And as we gear up for an equally busy 2008 with high-profile elections in Iran, Pakistan (increasingly unlikely), Russia (unless Putin changes the constitution) and New Zealand, there is the added bonus that the biggest prize of all is now less than a year away: the race for the White House.

Indeed, the past twelve months have witnessed numerous elections across the globe – headlined by Nicolas Sarkozy’s monumental victory in France way back in May, which was quickly followed by the over-hyped yet relatively unexciting presidential run-off in Turkey which elevated Recep Erdogan from PM to President, despite concerns over his commitment to preserving secularism in the country.

Voting has also taken place in Ireland, Croatia, Denmark, Argentina, the Ukraine, Georgia, Guatemala, Japan, Poland and most recently in Kosovo, where independence from Serbia as early as next month has been promised as the result of the vote.

Something which should keep NATO and the EU busy for the next year or so.

Of course, we mustn’t forget the sham that was the presidential election in Pakistan, or the election than never was here in the UK.

And in light of a truly horrendous November for Gordon Brown, I’m sure he must have had second thoughts about bottling it earlier in the autumn.

I was lucky enough to be in Turkey on election day back in July, when virtually everybody deserted the beaches and headed back to the cities to vote, meaning a quiet day for me on the sand.

It was fascinating to see how swift all the election posters and banners were taken down literally overnight, just hours before the polling stations opened.

Equally, it was a joy to witness just how much people cared about the election, huddling around the TV sets in their shorts while drinking tea by the beach.

By contrast, I was unfortunate enough to be in Guatemala just as the presidential campaign reached a critical stage, with government supporters engaged in minor scuffles as I tried to navigate my way through Guatemala City.

However, the most bizarre place to be in this year undoubtedly has to be Belgium.

For those who don’t know, it’s coming to almost half a year now since the general election, and they still do not have a government.

Decades, or rather, a century and a half, of resentment between the Flemish-speaking population and their French-Walloon neighbours has resulted in a complete breakdown in the functioning of the Belgian government, which is strongly divided along linguistic lines.

Severe disagreements over the Flemish demand for a greater control of the national budget (with Flemish parties refusing to prop up the more impoverished Walloon region) as well as immigration, social security and the electoral boundaries of three Bruxellois regions mean that that while they’ve had a new Prime Minister since July, Yves Leterme has had no mandate to rule or govern.

With no breakthrough in sight, some are already saying this is the end of Belgium.

Personally, I find this all rather upsetting as I visit the country once a year, and I felt troubled to see bilingual road signs and billboards being defaced by an opposing linguistic group.

No such problems, thankfully, with the final big vote of the year in Australia a couple of weeks ago.

As we know, John Howard’s Liberal-National coalition suffered a humiliating defeat, and was replaced by the relatively useful and uncharismatic Kevin Rudd of the Labour Party.

There were rumours a few weeks ago that the final outcome would be challenged in the courthouse over illegitimate candidates, but these looks to be unfounded.

I guess that was just one of a whole series of nasty rumours and counter-rumours which made this campaign so fascinating.

Dirty tactics, underhand dealings, false leaflets, gay rumours, racism allegations, ageism claims … it’s a shame that the Australian federal election only comes round once ever three years!

But it is truly astonishing that John Howard, the 68-year-old conservative who’d led the Liberal Party since 1996, got such a beating by Kevin Rudd.

Howard not only lost the vote, but also the seat in Sydney he’d held for over 30 years.

The latter had achieved almost the impossible by dragging the Labour Party out of the political wilderness after over a decade in opposition.

And the 6% swing-vote to Labour is the culmination of an astonishing rise to the pinnacle of Australian politics for Rudd, within the space of just eleven months.

The 50-year-old bespectacled former diplomat only came to lead the party at the end of 2006 during a difficult period when Labour’s poll numbers languished.

His elevation to party leader was certainly helped by his predecessor, the brash and gaffe-prone Kim Beazley.

Beazeley’s fate was pretty much sealed when he made a monumental howler a year ago on chat-show host Rove McManus’s TV show, who at the time was mourning the loss of his actress wife, Belinda Emmett.

