Jeffrey get your facts right about cafés, the bible and LGBT in this country

Today in PMQs the DUP's MP for Lagan Valley, Jeffrey Donaldson, asked David Cameron the following question:

Q8. [76635] Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP): The Prime Minister has warned African countries that unless they improve gay rights, he will cut their aid, yet in many African countries where we pour in millions of pounds of aid, Christians face great persecution and destruction of churches, lives and property. Here in the UK, anyone who displays a Bible verse on the wall of a café faces prosecution. Was Ann Widdecombe right when she said that in the 21st century hedgehogs have more rights than Christians?

Now me being curious wanted to take a look at just how many cafe owners had faced prosecution for the offence of displaying a bible verse as I know a few of them around Northern Ireland that do so. Though I do know that potentially there are a few that are on permanent display on roadsides in Northern Ireland that could cause offence to certain sections of the community under section 75 (1) of the Belfast Agreement and I have yet to hear of anyone or any LGBT group protesting or prosecuting their existence.

It appears I wasn't the only one to want to do a fact check, read this piece by full fact check.

The Ann Widdecombe reference comes from this article in her Express column. But she doesn't mention anything about Cafes.

No that honour goes to the Fail on Sunday (again I have to apologise to readers for the link). After 24 paragraphs of reporting in which it is said that

• the cafe owner was threatened with arrest
• that he was told to stop playing his DVDs of the New Testament
• that he faced and intensive inquisition for over an hour after the police arrived unannounced
• that he was being bullied by the police
• that he feared being put into handcuffs
• that the Christian Institute (yes them again) are preparing a complaint on the cafe owners behalf

We get to this statement from Lancashire Constabulary after it says that they turned up to look into a complaint from a member of the public under the Public Order Act 1986 (which also for the record states that criticism of sexual conduct shall not in itself be deemed threatening or to stir up hatred):

"At no point did the officer ask the cafe owner to remove any materials or arrest the man and we took a commonsense and objective approach in dealing with the complaint. We believe our response and the action we took was completely proportionate and our officers are always available should the cafe owner want to discuss the matter or need any advice in the future. 

"The Constabulary is respectful of all religious views. However, we do have a responsibility to make sure that material that communities may find deeply offensive or inflammatory is not being displayed in public. 

"No complaint has been received about the conduct of the officer in question and we are satisfied that they performed their duties professionally."

Yeah it is another non-story in the Fail.

Maybe Jeffrey should look at some of the activity within his own party. Of course there is the former chair of the Health Committee who said that homosexual should see her little Christian psychiatrist friend for a cure. Or the current deputy chair who says that all those who take part in Pride are repugnant. Even those it would seem who offer counselling to suicidal LGBT young and not so young people, those who offer sexual health advise to all whether LGBT or straight, those who are men/women of the cloth, those who sit with them in Stormont or council chambers across Northern Ireland.

In America the so called family group, the American Family Association (AFA), have this week attacked the Trevor Project, a helpline for suicidal prevention among LGBT teens. So clearly they don't want people to tell these LGBT teens, who are five times more likely to take their own lives that straight teens, not to commit suicide. Sadly that is not so far removed from the actions and words of many in the DUP and indeed the tone with which Mr Donaldson asked his question. The figures for homophobic bullying of teens in Northern Ireland are as bad as in the USA where the AFA operate are just as bad.

Those of us who have been through those feelings in the past want to tell Northern Ireland LGBT teens, young people and not so young that it gets better, but how can we when our leaders fail to get their facts right about issues of homophobia real or alleged.

Fisking the AFA Over Judge Walker Impeachment Call

Well it is a little over 24 hours since Judge Vaughan Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. Well tonight I've just received a mailing list from the American Family Association (AFA), who else, calling for the judged impeachment.

Time for a little fisking in red.

August 5, 2010


Dear Friend,

Well if you are going to add me to your alert list when I sign up to your site to complain, feel free to call me a friend.

Yesterday (August 4), U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker single-handedly overturned California's Prop. 8, which elevated protection for one-man, one-woman marriage to its state constitution.

As far as I'm aware equal marriage rights does nothing to infringe on the rights of one-man to take one-woman (or indeed a series of women) to he his lawfully married wife (wives). The proponents of gay marriage are saying that each man should be cleaved to another man and each woman to another woman in matrimony. They are protecting current existing marriage but expanding it's availability to everyone irrespective of sexual orientation.

In doing so, he frustrated the expressed will of seven million Californians who went to the polls to shape their state's public policy on marriage.

The vote was 7,001,408 for Prop 9 52.24% and 6,401,482 against. Indeed the Proposition was called 'California Marriage Protection Act' as if the act of heterosexual marriage was under some kind of threat. If there was such scaremongering in the naming it is surprising it didn't pass more comfortably.

