Homosexuals Crossing

Apologies for the absence..  I've been busy with work, the puppies, and a couple of trips abroad. I therefore think one of my usual ramblings is more than overdue, so here we go.

Caution: Homosexuals Crossing

Homosexuals holding hands. In public!! :o

I'm just back from Vienna, a city I visit a good 3 or 4 times a year.  Hitler had hated Vienna, because when he was there in the 1920s, it was far too Jewish, Slavic, cosmopolitan, and socialist.  By contrast, he declared "Finally, a German City!" when he moved to Munich.  The 20 July 1944 conspirators who tried to assassinate him dreamed of a free democratic European union, with its capital in Vienna, rather than Brussels.  It was the natural heart of Europe, straddling East and West, and the former capital of the great multi-ethnic Habsburg empire.

Instead, Vienna was divided in 1945, in a similar way that Berlin was.  When the Iron Curtain descended on Europe, from "Stettin in the North, to Trieste in the South" to quote Churchill, the effects on Vienna were profound.  No longer a crossroads, you effectively went to Vienna only to visit Vienna because just a few miles past the city you reached a mined, armed, dead-end.  I disliked the place intensely on my first few visits: stifling, Catholic, conservative.  A place where people in their 30s and 40s actually wore fur coats and hats without an sense of irony.  A backwater.

Then everything changed.  Since November 1989 I've watched the city slowly develop back into the type of place the Nazis loathed.  The road signs point once again to Bratislava, to Budapest and to Prague.  Unlike in the rest of Austria, the (mainly ultra orthodox) Jewish community is flourishing.  It's constantly ranked in the top three cities worldwide for quality of life.  And there's a big, visible, gay community.

Literally every time I see a Vienna tram I smile

I've been used to seeing the city trams flying rainbow flags (apparently by order of the mayor) all around the city, not just for LGBT Pride, but many of them all year round.  But this year there's something new.  It's that many of the pedestrian crossings in the centre of town have been changed to same-sex couples... with love hearts.  They are a mixture of male/male and female/female - as well as male/female couples (nice inclusive measure to bisexuals and straights!)

Here is a female couple dutifully showing you to wait for the green light at the entrance to the main shopping street, Kärtnerstrasse, close to the Vienna State Opera House:

Lesbians say DON'T WALK

Symbolism

A needless, silly bit of symbolism?  The Far Right Freedom Party certainly thinks so, and is sufficiently wound up they've threatened court action over the lights.  But here I am, a 44 year old, out, self-confident gay man, who had heard about the pedestrian lights and who felt a genuine pique of excitement and happiness to see that they actually existed.

When I was a kid growing up in Germany I loved Playmobil.  In about 1980 they suddenly started randomly including Turkish figures (that is brown faced, ordinary people, rather than historic characters dressed in a fez).  They've moved on to a whole range of ethnicities now, such as the black family below.

Playmobil rocks

I guess that unless you belong to a group that isn't in the majority, it isn't very easy to put yourself in the shoes of another group and realise what public invisibility feels like.  Same-sex couples aren't by any means invisible in tv programmes, movies etc in the way they were in say the 1980 or even 1990s, but this little thing (and the rainbow flags on the trams, which I adore) costs very little, will be ignored by many people, but will really matter to some.  

It's so easy to dismiss, but then you think of the unsure gay teenager who sees that someone very senior in the city administration has made this gesture of inclusiveness.  Or you smile at the thought of little child asking their parent why these street signs are different to the ones they normally see, and hope it's a lead in to a "different couples and families" exist type conversation. 

The Times They Are A Changin'

And if you have any sense of history you start reflecting on the place this is happening.   Yes, Vienna was traditionally a "red" city, but it's also the place where tens of thousands of cheering citizens poured out onto the Heldenplatz on 15 March 1938 to cheer Hitler's triumphant arrival in the city.  The sporadic outbursts of violence against the city's Jews in the 2. district led an embarrassed Berlin to radio through orders to tone down the aggression (there were lots of international journalists in town).  Nazism grew in extremely fertile ground in Catholic, right wing Austria, even in its capital.

Hitler addresses Vienna from the Hofburg Palace

Now that same square, just one year ago, was the place for another gathering of a different type.  It was at the far end of the picture and involved some 10,000 cheering Viennese.  This time they were there to greet home triumphantly a different one of their own: a certain bearded drag queen called Conchita.  Look behind the crowd with the rainbow flags to the pale grey building in the distance.  That is the Hofburg, and a keen eye will spot the exact balcony that Hitler had stood on, well within living memory.  And OMG I just noticed that there's one of those hat-wearing Austrians in the front row.  He must be lost.  The woman to his right doesn't look too happy either.  Oh well :P

WE LOVE YOU CONCHITA!

But seriously, do you get what a massive change this is?  At the incredibly serious, and wonderful, Haus der Musik, which is devoted to the Great Composers, the Theory of Sound etc. there is a Conchita exhibit right there as the first thing you see.  Vienna has gone through 180 degrees, and it's not just since 1938.  It's more like since 1989.

Conchita's Dress and Portrait, Haus der Musik. 26" waist. Amazing!

Just like Ireland, which recently gave a massive two fingers to a long history of the Church's attempts to control, manipulate, oppress and repress people's private lives and morality, this is about so much more than just LGBT rights.  The popular referendum in the Republic of Ireland was about accepting that all sorts of people don't "fit the mould" (whatever illusory thing that mould was).  It was about sending a huge signal of acceptance.  It was about saying that we want a modern society, where people are more than tolerated: they are welcomed.  In both Ireland and Vienna's cases that is probably as much a domestic message as one intended for an international audience.  It's about how people outside view those places today.  And it's a message that genuinely fills me with happiness and hope.

