Tis the Season for Drag...Oh No it Isn't

 Gender Critics are taking exception to Drag Queens interacting with children.

While this may be a cultural issue that sparks fear in the USA when they try to import it to the UK they forget a number of issues.

1. 
   
    Almost every adult in the UK's first introduction to the theatre was a cross  dressing bonaza known as Pantomime. Not only was there always a motherly figure (two/three in the case of Cinderella's sisters/mother) who was clearly a man in a frock, or to be more precise a different frock every time they appeared on the stage. But also the leathere ding lady would invariably fall for a principle boy who was another women dressed a man. And despite all this cross dressing everyone lived happily ever after. But more importantly these Drag artists were often used as fillers while the set was being redressed, bringing children up unto stage for interaction with them, or going out in to the auditorium with the house lights up to do the same.
2. Moving on from Pantomime the Bard, ie William Shakespeare had a number of plays they involved cross dressing. This is especially incredible out of sync with gender critical objections when you consider at the time of Shakespeare only men would appear on stage even in the female roles. But to this day those plays that contain plots lines of cross dressing do not draw the ire of gender critical, TERFs, transphobes in the same way and story time with a drag queen.
3. Historically we have always had Drag appearances on our TV. There was of course Dame Edna Everage and Lily Savage but also there were many sketches by the Two Ronnies and Dick Emery in drag all were mainstays of Saturday night televion.

You see drag and cross dressing is very much a part of British culture. Those who attack it are attacking UK culture from a narrow American world view. Indeed many male employees across the country and also dressed up in drag to raise money for Children in Need or Comic Relief down through the years. We in Britain do no inherantly have issues with men dressing as women per se.

But the transphobic Gender Critical movement have taken it on. With the success of Ru Paul's Drag Race and its spin offs we are now seeing more Drag Queens who like Lily Savage started in gay venues coming to the fore. The attack on these drag performers is an attack on otherness. It is an attack on the entire LGBT+ community. You see they have objections to the T, they see drag a gateway to the T, which is not the case for a large majority of drag performers. It is an art form. The art from the makeup, dresses and performace all of this is art. But it is art that is comfortable in an LGBT+ space, but is starting to find its feet outside those once safe (or not so safe historical) spaces into the mainstream.

The obection to drag queens. The mindless protests against drag story time up to the shooting of a gay venue hosting a drag night. All of this is an attack on LGBT+ people. It starts with the T but it spreads to include the LGB, another reason that the LGB Alliance does not represent LGB people. We see the harm that gender critical views are leading to. For them the T, the transphobia, is a starter to being H, homophobic. The LGB Alliance cannot see this and they do no represent us, there are a front for Transphobia painted up to appear LGB friendly. Somehow this organisation has charity status despite doing nothing to support LGB people, its sole purpose if to attack trans people, or more correctly only trans women.

The history of drag in the UK is in front of the Gender Critics for all to see. Or more to the point in this season, it's behind you, and goes back an awfully long way.

How LGBT+ Servers Should React to the Supreme Court Ruling

So today I read that the photography company that the Christian Institute hired to record their appearance outside the Supreme Court hearing, returned their money £267 and said it was against their morals to complete the job.

Now this may be a good thing to do on the day that the Christian Institute think they have started the fight back against LGBT+ equality but I think it should be the last time we do this to the homophobes and anti-LGBT+ individuals who come to us for service. Here is why.

Most normal people are well aware of how many LGBT+ people are employed the in service sectors. They wait your tables, serve you in a variety of stores, look after you in hospitals and hotels etc. The same applies in Belfast as it does in Manchester. Those of us who work in the service sector are not deaf, we hear conversations our customers have while they wait for our service, or even while we are serving them. Some of those comments are homophobic, transphobic or otherwise anti-LGBT+.

What I am suggesting is this, we say:

"I am L,G,B, T or whatever, so I disagree with your point of view. However, I am here to give you the best and most fabulous service you have ever experienced. If you are not comfortable with me an L,G,B,T or whatever person serving you, you can find another place that doesn't have LGBT+ people employed because all my colleagues here have my back as will those in other establishments who employ people on their ability to provide customer service and not on their sexuality or gender identity.

"Now, how can I be of service?"

It was just like with drafting equal marriage policy and legislation itself. Those of us who had any part in that have always respected all faith groups rights to come to their own view, some are in favour, some vehemently opposed and others are discussing where they should stand and opinions will invariably change with time. It is sad that in some faith groups the same respect for the views of others has not been reciprocated. This is another case of that.

However, to quote Michelle Obama "When they go low, we go high." That is the guiding principle on why I as someone in the service industry think this will have more impact.


Go on then folks, and continue to be fabulous.

Dear Arlene Foster, This is Why you Need to Apologise

My current Face profile pic contains the words "I am Repugnant". It was a word a DUP MLA used 6 years ago to describe all involved in Pride.

He is a person I have meet in social and political contexts before and after he was aware of my sexuality. Last night Arlene Foster said that nobody is defined by their sexuality. During the break on the first debate on Marriage Equality in Stormont I was in the queue behind that MLA in the canteen. I greeted him, he turned around recognised me and then noticed the LGBT+ Lib Dem badge on my label.

His response was "Oh, you're one of them" and he turned on his heel. Until now I have not let the BBC journalist who was present 2 metres away use that story.

Today I feel it needs to be told. Jim Wells attitude towards me from the times we meet before he knew my sexuality and after has been markedly different. This is the personal face of the institutional homophobia that the DUP's elected reps present. Many of them block anyone who asks about LGBT+ issues on social media. Many refuse to answer any enquiry we ask as their constituents after we have raised an LGBT+ issue previously.

