Q: Who benefits from this maintained state of inequality in Britain? and how does it benefit them?
“Some of the changes were triggered by European court rulings” – in fact almost all of them were, and Labour in government spent large amounts of public money challenging and opposing the rulings all the way to the last appeal. Huge progress on gay rights were made on the last government’s watch, but they had to be dragged there.
Quite like this artilce. If they truly are now “unshackled” and have done their homework and actually listen to the gay community at large and stop taking advice from old has beens from gay orgs who are too arrogant to actually support what we want, then I think all of them might do quite well on LGBT issues.
I hope they do support any move from the lib dems on marriage and CP equality during this parliament, it would certainly convince me that they are serious about what they say (sorry but I’m still a little bit cynical about what they will actually do , especially on marriage equality). One good thing though for labour I’m getting a little bit fed up of the tories already, can’t be the only one! I guess though the lib dems are still ahead on lgbt issues?
Article is pointless and misleading …
. Labours watch was made one of equality by the European court forcing equality through with labour opposing … Then going oh yes we love equality.
. Conservatives saying looking into it means go to he’ll queers.
. Lib dems the left wing party voting on our equal rights shows by how much they’ve missed the Mark and lost my vote.
. The labour candidates will all cry their eyes out saying they love gay peoplevif it would help them get reillected.
Fact is politicians it’s as much what they don’t say as do that’s important, David total snake one minuite all yea you got this just be happy then oh what I meant to say I’d this.
Ed acts caring but he’s not s natural leader the way he carries himself.. The little brother behind David there’s no charisma to win the public, not really able to speak up against the torys he’s all quiet almost shy… Not good on a leader.
Balls thinks he’s special but I’d never trust him he’s mr party line then stabs you in the back later , not a great cairer.
The other two well no point saying much they won’t win.
So we’ve go equality that’s unequal and no party really understands and slot of it don’t care. It’s a long road ahead.
> It’s a long road ahead
It’s a long read ahead, trying to get through your post.
Hello Pink News its the EU we should thanking Ok Labour put the laws through maybe quicker then another party may have done but don’t kid us that its labour we have to thank, it the EU.
Yes Adam’s contribution was a bit of a long road …Tories are Tories but the only thing achieved by inaccurately calling them fascists is to strengthen those with a real fascist agenda, I might not like them much but they are not fascists…and yes we owe most of the advances to the EU, so “right on Gav!”
Adam’s contribution was a very long road wasn’t it but I welcome diversity even if it is from standard forms of grammar and spelling! ;-)
Absolute rubbish to call Tories fascists “Tories are fascists” they are many things, often unpleasant but they are not fascist and it only serves the real fascists by increasing their importance (wrongly) to say that they are…as well as alienating people who are open to having debate who might change. and yes we owe most of equality to the European Court and the EU (Thank goodness for them) but also to individuals who used those mechanisms and sacrificed chunks of their lives to challenge…so thanks to them too but “Right on Gav!”.
People to often talk as if everything came from Europe – not true.
Some of the advances were following rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (but even there the Govt implemented them wholeheartedly and were opposed by the Tories in doing so).
In other areas progress was entirely home grown and no relation to Europe. Examples include Civil Partnerships, equal adoption and parenting, equal access to IVF, banning discrimination in goods and services, hate crime laws, outlawing incitement to hatred, the removal of section 28). None of these were forced upon us.
Meanwhile the Labour government negociated the Amsterdam Treaty which allowed Europe wide ban on discrimination in employment across the EU and then implemented it (with Tory opposition). Before the election the UK govt was supporting a EU wide Directive outlawing discrimination in goods and services – current indications are that the current government will veto it (though Germany is also opposed).
Indeed most EU countires have alot less protections than we do. For instance Ireland is only now introducing Civil Partnerships but without any parenting rights. UK Civil Partnerships had parenting included and adoption was opened to same sex couples before that time in the UK.
As to the Leadership election I’m quite hopeful that whoever is elected will pursue pro LGBT policies. Notably all the candidates are committed to marriage equality, which is a good sign.
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.
