How cynical can Ben Summerskill be?

In his parting shot after stepping down as chief executive of Stonewall last month Ben Summerskill has taken one last swipe in today's Observer at the Liberal Democrats over their stance being the first UK-wide party to adopt a policy on equal marriage.

He says we were cynical to pass it just after we entered Government in 2010, but this of course is another case of Summerskill's selective amnesia. The Lib Dems are a Federal Party which sometimes means that party policy can start out in one of the other state parties before it comes to the Federal platform. This is the case for equal marriage it was passed in March 2010 at Scottish conference. Federal conference at around the same time was finalising the UK wide manifesto ahead of the general election therefore there wasn't room on the 2 day agenda then to discuss new policy.

There was also a distinct difference in wording the year after 2010 when the main parties faced the Scottish electorate. SNP were ready to consult on it, Labour were only prepared to promise to allow faith groups to carry out civil partnerships on their premises and consult on the different status between civil partnership and marriage. The Lib Dems and Greens were bold enough to say they would bring equality both to marriage and civil partnerships, while the Conservatives were strangely quiet.

What is cynical is the stance that Stonewall took on the equal marriage debate. A month ahead of the Lib Dems debating it they were silent when Pink News consulting leading organisations about it. Indeed it was a commenter on that post that told me what Stonewall's response was:

"Stonewall are not campaigning against same-sex marriage and never have. Our focus in terms of legal recognition of same-sex relationships is on the practical rights and benefits available to couples. Marriage would give no extra legal rights than those currently available.

"Having secured an amendment to the Equality Act we want the Government to implement the legal changes necessary to allow those religious groups who want to conduct ceremonies on their premises to be able to do so. David Cameron stated his support for this recently."

So  that stance was on a par with the Alli amendment to extend the right to conduct civil partnerships on religious premises (ie ensuring the registrar was off the premises for any religious elements that the couple might want to include).

The night before the debate at the LGBT+ Lib Dems diversity fringe event Ben Summerskill put up the barriers against equal marriage; cost, the feminist movement, need to focus on homophobia. Afterwards Stonewall issued this press statement. During that week I'll give Ben some historical credence for his comments today, then he commented in Attitude:

"Anyone who's involved in campaigning [for equal marriage] should be very cautious about being seduced by politicians in any party who are looking for political advantage and have different imperatives from gay people in the wider world."

Strange then how once Stonewall took up the baton they ignored their chief executives own comments that equal marriage wasn't a different imperative from gay people in the wider world, but that it was their idea all along. Now that in my book is cynicism.

The fact of course is that being Stonewall they only ever saw it in terms of gay marriage, failing to take up the Lib Dem's calls to fairness to those who are transgender and intersex. This was something they did a month after the first party in the UK to make it policy did so saying:

"We seek to secure marriage for gay people as a civil vehicle on the same basis as heterosexual marriage, available in a registry office but without a mandate on religious organisations to celebrate it.

"We seek to retain civil partnerships for lesbian and gay people recognising their special and unique status."

Yeah their initial response, and response ever since, has been to dilute the Lib Dem definition of equality. Only talking about it in the gay context not the whole LGBT spectrum and only seeking to retain CPs for same-sex couples and not expand it mixed-sex couples. So that when they proclaimed that equal marriage was delivered in the UK they were cynical. Those of us who know what equal marriage means know that England and Wales are behind Scotland on trangender issues and on freedom of religion, while Northern Ireland like transgender people don't feature at all on Stonewall's radar.

My own personal history on working out how to get the Lib Dems to accept forming policy on equal marriage goes back before 2010. Indeed in 2009 I posted that I was aware that there were a number of people in the party who would believe it should be a matter of conscience and not something we should form policy on (when it came to the votes in Parliament you can see who some of those high profile members were). This was also the time that along with Liberal Youth Scotland I was already starting to work on forming just such a policy the one that would eventually be passed in Scotland that following March and was largely reflecting in the policy that Ben Summerskill now calls cynical.

I like the fact that Peter Tatchell actually also takes Ben Summerskill to task on this saying:

"An apology would be appreciated. Stonewall does great work but the gay campaign for marriage equality faced an uphill struggle, which was made worse by Stonewall constantly undermining our efforts. Some of the arguments Ben and Stonewall put forward at the time [2010] were quoted by homophobes to justify their opposition to same-sex marriage and this was hugely damaging.