An outstanding, inspiring result in the Irish SSM referendum

Now, most importantly... the next blog will contain puppy updates, I promise!

Eurovision Triumph

Well, it's all over for another year.  "Gay Christmas" came and went last night with 125 million viewers across the continent.  Initial estimates suggest at least 126 million of these were gay men.  Families at home, bars, and drunken Eurovision parties tuned in for the annual smörgåsbord of camp fabulousness.  It's the yearly celebration of how deliciously bonkers we Europeans truly are. 

It was a delight, for many reasons.  One of these is that show has gone way past the stage of having only cult "irony" value for the sheer car-crash value of the horrendous acts and dreadful costumes.  The Terry Wogan piss-take era is now firmly behind us, with some arguably very good chunes indeed.  Heck, I wasted £4.74 on iTunes this morning frantically downloading some of them, so they must be good.  

Then we had the sets: Ukraine deserves a special mention inventing a whole new sexual fetish.  This involves putting a totally fit guy dressed in a shirt and tie in a giant hamster wheel and asking him to run round and round for you.  If you haven't yet tried it, I recommend you do.  When gay Twitter discovered Hamster Man's amazingly sexy name was <ROMAN> it frankly imploded for several hours.  Well, I had to lie down for a bit anyway.

TeamWurst

Eurovision 2014 will go down in history, though, for its result.  Unless you're in some distant village in Outer Mongolia with yak mail being the only connection with the rest of the world, you'll know that a bearded drag queen from Austria, Conchita Wurst, took first prize.  She didn't just win - she romped home with a massive 290 votes. 

Conchita is exquisitely beautiful.  She has a figure to die for.  In her own words, she's a "singer in a fabulous dress, with great hair, and a beard."  The new Queen of Europe is a bearded lady.  Let's pause for a moment to consider her name: yes, it actually means "Pussy Sausage" in a combination of Spanish and German if you were wondering.

The person behind Conchita isn't transgender, unlike Sharon Cohen (Dana International) who took the Eurovision prize for Israel in 1998.  Conchita is the stage persona of a 25 year old guy called Tom Neuwirth, who's from grew up in a provincial town of 3000 people in Styria.  He's a gay man in drag.  With a beard.  

Russian politician Vitaly Milonov, one of the architects of the country's "gay propaganda" law last month called Eurovision a hotbed of sodomy and called for a Russian boycott of the show.  He further called for the "pervert" Conchita to be excluded, and labelled her an "obvious transvestite".  Regarding the latter claim, Vitaly, in other news bear shit was this morning discovered in the woods outside St Petersburg. 

The Votes

Ten million people dialed in across the continent last night to vote in, to add their voice to the professional jury (since 2009 voting is 50/50 jury and popular vote).  What they did was to confirm that this, our continent, is a far more liberal and tolerant place that many ever thought it was.  Let's be honest: Conchita's song was fair to good.  It wasn't a stand out winner if simply heard on the radio.  It was the act that made this phenomenal: last night she looked a million Euro.  

I watched a fascinating voting pattern: one after the other the ten countries with same sex marriage joined #TeamWurst, giving her full or nearly full marks.  Belgium, Netherlands, UK, Spain, France, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Portugal: not one didn't do so.  Countries where same sex is very much on the cards (Ireland and Finland) also joined them, as did some other countries you might not have expected to hand over the douze points: Hungary, Greece and Israel.  

Moreover, if you strip out the jury votes and simply look at the popular votes, Conchita's popularity amongst the people of Europe was even more resounding.  Her score goes up from 290 votes (a margin of 52 over the runner up, Netherlands) to 306 votes (86 votes clear).  The juries are there for very good reason and the official score is all that matters - but what's clear from this is a reinforcement of the fact that people across Europe loved her.

 

It just really struck me: is there anywhere else that would fall over itself to vote for a bearded drag queen if they had such a contest?  I can't imagine this happening in a million years in the USA for example.  
 

No Politics

The Eurovision Song Contest is older than the EU.  It was created just 11 years after the Second World War.  The armies of Hitler (that other Austrian whose facial hair is really rather famous) and Stalin had decimated Europe.  It was set up to bring the people of Europe together: quite the tall order and amazingly idealistic given the time.  Political statements are expressly forbidden. 

2014 is the year of anniversaries.  It's 100 years since the heir to the Austrian throne was assassinated at Sarajevo, plunging Europe into the hell of WW1. It's 75 years since Reichskristallnacht, when synagogues were burnt across Germany (and Austria): the precursor to both WW2 and the holocaust.  It's 70 years since the D-Day landings and hope spread out over the continent like a slow-burning flame from the beaches of Normandy.  It's also 70 years since the failed assassination attempt on Hitler by aristocratic German officers who paid with their lives.  They had proposed a union of democratic European nations, with its capital in Vienna, the seat of the old Holy Roman Empire.  It's 25 years since the Berlin Wall, the physical symbol of division across the continent, came crashing down, and Austria resumed its natural place at the cross-roads of a Europe that has been healing ever since.

WHAT symbolism then, that Conchita won this year, and next year Eurovision will take place in Vienna.  Rainbow flags were flying everywhere in the audience last night.  Conchita could not say what she wanted to because of the no-politics rule, but everyone knew exactly what she meant when she said:

"This is dedicated to everyone who believes in a future of peace and freedom.  You know who you are.  We are unity and we are unstoppable."