Instead of offering his condolences to Mr McManus, Beazley mistook him for Karl Rove, former aide to President Bush.

It is therefore rather ironic that Mr Rudd should’ve chosen Rove as one of the last stops on his election campaign.

The last time I watched Rove McManus was, curiously, exactly four years ago last week.

Then, I was sitting in Canberra having decamped there from a very soggy Sydney.

The day after, I went to watch a rather subdued Prime Minister’s Questions.

Unbeknown to me at the time, that particular PMQ was also going to be the then-Labour leader Simon Crean’s last appearance as leader of his party.

He resigned the very next morning owing to pressure within the party for failing to challenge Howard’s popularity.

And in between Messrs Crean and Rudd, two other men led the embattled party – Mark Latham (he who thumped a taxi driver) and Beazeley (who’d already lost two elections as leader during the late-1990s).

All of the above were interesting individuals, yet none matched the approval ratings enjoyed by Rudd.

One can’t help think that the Australian voters have taken a huge gamble by voting for a change in government when the current system isn’t exactly broke.

But interest rates are on the rise, reaching an 11-year high in November with an announcement on Melbourne Cup day, a classic case of burying bad news on a day when nobody takes notice of anything non-four-legged, but was that enough to get rid of the Howard government?

Partly.

Keeping interest rates low was one of Howard’s main electoral promises during the 2004 campaign.

Add to that broken promise was the introduction of anti-union legislations which has caused considerable unease among the electorate.

What did it for Howard however, seemed to have been his rather out-of-touch, some say arrogant, attitude to the environment and Iraq.

Personally, I think it just boiled down to a simple fact that voters became sick of Howard, after over a decade in office.

Just like Thatcher, Chirac, Clinton, Bush and Blair, no matter who you are or how respected you are on the international stage, nationally, voters just want a change after hearing the same voice every day for ten years.

And, arguably John Howard, approaching his 70th birthday, was also the victim ageism.

But old or young, new leadership or not, one thing is for sure. The chances of a same-sex marriage taking place in Australia are looking as remote as ever.

Having just spent a few of weeks in rainy Costa Rica, where each day comprised of business meetings and dodging the never-ending bursts of torrential downpour, sitting in front of the box in my hotel room always seemed like the most sensible option.

I certainly felt guilty wasting valuable times indoors when I could be out and about exploring the tropical rainforests or trying to find an iguana amid the lush jungles or something.

But the fact that October coincides with the launch of the ‘fall schedule’ across all the networks, with old favourites returning for the umpteenth time, interspersed with new shows and dramas which television executives hope would at least survive beyond the first few episodes, meant television versus the rain is no contest.

Sadly, many shows don’t even make it past the first three episodes.

I read recently that CBS’s version of the BBC drama Blackpool, renamed Viva Laughlin, got pulled from the schedule after just a couple of weeks, while ratings for some promising-looking new shows like Carpoolers and Bionic Woman are already on the slide, and may not even survive beyond Thanksgiving.

Thankfully, that’s only during primetime, where the ever-changing line-up might baffle even the most loyal of viewers.

For those of us who only watch US television intermittently, it’s likely to be the morning chat shows or late-night talk shows that we dip in an out of whenever we’re across the pond – and like Coronation Street, they’re always there.

And having spent a bit of time across the Americas this year, I’ve come to the conclusion that US television is obsessed with anything LGBT.

This is indeed odd, given who is in the White House and how socially and religiously conservative many Americans are.

But it also makes sense. For the liberals, LGBT matters are part of an individual’s civil rights and freedom, or perhaps a source of some juicy Hollywood gossip.

For the more conservative, they probably represent everything that is wrong with modern society.

Whether it’s NBC’s venerable Today show, or Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News Channel (FNC), LGBT celebrities and news items are guaranteed to provoke some kind of reaction across the social and political divide.

Certainly, if it brings in ratings then all the better. So while Carpoolers or Bionic Woman struggle to establish a foothold in the primetime schedule, the saga surrounding the late Anna Nicole Smith’s estate and her former partners alleged gay love affair make it a far more watchable real-life drama than anything CBS or ABC can put on at 9pm.

