The row about Ken Livingstone’s New Statesman article is entirely confected by a Tory party that is increasingly worried that Ken will win the Mayoral election. Ken’s campaign has momentum because of his ‘Fare Deal’ fares-cut plan, so the Tories have decided to sling some mud.

In his article Ken was welcoming the advance of LGBT people into politics, and pointing out the Tory hypocrisy that Labour broke down by scrapping the Tories’ anti-gay legislation, illegalizing hate crime, and introducing civil partnerships.

Brian Paddick is making a foolish mistake in jumping on the Tory bandwagon, a sign of desperation as the Lib Dem candidate struggles to avoid coming fourth behind the Greens.

I for one will be delighted if Ken is back in the Mayor’s office this May.

Above all because Ken will put Londoners first by protecting policing and cutting fares. In tough times like these, Londoners can’t afford a Tory mayor who is so out of touch that he is raising transport fares, cutting police numbers and thinks it’s fine to have a second job paying £250,000 a year – an amount he calls ‘chicken feed.’

But also I want a mayor who will not just pay lip-service to LGBT Londoners but will be proactive. These days London is lagging behind other major cities when it comes to promoting equality. That is the Tory mayor’s fault.

We do not have a mayor who wants to see London leads the world on LGBT rights. As mayor, Ken made sure London had the first civil partnerships register in the UK, the Greater London Authority was hailed as an exemplary organisation in the Stonewall Employers’ Index, he actively celebrated LGBT Pride from City Hall, and he helped lead the fight against anti-gay bullying in schools. Ken blocked the Sandals holiday company from advertising across the transport system as part of a campaign to force them to drop their ban on same-sex couples.

One of the reasons I joined the Labour party was because of Ken Livingstone’s actions in fighting for equality for lesbians and gay men at a time when it was politically difficult to do so. For gay men like me, young and coming to terms with their sexuality, things were difficult. The Tory Government was passing anti-gay legislation that labeled gay relationships second-class, and allowed employers to sack people because of their sexual orientation. People have forgotten just how tough it was in the 1980s, and how vital it was that a fearless and principled politician like Ken stood out so clearly for lesbian and gay equality. Ken broke new ground for equality and ensured there were voices to counter the widespread homophobia of the time.

There are no bold moves from City Hall under the current Tory mayor. The mayor was nowhere to be seen at Pride last year, the last Pride before the Olympics. He has cancelled the annual Pride reception. One of the first acts of his administration was to cut funding to Soho Pride. He withdrew the Greater London Authority from the Stonewall Index. He has given no lead to pressurise the government over cuts that will hurt LGBT London.

And in the past, while Ken fought homophobia, Boris Johnson reinforced it. He defended the anti-gay legislation Section 28. As Chris Bryant MP tweeted last night, Boris Johnson said of gay marriage: “If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog.”

Alan Duncan is wrong today when he talks about taking LGBT issues out of politics. There is more to do for as long as LGBT people are still subjected to hate-fuelled attacks, young LGBT people grow up afraid of their own identity, or older LGBT people live in fear and isolation. Ken will work with LGBT Londoners to make progress, while Boris Johnson does not. Ken will put his administration back in the Stonewall Index. He will campaign for same-sex marriage and LGBT rights. He will establish a Mayor’s LGBT Advisory Panel. He will speak up for our city when the Government’s policies damage or ignore LGBT London. He will work to tackle hate-crime. You don’t have to take my word for it – just compare Ken’s record with the current Tory mayor’s. That tells you precisely why LGBT London needs Ken Livingstone as mayor. 

Ken Livingstone is not homophobic. His use of the word riddled has to be judged in context. It was clearly not used with any homophobic intent. All parties have lots of gay and bisexual MPs, as Ken noted. He is right to state that there were many gay MPs in the Tory party, from the backbenches to the cabinet.

After Labour’s election victory in 1997 many gay Labour MPs came out, while gay Tories remained in the closet and continued to vote against gay equality. Ken was making a simple statement of fact,” added Mr Tatchell.

Ken is correct to suggest that in the 1980s and 90s the Conservative Party was avowedly anti-gay, while having many gay MPs. Lots of Tories opposed gay equality, despite their own homosexuality. They were hypocrites and homophobes. Ken is right to point this out.

In recent years, the Conservative leadership has embraced gay equality, which is commendable. However, only two weeks ago it was reported that 100 Tory MPs intend to block David Cameron’s plan to end the ban on same-sex marriage. They still oppose gay equality.

Ken was very wrong to invite the sexist, homophobic cleric, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, to City Hall in 2004 but he should be judged on his overall record, which on gay rights is exceptionally good.

In the early 1980s, as leader of the Greater London Council, he pioneered gay rights policies that most MPs opposed at the time. It took many of them another 20 years to embrace gay equality. Ken supported the lesbian and gay community at a time when most other politicians did not. He deserves great credit.

The campaign has been running for some time and has even been the subject of a major television advertising campaign for Google. Launched by the journalist Dan Savage, it began as a video he posted in response to a growing number of teenagers in the United States who were taking their own lives after being homophobicly bullied. The point of the campaign was to tell young people that ”it gets better”. Public figures ranging from Lady Gaga to Barack Obama to David Cameron have given messages of hope to young people.

I first started the process of coming out when I was 15, telling just my mother first and asking her to keep it a secret (mums always know, or so they say). When I started a new school, JFS, an Orthodox Jewish school in North London for sixth form, I decided that I would tell most of the new friends that I made that I mainly liked boys.

I was lucky to never really get picked on for my sexuality. Some students were fascinated by someone being quite so open, but I guess I thought I had nothing to lose – I clearly made friends with people who didn’t care about my sexuality. But back then there was still Section 28, which more or less meant homosexuality wasn’t discussed in the classroom. As you hear in my video, my tale was rather simple, I didn’t get bullied, I didn’t sit through lessons where I was told that my sexuality was wrong, I didn’t get rejected by my family and everyone lived happily ever after. But not everyone is so lucky, particularly people who like me come from a strong faith background.

I’ve got to say that one way I came to terms with coming out was that I sort of lost a bit of my Jewish identity. But over recent years, I’ve discovered that there are lots of gay Jewish people and I’ve become involved in the formation of Keshet UK, the national forum for LGBT Jews. Through this role, I felt encouraged to post an ‘It Gets Better’ video and effectively use my very public profile on television to offer a message of support and comfort to other people who come from a similar background as me. As I say in my video, “some young people are still being told that homosexuality is a choice, not something you can’t help. In some religious institutions young people are being told about so called reparative therapy for same sex attraction. In other words, courses and treatments to turn you straight.”

The sorts of treatments ”gay cure” centres offer is, apparently, akin to the treatments forced upon people convicted of being homosexual in Britain during some of the last century. I know friends who voluntarily tried and failed to turn straight and wasted a lot of money in the process. But when I heard about these courses being suggested to young people within an education environment, and that there had unfortunately been incidents of self-harm within the Jewish community as a result of them, I felt the need to do something.

As a correspondent on Channel 4 News, I have a serious obligation to report impartially on the stories that I cover on television. In a sense you – the audience – aren’t supposed to know what I think about a whole array of subjects, particularly when they verge on the political. But I felt that on this occasion, my impartiality wasn’t something that would be jeopardised because my views on homosexuality are pretty well-known already. I founded PinkNews.co.uk, the most-read gay publication in Europe and I often re-tweet/ share on Facebook stories and issues that affect the LGBT community.

I felt that the video would have a lot more impact if it was recorded in the Channel 4 newsroom. The programme director said he’d get the camera and lights setup while I got myself together. I’d imagined that I’d do it down the far end of the newsroom, perched on an unoccupied collection of desks. When I came back into the newsroom, I saw that he’d set everything up dead in the centre of the room, right in front of the news desk where Krishnan, Jon and Cathy sit. So while preparing myself, I thought only about the eventual YouTube viewers, I didn’t think that I would also be recounting my coming out story to my colleagues. I’d be talking to them as well about a nasty comment about gay people that my Dad once said and my feelings of being twice blessed, gay and Jewish. I’ve got to say that was the most nerve-wracking thing of all.

Once I watched back the video, I realised it would have some impact. It’s the thing I’m most proud of making during the five-and-a -half years that I’ve been at Channel 4 News because it’s from the heart. It’s not the best delivered piece to camera I’ve ever recorded or the best use of language. But it really means something to me. The personal connection is something that very rarely happens with news stories I produce.

The response has been phenomenal. Major figures ranging from Sarah Brown (the wife of the former prime minister, Gordon Brown) to Stephen Fry have shared the video. But it’s the amazing messages that I have received that mean the most. From young people, on the verge of coming out who now know who to contact for support, to parents who like mine are proud to have openly lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered children. I’m emotionally drained from having read their stories, but in a good way.

The response that I’ve received has shown me the power of social media for good. I hope that the video will continue to provide a message of hope to young people from all faith backgrounds and none that coming out need not be the end of the world, it’s just about being honest with that they love, maybe for the first time in years. And of course, that things get better.

This post first appeared on Benjamin Cohen’s Channel 4 News blog.

Benjamin is the Technology Correspondent for Channel 4 News.

Because trans is in the news not, as so often, as sensation, as spectacle: but as grown up, fully-fledged participants to ongoing political debate. Can it be? Can it possibly be? And is this just flash in the pan, or the beginning of something larger?

Today’s stories are actually quite closely linked. First up is the news of ten-year old trans girl, Livvy James. Sick and tired of being picked on at school: fed up, too, with the way press intervention has made matters worse, she has started a very simple petition. It asks the press to lay off trans folk.

She pulls no punches in stating that press prurience contributes to bullying, abuse and worse. The bottom line is inevitable: careless talk costs lives. And Livvy thinks its time that stopped.

Co-incidentally (or not: I don’t much care, since the cause is pure), Helen Belcher from Trans Media Watch is to appear before the Leveson Inquiry this afternoon to talk about trans experience of the press. There will be cases similar to Livvy’s.

