Category Archives: LGBT

Bigots?

by maxattacks

It turns out the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, was due to deliver a speech in support of gay marriage which criticised those who opposed said government proposal as “bigots”. Sadly, it seems Clegg and his aides have quickly removed the “bigot” parts of his speech on the grounds that it was included as a “mistake”. It seems the only “mistake” Clegg had made was removing the term “bigots”, and for incredibly good reasons.

I have long despaired at the remarks by opponents to gay marriage from the Catholic Church, the Church of England and other smaller organisations. This is something we here in the UK have been able to watch, almost smugly, across the Atlantic in the USA for many years now. But no, it turns out the UK has it’s bigots on this issue as well. Yes, that’s  right, I’m willing to say what Clegg never could. Given there is no reasonable or legitimate secular reason to oppose gay marriage, what so ever, I am fully inclined to regard those who oppose gay marriage as bigots. This is not said in attempt to silence opponents, it’s not an attempt to close the conversation but it is simply the most logic explanation given the reasons we’ve heard so regularly in the USA and now here. And I’d like to take a moment to address four of the most common I hear:

  • But gay marriage will change the definition of marriage!

- So? Your point being? First off, marrying for love is a rather recent idea, until the last 150 years or so marriage was arranged around power relationships between families and often the woman would become property of the husband…but we re-defined that. In fact, the ‘re-defining’ argument fails to provide any reason why this would be a bad thing to do in the first place, but all is given is vague unfounded assertions.

  • But my religion means I must oppose it.

- Well ok, you’re welcome to oppose upon religious grounds. But the thing is that we make laws based on secular reasoning. You can’t force your religious views on another section of society…period.

  • But gay marriage will lead to bestiality and polygamy!

- Now this is what we call a slippery slope fallacy. Just because one thing is allowed it does not mean we’ll move onto other actions. That’s why when homosexuality was decriminalised under Roy Jenkins in the mid-1960s, bestiality and polygamy have still yet to be legalised by this obscure argument. Hell, while I wouldn’t call it polygamy (polyamory for a better term), I would have absolutely no problem with polyamorious (if that’s how it’s spelt) marriage.

  • But it’ll be damaging to a child’s upbringing.

- There’s two problems to this assertion. 1 is that there’s absolutely no evidence that a gay couple would fair any less in raising a child than a straight couple. 2  this argument implies the sole purpose of marriage is to produce children which is just nonsense on so many levels. First off, would you then not bar seniors or infertile straight couples from marrying as apparently the only purpose of marriage is reproduction? It also implies that having children out of wedlock is fundamentally wrong, which of course is complete bull, don’t even go there.

For once, Clegg could’ve made a principled stand on something that really matters to ending LGBTQ discrimination, but it turns out he’s too much of a coward. Thankfully, when I see an individual oppose gay marriage for incredibly poor reasons such as above, I’m happy to make no reservations in pointing out the most logical assessment.

They. Are. Bigots.

Max

I have good and bad news

by maxattacks

Good news peeps!:

hands

I’ve always been one for giving credit where credit is due to opposition parties and I make no exceptions here. It seems the SNP Government in Scotland has the good sense to bring forward draft proposals to have Gay Marriage legalised in Scotland (after proposals here in England were put on hold).  This is nothing less than a momentousness step in the right direction for LGBTQ rights and the UK as a whole. I’ve become in recent months splutteringly enraged at the pathetic excuses made by those who oppose Gay Marriage, “It’ll redefine marriage” (which isn’t even a reason). I’m incredibly happy the Scottish government has moved beyond such bigotry and I hope the Scottish Labour Party gives this proposal it’s full backing.

