Thank you Mr Dodds for the encouragement

Yesterday in the House of Commons debate on the Queen's Speech Nigel Dodds said:

"He is certainly proof that if we work at and fight for an issue that we believe in, we will get there in the end, especially if the cause is right."

Now the comment was directed at Sir William Cash and in relation to the EU referendum that has been promised in Queen's speech, but as an LGBT campaigner in Northern Ireland I take this as encouragement. Because also later when responding to his colleague Sammy Wilson he said:

"My hon. Friend raises an important issue, which is one of those that arise out of the Belfast agreement. As he knows, equality provisions under section 75..."

Although he did continue "work against giving our armed forces veterans the same status as those in the rest of the United Kingdom." the fact is that a DUP MP has acknowledged the Northern Ireland Act/Belfast Agreement and knows about section 75 is something.

But back to that first comment in relation to William Cash. The wave of rightness is on the side of those supporting Equal Marriage. Yesterday Greenland became the latest state to legislate for it in a unanimous vote. Since the referendum result in Ireland was announced Austrialian Prime Minister Tonny Abbott said he wouldn't stand in the way of a conscience vote. Also Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi is about to fast-track the civil union legislation that has been stalled for a number of months.

Only Germany of the list of Western countries that Peter Lynas listed on Nolan as not having marriage equality the other day has not announced any plans to move forward on this issue since the referendum. Although there have been calls from the opposition Green/Alliance 90 leader Katrin Göring-Eckardt for Germany to move on this, Angela Merkel is remaining adamant it is not the goal of her CDU/CSU party (the only one in Germany opposed) in this Government.

Therefore the LGBT community should take encouragement that even Nigel Dodds that "if we work at and fight for an issue that we believe in, we will get there in the end".

Quote of the Day: Marianne Rademacher

"If the responsibility for prevention is put entirely upon women and HIV-positive people, we are not recognising the combined responsibility of two people."

These words were spoken at the end of the trail of German pop star Nadja Benaissa, who was not given up to ten years in jail for having unprotected sex while HIV positive. She had sex with three men after she became affected at the age of 17 eleven years ago.

The words of Ms Rademacher of Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe remind us as well as the Germans that the responsibility for safer sex lies with both partners. It should not be the sole responsibility of one partner and the fact that a possible jail term hangs over you makes it less likely that you will be open about it rather than more so.

For example if I a HIV negative person fall for someone and fall in love/lust with them and want to have sex with them, it is my responsibility to find out there status. The easiest way to do so is to ask the individual concerned, it is an element of putting trust in each other. If they tell me they are HIV positive I have the option, it is my decision what I wish to do with that information. I can proceed to have safer sex with that individual taking the precautions that I am able to do, or be totally safe and not proceed any further, but at that point the option is mine.

The responsibility has been both of ours to be open and honest about where we are. Ms Benaissa had been poorly informed, someone had told her there was next to zero chance of her passing on the virus. In fact of the three men she had unprotected sex with once has since been diagnosed HIV+. The chance of passing on the virus is not zero therefore there is a responsibility if you are positive to tell. Of course like Ms Benaissa that leads to the other issues of being open enough to discuss it and face the rejection option I mentioned before. These very poignant words from a HIV positive guy tell the issue that they can face when love is all around them, the constant fear of loneliness, disclosing and rejection:

"it has ... to do with the not being able to get on with a relationship either without telling the guy about my status – or after telling him."

This feeling from those that are positive isn't helped by a great deal of ignorance still out there about how HIV can (or cannot) be contracted. Something I would have hoped had lifted since I first faced it directly with a Uni friend who have contracted HIV through the bad Factor 8 that was given to Haemophiliacs. Sadly instead of greater understanding there appears to be a new generation growing up ignorant or forgetting about the risks.

However, I think that criminalising people for knowingly passing it on leads to people not having the desire to find out, not go for STI checks. Not being aware of what other infections they may have and could pass on to others.

So yes the responsibility does lie with both partners to be responsible. But it also does rest with everyone who is sexually active with more than one partner to know their own condition. As I mentioned in my speech in favour of lifting the Blood Ban. There are gay men who are more aware of the sexual health status than the vast majority of the heterosexual world. Maybe it is one thing that the LGBT community is more open about than the straight world. We are more aware of the risks, but as a result are more aware of the responsibilities that go with that risk.

