Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Peter Tatchell: The Commonwealth is a bastion of homophobia

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Staircase2 17 May 2011, 4:09pm

    Good for you, Peter! Keep up the good work!

    Its a travesty that African countries are able to peddle the ignorant and factually incorrect notion that homosexuality is ‘unAfrican’ given, as you point out, that homosexuality was originally banned by the Colonial invaders and enforced on the local population due to British hypocrisy and uptightness about sex.

    Thankyou for putting the record straight – its about time someone starting putting that notion to the African Dictators themselves every time they come out with such nonsense.

    It’s a travesty that the Commonwealth has never talked properly about these issues.

    1. Staircase2 17 May 2011, 4:10pm

      That should read: “and that legislation enforced on the local population”

    2. Staircase2 17 May 2011, 4:11pm

      etc etc

  2. An excellent article. Very informative and a good reminder of the history of legislation in Commonwealth countries. I had no idea the Commonwealth had never made a formal declaration of support for LGBT people. That’s absolutely shocking.
    I wish it could be encouraged to do so.

  3. Good for Peter! About time we kicked all of those former colonies with homophobic policies out of the commonwealth altogether. They’d feel it badly with all the financial aid they no longer would get from us, money well saved and spent at home.

  4. Hmmm – interesting.

    The Commonwealth is an organisation of 54 members, all of which are to be regarded as equal.

    46 out of 54 members criminalise homosexuality,

    Therefore it will be virtually impossible to penalise the homophobic members.

    It’s time for Britain to withdraw from the Commonwealth (along with the other 7 civilised member states) and let the whole rotten edifice collapse.

  5. Christine Beckett 17 May 2011, 5:42pm

    “Nearly all the Commonwealth’s anti-gay laws are the poisonous legacy of British colonialism.”

    Rubbish. They’ve had plenty of time to change them, Peter. So why haven’t they?

    Ignorance, corruption and, above all, religion wouldn’t have anything to do with it, would they?

    chrissie

    1. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 8:33am

      I have to say I agree Christie.
      I find using British colonianism is an excuse that is so unbelievable because as these countries will point out they make up there own minds and don’t want British interference.
      It’s a cheap excuse to use esp when we are talking about Equality and Gay rights.
      The buck stops with these countries in question not with things that happened many years ago.

    2. thats got to be absolutely wrong – the current state of affairs is as much a “legacy of British colonialism” as the liberal development within Britain is.
      If UK can progress from colonial times so can the Commonwealth States. It no good blaming history.
      And its lazy thought….sorry Peter.

      1. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 3:59pm

        Definitely agreed.
        This arguement that we can move on but they can’t must be because of the British makes no sense.

        1. Glad to see others with this view, “retaining” is rather patronizing and infers they never had their own views on homosexuals beforehan back then the east and west shared the same veiw on it. whats been kept or changed is through the people , laws against gays were made due to homophobia, they don’t cause it. Blame history as much as you like but its down to the people to change equality views and laws , this country proves that.

          1. Jock S. Trap 19 May 2011, 12:52pm

            Exactly.
            At what point do we stop making excuses and make those governments take the blame for what They are doing to their society.

  6. This is an interesting article from 2008

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/oct/08/commonwealth-human-rights-leaked-document

    Seems nothing has changed then? Yet the Guardian says “David Cameron and the foreign secretary, William Hague, have both said they will put new emphasis on the Commonwealth in Britain’s foreign policy. ”

    So what exactly was the emphasis?

  7. Peter Tachell is not a man of peace. Legalising homosexuality in any country disturbs the peace amoung the population. Who can deny this? It seems to me that it is unsatisfied human desire that breaks down peace. If I can’t get what I want then bygod i will kick up hell. I know this feeling only too well as an unemployed straight . I can’t get a job and therefore am unattractive to women, so am further tempted to lash out and blame others, when it isn’t their fault at all. I wish society was more united in hope rather than desire

    1. Saphead, everything you wroite is such sheer nonsense it’s not worth commenting on.
      You poor creature, how old were you when your brains first fell out?

    2. And what exactly is an unemployed straight man doing on a gay news site trying to undermine our fight for equality? Peter Tatchell is a man of equality, something you obviously know very little about when you suggest that equality disturbs the peace. Maybe women find you unattractive because you’re a nobhead and not because you’re unemployed.