Arlene Foster has also said there is no need for her to apologise. Sorry Arlene, while many of us have always been respectful to our elected representatives from your party, being nothing but courteous in how we address them, they have blocked, ignored and shunned us in person. I have experienced this face to face on a number of occasions from Mr Wells and others.

THAT IS WHY the LGBT+ community in Northern Ireland NEED AN APOLOGY from the DUP LEADER. The ball is in Arlene's court.

Suicide, the DUP and Me

Today I head that a friend, fellow LGBT+ activist and member of another political party has been suspended from a suicide prevention charity because of comments he posted linking suicide with the DUP. Just under a year ago a member of my close extended family committed suicide. Looking back at the draft I attempted to write at the time a number were trying to address that subject in a relevant way but they never really hit the mark or passed my standards for pressing publish. This time I hope this is different*.

I first considered taking my life in the 80s when I was 15/16 it was a grey day down by the docks as I contemplated jumping in the cold waters off the pier. It was during the period that the DUP were still attempting to safe Ulster from Sodomy. It was a phrase I had heard often, it was a phrase that even at that time I knew was directed at me although at the time I was attempted to fight who I was. 

I didn't jump as you can tell as I am here writing this but that was far from the last time I half felt depressed because of my sexuality.

I went to tertiary education in Kingston starting at the Polytechnic but graduating with a University degree in total I spent 10 years learning to be and to love me, but at the same time still fighting being me. I had grown in confidence, I had grown into an adult me, I was more in control of who I was and more able to defend what I stood for. Something that happened very early on in an Economics tutorial being able to defend a position that was opposite to that of the tutor.

It was in the five years I was back in Northern Ireland that I first really came out. However, this was also a time when I became anxious once again over who I was. My parents reaction was good, as was that of those I worked with and played bowls with. However, before too long I was over in Scotland and away from Northern Ireland for another 8 years. 

However, let me tell you what still knocks me most, makes me most depressed and on occasion leads me to fight suicidal thoughts. It is the times politicians or church people run me down for being gay. The language they use, the assumptions they make about how I live and the way they keep doing it. Now I am mostly able to stand my own when facing these debates. Like a good student I am well prepared with all the background reading I would need and more. I know the facts, I know the etymology of the verses that clergy will quote at me, sometimes better than they do.

However, there are times that continually doing so, or just having a tough time standing up for myself does lead to depression. I reckon it I weren't stronger I would not still be here. If I didn't have the support of many good friends both of faith and without I would be just another statistic. There are certainly some members of the DUP who may prefer that I was a statistic rather than a thorn in their side a constant reminder in their inbox for them to ignore. 

The thing is that the DUP in my experience tend to ignore when anyone raises LGBT+ issues with them. So I am please that they are meeting with the Equal Marriage campaigners here. However, while their representatives may block me out the same cannot be done for them or their supporters. I need to stay abreast of the news and current events and often we here the hateful comments about LGBT+ people on our TVs, Radios or Newspapers. It is something I wish I could avoid but at the same time know I have to respond to, stand up to and be heard. This is not just for me but for those who are the shy me that I was in my teens, the insecure me, the scared me and the suicidal me.

So while the DUP are ignoring reports that do show that LGBT+ people are more likely to have self-harm and suicidal intentions, someone who points out that they don't take action is suspended for doing so. I certainly feel more suicidal when I'm being called abnormal, an abomination or have a deviant lifestyle. This mostly comes as a direct result from Northern Irish politicians and Northern Irish Christians, when people accept me strangely I don't feel like that.

So is there a direct link between the institution homophobia for the DUP and self-harm and suicide?

Considering the party not only have never voted for any positive LGBT+ legislation but have petitioned of concerned every bill that has come before the NI Assembly. Their elected representatives are amongst the most vocal in belittling LGBT+ people with words whether in political chambers or debates on media. 

In my personal opinion there certainly is a constant straw attempting to break the camel's back. It has not yet got all the way through but on occasion it has been close. Whether from the DUP, religious leaders or ordinary members of the church I was born into all have at times come close to me committing suicide.

*Even after writing that at the start there are still parts of this I have not included in the above despite the length.

Jim Wells to sue BBC over Homophobia claims #TheTruth

Apparently Jim Wells MLA told the Belfast Telegraph is the sue the BBC over reporting the story about the Lesbian couple he encountered while out campaigning for the 2015 Assembly elections. He claims that the comments were "doctored" and "misrepresented what he said"  He goes on to say that he will "stop at nothing to clear his name".

Well if he is to do that I cannot hold back on some truth that I have promised members of my family that I would not ever disclose. I also am lifting the gentleman's agreement I have with one of the BBC journalists who witnessed one of the events that I am about to unfold.

It is a little know fact that Jim Wells actually invited a leading Northern Irish LGBT+ activist the wedding of one of his daughters. I happen to know this to be true, because it was I who received the invite, you see said daughter's husband is part of my family. I had a quiet conversation with Jim on that occasion he shook my hand, spook to me and looked me in the eye. He was also close enough to smell my cologne and not one of these sensory seemed to be repugnant to Mr Wells.

I can only therefore surmise that later when he said all those who took part in Belfast Pride he found repugnant that the only sense that would cause that reaction would be if he tasted me!

However, this wedding and meeting took part before the first debate on marriage equality at Stormont. On that day I was attending the debate and there was an interlude between the debate and the vote for questions. It was during this time that I encountered Jim Wells as a homophobe for the first time. Homophobia is described as having an irrational fear of homosexuality and/or homosexuals. Which I think describes what actually happened in the the restaurant that day. I was in the queue beside the Rev Chris Hudson and across the way was the BBC journalist. Ahead of me was Jim Wells.

I started with a friendly "Hello Jim" at which he turned around, I was about to ask after the health of Grace his wife and the rest of the family but after a quick look at who I was, I happened to be wearing my rather large I'm Liberal badge with a rainbow Lib Dem bird, he said "Oh you're one of them" and quickly turned heal. Rather an irrational, fearful reaction if you ask me.