There will be heart-rending stuff, too, about lives destroyed and families riven asunder by this same press carelessness. In sharp contrast to the wilful complacency of former PCC Director Tim Toulmin, there will be evidence that this continues, two years after the PCC allegedly put a stop to that sort of thing.

The two events are rounded out by a great deal more serious media interest than the trans community usually receives. Paris Lees, of TMW, and Livvy on the BBC’s Breakfast Time today. Pieces likely to follow in the broadsheets.

Does this mean change is on the way?

Er, no. And yes. Because the real point is that what is happening today – the willingness of the establishment to take trans issues seriously – is not the beginning of anything: it is the culmination of months, years of work. It’s there in some small improvements in the press.

There too in Ministers like Lynne Featherstone, and in every comment on trans-related articles – more often from women, I fear – that acknowledges trans people should just be left to get on with their lives.

Leveson will report. Government will obfuscate. Some time in the distant future, laws will change.

Meanwhile, it is to be hoped that editors and bigots everywhere will understand the message behind today’s dignified display of quiet anger from the trans community. We have teeth: and this is no flash in pan. Its too late for that.

Because in the UK at least, the trans minority has come of age. Today is not the beginning of change – but a sure sign that it is happening already.

Jane Fae is an independent writer and sexual rights activist. 

Barnsley FC’s goalie David Preece suggested Amal Fashanu was the wrong choice to investigate the matter. This viewpoint, in an otherwise thoughtful article, is somewhat unkind: it’s arguably the very fact that so few footballers are willing to candidly speak out on homophobia that it has been left to a 23-year media studies graduate and model to ask some hard questions.

Amal deserves credit for being the first to call to account her own father, John Fashanu, whose chilling, public rejection of his vastly more talented brother, compounded the devastation that Justin must have felt.

The programme was most notable for challenging the perception of football being an impenetrable bastion of homophobia. Max Clifford’s intransigent doom-mongering about how coming out would ruin a footballer’s career challenged, by footage of Sweden’s openly gay player Anton Hysén enjoying changing-room banter with team-mates and support from the stands. Perhaps the greatest coup of all was the willingness of a premiership player, QPR captain Joey Barton, to speak out and ridicule ‘archaic’ attitudes of managers who are preventing players from being open.

There is in fact more reason for hope in the offence taken by Preece at what he regards as the demonisation of footballers. “I couldn’t think of a more welcoming place to reveal your sexual preferences than inside a footballer’s dressing room’

However, the overall picture is far from one of acceptance. Homophobic chanting is a weekly endurance for Brighton’s fans; and a string of homophobic callers, one asking for separate changing rooms, left Nicky Campbell and guests of his BBC Radio 5 phone-in dumbfounded last Thursday. Statistics show that 29 percent of the UK population thinks same-sex relations are sometimes or always wrong, and an Observer poll in 2008 stated that nearly one in four thinks homosexuality should be recriminalised. Football, being the nation’s favourite sport is simply a barometer of the bigotry that is rife and unchallenged in society.

The disappointment with the programme was that no managers or high-ranking FA officials were interviewed. A significant amount of direction and resources will be needed to change the culture and attitudes within football, through club hierarchies and at grass roots, Sunday league level too.

Currently, the FA and the government are patting themselves on the back for putting together an LGBT charter, full of good intentions about banishing homophobia and transphobia from the game. But the precise details of how this campaign will make life better for LGBT players and supporters are anything but clear.

However, instead of pressing the FA on this matter, the media and some in the gay community obsess themselves with the moronic question: when will we see an out gay player? I suspect this is driven as much by the tabloid press going to ever more desperate measures to titillate readers and buck declining sales figures, and some activists seeking another trophy in the role model cabinet.

Why should a footballer come out to the whole nation? Most of us are out to friends and work-colleagues, but that’s all. True, the media is no longer full of homophobic columnists like the Star’s Brian Hitchen and the Sun’s Gary Bushell, whose innuendo-laden diatribes reinforced the very worst prejudices. But even if the coming out were reported in glowing terms, the very experience of being in the media spotlight can be ruinous for concentration and performance. And as the Leveson inquiry has revealed, the extremes that reporters go to, to sniff out an exclusive could make life intolerable.

Here are a number of questions, which clubs – with the exception of Manchester City – have been loathe to answer but must be put under pressure to do so:

How are clubs promoting a welcoming, accepting environment for gay or bi players? What standards are in place with respect to language and conduct, and are these contractually binding? Do these obligations extend to managers and training staff, especially with respect to language used? How is the club monitoring and addressing prejudice? What procedures and disciplinary measures are in place for dealing with homophobic abuse or bullying? What support is available to LGBT staff and players facing abuse or in need of someone to talk to?

The Rugby Football League has made tremendous efforts to make the game fully inclusive. All major clubs have diversity officers, and LGBT working groups that are providing support to a number of players.

Another point, often missed, is that the game already has numerous openly gay teams. The oldest, London’s Stonewall FC in the Middlesex County League, and Village Manchester, have been challenging stereotypes, for 21 and 15 years respectively, by battling it out on the pitch every weekend. As Village Manchester manager Antony Lockley explained to Nicky Campbell, many of his players came from far afield because they saw no way of being accepted in their local club, because outside the big cities, as the prejudice is rife.

By playing regularly with mainly straight teams, these clubs have obliterated the insidious notion of gay people being predators. At least three people on the Radio 5 show called to say how uncomfortable they would feel in the showers or changing rooms in the presence of a gay person. This argument was quashed in the armed forces long ago, but it’s important that people are encouraged to ask themselves how they know this to be true, and that beliefs based on no evidence are suspected, not respected.

Even though it is good to see action taken, the FA is failing to communicate why and how homophobia is damaging when it occurs. And this makes me worry about the effectiveness of its campaigns. Its failure was most apparent when Lee Steele was sacked by Oxford City for his tweets about ‘padlocking his arse’ when near gay rugby player Gareth Thomas. Many fans were outraged, claiming it was an overreaction.

In cases like this, instead of issuing meaningless platitudes about standing firm against homophobia, the FA should have explained how damaging Steele’s remarks were to his own club. For like many league clubs, Oxford City is made up of over ten reserve and youth teams. It is highly probably that up to ten or so team members – perhaps vulnerable teenagers – would have felt isolated and outcast by such remarks. Such remarks are divisive, sow seeds of mistrust and ruinous for team spirit, and it is shameful that nobody thought to point this out.

And a final point about homophobia in the stands, especially for useful idiots like Arsenal fan Matt Lucas: if visitors to Brighton cannot see the cruelty of ridiculing the town for its accepting, tolerant atmosphere with chants of ‘We can see you holding hands’, perhaps club sponsors eventually will?

Even major sporting brands seek to promote values of diversity and inclusiveness nowadays, and distance themselves from old-fashioned ‘macho’ positioning. Brand-owners do not want to see their products being endorsed by narrow-minded homophobic and racist thugs on TV or, more likely, on YouTube.

If nothing else, perhaps the prospect of football’s reputation being dragged through the mire, might make the FA see the value, rather than just the cost, of promoting a diverse and inclusive game? 

Homosexuality has always been a hot potato in the Jewish community. Proponents argue that Judaism is homophobic while detractors insist they are just upholding the letter of the law.

The biblical injunction against homosexual activity is clear. People who want to conform to the Bible should not be condemned as homophobic anymore than critics of religion might be labelled theophobic. However, just because I maintain that homosexuality is wrong doesn’t mean I have to go beating the drum about it anymore than I might regularly preach against adultery. To be sure, there are times when public statements are deemed necessary, such as when same-sex marriages began to become legalised. Imagine the public outcry were bigamy to be declared legal. Similarly, when governments were voting with their feet to recognise same-sex marriages, it was only to be expected that moralists and religious leaders would speak out against. Still, even when it is considered necessary to protest, it remains imperative that basic sensitivity is maintained. A fundamental principle in Judaism, sadly lost on too many extremists today, is to condemn the action, never the person. Take for example the “Statement of Principles on the Place of Jews with a Homosexual Orientation in Our Community,” initially released in mid-2010. It was signed by dozens of leading Orthodox Rabbis across the Jewish world, making perfectly clear the traditional Jewish viewpoint on homosexuality, while also reassuring gay people that they are always welcome into Synagogues and communities.

Last week, the Jews Free School in London made headlines for teaching a class that homosexuality can be cured. According to a Jewish Chronicle report, as part of the school’s Jewish studies curriculum, pupils were shown a website from the American group JONAH – Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality, apparently introduced at the end of the textual study on homosexuality and the Orthodox viewpoint. Having met last night with Michael Glass, the Chair of Governors of JFS, he informs me that the school has issued a statement denying the reported sequence of events, and insisting it was something that formed part of a discussion, rather than an ideal that was being formally promoted.

Meanwhile, Holland’s Chief Rabbi, Aryeh Ralbag has been suspended for putting his signature to the JONAH mission statement that promotes the idea that homosexuality can be “mitigated and potentially eliminated.” This in turn has prompted a public outcry from the Conference of European Rabbis and others, arguing that to relieve a Chief Rabbi from his position for upholding an ancient biblical law, is deplorable, “verging on fascism.”

There is a difference between issuing a statement asserting the traditional Jewish view on homosexuality, and offering one’s own theory about “illness and cure.” The Bible condemns the act as an abomination, as it does eating bacon. Plain and simply put, it is forbidden. That’s where the scope of any Rabbi’s position should begin and end. If psychotherapists believe that sexual orientation can be altered, that is their remit. It’s not for Rabbis to go publically endorsing such a position, which is essentially saying, not only are you gay but you’re also mentally unstable. That’s crossing the line into condemning the person, not just the act.