That would explain why, prior to the Californian wildfires, all they ever discussed on a daily basis were news stories about Ellen DeGeneres (puppy love), Lance Bass (new book), Rosie O’Donnell (new book and her refusal to publicise it), Senator Larry Craig (toilet “toe-tapping”), those Anna Nicole Smith gay lovers (a book, a secret tape, a lawsuit and millions of dollars) and, last but not least, gay marriage during the Republican presidential debate.

Even frigging Dumbledore from Harry Potter,/I> received hours of coverage and analysis!

But if highlighting the right-wing shortfalls of its strongest candidate by emphasising his supposed liberal stance on gay rights and gun-control, then FNC executives might as well start plotting how to sabotage the next Clinton presidency now.

As I dispatch this piece on board a hydrofoil somewhere near Turkey – 40 degrees, blue sky, way too hot for me outside – all I can see online is severe flooding in England.

Politicians who might otherwise have more important things ensuring our safety and wellbeing are dragged out of bed at dawn to go on breakfast television to explain their cannabis misdemeanours from over two decades ago.

In the past few months abroad I have missed most of Wimbledon, the Tony-Gordon transition and that dreadful Live Earth concert.

Fortunately, I was briefly in London for the Tour de France and while there I was unfortunate enough to see the the Diana gig at Wembley.

It’s strange to think that it’s a decade since she died.

Some might argue that she’d never really gone away – not if you are former royal butler Paul Burrell or a reader of the Daily Express, anyway.

I had been dreading the anniversary of her death for some time. In truth, I never really took to the Princess in life, let alone in death.

For me, there was a kind and glamorous side to her, which was neutralised by her ability to manipulate the media, all the while hiding the troubled soul within.

That being said, I am also a strong believer that had she lived, she could and probably would have made a difference to, say, the Middle East peace process, or Britain’s tarnished image abroad.

Somehow, I think Diana would have found a way to bring some kind of dialogue – an important first step in any kind of diplomacy.

In his recently-published diaries spin doctor Alastair Campbell that his former boss Tony Blair had even held informal discussions while Prime Minister with Diana about a possible role for her promoting peace in the Middle East – a job now taken by Blair himself.

As I watched Elton John close the memorial concert, another Diana-related thought came into my head – what differences to the gay community the Princess could have made had she survived?

My best guess would be her impact would have been minimal. I am not saying that she wouldn’t care – of course she would! – but if you look at LGBT community today, it’s in a much better shape than during Diana’s lifetime.

I therefore doubt that she would turn up at say, a pride event.

That said, I do think she would’ve found a way to help the LGBT community, probably through her continued support of AIDS charities.

In a recent article published in The Times, just before the memorial concert, Diana’s friend and former colleague Vivienne White described the Princess as a champion of “difficult issues, especially where those affected were marginalised or stigmatised.”

According to Ms White, Diana was singlehandedly responsible for raising the profiles of those with mental health problems, leprosy, as well as the elderly, landmine victims, and of course – most famous of all – the Princess’s handshake with an AIDS patient twenty years ago.

Yes, Diana grabbed his hand the headlines with this simple, taboo-breaking gesture.

Ms White is convinced that one need only compare today’s rising rates of infection with the 1990s to know that Africa and HIV/AIDS would have been next on Diana’s list had fate not intervened.

This all makes for poignant reading in a week when President Bush’s top adviser on matters relating to HIV and AIDS admitted that the world is losing its battle to control the spread of the disease.

Dr Anthony Fauci said that while progress has been made in providing treatments to patients in Africa and Asia, the rates of infection are outstripping those who are receiving treatments, despite renewed efforts to promote circumcision and better education.

It is with these grim assessments that I hark back to Diana and wonder what might have happened had she lived.

With an extraordinary ability to connect with people, and an equally impressive record in supporting the disadvantaged, she would easily have lived up to the title, ‘People’s Princess.’

Then again, had she lived, we wouldn’t have had to listen to Blair’s rather annoying ‘People’s Princess’ speech at Sedgefield ten years ago.

