It’s been a tough month for politics. From moats to mortgages, dog food to duck islands, the credibility of the democratic process in Britain has been hit hard.

But at Stonewall we know that politics matters. So many of the advances we’ve seen in lesbian and gay equality in this country have come from Parliamentarians we’ve convinced of our case and who’ve voted to change the law.

So our message this month is simple. Please, please vote in tomorrow’s elections – the local elections if you have them, the European elections wherever you are.

There are real differences in the approach of the parties to equality – and a real danger that candidates standing on an extreme explicitly homophobic platform will be elected. The voting system means that every vote for a non-homophobic candidate makes it harder for them.

Please make sure that yours is one of those votes.

It is an honour to be here. A particular honour to be with you Mr. President. The world participated in the celebration of your election. Now the hard work begins.

And now, also we should be as steadfast for you in the hard work as in the celebration. You don’t need cheerleaders but partners; not spectators but supporters. The truest friends are those still around when the going is toughest. We offer you our friendship today. We will work with you to make your Presidency one that shapes our destiny to the credit of America and of the world. Mr President, we salute you and wish you well.

After 10 years as British Prime Minister, I decided to choose something easy. I became involved in the Middle East Peace Process.

There are many frustrations – that is evident. There is also one blessing. I spend much of my time in the Holy Land and in the Holy City. The other evening I climbed to the top of Notre Dame in Jerusalem. You look left and see the Garden of Gethsemane. You look right and see where the Last Supper was held. Straight ahead lies Golgotha. In the distance is where King David was crowned and still further where Abraham was laid to rest. And of course in the centre of Jerusalem is the Al Aqsa Mosque, where according to the Qur’an, the Prophet was transported to commune with the prophets of the past.

Rich in conflict, it is also sublime in history. The other month in Jericho, I visited the Mount of Temptation. I think they bring all the political leaders there. My guide – a Palestinian – was bemoaning the travails of his nation. Suddenly he stopped, looked heaven wards and said “Moses, Jesus, Mohammed: why did they all have to come here?”

It is a good place to reflect on religion: a source of so much inspiration; an excuse for so much evil.

Today, religion is under attack from without and from within. From within, it is corroded by extremists who use their faith as a means of excluding the other. I am what I am in opposition to you. If you do not believe as I believe, you are a lesser human being.

From without, religious faith is assailed by an increasingly aggressive secularism, which derides faith as contrary to reason and defines faith by conflict. Thus do the extreme believers and the aggressive non-believers come together in unholy alliance.

And yet, faith will not be so easily cast. For billions of people, faith motivates, galvanises, compels and inspires, not to exclude but to embrace; not to provoke conflict but to try to do good. This is faith in action. You can see it in countless local communities where those from churches, mosques, synagogues and temples, tend the sick, care for the afflicted, work long hours in bad conditions to bring hope to the despairing and salvation to the lost. You can see it in the arousing of the world’s conscience to the plight of Africa.

There are a million good deeds done every day by people of faith. These are those for whom, in the parable of the sower, the seed fell on good soil and yielded sixty or a hundredfold.

What inspires such people?

Ritual or doctrine or the finer points of theology? No.

I remember my first spiritual awakening. I was ten years old. That day my father – at the young age of 40 – had suffered a serious stroke. His life hung in the balance. My mother, to keep some sense of normality in the crisis, sent me to school. My teacher knelt and prayed with me. Now my father was a militant atheist. Before we prayed, I thought I should confess this. “I’m afraid my father doesn’t believe in God”. I said. “That doesn’t matter” my teacher replied “God believes in him. He loves him without demanding or needing love in return.”

That is what inspires: the unconditional nature of God’s love. A promise perpetually kept. A covenant never broken.

And in surrendering to God, we become instruments of that love.

Rabbi Hillel was once challenged by a pagan, who said: if you can recite the whole of the Torah standing on one leg, I will convert to being a Jew. Rabbi Hillel stood on one leg and said “That which is hateful to you, do it not unto your neighbour. That is the Torah. Everything else is commentary. Go and study it.”

As the Qur’an states: “if anyone saves a person it will be as if he has saved the whole of humanity”.

Faith is not discovered in acting according to ritual but acting according to God’s will and God’s will is love.

We might also talk of the Hindu “Living beyond the reach of I and mine” or the words of the Buddha “after practising enlightenment you must go back to practise compassion” or the Sikh scripture: “God’s bounties are common to all. It is we who have created divisions.”

Each faith has its beliefs. Each is different. Yet at a certain point each is in communion with the other.

Examine the impact of globalisation. Forget for a moment its rights and wrongs. Just look at its effects. Its characteristic is that it pushes the world together. It is not only an economic force. The consequence is social, even cultural.

The global community – “it takes a village” as someone once coined it – is upon us. Into it steps religious faith. If faith becomes the property of extremists, it will originate discord. But if, by contrast, different faiths can reach out to and have knowledge of one another, then instead of being reactionary, religious faith can be a force for progress.

The Foundation which bears my name and which I began less than a year ago is dedicated to achieving understanding, action and reconciliation between the different faiths for the common good. It is not about the faith that looks inward; but the faith that resolutely turns us towards each other.

Bringing the faith communities together fulfils an objective important to all of us, believers and non-believers.

But as someone of faith, this is not enough. I believe restoring religious faith to its rightful place, as the guide to our world and its future, is itself of the essence. The 21st Century will be poorer in spirit, meaner in ambition, less disciplined in conscience, if it is not under the guardianship of faith in God.

I do not mean by this to blur the correct distinction between the realms of religious and political authority. In Britain we are especially mindful of this. I recall giving an address to the country at a time of crisis. I wanted to end my words with “God bless the British people”. This caused complete consternation. Emergency meetings were convened. The system was aghast. Finally, as I sat trying to defend my words, a senior civil servant said, with utter distain: “Really, Prime Minister, this is not America you know.”

Neither do I decry the work of humanists, who give gladly of themselves for others and who can often shame the avowedly religious. Those who do God’s work are God’s people.

I only say that there are limits to humanism and beyond those limits God and only God can work. The phrase “fear of God” conjures up the vengeful God of parts of the Old Testament. But “fear of God” means really obedience to God; humility before God; acceptance through God that there is something bigger, better and more important than you. It is that humbling of man’s vanity, that stirring of conscience through God’s prompting, that recognition of our limitations, that faith alone can bestow.

We can perform acts of mercy, but only God can lend them dignity. We can forgive, but only God forgives completely in the full knowledge of our sin.