Even before that however, I was at a hustings in the Black Box about international development was as I was working in a politically restricted role at the time I couldn't of course at my name to this piece on the Liberal Democrats NI website. Today I feel we have to disclose that this was my first hand account. Jim Wells assistant who at the time was dating a member of family looked straight over at me and mouthed, "You can't possibly blog that".

A number of years later and that assistant actually married that member of my family. His boss was invited to the wedding, as was I. This was a much stranger family gathering Jim was actively seen to be looking in my direction and actively avoiding me at the same time by my mother and others. I even saw this myself from out of the corner of my eyes. I'm not sure what he was expecting if I ever went anywhere near him, but it was yet another example of what I can only describe as the actions of someone who has an irrational fear of something, the fact that that something was me a politically astute campaigner who amongst other things is gay may well indicate that there is homophobia as an undercurrent and not in the glib way which that word is used at times, but a genuine actual fear.

I feel sorry for Jim that he suffers from such fear. But if he wants the truth to come out I am more than happy to help in that happening.

BBC letting the bad guys take over Dodge (or SSE Arena*)

I've come home to the news that the BBC journalist Andy West has been suspended because of his comments that he's ashamed of his employers fail to admit their error in giving Tyson Fury a platform on SPOTY. Seeing the coverage that the story has been getting on the BBC over recent days actually rebroadcasting his views unedited and as spoken I feel that Andy West is not the only person to be ashamed.

The BBC brand themselves as Your BBC meaning that it really is "Our BBC". It would appear that in the case of this incident it applies providing you aren't gay or a woman. It must not be forgotten that Fury's comments that he is repeating are both homophobic and misogynistic.


The hosts of SPOTY include Sue Barker, Gabby Logan and Clare Balding. Three strong women who have succeeded in the macho world of sport reporting. The later of course is also married to her same-sex partner. If a gay journalist is ashamed, and Clive Myrie calls him a dickhead live on air how much must these three women (as well as fellow nominee Jessica Ennis-Hill) feel uncomfortable sharing the studio with Fury in 10 days time. Is it right that the BBC allow these women to take part in a live event with a man whose words are clearly set to provoke, who remains unrepentant and continues to accentuate the anguish his initial comments passed with every time he is asked for comment.

The BBC continue to dig a hole for themselves over this issue. Sadly it might well bury the corporation if they are not careful.

*The SSE Arena in Belfast is the venue that will be hosting the BBC Sports Personality of the Year (SPOTY) awards on 20th December.

How DUP define space for difference

I see in the Larne Times today a report of the public meeting where "60" members of the public attended to hear about Paul Givan's conscience clause. I'm assuming that as the picture appears to be in the middle of the meeting that the other 20-24 had either left early, arrived late or all had to attend the toilet at the same time the photographer arrived.

However, what strikes me are the comments quoted of DUP councillor Gordon Lyons. He says:

"I do not want to live in a community where all have to conform to the same thoughts and ideals, but rather I want to live in one where there is space for difference."

You know reading that line in isolation it fits rather snuggly over the Liberal Democrat line in the pre-amble to our constitution where is says, "nobody shall be enslaved by conformity. Looks all nice and liberal.

However, here is the context in which it was said:

"Essentially this debate is about the kind of society we live in. Do we want to live in one in which people have to make a choice between continuing in their business or profession or following their conscience? That does not sound like a pluralist or liberal society. 

"I do not want to live in a community where all have to conform to the same thoughts and ideals, but rather I want to live in one where there is space for difference. That is what this legislation is about."

Not quite so liberal and pluralist after all.

On the essentials he is right this debate is about the kind of society we live in.

But when it come to continuing your business, we have seen the recent case where a printing business has decided he will not print the civil partnership invites of a long standing customer in Drogheda because of his conscience. The customer is now upset that he wasn't told about this objection to his homosexuality earlier, no doubt because he would not have give four years of trade from his own business to the printers had he known.

Gay people don't all live in the big metropolises of our nation some of them live out in villages or small rural towns where there may only be one printer, one baker, one store, one restaurant etc within easy reach. There may be no choice for a gay business owner to shift their business if turned down or spurned because of their sexual orientation. There may be no space in such circumstances under a conscience clause for their difference. Indeed one couple in England face someone threatening to drive them out of their village for being gay.

You see the conscience clause instead of allow space for difference, allows some people to designate their space as only for homogeneous conformists to their own ideals and thoughts. That is not the sort of society I want to live in.

DUP selective British rights: The Driver's Licence Clause

Yesterday DUP MP for Lagan Valley Jeffrey Donaldson said:

"British Citizens in Northern Ireland deserve the same rights as the rest of the UK."

However, this was not about the rights of NI LGBT people to have the right to marry whom they choose. Nor is it to defend the Equality Act in full, in face of his colleague Paul Givan's conscience clause. Nor it is a freeing up of abortion legislation, no a whole gamut of rights issues that the people of Northern Ireland are the only ones in the UK to have equally with the rest of the UK.

No. This was about the change in driving licence design that in England, Wales and Scotland will not display the Union Flag alongside the European Union Flag, but in Northern Ireland will retain just the flag of the EU.

Of course this comes mere weeks after once again the main parties failed to come to any agreement on symbols and flags (amongst other issues) once again, and merely passed this on to another commission. So it is hardly surprising that flag controversy once again hits Northern Ireland when it is an issue that after over 16 years of talking we have yet to reach a consensus on.

But once again the argument from Donaldson shows the duplicity of the DUP. They use the argument of British Citizens having the same rights as the rest of the UK when it suits them, but with the other hand will argue that Northern Ireland is different from the rest of the UK when it comes to things like LGBT rights, abortion and other issues if it suits them politically with their base.