And come to think of it, we wouldn’t have to put up with more Blair performances in his new role as the Middle East envoy either.

And would I then need to pretend to be anything other than British when abroad?

Here in Turkey yesterday a Danish couple sneered at me when I said I was a Londoner.

Oh, how I occasionally wish she was still with us, and who knows, had she not died, the Daily Express might have folded by now.

Currently promoting his autobiography Man in the Middle in the United States, Amaechi said the kind of e-mails he was sent would “make you sick.”

The British-born 36-year-old has been asked by American gay activists Human Rights Campaign be to their spokesman for their “Coming Out project,”

The programme which aims to help LGBT people come out and live openly.

Describing the situation since his sexuality was revealed as ‘chaotic,’ he said the support from the NBA fraternity has so far been limited.

Celtics coach Doc Rivers is the only person in basketball to have reached out to him, though Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has also praised Amaechi for standing up.

However, the star appears undeterred and points to the positive e-mails that he has also received since making the announcement.

He emphasised his new mission is to send the message to gay athletes in all sports that coming out is the right thing to do.

In particular, Amaechi wants to “create a discourse” and open the minds of sportsmen, and help change the attitude amongst high school players who may feel disinclined to disclose their sexuality at such an early stage in their careers.

The British player has also attracted a fair amount of criticisms for his revelations, with accusations ranging from dishonesty, untrustworthy to opportunistic.

While many of the older NBA players last week publicly expressed respect for Amaechi, two younger players were noticeably outspoken in their views.

Philadelphia 76ers forward Shavlik Randolph said he would be fine with having a gay team-mate as long as a player did not bring his “gayness” on him.

LeBron James – one of the biggest stars in the NBA players and a member of Amaechi’s former team, the Cleveland Cavaliers – said when asked if a gay player could survive in the league,

“With team-mates, you have to be trustworthy, and if you’re gay and you’re not admitting that you are, then you are not trustworthy.”

Amaechi has defended his decision not to come out as a when still playing professionally, saying it would have jeopardised his career.

Certain sections of the media have also suggested that this headline-making stunt is merely Amaechi trying to leave his mark in the game after a less-than-glittering career in the NBA.

In related news, retired Miami Heat guard Tim Hardaway has retracted his earlier remarks that he hates gay people and would ask for a gay player to be removed from the team. He had told a Miami sports talk show,

“You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don’t like gay people and I don’t like to be around gay people. I’m homophobic. I don’t like it. It shouldn’t be in the world or in the United States.”

He later apologised for his remarks, and expressed regrets over his ‘mistake’ for saying them.

Amaechi, who retired from the NBA league three years ago, is of English and Nigerian parentage and grew up in Stockport.

He moved to the US to play high school basketball and went on to play for professional teams in America, France, Germany, Greece and England.

Amaechi, who is 6′ 10″ tall, came out of retirement to represent England during the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne last year.

Georgy Muradov, head of the city’s international relations department, yesterday likened homosexuality to alcoholism and argued that both are “bad for one’s health.”

His remarks came as he tried to fend off criticisms from the Swedish ambassador to the Russian Federation who had protested that the city’s decision to ban a Pride march for the second year in a row.

Muradov said the ban on the parade was aimed to protect the health and well-being of society.

“As you know, the sale of alcohol is restricted in many Scandinavian countries.

“Why not pose the question of removing the limits on alcohol in these countries, of holding a “parade of alcoholics” in Sweden?

“They would answer: no, it’s bad for one’s health, it affects society’s morals,” he said.

Research has found that binge drinking has played a major role in the steep rises in Russia’s death rates since the early 1990s, in particular affecting men between the ages of 35 and 49.

Russian men have a low mortality rate and alcohol remains a major factor, especially among the poor.

In an interview with RIA-Novosti, Mr Muradov said:

“There is the hard line of the city authorities and the position of our main faith, the Russian Orthodox Church … of the inadmissibility of such an event in Moscow.”

His assertion that he has “medical proof” that “this form of relations” is harmful to health, comes after the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, joked last month that homosexual people are partly responsible for Russia’s ageing population and low birth-rate.