    3. Deeside Will 17 May 2011, 7:02pm

      Incoherent poppycock, Ronnie. Take to heart the advice of Molière that “a gentleman should always be at pains to control that itch for scribbling to which we are so prone.”

    4. Mumbo Jumbo 17 May 2011, 7:34pm

      “I can’t get a job and therefore am unattractive to women”

      If you think this then you clearly have a very low opinion of women and absolutely no idea what they might find valuable in a man. Perhaps this is your problem.

    5. Spanner1960 17 May 2011, 8:51pm

      Ronnie: Are you suggesting that all gay people have jobs then?
      I cannot see the connection between equal rights and public morale. How does allowing gay people the same rights as everyone else affect them? It certainly has no effect on your ability to gain employment, or make you less attractive to women.

      It seems to me you are yet one more person that has to offset their own shortcomings by trying to lay the blame on someone / something else rather than looking closer to home.
      Blame the government / world crisis / banks / criminals / gays / aliens / Elvis. Anybody except the person that looks back at you every morning as you brush your teeth.

    6. A gay activist posing as a homophobe. Not new. Not surprising. Which is why people on here tend to question these tactics:
      And what exactly is an unemployed straight man doing on a gay news site trying to undermine our fight for equality? ” (Eddy Two)

      You’re right it doesn’t make sense.

    7. “It seems to me that it is unsatisfied human desire that breaks down peace.”

      Wrong, ignorance and intolerance does. Like what you’re doing on a gay site. How “normal” of you too.

    8. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 8:51am

      It is only ever Religion that disturbs the peace when things don’t go there way.
      It does all it can to stop people loving each other.
      The only ‘unsatisfied human desires’ comes from Religion and Religious people.
      These arguements you don’t hear from the LGBT community who just want to get on with our lives.
      But then you just can’t stop interfering can you?
      Only your kind would taint the LGBT community as only desire, not as human beings that just hope and wish people like you would stop kicking up sh!t and let people get on with there lives.
      So therefore that would make Religion wrong and Evil.
      As long as you remain discriminating and homophobia I don’t see what or how exactly you contribute to society.

  8. 46 out of 54, that figure is incredible. What a heap of cr4p that the government don’t do something about that. Or for that fact, our queen, isn’t she the head of the commonwealth? Which just proves that our monarchy are homophobic. And to think some people were talking about what a lovely day the royal wedding was. I’ve just become an anti monarchist. The queen sucks.

    1. you seem very confused – “proves the monarchy are homophobic” – hardly when we have some fellow travellers in their midst! – Edward, Andrew, Lindsey etc
      By all means be anti-monarchist…but I don’t think the Queen is well known for blow-jobs

      1. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 4:01pm

        No but she makes a divine apple pie.

    2. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 4:02pm

      Eddy Two
      Head of the Commonwealth yields no power it is just a name, a title.
      It’s not good blaming her.
      Blame the lazy, nasty governments who have failed to act on Equality.

      1. I’m surprised you’re a monarchist Jock, the queen being the head of the church of england, and we all know how much you hate religion. And if you think she has no power, you’re deluded, you should look into how much she actually does. Yes, I blame the governments, but also the unelected head of state who is in charge of our armies, our judges, our prisons and our governments, all on her majesties pleasure. She’s seen every elected prime minister come and go since her coronation. She stood by when we were illegal, she stood by when we were made legal but had to be invisible, and now she stands by whilst her commonwealth criminalise us. Defending the queen on gay rights is not that different from defending the pope.

        1. Jock S. Trap 19 May 2011, 11:17am

          It’s governments that make the rules not the Queen.
          It may be her government her but politically she holds no power.
          Yes she does an incredible job promoting this country but that is basically all it is.
          The Queen, or future Kings cannot interfere with elected governments.
          Though without them this country would do badly.
          If anything the Monarch and the Government are democracy at work, woking together.
          I agree the House of Lords needs to be undated but yes I do agree with the Monarch as do most in this country.
          The fact he is Head of the CoE bares no relevence to me as I don’t worship but that doesn’t stop me seeing what she does do for thiscountry and the wealth she brings in.

  9. Ronnie, if you walked in our shoes for one day, you might be singing a different tune. What kind of discrimination have you faced in your sorry life I wonder? What has having a job got to do with attracting a woman? An unemployed straight woman wouldn’t have any problem attracting a straight man, employed or unemployed, you idiot.