Sorry Jeffrey I'm not going to let you, or any member of the DUP, get away with playing the British rights card when you deny me the same rights as I would experience elsewhere in the UK because of my sexual orientation. Especially in light of Cllr Maurice "gays caused Hurricane Katrina" Mills becoming a Member of the British Empire in the New Year Honours, while LGBT British citizens are seen as less than full UK citizens with the same rights by the DUP I shall continue to hold institutional homophobia from Mr Donaldson's party to account.

Can the DUP answer a simple question?

Yesterday on BBC Radio Ulster's Nolan Show (about 34:30) Paul Givan, the author of the conscience clause bill, was asked a rather simple question.

"Do the DUP still want to make gay sex illegal?"

He did all he could to squirm out of answering it, saying he was dealing in the real world, even saying it was irrelevant to his conscience clause. He said his party didn't want to go back 20 years, although his conscience clause does go some way back removing some of the protections established here only 8 years ago.

But it is a relevant question, there have been slips through the years. Sammy Wilson, then the Minister for Finance and Personnel on 1 Oct 2012 said:

"I do not agree with the Civil Partnership Act 2004. As Mr Allister pointed out, that was the toe in the door and a means for pushing the boundaries even further in a direction that I, and the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, do no wish them to be pushed as fas as changes in society are concerned."

It is hard to determine if the later Sexual Orientaion Regualtions to the Equality Act were part of this pushing the boundaries as these comments did come in the first Equal Marriage debate in the Assembly.

Today we have Edwin "Keep the Blood Ban" Poots trying to defend his party to claims of bigotry from Stephen Fry. Saying:

"While the debate takes place we can keep putting out a message that this isn't about an attack on people's rights, it's actually a defence of people's rights.

"I think that is part of the problem – every time someone says something it is put out there we are taking rights away from people but that's not what it's about."

There is therefore concern that I cannot recall one incidence of a DUP elected representative actually standing up and speaking in favour of any LGBT equality issue. By that I don't mean saying something like "the law says" in making a statement but actually saying "I or my party support the right of LGBT people to...". I also do not recall (and I have checked through Hansard both at Westminster and Stormont) a single DUP vote in favour of LGBT legislation.

There is a pattern of behaviour from the DUP of which Mr Givan's bill is just the latest manifestation, that at every step they have opposed LGBT equality. Whether the decriminalisation, civil partnerships, equality act provisions, blood ban, adoption, marriage.

So therefore a very relevant question for the DUP to answer is "Does the DUP still want to recriminalise gay sex?"

Because if so their conscience clause in the words of Sammy Wilson above is just a toe in the door and a means for pushing the boundaries even further in a direction that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland would have a conscience objection to if they were to know the end desire.

All I want for Christmas is....

 This is Pastor Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. He is a man who it would seem has set himself up for a pretty busy advent season this year.

Why?

Well in his sermon on Sunday he said it was possible to cure the world of AIDS by Christmas. Here we were over 30 years after the outbreak of this disease and he apparently has the solution within 4 weeks. No wonder he is going to be busy.

He is going to have to produce his solution and distribute it to the 35 million people world wide living with HIV/AIDS world wide in a little over 25 days. Not to mention the 5,753 new cases who will be diagnosed every day during his quest.

But is he going to be handing out a vaccine and cure to those 35 million people of whom 3.2 million are aged less than 15? No.

His solution instead is to go out there and stone all the gay and bisexual men out there. Even my his own reckoning of 1.6% of the USA population being gay and 0.7% bi that is approximately 7,344,107 US citizens he would have to kill to eradicate the 2.3 million cases of HIV/AIDS in North America, Western and Central Europe. That is before he deals with the situation in Europe. And that is but the tip of the iceberg.

But in Sub-Saharan Africa with 24.7 millions cases and most of those countries cracking down on homosexuality hard finding 24.7 million gay and bisexual men is bound to be hard. Here of course the spread of HIV is largely through heterosexual intercourse, hence the large number of women infected and the large number who pass it on to their children as a result.

So merely getting rid of all the gay and bisexual men in the world would not be enough. He's also have to stone all the people who have had more than one sexual partner in their life just to be certain.

But the biggest task before he sets out to possibly kills probably over 50% of the world's population to be absolutely certain is one even taller order. However, it is one that I'm sure a Pastor whose church claims to be faithful the word would want to do. It is to obey the practical example of Jesus. When they brought an adulterous woman to Jesus wanting to stone her to death he responded to them "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

So I'll make a deal with Pastor Anderson. If he can find someone without sin to cast that first stone I will meet up with him. I'd like the local police to be present and a few television crews to witness his start of cleansing the world of AIDS. To see the effect that finding this righteous man stoning a gay man who is not living with HIV or AIDS will have on the 35 million who would still be living with HIV/AIDS.

Givan's Conscience Clause

Paul Givan MLA has said he is planning to bring forward a private members bill to introduce a conscience clause into Northern Ireland legislation, saying that it will enhance "equality legislation".

He goes on to say:

"Equality is about ensuring that everybody in society is allowed to live out their lives.

"We now are heading towards a community where it's not just about live and let live - people are now saying, 'you need to affirm my particular lifestyle and if that goes against your conscience, you have to do that'.

"That's not equality; that's intolerance."

Now the word affirm means:

1. To declare positively or firmly, maintain to be true
2. To support or uphold the validity of, confirm

This is obviously a knee-jerk reaction to the Ashers case, because Givan goes on to say that introducing this Bill will avoid other similar legal cases. But in Northern Ireland that is also the role that is served by case law, it sets the precedent and determines the boundaries of existing laws. 

Concerning of course is that once again, as with most homophobic legislation, it reduces being LGBT to a lifestyle, therefore implying it is a choice. We don't call being Chinese a lifestyle or being disabled a lifestyle yet these are among the other groups that are covered by equality legislation.