And only through God comes grace; and it is God’s grace that is unique.

John Newton, who had been that most obnoxious of things, a slave-trader, wrote the hymn “Amazing Grace”.

“Twas Grace that taught my heart to fear. And Grace, my fears relieved.”

It is through faith, by the Grace of God, that we have the courage to live as we should and die as we must.

When I was Prime Minister I had cause often to reflect on leadership. Courage in leadership is not simply about having the nerve to take difficult decisions or even in doing the right thing since oftentimes God alone knows what the right thing is.

It is to be in our natural state – which is one of nagging doubt, imperfect knowledge, and uncertain prediction – and to be prepared nonetheless to put on the mantle of responsibility and to stand up in full view of the world, to step out when others step back, to assume the loneliness of the final decision-maker, not sure of success but unsure of it.

And it is in that “not knowing” that the courage lies.

And when in that state, our courage fails, our faith can support it, lift it up, keep it from stumbling.

As you begin your leadership of this great country, Mr President, you are fortunate, as is your nation, that you have already shown in your life, courage in abundance. But should it ever be tested, I hope your faith can sustain you. And your family. The public eye is not always the most congenial.

I was reminded of this, as I waited in London in the snow to fly to America and made the mistake of reading a British newspaper. It was the very conservative Daily Telegraph. A few days ago I gave an interview in which I remarked how much cleverer my wife was than me. The Telegraph has a famous letters page. In it was a letter from a correspondent that read something like: “Dear Sir, with reference to your headline ‘Blair admits wife more intelligent than him’, I fail to see why this is news. Most of us have known this for a long time.” As a PS perhaps: “the bar, however, has not been set high”.

I finish where I began: in the Holy Land, at Mount Nebo in Jordan, where Moses gazed on the Promised Land. There is a chapel there, built by pilgrims in the 4th Century. The sermon was preached by an American, who spent his life as an airline pilot and then, after his wife’s death, took holy orders. His words are the words of a Christian but they speak to all those of faith, who want God’s grace to guide their life.

He said this:

“While here on earth, we need to make a vital decision … whether to be mere spectators, or movers and shakers for the Kingdom of God… whether to stay among the curious, or take up a cross. And this means: no standing on the sidelines … We’re either in the game or we’re not. I sometimes ask myself the question: If I were to die today, what would my life have stood for… The answer can’t be an impulsive one, and we all need to count the cost before we give an answer. Because to be able to say yes to one thing, means to say no to many others. But we must also remember, that the greatest danger is not impulsiveness, but inaction.”

It is fitting at this extraordinary moment in your country’s history that we hear that call to action; and we pray that in acting we do God’s work and follow God’s will.

And by the way, God bless you all.

His latest entry on Canterbury Tales From The Fringe relates a short exchange with controversial preacher Rick Warren, the view from the Presidential Platform and where Oprah was sitting. Not to mention Aretha Franklin’s hat.

Wasn’t yesterday amazing?! A new day — for all of us.

Here’s what it was like from my perspective.

Mark (Bishop Robinson’s civil partner) and I arrived at St. John’s Episcopal Church early in the morning. Waiting in the security line, I greeted Pastor Rick Warren, who couldn’t have been more gracious.

Once inside, we were seated in the fifth row, with a perfect view of the service participants, and eventually, the President-Elect himself. This is not a man who fakes a faith, but one who is clearly motivated by it.

Dr. T. D. Jakes gave a magnificent sermon, based on the story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, being thrown into the fiery furnace.

Some of his points, on which he elaborated brilliantly: “there is no light without heat”; the three Hebrew boys were saved because they stood up! it’s time we ALL stood up for what is right and good; King Nebuchadnezzar turns the furnace up to seven times its normal heat, more than the furnace or its contents can bear — pointing out the ways in which the economy, war, health care, etc. have deteriorated beyond what we can bear; and finally, when the King looks into the furnace to see the boys’ destruction, instead, they are intact, and there is a FOURTH figure — the Spirit of God which has seen them through and preserved them.

You can imagine the rest. It was SO powerful.

I met some wonderful people. Sat next to the new Securities and Commodities appointee, who later introduced me to the new Treasury Secretary and his wife. Oprah was there (sitting BEHIND us, I might add!). Most of the cabinet.

Other denominational leaders.

Then, we were bussed to the Capitol.

Mark and I split up, because I had been invited to sit on the Presidential Platform. Through several security checkpoints in the bowels of the Capitol.

Al and Tipper Gore left their entourage specifically to greet me — a real honor, given the magnificent contributions he’s making to our common good. Then, we walked down the series of hallways/steps that the new president would walk down in a few minutes.

I entered into the light of day and the Presidential Platform, just behind Newt Gingrich and Rick Warren. I told Pastor Warren that I would be praying for him. Again, he was most gracious.

Coming out onto the platform was overwhelming. Not only would I be mere feet away from Barack Obama when he took the oath of office, but the view from the platform of the millions of people on the Mall was awe inspiring.

It was a solid mass of humanity for as far as the eye could see, all the way to the Washington Monument, and then all the way to the Lincoln Memorial, where this weekend’s journey had begun for us. The air was electric, the joy palpable, and the momentousness of the occasion solemn.

I was seated in the sixth row behind the president, beside Federico Pena (who was delightful), directly behind Gov. Warren Dean (chairman of the Democratic National Committee). General Colin Powell was also in the next row in front of me — we greeted each other with the secret Episcopal handshake.

In front of him was Aretha Franklin (you gotta love that hat, eh? it takes a substantial black woman to wear a hat like that!). Senator Judd Gregg (Republican from NH) came over to chat.

I also spoke for a while with Senator Joe Lieberman. Pretty heady stuff for a Kentucky country boy, who grew up in poverty and never thought he’d live to SEE a real president, much less be invited to sit where I was invited to sit.

And then, as you all saw on TV, each of the principals entered. To see the military personnel salute their about-to-be Commander in Chief made me cry.

As always, Obama seemed natural, calm, confident-but-not-cocky and present to the moment. I’ve said it before, but it was never more evident than yesterday — I’ve never seen someone so comfortable in his own skin. And then the oath of office, the moment when America changed.

Leaving the swearing in, and still separated from Mark and Ella, I had some alone time to try to absorb what I had just been a witness to. It is still hard to find words to describe it. But you know what we were all feeling. Waking up this morning felt different somehow, didn’t it?