    Legalising homosexuality in the UK didn’t disturb the peace one iota as well as in other modern western countries, moron.

  10. Spanner1960 17 May 2011, 8:44pm

    This has bugger all to do with rights and everything to do with a right-on leftie having a rant at British class.

    The Commonwealth is not like the EU or NATO etc, it is more a club than anything else and has very little control over it’s members. Take Zimbabwe for example, it got kicked out. Big fat hairy deal. Like Robert Mugabe gives a flying toss.

    The only way to turn countries around is to cut funding and introduce trade embargoes. Money is the only thing these people listen to; if you want to be part of a global community, then you have to abide by their rules, or go paddle your own canoe.

    1. Nonsense. The Commonwealth is headed by the Queen. Its headquarters are on our capital city. Our politicians fawn over their leaders, stand on ceremony at their banquets. TV channels spend hours broadcasting the Commonwealth Games. The decent thing is to say, we want nothing to do with it.

      1. Spanner1960 17 May 2011, 11:38pm

        Yes. And your point is?
        The Commonwealth is like an old-boys society for ex-colonials. It has no power whatsoever. I still think it’s a nice tradition to have, but it’s no more than a relic.

        The only people with real potential power are the EU and the UN but they are so wrapped up in their own political little squabbles, they have about the same pro-active decision making skills as a bunch of fat judges at the Eurovision Song Contest.

        1. Spanner,
          It doesn’t make sense to have a club that has nothing to do or has “no power at all.” The world elite form these alliences because of power. The queen has absolute power over the commonwealth (and even beyond) and she refuses to address this issue. Why? IMO because the ruling class that she belongs to is not interested in supporting gay people’s natural rights. For that to happen the state has to give up much of its power and hand it over to the people to self govern. THAT is the last thing the degenerate/inbred royal elite want.

          1. I agree with Pepa. God help me

          2. @pepa: The queen has absolute power over the commonwealth
            .
            She most certainly does not. You don’t appear to understand what ‘absolute power’ means.

          3. Spanner1960 18 May 2011, 9:31pm

            The Queen has about as much power in the UK as she has with the Commonwealth.
            Her role is now little more than a figurehead.
            Even though officially she has the power to kick every man-jack arsewipe of a politician out of Parliament, she won’t. The Queen is the head of both the church and the government but will not get involved in either.

          4. I don’t think so, pepa. Absolute power over Canada, as an example? Your Northern neighbour doesn’t make its own laws then?

          5. If the queen does not have power why then even have her as a “figure head.” Just get rid of her, doesn’t make sense. You are either there to do something or not. You are not there to sit and look pretty and cute with your little crown and cape. Why spend BILLIONS of pounds on her and her family? Because she is HEAD OF STATE, meaning she is the head of government, and many other things. (the church, the commonwealth). Hence why the Brits give allegiance to the queen not their country. Why give “allegiance” to someone who has no power? And yes she has dissolved the Canadian parliament lots of times, including not that along ago this year. And yes she did it, that is why she has “governor generals” that she appoints to make sure that the various parliaments in the commonwealth do what she wants.

          6. OK Pepa, dream on. I suppose you think she writes her speech for the opening of parliament herself, too.

          7. The Queen’s role in Canada is ceremonial. She cannot and would not undermine Canada’s laws or force them to do what she says. Canada makes its own laws and soem are very different from UK laws eg Canada has gay marriage, the UK has Civil Partnerships.
            Your phrase ‘absolute power over the Commonwealth’ was inaccurate.

          8. And I just noticed your comment about the Governor Generals! Wrong again. They are NOT there to force Canada, and other Commonwealth countries, to do what the Queen wants!

        2. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 8:59am

          Exactly.
          At the end of the day the term Commonwealth is powerless to act on what other countries do.
          Just think for a minute what would happen if suddenly Britain started imposing our will on those countries?
          Then we would have all the British colonial stuff for real.
          We just don’t have that kind of power anymore.
          This is not an Empire any more where we could dictate our terms.
          These countries have their own governments, our influence in nil.
          The only thing about these countries is they vote to keep the Queen as head of state/head of the Commonwealth but although she has the right to dissolve parliament and things like that here in the UK she has no other political role. She cannot interfere in politics.