Polygamy is a lifestyle which you can legislate either against or for: being LGBT is not. Of course there is the matter that some argue that the Ashers cake is not about the fact that it was an LGBT customer, but supporting a LGBT campaign. The case law from the Equality Commission will set out to determine if this is indirect discrimination of LGBT people or merely refusing a political message. That is a fine line and a grey area that needs to be established independently and not by politicians with personal conflicts of interest.

Any bill coming before the Assembly would have to pass an equality audit to make sure it met the requirements of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act. The way this is worded at the moment would appear to be an Orwellian "all 'consciences' are equal, but some are more equal than other". I would fully expect any such bill to fail such a audit. But if it does pass and comes before the Assembly I expect there to be enough right thinking, equality supporting MLAs to table a petition of concern on the vote and then for it to fail on cross community support as it would undoubtedly fail to gain the required nationalist support.

What would happen if the conscience clause does come into being? Looking at the way that Givan's statement is worded and the way similar laws have operated in the Sourthern United States some Christian business owners will start to refuse to serve any obvious LGBT couples or people, because in the words of Girvan "they no longer have to affirm that particular lifestyle."

That Mr Givan is not equality, that is actually intolerance.

A footballing hero turns sour

Today is a day of mixed feelings for me.

First there is the great news that the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, and Marriage Equality Ireland have all joined together to launch the ‘Yes Equality’ campaign ahead of next year's referendum in the Republic of Ireland.

But also one of the greats of the time that my team Livingston spent in the Scottish Premier League has actually taken than support of at least this one football fan and thrown it in his face.

Marvin ten years ago when Livingston won the CIS Cup

Marvin Andrews, who came from Raith Rovers to Livingston before moving on to Rangers, a return to Raith Rovers and stints at Hamilton Academical, Queen of the South, Wrexham, Albion Rovers, Forfar Athletic, before currently playing for Elgin City has always been known as God's footballer. He famously in his first season at Rangers instead of taking the normal course of treatment for a cruciate knee ligament injury which should have seen him out of action for nine months turned to prayer and was back on the field in 2 weeks!

But it is his comment in defending his pastor Joe Nwokoye at Zion Praise Centre International in Kirkcaldy who has blamed natural disasters on same-sex marriage. In the defense of his Pastor, Marvin has said:

"For a man to see a man or a woman to see a woman in that way is a spiritual sickness and it is the Bible – not Marvin Andrews – that says that is an abomination.

"I am not going to contradict my beliefs. I don’t care if 100,000 people are against me – I’ll stand on the word of God."

Now if the man that we sang from the stands as "Marv, Marv, Super Marv, Super Marvin Andrews" would care to explain to me what all those natural disasters before same-sex marriage were introduced were all about. And maybe go a little further back what about the ones that occurred before homosexuality was actually legalised. Or maybe he'd like to explain why more natural disasters happen in the states in the USA that are most likely to be fighting equal marriage, or indeed in Africa which also seems to be in opposition?

Yes natural disasters are happening all around us all the time and have been since time immemorial. Now if Marvin really believes what it says in the bible he will now that the reason these things started is because Eve was tempted to eat of the Tree of Knowledge and persuaded Adam to follow suit. These were not as a result of same-sex marriage or activity in any form, so stop passing the buck on natural disasters.


Sadly it is not the first time he has said something like this. In 2006 when former Liberal Democrat MSP Margaret Smith announced her Civil Partnership plans and just before he left Rangers he said:

"There is a demon in their [homosexual's] spirits, their spirits are ill. But God can help them through his church and anyone who doubts this can check the Bible"

Such negative and prejudicial opinions from churches and their leaders is actually still doing the opposite and too often it is too late for many young people to have any such help and many brought up with such religious vitriol are tempted to commit suicide than be open about their sexuality in faith settings.

But we are also trying to rid football of homophobia, biphobia and transphobia, just as we are still striving to rid it from under representation of racial minorities at the top level of management and boardrooms around the nation. Comments like this from a respected veteran of the game in Scotland do not go down well to the LGBT fans and players in the leagues.

While he is allowed to say whatever he wants, surely his believes are also that God loves everyone. There is no love in his words only condemnation. It is like the chants that opposing fans have given him through the years with the exception of him turning up at Almondvale on his first appearance in a Rangers shirt when he was applauded loudly. That is the love that is unconditional that he should be showing to everyone.

To stamp out homophobia, transphobia and biphobia in football Stonewall have for the last two years run their rainbow laces campaign. Next year when they run it, if Marvin is still playing I am tempted to send him a pair with a letter explaining how I'm upset as a gay fan who has cheered him from the stands that he is behaving in the way that he does and is lacking in Christian love when he talks about LGBT issues.

How not to doorstep a voter #147

So the doorbell rang and I opened it.

The person on the other side of the door said "Eugh! You're one of those."

I asked, "One of those what?"

"One of those perverts." came the reply.

I looked down and checked my fly was done up. It was. It was then that I noticed my t-shirt. It was one of my Pride ones. The female person who had rung our doorbell had quickly jumped to conclusions.

Thinking quickly I would have said, "Sorry, I have to go about my gay agenda for today, breakfast to be made (I had actually already had it), then I have my bible to read, lunch to eat, then this afternoon it is off to the bowls, back home for tea and then a little Saturday night TV. Now I know I don't look old enough to have been playing bowls for 35 years but if it is perversion of that nature then I pray you'll bear in mind that I play on council greens down in Ward Park and the person you are seeking to get elected will have responsibility for providing for my perversion. It is the least you can do as I do not appear to be equal under the law nor for such consideration by your party.

"Thank you for making your feelings abundantly clear. Now let me see what you are going to tell me so I can gauge just how near the bottom of my preferences I will actually place your candidates."