Moscow’s mayor Yuri Luzhkov has already angered his counterparts in London, Berlin and Paris by steadfastly refusing to grant a license to the march, having recently branded such events as ‘satanic’.

He is expected to face a rebuke during a meeting next week with the mayors.

If the march – scheduled for May – is cancelled, it will be the second year in a row that the authorities have intervened in the event.

Last year they refused to accept an application for a march, citing the threat of violence.

Activists ignored the ban, however, and were attacked by right-wing protesters and later detained by police.

Last month, Pride organisers lost their appeal at Moscow City Court against the ruling of a lower court that upheld the city’s ban on the event.

Their case is now before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

“The Russian government is already concerned because they are sure to lose the case,” said Mr Alexseyev.

Moscow Pride 2007 will take place on Sunday May 27, marking the day in 1993 when homosexuality was decriminalised in Russia.

The Russian Federation reiterated on Monday that peaceful demonstrations in support of gay rights must be allowed to take place and can only be stopped when there is a danger of disorder which cannot be prevented by reasonable force.

The events of first Moscow gay pride are the subject of a documentary film by Vladimir Ivanov, MOCKBA. PRIDE ’06.

The film will be shown in London in March as part of the GAHLA film festival.

Clapham Junction, a film by Kevin Elyot, is expected to generate more headlines for the channel.

It charts the lives of seven gay men over a 36-hour period as they visit Clapham Common in search of sex.

Channel 4 has spend the start of 2007 fending off accusations of condoning racism on Celebrity Big Brother

They are already predicting that Elyot’s film is likely to generate more controversy for its explicit portrayals of gay sex and, more importantly, homophobic attacks on the common.

The Common, a notorious cruising ground, is famous for former Wales secretary Ron Davies’s “moment of madness” incident in 1998.

Channel 4 will show the film in August as part of a short season to mark the passing of the Sexual Offences Act in 1967, which legalised male homosexual acts in private between two people aged 21 or over.

Then-home secretary Roy Jenkins famously remarked at the time:

“Those who suffer from this disability carry a great weight of shame all their lives.”

Elyot’s original concept stemmed from the homophobic murder of Jody Dobrowski on the Common in 2005.

The 24-year-old barman was punched and kicked to death by two men in an attack so brutal that his family was unable to identify him.

The channel is expecting controversy over their explicit Clapham Common piece, and the PR offensive has already begun.

Elyot argues that it is essential to portray the lesser-known side of gay lifestyle in 21st century London in a gritty and realistic way.

The director, best known as the author of the Olivier award-winning 1995 play My Night with Reg said:

“Though homosexuality would seem to be more accepted and legitimised through civil partnerships, there still seems to be a disturbing amount of homophobic violence and homophobic attitudes sometimes coming from surprising quarters.

“Liberal legislation doesn’t necessarily bring about genuine tolerance.”

A series of documentaries is also scheduled, including a dramatic reconstruction of a man being tried in the 1960′s for his sexuality.

Liza Marshall, commissioning editor for drama at the station, appeared to misunderstand the nature of the channel’s previous groundbreaking gay drama:

“This film will not be fluffy like Queer as Folk because times appear to have changed and gay politics has moved on,” she said.

“The rise in homosexual violence is on record and this is Kevin’s attempt to address that, his take on what it is like to be gay in London today, which is in many ways very disturbing.

“There has been a real rise in gay bashing but this is also accompanied by civil partnerships and a widespread public acceptance of them – we wanted to explore this conflict.”

The controversy surrounding Canterbury Christ Church University’s ban on same-sex unions on its premises has taken a new turn.

Documents obtained by PinkNews.co.uk show that a decision was taken as recently as last December, contradicting the recent press release from the institution’s Vice-Chancellor.

The university is a teacher training college for the Church of England, and its Chancellor is the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams.

The row began with the university’s decision last year to ban same-sex couples from using two if its venues for civil partnership ceremonies, despite continuing to allow heterosexual couples to use the venues for weddings.