Chief Rabbi Ralbag should not be relieved of his position for taking a religious stance on a traditional biblical position. That’s plain ludicrous. However, his sensitivity, and by extension his ability to reach out to his wider constituency, in endorsing a controversial statement regarding homosexuals, must surely be called into question.

Yitzchak Schochet is the Rabbi for Mill Hill United Synagogue and is responsible for family issues in the Chief Rabbi’s cabinet. He blogs at www.shul.co.uk/rabbi and can be followed on twitter @RabbiYYS

As with all “Comment” pieces, the views of Rabbi Schochet do not represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk

Their appeal argues that Britain’s twin legal bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships amount to illegal discrimination, contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. The bans violate Articles 8, 12 and 14 – respectively the right to privacy and family life, the right to marry and the right to non-discrimination.

The 31-page application, drafted by Robert Wintemute, Professor of Human Rights Law at King’s College London, presents a compelling case. Since there are no significant differences in the rights and responsibilities involved in civil marriages and civil partnerships, there can be no justification for the segregation of gay and straight couples into two mutually exclusive legal systems. It is discrimination based on sexual orientation. For this reason, we are hopeful that when the ECHR eventually delivers a judgement, probably in 2014, it will be in favour of equality.

Soon after the ECHR appeal was filed, the government announced its intention to consult on the issue of same-sex marriage. Mere coincidence? Perhaps. But the government was surely mindful that it will be required to explain to the ECHR its rationale for excluding gay couples from civil marriages and heterosexual couples from civil partnerships. It can now report to the ECHR that it is consulting. This consultation is, however, flawed. It is limited to same-sex marriage.

David Cameron mistakenly calculated that we’ll be satisfied with marriage equality. We won’t. So long as heterosexual couples remain banned from civil partnerships, which is the Prime Minister’s apparent intention, the Equal Love campaign will continue. We believe in straight equality just as passionately as we care about equal rights for lesbians and gay men.

In our estimation, there is a sizeable minority of heterosexual couples who would prefer a civil partnership. They dislike the patriarchal history and language of marriage; viewing civil partnerships as a more modern, egalitarian alternative. In the Netherlands, where civil partnerships are open to both gay and heterosexual couples, two-thirds of civil partners are straight men and women. We could expect a similar take-up by heterosexual couples in Britain, if civil partnerships were open to everyone.

Cameron also miscalculated by ruling out any legalisation of religious same-sex marriages, even by faith organisations, such as the Quakers and Unitarians, who want to conduct them. This is an attack on religious freedom, as well as perpetrating homophobic discrimination. Moreover, given that the government has recently authorised religious same-sex civil partnerships, a continued blanket ban on religious same-sex marriages looks inconsistent and petty.

For all these reasons, the Equal Love campaign is building momentum. The right of gay couples to marry is backed by David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Boris Johnson and a growing number of Tory MPs, including Chloe Smith, Mike Weatherley and Margot James.

In 2010, the Green Party national conference was the first to vote to end the twin bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships. It was followed by the Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru conferences. Oddly, the Labour conference has declined to vote on the issue; although the GMB, Unison and all 13 Labour MEPs want the twin bans overturned.

The SNP government in Scotland is leading the way, with its public consultation period already concluded; while David Cameron inexplicably postponed the start of his consultation from last summer to next month.

Some people argue: what’s there to consult about? Homophobic discrimination is wrong and should therefore be abolished pronto. Would the government have a long drawn out consultation about repealing racist laws? I doubt it. It would immediately abolish them on the grounds that they were incompatible with a democratic society. Why should homophobic bans be treated any differently?

The public is on our side. A Populus poll in 2009 found that 61% of the public believe: “Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships.” Only 33% disagreed. It’s likely that there is similar support for heterosexual civil partnerships.

What’s the government waiting for? The time for equality is now.

This article first appeared in the Guardian. 

In the late 1980s, we dealt with the massive attack on the embryonic work in schools to tackle the invisibility of gays and lesbians: Section 28.

By 2000 life had changed. Unions had worked to support LGBT people in all walks of life, including teaching. We had developed a theory and vocabulary that explained and described the discrimination we faced. We had a Labour government that promised legislation that would begin to deal with many of our issues and the Stephen Lawrence report had woken institutions to the effect of institutional prejudice.

However schools were notoriously slow to pick up on all of this. Section 28 was not repealed till 2003 and it went with a whimper rather than a bang. So few teachers were aware, their habit of ignoring LGBT people and issues were hardly challenged.

Paul and the Schools OUT committee had worked throughout the dark days raising the issues writing lesson plans, producing a teachers’ pack and lobbying the government to challenge the institutional homophobia. Gradually they took on transphobia.

We had seen the success of Black History month in schools. It had made a difference by enabling teachers to think about the issues in a more creative and focused way. We wondered if we could institute such a month for us.

2003 was a momentous year: Section 28 was finally abolished and we got the first legislation that outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation and then later on gender identity in the work place.

The Single Equality Act was mooted with a public duty that would cover sexual orientation and gender identity. It occurred to us that this was maybe the moment to float an LGBT History Month.

After much discussion in deciding the appropriate month we hit on February – not the best month weather wise, but a quiet month in the school calendar, which crucially had a half term. We were confident that museums and libraries would be the first to use the month and we concluded that if that was the case parents, children and – most importantly – teachers would see the displays and feel empowered to take their experiences back to their schools.

We approached the Department of Education in the early months of 2004 with a plan and a budget. Although they were not uninterested, they were very slow to give us clarity. By the summer I felt we had to take the plunge, so I made the announcement of the Month at the launch of Amnesty International’s book Sex Love and Homophobia, and a small ripple of interest occurred. At London Pride we asked several VIPs going on the stage at Trafalgar Stage to make an announcement. Most refused, however, ironically, Simon Hughes agreed and did so. Gill Spraggs was working away setting up the website designing a logo and pulling together resources.

Eventually in November we heard from the Department they would give us a small grant and the race was on to create the publicity and get the website ready.

The unions – teaching and non-teaching – were supportive. The National Union of Teachers remunerated us through affiliation fees and the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) created the first LGBT timeline which was a piece of education and – in all its rainbow coloured glory – a work of art

I had been active in Southwark on the anti Homophobic Forum, Simon was a Southwark MP so it was logical to ask their help. They came up trumps and they obtained the cinema at the Tate Modern to hold a Pre launch in early December.

The line-up of speakers was phenomenal. We worked hard to have the true diversity of our community; a philosophy that drives us to this day. There were almost as many people on the stage as there were in the audience.

We had hoped that if we had 10 events in the following February we would have made it a success; we in fact had over a 100. One of the speakers – Linda Bellos – prophesied that people there on that day would remember with pride that they were there when we would celebrate LGBT History month at Wembley.

Well, we have not got there yet, however Pre Launch venues have included The Royal Courts of Justice, The British Museum, Twickenham Rugby Stadium and the Oval; as well as a Church of England School.

The Committee that makes the month happen is small, dedicated and voluntary. Paul sadly died in October 2008, nine of us continue the work.

Elly Barnes, a music teacher who topped the Independent’s Pink List in 2011, is our school representative and delivers training to teachers up and down the land.

Nigel Tart, a maths teacher, has been our media officer doing sterling work getting us recognised in both the LGBT and straight press.

Dave Watkins was our treasurer and was vital in setting up the new website the classroom with both design and content. Stephen Boyce is our Patrons representative. Jeff Evans is our academic representative and has organised trips to Berlin to meet with LGBT activists there and enabled many conferences and meeting with archivists and universities.

Amy Macmillan was our membership administrator, crucial given the importance of subscriptions, as we are not funded. Naechane Romeo is our trans representative. Huw Williams is our web technician making sure all three sites are up and running and dealing with emergencies. Amelia Lee is our youth representative and next year will be organising the Schools OUT conference in Manchester and runs the Paul Patrick scheme which supports schools including LGBT people.

The main success of the month is of course due to the tireless work of people up and down the country who grab the month and what it stands for and set up events large and small in their neighbourhoods, libraries, unions, schools, churches, parks, pubs, museum, local authorities, theatres, parks and streets.

The month came from the grass roots, teachers and activists who knew that something had to be done to educate and celebrate the existence of LGBT people everywhere. We hit on a way of working and networking so we are now embedded in the national calendar and got endorsements from both the Prime Minister and leader of the Opposition.

We also supported the birth of two new history months The Disabled History Month November22 to December 22 and Women’s History Month in March. We are working with Pride Solidarity to spread our work across Europe our website is used throughout the world – literally!

We are passionate about diversity and visibility. The words of Paul Patrick and Tony Fenwick perhaps say it all:

We are lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people and their friends.
We exist in all times and places.
We speak each and every language.
We laugh and cry.
We talk and remain silent.
We are emperors and peasants.
We are conservatives and revolutionaries.
We are actors, artists, bricklayers, bookies, cab drivers, cooks and clowns.
We are employed and unemployed. We raise our children and we bury our dead.
When we can, we attend school, college and university.
When we can, we go out into the streets.
We read the papers and watch the TV.
We attend church, synagogue, temple and mosque.
We are free and confined.
We celebrate and we hide.
We are happy and sad. We are supported and alone.

Paul Patrick and Tony Fenwick, 2005

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGBT) History Month 2011 and 2012 is fighting for LGBT people to be active in sport – as spectators and participants; at elite and at street level.

Tackling homophobia and transphobia on the pitch and on the terraces is an essential step.

Please help us attain that goal.

This is the result of new rules, introduced last July, but only now coming to light, which state that an air carrier “shall not transport a passenger if … the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents”.

The reason that it has taken so long for this provision to percolate through to public awareness is that it was introduced not through formal legislation before the Canadian legislature, but as part Identity Screening Regulations, implemented unilaterally by the Ministry of Transportation, in support of Canada’s so-called Passenger Protect programme.