Bad news:

When I started University back in the September of 2009 (back in the middle of the previous recession) I always had it in my mind that, ‘Hey, at least the recession will be over once I finish my degree.’. Now ignoring the fact that I’ll be returning to the University of Birmingham (and BULS for that matter) in September to train to be a Primary Teacher. But now I’ve finished my degree I realise that this was a foolish assumption to make as the UK now suffers it’s 3rd consecutive quarter of negative growth at 0.7%. Now of course, we’re going to hear all the usual excuses, oh the Jubilee Celebrations, oh the weather, oh the Eurozone (which is nonsense on the latter given the UK and Italy are the only two major G20 economies back in a double dip recession). This was a recession made in Whitehall and in Downing Street.

It’s about time Cameron, Clegg and Osborne own up to their own mistakes and take responsibility.

Max

I opposed Equal Marriage no longer

by bulsonline

Among the two years of Coalition government that Britain has been subjected to there has been little to smile about. There is no need to list the ‘omnishambles’ here, even those who have better things to do with their time than check the tweetings of the political geekery are well versed in just how inept and backward this government’s policies are. Then, all of a sudden, there appeared a ray of hope, a reason to celebrate, perhaps this Cameron fella ain’t so bad after all – he wants to introduce Equal Marriage.

I read with despair the comments of those supportive of Equal Marriage and I wanted to shout: ‘Can you not see the mind-forged manacles of institutionalism that Marriage (in any form) brings?!’. The Gay Liberation Front, nurtured on the campus at LSE in the early 70s was very clear in its view, condemning on page 2 in The Gay Manifesto the ‘archaic and irrational teaching [that] support the family and marriage as the only permitted conditions for sex.’ The Gay Liberation Front’s key theme was anti-assimilation. Gay people were equal, sure, but they were different as well, and as such should play no role in conforming to the ‘archaic’ institutions and cultural practises that made up Britain’s history. It was this direct, ‘in-yer-face’ attitude which makes the GLF so important to Gay history in Britain. The concept of Marriage could play no part in their ‘aim at the abolition of the family.’ (p.9)

I for one oppose marriage. I agree with the GLF when they stated that ‘we will not be freed so long as each succeeding generation is brought up in the same old sexist way in the patriarchal family.’ It would have been hypocritical of me, I believed, to oppose marriage, but be in favour of Equal Marriage.

I then looked to see who also opposed Equal Marriage. I could find nobody that shared my opinion on the fundamentally unjust nature of marriage. Instead it was a collection of knee-jerk Tory MPs (the dusty and offensive Peter Bones of this world) and irrelevant Church Minsters, whose quest to preserve ‘traditional family values’ was little more than thinly veiled homophobia and ignorance. These people seem to advocate human rights, as long as this doesn’t stretch to sexuality equality. And I was not prepared to enter this unholy coalition.

It then dawned on me that my argument was flawed. Basically, I was being an academic elitist, pontificating from the comforts of a university on how ‘blinkered’ everyone was apart from me. (I once heard this described as ‘intellectual masturbation’).

So if gay couples wish to show their love to one another and society at large by entering the traditional institution of marriage then there is absolutely no argument, certainly morally, why this shouldn’t be allowed to happen. Sign me up as a convert. Just don’t expect any Queer Radicals to be heading up the aisle any time soon.

By Dan Harrison, former BULS Chair

The Lib Dems, a Tory lurch to the right, UKIP and Europe.

by Alex Swanson

Hopefully, the fantastic election results for Labour on Thursday will mark the point at which the coalition begins to unravel. Indeed, since the election Tory backbenchers such as Nadine Dorries have accused the PM of ‘privileged arrogance and bad manners’ and have allegedly begun discussing a motion of no confidence.

Dorries goes on to claim that “we do not have true conservative values in our party at the moment – we have a predominance of Liberal Democratic values”, a sentiment most grass-roots Liberal Democrats would wholeheartedly disagree with. Can a government which has implemented such draconian cuts really be considered one which has embraced ‘Liberal Democratic values’?