As Alex Foster pointed out earlier this is the only occasion that equal marriage has been overturned anywhere in the world after it has been introduced. Also should majority rights be put to a majority vote. If they did every time would America still allow slavery, at least in certain states? Would apartheid still be practised in the southern states? Minority rights need to be protected that is what the judge stood up for.

Since marriage policy is not established anywhere in the federal Constitution, defining marriage, according to the 10th Amendment, is an issue reserved for the states. Judge Walker never should have accepted this case in the first place.

Actually that same constitution separates Church and State. The State is to rule as a secular body and take the whims or fancies of the Catholic and Mormon churches who heavily supported Prop 8 and the legal defence in this case to task.

Under Judge Walker, it's no longer "We the People," it's "I the Judge."

In addition, Judge Walker is an open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest.

Hang on! Wouldn't an openly heterosexual and religious Judge also have had to excuse themselves on that reckoning. Should we then only appoint judges who aren't prepared to make tough decisions, it would make things so much easier.

Some facts about Judge Walker he was a Reagan nominee. Talk about conservative. The current Democrat speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, opposed his appointment because of his alleged 'insensitivity' to gays and the poor.

What can be done?

Fortunately, the Founders provided checks and balances for every branch of government, including the judicial branch. Federal judges hold office only "during good Behaviour," and if they violate that standard can be removed from the bench.

These checks and balances are also what the judges have the right to uphold the constitution when a state proposition goes against the ethos of the founders.

Judge Walker's ruling is not "good Behaviour." He has exceeded his constitutional authority and engaged in judicial tyranny.

When we are talking about good behaviour lets look at one of the two Prop 8 witnesses who must have perjured himself under oath by saying that a child is 12 times more likely to be abused by a gay, when the government findings, as I wrote yesterday, indicate that the overwhelming majority over 100 times more likely to be a heterosexual person. And most common someone known to the child.

Judges are not, in fact, unaccountable. They are accountable to Congress, which can remove them from office.

Impeachment proceedings, according to the Constitution, begin in the House of Representatives. It's time for you to put your congressman on record regarding the possible impeachment of Judge Walker.

Sincerely,

Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association

So there you have it, that is what the AFA want to do next, instead of actually paying to put up a good defence of their cause in court, they relied on myths and falsehoods and a poor performance. Sore losers, scaremongers and perjurers. Jumping straight to impeach rather than the Supreme Court shows desperation and a need to attack the LGBT, which only has two openly gay judges in the entire USA.

Daniel Radcliffe to Record Ad for LGBT Youth Helpline

There were two things that struck me about Daniel Radcliffe's interview in Attitude magazine last year. The first was obviously that he'd said he would be voting Liberal Democrat in his first general election vote, the second was how tuned in and comfortable he was for such a young, straight star with LGBT issues.

Therefore it isn't really a surprise that Daniel is willing to record an ad for a LGBT youth helpline in the US. Speaking of the project on MTV Radcliffe said:

"The Trevor Project is the only [US] nationwide around-the-clock crisis- and suicide-prevention help line [of its kind]. [It's designed] for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth. There will also soon be a 'Trevor' iPhone application."

Summing why he should tie himself to such a cause Daniel said, "You don't have to be gay to be a supporter — you just have to be human."Going on he said:

"Some are gay, some are straight — didn't make any difference to me. When I went to my secondary school, I heard terms like 'poof' and 'homo' getting thrown around. It never occurred to me that some people might have a problem with it."

It is liable to cause some shock that a prominent, young star is so willing to associate himself with a LGBT charity. But I think it is just the kick up the backside that some American's need. In this months Gay Times, American Idol runner up Adam Lambert told how unlike Danyl Johnson he refused to gender sensitive a lyric and hide his sexuality. Speaking of the song Fever by Lady Gaga on his new album For Your Entertainment in which he references a male love interest he says:

"She asked me, ' What shall we do about it?' and I answered 'I think I should say it.' 'So do I,' she said. It was funny because we realised a lot of radio stations out here probably won't play it because of that gender reference, literally because of that one line, they won't play the song.

"The bit that I think is really f***** up is that we as the entertainment community could help if it just said 'Deal with it people.' But instead it is so fearful tat people are going to object, boycott and complain that they cave in."

So well done to Daniel for not being afraid. I'm sure I'll soon see the American Family Association having another reason to complain about the last Harry Potter movies now, but I'm glad that the young Brits can show what it means to be human. Indeed living up to Matthew 25:35 'I was a stranger and you took me in' so much more that certain 'christian' groups seem to want to extend their charity to 'least of men', or rather of course not.