After the parade, home for a nap. Then off to the lgbt ball at the Mayflower Hotel. When I walked in, Rufus Wainwright was dedicating a song to me. (He’s one of my faves!) He was then joined for a couple of songs onstage by Cyndi Lauper.

Then I was introduced to the crowd of several thousand. I got to introduce Mark and Ella to them, and say a few words. The crowd was overwhelming in their kind and generous response. Then I posed for pictures with, oh, six or seven hundred of them. Nearly exhausted, we left for the live Daily Show broadcast, with Jon Stewart.

(Scroll down to watch video)

It’s always difficult to do such a show from a remote location. I can only hear what is going on in my earpiece, and am talking into a black camera screen. But it went well, I think. He started in with a joke (this IS Comedy Central, after all), and miraculously, I was able to respond with a joke in return. I don’t think he was expecting it, and he nearly fell off his chair laughing. Later, after the show, he told me it was the best line of the show. Amazing praise from a brilliant comedian who is SO good at what he does.

The best part of that was, he had done a joke, and so had I, and then the rest of the interview was serious. I was moved that HE had seen the connection between the inauguration of an African-American and the hopes of the gay community, and asked if it had raised my hopes that one day, perhaps a gay or lesbian person might become president. He had read my thoughts — and I suspect, the hopes of so many of us.

It is a new day in America, thanks be to God! I was overwhelmed all day by the sense that God is still alive and well and working overtime in our great nation, bringing about things that could have never even been dreamt of a few years ago. Join me in giving thanks to our great God for loving us as we are, and loving us too much to make us content with staying as we are.

I have been carrying all of you in my heart these few days. So often during this time, I have reflected on the many, many blessings that are mine. To serve the people of the Diocese of New Hampshire is a holy and awesome gift to me. To feel your love and support during these momentous days calmed my heart and brought me great joy.

In a day or two, once we “break into” Ella’s camera, I will post on this blog a few pictures that you’ve just GOT to see. But thank you for traveling this path with me, and know that I give thanks to God for you every day.

Today, I return to New Hampshire, back to my “day job” which I love. Tonight, life resumes with the ordination of Madelyn Betz at St. Thomas, Hanover. Ordination of someone to the priesthood is one of the most awesome and wonderful tasks assigned to Bishops — and I can’t think of a better way to re-enter the “real world” of my life in the Diocese of New Hampshire. I look forward to seeing you soon!

To read Bishop Robinson’s blog, Canterbury Tales From The Fringe, click here.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM – Th 11p / 10c

Dear Mr. Hammarberg,

Since May 2006 Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov banned 162 public events organized by the local LGBT community. Not a single event was authorized and protected. Bashing of gay activists at first and second Moscow Pride were widely broadcasted.

Russian Federation, as a member-state of the Council of Europe ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which articles 11 and 14 declare the right to freedom of assembly without discrimination on any grounds.

Russian courts held all the bans were lawful and rejected not only article 11 and 14 but also the precedents set by the European Court of Human Rights.

On 8 December a group of activists applied to hold a picketing in support of youth subcultures, inlcuding LGBT people, and Moscow Pride in Liski, a city located 650 km south of Moscow. Shortly after the City Administration received their application, two organizers were arrested and detained for 3 hours by the local police. The third organizer was called to the Administration with his parents. In his cabinet, the Mayor dictated him under threats of being sacked from the school the text of a letter he had to write. In his letter he had to withdraw from the organization of the picketing and further explain that he will not take part in it. His parents were also threatened with possible problems at work.

On several occasions Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov declared that Gay Pride marches are satanic, weapons of mass destruction and lead to the growth of HIV infection in the city. In 2005 Mufti Talgat Tadjudin declared that gays should be beaten and killed. In 2008 the Governor of Tambov region Oleg Betin declared “Tolerance? To hell! Faggots should be torn apart and their pieces thrown to the wind”. The Russian courts dismissed all our three complaints against Mr. Luzhkov, Mr. Tadjudin and Mr. Betin.

In the last three years we have recorded more than 700 homophobic statements made by Russian politicians.

Because part of your mandate is to assist member states in the implementation of Council of Europe human rights standard, we would like to understand how can you explain Mr. Luzhkov that we are not weapons of mass destructions? How can you explain to Talgat Tadjudin and Oleg Betin that we should not be killed?

How can you assist Russian authorities in understanding that Gay Rights are Human Rights?

But most of all, how can you explain the Russian government that the right to organize peaceful marches is granted to us by the European Convention and that this right should not need to be systematically challenged up to the European Court in a procedure that last for 5 to 6 years for each case.

Mr. Hammarberg, we ask you to take your responsibilities as Humman Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe and to visit not only Moscow in your next trip to Russia but also Tambov and Liski. We ask you to write to the Mayor of Litski, Evgeniy Miturev, and remind him of his obligations.

We invited you to witness the violence against LGBT people during Moscow Pride 2006 and 2007. We invite you again to watch any of our events during your next trip to Moscow over the next months.

Russia has a a record of systematic violations of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights whether in Moscow, St Petersburg, Liski or Tambov.

How long is this disrespect of fundamental human rights going to be tolerated within the Council of Europe?

Yours sincerely,

Nikolai Alekseev,

Head of Russian LGBT Human Rights Project GayRussia.Ru

Chief Organizer of Moscow Pride

In the name of the members of the Organising Committee of Moscow Pride:

Nikolai Baev, Anna Komarova, Anna Gerasimova, Ksenia Prilepskaya, Anton Sutyagin, Yuri Gavrikov, Kirill Nepomnyaschiy, Alexei Kiselev, Alexander Hots, Tim Magomedov, Irina Fet, Ivan Yartsev

You can’t take this away from me: Proposition 8 broke our hearts, but it did not end our fight.

Like many in our movement, I found myself in Southern California last week.

There, I had the opportunity to speak with a man who said that Proposition 8 completely changed the way he saw his own neighbourhood.

Every ‘Yes on 8′ sign was a slap. For this man, for me, for the 18,000 couples who married in California, to LGBT people and the people who love us, its passage was worse than a slap in the face. It was nothing short of heartbreaking.

But it is not the end. Fifty-two percent of the voters of California voted to deny us our equality last Tuesday, but they did not vote our families or the power of our love out of existence; they did not vote us away.

As free and equal human beings, we were born with the right to equal families. The courts did not give us this right—they simply recognised it.

And although California has ceased to grant us marriage licences, our rights are not subject to anyone’s approval. We will keep fighting for them.