Its impact will be felt first by members of the Canadian transgender community, who may only change the ‘sex’ designation on a Canadian Passport, on provision of proof that surgery has taken place, or will take place within one year. This, it is argued by blogger, Christin Scarlett Milloy, means that non-operative transgender persons, gender nonconforming (genderqueer) persons, and the vast majority of pre-operative transsexual persons will find it literally impossible to obtain “proper” travel documentation.

However, there is likely to be some degree of impact on trans persons from any other country travelling through Canada on documents that fail to meet these new criteria.

A petition calling on the Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to have these regulations set aside has been launched on change.org.

Meanwhile, cynics are speculating whether this move is ill-thought accident – or a rather more sinister piece of revenge by Conservative MP and Minister for Transport, Denis Lebel.

The change to regulations took place shortly after the federal election in 2011. In the previous parliament, Bill C-389, a bill to amend the Human Rights Code to explicitly enshrine protections against discrimination for transgender people, had successfully passed in the House of Commons, only to die on the Senate floor when the election was declared.

As Ms Milloy asked yesterday: “Is the timing of this disturbing and blatantly discriminatory regulatory adjustment merely a coincidence?

Analysis

Some people have been asking how many individuals have actually been prevented from flying by these regulations: but that misses the point entirely – which is that the use of perceived gender in this fashion is deeply offensive not simply to trans men and women, but to all men and women who fail to live up to societally imposed “norms” of gender and appearance.

A particular issue, which i have reported on in the past, is how women whose appearance is in any way “butch” or masculine frequently report difficulties in some women’s spaces.

While some will inevitably defend this move on grounds of “security”, it is important to understand what is being required here. No-one is objecting to government rules that require an individual’s appearance to match to their description on their pasport – or indeed that they should be allowed to duck out on biometric measures such as fingerprinting or retinal scans.

But this is about something else: whether an individual fits with the preconceived notions of what a border guard believes constitutes a “normal” appearance for their declared gender.

Over the last twelve months, Australia has stated its aim of permitting an “indeterminate” status to be recorded on passports for intersex individuals: and the UK Government has revealed that it is examining the entire question of whether gender markers on official documents are useful – not just, as critics would have it, for reasons of “political correctness”, but because there are genuine doubts that it really adds much that is useful.

This makes the Canadian regulation looks all the more like a seriously retrograde – and spiteful – step.

Jane Fae is an independent writer and sexual rights activist. 

Dr Sentamu, who born in Uganda and fled Idi Amin’s dictatorship, has condemned the government over its plans to legalise same-sex civil marriage; insinuating that the Prime Minister is behaving in a dictatorial manner.

It is, however, Dr Sentamu who seeks to dictate. He wants to impose his personal opposition to gay marriage on a society that overwhelmingly rejects his demand for homophobic discrimination.

The Archbishop is unelected and owes his post to patronage, whereas the government has been elected democratically by millions of voters. Moreover, a clear majority of the British people, including many Christians, support same-sex civil marriages. A Populus poll, published in The Times newspaper in June 2009, found that 61% of the public believe that: “Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships.” Only 33% disagreed.

Dr Sentamu rejects the enlightened, progressive public will, in favour of his preferred imposition of homophobic discrimination in law. He is, in essence, a religious authoritarian who opposes equality.

I am no theologian or expert in ecclesiastical matters, but from my understanding of scripture it is not a loving Christian value to demand discrimination against other human beings. To insist that the law discriminate against gay couples and treat them as inferior, second class citizens strikes me as devoid of the love and compassion that is attributed to Jesus Christ in the gospels.

The Archbishop’s insulting, disparaging attitude towards lesbian and gay couples is evidenced by the way he dismisses loving, committed, loyal same-sex civil partnerships as mere “friendships”.

He would never describe heterosexual couples in love, whether they were married or unmarried, as mere friends.

Right from the outset of the debate about marriage equality, Dr Sentamu seems to have got the wrong end of the stick. The government is proposing to legalise same-sex marriages in register offices only. This will not affect churches or other places of worship. The Archbishop has no valid grounds for objecting to civil registrations that will ensure marriage equality for all couples. It does not impact on his religious domain.

Dr Sentamu comes across as intolerant and out of touch. His stance colludes with homophobia. It brings shame and dishonour to the Church of England. Even many Anglicans are likely to be repulsed by his advocacy of anti-gay discrimination. They, and most non-religious people, will see his stance as further evidence of the bigotry that burns in hearts of many so-called Christian leaders.

The Archbishop’s justification that it is vital to demand the preservation of the tradition and history of exclusively heterosexual marriage is very similar to the arguments that were in the past used by the church to justify slavery, colonialism and the denial of votes to women. Appealing to past injustices to preserve current injustices cuts no ice with most people.

Archbishop Sentamu has long been accused of collusion with homophobia. When the Anti-Homosexuality “kill the gays” Bill was first introduced in the Ugandan parliament, Sentamu took ages to respond, despite the fact that he is from Uganda and was being urged to speak out against the proposed death penalty for repeat homosexual offenders. He did eventually condemn the death sentence provision, but not the Bill itself or its other draconian clauses.

A decade ago, Dr Sentamu was involved in the perceived cover up of the homophobic abuse and assaults on Damilola Taylor, which occurred shortly before the young boy was murdered in November 2000. These attacks, and the possibility of a homophobic motive, were not even mentioned in Sentamu’s 2002 report into the killing.

The Archbishop clearly has form.

Regardless of his hostility to marriage equality, the Equal Love campaign is confident that Britain will eventually overturn the twin legal bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships. We’ve already succeeded in helping persuade the government to commit to the legalisation of gay civil marriages before the next election in 2015; although David Cameron is sadly, and very oddly, insisting that the ban on heterosexual civil partnerships must remain.

To ensure that we overturn both discriminations, Equal Love currently has an appeal against the twin bans under consideration by the European Court of Human Rights (PDF).

We argue that banning same-sex couples from civil marriages and opposite-sex couples from civil partnerships is illegal discrimination, contrary to Articles 8, 12 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Owing to the backlog of cases, it may take another three years to get a judgement. But we are quietly confident that we can win equality for all, despite Archbishop Sentamu’s demand for continued discrimination.

* For more information about Peter Tatchell’s human rights campaigns and to make a donation: www.petertatchell.net.

This article first appeared on the Huffington Post UK.

“Babu, shon, toke amar kichu bolar ache… Listen, I want to tell you something…”

“What is it, dosto?”

“I haven’t been fully honest with you… Remember when I told you that I really like that girl? That wasn’t quite true. It’s actually her brother I like. I am gay.”

Babu, shocked at the unexpected confession and not quite sure how to respond, got up and walked away. No matter how often Arif tried to call Babu in the following days, there was no response. Six months went by until Arif finally got a call back from Babu. Today, after many evenings of long talks, they are best friends again. Babu realized that Arif being gay does not take away anything from the childhood memories they share and the good times they experienced together. Babu learned to accept Arif for who he is – his closest friend… who happens to be gay.

Lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people are our brothers and sisters, our friends, our neighbors, our teachers and our colleagues. Homosexuality and bisexuality have been part of every society and every culture, at every point in human history, and have also been found in a wide range of non-human animal species. Different surveys around the world have found that between one and ten out of one hundred people are sexually or romantically attracted to members of the same sex.

Using the lower end of this range, we find that a minimum of 15 lakh (1.5m) people in Bangladesh are homosexual or bisexual. Despite this large number – which is roughly equivalent to the entire population of Qatar and could actually be up to ten times as high – LGB people are an invisible minority. Many face discrimination at school, university and their workplace, are denied access to health care and justice and, being torn between fear, confusion and guilt, find little support from family members and friends.

Section 377 of the Bangladesh Penal Code makes same-sex intercourse a crime punishable by imprisonment for life. Consequently, only few are open about their sexual orientation, while most are forced to live a life of secrecy and lies, conformed to bigotry, misguided notions of honor and caricatures of justice and morality. With heterosexual marriage still being considered a woman’s nirvana, the level of tolerance for lesbian women is particularly low – they are doubly marginalized.

In 2002, the Bandhu Social Welfare Society (BSWS), the largest association working with men who have sex with men (MSM) in Bangladesh, surveyed 124 self-identified kothis, feminine homosexual or bisexual men and arguably the most visual part of the local LGB community. One in two respondents stated that he had been the victim of harassment at school or college. Three in four respondents who told their relatives about their sexual orientation stated that “their family had reacted negatively with beatings, forced marriage, disinheritance, throwing [them] […] out of the house, [or] taking them to doctors for curing them of homosexuality […].”

Many had been sexually abused, raped or harassed by law enforcement agents, mastaans (local thugs), friends or family. Twenty-nine of the 80 respondents who reported harassment by law enforcement agents told BSWS that police officers had sexually assaulted or raped them. The others talked about beatings, extortion of money, obstruction of movement, threats and blackmail. Men in “Mymensingh, Dhaka, and Sylhet reported […] [that they had been] rounded up, […] taken either to police barracks or the police post and raped by groups of policemen. Such forced sex was always reported as being unsafe […] and often results in serious physical injury like a ruptured rectum, internal hemorrhage, etc.” A 2003 Human Rights Watch (HRW) report shows that these incidences are not unusual but follow a pattern of violence against LGB people in Bangladesh.

The endemic homophobia in Bangladesh also has a negative impact on the mental health and well-being of LGB people. A recent study of 102 homosexual men conducted by University of Dhaka professor Muhammad Kamruzzaman Mozumder et al. found that 32% of these men had a history of suicide attempt, while 47% reported that they had considered committing suicide at least once.

During a visit to Dhaka in December 2011, I met up with Mamun (not his real name) and Shakhawat. Mamun is a 23-year old student, Shakhawat a 26-year old journalist. Both identify themselves as gay men.