          1. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 10:45am

            That message was agreeing with Spanner… for once! ;)

          2. Spanner1960 18 May 2011, 9:33pm

            “She cannot interfere in politics.”
            She can, but won’t. If she were to, I suspect we might have a civil war on our hands.

          3. Jock S. Trap 19 May 2011, 5:12pm

            Quite!

  11. A footnote from history. Mugabe’s immediate predecessor as president of Zimbabwe was the exquisitely named Canaan Banana, who was stripped of office after being found guilty of sodomy committed on members of his presidential guard. Banana would drug them and then, in his own words, ‘help himself’ to their bodies.

    Perhaps this goes some way to explaining Mugabe’s psychopathic homophobia.

    1. Spanner1960 17 May 2011, 11:40pm

      Yet still people attack Ian Smith in the last days of colonial Rhodesia as the dictator. These tin-pot countries never had it so good as when we ran them.

      1. Ah yes, the good old days when the ‘uppity n1ggers’ were kept in their place, eh?

        1. methinks you guys a commenting on something of which you know little – have you ever spoken to a current Zimbabwean or a post independance Rhodesian? I have – count them as friends – and can say, categorically, that both your comments are simplistic

          1. Spanner1960 18 May 2011, 9:28pm

            That’s interesting, considering I had a long term partner who is Zimbabwean, and my husband is South African.

            Youthinks wrong.
            Colonialism works both ways. Most countries we colonised are the better for it. Do you seriously think these people would be part of the Commonwealth if they thought we had mistreated them?
            A lot of the people in these places would still be eating each other were it not for us.

          2. @ Spanner: well, yes and no. Are there many examples of civil strife in post-colonial countries that are not the result of national boundaries being clumsily drawn by colonisers without taking existing (native) divisions into account?
            .
            And you also seem to believe that “tinpot” countries wouldn’t have developed without European colonisation, but Thailand (to use one example) seems to have managed fairly well.

          3. Spanner1960 21 May 2011, 7:18pm

            Rehan:
            Would that be the same Thailand that was run by the facist dicatatorship of Phebun from 1938 to 1957, acting as a puppet ruler for the Japanese? Siam / Thailand has had more coups and takeovers than any other country in the Far East. I would hardly say that was “managing fairly well”.

            Sometimes countries need a strong hand to stay together, for example Saddam in Iraq, or Milosevic in Bosnia. Whatever views one may have of them, they kept the region stable. Removing them is like pulling the pin out of a hand grenade.

          4. Sometimes countries need a strong hand to stay together, for example Saddam in Iraq, or Milosevic in Bosnia.
            .
            Quite – as people used to say about Mussolini, Franco, Stalin and even Hitler. Though they largely “held together” their own countries, not others’. (It comes as little surprise that you would admire fascist dictators, judging from many of the remarks you’ve made on this site.)

  12. People might like to be aware of the Human Dignity Trust. See

    http://www.humandignitytrust.org/

    1. To many trusts, groups… not enough action. People need to stop watching tv, buying lady gaga cd’s and gaga-ing at male models and realize how bad the human race’s situation really is and stop pretending its glitter and sparkles.

  13. And who intorduced these anit gay laws? English christians bisexuality was the norm before missonaries got involved. And gay men were seen as a blessing to villages as some of us are peacemakers

    1. Yes and Britain also introduced anti-homosexuality laws to Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and India.

      All of whom removed the laws.

      It is quite simply untrue to blame English colonialism on these Commonwealth countries current savagery. They keep their barbaric laws because they want to keep them.

      Britain is not responsible for these states current shortcomings.

      1. So you’re comapring “1st world” educated people to undeveloped uneducated people influenced by rich american evangelical christians? Thats is just plain stupidity or racism

        1. Exactly.

  14. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 8:44am

    The article is good and highlights important facts but I cannot agree with the blaming of the “poisonous legacy of British colonialism. They were originally imposed by the British government in the nineteenth century”.
    Being we are in the 21st Century now these countries have had plenty of time to change and being that they speak out against the British rule and how they govern themselves without being interfered with.
    This arguement falls flat and sounds like we are just making excuses for those countries.
    That weakens you whole arguement, you whole article.
    When it comes to Gay rights the buck stops with those country in the here and now, not something many, many years ago.
    Truth is these countries have actively chosen to remain homophobic and racist when they keep on about how un-African homosexuality is.
    So long as we find blame nothing will change.