Staff at the university were only made aware of the governing body’s secret ruling late last year, with some even suggesting that the original decision to ban partnership ceremonies was not taken with the entire governing body’s approval.

Professor Michael Wright, the Vice-Chancellor responsible for the decision, told PinkNews.co.uk last week that:

“Canterbury Christ Church University has allowed civil marriage ceremonies to be conducted on its premises in Canterbury and Tunbridge Wells for some years.

“As the law will soon require all premises offering civil marriage ceremonies to also offer civil partnership ceremonies, the University’s governing body has been discussing its future policy.

“A full debate will take place at the governing body’s meeting in March to make a final decision.

“Canterbury Christ Church University has explicitly confirmed via its policies and actions that it welcomes those of all faiths and none irrespective of gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity.”

But it has now emerged that a decision to uphold the ban was taken at the governing body’s meeting in early December.

PinkNews.co.uk has obtained a minute-by-minute document detailing the December 5th meeting, at which attempts were made by the Chair of the Governors to persuade the governing body to extend the decision to ban same-sex unions until the Sexual Orientation Regulations come into force this spring.

The disapproval amongst the academic staff over the gay ban was also discussed at the meeting.

However, the governors decided that despite the impending legal threat for any venues choosing to ban same-sex partnerships, the status quo would remain, with a review of the situation after the legislation comes into force this spring. Then, a ‘full and open debate’ by the governors will take place.

In addition, Professor Wright made no mention of the University’s Equal Opportunities policy which he is supposed to uphold – and the source of unrest amongst his academic staff – or of the debate that had taken place within the campus.

The Vice-Chancellor also downplayed the strength of feeling around the University.

Dr Dennis Hayes, Branch Secretary and joint National President of UCU, said he is concerned about wider discrimination and the implications for academic freedom:

“When the most powerful men in an institution promote a decision that denies equal rights to gays and lesbians, by stopping all civil partnerships rather than allowing single-sex couples the right to a civil union, this is an act of discrimination that no person interested in equality can be silent about.

“What would they say if a member of staff refused to run a class to avoid teaching gays and lesbians? They’d probably be fired.”

Pinknews.co.uk has also learnt of a subsequent meeting of the University’s Equality and Diversity Committee which wholeheartedly rejected the governors’ position, and argued that their decision to uphold the ban made a mockery of the university’s policy.

At the same meeting, it was suggested that the attempt to secretly undermine University policy and persuade governors to do the same was an abuse of power.

The opinion was expressed that those who lacked the courage to oppose the governors or university policies ought to resign.

The new Sexual Orientation Regulations, due before Parliament this month, will outlaw discrimination against gay people when accessing goods, services, and facilities such as venues for civil partnerships.

Professor Tony Booth, trades union UCU Branch Equality Officer, claims the decision was motivated by the Anglican belief that homosexuality is incompatible with the bible.

“When challenged about this, the Vice-Chancellor attempted to justify it by stating that the Church of England did not allow civil partnerships on any of its premises but had to retract this,” he said.

Gay rights activist Peter Tatchell told PinkNews.co.uk:

“The university authorities are acting defiance of their own equal opportunities policy, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. They are sending a signal to the university staff and students that homophobic discrimination is acceptable.

“Religious belief should never be used an alibi for prejudice. I don’t see any evidence of Christian love and kindness in this decision. I hope the university’s academic and student associations will take legal action to overturn the ban.”

The idea might seem far-fetched, except it’s a very real possibility.

Indeed, such is the power of curiosity and critical acclaim that millions have been tuning in to the The Late Night Show With Begum Nawazish Ali to witness the drag performer’s latest shenanigans.

Ali Saleem, a 28-year-old actor who portrays the Begum, has broken nearly all the taboos in the largely conservative landscape of Pakistani television.

He modelled the character on an aristocratic widow of an army colonel, and the middle-aged glamorous hostess now presides over a top-rated programme on the fledgling channel, Aaj.

And as Begum (‘Madam’ in Urdu) Nawazish Ali, she is famed for her risque monologues and combative interviews with famous Pakistani politicians and celebrities.

