Reader comments · The Queen: Monarch of 11 countries where being gay can land you in prison · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


The Queen: Monarch of 11 countries where being gay can land you in prison

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Boycott Gordon’s Gin. Paint your fingernails rainbow colours at the next Commonwealth Games!

  2. Jock S. Trap 16 Aug 2013, 1:50pm

    Every now and then we hear rumbling about homophobia in Commonwealth countries and it is time that those governments were encouraged to take a stand against homophobia.

    It is simply no excuse to blame the British Empire. I feel it is a lazy excuse since those countries made their own rules, their own laws.

    When Other countries protect and now allow the celebration of couples, Gay or Straight, it is time those countries came into the 21st Century and started to challenged their homophobic laws.

    Respect comes in all forms and decency should be a human right no matter what.

    1. “Laws prohibiting same-sex sexual acts were first put in place under British colonial rule in the 19th century. Those laws were enshrined in the Penal Code Act 1950 and retained following independence. The following sections of that Act are relevant:”

      That’s on an article agout Uganda, so I’ll bloody well blame the British Empire for a lot of this. It’s no good calling half the world barbaric then denying our involvement in that barbarism, I condemn the homophobic nature of these countries as a human being not because I think I come from a country which has a more civilised past than them. We don’t if you bother to look. Part of being British is that I admit to my country’s mistakes. The Commonwealth is a result of land theft, that’s the truth.

      1. Almost every culture in the world today is the result of “land theft” somewhere along the line: in England alone you can choose between the Normans, the Vikings, the Saxons, the Danes and the Romans.

        In 1950 homosexuality was illegal in the UK too: however, this country has progressed somewhat since then (if slowly at first). If these other countries can liberalise in other respects, why should gay rights remain such a hurdle?

        1. Poor excuse. It took us centuries to get to the stage where we tolerate homosexuality.

          Have you ever thought why we have progressed? It’s due to improved education, living standards, secularism and reason. After Britain goes around rampaging through other people’s countries, undermining thousands of years of their culture you wonder why they are left with such a nasty legacy?

          As for the Anglo-Saxons, the Danes and the Romans they invaded at a time when going around raping and pillaging was the norm, European colonialism in Africa, Asia and the Americas had a very nasty racist element to it backed by pseudoscience.

          Why are so many people here frightened to admit to their country’s contribution to the intolerance and homophobia in these countries?

          1. Jock S. Trap 16 Aug 2013, 3:11pm

            “Why are so many people here frightened to admit to their country’s contribution to the intolerance and homophobia in these countries?”

            Because sixty years ago I would agree but you cannot use that excuse 60 years on when 16 or 17 other countries including some Commonwealth countries have actively changed and accepted.

            Nothing in the last 60+ has stood in the way way of progress in those homophobic countries except the homophobic countries themselves.

            For as long as you want to blame anything but those countries you excuse their behaviour.

            That, cannot be right.

          2. You seem not to have noticed that the present culture of over half the nations in this article are the creation of the British, through slavery: there’s little native culture left to speak of. All imperial expansion is underpinned by racism of one sort or another – I can’t think of one example offhand that’s otherwise, whether Moghul, Mauryan or Manchu. The pseudoscience came much later, certainly as far as British colonial expansion is considered (though perhaps not German and Italian).

            I don’t think anyone is unwilling to admit the UK’s part in the establishment of these homophobic laws. That’s only partly an excuse for the present situation though.

          3. Chris, I absolutely agree with you! I live in Singapore which has the anti-sodomy 377A. After it’s independence, Singapore continued to adopt fully these archaic laws. The secular Singapore government has said they will not enforce the laws but will keep the status quo. One of the reasons they are afraid to repeal it is because the Christian community (18% of the population) and Muslims to a lesser extent is very vocal against allowing any opening up of LGBT rights. It’s a multi-fold situation that’s not as simple as it looks. I suspect many of the other Commonwealth nations that still have these laws face very identical circumstances.

      2. Jock S. Trap 16 Aug 2013, 3:07pm

        Do tell Chris… what’s stopping Uganda changing the law for the better?

        As I said it’s a lazy excuse to blame 60 years of ignorance in these countries on Britain.