Yes, Conchita, we are.  We are LGBT Europeans and the tens, if not hundreds, of millions of straight friends and supporters right across the continent. 

So Proud to be European 

What a different place this continent of ours has become.  It's so easy to forget when you hear constantly the repugnant views of xenophobic, homophobic politicians reported across Europe and on our own doorstep (yes, UKIP, I'm looking at you).  

The vote was a huge f*ck you of liberal values over the dying voice of social conservatism.  It was an affirmation of anyone who has been different and been stigmatised because of it.  It was the personal triumph of a schoolboy from Gmunden who grew up fancying other boys and wanting to wear frocks. 

It was a peaceful, democratic, liberal Europe slowly but surely taking the lead dragging the world into a new century, exactly 100 years after it had plunged it into militaristic chaos and destruction.  It's a new Europe that has voted for marriage equality in an increasing number of countries.  It's by no means without its problems, but in so many respects, it's just such a great place to be. 

I was so, so proud to be European last night.  What a great side of people this brought out, and what an amazing, symbolically significant thing a camp song contest can be, particularly when a bearded lady wins it.  Who'd ever have imagined it :-)

Tom Daley and Dustin Lance Black

So the front page on the Sun is reporting that Tom's bf is the Hollywood screenwriter and director, Dustin Lance Black.  The rumours about the pair were already circulating back in October.  This very amusing and clever nudge-nudge piece reported it months ago.  Of course the first thing the Sun does is to emphasise that Dustin is 39 and Tom is 19.

All that tolerance and happiness for him couldn't last could it? Cue the homophobic subtext: gays are predatory cradle-snatchers who lead helpless young men "astray" etc. Never mind the fact that Tom is clearly an exceptionally intelligent, self-possessed guy who has dealt with the extreme media pressure he's been under since he was 14 in a phenomenal way.  Never mind that he's managed to put out an extraordinary 5 minute unscripted video about his feelings and sexuality with a level of maturity and eloquence that many of us never achieve.  No, he has to be some kind of victim in all this.

Whilst this picture was circulating (since identified in all likelihood as a fan) it was all "oooh, ahhh, aren't they cute?" / "aww look at them: pocket sizes gays" but that seems to be ending abruptly.  No, we can't deal with an age difference on top of his being gay.  Heaven forbid that our tolerance be stretched that far.  If the pair don't look like they could doe-eyed characters in a Disney cartoon, start the judgement.

Disney Gays: yeah, they're acceptable

Last night I pointed out that his grandparents, whilst broadly supportive, told the Daily Mail that they felt Tom was "too young for this kind of decision".  It's great they said they will always be there for him: wonderful in fact.  I asked, though, whether his announcing that he had a steady girlfriend that would have resulted in the same reaction that's he's too young for this "decision".   What decision, exactly, in any case?  Tom's said he still fancies girls.  The decision was to go public on his relationship, which he has every right to.  Straight people get engaged and married at 19, routinely.  You might think that too young, but would you as a family member announce it to the Daily Fail of all people?  To me, it just underlines the different standards that are still applied to young LGBT people.  Straight people can decide they're old enough for relationships, but there's still a view that you're doing something wrong if you're involved with the same sex, until you reach some undefined magical age.  Don't just blame it on the generational gap: my 80 year old Lutheran grandmother simply said "It's genetic, there's nothing wrong with that.  I read it in a magazine" when I came out. 

This exact same "it's not quite right" subtext is present in the discussion of his (alleged) boyfriend's age.  A 39 year old Hollywood male legend dating a 19 year old girl might get the odd comment, but really we can all reel off the dozens of heterosexual relationships that fit this mould and still get our approbation.  It's a handy way for people to let out their disapproval of the situation to comment on the age difference rather than to be overtly homophobic, I guess.  People are catching on slowly that the latter really isn't that on in 2013.

And be clear, if Dustin is Tom's boyfriend, he is going out with an absolute legend.  Here is an excerpt from his acceptance speech at the Oscars for his movie "Milk":

It's not just straights doing it.  I'm sure DLB will love to read the following tweet and the many other personally abusive ones you've put out this morning, given the media scrutiny he's under of this story breaking at the moment (whether it's true or not).

So, *LGBT solidarity to you* "Jane" of Queerights.

Worse, perhaps, than the blind ignorance about the age gap are the snarky gays who are attacking Dustin for not being "cute enough".  Oh GAYS.. are we really going to go there?  Not had enough judgement in your life that you need to ply it on to others?  Your verdict about his haircut, his age, his face really aren't that important.  What matters is that someone has come out and given an incredible role model to young LGBT kids around the world.  Whether the alleged boyfriend is cute or not matters to only one person.  And that's Tom.  What's more, for what it's worth, look at those pecs, you dozy twits :P

"Not cute enough": Gays, Everywhere

Tom is hugely in the public eye at the moment.  He must be acutely sensitive to negative comments.  Any relationship when you're 19 is hard work.  God, any relationship at any age is hard work, let's face it.  If Tom were going out with the "cute, ordinary boy" in the shopping centre, the difficulty for the pair of them to have any sort of a normal existence would be huge.  If he is with DLB as the reports suggest, he has someone who is used to media attention, the way the celebrity world works, and all of that pressure.  He is, by all accounts, an exceptional man.

If the story is true, I wish them both the very, very best.  Tom has done a remarkable thing.  He's a remarkable guy.  And he deserves remarkable happiness.  I hope whoever he is with will provide that and people will stop with the snarking.

Homophobia and the B&B case

It's been another excellent day for LGBT rights in the United Kingdom.