Mamun describes accepting that he is gay as “the hardest thing [he] ever did.” When he first felt physically attracted to other boys at the age of 13, he thought there was something wrong with him and hoped it would change. When it did not change, he thought he would just marry and hide his sexual orientation for the rest of his life. Then he started doing research on homosexuality on the internet and found that it is accepted and considered normal in other parts of the world. It took him another six years to fully accept that he is gay.

Today, he thinks daily about leaving Bangladesh, pessimistic that attitudes towards LGB people will change within his lifetime.

“I love my country and my family but I want to live a normal and free life. I don’t want to live a life full of lies. I will never live a straight life. I would rather stay single for the rest of my life – I do not want to destroy the life of a girl.”

And even though he considers his parents to be relatively liberal, he is afraid that the day might come when he has to choose between them and living an authentic and dignified life.

Shakhawat felt romantically attracted towards men for as long as he can remember. Living apart from his family from an early age, he found support in Dhaka’s gay scene. He became a member of Boys of Bangladesh (BoB), a platform for gay men, and learned a great deal about the psychology and politics of sexual orientation. Shakhawat has been in a steady and committed relationship with another man for four years. He wants to stay in Bangladesh to raise awareness for LGB issues.

After returning to the United States, I got in touch with 23-year old BBA student Farheena (not her real name) through a Bangladeshi online forum. She has known that she likes girls from early childhood and identifies herself as a lesbian woman. Fearing that her parents might disown her, she has not come out to them yet and keeps her current relationship with another woman a secret. Unlike Shakhawat, she has not been able to find a platform for people who share her sexual orientation that she could turn to for support. Farheena told me that there is more pressure to get married early on women than there is on men. “If I do get pressurized into marrying a guy, I may just commit suicide. I would rather be dead than being someone I am not.” She thinks about moving out of the country after she graduates, hoping to be able to be who she is elsewhere.

For all of them, the internet has been an invaluable source of support and advice, and played a significant role in their acceptance of who they are. Their advice, in particular to LGB youth, is to use the internet to get as much quality information as possible – great starting points are itgetsbetter.org, tiny.cc/lgb-bd and Wikipedia –, and to connect with other LGB people. Unfortunately, access to the internet is still a class-privilege in Bangladesh and, hence, only available to some.

Sexual orientation is neither, as sometimes mistakenly assumed, “a choice” nor “a disease”, but a normal aspect of human sexuality. Homosexual relationships, just like relationships between men and women, are natural and healthy forms of human bonding. A person’s sexual orientation is part of who that person is, and everybody deserves to be respected for who they are. LGB people, hence, do not demand special rights but the recognition of their human rights. Cultural or religious norms that disfavor homosexuality no more justify discrimination against LGB people than norms of this kind can justify racism or sexism. Bullying and harassment, denying LGB people equal opportunities and respect, or prosecuting citizens for who they are is neither pious nor cultured but immoral.

Sex between consenting adults is an inherently private matter and should not be regulated by the government of a society that values tolerance and respect, yet Section 377 does exactly that. Section 377 contradicts the fundamental principles of dignity and equality, and violates international human rights law. It reinforces social stigma, encourages wrongful discrimination, undermines public health efforts and is based on nothing more than prejudice. A report published by the Bangladesh Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs states that Section 377 “violates [the] constitutionally protected right to privacy under the expanded definition of right to life and personal liberty […].” Supreme Court Advocate Sara Hossain further sees Section 377 in conflict with the anti-discrimination clause and the right to equality before the law guaranteed by the Constitution of Bangladesh.

Even though Section 377 has rarely been used, it is for the LGB community what the sword was for Damocles and we should not wait until the bigoted and the intolerant discover it as a tool of repression against an unpopular minority.

Repealing Section 377 is an integral step in the development of Bangladesh as a free and democratic nation. A repeal would make it possible for LGB people who are victims of rape to make a complaint without putting themselves at risk of prosecution, and seize a weapon from police that is systematically used to harass, abuse and blackmail sexual minorities. Even though Shakhawat is not afraid of being prosecuted, he is still a criminal in the eyes of the state – “and it doesn’t feel nice.”

As an LGB rights advocate, he believes that a repeal of Section 377 “would give the LGBT community better visibility by making it easier for people to come out.”

Farheena, Mamun, Shakhawat and other LGB people deserve our attention and support. While the LGB community must form part of the leadership in the struggle against bigotry and injustice, it is the moral responsibility of all of us to add our voices and embrace tolerance and respect for the equal worth of all people.

Rainer Ebert is a philosophy student at Rice University in Houston, Texas. He can be reached at www.rainerebert.com. A version of this article first appeared on bdnews24.com. 

It is time Section 5 was repealed, to allow freedom of expression without the threat of arrest.

The opportunity for reform exists. The current Protection of Freedoms Bill could easily be amended.

Some MPs and Lords want to amend it. Alas, the Con-Dem government is hesitating, despite its professed commitment to restore many of civil liberties that were whittled away during the Blair-Brown era.

Section 5 Public Order Act 1986 states:

Harassment, alarm or distress.

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he —

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

This legislation is sweeping, draconian and has a chilling effect.

There is no requirement to prove that the person intended any of the aforementioned likely consequences. They can be convicted under Section 5, regardless of their intention. Thus innocently intended words, behaviours or signs can result in a criminal record.

The first part of Section 5 is about criminalising disorderly behaviour, and words, behaviour or images that are threatening. Threats and disorderly behaviour are unacceptable. Criminalising them is therefore not unreasonable.

It is less clear that mere abuse warrants criminalisation. What constitutes abuse? Calling someone a “bloody fool” or a “drunken bastard” is abusive but should it be a crime? Different people have different interpretations regarding what level and forms of abuse should be lawful or unlawful. It’s a subjective judgement.

Likewise with insults. When does an insult cease to be a legitimate (if bad mannered) expression of opinion and become a matter for arrest and prosecution? Much satirical comedy and many polemical critiques of religion may be deemed insults by some people.

The second part of Section 5 is equally worrying. A crime is committed if a person is “likely” to be caused “harassment, alarm or distress”. There is no requirement to prove that anyone actually has been harassed, alarmed or distressed. The mere likelihood is sufficient to secure a conviction.

In particular, the criminalisation of harassment in Section 5 is superfluous. Safeguards against harassment exist in other legislation, notably the Protection From Harassment Act 1997.

What constitutes alarm and distress in Section 5 is a further subjective judgment, open to widely different interpretations. For some ultra-sensitive people, what others regard as valid criticisms may cause them distress. Provocative challenges to their beliefs can provoke alarm.

Indeed, any controversial or dissenting viewpoint has the potential to upset someone and result in them complaining that they felt insulted, alarmed or distressed. Liberal Muslims offend traditionalists, gay pride marches alarm homophobes, mixed race couples distress racists and gender equality is an affront to sexist men. You see my point?

Section 4A of the Public Order Act is sufficient to cover any exceptional circumstances requiring prosecution (although its criminalisation of mere insults should also be repealed for the afore-mentioned reasons). Moreover, 4A has the added safeguard that the person must have acted with intent.

If we accept that abuse or insults resulting in likely alarm or distress should be a crime, we risk limiting free and open debate and criminalising dissenting opinions and alternative lifestyles that some very conservative people may find offensive and upsetting. The right to mock, ridicule and satirise ideas, opinions, people and institutions is put in jeopardy. Section 5 can, in theory, be used to criminalise almost any words, actions or images, if someone (anyone) is likely to be alarmed or distressed by them.

To give some examples:

Campaigns against religious homophobia have sometimes resulted in lesbian and gay activists being arrested for causing insult or distress to homophobes and their religious supporters.

This is what happened to myself and other members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) human rights group OutRage! when we protested against 6,000 supporters of the Islamist fundamentalist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir, outside their mass rally at Wembley Arena in 1994.

They called for the killing of gays, apostates, Jews and unchaste women. They were not arrested but we were. Our crime? We shouted slogans and displayed placards that factually condemned Hizb ut-Tahrir supporters for inciting murder and also denounced the persecution of LGBT people by Islamist governments, such as the Iranian regime. Our placards were deemed insulting and likely to cause distress.

Section 5 has been also used unjustly against Christian street preachers who have merely condemned homosexuality, without being aggressive or threatening. What they said was homophobic and should be challenged but they should not be criminalised.

Dale McAlpine was arrested in Workington in 2010, after condemning homosexuality as a sin. He was charged with using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, contrary to Section 5.

The same law was also used to stifle the views of Muslims who condemned British soldiers in Iraq as “terrorists” and as the “butchers of Basra”.

In 2008, a teenager was charged under Section 5 for holding a sign outside Scientology’s London headquarters calling the movement a “cult”.

Two years earlier, an Oxford student was arrested for jokingly suggesting that a police horse was “gay”.

In both cases, even though the charges were later dropped, the protesters had their freedom of expression infringed and they suffered public humiliation by the police.

The civil rights watchdogs, Liberty and Justice, want Section 5 either repealed or radically reformed.

Freedom of expression is one of the most important of all liberties and human rights. It should be only restricted in extreme and very limited circumstances. The open exchange of ideas – including unpalatable, even offensive, ideas – is a hallmark of a free and democratic society.

There is no right to be not distressed or offended. Some of the most important ideas in history – such as those of Galileo Galilei and Charles Darwin – caused great offence and distress in their time.

While bigoted opinions should always be challenged, in most instances only explicit incitements to violence and damaging libels, such as false allegations of tax fraud or child abuse, should be criminalised.

Causing insult or distress is far too low a threshold for criminalisation. It can inhibit the right to protest and free speech. There is no place for Section 5 in a democratic society.

A Select Committee should be charged to examine Section 5 and all public order laws, with a view to proposing reforms that strike a better balance between protecting the public and safeguarding freedom of expression, as Lord Avebury has proposed.

Peter Tatchell is Director of the human rights lobby, the Peter Tatchell Foundation.

This article first appeared in the Huffington Post.