"I am not a supporter of the Liberal Democrats, but on the issue of same-sex marriage the party took an early position, while Stonewall did all it could to sabotage that position. It is unbelievable really."

 I just hope that the new chief executive of Stonewall does get the implications on the transgender community and indeed Northern Ireland that Stonewall's neglect, despite the basis on the name in the entire LGBTQ community would suggest it should include, under Summerskill's watch.

Update 11:58 the one thing I couldn't comment on earlier was the quote upon which Summerskill has hung the entire cynicism claim from our former MP Evan Harris. Thankfully he has tweeted this which shows that far from being cynical he was saying that being in power the Lib Dems should "seize the moment [of being in Government] to push the agenda forward on full equality" something which is based on the constitution of the party.

Ben Summerskill's selective amnesia

Ben Summerskill tweeted this yesterday.

Even more ironically he tweeted it as I was pursuing Lib Dem policy on Equal Marriage in Northern Ireland, part of the UK which Stonewall UK (see Twitter name above) fails to operate in! Meeting with one of my MLAs about his plans to get something done in Stormont and then the first meeting of Equal Marriage Northern Ireland (at which there was no Stonewall presence but Lib Dems were present).

I first helped bring about the equal marriage policy for the Scottish Lib Dems in Scotland in  Spring 2010 which covered civil and religious same sex marriage. This was before the Federal Party debated and brought about a similar motion and policy in the Autumn and Summerskill at the LGBT+ fringe meeting denied that equal marriage should be pursued saying that it was too expensive.

In follow up tweets Mr Summerskill said that Stonewall were advocated religious same-sex marriage in September 2010. Well looking through my blog posts they only came out for equal marriage in October and then said:

"We seek to secure marriage for gay people as a civil vehicle on the same basis as heterosexual marriage, available in a registry office but without a mandate on religious organisations to celebrate it.

"We seek to retain civil partnerships for lesbian and gay people recognising their special and unique status."

Maybe Ben would care to enlighten me where that mentions religious marriage. In the year since we officially passed policy Lynne Featherstone worked hard to get Equal Marriage unto the agenda. Sadly it wasn't in the Coalition Agreement so she had to battle hard to get what she could. To within one year secure any consultation on this issue is rapid when you look in terms of other LGBT legislation down through the years. However, on the evening that she announced it at Conference I asked her why the religious element wasn't included and the reason was that it was all she could get out of the Conservatives at the time. But she urged those of us who wanted more to say so as part of the consultation, which of course I have done.

Summerskill is on record of saying people shouldn't play political football with the subject of equal marriage. So I'm not going to do that. Merely remind him to look at the chronology of events. If in Northern Ireland we can have all interested parties looking to work together to achieve this without political point scoring I'd like to think that Stonewall can do the same. Time to move on and stop the bickering about who's following who let's all aim to cross the line we still haven't quite made it to yet.

Ben Summerskill's Webb Ellis Moment

Image used with permission from
gyronny.com

Last week Ben Summerskill warned the LGB community (Stonewall doesn't do T) to beware of politicians playing political football with the issue of equal marriage.

Over the last week the tweets and comments have been coming thicker and faster from all political parties and those with none. There is uproar from a broad section of the LGBT community that hasn't been since 1969 and the original Stonewall riots. I think we have noticed that Ben Summerskill is like a poor confused pupil standing on the playing fields of Rugby unsure of what to make of William Webb Ellis's innovation. For those of you who don't know Webb Ellis was the pupil credited with picking up a football on the playing fields of Rugby and creating a whole new game which bears the school's name.

To me that is the ideal analogy of what has happened to Stonewall and Ben Summerskill over the last few months/years. Other groups and even the mainstream political parties have picked up the ball of equality and are running with it in hand. They are holding unto equality tightly, not controlling its passage with taps from their feet. For them equality is not just equalising LGB rights it is about inclusiveness of SLGBTQ* (Staight, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning) rights, something that while Stonewall say they stand for equality they seem unable to support.

The right of heterosexuals to have equal access to Civil Partnerships was part of the Lib Dem Policy passed last week. It was also part of the original CP legislation going through Parliament, which Stonewall say they were championing, yet now they (or is it just Ben) say they are not standing for heterosexual equality.