The "Christian" (I'll explain the inverted commas in a moment) guest house owners who refused to allow a gay couple to stay, in clear contravention of the law, have lost their case in the Supreme Court.  They were funded by the homophobic Christian Institute in their lengthy struggle to have the right to discriminate against the gay couple, in case you wondering.  They lost in the County Court, they lost (unanimously) in the Court of Appeal, and now they've lost (unanimously) in the Supreme Court. You'd hope they've got the quite clear message by now.

One of the most heartening aspects of this case were the words of Baroness Hale, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, and as such the most senior woman judge in the country.   She went way beyond simply rejecting the guest-house owners' spurious arguments, with this passage right at the end of her judgment:

"Sexual orientation is a core component of a person's identity which requires fulfilment through relationships with others of the same orientation... [Homosexuals] were long denied the possibility of fulfilling themselves through relationships with others.  This was an affront to their dignity as human beings which our law has now (some would say belatedly) recognised.  Homosexuals can enjoy the same freedom and the same relationships as any others.  But we should not underestimate the continuing legacy of those centuries of discrimination, persecution even, which is still going in many parts of the world."

These are beautiful words, coming as they do, from someone so very senior in the judiciary.  When I studied law (at the same Cambridge college as Baroness Hale, no less!) I remember sitting in a supervision in 1994 reading the words of the Law Lords in the recently handed down R v Brown case.  It followed a homophobic witch-hunt by the Police, and the overtones of the judgement were extremely unpleasant.  How times change, and so very rapidly.

The wonderful Baroness Hale of Richmond

The owners of the guest-house in this case have taken every opportunity to portray themselves as reasonable, simple Christian believers.  It is actually hard not to see them as are hard-nosed zealots, determined to take their alleged right to discriminate as far as they possibly can.  They have chosen to open a business and simply can't expect to get away in 2013 with the equivalent of hanging a "No Blacks, No Irish" sign on their door.  They do not even share the part of the building that was used as a commercial guesthouse with their private living quarters, nor is their any evidence they asked straight couples for proof of marriage: quite the contrary.

They will continue to portray themselves as a persecuted minority in the ilk of the early Christian martyrs.  There is a certain group, like them, who seem to revel in their status as long-suffering Joan of Arc types.  Being thrown to the lions in ancient Rome is nothing compared to what they suffer.  They were after all simply "following God's word" in discriminating against the gay couple.  After today's judgement they said they preferred to disobey the law of the land if it meant obeying "the law of God".  They forget that it's their interpretation of the law of God, and there are certain huge flaws in their argument as I've pointed out before with a quick look at Leviticus.

For any straight readers, imagine the personal offence and damage to your basic dignity at being told that cannot stay somewhere because of your relationship.  It happened to my friend Henrietta and her girlfriend in an expensive boutique hotel one Easter, before this legislation existed, which wasn't that long ago.  The aggressive hotel owner told her he "wouldn't have any of that going on under his roof" and literally threw their bags out of the reception.

Of course there are amusing elements to this case too.  I love the assumption that sharing a double bed means you're going to have sex (or will be tempted to).  It's positively Victorian: hands above the sheets, boys and girls!  How about the times I've shared a double-bed with sundry male and female friends, with my mother, and indeed with my dog, without feeling even the slightest need to shag my bed-fellow in the middle of the night.   Moreover, who needs a double-bed if you do actually fancy your bedroom mate?  Do these people have no imagination? :-)

Christian Homophobia

I still encounter homophobia on a regular basis on Twitter.  A common theme arises: by no means all Christians are homophobes, but almost all homophobes I come across seem to be Christians.

There's the zealot Catholic stalker of mine who talks not about gay people, but of people who "have SSA" (same-sex attraction) as if it were an affliction or a temporary disorder that can be "cured".  I didn't chose my sexual orientation, honey - you however chose your faith.. and your nasty, bigoted views.  Then there are the random men, often from America and Australia, who just hurl out violent homophobic abuse to strangers.  It's a very odd straight man who spends all his time thinking about gay sex and gay men.  You don't need to be Dr Freud to take a guess at what's going on here.

Who you trying to kid?!

As ever, the hollow vessels make the most noise, however, and it's important to remember that the bulk of Christians I interact with don't share this type of view point.  In fact several I know are embarrassed, at pains to disassociate themselves from these attitudes, and are genuinely some of the kindest people I know.  It's a constant task to remind yourself of them, but it would make me guilty of the same prejudice I deplore not to.  Aside from anything, they're a delight to talk to.

I therefore deliberately put the word "Christian" in inverted commas at the start of this blog post because my understanding is that the type of people who would shut people out, discriminate, judge and behave spitefully to others based on Jesus' teachings are about as far away from "salvation" as it gets.  It's just such a shame they have such enormously big gobs and make you forget about the good guys.

Going Forward

Gay men, in particular, were often accused in the past of being unable to forge lasting relationships and commitment.  Imagine the effects on their relationships if for a chunk of their life they were at risk of being arrested for having private, consensual sex in their own home.  Imagine what it would be like to live through Mrs Thatcher's government introducing the most spiteful piece of hate-legislation parliament has probably ever passed, with words in it like "pretend family relationships".  Imagine hearing as recently as 2012 from the most senior Catholic in Britain (who as it turned out sexually assaulted young male priests), and half the Tory party in Parliament, that your relationship was in no way worthy of being put on the same footing as heterosexual marriages.  Imagine not knowing for sure until 27 November 2013 whether you could go away for a break together and risk having a guest-house shut you and your partner out for being gay.