Of course there is still more openness that is needed in all sections of our world when it comes to sexual health. The surprising number of over 50s who are getting infected, the large numbers of under 25s having unprotected sex, not just leading to unwanted pregnancy but to the spread of infections.

So next time you are about to embark on sex with a new partner heed the word of Ms Rademacher above. So be responsible play it safe.

Bunch of Gay Footballers: Not That There's Anything Wrong With That

Note by posting this picture I am in no way implying or speculating anything about the sexuality of any who appear in it. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

A question; which style of football would you rather have seen win the World Cup, the stylish play of say Spain, Argentina or Germany or the rather stiff and in the case of the Netherlands violent approach of Brazil and England amongst others?

I'm sure like me you are glad that the former won. Therefore the most bizarre excuse for World Cup failure from Michael Ballack's agent Michael Becker that the alledged reason is because there were gay men in the squad. Indeed he told Aleksander Osang in Der Spiegel that he put the new adroit, lighter and elegant style of play that has become a trademark of trainer Joachim Löw's players down to their homosexuality, in contrast to the typically more aggressive and offensive German style of past years, but suggested they played too delicately to assure themselves a place in the final.

Firstly if that is the only reason that the team played in a style that gathered many fans over the tournament not least because of their scoring four goals in 3 different matches, then why oh why aren't there any out gay footballers proud of the skills they produce in that style to delight the fans.

But of course more worryingly and seriously at the heart of Becker's allegations is the stench of homophobia and typecasting of the gay community. Recently ITV's Dispatches showed a programme call Africa's Last Taboo the same last taboo exists in football. There are no out players at the top level of the game. Being gay doesn't make someone any less determined to succeed. Indeed faced with possible opposition such as Becker's it makes one more determined to be seen not just as an equal but as better so that nobody can dispute your commitment.

So if some gay footballers did manage to come third in the World Cup it is something that should be celebrated, not ridiculed, mocked or used as an excuse for not going further. Hey there may even have been some in the final, we just do not know and may never know the way that football seems to think un-Seinfeld-like* that there is something wrong with that.

* The Seinfeld TV show had an episode called 'The Outing' about homosexuality and more to the point perceived homosexuality where every time the subject was broached somebody added, "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

Just What Diplomatic Message to Iran?

The number two from the British Tehran embassy yesterday attended the endorsement ceremony of President Ahmadinejad by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This was the disputed election that Iran has also heavily accused Britain of leading the populist opposition against in June.



The FCO seem to think that sending the number two, Patrick Davies the deputy head of mission instead of the Ambassador Simon Glass was enough to show the regime that this was not business as usual, claiming that we need to talk to the regime about its nuclear programme, human rights and other issues. But others think it was too much, Menzies Campbell said:

"The Government has been vociferous on behalf of human rights and individual freedoms in Iran but at a time when a show trial is taking place it surely would have been prudent to preserve coolness and meet only the most perfunctory diplomatic niceties."

And shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague said:

"Under all the circumstances, representation at this event should have been kept at the minimum level possible. Other countries seem to have done that more effectively than the Foreign Office."

Although around the EU however the message was similarly confused. Sweden who currently hold the Presidency of the EU sent their Ambassador, France and Italy, one of Iran's biggest trading partners, like Britain sent their number two, whereas Germany sent one of their lowest ranking diplomats.



However, it was boycotted by Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, the defeated candidates, and by the former presidents Mohammed Khatami and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Also noticeable in their absence was any member of family of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini the leader of the 1979 revolution.



So it is possible to send a message more strongly, while keeping up the pretense of diplomacy? The FCO say they have yet to decide who to send the the swearing in ceremony on Wednesday, but seeing as Iran singled out eight local Embassy staff at the British mission during the protests against the election, which we protested, surely we have some case for not sending high ranking officials.



The current show trial that is going on at the same time as the swearing in process is continuing may not act as a suppressor of protest by as a stimulus for a continuance. The people are speaking and unlike the Star Trek episode where Gul Dukat says that the Cardassian people like to watch pre-determined 'justice' being enacted over and over again, the Iranian people may be smart enough to see that the trials going on are a mask to cover up the real issue of just what did go on between the people voting and the count being declared. Many are saying that is where the real crime took place, the crime is theft, distortion and fraud, not to mention of an undisclosed number who happened to disagree, and a few who were innocent.