They are as real and as enduring as the love that moves us to form families in the first place. There are many roads to marriage equality, and no single roadblock will prevent us from ultimately getting there.

And yet there is no denying, as we pick ourselves up after losing this most recent, hard-fought battle, that we’ve been injured, many of us by neighbours who claim to respect us. We see them in the supermarkets, on the sidewalk, and think “how could you?”

By the same token, we know that we are moving in the right direction. In 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 by a margin of 61.4% to 38.6%.

On Tuesday, fully 48% of Californians rejected Proposition 8. It wasn’t enough, but it was a massive shift.

Nationally, although two other anti-marriage ballot measures won, Connecticut defeated an effort to hold a constitutional convention ending marriage, New York’s state legislature gained the seats necessary to consider a marriage law, and FMA architect Marilyn Musgrave lost her seat in Congress.

We also elected a President who supports protecting the entire community from discrimination and who opposes discriminatory amendments.

Yet on Proposition 8 we lost at the ballot box, and I think that says something about this middle place where we find ourselves at this moment.

In 2003, twelve states still had sodomy laws on the books, and only one state had civil unions.

Four years ago, marriage was used to rile up a right-wing base, and we were branded as a bigger threat than terrorism. In 2008, most people know that we are not a threat.

Proposition 8 did not result from a popular groundswell of opposition to our rights, but was the work of a small core of people who fought to get it on the ballot. The anti-LGBT message didn’t rally people to the polls, but unfortunately when people got to the polls, too many of them had no problem with hurting us.

Faced with an economy in turmoil and two wars, most Californians didn’t choose the culture war.

But faced with the question – brought to them by a small cadre of anti-LGBT hardliners – of whether our families should be treated differently from theirs, too many said yes.

But even before we do the hard work of deconstructing this campaign and readying for the future, it’s clear to me that our continuing mandate is to show our neighbors who we are.

Justice Lewis Powell was the swing vote in Bowers, the case that upheld Georgia’s sodomy law and that was reversed by Lawrence v. Texas five years ago.

When Bowers was pending, Powell told one of his clerks: “I don’t believe I’ve ever met a homosexual.”

Ironically, that clerk was gay, and had never come out to the Justice. A decade later, Powell admitted his vote to uphold Georgia’s sodomy law was a mistake.

Everything we’ve learned points to one simple fact: people who know us are more likely to support our equality.

In recent years, I’ve been delivering this positive message: tell your story.

Share who you are. And in fact, as our families become more familiar, support for us increases. But make no mistake: I do not think we have to audition for equality.

Rather, I believe that each and every one of us who has been hurt by this hateful ballot measure, and each and every one of us who is still fighting to be equal, has to confront the neighbours who hurt us.

We have to say to the man with the Yes on 8 sign—you disrespected my humanity, and I am not giving you a pass.

I am not giving you a pass for explaining that you tolerate me, while at the same time denying that my family has a right to exist. I do not give you permission to say you have me as a “gay friend” when you cast a vote against my family, and my rights.

Wherever you are, tell a neighbour what the California Supreme Court so wisely affirmed: that you are equal, you are human, and that being denied equality harms you materially.

Although I, like our whole community, am shaken by Prop 8’s passage, I am not yet ready to believe that anyone who knows us as human beings and understands what is at stake would consciously vote to harm us.

This is not over. In California, our legal rights have been lost, but our human rights endure, and we will continue to fight for them.

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation is America’s largest civil rights organisation working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality.

By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realise a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

Next week MSPs will discuss the ban. Here is the submission from the Equality Network.

Introduction

We believe that the current policy of the SNBTS (Scottish Blood Service) to permanently exclude all MSM (men who have sex with men) from being eligible to donate blood is not the correct policy to have.

We have carefully studied all the available evidence, and have come to the conclusion that for the SNBTS to comply with the law both on blood products and equality legislation, and most importantly, to ensure that donated blood is safe and free of infection, it should change its current policy of excluding all those who have sex with men.

Instead it should focus on donors who engage in high risk sexual practices, regardless of the gender of the prospective donors’ partner.

Our conclusions are based on evidence from practices and opinions of Blood Services around the world; on the opinions of some of the world’s leading bio-ethicists and epidemiologists; on evidence that heterosexuals now account for more of the new HIV infections than MSM; on the current failings of the SNBTS’ donor eligibility criteria; on the flawed analysis and flawed evidence that the Blood Services uses to defend its policy.

We fully accept and agree that this policy was correct when it was introduced at the height of the epidemic in the 1980’s when MSM were at the epicentre of the outbreak.

After 25 years the situation has however dramatically changed, and MSM no longer account for the greatest risk to the blood supply, nor does only focusing on excluding all MSM, protect the safety of the blood supply.

Current Donor Eligibility

A man, who has had unprotected sex with a prostitute can give blood after 12 months. A man who has unprotected sex with an intravenous drug user can give blood after 12 months.

A man who has had unprotected sex abroad in a country which has high rates of HIV can give blood after 12 months. A man who has had unprotected sex with a woman he knew to be HIV positive can give blood after 12 months.

A man who has unprotected sex with a different woman every night of the week, who may herself, have been one, or all of the above, can give blood tomorrow.

However, a man who has only ever had protected sex with one other man is excluded from donating indefinitely.

The SNBTS do not allow MSM to give blood because they do not believe that protected gay sex prevents HIV transmission.

This goes against all scientific, medical, statistical and historical evidence about the virus and the epidemic.

Anne Mitchell, Associate Professor of the Australian Research Centre In Sex, Health and Society and Director of Gay and Lesbian Health Victoria crystallised the argument that safe sex does work.

Speaking at the recent Anti-Discrimination Tribunal in Tasmania, which is currently looking at the blood ban, she said:

“When safe sex was taken on by men who have sex with men (MSM) over the next few years [after the epidemic], the escalation in infection rates was pegged back.

“This made it immediately clear that the risk of HIV infection was not associated with male to male sex per se, rather it was associated with unsafe male to male sex. If safe sex was not effective in preventing HIV, we would still be experiencing rates of infection similar to those at the beginning of the epidemic.”

HIV Testing

HIV tests generally used in the UK do not test for the presence of the HIV virus in the body, instead testing for the presence of the antibody that the immune system creates to fight the virus.

This results in having a window period of around three months. A procedure called Nucleic Acid Testing (NAT), which tests for the actual presence of the virus in the body, reduces that window period to around 8-11 days.

NAT is used by the SNBTS to test all donations for HIV. HIV is a non discriminating disease.