The problem for the Liberal Democrats is that their vote share declined to a measly 16% of the vote, a second year of pain for a party which has traditionally done better in local elections than in general elections. Lib Dem activists fear that the loss of so many councillors may result in the party facing an ‘electoral wipeout’ in 2015. The Liberal Democrats do deserve the rejection by voters due to Clegg’s decision to abandon core Lib Dem positions, such as on tuition fees, and the failure to moderate a government dominated by conservative principles. However, the product of weaker Lib Dems may just be an even stronger Tory party, especially in the south, or worse, a stronger UKIP.

The worry is that the Tories’ declining share of the vote, coupled with the success of smaller parties such as UKIP, which polled 14% of the vote in areas which they contested, could lead to the party making a further lurch to the right in order to win back the more conservative voters won over by UKIP. Calls have been made by MPs such David Davis to abandon progressive elements of the coalition’s policies such as Lords reform and gay marriage in order to give a “more Conservative flavour to the coalition”.

In particular the success of UKIP has the potential to ignite a fight from Tory backbenchers over Europe, and in this regard both the Tory right and UKIP represent a further danger to Britain. With the European elections approaching in 2014, the Tory party could see the increasing popularity of UKIP, who usually perform well in elections to the European Parliament, as a sign they need to adopt a more Eurosceptic approach. Following David Cameron’s recent unwillingness to work with fellow European leaders on solving the Eurozone debt crisis, a more Eurosceptic approach has the potential to further isolate Britain on the periphery of the European project.

Although, the EU has many, many problems, including a clear democratic deficit, it is an institution which ultimately does serve the British interest. In particular, when it comes to the environment, Europe has led the way internationally in agreeing to ambitious emissions targets and unilaterally implementing a tax on aviation.

What Labour needs to do is address the genuine concerns the public have when it comes to the EU. Last week, the former business secretary, Peter Mandelson, called for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, due to the fundamental changes in the nature of the EU in the decades since the last referendum on Britain’s relationship with Europe. Such a high-profile call for a referendum by a former Labour minister, should be heeded by the current Labour leadership. The Labour party has the potential to redraw the debate around Europe by taking the initiative and adopting a policy which would show that the party is listening to the millions of people who clearly have issues with Europe. The opportunity to make the case for Europe would expose divisions within the Conservative party over the issue, while also giving the British people a chance to have their say on a changing institution which does have huge implications for the democracy of this country.

A (mostly) referenced version of this post is available at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcmZYW11nzzWq1OWKVc7s2laxdhHAVJHyp7UsqA4W9Y/edit

By Alex Swanson, BULS Website Editor

Santorum Pulls Out

by Nash

A belated comment from me, because I’ve overdone it on caffeine and can’t sleep. If you hadn’t already heard, Rick Santorum, latest incarnation of the US extreme-right, has suspended his presidential campaign. This is slightly earlier than I had expected; as a political geek and election junkie I’m disappointed. There were so many contestable primaries still to go, with most of New England and the Mid-Atlantic states due on the 24th of this month. Shame on the anti-choice candidate for aborting his campaign and not carrying it to full term!

As far as I can make out, Santorum has two positive qualities. 1) He’s seemingly quite fond of a drink before noon, and 2) he wears those lovely sleeveless jerseys (great for keeping your core body snug while letting your arms and armpits breath!) I liked having an “underdog” candidate in the race, and I was sympathetic to his plight of being massively outspent by the Romney campaign.

Copyright from left: Jim Wilson/The New York Times; Josh Haner/The New York Times; Jim Wilson/The New York Times; Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Not too hot, not too cold. By far his most sensible policy decision.

Then again, I loathe nearly everything that Rick Santorum stands for. There’s far too much for one post, so I shall focus on two prominent issues. Firstly the man is a bigot. He is a homophobic bigot. You cannot justify homophobia, not in the 21st Century, not in a civilised society. Dressing it up as a feigned defence of the “traditional family” cuts no ice; its like saying you don’t want any black kids in your white children’s class because you’re afraid they’ll learn bad habits. You assume there’s a threat and use that to justify your pre-existing bigotry. This should not just be an LGBT concern – if you’re capable of hating one group solely because of something intrinsic to their being, you can just as easily hate another. As a socialist and a social liberal I find it abhorrent.