    1. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 8:44am


      Rather than passing blame on what happened in the past how about fighting for Equality in the here and now and blaming those countries who chose to remain discriminatory and inhumane.

    2. What about evangelical christians are they to balme or shall we ignore their influence too?

      1. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 10:46am

        Of course not but it’s those countries allowing this to happen here and now.

    3. it seems clear Tatchell is wrong to put some blame on British colonialism – however that looks like the only mistake in a really interesting article. Time to focus on why the Commonwealth states are so backward.

      1. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 4:50pm

        Yes indeed Andrew. Totally agree with that.

    4. He wasn’t putting blame but citing how ironic it is that these countries got laws from Britain but yet pretend that it is an african thing when it is not at all.

      But how does a country survive intense colonization and being stripped of all it’s resources? Only to be given you country back when the IMF and World Bank owns all the precious resources. Shell owns all the oil and your diamonds are being manufactured by yet another private company. None of the money goes back to the country.

      Worse still, the people put in power by the colonials were dodgy arseholes like Mugabe who was a favorite of the British, as well as idi amin.

      I don’t blame you for your ignorance. Why the British education system does not teach anyone about the details of British rule is shocking,especially as the profit from slavery and colonization was HUGE.

      1. Jock S. Trap 19 May 2011, 11:38am

        I guess it’s all down to weither we want to stay blaming the past and making excuses for it or dealing with the present and targeting the governments in power now for a better future.

  15. “bastion of homophobia”? You are insane, Peter Tatchell…

    In countries all over the world, there are events calling for the universal condemnation of homosexual politics, and rejection of homosexuals in public life. People of the world disgusted with homosexuals. People of the world doesn’t want homosexuals to teach their kids of homosexual filth in the public schools. Such homosexual evil is intolerable!…..

    1. Even in the UK we get semi-literate persons evidently suffering badly from internalised homophobia spending what appears to be a large amount of their time on gay websites “for research”, how fvcked-up is that?

      1. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 2:39pm

        Yes, just a little too curious don’t ya think?

    2. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 2:39pm

      One is curious, This is how I was born but how do you teach someone to be Gay?
      I have blue eyes, prehaps someone taught he how to have blue eyes, eh Rich?

    3. Rich, you call Peter insane, but on another thread you were calling for the murder of homosexuals.
      .
      Rich in what way are you sane?

    4. Oh, look Rich again…. cookoo, cookoo.

  16. I do actually agree that British colonialism is the reason there is so much homophobia in many Commonwealth countries – although apparently many people are too proud of their British legacy to admit it. While it is important to start placing significant pressure on the current leaders of these countries to scrap homophobic laws we can’t just bury our heads in the sand and British colonialism isn’t to blame. After all homophobia was not treated as a disorder as it is now in those countries until the British arrived and ingrained their homophobia there. Now, of course it is the fault of those ridiculous, incompetent leaders who claim homosexuality is “un-African” and the like for the continuation of Britain’s previous homophobic laws because as others have rightly pointed out other leaders have repealed homophobic laws remnant from colonialism but at the end of the day if it wasn’t for Britain being in those countries in the first place there would be nothing to repeal.

    1. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 2:43pm

      What your saying is people in these countries don’t think for themselves but live life the same as 200 years ago.
      Thats ridiculous.
      They would be more than happy to tell you where you can stick your British colonialism.
      They govern themselves so as long as we keep making that excuse we can expect nothing to be done.
      Because making that excuse implies that it’s ok so long as we can blame anyone else but these countries do it.

      1. No, Jock S. Trap, you have me seriously mistaken if you think I am excusing the bigots who won’t think for themselves and wallow in old fashioned thinking, the need to act to get rid of the homophobia in their country but a lot of people seem to imply that British colonialism wasn’t poisonous (regarding homophobic attitudes) but it most certainly was. The British are partly to blame whether we like it or not and just saying ‘well they chose to retain our homophobic laws’ isn’t good enough. The British of all nations should be playing more of a role in reducing homophobia in the Commonwealth nations considering that we started it after all.