The policy also included Humanist celebrants in the right to marry or civil partner couples in England and Wales. Something that they had only been able to do in Scotland before. An equality of beliefs which Stonewall probably don't want to recognise or support.

The fact is that the equality that is left to fight for has to be fair to heterosexual, homosexuals, bisexuals and transgender people. That is the whole new ball game. It is the ironing out of the little things that were once thought separate is okay as long as we step along the right path. It's time to smooth those out, being equal need to be just that, equal opportunities for all.

If Summerskill can't see that maybe it is time for Team Stonewall to select a new captain. Or if Stonewall really cannot see them, maybe they should get out of the game. 86% of the recent PinkNews poll were in favour of equal marriage, 61% of the general public in a recent poll said the same.

It truly is time to work out how to do, not work out the issues for why 'society' can't.

* May even have to add AP to that for Asexual or Polyamorous.

Quote of the Day: Ben Summerskill Part Deux #MoreBS

Image used with permission from
gyronny.com

"Stonewall has never pretended to be a democratic member organisation. We have never said we speak for all lesbian, gay and bisexual people."

Ben Summerskill quoted in Pink News

Good because you aren't speaking for me, nor it seems journalist Johann Hari who at the LGBT Labour fringe event today said :

"We are not the government, we are making demands on the government."

Which is good except for the past 13 year LGBT Labour have been associated to the party of Government and haven't pushed them on this issue. Last week was the first time a party of government passed a UK-wide equal marriage policy. Sadly the Labour party this week only placed equal marriage 13th on the list of priorities for debate.

Summerskill is also scared that the bill would fail in the Lords, by "retreating to tradition", all the more reason for the reform of the House of Lords in the current Government's plans.

Summerskill also claimed in response to Hari's comment that disability groups wouldn't deliberate the cost of wheelchair ramps, that "It is perfectly proper to say there are arguments that will be used against us so we can counter them". That would the the £5bn figures that was initially Department of Work and Pensions, then the Home Office then Stonewalls own reckoning as both Government bodies denied this figure.

Read also: This post from Timothy J Moore who was at the LGBT Labour meeting, which suggests that Summerskill was reiterating comments that he made last week at the Delga (LGBT Lib Dems) fringe.

Quote of the Day: Ben Summerskill

Earlier I saw a Tweet or two that mentioned that this month's Attitude had an article on gay equal marriage, including comment from Stonewall. They have this comment from, I'm sorry it is him again, Ben Summerskill.

"Anyone who's involved in campaigning [for equal marriage] should be very cautious about being seduced by politicians in any party who are looking for political advantage and have have different imperatives from gay people in the wider world."

Now I have a problem with that. I am a gay politician from the party that has just passed an equal marriage policy federally, after I was involved it getting it passed at Scottish level. Do I have be be cautious of seducing myself? I have been listening to the wider gay community, I even had a few thanks yous from various members of that community for the work I've already done on the issue.

Meanwhile, I'm reading from comments on PinkNews story of Summerskill's comments at Lib Dem conference is that Stonewall supporters etc are wondering just where is the consultation with their own 'members' a phrase that seems hard to pin down who it covers.

Update: The original PinkNews article was update and now contains the following disclaimer:

"Comments made during the 21st September have been suspended at the request of Stonewall. It is possible to post comments though on this amended version of the article.

PinkNews.co.uk is happy to publish the clarifications above and apologises for any confusion caused by the original report."

So Stonewall are trying to censor freedom of expression.

David Laws Doesn't Want to Return to Government

It really isn't my attempt to get at Stonewall again it is just a coincidence. When David Laws came out Ben Summerskill took to the air waves and print media saying that gay men who stayed in the closet didn't deserve the same degree of support and sympathy of an organisation such a Stonewall.

Reading the news today, while I was sitting waiting for Mícheál coming out of an appointment at the Royal Victoria Hospital, of David Law's latest statement I think it needs revisiting.

He says he has 'lost the hunger' and is 'unwilling to return to the Government' after the stress of being outed the way he was. There is even talk of him not seeking re-election for his seat in Yeovil at the next election depending on the outcome of a parliamentary investigation into the financial dealings which saw him worse off, but not declaring the relationship with his 'landlord'.