There are, of course, frightening examples of intensified homophobic repression in parts of Africa and the Middle East. But taking the long view, in world historical terms, anti-gay attitudes and laws are on the wane.

This begs the question:

As homophobia diminishes and as future societies eventually embrace a post-homophobic culture, how will this transition to equality, dignity, understanding and acceptance affect the expression of sexuality?

If human civilisation evolves into a state of sexual enlightenment, where the differences between hetero and homo no longer matter, what would this mean for the future of same-sex desire and same-sex identity?

We already know, thanks to a host of sex surveys, that bisexuality is a fact of life and that even in narrow-minded, homophobic cultures, many people have a sexuality that is, to varying degrees, capable of both heterosexual and homosexual attraction.

It is also apparent that same-sex relations flourish, albeit often temporarily, in single-sex institutions like schools, prisons and the armed forces – which suggests that sexuality might be more flexible than many people assume.

Research by Dr Alfred Kinsey in the USA during the 1940s was the first major statistical evidence that gay and straight are not watertight, irreconcilable and mutually exclusive sexual orientations. He found that human sexuality is, in fact, a continuum of desires and behaviours, ranging from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. A substantial proportion of the population shares an amalgam of same-sex and opposite-sex feelings – even if they do not act on them.

In Sexual Behaviour In The Human Male (1948), Kinsey recorded that 13% of the men he surveyed were either mostly or exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55. Twenty-five per cent had more than incidental gay reactions or experience, amounting to clear and continuing same-sex desires. Altogether, 37% of the men Kinsey questioned had experienced sex with other males to the point of orgasm, and half had experienced mental attraction or erotic arousal towards other men (often transient and not physically expressed).

Kinsey’s statistics on same-sex behaviour have since been criticised as out-of-date, exaggerated and unrepresentative. However, his idea of a spectrum of human sexuality has tended to be reinforced by subsequent surveys which have shown that a significant proportion of the population have had sexual relations with both men and women.

A British sex survey, conducted by ICM for The Observer newspaper in 2008, found that 16% of women reported sexual contact with a woman, and 10% of men said they’d had sexual contact with another man. The survey revealed a trend to greater sexual experimentation, with 23% of 16 to 24 year olds indicating that they had a same-sex experience. All these figures are much higher than the number of people who are exclusively gay or lesbian and who define themselves as such.

The possibility that individuals can share a capacity for both hetero and homo behaviour is an idea that was researched and documented by the anthropologists Clellan Ford and Frank Beach.

In Patterns of Sexual Behaviour (1965), they noted that certain forms of homosexuality were considered normal and acceptable in 49 (nearly two-thirds) of 76 tribal societies surveyed from the 1920s to the 1950s. They also recorded that in some aboriginal cultures, such as the Keraki and Sambia peoples of Papua New Guinea, all young men entered into a same-sex relationship with an unmarried male warrior, sometimes lasting several years, as part of their rites of passage to manhood. Once completed, they ceased all homosexual contact and assumed sexual desires for women. If sexual orientation was totally biologically pre-programmed at birth, these men would have never been able to switch to homosexuality and then to heterosexuality with such apparent ease.

This led Ford and Beach to deduce that homosexuality is fundamental to the human species, and that its practice is substantially influenced by social mores and cultural expectations.

The evidence from these two research disciplines – sociology and anthropology – is that the incidence and form of heterosexuality and homosexuality is not fixed and universal, and that the two sexual orientations are not mutually exclusive. There is a good deal of fluidity and overlap.

What’s more, although scientific evidence shows that human sexuality is significantly affected by biological predispositions – such as genes and hormones – other influences appear to be cultural, including social expectations, peer pressure and the availability and opportunity for sexual release. These influences channel erotic impulses in certain directions and not others. An individual’s sexual orientation is thus influenced culturally, as well as biologically.

As culture changes, perhaps manifestations of sexuality can also change?

The evidence of considerable cross-over between gay and straight relations comes from research that records consciously recognised and admitted desires. At the level of unconscious feelings – where passions are often repressed, displaced, sublimated, projected and transferred – it seems probable that very few people are 100 percent straight or gay. Most are a mixture, even if they never mentally acknowledge or physically express both sides of the sexual equation.

This picture of human sexuality is much more complex, diverse and blurred than the traditional simplistic binary image of hetero and homo, so loved by straight moralists and – equally significantly – by many lesbians and gay men.

If sexual orientation has a culturally-influenced element of indeterminacy and flexibility, then the present forms of homosexuality and heterosexuality are conditional. They are unlikely to remain the same in perpetuity. As culture changes, so will expressions of sexuality.

In a future non-homophobic society, as the taboos concerning same-sex relations recede, more people are likely to have gay sex – even if only experimentally or for a few years.

Interestingly, the demise of homophobia is likely to make redundant the need to assert and affirm gayness.

Gay and lesbian identities are largely the product of homophobic prejudice and repression. They are a self-defence mechanism against homophobia. Faced with persecution for having same-sex relations, the right to have those relationships has to be defended – hence gay identity and the gay rights movement.

But if one sexuality is not privileged over another, defining oneself as gay (or straight) will cease to be necessary and have no social relevance or significance. The need to maintain sexual differences, boundaries and identities disappears with the demise of straight supremacism.

As we evolve into a sexually enlightened and accepting society, homosexuality and heterosexuality will begin to fade as separate, exclusive orientations and identities.

The vast majority of people will be open to the possibility of both opposite-sex and same-sex desires, regardless of whether they act upon them. They won’t feel the need to label themselves (or others) as gay or straight because, in a future non-homophobic civilisation, no one will care who loves who. Love will transcend sexual orientation.

This article originally appeared in the Huffington Post UK.

For more information about Peter Tatchell’s human rights and social justice campaigns, visit www.petertatchell.net 

Despite the recent change in regulations, it remains the case that a woman who has had sex with a man who has ever had sex with a man must wait one year before she can donate. This means, in practice, that while John may be eligible to give blood once a year has passed since his last sexual contact with a man, his girlfriend Sally is excluded until a year after the end of their own sexual relationship. Assuming, if we will, that they are monogamous and that their relationship lasts for years, the ban on her participation grows ever more ridiculous with the passing of time. John’s blood donation is not problematised, but Sally’s donation, purely because of her association with John, is.

According to the FAQ – which is buried fairly deeply in the Blood Service website – Sally may be able to get around this if she and John attend for blood donation as a couple and his blood is satisfactorily screened. No other potential donors appear to face such a round, and John would bypass it altogether if he were single or if his girlfriend did not intend to donate. The FAQ elaborates that when John and Sally attend to discuss the situation, the Blood Service will need “to establish that no further higher-risk sexual activity (such as anal or oral sex between men) has taken place”, which suggests the couple may have a needlessly repetitive discussion to look forward to, given that John’s abstention from sex with men is the reason why they are there in the first place. However, they’re unlikely to get this far anyway, since the default checklist maintains a blanket ban on women in Sally’s position, rather than inviting them in to discuss the issue further.

One curious aspect of these guidelines is that sex is only defined when it takes place between men. The Blood Service is so concerned about queer men’s sex lives that they’ve left no room for doubt that any man who has had oral or anal sex with another man, with or without a condom, may not give blood until sufficient time has elapsed. There is no distinction between sexual activities for the rest of us, let alone any hint that perhaps condoms might magically dissolve when you’re with the wrong partner. For queer men, the definition of sex needs to be spelled out; for anyone else, it’s assumed that we all have the same interpretation. Since I’ve frequently heard heterosexual people making a distinction between “sex” and “oral sex”, this appears not to be the case. Does this mean, then, that depending on their specific sexual activities or on the presence or absence of condoms, some women who have sex with queer men could perhaps still be eligible to give blood? (When I called the Blood Service a few years ago to ask, the person I spoke to sounded rather flustered, said he’d get back to me, and never did.)

One reason given for discriminating between queer and straight donors is that “the introduction of extensive donor questions regarding sexual behaviour could lead to a loss of existing donors who may find the process intrusive.” Translation: the risk of offending straight people outweighs the benefits of levelling the playing field and asking questions that better assess individual risk. (Despite this sentiment, the Blood Service has demonstrated some willingness to both consider individual risk and to ask questions that may be interpreted as intrusive, if we refer back to John and Sally.) Although statistically more potential blood donors may be heterosexual, this strategy points to a culture in which heterosexuality remains normalised and its practitioners privileged. The risk of offending them is seen as greater than the risk of receiving contaminated blood, while the inverse applies to queer men.

Another group which remains barred from donating blood – but with little to no public outcry – is sex workers. While their partners and clients may resume giving blood a year after sleeping with them, anyone who has ever “worked as a prostitute” is asked to refrain from donating.

Those who have no links to the sex worker population – or at least think they don’t – are liable to shrug at this exclusion, but again it’s a case of tarring an entire population with one brush, and here it’s not just to do with assumptions about condom use or condom failure. In discussing the ban on sex workers, the well-hidden FAQ rushes to reiterate that “permanent exclusion remains in place for any individual with a history of intravenous drug use”. It goes on to state that “[c]hanging the criterion for sex workers could potentially cause confusion and possibly lead to individuals who do not meet with selection criteria because of previous drug use donating in error”. The assumption here would seem to be that sex workers have less capacity than the general public to read a form and tick the appropriate boxes. And given that injecting drug use is common only among street-based sex workers, a distinct minority within the overall sex industry, this conflation of all sex work with drug addiction appears to rely on stereotypes and is liable to cause offence to many.