Before I was a socialist I was already a scientist. Santorum’s second negative trait is his preference for non-evidence based policy. Here is a man who prefers to substitute his own reality. It is not enough to say that he is anti-science; he is anti-fact. From a genuine objectivist point of view, he is anti-reality. Call it creationism or call it intelligent design, it’s still bullshit. Then there’s the Dutch euthanasia epidemic which doesn’t really exist, except in Rick’s head. An oblate spheroidal 4.54 billion year-old Earth? Just a “liberal” media conspiracy. Probably.

Ultimately I suppose I should be glad he’s gone. Unfortunately there was his speech after Wisconsin last week, where analogies were made to the Republican nomination races in ’76 and ’80. Pick the moderate (Ford, ’76) and lose, pick the conservative (Reagan, ’80) and win was the message. Santorum sees this as his ’76, and he’s now positioning himself as nominee heir-designate for 2016. Be afraid. 2016 would be a much better year for him than 2012 could have been. Romney, near certain nominee, faces an incumbent President with decent approval ratings and an improving economy. The precedents aren’t good. But assuming Obama’s re-election, by 2016 the party political pendulum will be swinging the other way. Apart from 1988 the last time a party retained control of the White House into a third term with a non-incumbent candidate was 1928. Santorum will grow more electable not less, especially if a second “moderate” Republican loses to Obama.

On the other hand, as recently six months ago people were still speculating about Palin 2012. Hopefully Santorum will disappear into obscurity. Either way, the 2012 race just became much less interesting, with the next election results worth staying up for being the Big One itself in November.

Don’t assume from any of this that I like Romney. To me he represents an equally insidious hatred, though in a much more subtle flavour. His evil is a delicately refined one, and the more dangerous for it. I’ll deal with him later.

9/11 Ten Years On, Coalition Politics and Blood Donation

by labourluke

9/11 – A Warning from Recent History

For someone of the age of the current crop of Labour Students, it is particularly difficult to believe that it is ten years tomorrow since the lives of millions were changed forever on September 11th, 2001. Most of us were still in primary school at the time, and it is perhaps apt that our generation – one that was constantly told we were growing up too fast – had our innocence of the world around us robbed so suddenly on that bright Tuesday morning. Hearing and seeing the images of the planes hitting the World Trade Center still transfixes all of us, and as much as we might want to look away having seen enough, we can’t quite bring ourselves to stop watching.

However it is our generation – the 9/11 generation – who will be the politicians and headline-makers of the coming years, and if anything good can come of the last decade, it is surely the lesson  that those in power have a responsibility not to overreact when faced with such onslaughts. Our party’s most successful leader (in electoral terms) no doubt had good intentions, but made the grave error of marching the troops gung-ho into an unplanned and illegal war, probably creating a whole new generation of terrorists in the process, while at home him and those around him were complicit in eroding many of the freedoms we were meant to be protecting, including detention without charge and freedom from torture. If the horror of terrorism reaches us again, we must pause and assess the causes before acting. The same rule should apply for other crises, like the riots this summer.

Backbench Tories Have Nothing To Worry About

Today is the final day of the Plaid Cymru autumn conference in Llandudno, north Wales. The outgoing leader, Ieuan Wyn Jones, made his final conference speech yesterday after an electoral drubbing for the nationalist party in the Welsh Assembly elections in May. Unlike in Scotland, where the SNP have been successful, he argued that coalition government in Cardiff Bay (of which Plaid was the junior party) meant Plaid’s achievements in government were smothered by Labour, and that the party was punished by voters for not claiming credit for them.