There is no difference to what it does to your body or how long it takes to establish itself or show up in tests depending on how you were infected.

Discredited Analysis

Statistical analysis carried out on behalf of Health Protection Agency in England in 2003, by Soldan and Sinka, suggested that a full lifting of the ban increased the risk of HIV entering the blood stocks by 500%.

A partial removal, excluding only men who had sex with men in the last 12 months, increased the risks by around 60%.

However, this report has since been widely discredited as an inaccurate appraisal of the results of changing the policy on donor eligibility.

For one, the study does not take into account the replacement of a blanket gay blood ban with a ban on potential donors who are engaging in high risk behaviour.

Soldan and Sinka acknowledge themselves that this study has serious flaws; thus they significantly qualify their findings: “Many assumptions were required to generate estimates of the risk of HIV infection entering the blood supply.

“The accuracy of the estimates is therefore uncertain and the probable ranges around the estimates were wide”.

This analysis was brought up in the Anti Discrimination Tribunal in Tasmania. Soldan and Sinkas’ analytical approach was harshly criticised by Travis C. Porco, PHD; a Mathematical Epidemiologist.

He concluded that: “It is the concern of this respondent (TCP) that deferment of donation from very low risk (long-term abstinent or exclusively monogamous in a seroconcordant relationship) MSMs provides at best illusory safety.”

Blood Safety and Quality Regulations 2005

There is a legal requirement on the Blood Service to defer those who engage in high risk behaviour. EU Directive 2004/33/EC, translated into UK law as the Blood Safety and Quality Regulations (2005) requires permanent deferral (i.e., lifetime exclusion from donation) for “Persons whose sexual behaviour puts them at high risk of acquiring severe infectious diseases that can be transmitted by blood” (Schedule, Part 3, paragraph 2.1).

Temporary deferral is required for “Persons whose behaviour or activity places them at risk of acquiring infectious diseases that may be transmitted by blood”.

The length of the temporary deferral is specified: “Defer after cessation of risk behaviour for a period determined by the disease in question, and by the availability of appropriate tests”. (Schedule, Part 3, paragraph 2.2.2).

It is completely incompatible with the vast majority of scientific, medical, statistical and historical evidence on the transmission of HIV, and with current UK legislation, to suggest that a person who has had unprotected sex with an HIV positive person, is not at a high risk of contracting HIV, but the Blood Service let them donate after 12 months.

It is again completely incompatible with the evidence to suggest that men who are having unprotected sex with a large selection of women, who themselves may be participating in unprotected sex (as in without a condom) with large numbers of men, are less of a risk than a gay or bisexual man who has only ever had protected sex.

HIV Transmission in Scotland

The SNBTS claim that 86% of new HIV infections in Scotland in 2007 occurred from MSM, Terrence Higgins Trust claim 87%. The figures from the Health Protection Agency Scotland, however, do not support that claim.

History of the HIV Epidemic

People working in the blood service are highly skilled and experienced epidemiologists, who have been dealing with the HIV/Aids issue since this epidemic began.

We now know that HIV spread so quickly through the gay population because in the 1980’s there were the perfect conditions for the virus to spread through sexual networks.

We know that HIV disproportionately affected MSM at the beginning of the epidemic because of factors like low use of condoms and multiple partnerism. High densities of gay and bisexual men in urban areas, operating in a relatively close knit community, created that sexual network of men which caused the virus to spread.

The virus could be in one person and be rapidly transmitted to many other people in the network.

Condoms were of course found to prevent HIV transmission. Safe sex campaigns were begun in earnest, which were successful in bringing down the staggering number of new infections among gay and bisexual men.

As being gay became more acceptable, people felt more welcome into society and were given legal protections that helped reduced the isolation and internal negativity that many gay and bisexual men felt, which increased self perception and the need for multiple partnerism subsided as men could find acceptance elsewhere and their relationships became recognised.

Fantastic work by LGBT and HIV organisations helped make safe sex among gay and bisexual men an almost universally known and practiced fact, as well as better education in schools, thanks partly to the abolition of Section 28.

The situation we are at now is one where incidences of unprotected sex with multiple partners is more likely to occur among heterosexuals.

The scary fact is that knowledge and use of safer sexual practices and HIV prevention among heterosexuals is incredibly poor. In 2007, 79% of the UK population knew that HIV was transmitted through unprotected heterosexual sex.

Another survey said that three out of four young women do not believe they are at risk of HIV. Nine out of ten do not think a condom is essential to take on a night out and nearly half ignore condoms when talking about their sex life.

Compare that to gay bars and clubs where condoms and lubricants are easily available for free, and straight bars and clubs where there are generally no free condoms available.

HIV Infections in the UK

Looking at new HIV infections as a whole throughout the UK, we can clearly see the early benefits that safe sex message brought in the gay community as infections levelled off in the early 1990s.

The subsequent rise in HIV infections in later years can be attributed to a new generation of gay and bisexual men having missed out on the HIV/Aids campaigns on the 1980s

The most worrying trend however is surely the massive increase in heterosexual infections, which since 1999 have been the majority of new infections throughout the entire UK.

Ideas about HIV

Working in the epidemiology or blood service field during that time in the 1980s, one can see how professionals now would have good reason to have a healthy and reasonable distrust of gay and bisexual men due to past behaviours and its devastating results.

Yet the situation has changed. We can no longer afford to think of HIV as just a gay disease. It is scary for us to confront HIV.

Many of us do not understand it, we don’t want to have to think about changing our sexual behaviours, we don’t want to think of the risks associated with them, or indeed only focus on risks that can easily be dealt with, i.e. the morning after pill.

If you understand how HIV works, and if you understand how knowing your status as early as possible will enable you to have a relatively normal life span and the advances in Anti-Retroviral therapy can make HIV a chronic condition rather than a life threatening disease.

The key is promotion of regular testing for everyone. 50% of HIV diagnosis in heterosexual men are diagnosed late. The British HIV Association says at least a quarter of deaths reported in HIV+ people in the UK between 2004 and 2005 may have been avoided if HIV had been diagnosed at an earlier stage.

Some say that the key to promoting safe sex is fear. It is fear that motivates people to change their sexual behaviour.

However we think the better option is for people to know all the facts, to make decisions based on these facts and to enjoy their sex lives in a safe manner, free of the fear of getting a disease and free of fear if they are unfortunate to contract one.

This campaign is more broadly about getting the blood service, some in the medical profession and politicians to recognise that HIV is no longer just a gay disease and can no longer be treated as such; that HIV can and will be passed on through high risk behaviours whatever the gender of your partner.