It is a sad case when someone is forcibly outed and loses their va-va voom as appears to be the case with one of the sharpest minds in the Lib Dem parliamentary team. It may be just a matter of time that David still needs to come to terms with his situation, I certainly hope it is, but I hope it is not the onset of some deeper malaise.

As I pointed out shortly at the time public opinion was that the UK didn't care about the sexuality of those leading the country. But it can be hard to have to come to terms with the sudden public knowledge of your sexuality. Most of us get the opportunity to come out to others in our own terms, in our own time. It is an ongoing process as each new contact has to be weighed up for how and when they are told.

To have that decision ripped out of you hands and over the front pages and TV screens must be a traumatic experience and one that takes some time to heal and get over. I'm not saying to David get out there and be proud of who you are right now. I'm sure if he had turned up at the Delga AGM or any of their fringe events* he would have been made to feel very welcome, but he chose to stay away from conference altogether. But I would say don't do anything too hasty. See advice from those of us who are out, gay, candidates or MPs about how we deal with it. Some of us keep it as something we don't talk about, some like me seem to very much at ease as talking about it as part of us, not the whole.

It would be a shame to lose David to politics altogether and I hope that he does reconsider the statement he has made. But I also know that the time has to be right for him.

* Or any part of conference for that matter.

Fisking the Stonewall Response To Ben's 'Comments' #MoreBS #LDConf

Cross posted at Liberal Democrats in Northern Ireland

A friend of mine following up on my comments about Ben Summerskill's comments at the Diversity fringe meeting on Monday sent an email to Stonewall. He received a response which linked to this press statement. He forwarded it to me and I think it requires Fisking.

Press Statement from Stonewall Fisking by Stephen Glenn

The story published by PinkNews today is, sadly, a largely dishonest account of what took place at last night's fringe meeting in Liverpool. I took my lead from friends' comments and blogs who were actually there. Multiple sources. Also MPs and a former London mayoral candidate commented on it during the debate yesterday on equal marriage.

We deeply regret that PinkNews chose to publish the story late at night without double-checking a single fact and without having troubled to attend either the meeting itself or a party conference at which such an important issue was being discussed. Zoe O'Connell was at the meeting and blogged not once but twice the second time to pick on some inaccuracies in what others were saying but not in the context or essence of what I posted or what PinkNews said.

Ben made quite clear at the meeting that Stonewall is engaged in a process of listening and consulting with active Stonewall supporters, of whom there are almost 20,000, about the future of civil partnership. This is an issue affecting the broad church of the LGBT community not just the 20,000 members of Stonewall. Are they not also listening to that wider community? Many of that wider community are outraged that Stonewall, a so-called 'leader' on LGBT rights, had so far not said anything on this issue.

UPDATE: There is comment on the updated PinkNews report which says:

Oh and as a Stonewall "supporter" who has contributed financially over the past decade, I have never been consulted about anything from this organisation. The most I have ever received are a) requests for donations b) publicity on events and initiatives c) asked to purchase tickets for gala etc but never once asked for an opinion.

So just has been consulted.

While some lesbian, gay and bisexual people fully support changing civil partnership into marriage Stonewall above commented on PinkNews not checking facts!!! Oops. The motion (now policy) is not a single option for marriage, there is the choice of CPs or Marriage open to ALL., there are others – including particularly some women – who do not want something that is either the same as or synonymous with marriage. Again using a feminist argument to deny others something they want doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It they don't want anything synonymous with marriage they they don't have to same as with anyone else. This is a sensitive area of policy development and not one which is assisted by inflammatory media coverage.

The Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone, with whom we have discussed this issue privately, acknowledged in response to Ben's remarks last night that as Stonewall is a supporter-based organisation it could not be expected to issue a response to such an issue until it had built the sort of consensus Ben had outlined. This issue has been being discussed since the introduction of CPs in 2005. The Equal Marriage Campaign is something I have been a member of for over 2 years. The failure of Stonewall to have come to a consensus in that time scale, not the 4 days that PinkNews asked for a mere 400 words, is scandalous.

Ben did not say for one moment that Stonewall objected to the motion that would be debated today because it would cost £5bn. Ah that's all right then. But see what Zoe said in that second post.