Ultimately, the blanket exclusion of these groups comes down to a kind of shorthand, no doubt convenient for policy-makers dealing with large numbers of people. However, there is also no doubt that perfectly healthy blood fails to make its way to the Blood Service because the drafting of these guidelines has devoted no space to individual nuance. Concurrently, heterosexual, non-sex working blood donors are welcome to continue with far more risky sexual practices, for fear of upsetting them by asking “intrusive” questions. This strategy promotes erroneous assumptions about certain sexual practices and identities, persists in Othering queer men and sex workers, and reinforces the heteronormative status quo. In this day and age, it’s hard to imagine widespread outrage should the Blood Service ask donors a few simple questions like “Have you had unprotected sex or experienced a condom burst in the past year?”, and perhaps even outline which sexual practices it’s referring to. But as long as everybody involved is heterosexual and there’s no financial transaction taking place, actual assessment of risk takes a back seat.

Nine is a former LGBT editor of The Skinny magazine. She spent several years delivering harm reduction services to sex workers until she was made redundant due to funding cuts, and since mid-2010 she has been travelling on a low budget and one-way tickets.

I enjoy PinkNews.co.uk comments because of fresh, vibrant, engaging and intelligent debate that usually exists within the comments of stories. I appreciate the banter and humour that exists occurs here. It’s to PinkNews.co.uk’s credit that there’s freedom of expression, without excessive restriction, enabling debate to be real and meaningful.

However, increases in offensive postings has made me wonder whether action needs to be taken by PinkNews.co.uk or others – and if so, what action? Whilst I would never seek to dilute freedom of expression; freedoms carry responsibilities. However, some contributors to PinkNews.co.uk comments – unfortunately and disappointingly – seem unable to exercise integrity and responsibility. I’ve no willingness to detail the offensive comments (I don’t wish them to have further publicity) however regular readers of PinkNews.co.uk will be familiar with these issues. Considering this, I began to compare these events in PinkNews.co.uk with UK debate concerning amending the Public Order Act.

Amendments have been proposed to the Protection of Freedoms bill seeking to remove the word “insulting” from section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Politicians seeking this amendment include Edward Leigh MP and Julian Huppert MP.

The Protection of Freedoms bill is passing through parliamentary process. The bill contains many issues including new frameworks for police retention of fingerprints/DNA, a new code of practice on public authority surveillance, outlawing wheel clamping on private land, reducing pre-charge detention periods for terrorist suspects and enabling those having convictions for consensual sex between men aged 16 or over (since decriminalised) to have them disregarded. A wide range of people could potentially benefit from increased rights and freedoms.

Currently, section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 makes it an offence to use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour” or to display “any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting”. A law used to arrest (and prosecute) religious protesters against homosexuality, a BNP member who displayed anti-Islamic posters, those burning poppies and those repeatedly swearing at police.

Edward Leigh MP stated “People do not like many things from the Bible, but the Bible is the Bible and if people want to quote from it they should be allowed to do so without PC Plod tapping them on the shoulder and telling them that it’s against some piece of legislation”. Mr Leigh claimed that amendment to the Protection of Freedoms bill was to ensure that freedom of speech was not stunted by the Public Order Act.

Lord Deer (former HM Inspector of Constabulary) in the Lords stated that section 5 was “seen by many to be an impediment to the exercise of free speech”. The Bishop of Bristol backed calls for removal of the word insulting from the public order act. The Christian Institute strongly endorse the amendment of the Public Order Act.

The government doesn’t support the amendment, stating there are important issues in the legislation that shouldn’t be threatened. The Home Office have announced a consultation into issues connected to the Public Order Act.

In a recent judgement, Mr Justice Bean upheld an appeal against Thames Youth Court’s conviction of Denzel Harvey for section 5 of the Public Order Act. He’d repeatedly sworn at police, despite being warned regarding his conduct. Harvey was arrested. Magistrates found him guilty of a public order offence. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction stating the “rather commonplace expletive is heard ‘all too frequently’”. Responding, Simon Reed, vice chairman of the Police Federation said “It’s astounding that you can use every swear word to abuse a police officer and they have to accept it just because it’s common”.

In June 2011, it emerged that Metropolitan Police officers were advised not to arrest anyone verbally abusing police. Guidance stated courts wouldn’t accept that swearing at officers resulted in “harassment, alarm or distress”. The new Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe stated that guidance should be scrapped. The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, agreed stating that “Public servants are not there to be abused. They’re there to serve society and society must respect them. How can a copper cope with the job if the public are allowed to insult them with impunity?” He stated at the Conservative party Conference in Manchester that “if people swear at the police, they should expect to be arrested. If people feel there are no boundaries … then I’m afraid they will go on to commit worse crimes”.

Freedom of expression is recognised as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states “everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference” and “everyone has the right to freedom of expression”. However, article 19 states that exercising of these rights carries “special duties and responsibilities” which may make them subject to restrictions “for respect of the rights or reputations of others … national security, public order or public health and morals”.

Many discussions connected to the Protection of Freedoms bill are linked to freedom of expression for religious organisations. Equally, there have been cases of attempts to restrict the freedom of speech of LGBT communities. Such attempts in restricting LGBT people include legislation by the St Petersburg legislature to prevent “gay propaganda”, African states suppressing any form of discussion of homosexuality etc

UK debate concerns whether there should be a prohibition from insulting another person. Whether or not the Public Order Act is amended, there are other police powers that can used e.g. breach of the peace. However, if “insulting” is removed there could be significant court time consumed deliberating what was “insulting” or “abusive”. The semantics of this may appear reasonable, to a defence solicitor, given the new wording of the act that would occur. In any event, any decision by police to use powers under section 5 Public Order Act 1986 may be tested by both CPS and courts, giving independent scrutiny.

The Home Office are correct seeking a public consultation on amending the Public Order Act. It’s a complex area (despite it being the removal of one word from the Act) given implications that may occur. It would be hasty to act because a segment of the population (predominantly religious people) are concerned their ability to criticise others is hindered. Many cases raised as concerns have not resulted in convictions; thus it could be argued this demonstrates checks and balances in interpretation of the law occur and freedoms are not excessively hindered.

I don’t want to live in a society where people feel free to repeatedly swear at police officers with impunity. The August riots showed the impact of people perceiving they have impunity from prosecution was clear. I don’t want to live in a society where hate crime is tolerated because of freedom of expression. There’s a balance to be reached. We need to stop harassment, abuse and repeated insults. There needs to be checks ensuring that where people are dealt with for intolerance, insult or abuse it’s proportionate and appropriate (the purpose of CPS and the court system).

Regarding comments on PinkNews.co.uk, my view is each reader should be responsible for their conduct on comments pages. Most contributors exercise responsibility and are honourable in their conduct – even when comments are robust. Some people are unable to do this – evidenced by repeated, insidious comments that have abused readers of PinkNews.co.uk, the LGBT communities etc. PinkNews.co.uk has shown a responsible approach by deleting offensive comments identified (reported by other readers).

I’ve discussed with police and PinkNews.co.uk some of the more offensive and vitriolic comments. The police have stated that they are convinced that hate incidents have occurred and that some hate crimes appear to be disclosed including potential incitement to hatred.

I don’t feel we should tolerate hate crimes in the street; nor should we tolerate them online. The police shouldn’t be expected to tolerate being repeatedly verbally abused, nor should PinkNews.co.uk readers have to encounter abuse.

I hope readers engage with PinkNews.co.uk ensuring those deliberately seeking to harass PinkNews.co.uk and its readership are identified, have posts deleted and action taken. Some of these processes take time; we need to exercise patience in resolving the problem. We need to maintain the ability to debate robustly, whilst preventing those taking advantage of freedom of expression by being abusive, insulting or inciting hatred.

Stuart Ross is a regular reader of PinkNews.co.uk. He is a former police officer and currently a clinician working in pre-hospital emergency care. He is a qualified paramedic and has worked clinically for the NHS and Immigration services. He works voluntarily for two regional charities advising on child protection matters.

Sadly, the Lib Dem equality minister, Lynne Featherstone, apparently with the support of the Lib Dem Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, is now actively backing discrimination. She plans to keep unequal laws, contrary to the Lib Dem’s election pledges.

Specifically, Lynne is vowing to retain the prohibition on heterosexual civil partnerships and on religious same-sex marriages by faith organisations that want to conduct them. This is in direct defiance of what her party members voted for: equality.

Nick Clegg has not dissented from her stance. We can only assume that he endorses it.

Lynne is lovely. I like her as a person. However, she has announced a long and unjustified delay in the government’s promised consultation on civil marriage and civil partnership; pre-empting the consultation findings by ruling out straight and religious equality.

She said at the start of this year that the consultation would begin in June. Then she postponed it until October. Now it has been put off until March next year. Why can’t the consultation start now? Despite all our requests, Lynne has failed to explain why this delay is necessary.

I am not persuaded that there needs to be any consultation at all. The ban on same-sex marriage is homophobic discrimination and should therefore be repealed immediately.

If black or Jewish people had been banned from marriage, the government would act swiftly to ensure marriage equality. There would be no long drawn out consultation period. There would be no appeasement of racists and anti-Semites. Why the double standards?

No other government legislation is being subjected to such prolonged consultation and repeated postponements.

The Scottish government has not hesitated. Its consultation on marriage and partnership equality is already underway. Why is the UK Equality Minister dragging her feet and delaying her consultation until next spring? It doesn’t make sense.

The Westminster government has promised to legislate marriage equality before the date of the next election, due by May 2015 at the latest. However, the delayed consultation could result in the measure not completing its parliamentary progress in time. Likely resistance by the House of Lords might result in its being timed out. Is this deliberate?

Ending sexual orientation discrimination in marriage law is not only the right thing to do, it has majority public support. There is, therefore, no reason for the government to delay in bringing forward legislation to end this legal iniquity.

Nearly two-thirds of the public support marriage equality. According to a 2009 Populous opinion poll, 61% of the public say that lesbian and gay couples should be allowed by law to get married:

Lynne Featherstone’s gay marriage consultation announcement looks like an attempt to head off the Equal Love legal case in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

In February, four gay couples and four heterosexual couples filed an application in the ECHR to overturn sexual orientation discrimination in civil marriage and civil partnership law.