        They make their own laws they can change them at anytime. Nothing is stopping them.

        1. Well actually the fact that Uganda has a life exactly of 54 years (as opposed to 80 in the UK) high infant mortality and high illiteracy might stand in the way of LGBT rights. Intolerance, religious extremism and ignorance thrive in areas with high poverty.

          1. It’s all pretty gloomy then, isn’t it? The continued poverty of these countries is no longer due to colonialism, so what’s the answer?

        2. The homophobia in Uganda and many of these countries is just that Phobia. These people are actually scared by it, there is a complete lack of understanding.

          It’s no use just condemning them as naturally homophobic and leaving it as that. Clearly there are reasons for their irrational fear and hatred. Attitudes originally learnt from the UK. Of course religion is going to fill the void left by lack of education (it ALWAYS has!)

          When compared with the UK the past 60 years it is obvious that levels of education (which goes hand in hand with standard of living and health) has played a huge role in allowing people to understand homosexuality and therefore reduce fear.

          There is no denying that colonialism massively shifted the global balance of power and it would be naive to expect these countries to catch up (from very far behind) just 60 years post-independence, the west is only just recognising the rights of LGBT people now.

    2. The British Empire introduced most of these anti-sodomy laws. It is ridiculous to now claim that we have no role in getting them repealed. That is not to say that the local governments don’t bear most of the responsibility, but to simply shrug off our contribution and responsibility is, well, irresponsible.

      1. Spot on Mark.

      2. The laws were introduced when these countries were under direct control; they aren’t any more. Apart from diplomatic encouragement, which for all we know happens anyway, what action do you propose? The UK has to be careful to avoid being accused of post-colonial interference.

        1. Helping to improve their living standards and their education system would be a start… (No doubt I’ll get berated by the “cut off aid brigade”)

          1. Jock S. Trap 16 Aug 2013, 3:17pm

            I think you’ll find most of that has come down to the many corrupt governments since the Empire ceased, not because of it.

            Those that have told the British where to go, telling how they can do themselves.

            Many failed in favour of personal wealth at the expense of their people.

          2. Well yes, that would be good – but when does assistance become seen as interference? These nations wanted self-government, fair enough, but it seems only to maintain everything as it was when the colonisers left, which is surely a little odd?

          3. Yes jock cause people who use food banks n the uk do so through choice an there is no corruption in England at all. Floating duck houses are standard for mps……you twat

          4. Robert in S. Kensington 16 Aug 2013, 4:25pm

            I’d be the first to condemn our colonial past but explain where all of the financial aid these countries get from the UK is going to? If they’re not using the aid to improve their living standards and education, health and nutrition systems, then I suggest we withdraw aid entirely, but then we’d be accused of callous behavior and imperalism. No matter what the UK does, we’re damned either way and blamed for just about everything that’s wrong in all those countries I suppose, in fact much of the world. How about those independent countries taking some of their own responsibility for a change?

          5. The money stolen from corrupt people who receive aid go to city and Swiss banks. Rather the blame the intended receipiants why not blame the uk and Swiss banks for accepting the stolen money………too easy

      3. Jock S. Trap 16 Aug 2013, 3:14pm

        For the last umpteen decades we haven’t had Any role in these countries. They make their own laws and could have changed at anytime since.

        They have chosen not to. That isn’t anything to do with the British.

        1. That’s actually wrong JS. For instance, my family are from Ghana which saw invasion from many different European nations over many hundreds of years and they still have a social and cultural influence. English hasn’t remained the official language of many ex-British colonies by coincidence.

          1. Well said!

          2. Well then, the social and cultural influence will be seen in the way equal marriage is law and gay people and gay relationships are portrayed on TV and other media in the UK these days, won’t it? Any attempts at directly influencing former colonies’ policies runs the risk of being seen, and resented, as post-colonial interference.

    3. Shut up you idiot. Your ancestors went there saw gay people in love an said it wrong and killed them. Then use male rape to humiliate people held captive as slaves. To deny it has left any legacy is the response of a bigot.