The International Situation

In July 2006, French Health Minister Xavier Bertrand stated as he lifted the blanket ban:

“I want us to speak in the future not of ‘populations at risk’ but of ‘sexual practices at risk. It isn’t a question so much of ignoring a very troublesome situation—the regrowth of the HIV epidemic among male homosexuals; on the contrary it’s a matter of remembering the danger of at-risk practices whether they be homosexual or heterosexual.”

In January 2001, the Italian Health Ministry repealed the blanket ban on all gay and bisexual men giving blood, and instead now permanently excludes those who have had “sexual intercourse with a high transmission of STI’s” and enforces a one year deferral on those who have had “occasional sexual intercourse with a risk of transmission of STI’s.” As a result, the number of people infected by HIV through blood transfusions dropped by two thirds.

In Spain, the policy on donor eligibility was changed to allow MSM to donate in 2003, and again the number of infections from blood transfusions was reduced to one sixth of what it was previously.

“Only a small minority of homosexual men are at risk; the notion that all gay men are uniformly at risk is as offensive as a similar statement would be for exclusively heterosexual men. The policy is blatantly discriminatory on grounds of gender preference and it diminishes men who have sex with men by preventing them from full participation in the community.” So said Dr William Murphy, the National Medical Director for the Irish Blood Transfusion Service.

The Swedish Prime Minister Goeran Persson spoke out against the ban, and new rules to focus on all high risk behaviours will be implemented in Sweden November.

Jose de Almeida Goncalves, Head of the Portuguese National Blood Institute lifted the ban in March, stating: “The current trend is towards equality of criteria for all regardless of their sexual orientation.”

In Russia, the Ministry of Health said “The General Prosecutor recognised that there is nothing in the law which prevent gays to donate their blood.”

In the US, the Blood Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration in 2001 narrowly voted, by 7-6 to keep the ban they have now. However that policy is now in spite of the very strong objections to the ban by the American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks and America’s Blood Service.

They wrote to the FDA saying: “It does not appear rational to broadly differentiate sexual transmission via male-to-male sexual activity from that via heterosexual activity on scientific grounds…To many, this differentiation (between homosexual and heterosexual) is unfair and discriminatory, resulting in negative attitudes to blood donor eligibility criteria.”

Australia and the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal

In 2006, a complaint was made to the Tasmanian Anti Discrimination Tribunal by a gay man called Michael Cain, who was denied by the Australian Red Cross the opportunity to donate blood.

Australia, where the UK blood service imports blood products from, has a one year deferral for men who have sex with men to give blood. The tribunal began in this summer and will likely continue hearing from witnesses until November.

Dr Scott Halpern is an internationally recognised bio-ethicist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, and a consultant to the US Centre for Disease Control and the US Food and Drug Administration. In his expert testimony to the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal, he states

“Any effort to bar a specific group of citizens from donating must have sound reasoning behind it, and indeed, the burden of proof must always rest with those who wish to bar a particular group from donating (rather than with those who support equal access to donation). This means that from an ethical perspective, a specific group of citizens should not be barred from donating unless or until the preponderance of evidence suggests that barring donation from this group serves a broader societal goal (such as safety of the blood supply).

“If there is compelling evidence that the risks are primarily associated with the safety of the sexual practice and not with the sex of the partner, then it would be extremely difficult to justify a policy of excluding men on the basis of the sex of their partners. To do so would be unduly discriminatory”

According to a report by Vincent JL, Baron JF, Reinhart K, et al referenced by Dr Halpern in his testimony to the tribunal, the mean age of blood transfusion products in Western Europe was 16 days, in the United States it was 21 days.

Dr Halpern said that blood older than 14 days old is far more dangerous than blood from gay donors, in his testimony he states: “Transfusion of older blood is ineffective at increasing tissue oxygen delivery, and may be associated with increased morbidity or mortality when compared with the transfusion of newer blood products.”

During questioning at the tribunal, Dr Halpern states: “I think we’re talking about one in 100 risk of death on the one hand with using old blood, and about a one in a million risk of HIV on the other [using blood donated by MSM]; much rarer than getting struck by lightning.”

Dr Lesley Cannold, a well regarded Australian lecturer and researcher in bio-ethics at Melbourne and Monash Universities, argues that people donating blood do so for altruistic reasons, and “that individuals denied the opportunity to act altruistically may experience harm.”

She goes on to say: “and damage their understanding of themselves, and the view others have of them, contributing members of their community (moral identity and reputation). The harm of such damage may be particularly significant for individuals who are members of stigmatised social groups – like the gay community – and as such, may already suffer from low self-esteem and a degraded moral identity and reputation as a consequence of stigma. Indeed, it is notable that one shared characteristic of stigmatised social groups is the implied.”

Australian HIV/AIDS expert Bill Bowtell, currently Director of the HIV/AIDS Project at the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney, a former senior advisor to the Australian Minister of Health during the outbreak of the HIV epidemic, and a former senior advisor to Prime Minister Keating stated in his testimony:
“This blanket proscription no longer seems to serve any particular purpose in terms of protecting the blood supply from contamination with HIV. Highly effective testing, blood treatment and procedures are now well-established.

“These measures give the public the highest possible level of confidence in the integrity of the blood supply arrangements. In these circumstances, I do not consider any public purpose is served by maintaining a general prohibition on homosexually active men who are free of blood borne diseases from donating blood in the usual way and subject to the rules and procedures that apply to all donors.”

The fact that there is an incredible amount of evidence from highly respected professionals against the current policy of total exclusion for MSM, much, much more than can be discussed in four pages, certainly warrants further, transparent study.

Evidence from the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal on the gay blood ban runs to thousands of pages alone. Not only that, but evidence that the SNBTS are currently using to support their arguments is not robust enough, and has major qualifications that do not justify using such evidence.

The evidence we have presented strongly supports our opinion that you cannot accurately judge someone’s risk of contracting HIV based on the gender of their partner. Instead the safest option, as already proven with the evidence from Italy and Spain, is to base donor selection criteria on the risk of behaviour that people engage in.

At the very least, we have presented a wide range of epidemiological opinions and evidence that warrants a far more detailed review of the current policy. Any review must be transparent, be public and must communicate with and be open to participation of the gay community for its findings to be accepted by all concerned.

It’s hard to believe that it has been ten years since Matthew’s death.

So much has changed yet so much remains the same.