I think it’s important to realise that people have been granted asylum in the UK on grounds of sexual orientation. The latest Supreme Court ruling is a major step forwards however problems remain especially in asking asylum seekers to establish their sexual orientation. The comment above indicates some of the inherent difficulties in the system and there is no guarantee the current government will deal with these, in spite of promises to do so. If they don’t then their rhetoric will have been simplistic and misleading.
Amusing to see that despite having the support of the 4 openly gay Labour MP’s David Miliband does not top the poll.
His disastrous original interview with PinkNews where he patronisingly told us to put up with civil partnership apartheid, obviously didn’t go down too well.
I think it’s time Pink News poll on whether or not Stonewall should disband. I suspect that Stonewall’s continuing (and incomprehensible) support for CP apartheid, will mean there will be big support for them to disband.
Which is only fair and reasonable.
If Stonewall cannot support equality, then it should be regarded as a homophobic organisation.
I’m not sure the 4 mps helped D Milliband , their comment “.. putting same-sex relationships on exactly the same legal footing as heterosexual ones ” wasn’t very clear – was that supposed to mean marriages or cps with relgious aspects – I didn’t see the word marriage metioned once by them in their endorsement….
Of course in his initial interview he also said that Summerskill was one of the people that he couldn’t say no to and was one of the people who had the most impact on gay equality (something like that?) – in the light of quite negative comments about Stonewall about marriage equality I don’t think Summerskill was the most appropriate choice perhaps??
Who knew? Concern over LGBT asylum is “fashionable” says David Miliband
Ed Milliband comes across as very sincere in what he believes. David Milliband is a ‘career’ politican who will say and do anything to get himself to the top. Those people have no love for their electorate or the populace in general and are willing to sell themselves to the highest bidder to promote their own agenda.
As for Stonewall, until recently I used to believe they were a force for good. I quickly realised that over the gay marriage saga that they too care not so much for gay rights but more for proving that being gay is ‘normal’.
Well Stonewall, it’s a disgrace to call name yourself after the riots which put gay men and women on the map in a big way. Stop pandering to your middle-class political allies and get onside with what the vast majority of the LGBT community (shock horror, I actually don’t dismiss transexual men and women) want and need.
As for Adam’s spelling and grammar. Sorry, we can’t all have had a brilliant education and write perfect English. Perhaps the guy is dyslexic – did that occur to you all? Such snobbery attitudes only disassociate and shame others into not contributing very valid and real points. Way to go!
We have the Liberal Democrats, more or less on board for full marriage equality and four or five Labour contenders supporting it. So, where does that leave Cameron? Not one word of support coming from his camp. If he truly believes in full equality and wants to gain a larger chunk of the gay vote, then he’d better shape up or ship out. I don’t see him getting re-elected if he falters on this one. He only just squeaked by in the last election and without Nick Clegg’s support, he’d be facing another election, sooner rather than later. He’s walking a very fine line by not declaring support. If he keeps listening to StonewallUK, then he’s going to pay a high price for defeat. So my advice to Cameron…stop with the “considering” but start with the “supporting” and mean it. Now its up to us to make sure Nick Clegg keeps the pressure on him.
Robert – according to these videos all potential leaders are in favour of marriage equaliy I think (they more or less the same as the interviews I think) – just hope they suport a lib dem move on the issue and have a few cons backing them… this parliament hopefully!
David Miliband strikes me as the most lazy and patronising and uninterested of the Labour potential leaders on LGBT issues.
First he tried to tell us that we should be satisfied with CP Apartheid, only getting on board supporting full equality when he saw the negative reaction to his his support for apartheid.
And now he is refusing to acknowledge how obscene the Labour policy on LGBT asylum seekers was. Instead he is engaging in his usual offensive condescension by moaning that we should be grateful to Labour.
David Miliband is clearly the worst option for the LGBT community when it comes to our rights.
He really needs to learn that we are NOT grateful for CP Apartheid. We are NOT grateful for Labour’s LGBT asylum policy.
We expect equality and his pathetic justifications for Labour’s failures makes him look both lazy and useless!
I suspect that Miliband the Lesser (ie David) gets his advice on LGBT issues from Stonewallm (he claims that Ben Summerskill is the gay person he most admires).
I wonder does he not realise that Stonewall only speaks for a tiny minority of the the LGBT community (about 2%).
No wonder he is screwing up so royally on LGBT issues if he is taking advise from the worthless Stonewall group.