    4. I agree. So many complain of the monarchs involvement in their commonwealth country and yet complain when she has no authority to make change. It puzzles me. Make you own government and your own people responsible. It is time to stand up.
      I appreciate the list of countries made here. I value whre I spend my gay dollar. If these governmnts only realized the boost to their tourism economy if they supported same sex marriages… The trend now is destination weddings and money to be spent!!

    5. *Sigh* people who defend the British Empire. A bunch of hypocritical, closeted, racist cúnts.

      In short. But the truth.

  3. the queen herself can’t actually do anything about it
    she has no powers and she’s not allowed talk about her political views

    1. CH Brighton 16 Aug 2013, 1:58pm

      Maybe, but when Clause 28 was brought in, I understand that the Queen banned gay members of her staff from taking their same sex partners to staff parties. She may not have power, but she does have influence.

      1. My recollection is precisely the opposite – they were allowed to bring their partners. And I’m pretty sure the Queen Mum allowed it for most of the 20th century.

    2. Although we learnt just a few days ago that her son, has “only” requested private meetings with the heads of the current coalition government on, what was it, SIXTEEN OCCASIONS?

      If her SON can stick his oar in, then so can Mummy!

      C’mon Betty! Get off your ass! Next time Cameron comes to Buck House for his weekly visitation, tell ‘im! Lay it on the line! Tell him to sort it or that you too will be requesting private meetings with the cabinet!

  4. Anti-gay did not exist in a lot of these cultures until the wave of British Missionaries promoting Christianity, installed it.

    The England holds a lot of the responsibility.

    1. Mike Behan 16 Aug 2013, 2:01pm

      What about Scotland?

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 16 Aug 2013, 2:08pm

      It’s not just England. Although France’s colonial legacy didn’t impose anti-homosexual laws,there are several former French colonies that still make it illegal….Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco. How do you explain that? It’s never mentioned either. The England of today cannot be held responsible any longer. Those countries are independent nations and they can change their own laws just as Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South African and India have done. The blame game doesn’t hold water any longer.

      1. Think about what the last few countries you mentioned have in common! They are all relatively wealthy and have enjoyed high standards of living and education (with the exception of many deprived parts of South African society where, despite being among the very first countries to introduce Equal Marriage, homophobia is still rampant).

        No one is saying everything bad that ever happens is because of the British but it is incredibly ignorant to not accept that colonialism has played a role.

        Decades after independence many of these countries still suffer from awful quality of life, lack of education and low life expectancy. Homophobia is just one of many symptoms caused by chronic deprivation, political instability and corruption.

        After reading some of the comments on this site, it seems a bit more understanding and focus on the true underlying issues needs to happen. Rather than looking down from ivory towers condemning whole nations.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 17 Aug 2013, 2:03pm

          I’m in no way denying the part our country played in homophobia, but they demanded independence. Again, we weren’t the only ones and you seem to dismiss the former French colonies of Africa which you claim enjoy high standards of living and education and totally ignore the homophobic laws that are the laws of their lands which weren’t even imposed by their colonial master. The French have no intention of intervening either.

          We are no longer responsible for a country seeking its own destiny and self-determination. They all continue to receive vast amounts of aid from the UK and from other countries. It is not our place to force them to clean up their act. They wanted independence and they won it.

          Even India, a nuclear power I might add has removed criminalisation of homosexuality from its books without any interference from us and now is one of the major economic powers on the world stage.


          1. You’ll find I said no such thing. “…the last few countries you mentioned..”, I was referring to the western ex-colonies of Canada, New Zealand etc..
            I completely agree that change in laws and attitudes has to originate from citizens and it is unrealistic to expect Western nations to force these laws on a population with such deep-seated homophobia.

            All I am saying is that the exploitative nature of Europe’s colonial history in this area has undoubtedly caused much damage and turmoil. The fact that these countries are still struggling with the fundamentals we take for granted in western democracies such as health, food and basic education leaves no wonder that most people in these areas do not understand the complexities of sexuality and instead fear differences (the west only recently started to see sense on this issue) with religion taking centre stage. It’s not all up to the west to sort out but before making judgements at least acknowledge the context.

      2. It is ludicrous to compare the latter group of countries with the former. Canada generally has a well informed electorate who are empowered with all the democratic rights we have come to take for granted in the west. Tunisia has only just recently overthrown a dictator and the region still has a huge amount of uncertainty and instability with the Arab Spring.