Aside from the fact that Plaid achieved very little in government in a time of economic turmoil other than a referendum with poor turnout which managed to bore even political anoraks, their experience in coalition should serve as a lesson to Westminster politics. This week Tory backbenchers, angry over law and order, Europe and abortion, moaned that the Lib Dem ‘tail’ was wagging the Tory ‘dog’ and that Nick Clegg was being given too many concessions by the Prime Minister. However come the election in 2015, the Tories will have nothing to worry about, as the voters are likely to give them sole credit for any successes – particularly if the economy picks up (not a given considering Osborne’s slash-and-burn approach) – and they will certainly not be looking to make some sort of permanent alliance with the Lib Dems, contrary to what some commentators are predicting. The coalition dog will probably have his tail docked when the voters are next given a choice.

About Bloody Time

This week the ban on gay and bisexual men giving blood for life in Britain was finally overturned (although you’d be forgiven for not noticing the leap forward because the BBC thought Strictly Come Dancing was more important on the news bulletins that night). This is a triumph that equality campaigners have been working tirelessly for for years, and at last gay men will be able to save lives and help tackle the urgent need for more donors. No more will the official policy imply that gay men cannot be trusted to practice safe sex and ‘probably have HIV’.

Although the ban was only replaced with a one-year time lag since a donor’s last encounter, it is still progress, and puts us more in line with the situation in similar countries.

Ever heard that one about the lesbian on the front bench?

by suzannahrobinson



Well now you have. Angela Eagle, one of only two out lesbians in the House of Commons (the other one being Margot James, vice-chairman of the Conservative Party),  has been appointed to the role of shadow secretary to the treasury. Being a woman, being gay, being out… these are all difficult things in the House. The Independent’s pink list this year contained about a dozen LGBT politicians. And they are gradually increasing in number and prominence, with MPs on both sides of the house getting civil partnerships.

But being openly gay is still not easy. Last month’s survey of the number of LGB people in the UK showed 1.5% of people classifying themselves as LGB, but the massive success of gay dating websites such as Gaydar suggest 6.7% is closer to the real figure. So many people are terrified to admit it to themselves or their families and friends, and this is partly down to a lack of prominent, successful role models, and partly to the fear of a hostile reaction, or simply of being misunderstood and drawing unwanted attention.

This is exactly why it is essential that public figures bite the bullet and come out – no more sham marriages or “landlord” situations, no more reluctant admissions following media scoops, no more “don’t ask don’t tell”. Successful, prominent and respected people declaring themselves to be LGBT really can broaden the public’s perception of what it means to be gay.

The most effective way of changing public opinion is to introduce everyone to a gay person. And if it’s 6.7% of us, that’s already happened to everyone already. They just don’t know it yet. This generation is growing up with equal rights, with gay cabinet ministers and peers, with gay millionaires. We’re the ones who are gonna change things. And if we don’t, we’re the ones who are gonna have to live with it.

Suzy

Lawsgate – some thoughts

by suzannahrobinson

Paraphrased from a facebook conversation between Sean Woodcock and Oliver Jackson:

SW: Whilst I can sympathise with him having issues regarding his Catholic family it does not justify using taxpayers money to hide his sexuality. I don’t think he did it out of greed (he is already a millionaire) and I don’t think it necessarily makes him a bad person. But what he did was wrong and he absolutely deserved to go. Not to mention that he was naive to assume that he would not be found out for it.

OJ: He was one of the best men for the job, and his transgression was not by any stretch of the imagination the most serious offence in the whole sorry episode of the expenses scandal. “Had he been just another MP, his position would surely have been secure. Sympathy for the awkwardness he clearly felt about his sexuality would have overridden anger at the breach of the rules.” However, he had an exceptionally important position in the new government, a government wishing to at least be seen to be breaking away from the “old politics” in a position that would necessitate him having to explain harsh and deeply divisive austerity measures where not a shade of scandal can be had.