Ben pointed out, factually, that there was a cost to including provision of civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples in the motion. He suggested that ministers should publish the Treasury Impact Assessment that will have been carried out. Well if cost is going to be a hindrance bringing equality, we should not have brought in Civil Partnerships for gays and lesbians. We shouldn't have brought in minimum wage or equal pay. At a time when companies are downsizing we shouldn't have brought in the law to prevent employees being fired because they are gay. We also shouldn't have extended the franchise to women, or Roman Catholics or Jews either. GET REAL!!! When has cost ever, or should it ever be an excuse against equality.

This is a policy on which Stonewall expressed and expresses no view (campaigning to end heterosexual disadvantage is not one of its charitable objectives it may not be one of the objectives per se of Stonewall but why are they seeking just to support gays not achieve equality. If LGBT groups aren't standing up for equality who can?, and Ben said that) however, with an estimated cost of £5bn over 10 years, people have understandably raised the question of whether it is likely in the current economic environment that such a policy would be implemented in the lifetime of this parliament. Hang on above you said this wasn't a reason Ben had for objecting yet you appear to say he was doing so here.

Stonewall is determined, as Ben made crystal clear at the meeting, to build – as it has always strived to do on any issue - a policy and campaigning position on the future of civil partnership that has the support of the widest possible number of lesbian, gay and bisexual people in Britain. Yet you seem to be arguing for the small number of women having the right to deter it for others, how bizarre.

For PinkNews to publish and fail to correct a story in this way sadly brings the whole of the pink media, which serves our minority communities uniquely well, into disrepute. I have seen and heard numerous comments from friends who were there, I would have been myself if I'd been able to get to conference. I have read this statement in full I do not think that PinkNews got it wrong. I see no reason for them to correct their story as Stonewall have not denied any of the comments were made and indeed seem to try and defend a number of them here.

Update: The original PinkNews article was update and now contains the following disclaimer:

"Comments made during the 21st September have been suspended at the request of Stonewall. It is possible to post comments though on this amended version of the article.

PinkNews.co.uk is happy to publish the clarifications above and apologises for any confusion caused by the original report."

So Stonewall are trying to censor freedom of expression.

Stonewall Says No

If I'd been at the Liberal Democrat conference today this evening I would have been at Delga (LGBT Lib Dems) diversity fringe event. This would have been before heading to the General Election candidate's reception later.

However, reading what I have just read suspect that I would have been sat in a corner writing what I now am. Thanks to Zoe O'Connell whose blog brought my attention first to what went on earlier.

Twas the night before Equal Marriage was debated in the hall,
And Stonewall weren't stirring they were scared as a mouse.

Well that is what we all thought they refused to respond to Pink News asking them a simple question on their stance on gay marriage. Stonewall weren't being singled out, but as one of the LGBT community's larger group their silence when 9 other groups did was noted.

Well Ben Summerskill tonight broke that silence. But here are some of the bizarre reasons that he gave. My comments in red.

• Giving Civil Partnerships to heterosexual couples would be too expensive £5bn over 10 years. Since when has cost been a reason to stop equality and correct wrongs.
• That the feminist movement are fundamentally opposed to marriage. Just because one group is opposed to something while others want it is no reason to stop it being taken up by others.
• Finally while people are being murdered in homophobic attacks we should he fighting that, focusing on that and not other things. While there is a difference in term for relationship surely that merely sparks the discriminators that there is something different, or 'wrong' in same sex unions.

I'm surprised he didn't use the argument that same same sex unions will ultimately fail. But I would say to that of course they will fail, not every heterosexual relationship lasts until the grave. Yes gay and lesbian couples will have arguments, they will fight, some of the those unions marriages or partnership will end in divorce (some of course already have).

But we need to give them the opportunity to fail so that we can rejoice with those that succeed. Those who in 20 years time celebrate their silver anniversary. Hopefully some having updating their CP into marriage as part of tomorrow's motion enables.

I look forward to the day that young gay men or women dream of their wedding in the same light as heterosexuals do. Look forward being it a ting that brings family and community together and isn't seen as odd or lout of whack, but a natural progression. Maybe when the relationships are normalised the homophobia will die down, maybe not entirely but to a greater extend.