        Canada, New Zealand, Australia and to a lesser extent South Africa are countries which were created (much to the detriment of the indigenous population) by the Europeans. They gained independence much longer ago but more importantly in the process the same people were still running the place.

        When ceding control of many other colonies huge power vacuums were left to an uneducated downtrodden population, (obviously leading to decades of conflict and corruption!).

        Is it any wonder that the gap left by poor education is replaced with religion and fear/hatred of things which are not understood.

    3. All of these countries have been independent for at least 30 years. Some of them for 40 or 50 years. PNG has not been ruled by the British for more than 100 years.

      Very lazy to still blame the British. These countries need to do something about their bigotry.

      1. That’s still within living memory isn’t it? Only 50 years ago European countries were brutally oppressing the native people in these countries. It’s not lazy at all to blame the British, do you have any idea how long it took us to come to the stage where we have equality for women and gay people? Centuries.

        And we expect these countries to magically change overnight after we go in there, steal their resources, forcibly convert them and get rid of some cultures which were actually tolerant of homosexuality.

        1. Jock S. Trap 16 Aug 2013, 3:21pm

          As Canada, New Zealand, England and Wales… and soon Scotland have (or will be getting) Equal Marriage it is a Very lazy argument.

          It’s taken us the same amount of time as it could have taken those ignorant countries. Nothing stopped them, except themselves.

        2. Well no, not 50, by the 1960s I think it’s fair to say Britain had got well beyond brutal oppression in these 12 countries (indeed, everywhere). And I think only 2 of them could even possibly have had native cultures that were tolerant of homosexuality.

      2. What is lazy is not accepting how the English have really fckued up the world. All the hatred came from the empire all the racism and homophobia. The English may have modernised the world but they certainly didn’t civilise it if you’re black or gay. Great if your white and straight though. And considering the hypocrisy I reckon most of the laws were made by queens

        1. The English? What about the Dutch, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the French, the Germans and, above all, the Belgians (Congo being considered a horror story by even British colonisers)?

          Without wanting to excuse English/British racism in any way, it’s as well to see it in the context of racism generally: it exists everywhere and always has, not least in Asia and Africa quite independently of European influence (relations between Igbo and Yoruba in Nigeria are hardly an example of interethnic harmony).

          1. Yeah everywhere where white people go.

          2. But Genghis Khan wasn’t exactly what you’d call ‘white’; nor, arguably, were the Turks of the Ottoman Empire. Nor the Sassanids, the Umayyads, the Mauryans etc etc etc. Nor, for that matter, the rulers of the slave-trading Aro Condfederacy in present-day Nigeria. Don’t imagine imperialism is restricted to white men, any more than racism is.

    4. Many of these cultures, and their legal systems, were created by the English/British altogether. They can catch up with civil-rights movements in other respects – eg women’s rights, abolishing capital punishment – so why not gay rights?

      1. Actually a lot of African and Carribean countries are very misogynistic and lag behind on women’s rights.

        1. Jock S. Trap 16 Aug 2013, 3:24pm

          Exactly and again of their own choosing.

          They’ll be the first to tell you that’s Their culture.

          It’s just not progress and both Women’s rights and Gay rights should have be better. Those countries chose not to, Those countries. Not the British.

        2. Robert in S. Kensington 16 Aug 2013, 5:16pm

          Yes, and don’t forget those other African countries such as former French colonies, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Djibouti, and Somalia where homosexuality is illegal and punishable and the French haven’t been able to bring about change in attitudes or taken any responsibility there either. We weren’t the only ones invading and thieving property. They were misogynistic long before the French set foot there as well as homophobic.

    5. But that was a long time ago and other commonwealth countries have changed; look perhaps at Canada.
      I wonder if some the countries that still persist with these outdated ideas are more so called ‘religious’ countries and that this is where their homophobic views come from.

  5. This is an interesting point when you reflect on it.

  6. It’s quite funny to see when this is raised, and the Queen is often excused by a posse of royalists in the gay community without any real thought behind their excuses.