        1. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 3:50pm

          Ok but the colonialism of Africa wasn’t restircted to Britain.
          Portugal was a significant figure in the colonialisation of Africa, settling in both Angola and Mozambique.
          The Dutch had one of the most significant influences on South Africa and much of its culture continues to reflect this. In addition to South Africa.
          Today, South African cities and towns still bear the Dutch names of years ago, including Johannesburg, Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark.
          Algeria and Côte d’Ivoire are two of the African countries colonised by the French during the time between the 17th and 20th centuries.

        2. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 3:53pm

          The British Empire was, undoubtedly, one of the world’s most significant, prevalent and powerful.
          It occupied areas in the United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Zimbabwe (then known as Rhodesia), Kenya and South Africa.
          In fact, almost 25% of the surface of the earth belonged to the British Empire at one time.
          This lasted until the latter part of the 1900’s, when countries and continents were vying for independence from British rule.
          Today, there remain some countries that are still under the British rule, but most of these have been granted a measure of independence and self-governance.
          I find it hard to think that while countries like Canada, which has Equal Marriage can govern and think for themselves, where Australia and New Zealand where LGBT are perfectly legal you still wish to blame independant states and there rules or lack of them on the British, even though we effectively have nothing to do with them.

          1. Adolf Hitler made mistake in the past when he did not eliminated UK from face of Earth – that’s for sure.

          2. But Canada was like america no? Where they used as slaves? No, they just got rid of all the Indians and there really wasnt that much.

            Choose a better example, not one colony where white people completely destroyed the indigenous race.

            In Africa, they not only enslaved the people but very successfully convinced them that being black was stupid, evil and worse then anything else.

            They said ‘hey but Christianity should sort you out’. I nice way of controlling them.

            My dad was born in colonial Tanzania and had to be taught by missionaries. They only learnt English history and could not past school unless they had tip top knowledge of the British empire. Whilst this happened his brother went missing and his father died.

            The only education he had was British. That was all.

            You don’t have a clue what it was like for people living in colonial times.

            England was also living in the dark ages for a really long time. I think it was Greeks and Romans who were light years ahead.

          3. Jock S. Trap 19 May 2011, 11:40am

            Rich – did you even Get an education or is comedy your thing?

          4. Jock S. Trap 19 May 2011, 11:47am

            Rowan
            Britain Cannot be blamed for how governments run their countries now, it’s just not possible.
            How can you say Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand can change but some African countries that can’t is because of Britain.
            That makes absolutely no sense what so ever.
            If we can, they can but they Choose not to.

      2. Jock Kenya became a colony in 1920′s and became independent in 1960′s. Where are you getting 200 years from?

        1. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 3:37pm

          I am aware of that James!
          I am using Mr Tatchell’s time frame.
          Regardless of that it doesn’t excuse counrties.
          They govern themselves and make up their own laws.
          They have nothing to do with Britain, colonial or otherwise.

        2. So the fact that a ccording to a pew research poll 96% of Kenyans believe homosexuality should have no part in society, can be blamed on the fact that Kenya was a british colony for 40 years? Hmmm not done much in the 50 years its been a free society.

      3. Surely the right approach would be to say, yes 16th century British colonialism played a part in the development of homophobia in the commonwealth. But current homophobia cannot mainly be blamed on the british as these countries are self governing and self determining.
        What we can place a great deal of blame on is the church of England and the Roman catholic church for the spread and maintenance of homophobia in commonwealth countries.
        It was the spread of christianity and islam in Africa and asia that helped developed severe homophobia. It is now used by dictators to maintain their power.

        1. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 3:58pm

          Nowadays homophobia ansd religion is own to the American Evangalists and their open nasty agendas.

          1. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 4:52pm

            oo-er
            don’t know what happened there.
            Should have read
            Homophobia and Religion is down to American Evangalists…

          2. not only them, in africa the catholic church and the Cofe still today have a lot to answer for in terms of homophobia.

          3. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 5:45pm

            Yes Scott your right.
            What I’m saying is people should blame the real cause of the problem which is and always will be Religion, no matter whose preaching it.

        2. this is getting crazy and poeple are posting here only to demonstrate their ignorance – there were no homophobic laws in the 16th centuary – and indeed British colonialism was pretty minimal then.
          The actual facts regarding Kenya are it became British in 1890 (taken from the Germans) and was under British rule till 1957.
          How about basing comment on knowledge – always leads to a better debate.

          xx

  17. PARTS of the Commonwealth – Canada is streets ahead of the UK!

    1. Shut your hole at least we dont club seal you muthfuka

      1. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 4:54pm

        Not nice James!
        Not a good day by any chance?