All of that has a massive knock-on effect.  Everyone wants their loving relationships affirmed and their love for one another honoured by friends, family and society at large.  When the law allows the discrimination it has done, it places an enormous strain on things.  The fact that so many LGBT people have worked through all this and led happy, fulfilling lives with contented relationships is a real testament to them.  As the legal and societal position continues to improve, so I believe will the lives and relationships of those in the LGBT community.  This a wonderful, wonderful thing.

So it's been another great day, just like the day Parliament finally passed the Same Sex Marriage Bill.  Thank you, Baroness Hale, and your learned colleagues.  You have no appreciation of the ripple effect your splendid words and sentiments may come to have. 

Alan Turing and German Gays

Alan Turing was a national hero.  He is widely regarded as the father of computer science and was behind the breaking of the German Enigma code at Bletchley Park. His genius allowed critical knowledge of German military movements.  It is no exaggeration to say that he was behind one of Britain's most critical contributions to the Allied and Soviet victories over the Nazis.

Turing happened to be gay.  He was 40 and was in a relationship with a 19 year old when he was arrested in 1952 and charged with the same Victorian offence that Oscar Wilde and an estimated 75,000 other gay men were, before consenting sex between male adults (at the time over 21 years old) was finally allowed in England and Wales in 1967.  Turing was chemically castrated and died in unclear circumstances aged 41.

Alan Turing as a young man

 Problems with a Pardon

This post was prompted by David Allen Green's piece at New Statesman on Turing and the issues around his suggested pardon.  I found it both powerful and actually extremely moving.  I really recommend you give it a read.

As the piece points out, Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued an official apology on behalf of our country for the way that Turing was treated, back in 2009.  Pressure has been increased recently, however, for a pardon.  There are problems with this.  A pardon stems from the ancient Royal Prerogative of Mercy.  It is in effect the Monarch using their power to forgive a person who has committed and been convicted of a crime.  The person has still technically breached the law and is guilty; only morally are they are considered innocent.  The law has been correctly applied (as opposed to a misapplication of justice, where it has not).  The conviction still stands on their criminal record.

As David Allen Green points out, such an act is legally and practically useless.  Turing is long since dead, it cannot affect his serving of any sentence, and this is therefore only of symbolic value.  Gordon Brown's apology was enough if all we wanted was a symbolic act.  The chief executive of Stonewall has described the exercise as "pointless".  Others would say the symbolism is in fact worse than useless, but wrong, given the State is reasserting that a crime was committed.

Turing's German Contemporaries

Now let's consider for a moment the fate of gay contemporaries of Turing in Nazi Germany.  Gay sex had been permitted in some German States (such as Bavaria) prior to German Unification in 1871.  Paragraph 175 of the unified German Criminal Code made it an offence throughout the country.  The Social Democrats attempted to repeal "this disgraceful paragraph" as early as the 1890s.  It looked likely to be abolished in the early 1930s and was actual put on a "reform package" before the Reichstag, but in 1933 the Nazis took power.

The Nazis extended the law to cover homosexual thoughts (i.e. orientation) rather than just acts.  After discharge from criminal prisons, many gay men were moved directly to the concentration (as opposed to death) camps.  Here they formed one of the lowest tiers in the prisoner hierarchy, marked out by pink triangles on their uniforms.  Up to 15,000 died of maltreatment, starvation, illness or simple murder.  Unlike Jews or Gypsies they were not subjected to factory type genocide, and the numbers involved were much smaller than the other groups (estimated at 6,000,000 and 1,000,000 respectively).

Nonetheless the individual suffering, based on sexual orientation, was horrendous.  Death rates ran at around 60%.  Those who did survive left to find scant pity or understanding for them.  They were considered sexual criminals rather than victims and some (released by the Allies) were sent back to ordinary prisons to fulfill their prison sentences.  German courts continued to prosecute gay men under paragraph 175 until 1969 (two years later than England/Wales legalised gay sex).  Around 140,000 men in total were convicted under paragraph 175 over the period 1871-1969.

Dachau Monument to Gay Victims of the Nazis

German Rehabilitation 

In 2002 Social Democrat, Green and Far Left members of the German Bundestag succeeded in extending a law called the NS-Aufhebungsgesetz to men convicted under paragraph 175.  This was in the face of votes to the contrary from the conservative CDU/CSU parties and the liberal FDP.   There was a mixed reaction from the LGBT community: whilst the measure was welcomed as far as it went, it did not affect those convicted between 1945 and 1969 under paragraph 175: the very same provision the Nazis had used against gay men.  Their convictions remain unaffected to this day.

The interesting thing here is that most articles on the 2002 law refer to a "pardon" of the victims. A quick look at the German statute reveals that this is legally incorrect. The Act extends to gay criminal offences another Statute of 1998 (apologies that the links are in German).  That Act abolishes the decisions of Nazi courts of "justice" between 1933 and 1945 which were based on political, military, race, religious or philosophical reasons.  This is not a pardon: it is saying the offence never happened and the conviction had no legal basis.  The slate is wiped clean and no criminal record remains.

Back to the Turing Pardon

So, we return to Alan Turing.  David Allen Green's suggestion is a mechanism based on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, introduced under the Coalition.  Under this men who engaged in consensual gay sex which would no longer constitute an offence, can apply to have their criminal records removed.   The suggestion is that this could be applied to deceased victims of the law that convicted Turing. 

It goes much further than a pardon one, both legally and morally.  It acknowledges that the law was wrong before 1967 and grave wrongs were done.  In effect it would place Turing (and not just him, but all of the other 75,000 victims of this law) in the same position as German gay men convicted under the Nazis.  There is a beautiful and befitting symmetry in this.  The gay German victims of the Nazis who benefited from the law of 2002 would not have done so without Turing's work and Allied victory.  It is right, and it is just for our government to take this step now.