    The fact is, she is a monarch of numerous nations where bigotry remains unchallenged. She does indeed have influence, and that has been seen here in the UK countless times.

    The idea that she is outside of politics is complete rubbish, if that were the case then there would be no formal meetings between government and the monarch. There are, therefore she maintains some power.

    The idea that she cannot speak on this issue is rubbish. She chooses not to, not because she’s in any way a bigot herself, but she is simply indifferent.

    One does not care much about what the commoners struggle with.

    1. Gay Irishman 18 Aug 2013, 8:37pm

      You are wrong on almost every point. You clearly know nothing about constitutional realities and the role of the monarchy.

  7. Patrick Mc Crossan 16 Aug 2013, 2:26pm

    The UK have very little influence on these countries, unless they have a mandate or are seeking to change things.

    We can not force the world to do what we want them to do.

    When we start dictating issues like this we are going down the wrong road.

    Whilst clearly we may find the laws in these countries are not for us, we can not get all uppity about it in negative ways.

    I fear bringing matters that we have no influence over to such attention, creates dangers for LGBT people in these countries.

    We should tred carefully over matters that effect the lives of others.

    Theres no need for a Bull In A China Shop approach

  8. The Queen could become involved in some gay charities.

    The Queen could tone down the hatred coming from HER church.

    The Queen could be responsible with the investments of the vast fortune she oversees.

    The Queen could be seen with happy gay families.

    She has done none of these things. She is a major part of the problem and has made no contributions to the solution.

    1. Christopher Coleman 18 Aug 2013, 6:18pm

      Would be nice, but whatever she does or appears not to do a measure of blame is hurled at her and all the royal family. She is castigated for not openly supporting gay people. If she did so and were foolish enough to hint that changes in commonwealth countries would be agreeable, she would immediately be condemned for interfering in politics and the republicans would demand (yet again) the abolition of the monarchy.

  9. A monarch is inane for any civilized society and as for Britain, it makes ye look just silly and childish in the world. For the sake of the future generations of your children, grow up, get appropriate and sensible, and be the king and queen in your own life.

    1. Well said.

    2. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Japan and The Netherlands are often considered among the most advanced and civilised societies in the world and, interestingly, they are all monarchies too. On the other hand Egypt, Zimbabwe, Turkey and Afghanistan have directly elected heads of state. Is it really that easy to dismiss the former as silly and childish?

    3. Yet the countries with monarchies seem to be the most progressive and have the most civil rights overall. Having a non political head of state seems better than for example the US or Russia, which still effectively have an elected monarchy where the king (president) has enormous power concentrated in his hands.

      1. You obviously don’t know anything about the US government, the power of the Presidency or current events in America. As far as monarchies being the most progressive with the most civil rights, I think both of these comments are being extremely selective.

  10. If I ever “hit it big” and there are still places LGBT people don’t feel safe, I will buy an island and call it the State of Equality where all LGBT people from around the world can be granted asylum and live without fear or shame.

    Kind of like Israel for Jewish people, but much more fabulous.

    The best part? NO Straights allowed!

    1. It’s not straight v gay troll. This site is like something out of 2000. I give it a year

      1. Errr. it kind of IS straight vs. gay around the world and unfortunatley the straight people are winning by a mile. LGBT don’t feel safe anywhere – it comes from necessity, not a desire for aparteid. A refuge of sorts.

    2. Now that sounds awesome!

    3. That is what homophobes have been saying for years, put us all on an island somewhere. Do grow up.

  11. It is a matter of fact that when Britain had colonies it introduced legal systems which mirrored those back home. Anti -gay legislation was just one of many bits of legislation introduced. Not good I accept and the missionaries were representative of their time and were no help to us, but I am not aware that there was any resistance to that legislation. I am not aware of any evidence that gay people were accepted in those societies. From what I can gather the colonials were pushing at a fairly open door on anti-gay legislation.

    1. Christopher Coleman 12 Sep 2013, 4:35am

      If any of the colonies resisted British laws, the guns would have been out and firing. Any experience of the colonies?