Her sly digs at Pakistani politics are also frequent topics of conversations amongst the urban elite, whilst her sharp dress sense such as sequined blouses has made her a style icon amongst women.

Begum Ali also flirts outrageously with his male guests – which goes against the rule book for Muslim women – and even probes into their private lives.

Comparisons have already been made with the grand dame of television chat shows, Dame Edna Everage, but Saleem says his character is less crude and more sophisticated than his Australian counterpart.

He openly declared his bisexuality, because “it does justice to the man in me and the woman in me.”

By doing so, Saleem is one of a handful – possibly the only one – to freely admit his sexuality in a society where talk of such matters is strictly off-limits.

However, such is Saleem’s star power/Begum Ali’s influence that even some of Pakistan’s religious figures appeared to have been won over by his act.

He has already convinced a septuagenarian from the Jamaat-e-Islami, an Islamist political party, to appear on the chat-show, with the guest proclaiming “he had no idea what he had got himself into” afterwards.

“We couldn’t convince Qazi Hussain Ahmed (the head of a Muslim political party) to come on the show. But he was very good-natured about it.

“He praised the Begum and said he would rather just watch the show on television,” Saleem told NBC WorldBlog.

Saleem is already one of the most high-profile television personalities in the country, with numerous offers for his service from rival stations.

His show also commands the highest advertising rates during its weekend prime time slot.

Of course, such a controversial and taboo-breaking show is not immune from criticism.

For example, Pakistan’s military leadership has threatened to take the programme off air, whilst an online petition has urged Aaj TV to cancel the show.

However, Saleem is unperturbed, and believes the key to his success lay in the nature of the Pakistani society,

“I think Begum Nawazish Ali inspires women in particular because she is a strong, glamorous, opinionated woman who is unafraid of saying what she thinks and of flirting with men if she feels like it.

“Men, on the other hand, find her intriguing because she transcends all kinds of restrictions and plays with their imagination.”

In the long run, Saleem aims to be the voice of the youth and for all of Pakistan. His ambition is to break down break down barriers and preconceived notions, of gender, identity, celebrity and politics and to help bring people closer.

With elections scheduled for later this year, Begum Ali is in no danger of running out of material just yet.

Some are already seeing this as a referendum on Mr Prodi’s vulnerable nine-party centre-left coalition.

The situation has been made worse by intense lobbying from opposition MPs and the Catholic Church, with Pope Benedict XVI chastising the proposals as “anti-church and anti-family.”

Opinion polls show 69% of the country’s Catholics oppose the new laws, which would grant cohabiting couples some similar rights to married ones.

Despite the announcement by Silvio Berlusconi, leader of the largest opposition party, Forza Italia, said his MPs could have a free vote on the issue, political commentators suggest the result could be too close to call.

Mr Berlusconi’s position has already been criticised by some of his allies.

Fellow MP and former Senate leader Marcello Pera described the idea of giving opposition MPs a ‘conscience vote’ as “unbelievable.”

Similarly, a member of the centre-leaning National Alliance said his party was: “completely opposed to any debate which questions the nature of the sacrament of marriage.”

It has also emerged that the same party’s leader Gianfranco Fini had initially backed Prodi’s plans, but switched sides recently.

Viewed as a member of the “teodem” bloc of politicians who are sympathetic to the Catholic Church, Fini said:

“If the government wishes to pass a law on homosexual civil unions, it must demonstrate that it has a majority.”

Another opponent to the government’s proposals, the deputy Prime Minister Francesco Rutelli, had earlier this month cancelled a meeting with the Pope.

The government’s minister for family life met with a prominent cardinal over the weekend though the issue over same-sex unions was not thought to have been discussed.

The number of non-formalised same-sex unions in Italy doubled between 1994 and 2003, from 227,000 to 557,000.

Against this backdrop of political in-fighting came news that the Italian town of Bolzano had this week registered a homosexual civil union between two middle-aged men.

This was the first of its kind in the town whose local government had passed an ordinance which acknowledges same-sex civil unions back in 2003. Until now, the local ordinance had been largely symbolic.