Abseiling Lesbians

February is LGBT History Month and 2 February 2013 marks the 25th anniversary of a remarkable event in British LGBT history.. the storming of the House of Lords by abseiling lesbians.  This is my little tribute to them.

"Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin"

For anyone lucky enough not to remember, here's some quick background.  In 1981 a straight Danish woman, Susanne Bösche, wrote an illustrated children's book called "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin".  It covered, for example, a trip to the laundrette, a surprise birthday party, and an incident of homophobia in the street.  Her aim was to show to children that it's perfectly fine that some people grow up with different family situations.  As she puts it "It's not possible to go through life without meeting people living in different ways, and they shouldn't come as a shock to anybody" Here's an excellent radio piece from the BBC on it and a lovely Guardian interview with Susanne, in which she describes her gentle, incredibly reasonable, intentions.

When the book came out in English translation, there was uproar from the British tabloid press.  In 1983, the Mail reported that a copy had been found in one school library in Labour-controlled Haringey and a storm developed with the press reporting that outraged parents didn't want their children subjected to "images of semi-naked men in bed with a 7 year old girl".  A cultural gulf between Nordic countries, where families routinely have breakfast in bed together, and 80s Tory Britain where they apparently did not, was about to have explosive results.  The Sun, the Star and the Mail led the hectoring and onslaught of prejudice and hate-speech against gay people.  The book was apparently "blatant propaganda for homosexuality".

Only one copy of the book was ever found in that one school library.  There is no evidence it was ever lent out, nor that a single schoolchild ever read it.  If they had, the homophobic lobby would surely have highlighted it.

This was a ghastly time for many in Britain.  Thatcherism was causing enormous social and political upheaval. Terrence Higgins had in 1982 become the first gay man in this country to die of Aids. Several Labour councils were pilloried for taking the (radical!) step of including sexual orientation in a list of discrimination policies, and the Labour-controlled Greater London Council, headed by Ken Livingstone, was attacked for funding the London Lesbian and Gay Centre which occupied a  building in Farringdon.  Bear in mind also that it was only in 1980 that sex between consenting adult males men stopped being a criminal offence in Scotland, and in 1982 in Northern Ireland.
 
"Pretend Family Relationships"

The Thatcher government's response to all of this was to introduce Clause 28 of the Local Government Bill.  Dame Jill Knight, a leading supporter of the amendment, claimed that gay lobby groups were aiming to "abolish the family".  Tory MPs claimed that gay people were attempting to "indoctrinate" children into becoming homosexual.  It's been said many times, but how anyone can influence anyone to do anything with someone of a person of a gender they're not attracted to is beyond me.

The Clause was vile, spiteful and designed to offend the LGBT community with its use of the words "pretend family relationships".  It provided as follows:

A local authority shall not:
(a) Intentionally promote or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality.
(b) Promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality in a pretended family relationship.

Protestors Take to the Streets

There was a huge amount of protest over the Clause. It led to Ian McKellen's coming out just over 25 years ago, on 27 January 1988.  He did so on Radio 3 as a result of it and featured on the front page of the Gay Times.  It's extraordinary to think that "coming out of the closet" was such a political act back then for an actor.  It wasn't THAT long ago.. and it's weird to think that today Gay Times has pictures of 19 year old straight Olympic divers happy to get their kit off for their adoring gay male fans.

"Out of the closet and fighting"

Here are some pictures from rallies against the Clause.  These first two were in Manchester when LGBT protestors occupied Albert Square and Piccadilly Plaza.  Some had to be removed by firemen and weren't going to leave quietly:

Albert Square, Manchester, February 1988

Defiant Manc Lesbian taking on the Coppers

"Gay Proud + Angry"

Five lesbians chained themselves to the gates of Buckingham Palace on 8 March 1988 to coincide with the 70th anniversary of Suffragettes doing the same, and were joined by other protestors, some in period costumes!

Abseiling Lesbians

The two most high profile protests, however, were the abseiling into the House of Lords 25 years ago on 2 February 1988, and the invasion of the BBC Six O'Clock News (more on that later).

What happened in the dusty old House of Lords (remember, this was before the Blair reforms, when literally hundreds of ancient Tory hereditary peers could be wheeled in to fall asleep on the benches), was that the peers had just had a two hour debate on the Bill.  They voted 202 to 122 to pass it.  A group of protestors in the public gallery began heaping abuse on them, while four lesbians attached wires to the ironwork and unfurled two thin wires.  Three of them abseiled down into the chamber, shouting "LESBIANS ARE OUT!"  Three House of Lords Ushers, all retired naval warrant officers, tried to quell the protest and in the chaos two of the three abseilers walked out of the chamber.

Sadly no pictures of the protest exist, even though this was after filming was introduced in the House of Lords. This piece in the Guardian records it.  It has also entered this list of high-profile historic protests in parliament and has achieved somewhat legendary status.  They are still remembered fondly today:

So who were the abseiling lesbians?  Very little is known about them.  Click on this link if you want to see a copyrighted picture that shows the four women.  The woman on the right is Janet McLoughlin (not Jane as it says in the caption).  The tall woman at the back is a German woman who went by the name of Tim.  A third woman was Stella Blair (also quoted in the Guardian report) but it's not clear from the caption which one is Stella.  And the fourth remains nameless.  If anyone knows what they are doing now (and PLEASE check that they're happy for that information to be made public), do add a comment below.