  12. Cutting-and-pasting now, are you Keith? (Hint: it’s no less boring or silly.)

  13. Indeed. It makes mockery of all this lick spittle sycophancy we saw with the gay press and prominent gay figures thanking “her majesty” for signing the equal marriage bill. She’s actually a more of a figurehead for homophobia, representing as she does, these homophobic countries and her homophobic church.

    1. This is the most inane remark so far.

  14. In voodoo the one religion that the stinking missionaries could not destroy same sex relationships are treated as normal. Christianity is the source of the worlds problems

    1. Shame it hasn’t mitigated the shocking homophobia in Haiti these days, isn’t it?

      1. Well voodoo is portrayed as a satanic religion in the west when it is respecting ancestors spirits. Christians and the stinking missionaries managed to make Haiti a hate filled Christian country

    2. Lets not pick and choose which religions are to blame, all organized religious groups are basically built on the concept of superiority and control of others, the idea that their group are “more worthy” than others and therefore have a right – or sometimes even a DUTY – to attack and control others to fit their idea of what the world should be.
      This is the same psychological brainwashing that helps to create fascists, psychotics, despots and characters like Hitler.
      This is a fundamental belief that they are superior and have the right to control the freedoms of others, numerous religious teachings are guilty of this.
      All organized religion is to blame for this, the moment a religious text tries to tell followers that they are superior Humans and therefore have a right or a duty to attack and control others who do not believe.
      That model is a powerful brainwashing tool seen in all cults around the world from the Children of the Golden Dawn to $cientology, and from Islam to Christianity.

    3. mikeysussex 20 Aug 2013, 10:15am

      Is this man a loony. If you don’t like gays or the UK then piss off back to voodoo land you homophobic twat.

  15. Hey bitch. I’m going learn some voodoo and mess you up

    1. Keith we geddit you don’t like gay people we don’t care what you think. Will you fack off now?

  16. GingerlyColors 16 Aug 2013, 5:05pm

    The Queen is head of State in 16 countries. As well as the twelve mentioned here she is monarch in Australia, Canada and New Zealand as well as the United Kingdom. This number can be higher if you include British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies and also if you count the four component countries of the UK as separate entities. Homosexuality was criminalized until fairly recently in some of those territories such as the Isle of Man which did not scrap it’s anti-gay laws until 1992.
    All these countries are part of the British Commonwealth which include many republics the great majority of which also continue to criminalize homosexuality, something that we must remember when we invite all these countries to the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow next year.

  17. HRH is on the right track in the UK, now she need to be just as progressive in the other places under her rule. We need to let HRH know!

    1. its HM not HRH

      1. And what exactly is the right track? She has never even acknowledged the existence of gay people.

    2. That would be HM not HRH.

  18. The queen recently showed her support for the LGBT community. In addition, she also is merely a figurehead.

    It’s not really fair to blame her, especially when these countries make their OWN laws.

  19. when british empire ended it left behind legacy of impoverished countries without any economic or educational inheritance and political class, corrupted by that empire’s favourite divide and rule tactic that fuelled massive corruption and constant power struggle. oh and not forgetting those infamous anti gay laws.

    international aid that followed was just about enough to sustain basic needs of former colonies, not enough though to develop any economical means to provide any further development. and to make matters worse the inefficient amount of aid allowed christian agencies to exert their influence on locals that today is as strong as ever.

    so to say that few decades should have been more then enough for them to change their attitudes towards human rights, especially those of lgbt, has got to do more with post colonial past characterised by ostrich mentality than any reality

    1. without any economic or educational inheritance and political class

      Seriously? India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Kenya, Ghana, even Jamaica?

      1. Indeed, at least two of those countries have nuclear weapons for pity’s sake! Most of them rationalize their homophobia as “traditional values” and argue that it is *Britain* that has strayed from “morality”!

        Of course, I’m an American, and thus biased. We were a colony too (a whole bunch of them in fact). While we are by no means a paragon of LGBT equality, we did in fact manage to build a rather impressive country fairly quickly after independence. In recent years I have become increasingly of the opinion that a lot of these nations just use colonialism as a scapegoat for willfully corrupt politics long after Britain ceased to directly govern them. After all, why be honest? Their leaders can live lavish lifestyles, often for as long as they want (*cough* Mugabe *cough*) and if anyone complains they can just have them killed and claim they learned it from colonial times.