The hand proffered me two pieces of glossy paper one for Diane Dodds the other other for Leslie and Graham, before a red faced person turned on her heel and made her way unto one of my neighbours.

Read also: Not the first time I've encountered homophobia during election time, but last time I was the candidate.

So this happened...

This evening I had a notification through Facebook that someone had shared one of my photos. Here is how it was shared.

As you can see I have done the service of blocking out the name of the reposter and the one person who by the time I had seen it liked their attitudes. They did not do me the same keeping the person whose picture they were posting in the link (it can easily be removed). There is potential there for the poster to open somebody that they do not know up to abuse from others who have read their comments and decide to take action.

This person is someone that I do not even know, we only have one friend in common. It is currently up as my cover picture as a celebration of the Scottish Parliament passing their equal marriage legislation and the fact that same-sex marriages are now recognised in England and Wales and will soon also be carried out there.

It is a sad reflection that some Christians consider that any group set up by people of faith who want to help others of faith who are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transexual to be able to come to terms with how they are created by God is a group of "filthy disgusting perverts". Sadly as many in the Faith and Pride group know only too well from personal experience once they realise their own sexual orientation, they often find in Northern Ireland that there is little visible support from the overwhelming majority of churches. They are condemned out of hand as the poster above has done as though they are sexually active. It is assumed that if you are LGBT you must be practicing sexual acts with all and sundry and that you have no self control.

Now I'll admit I'm not a saint in that department, but there are times that I have been accused by people in churches for being someone who practices the homosexual lifestyle (yeah that is a phrase I have heard), when at the time I would have been able to give blood anywhere in the UK except Northern Ireland.

However, it is the people who consider that the set of people who have faith and those who are LGBT are exclusive of each other that do harm to all those young people who grow up and worship in their midst for fear of being found out.Thankfully there are more groups like Faith and Pride out there that offer support to those individuals. Sadly we do not always get to all of them in time but other people could show Christ-like love and unconditionally love these people rather than jumping to conclusions such as these and showing nothing but hate for the individual while claiming to "love the sinner and hate the sin". The comments above actually seem to hate the people pictured without knowing anything about any of them.

Update 16:34 15 March:

Our mutual friend stood up to defend me in the comments and the original poster has responded thus:

I don't care WHO he [ie me] is, his photo suggests he supports the evil depraved organisation "Faith and Pride", whose banner is being displayed in the photo... I have read their fb page, and they claim you can be both Christian AND gay! YOU CAN'T! A Christian is someone who has REPENTED, ie turned from all known sin, and placed their faith in Christ to cleanse and purify them, both legally and in reality. Yes, our sins don't all vanish overnight, sanctification takes a lifetime. But "Faith & Pride" actively PROMOTE homosexuality as normal and OK when the bible teaches it is WRONG. The "Faith & Pride" site owner claims to be "married" to another man. "Faith & Pride" contains articles TWISTING and perverting the bible's teaching on homosexuality, claiming that the plain meaning that it's wrong, actually means something else. People who claim you can be gay and Christian are in REBELLION against God. They need to repent, & turn their backs on ANY self-identification as gay, and pray God gives them the ability to be normal. God did not create people gay.


I consider this comment to be a personal attack on someone that they do not know. It is also potentially libelous. I had reported the original post to Facebook, but as with much such occasions of such homophobic comments wrapped up in biblical terms it has been refused. So in my feedback about the decision I have stated how disatisfied I am with this response.
 

So if Homophohia can't be a word...

So the former UKIP donor Demetri Marchessini took out a full page ad in The Telegraph which included the argument:

Firstly, it has already been repeatedly explained to her [Libby Purvis], that there is no such word as "homophobic". It cannot be found in any dictionary, nor does it have any meaning. One can tell that it is a phoney word, (invented by the homosexual lobby) because the first half of the word "homo" has a Latin root, while the second half "phobia" has a Greek root. It is like having a word that is half Spanish and half Croation. Anyone who uses it is uneducated.

Homophobia was first used in 1971 by George Weinberg in Society and the Healthy Homosexual. For the record as to education Weinberg has a Masters in English before doing advanced training in Mathematical statistics. So hardly an uneducated man.

Mr Marchessini is also ignoring the fact that while "homo"actually has a Greek root, as does "phobia". However, "sexus" the root of sexuality is actually Latin. So therefore homophobia is a combination of two Greek roots and homosexuality is actually a hybrid. Homosexual was actually first used in English in 1892, in  C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis from  the German useage of homosexual, homosexuale by 1880, in Gustav Jäger. 

So clearly the word automobile derived in French in 1895 from the Greek "autos" and the Latin "mobilis" is a made up word by the French car industry. So clearly the is a dysfunction in language that goes far beyong Mr Marchessini uneducated comments.

Dysfunction itself comes from the Greek "dys" and the Latin "functio"first used in 1916.

But before Mr Marchessini gets too het up about the bigamous use of language to come up with new words he should be aware that bigamy is another hybrid from a late Latin mix of "bi" being their own word for double and "gamous" the Greek word "gamos" meaning married. The Greeks themselves used the word digamos for twice married.

And before he goes unto television to show his stupidity he should be aware that by his logic that doesn't exist. Yes you guessed it the word first used in 1907 comes from the Greek "tele" far and the Latin "visio" seeing. Just as long as he doesn't have to rely on the Chinese to provide his satellites to watch it as their people in space are Taikonauts from the Chinese "taikong" for space and the Greek "nautes" for sailor.

However, he will be glad to know that he cannot be a Europhobe as that comes from the Latin "Europa" and the Greek "phobos". Nor for that matter can UKIP truly believe in creating a monoculture, yeah you guessed it "monos" Greek and "cultura" Latin.