Labour Peer Lord Monkswell, who had obtained passes for the women, was forced to apologise to the House a few days later.  His apology was reported in the Guardian.  He doesn't exactly sound sorry though: he declines to condemn the action, and he quotes a 12 year old girl as saying "This is just what Hitler did to the Jews."

BBC Six O'Clock News

The second famous protest was the invasion of the BBC Six O'Clock News on 23 May 1988.  This was the day before Clause 28 was enacted into law as the notorious and hated Section 28.  One woman managed to chain herself to Sue Lawley's desk and another was sat on by Nicholas Witchell.   It really is worth watching this video: Sue Lawley's composure is absolutely remarkable.  Do watch to the end because there's also an interview with the two women who invaded the studio.

(Direct link here if your browser doesn't work.  Firefox properly supports Blogger)

Even more amusing is this little sound clip (just for the first part). A man can be heard saying "Oh f*cking hell, we've got a nutter in the studio! Get them out!... Get security. Get security quickly!"

(Direct line here)

The final priceless thing from this event is the front page of the Daily Mirror the following day:

A Long Road

And there we are... it all seems like another world to me, though I remember 1988 incredibly well.  I was in the lower sixth form and struggling with my sexuality.  You can imagine what the grotesque manifestation of homophobia from the then Tory party did to young gay people of my generation.  I'm not sure I've ever forgiven them for it.

One immediate result of Section 28 was the setting up of Stonewall in 1989 to work within Parliament as well as outside to make sure nothing like this ever happened again, and of course to campaign for the repeal of Section 28 and other discriminatory laws.

Labour first tried to repeal the Section in 2000.  The Liberal Democrats and the Green Party also opposed the Section.  The attempt passed the Commons, but was defeated in the Lords following a campaign by Baroness Young (Conservative).  It was at this time that David Cameron defended Section 28 and publicly accused Tony Blair of being anti-family.  He added that Blair wanted to "promote homosexuality in schools". 

Section 28 sent out a message that the Government sanctioned homophobia; it endangered vulnerable children (because it appeared to prevent teachers from intervening in homophobic bullying); and it implied that gay people were dangerous to children.  Not one prosecution was ever made under it. The Section was repealed under Labour by the Local Government Act 2003. 



Michael Howard, who voted for the Bill, was Tory leader in 2005.  He told Attitude Magazine that "I thought, rightly or wrongly that there was a problem in those days" but added "Nobody’s fussed about those issues any more".  Never mind the damage it caused.  In 2006, Tory Chairman, Francis Maude, who himself voted for it, told Pink News that the policy was wrong and a mistake.

David Cameron voted against the repeal of Section 28.  In 2009, 21 years after its introduction and 6 years after its repeal, he finally apologised on behalf of the Conservatives for the Section.  He accepted it had been "offensive to gay people".


A Different World

It is a different world in this country today.  There is still bullying in schools, there is still homophobia in the workplace and we have seen a disgusting amount of it from (certain) Church figures relating to the issue of marriage equality.  There's also an enormously long way to go in the fight against outright violence towards trans* people.

However, the days when people were openly proud of their homophobia have gone.  We have an equal age of consent and anti-discrimination work protection.  It's no longer permissible for a hotel owner to shout in someone's face  "We'll not have any of that here" as happened to my friend Henrietta and her girlfriend not so long ago.  People go to lengths to deny they are homophobic, even if the content of what they are saying blatantly is.

My experience is that young gay, lesbian and bi people are growing up feeling much more secure, balanced, and happier than ever was the case.  It's not across the board, but I genuinely think it is the case broadly speaking... and it is a wonderful thing.

Marriage equality is of course going before the House of Commons on Tuesday.  The Prime Minister supports it, despite a groundswell of anger from grassroots Tories.  I wonder how many MPs who do vote against the proposals will look back in 25 years on marriage equality, as the likes of Howard and Maude do now on Section 28?  Let's hope the hateful rhetoric of those times will be a thing of the past during the debate, that the measure will pass, and that we don't even have to call on the help of abseiling lesbians into the House of Lords during the process :-)




Huge thanks to my friend Anya (@anyapalmer) for suggesting and editing this post, and for providing me with loads of the source material. 

New Statesman and "Gay Cures"

“We are a Christian initiative that supports men and women with race issues who voluntarily seek change in their skin colour.  We do respect the rights of individuals who identify as ‘black’ who don't seek change (though such rights don't extend to them marrying each other).  We also believe that the practice of going around being black is sinful for those seeking God’s highest purpose.

We will change your colour through the help of psychodrama, which involves the use of spontaneous dramatisation and elements of theatre, where the client acts out their emotions and internal conflicts on a stage with the use of props.  

However, we’re a tad disappointed that the British Psychodrama Association has actually entirely revoked the trainee status of our counsellor and co-director (he wasn't even qualified), so we're doing this on a non-regulated basis.  Dr Mike has been entirely open in his journey of changing his racial origins, and is now not black at all.  He's completely ex-Black.  We therefore don’t think this very fair at all.”

"Gay Cures"

How would you react to the above?  Laugh, cry, shake your head?  Don't just dismiss it, though: it is actually pretty much what “Core Issues Trust” is offering to gay men and women in the UK regarding their sexuality.  Core Issues is a body that sets out its thoughts on a website littered with spelling mistakes that provides links to other sites, mainly in the US.  One claims that “30% of all 20 year-old homosexual men will be HIV-positive or dead by the age of thirty.”   Another claims that on divine intention for the ordering of human relationships “science and psychiatry have no answers”.  It exists to promote the changing of sexual orientation.