      2. so what was british empire’s inheritance in those countries when it collapsed. big factories, line productions, universities, schools in every village etc? after all these countries are not exactly members of G8 are they, or beacons of democracy for that matter.

        most of them with high averages of illiterate or low educated populations, still accepting international aid and if it wasnt for globalisation they still would be where they where when great empire crumbled. and dont start me on useless commonwealth organization that empire’s hangover cure concoction needed after binge colonising

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 17 Aug 2013, 1:42pm

          Well then, kane, the UK should cut off aid to all of them since it isn’t helping them in any way shape or form and hasn’t according to your opionion. I strongly suggest you go live in one of them and help them improve their lot since you care so much about them. Action speaks louder than words of criticism. I notice Uganda is mulling a draconian anti-gay piece of legislation fomented by religious extremists inside and outside of that country, but they’re also afraid that UK taxpayer aid will be cut off. I wonder why?

        2. I was actually thinking of your assertion that there was no political class created in the aftermath of empire (some might argue there was a little too much of a political class established in some of these countries), but even a look at international literacy levels might hold a few surprises for you – there’s quite a variety of ways different former colonies evolved, you know.

          I’m completely with you on the vainglorious uselessness of the Commonwealth, though.

          1. what i was trying to say in my initial posting was that the quality of the political class that replaced the colonial masters left a lot to be desired. perhaps my interpunctuation was bit sloppy

          2. I think it’s hard to generalise about nations spread across Asia, Africa, the West Indies and Polynesia. In some of these at least the political classes that developed were certainly no more corrupt the British equivalent has proved itself to be within the last few years.

    2. It had it’s (serious and homophobic) faults, but did leave behind educational systems (many still sit ‘O” and “A” levels), infrastructures, built the railway systems in India, bright students were sent to Oxbridge, created nation states, etc so particularly compared to other and previous empires, there were some plusses at least.

      1. Yes but they didn’t have a choice in the matter did they? They were colonised whether they liked it or not. Typical British person defending the Empire. You could make positive comments about any empire. Some of these countries had systems in place long before the British went there (if you bothered to look) but does that excuse the massacres, oppression and violence? No.

  20. Well unless they return absolute power to her there’s not much she can do about it now is there?

  21. Not a single royalist in these comments has come up with ANYTHING the Queen has done to acknowledge the existence of gay subjects or to make us feel that she is helping bring about and end to the homophobia imposed by her predecessors. Signing the marriage equality bill only counts if you can point to a public statement supporting the ideas behind the bill. Signing a bill she played no part in bringing about and had no option but to sign is not support.

    1. I cant help wondering if she was instrumental in persuading the C of E to drop its opposition to equal marriage after the vote in the House of Lords, after all she is the head of the Church. Did she have a quiet word with the Archbish? We’ll never know.

  22. johny33308 18 Aug 2013, 8:02pm


  23. mikeysussex 19 Aug 2013, 12:19pm

    This dysfunctional and batty family should all retire quietly. Prince Charles as King and Camilla as Queen? more like
    Loony Professor and Audrey Roberts from Corrie.

    1. MerlynHerne 23 Aug 2013, 3:11am

      Or the couple living in one of the estates on Keeping Up Appearances.

  24. This only shows that homophobia has historically been a European import. Europe is where it was first invented and from where it spread, together with the spread of the Western civilisation.


    It still does not excuse the behaviour of these countires.

    1. How do you know that? It could just as easily be argued that a European culture (pre-Christian Greece) was the first to celebrate one form of homosexuality – yet even there men were also expected to marry and produce children, just as they have been in every recorded society.

      And Islam has done a pretty good job of exporting homosexuality too, quite independently of European influence. The only countries and provinces to maintain the death penalty for homosexuality are Islamic.

    2. Christopher Coleman 12 Sep 2013, 4:32am

      If that is so, please explain why the early Europeans in the Americans were so disgusted to find homosexuality openly practiced there? And killed people for being homosexual?

  25. Christopher Coleman 12 Sep 2013, 4:36am

    Does the Queen have a choice? You and I have more freedom than any member of the royal family, however low down in line for the throne.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.