I want to thank all of the individuals and organisations that have given us the Foundation and our family their unwavering support.

Our work is far from over. I don’t mean the work of the Foundation only, I mean the work we all need to do at a personal level.

We need to continue talking to our friends, families and co-workers.

Unless we are honest about who we are and are able to share with those who love us what our lives are like, they will not know how to help us.

We need those allies in this struggle to achieve equality across the board to realise all of our civil rights.

Great advances have been made in changing people’s attitudes and eliminating ignorance about the gay community even in my wonderful state of Wyoming.

At least I thought so, until I read the readers’ comments following an article about the ten year observance of Matt’s death in the Cheyenne, Wyoming newspaper.

I understand that the readers who take the time to write in are doing so because they absolutely disagree with the article and those who do agree won’t bother to write comments.

However, it brought home to me how much work is left to do to make the world an accepting place. The level of ignorance is astounding.

The continuing belief that what happened to Matt was not a hate crime and the notion that ‘special people shouldn’t have special rights’, is beyond my comprehension.

The level of ‘hate’ is frightening.

Our family and the Foundation staff are committed to doing all they can to ensure the message – ‘erase hate’ – is one that is known to the community and its allies as well as those who are trying learn more about the Foundation and the LGBT community at large.

It is ignorance that ultimately results in hate and that may escalate into physical violence. The only way to combat that ignorance is to educate and tell our stories.

We are all aware of how important this election cycle is to all of us. Please take the time to know the issues and what is at stake for the LGBT community. Share your stories with those who care about you. It is the only way they will know how to vote to support you.

The privilege of having the right to vote is also a responsibility.

We must remember that we are not voting only for a new President but also for representatives at the local, county, state and national level.

Please vote and encourage everyone you know to vote. Apathy is unacceptable. We are at a cross roads in the movement and we need to show our support for those who support the LGBT community. We are all hoping the next ten years will be our time.

If you wish to learn more about the Foundation and the work we are doing now, please visit www.MatthewShepard.org or www.MatthewsPlace.com

But that is not always the case if you’re a football fan who happens to be gay.

For the game, with its millions of devotees and billions of pounds of investment, doesn’t appear to be overly keen to celebrate gay involvement.

It’s been almost 20 years since a professional footballer in the UK came out.

Justin Fashanu, whose name is still known, sadly not for the fleet footed talent he brought to the game, but because announced he was gay in 1990.

He may have been naively expecting that a flood of fellow players would be brave enough to follow his lead. It didn’t happen and eight years later he was found hanged in Fairchild Place, a lock up beneath some railway arches in Shoreditch.

About a one minute walk from Fairchild Place is Christina Street and our office at Kick It Out.

Since being formed in 1997, Kick It Out has challenged discrimination in football on all fronts. From the banana-throwing boneheads on the terraces to the undetected institutional racism of the boardroom and we’ve made significant headway in 11 years of existence.

In 2008 we see a different footballing landscape, black players are everywhere, ethnic minority communities are getting closer to the game and there is greater awareness of the challenges we face now.

It’s still one, however, with no openly gay players and where casual abuse of many players has homophobic overtones.

We’re exist to, among other things, help raise the issue of homophobia in football.

We want to pose some questions and unearth some answers, as to why the world of professional football remains hostile to the openly lesbian, gay and transgender sections of the population.

We want to hear your thoughts, comments and experiences.

Attitudes to homosexuality have changed over the last 20 years or so, in a similar manner to those on the football terraces.

Some argue that the entertainment industry led the way.

Ironic now that in an age where football is seen increasingly as entertainment itself, there remains a refusal to follow suit.

Thankfully, there are groups out there actively committed to making it better for gay footballers to declare their sexuality.

Stonewall, Leftfooters FC, the Justin Campaign and the Gay Football Supporters Network are all playing their part. The success of the recent Gay and Lesbian World Cup was testament to this.

The FA has set up a working on dealing with Homophobia that will have an impact and it is on the radar of our other partners such as the Professional Footballers’ Association and the Premier League.

It will take a lot more than a few meetings and declarations of intent to change behaviour that may be inextricably linked to the game.

The challenges are enormous but as the game’s equality campaign, we know only too well what can be achieved and the positive impact that football can have.

And it is high time that representation from the gay community is a permanent fixture.

Piara Powar, Director, Kick It Out.

Click here for more information.

Here Colm Howard-Lloyd, a director of Pride London, responds.

I was quite mystified with yesterday’s article on PinkNews.co.uk, linking two unrelated departures from the Pride team with some complaints – yet to be directed to Pride London – from a rival publication, in order to create an overall story when there really was none.

In the run up to the event, the workload increases quite massively.

Decisions that may have been put back have to be made, there are many evening and weekend meetings, and the sheer sight of the event approaching so rapidly can be daunting.

As such, we lose volunteers who find the strain a bit much or just didn’t realise quite how much planning goes in to the event, every single year.

We have approximately 70 people in key roles throughout the event, and we’re aware that people will come and go as the event develops. This is very common for voluntary organisations, but hardly the basis for a story – it’s not news.

Of the two individuals PinkNews.co.uk rather oddly linked together, one, Ryan Haynes, was a valued Assistant Producer and the rest of the team found his help in booking acts very useful.

Ryan has made several complaints about the work involved in working on the main stage, and his walkout appears to have arisen at the time Doctor Who was proposed to be screened on the Trafalgar Square big screen.

It is somewhat of a puzzle to the rest of his team, and indeed us, why this great opportunity for the charity was such a problem for him personally.

There have been a number of instances where Ryan’s temperamental nature has caused problems for Pride London, and this may well be one more instance.

The other volunteer you mention, Graham Fell (one of Pride London’s volunteer coordinators), has indeed been asked to step-down from volunteering with the charity.

There have been serious concerns with Graham’s ability to handle his role, and most recently it was seen that suitable preparations had not been made for a key volunteer training event.

As we are so close to the event, the Chief Steward felt that he had no option but to remove him from that role, both because of past behaviour and because of the risk that further vital training would be inadequately handled.

As to him being aware of twenty or so volunteers that don’t want to work with Pride London again, this is quite feasible – we have approximately 400 people working with us every year, and some do not like the strains of the event, have personality clashes or have a welter of other reasons for deciding that volunteering isn’t for them.

Having twenty or so that wouldn’t return may well reflect the circumstances that they left in over the years.

But from the 1,000 odd people that have worked with Pride London since 2004, that’s not a very high refusal rate.

His assertion that 80 people have asked not to be contacted again presumably relates to our volunteer database.