These are just a few examples but he can go to the back of the class for now, as this argument is false for a start and based on an incorrect premise and language has always borrowed words and put them together as those that speak see fit.

Principle 6 #Sochi2014

We are only 10 days away from the first qualification events in the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics. The following day, Friday 7th February as we lead up to the opening ceremony I will be wearing a Principle 6 T-shirt as a mark that although I support the individual athletes I do not think it is right that a nation that fails to uphold Olympic Principle 6 in the day to day live of its citizens in a fitting situation in which to hold the Games.

So what does Principle 6 of the Olympic Charter state?

6. Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race,religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.

Yet we are heading to Sochi, in Russia that does discriminate in the otherwise category. There is a law on the books against the promotion on non-traditional family values. In other words the LGBT community do not fit into that "ideal". Today the Mayor of Sochi, while saying he is happy to welcome gay people to his city believes they will be the first gay people ever there.

Seeing as Sochi is also a Russian resort town the odds are that this is not the case.

Seeing as Sochi has a population of ⅓ million people the probability is that there are some currently living there or who have done in the past (possibly even the near recent past). That would be a city the size of Belfast, in a nation that has only had homosexual activity legalised for  about a decade less than here in Northern Ireland. So you would have to put it at about a decade ago Northern Ireland visibility, although maybe a bit further back when you consider the way that homophobia there has existed for a number of years.

Also seeing as there are gay and gay friendly clubs in Sochi, who is going there.

I'm just waiting for the first LGBT residents in Sochi to go up to the Mayor's office to introduce themselves.

Stonewall try and fail to be inclusive

Today Stonewall launch their campaign to tackle homophobia in work. There are four poster designs, though by looking at their website you would think that there are only three. Two are all male with the headline "One is Gay". There is a lesbian version but this morning it took many LGBT activists some time to locate it.


There is one woman that Stonewall are happy to promote on their posters about this campaign. She is a police officer who appears with a male colleague under the title "One is bisexual". So the women may actually be the straight one on that poster, after all we are assuming that the other one is, unless she is a lesbian and her male colleague is the bisexual.

However, what many campaigners including myself picked up on the bisexual poster is that apart from the title you would not know that Britain's "self-proclaimed" leader in the LGB rights

The text underneath all four designs is the same.

At Stonewall we've campaigned for 25 years for equality. We've had major successes with legaslising same-sex marriage, repealing section 28 and lifting the ban on gay people serving in the military. But 99% of young gay people still regularly hear homophobic language in school, 100 homophobic hate crimes are reported to the police every week and 2.4 million people have witnessed homophobic bullying at work in the past 5 years.

Lots done. Lots to do.

Yes even when  Stonewall try and be inclusive in their poster campaign they fail within the text. They focus only on the G, hide away the L, fail to recognise the different problems faced by the B, and as for the T as usual with Stonewall they don't get a look in.

They are also taking credit for same-sex marriage, which they were opposed to in 2010 even as the Liberal Democrats passed as Federal Policy in support of it.

There are many harping away about how fantastic this campaign is. Sadly it is more fan'as'ic and fails from its outset to be a diversity inclusive at it appears on a quick scan of the posters.

While we do need to end homophobic bullying, and biphobic, we also need to address transphobic. The Stonewall riots saw the transexuals stand alongside the Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals in countering the police brutality. But Stonewall UK (itself a misnomer due its lack of action on Northern Ireland) fail to live up to the name it bears by constantly getting the full range of those who made at stand at the Stonewall Inn in New York's Greenwich Village.

Looks like those of us who get the full spectrum of sexuality and identity will once again had to pick up the pieces that the UK most high profile organisation that many few as standing for LGBT rights fails to pick up and run with.

After Thomas Hitzlsperger is it time to see openly gay players?

So I should have seen this coming, the first football player who has graced the Premier League comes out on one day when I am busy with work and then have bowls in the evening.

So I guess that everyone has said their piece about how great it is that Thomas Hitzlsperger has come out as gay.

It is indeed a momentous moment, but one part of me wonders if he hadn't suffered a career ending injury that forced him to retire from the game at the relatively young age of 31 if we have heard this news today, or if we might have had to wait another four years until he retires.

However, the fact that a former international with 52 caps for Germany and a player in one of the top leagues in Europe has come out so soon after retiring is a good sign. People cite the example of John Amaechi, but he took 4 years from his retirement from the NBA to come out. He was the start of major league stars to come out in the USA, but it took until last year for Jason Collins of the Washington Wizards to come out while still playing. It was the following that Robbie Rogers who had come out after quitting Leeds United signed for LA Galaxy.

Rogers said that a major part of the reason for him returning to professional football came when he addressed a group of 500 LGBT teenagers. He said:

"These kids are standing up for themselves and changing the world, and I'm 25, I have a platform and a voice to be a role model. How much of a coward was I to not step up to the plate?" 

So he stepped up to the plate, got back into the game to await the natural end of his playing days rather than one imposed by the sense that he felt in football he had to stay in the closet.

In 2010 Rudi Assauer, who was boss of Schalke in Germany, said about gay players:

"Perhaps they are OK in other sports but not in football.

"If a player came to me and said he was gay I would say to him: 'You have shown courage.'  But then I would tell him to find something else to do.

"That's because those who out themselves always end up busted by it, ridiculed by their fellow players and by people in the stands. We should spare them these witch-hunts."

Strangely although he had been part of the build up for that year's World Cup, indeed scoring the last of his six international goals in the qualifying game, but didn't make his second world cup at the age of 28 that summer. Bizzarely at that World Cup the captain Michael Ballack's agent Michael Becker said there were a "bunch of gays" in the squad, but the German press instead of pricking up their ears at the revelation seemed to take it placidly as if they either already knew the allegations or knew about some of the players.