The Politics of Showering

Or America's Hysterical Homophobic Far Right

I signed up a while back to the American Family Association (AFA) mailing list, I had to sign up to comment negatively on one of their forums a while back. Well this morning I received their latest hysterical mailing, it includes the phrase.

"If President Obama, congressional Democrats, and homosexual activists get their wish, your son or daughter may be forced to share military showers and barracks with active and open homosexuals who may very well view them with sexual interest."

Oh dear, better go the whole hog AFA. Best not let them fight alongside Army's such as the British that allow homosexuals to be open about their sexuality. Better have segregated University Campuses, can't have America's straight young students getting barracked up with open and active homosexuals in halls. Worse they need to vet their sports teams, or just stop the homosexual sportsmen and women taking part in sport.

• Martina Navratilova should not have been allowed in the women's locker room at Wimbledon
• Greg Louganis, who famously banged his head off the springboard on the way to defending his Olympic gold, should not have been allowed to get out of his speedos next to the Olympic pool.
• As for sending a team to the Winter Olympics starting later this week. Well you know those gay magazines advertise skiing holidays, can't be too careful.
  

Are you going to protest and been consistent that these openly gay American sports stars hand back their achievements in the name of your country. Here is the news, from my personal experience, not all gay sportsmen view their straight team mates or competitors as sexual objects in the showers after the event. Fact is some of the straight guys show signs of arousal in the showers, but we won't ask and won't tell. So why should the military be different?

As a former footballer, rugby player and runner, and someone who still works out at the gym who happens to be gay I have seen plenty of naked straight guys in the showers. If I'd view each of those as a sexual interest and decided to follow through on it, I'd never be able to get anything done, either compete at the level I competed at or do any work.

In this months Gay Times magazine there is an article about gay men in the British army. Unlike in the USA where they exist but in a closeted way, in the British Army ten years after we changed our policy. One serving gay soldier said:

"Because the armed forces consist of such close-knit teams, I didn't want to hide anything, so it was important to be to be honest. That doesn't mean being camp though, it just means I don't have to put up a facade.

"That said, my sexuality is only as relevant as a straight guys. I wouldn't say it's part of my experience in the forces, in any other way than it's part of my experience of life. I suspect other gay soldiers feel the same."

Another tells of his coming out to his comrades:

"It wasn't planned. People found out by accident. However, everyone has been really understanding and supportive. The people I work with are like my extended family so we all know each other really well. They may make a joke of certain situations but nothing more that that. We are all serving in a conflict and that is the priority."

That joking about being one of the lads is something that I encountered when I came out to my team mates. It was an acceptance of me and who I was. They would be joking about each other and it was inclusion of me.

The AFA email concludes:

"If we do not insist that the ban on homosexual military service be retained*, our military will no longer be the place America's families want to send their best and brightest young men and women."

Personally I think that if they can't be confident enough with their own sexuality, confident enough to stand up for it, capable of saying no to unwanted advances they can't really be the best and the brightest that America has to offer. But if they are, heaven help the free world, we're being run and protected by simpletons.

* It doesn't exist they just can't tell.

Can People Not Give Impartial Advice?

One thing I hate about the American Family Association (AFA) is that they seem incapable of expecting anyone to give impartial advise. Therefore it was sadly no surprise that their latest outcry came to my ears.

Kevin Jennings, is the head of the White Houses Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. 21 years ago he told a student that if he was having a relationship with an older man, he should be careful to use a condom. Now for starters surely that is sound and sage advise, even if the young man were already sexually active with other men. As it was it was a provision for the future.

AFA president Tim Wildmon said Jennings "actively advances a radical homosexual agenda in America’s public school system under the guise of promoting anti-bullying policies".

Adding: "Are we to believe Kevin Jennings will fairly treat Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong? Students of faith will hardly be safe from bullying and intimidation in any school that listens to him. It’s time for the Obama administration to demand his resignation."

Actually I would suspect that he would be able to fairly treat Christians, just because a man gives health care advise to a group who's lifestyle you don't agree with doesn't mean he will also be able to consider the opinions of those you do. Each case, each pupil is an individual. If anyone in authority failed to recognise that and treat them all the same they are the ones that will hardly be keeping the child safe. Any teacher, even those in Christian schools in the states will be able to tell you that each is unique an individual and needs leading on their own path. Indeed are we not all 'fearfully and wonderfully made'?

Just because you at the AFA cannot remain impartial doesn't mean that other's can't. Therefore I think you accusation should be pointed back at you.

Are we to believe the AFA will fairly treat individuals who believe the AFA is wrong? Students of a homosexual nature will hardly be safe from bullying and intimidation in any school that listens to them. It’s time for the AFA to behave with more discretion.