Consistently supported gay equality maybe, but as one of the prime movers behind the Iraq war and as a man implicated in special rendition and torture, how much of a commitment to equal human rights does he have?
Will New-Labourite David Miliband he be a war criminal like Tony Blair – the architect of New Labour?
I distrust both the Milibands. Their inability to put their party unity over their sibling rivalry means neither are to be trusted.
Particularly that little weasel David Miliband, who only decided he supported marriage equality after he realised how the negative the response had been to his interview with Pink News where he patronisingly told us to put up with Civil Partnership.
Well, this is disappointing.
David Miliband is just more of the same – at least with Ed there’s a little bit of hope.
Notice how the authors of the letter bent over backwards to avoid using the word MARRIAGE?
Why would that be. It really required some rhetorical gymnastics to accomplish a sentence that vaguely referred to marriage equality without actually using the word.
I just don’t trust ANY of these wankers. They’re for THEMSELVES and their PARTY only. Yes, even the gay ones of every party. Our rights are clearly just a distraction and an annoyance to them. Something they wish they could avoid but feel they have to begrudgingly and delicately pander to.
Hmmmm Chris Bryant MP, Angela Eagle MP and Ben Bradshaw MP are all darlings of Blair & Mandleson and part of the inner circle of the New Labour project.
David Miliband is Blair+Mandleson Jr and just as dangerous to us all. I would say his brother Ed Miliband and Andy Burnham are the best two candidates. Ed (no) Balls would be a bigger disaster than David Miliband, Ed (no) Balls showed is equality credentials when he made his far more promising wife (also a Labour MP) not run for the leadership.
If you want Blair & Mandleson to control the Labour party you will vote for David Miliband.
Are “we” hoping for the gay vote.
Too little, too late.
Labours Human Rigts record has been appauling and sent hundreds of gay asylum seekers back to be executed.
There is no chance that ANY party should be indorsed unlesss it grants LGBT’s Full equality with fellow Hetroserxuals, as we so deserve, by the mere fact that we are all born equal as Human Beings
Marcus, and what exactly has David Cameron said about marriage equality? He said he would “consider” it, political speke for NO. Not one Tory MP has come out in support of it. Though I didn’t vote Labour or Tory, at least Labour has a handful who are now backing it. The Tories have nil. Our mayor doesn’t count because he’s not an MP and they didn’t exactly win over the majority of the gay vote. Supporting marriage equality might well do it, but Cameron isn’t that pragmatic or smart enough to realise the implications if he wants to remain in power and win the next election. Nick Clegg will probably support Labour on this issue alone and may not be there for Cameron next time around. He’d better wake up and the time is NOW or face defeat.
Dsvid Miliband seems like a slimy, opportunistic liar. He reminds me of ‘Call me Dave’ Cameron in that regard.
I want to hear how and when he will bring in marriage equality.
His overnight conversion from thinking civil partnership apartheid should be good enough for us, to supporting equality is unconvincing.
The fact that Miliband has done an about turn and actually stating he supports marriage equality is quite different than Cameron saying he’d consider it. Not one Tory MP has declared any support. Its not difficult to bring in marriage equality, the important groundwork has already been set with civil partnerships. All he needs to do is to introduce a bill to amend the CP law.
Supportive he may be, but, like so many career politicians, he’s done sod all in terms of experience of life and real work before standing to be our next Labour prime minister. He began his “working” life at a Labour-connected think tank called the Institute for Public Policy Research and then became Tony Blair’s head of policy. Where’s the experience of real work? Where’s the experience of real life? Is this man representative of us? Nope. There are plenty of people who are supportive of gay rights, so let’s not laud him for doing what any decent person ought to do. We would expect nothing less.
And, as someone else has already said, he’s just more of the same. Another Blair. Another warmonger who has said he had doubts about the Iraq invasion but chose not to disclose them publicly at the time, preferring, for the sake of his cowardly, worthless, pusillanimous political skin, to remain quiet on the issue.
Should have gone to Specsavers.
Over the past decade, the Labour Government has made great progress in dismantling the legal discrimination faced by the gay community. From the equalisation of the age of consent to workplace anti-discrimination legislation Labour’s record on gay rights is a proud one. Unfortunately, the same progress and enlightened leadership has not been shown in extending protection to our oppressed brothers and sisters through the asylum system. Asylum and immigration has always been a highly contentious area of policy for successive British governments. Indeed, until a 1999 House of Lords ruling, persecution due to sexual orientation was not even grounds for being granted refuge in the UK. Today therefore – and forced by the Courts – the Home Office now accepts that if a person does have a well founded – and evidenced – fear of persecution because of their sexual orientation then they can begin to qualify for asylum. However, the Home Office makes it as difficult as possible.
In common with other asylum seekers, the Home Office deploys a ‘robust ‘ approach in determining gay asylum claims. The individual must demonstrate the harm they fear and demonstrate that the fear is justified. Most asylum seekers flee their country without documents, often because their departure is sudden and rushed. Further, accumulation of evidence is often hard to collect and even harder to export. The Home Office issues country-specific guidelines to immigration officers to assist in determining the likelihood of persecution on the grounds of sexual orientation in given countries. Whilst there are many countries that publicly persecute gays individuals, the Home Office often fails to acknowledge this real risk in its guidelines. Last year in an infamous case involving an 18 year old asylum seeker from Iran, the Home Office’s own guidance issued to immigration officers conceded that Iran executes homosexual men but, unaccountably, rejected the claim that there is a systematic repression of gay men and lesbians.
Where the Home Office issue guidelines, the Courts held that two gay asylum seekers – one from Iran, the other from Cameroon – should be returned to their country of origin. The Court argued that the decision to grant refugee status to the men depended on the social context in which homosexuality was viewed in their home countries, with one of the judges stating that “a degree of respect for social norms and religious beliefs in other states was appropriate.” It was ruled that the men’s applications for asylum should be denied on the basis that they would not face persecution in Iran and Cameroon if they carried out their lives “with a tolerable level of discretion.”
Quite what those judges deem to be tolerable is unclear. Iran has a highly disturbing record on LGBT rights. As President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed there were “no homosexuals in Iran”, Human Rights Watch reported the execution of two more men for ‘homosexual conduct.’ That the United Kingdom should deem it acceptable for our LGBT brothers and sisters to face persecution daily and then to compound that insult with the admonishment that they should “be discreet” when rejecting their asylum claims is shameful.