Interesting to look back over recent comments and interviews given by Hitzlsperger about the issue of coming out in Football he has always been positive yet realistic about the effects this would have. Saying in 2012 that a pro might come out within a year. He was slightly longer than that and Rogers fitted right into that time scale. But he also said that in doing so it would depend on who and how they came out, but that it could lead to an end of a career. This is what Rogers initially did before that change of heart, but Hitzlsperger himself also waited until the end of his career.

Looking at the support from footballers, Federations, commentators, teams and fans it looks like the overwhelming  majority don't care one way or the other. Is it possible that other players seeing today's response might take the even bolder step of coming out while still playing?

In the mean time if I am supporting my team and some fans start the chant at a set play "Put your hand up if you're gay" I will continue to do what I have done in the past and put my hand up, and hope that maybe one of the players with their hand up also is answering the question rather than looking for the ball.

A step back towards Section 28

As the Scottish Parliament heads towards Equal Marraige the menace that is some of the most vocal of those opposed is seeking to set the clock back. Scotland for Marriage in their response to the consultation have raised concerns about how the subject of same sex marriage and have urged that parents should have the right to remove their children from the classroom whenever such issues are to be discussed.

It is a step back to Section 28, which even now many of the Tories who voted to bring it in say was a mistake. But is also means that there will be some children in classes who will not learn that the family of some of their class mates is normal and allowed. Some of those who have two parents of the same sex will by those children who are excluded by their prejudiced parents been seen as odd, out of the ordinary. Also because they are not allowed to have heard about it with the rest of their class they will think it is disgusting and that those children are to be kept away from, shunned even bullied.

You see while those who fail to acknowledge that the next generation growing up do not come from homogenous families of one man and one women, those that do not fit into that mode, that they fail to let their children learn about will continue to be put under pressure from their kids. It is a self fulfilling prophecy that kids with same-sex parents will be picked on at school. If the attitude of some is to take their kids out of classes that discuss the issue those prejudices will be passed down.

As the victim of bullying at school, because I stood out as different, even though at the time I didn't realise (or maybe just didn't want to acknowledge) why I know that life can be tough. If some children are not allowed to discuss these issues in the midst of those that are affected they will not see them as normal and will therefore react in just the way that bullies have done through the years.

So Scotland for Marriage are merely going to propagate the continuation of homophobic bullying, not only of kids who are LGBT but also those perceived to be and those whose parents are known to be, if they achieve their goal.

I hope the Scottish Government stands firm. It is important that we do not slip back into a Section 28 like quagmire. For the well being of all our school children it is important that everyone learns about the fact that some people have a mum and dad, some two mums or dads, some multiples of one or both due to divorce and also that some only have one parent. Just as some are fostered or adopted. It doesn't make any of them any different from each other, nor the love of their parents is any less for any of them. That is the key, that is what the lessons will be trying to teach.

Dave paedophiles are not a subset of gay men

Update I was not going to post this until I saw this by Tom Chivers in The Telegraph and then heard the way this was reported on the evening news.

Phillip Schofield may have ambushed David Cameron with a list of suspected paedophiles on This Morning but it is the PM's immediate response that this somewhat startling.

"I am worried this could turn into a witch hunt particularly against people who are gay.

"I've heard all sorts of names being bandied around and what then tends to happen is that everyone sits around and speculates about people some of who are alive and some of who are dead."

He did this without even looking at the names. Now if he was concerned merely about it becoming a witch hunt that would have been a fine response. But why did he add the caveat "who are gay"? Indeed until it was raised by David Cameron this morning nobody was linking the latest peadophilia with the gay community, there were a few individual cases but it wasn't so strongly linked.

The fact that the Prime Minister actually hesitated as soon as he said especially does seem to think that maybe his brain did try and catch on from his saying what came after he'd started with the caveat. Maybe his political brain kicked in, but it was too late he had already said especially. Where could he go after including that?

Not all of the victims of this high profile paedophile ring that are coming forward are male. But the linking of gay men to the accusation of paedophilia by being at the front (or indeed anywhere) in the Prime Minister's response does nothing to pull gay men away from the stigma and finger pointing that has historically been the case. It is often used by people opposed to any LGBT equality, especially the teaching of it in schools. Remember that Cameron himself voted for the retention of Section 28.

Does this 'slip' of the tongue actually reveal the true feelings of the Prime Minister about the LGBT community? Does the inclusion of this caveat actually reveal that he is not actually as comfortaable with LGBT equality as he would like for political expediency to make out.

One thing that is worrying is that by making this connection on national television David Cameron has actually thrown that image, that link back into people's minds. He may have tried to prevent a witch hunt but his misspeaking may very well have created one of his own.

Yes the speculation on the net about names can be a witch hunt, but that is not exclusive to one sexual orientation. The victims don't fit the narrowing of that definition of a witch hunt. So in mathematical terms this Venn diagram is not true.

What we do know from case histories is that men and women, straight and gay prey on underage victims.

This is the actual representation of the issue, though not to scale.

I spent a long time today musing over the rightness of posting this. As I said David Cameron was quite right not to support any witch hunt over the paedophiles that are being used. Indeed the news are highlighting not on the issue of the witch hunt but on it being about a witch hunt on gay people. Therefore my concern that more people will link paedophilia with homosexuality has as a result of Cameron's words already increased.

Thanks Dave for putting the positive message from the LGBT community back slightly all because of six words you did not need to include in your rebuttal of this issue. Having heard some comments from some of the This Morning audience while out earlier some people are talking about the link which isn't there already.

Whether he intended to or not, unprompted David Cameron went on daytime TV and linked paedophilia with homosexuality.  He took it too far and the response in some quarters will be a return to linking the two.

Update I have noticed that the comments this morning have given Nick Griffen something to rant about inaccurately (warning this is the only time I will link to a Griffen Tweet).