The scientific, medical consensus on “gay cures” is actually absolutely clear. The BMA has condemned conversion therapy as discredited and harmful.  The Royal College of Psychiatrists is unambiguous on the assertion that sexual orientation cannot be changed.  The UK Council for Psychotherapy carries a video of a 22 year old Northern Irish man who talks of his experience of depression and suicidal thoughts during a “gay cure”.  UKCP states that homosexuality is not an illness, cannot be cured and that it is an ethical offence to offer therapy with the aim of altering sexual orientation.   Ben Summerskill, Chief Executive of Stonewall puts all this in layman’s term for us: “gay cures” are “voodoo therapy”.

The Harm 

Why then, if this is such demonstrable nonsense, would anyone be upset about it then?  I’m a little amazed I’d even need to set this out, but it is because LGBT people are being hurt by this.  Not theoretically offended: people are actually being hurt. The Lesbian and Gay Foundation found that young LGB people are three to six times more likely to self-harm than heterosexual young people.  It also estimated that 40% of all young LGB people self-harm or attempt suicide at least once  LGBT people are still routinely bullied, mocked and abused, and nor is the situation confined just to the young.  

These stats reflect general widespread negative attitudes, including the persistent belief that not being heterosexual is a choice and therefore the “fault” of the person involved.  The promotion of “Gay cure” therapies as an alternative feed directly into that.   

Do you care? I bloody do. About almost more than anything else

Those numbers demonstrate the general culture.  For the unfortunate people who submit themselves to the courses (or are submitted to them by their families) there is of course a much more immediate, serious, recognised, acknowledged risk of individual harm.  The State of California onlyyesterday banned all such “therapies” for minors. Governor Brown stated “This bill bans non-scientific 'therapies' that have driven young people to depression and suicide. These practices have no basis in science or medicine and they will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery.”

Adverts Promoting Core Issues 

Why then, we ask, is a leading liberal-left political publication, the New Statesman,  accepting a full page advert in this week’s edition from “Core Issues”?  This is the very “voodoo therapy” body that had its adverts pulled from London Buses by Tory Mayor Boris Johnson this April.   This is the same homophobic group that was exposed by award-winning journalist Patrick Strudwick whilst undercover.

We "voluntarily seek change in sexual preference": Ad in NS

You may of course take a free speech view, that any publication must accept money from any organisation that wants to publish on its pages.  Never mind the commercial reaction of its readers to such views.  This presumably would permit adverts that allow “cures” for black people and full page spreads from the EDL: just the kind of thing that would make people more likely to buy the magazine.  Or you might think the New Statesman is simply greedy and will take whatever it can get.  Perhaps there’s no link between its advertising, which is farmed out to an agency, and its editorial stance and therefore this is actually all terribly embarrassing for them.  I actually think the latter is the most likely, but who knows.

An Apology.  Of Sorts. 

What is clear is that the issue was brought to the New Statesman’s attention by @twf_mike at 12.33 on Sunday 30 September.  There has been a wave of protest on Twitter, with people stating they would cancel subscriptions etc.   The Labour Party Conference is currently on.  The editorial team is not presumably having an ordinary Monday.  Having tweeted on a range of issues all morning, finally at 15.19 today Monday 1 October they published the following:

However, I'm left personally feeling very disappointed by this.  It is short.  It rings hollow.  It offers no explanation for the mistake.  It does not mention "gay cures" which is why people object to the group, not its stance on gay marriage.  I think it's quite implicit that New Statesman will not be taking future similar adverts, but that could easily have been spelled out.  They could have offered the revenue from the ad to a LGBT counselling group to show the apology is real.  My reaction is, however, relatively mild judging by my Twitter feed.

New Statesman don't seem to "get it".  They don't acknowledge just how wrong this group is, and how their liberal/left readership has reacted to their making money from such a group.  NS are supposed to be the "good guys".  The LGBT community is used to a lack of understanding, mockery and writing that verges on abuse from the likes of Melanie Phillips at the Daily Mail.  We do not expect or want it from the NS.  The apology doesn't go nearly far enough, which implies they don't understand or they don't care.  I really hope (and actually believe knowing one of the personalities involved) that's not the case, but it's how it comes across.

Ostriches in the Sand

Not the best response on Twitter

There is another wider issue.  If you are a corporation and you want to play on Twitter, you have to know the rules.  These include giving someone a smartphone so that they can react if a storm blows up, even out of hours, even if everyone is at some drinks reception.  We've seen it time and again with corporations using Twitter to promote their products and failing to engage swiftly and adequately when an issue comes up.  It's not about 24/7 responses to routine things that can be dealt with in office hours: it's having one person who can firefight on the rare occasion something "big" comes up.  This simple statement should have been out there yesterday afternoon, not 27 hours later.  My disbelief turned to actual anger at the failure even to acknowledge the barrage of mentions.  As one person put it to me "It looks like they don't give a f*ck".  Yes, it did.  One simple tweet from NS saying "We're not ignoring you, we need time to get a statement out" would have helped enormously.  

Twitter is instant: Tesco tweeting about its special offers while ignoring the 200,000 who are tweeting at them about Workfare drives people up the wall.  It pours oil on the flames and it makes matters worse.  The editors at NS couldn't "undo" the fact their advertising guys took on this thing, whether by mistake or not.  They could have acted swiftly though.  It takes a second to publish a holding tweet.  I hope New Statesman have learned from this.  I also hope that instead of offering Core Issues the oxygen of free additional publicity through this furore, it will have highlighted the issue once more of just how objectionable and despicable they are.