        1. How did you know?

          1. Jock S. Trap 19 May 2011, 11:49am

            Read it in the tea leaves.
            Well actually I have teabags but I just knew.

  18. Ahhh, the classic Tatchell tactic: if you don’t apply to his extreme lefty agenda you’re homophobic.

    When will this old troll crawl back under his rock?

    1. Why is wanting equality, lefty?

    2. killing and abusing people for being LBG is homophobic and so is denying rights, plus raping people is also homophobic , inciting hatred under religion etc is another homophobic act!

  19. George Earl 18 May 2011, 9:55pm

    Come on, folks. Whatever nation you’re in, isn’t it time to remind yourself that we are well into the 21st century? Some of your finest leaders, tax-payers, best educated citizens happen to be one of those lives styles that (at least a century ago) you “dare not refer to”! Far lesser people seem to be making it with wide open doors, and are in fact making your nations themselves sink quite a bit. I’m a devoted American citizen, but with fond memories of my British grandparents. Sure, they’re dead and gone, but even if I were able to retrieve them, they’d utter loud and clear, “George baby, live life the way you see best!” I am, and shall continue to do so. I’m gay and giving.

  20. Peter is a nob

  21. These countries were given freedom only 60 years ago if that.

    You expect them to turn their country around in that time when it took how long for Britain to catch up with the Greeks and Romans? Plus how long did America take to be where it is now?

    Furthermore, canada is a completely different situation as it was used like America,where the natives were put in camps and the experiment was to create these new lands filled with entrepreneurial business men, convicts, chancer’s and over zealous protestants. It was a new world and they had the passion to succeed not lose.

    Africa and the indies is a completely different kettle of fish where the people were enslaved, told there were naturally dumb, forced to only learn colonial history and abide by Christian rules.

    Worse still was when they left the countries, they put in place dodgy wankers who would kow tow2them&sell them cheap land-see Shell Oil.They also made sure that the IMF and World Bank had infinite control of all the resources.

    1. Jock S. Trap 19 May 2011, 12:04pm

      Actually your seem to be forgetting that a lot of countries that became independant then joined the Commonwealth.
      Some left and came back years later like Pakistan.
      But the point is these countries make up there own rules and there is Nothing stopping those countries expanding on Equality and Gay rights just as Britian has.
      They choose not to, it has nothing to do with the UK.
      Canada cannot be used as a different situation because by your rules it just lets you off the hook in that If Canada etc can change for the better why not these countries you comment on.
      Point is you can continue to make excuses but I’d rather see what countries are going to do about Equality because the UK has no power to force them to do it.

  22. I’m not sure why it is so hard for people on this blog to read up-online!-about development? Or even economics?

    A good reading to understand the power of globalization is ‘the shock doctrine’, although that only talks of south Africa and is purely about economics, not colonial after effects. But there is a lot of stuff you can read online and you don’t have to have lived it like my dad,worked in development-my father worked for the African development bank-nor studied it like I have.

    Ignorance isn’t a virtue.

    1. Jock S. Trap 19 May 2011, 12:07pm

      Because this article isn’t about economics.
      It’s a piece written to highlight that there is a problem with Equality and one persons thoughts on it with regards the Commonwealth.

  23. But I agree it is a somewhat weak article that victimizes the countries again and doesn’t get to the core of the issue.

    Fact is,now,these people are so wretched with falsehoods and a lack of education with a huge dose of christian brainwashing that they need to be held to account for the atrocities that are occurring across Africa.

  24. Stephen Allport 1 Jun 2011, 3:45pm

    Dear Mr. Tatchell I would like to thank you for the indepth article written about the Commonwealth and it’s total disregard to LGBT issues.

    I myself wrote to the Secretary General of the Commonwealth with regard the arrest and jailing of Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga on charges of homosexuality lin Malawi last year. I received NO reply, not even from a junior official and was rather disgusted to say the least. It is a sad reflection that the Commonwealth nations make up the most homophobic countries anywhere in the world as, if the organisation was to get it’s act together they could really work for good in the world on real and important issues facing all of us, whether gay or not. Keep up the good work especially in Russia.

  25. Derek Williams 9 Dec 2011, 5:03pm

    This is information I did not know before. Thanks for publishing it.

    Time to start writing letters people!

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