We maintain contact details of the previous year’s volunteers and people subscribe throughout the year to that. We contact those people to see if they still wish to volunteer at the event, and get a variety of responses – some people have moved, have other commitments, or simply don’t feel like it that year.

They will advise us of that, and of course they are removed from the database. To use people unsubscribing from a mailing list as some sort of basis for a general sense of malaise, as Graham has done, is quite preposterous.

Graham goes on to make some frankly bizarre comments about Pride London’s sponsors.

The Ford Motor Company has a long association with the event: they are not sponsoring the steward T shirts (this opportunity to support the charity has already been taken up by V-Water) but they are a headline sponsor and the sponsor of the Ford Pride London Football Tournament.

He is correct to say that one sponsor withdrew from the event this year, or at least decided not to proceed with their sponsorship.

This is quite common as budgets and priorities change for large companies.

Unfortunately this has meant that the charity has had to take the difficult decision to remove the Leicester Square Cabaret Stage from our programme this year.

As PinkNews.co.uk pointed out in a recent article, Pride London costs a significant amount of money to put on, but since we took over the event we have had a consistent history of “balancing” our books – something that has been rare for Pride events in the past.

We continue to pursue sponsors, donations and other forms of funding and I’m hopeful this stage will return next year.

And on a final note I am most disappointed that QX magazine has chosen to isolate itself amongst the gay press and attack rather than support Pride events.

Information about the acts appearing on all of our stages has been published via our website for some months.

Lee Dalloway receives the same media releases from Pride London as PinkNews.co.uk and the wealth of stories here will attest to the fact that we are far from shy about the event!

I’m not sure who the “press team” he refers to are – we have only one voluntary press officer – but the other few volunteers that we have in communications and marketing work extremely hard and have been particular distressed at this outrageous and shameless vituperation.

I do hope that these two minor hiccups will not detract from the hard work that hundreds of other volunteers put into Pride London.

They are a dedicated, motivated and proud bunch and do not deserve to have their event smeared across the press to sooth two bruised egos.

This year’s event is going to be fantastic. I look forward to seeing you, and your readers there.

Despite the banning of their protest for the third year in row and attempted pre-emptive arrests by the authorities, Moscow Lesbians and Gays today successfully held Pride with widespread coverage by alternative, prominent international and some mainstream Russian media.

A few hours before the protest, authorities attempted to arrest Moscow Pride’s most prominent organiser, Nicolas Alexeyev, who successfully evaded them in a car.

A little later, the authorities, neo-fascists and religious zealots took the bait that Pride was going to take place as a picket in front of notoriously anti-gay Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov’s City Hall.

While riot police were busy blockading City Hall and arresting some of the fascists and religious fanatics who showed up to physically stop Pride, Alexeyev had secretly spirited the media to a nearby monument to the great 19th Century Russian gay composer Pyotr Il’yich Tchaikovsky, where Pride was successfully held with widespread coverage.

To add icing to the cake, Moscow Pride organisers then pulled off a dramatic banner drop right across the street from City Hall while the fascists and riot cops fumed below.

The banner read “Rights to gays and lesbians – homophobia of Mayor Luzhkov to be prosecuted.”

Russian authorities later arrested some of the activists who pulled off the banner drop, and for several hours put an activist’s apartment under siege before apparently getting a court order to kick in the door and arrest the four activists inside – but not before they conducted a series of media interviews through the locked door, including with Interfax and RTR (the main TV channel in Russia).

Despite the arrests, the day was a resounding success for Russian gays and lesbians, who through clever organising and hard work hoodwinked the authorities at just about every turn. As Alexeyev commented in an email posted after the actions:

“No human rights group or opposition [has] ever humiliated the Moscow authorities so much.

“We wanted to defy the Mayor in front of his office. Not only [has the] homophobia of Mayor Luzhkov been advertised today, but also the full collapse of his administration to prevent gays and lesbians [from] realis[ing] their constitutional rights to march.

“Today, we showed that our group is powerful not only in gay and lesbian aspects, but in general. Our fight is only at its beginning.”

Even during the siege of their apartment, the activists inside managed to keep good humour about the situation.

When a journalist asked one of the besieged, Kirill Nepomnjaschij, if the four had enough food and other supplies to last very long, Nepomnjaschij replied, “Well, we are not going to beat the record of the blockade of Leningrad, but we will stay. We have food here and everything.”

In the longest siege in the history of modern warfare, during World War Two, Nazi armies besieged the City of Leningrad for more than 900 days, before the blockade was defeated.

Shortly after the arrests of the activists in the apartment, all major Russian gay websites went down, in an apparent attempt to squelch news about the successful Pride events.

In spite of the censorship, as of this writing, Russian gays were still able to keep news flowing through their blog, which is by far the best and most complete account of the day’s events.

This is the third year in a row that Moscow Lesbians and Gays have attempted to commemorate the 1993 decriminalisation of homosexuality in Russia.

Before the previous two years’ events, Russian gays filed for permits to hold Pride events, only to be rejected by Moscow authorities. This year the authorities banned the event even before GayRussia.ru applied for the permit.

Previous years’ Pride events have seen physical attacks by Russian fascists on Pride participants, infamously bloodying German MP Volker Beck, British gay activist Peter Tatchell, and Austrian gay activist Kurt Krickler last year.

They, along with many other international LGBT supporters, had attended Moscow Pride in solidarity.

Despite the “pre-emptive” ban on this year’s Pride, there were contradictory signals from the authorities that indicated that this year’s event might not face the same degree of repression that previous year’s events had endured.

A few weeks ago, in response to active campaigning by GayRussia.ru, Russian authorities finally dropped the ban on gays donating blood – a gain that many western countries, including the United States, have yet to achieve.

A few days ago Russian federal authorities reported that they had “suggested” that the city authorities allow Pride to proceed unmolested this year.

Given the near-total control of Russian political affairs by the increasingly autocratic government of President Dmitry Medvedev (and power behind the throne, Prime Minister Vladmir Putin), such a “suggestion,” if it were genuine, should have meant clear sailing for this year’s Pride.

Fortunately, Russian lesbians and gays were not so gullible as to believe this subterfuge by the Medvedev/Putin government, and carefully prepared some subterfuges of their own so as to successfully carry out today’s Pride activities.

Activists around the world are strongly encouraged to contact the Russian embassies in their countries and to demand that the Russian authorities immediately release all Pride participants who have been arrested, and drop all of the charges that they are facing.