisfactory”. Quite so.