Speaking as the appeal coordinator, I can say we are quietly confident that we will win the case – eventually (an ECHR ruling can take four years).

The current UK ban on straight couples having a civil partnership is clear discrimination. Lynne’s commitment to maintain this inequality is both surprising and shocking. It is wrong for her to exclude in advance any discussion about opening up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples.

I stand for equality and this includes equality for straight people too. It would be wrong for the LGBT community to demand equal rights for ourselves and then ignore or accept the denial of equality to heterosexual people. In a democracy we should all be equal before the law.

There are many heterosexuals who would like a civil partnership. To deny them this option is very unfair – and it is illegal under human rights law. How can a Lib Dem Equality Minister support inequality?

The Netherlands has an equivalent to civil partnerships. Called registered partnerships, they are open to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The vast majority of Dutch civil partnerships are heterosexual ones. They are hugely popular and would be equally popular in the UK, if the government allowed straight couples to have them. To deny British heterosexuals the option of a civil partnership is profoundly wrong and unjust.

This is bad enough. However, Lynne has also ruled that her consultation will not consider the option of ending the ban on religious marriages for lesbian and gay couples, even though some faith organisations – such as the Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jews – have requested that they should be allowed to marry same-sex partners. Lynne says no. She says the ban must stay. This is a violation of religious freedom. While no religious body should be forced to perform same-sex marriages, those that support gay marriage should not be barred by law from doing so.

I appeal to Lynne – and Nick Clegg – to rethink this ill-considered consultation timetable and its pro-discrimination parameters – to both ensure non-discrimination and to avoid an embarrassing defeat in the European Court of Human Rights.

It is outrageous that the Equality Minister wants to maintain the unequal, discriminatory laws that bar gay religious marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships. Her stance is not compatible with her professed Liberal Democrat values or with the wishes of the vast majority of Lib Dem party members.

This article was first published on Lib Dem Voice.

Former Lib Dem MP Evan Harris defended Lynne Featherstone in a separate article.

We give priority to working with young people under 25, and are the only charity actively working to promote good sexual health and educating to raise awareness of sexual health within the Jewish community.

But while the charity is as old as World AIDS Day, rather than flourishing, it is under threat.

Our statutory funding, 25% of our annual budget, was stopped earlier this year. Individual donations are down 65%.

The need for the work is no less and yet it seems without the authentication of the statutory funding, Jewish schools and other organisations do not feel there is a need.

It is a similar situation to the uproar around the programme to protect women from HPV, the most common cause of cervical cancer – the community says it doesn’t want or need vaccination. The unreasonable belief that everyone is safe if they lead a religiously observant life is, at the least, naive and at worst dangerous and irresponsible.

This current Government has no intention of making Sex and Relationships Education compulsory and it is still unclear what they intend to do with Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education – without it we face a future where young people are driven by myth and confusion and not able to make safe and informed choices about their personal relationships.

Sexual health, especially aspects of sexuality and sexual orientation, is rarely addressed within faith communities and is often seen as taboo. There is a default position of denial and many parents believe that maintaining children’s (and their own) ignorance will preserve innocence.

Organisations like JAT are often the place where clients feel that they can receive additional bespoke support which meets their specific faith/family/spiritual needs – a place of acceptance and absence of discrimination or judgement.

The charity continues to educate on sexual health and relationships across the Jewish community and is now in partnership with other faith charities such as London Ecumenical AIDS Trust and with Naz Project London, sharing good practice and training health and education professionals to respond to faith needs in their work.

JAT’s mission is to ensure that the Jewish community has support to maintain well-being and high quality education about sexual health; thus enabling all members of the community to make safe and informed decisions.

Without JAT and organisations like it, people living with HIV will become more isolated and vulnerable and preventative approaches and education will not be prioritised.

May this World AIDS Day 2011 raise awareness but also galvanise those who care, into action.

Chazak – Be Strong!

Janine Clements is the Director of Jewish Action and Training for sexual heath. She is on the Advisory Group of the Sex Education Forum.

The government’s HIV strategy is flawed and failing.

London HIV clinics are under pressure to prescribe cheaper HIV drugs, which may not be as effective and may have more severe side effects. This could put at risk the health of some people with HIV. It is evidence of the potentially damaging consequences of public spending cuts and pressure on NHS finances.

The closure or merger of some local and regional HIV services means that many people with HIV now have to travel longer distances to access good quality care and support. The time and cost involved can act as a disincentive to engagement with HIV services.

HIV education is woefully inadequate in most schools. Teaching pupils how to roll a condom on a banana is not good enough.

Very few students learn how to negotiate safer sex and what to do if a partner refuses to wear a condom. There is no popularisation of less risky alternatives to intercourse, such as oral sex, body rubbing and mutual masturbation. These alternatives should be explained in all secondary schools.

What safer sex information is taught in schools is wholly oriented to heterosexual pupils. Gay and bisexual students get no specific advice on how to have gay sex safely.

Many faith schools and independent schools are getting away with neglecting their pupil’s HIV education. They put their own dogmas and embarrassment about sexual matters before the health and welfare of young people.

Frank, detailed and effective HIV awareness and prevention education should be mandatory in all schools from primary level onwards, before pupils become sexually active and adopt unsafe sexual habits.

The needs of gay and bisexual men continue to be under-resourced. HIV prevention campaigns targeted at men who have sex with men are not working, as evidenced by the high number of new HIV infections.

Having won so many gains in terms of legal rights and social acceptance, we need to ensure that we remain healthy to enjoy the benefits of equality. We may have to rethink some HIV prevention advertising campaigns to make them more hard-hitting and impactive. The level of new infections in our community needs to be cut very significantly.

Access to effective HIV prevention information and to high quality HIV health-care are human rights. They should be available to all.

The World AIDS Day overarching theme is ‘Getting to Zero’.

But BME people are still disproportionately affected by late HIV diagnosis.

According to the latest Health Protection Agency data published this week, 57% of all late HIV diagnoses are amongst Black & Minority Ethnic Communities.

People diagnosed late have a tenfold increased risk of dying within a year of diagnosis compared to those diagnosed promptly.

Of the 680 people with HIV who died, two thirds had been diagnosed late.

A total of 6,658 persons (4,510 men and 2,147 women) were diagnosed with HIV in 2010. An estimated 3,000 new diagnoses were made amongst men who have sex with men, the highest number since records began.

And yet we’ve seen 43% cut in funding for HIV prevention work and, worse still, essential services disappearing just at a time when front line services are needed most.

These are sobering figures when we are trying to ‘get to zero’. If we are really serious about tackling late diagnosis then we need to stop dismantling frontline infrastructure and invest in long term sustainability.

We need far more community based early testing campaigns with peer support strategies. And we urgently need to address the alarming fact that, 30 years on, the UK epidemic is still marked by inequality: its defining characteristics are sexual orientation and race.

Bryan Teixeira is the Chief Executive of Naz Project London. The Naz Project is the leading BME Sexual Health Charity in the UK.

When a few months ago the Government announced it was replacing the ban on gay men donating blood with a twelve-month deferral, a surprising number of those who challenged the decision seemed either unaware or unwilling to face the fact that we – as a group – are far more likely to contract a blood-borne virus than almost any other group in the UK.

The fact is, for every ten people who acquired HIV through sex in 2010, seven of those people were gay or bisexual men.

When you consider that we are supposed to make up anywhere between 3% and 4% of the general population, it becomes clear just how skewed the epidemic is.

Among gay men, the majority of HIV is being passed on by those who don’t know they have it; that’s thousands of men all over the country who may have put themselves at risk one year ago, or five, or even ten, usually with someone who didn’t know they had it either.

And so long as they’re not getting tested for HIV, they’re damaging their bodies, and sometimes they’re passing it on.

So why is there still this blind spot when it comes to HIV? Why are we so unwilling to accept that there is now more of it present on the gay scene than at any time in the epidemic’s history? And why aren’t more gay men coming forward for testing?

In a sense, HIV is a victim of its own capitals. Since the early ‘80s, when the headline-writers of Middle England flew into a tabloid frenzy over the arrival of the ‘Gay Plague’, living with the virus has been seen as something that is dirty, shameful and self-inflicted.

It isn’t any of those things but, because the hardest hit have always been those groups on the edges of society (gay men, ethnic minorities, sex workers, injecting drug users), HIV has been set against a moral backdrop unmatched by any other medical condition.

Those who have diabetes worry about having diabetes. Those who have HIV worry their family will find out.

Given the widespread stigma that still surrounds the condition, it’s unsurprising that some within the community would want to distance themselves from it. We are, after all, a new generation, with hard-won rights and a Government-approved place in society.

It would certainly be convenient to believe that HIV was something that happened years ago, or in another part of the world; that it died with Freddie Mercury. But it didn’t.

It is often said that the first step towards any recovery is admitting a problem exists. This is just as true for the HIV epidemic. If we want to stop the spread of HIV among gay men, then we as gay men need to accept we are still at a heightened risk of infection.

We need to protect ourselves by continuing to use condoms, we need to get ourselves along to our local sexual health clinic once every six months, and – if we have HIV – we need to make sure we’re on treatment. This doesn’t say anything about who we are as people; it’s just the way the cards have fallen.

At Terrence Higgins Trust, we’ve been working to reduce the spread of HIV for thirty years, and we couldn’t have come as far as we have without the support of the gay community.

But the truth is we still have a way to go, and that means we still need your help. So do something for us today; visit our website and find out more about HIV, talk to your friends about condoms, challenge stigma when you see it, and make a commitment to put HIV back on the agenda.

If we can take the drive and energy that’s been used to campaign for gay rights, and channel just some of it into the struggle against HIV, then we might stand a fighting chance.

Will Harris is Press Officer for Terrence Higgins Trust, which was one of the first charities to be set up in response to the HIV epidemic and has been at the forefront of the fight against HIV, and improving the nation’s sexual health, ever since.