The other issue of course is the Telegraph itself, a newspaper not particularly interested in the public good but in sensationalism, controversy and making the greatest possible profits. If they had any significant level of decency they would not have published the story. But of course with the self serving Press Complaints Commission (we should have learned by now that self regulation doesn’t work!) there is no chance of even the beginnings of a discussion into whether or not the story should have been allowed. A story that came dangerously close to forcing a man out of his job because he felt himself unable to reveal his sexuality. The fact that people are still forced to think this way is a highly disturbing indictment on our society, though that is a slightly separate issue. His privacy has been shattered and he’s been pushed out of the highest position of his life for which was eminently qualified for. And for what? Very little good has come out of all of this. And why now? Why didn’t the Telegraph reveal Laws’ expenses with all the rest a year ago? I sense malevolent intent here…
SW: The only party that claimed to be whiter than white during the election were the Liberal Democrats, as David Cameron (in one of his highlights) told Clegg off for in the TV debates. It is not ideal that he came out in this way, but he has been living with this man for over 5 years. I would argue that if David Laws had made the (admittedly difficult) decision to come out earlier, then this issue would not have arisen. It shows poor judgement on his part. I also think a lot of gay people will find it insulting to hear a politician justifying doing something improper by saying he did it because of difficulty regarding coming out. This is not about homosexuality or homophobia and should not be made out to be an issue as such. I feel that he is being unfairly lauded as massive loss to the country despite the fact that up until 18 days ago he was a virtual unknown in a fairly minor (in terms of Parliamentary influence) political party.
When you stand for power, you do not lose a right to privacy, but you at the same time must expect that you will be under public scrutiny. In assuming that he would not be, he was at best naive. His defence, also confuses me – ‘My motive throughout has not been to maximise profit but to protect our privacy”
If he had followed procedure, he would not have been outed in the way he has been by the Telegraph. It is as simple as that. At the end of the day, you can’t avoid the conclusion that without the fraudulent claim, there would have been no story.

Philippa Stroud

by suzannahrobinson

Firstly I’d like to thank BULS for electing me to the post of director of social media. Otherwise I would never have joined Twitter and therefore never have been made aware of who Philippa Stroud is and what she stands for. 36 hours after the story broke on the front page of the Observer all other major papers (apart from the Telegraph which played it down) and even the BBC have maintained a deafening silence on the issue. Ken Livingstone raised the issue on the Daily Politics show and was hushed up by the presenters.

But it’s been trending #1 on Uk twitter for 24 hours, the facebook event “Lets help Philippa Stroud get better” has 62 members and the facebook group “If Cameron cares an ounce about LGBT people, he’ll sack Philippa Stroud” has 1,544 members and counting.

This is big news, and it’s simply not being reported by the Murdoch press. The silence of the BBC, to whom, according to Stonewall UK the LGBT community contribute £190 million annually in license fees on this issue is shameful.

So what has Philippa Stroud done?

Having stood as a Conservative PPC in Ladywood Birmingham in 2005 she is now standing for Sutton and Cheam in South London. In 1989 she founded the King’s Arms Project – a Christian night shelter offering counselling to drug addicts, alcoholics, and LGBT people. She believed homosexuality was caused by demons, and could be cured by prayer and exorcism.

There has been no statement of apology or explanation from the Conservative party or David Cameron, Philippa Stroud herself having issued a statement which leaves lots of questions unanswered: ”I make no apology for being a committed Christian. However, it is categorically untrue that I believe homosexuality to be an illness and I am deeply offended that The Observer has suggested otherwise. I have spent 20 years working with disturbed people who society have turned their back on and are not often supported by state agencies; drug addicts, alcoholics, the mentally ill and the homeless that I and my charitable friends in the public sector have tried to help over the years. The idea that I am prejudiced against gay people is both false and insulting.“

She refused to comment on whether she believes LGBT people can be cured by the power of prayer, and whether she includes them under her definition of “disturbed people” or the “mentally ill”. She may not be prejudiced against the LGBT community in that she would treat them the same as anyone else suffering from demon possession, but is clearly not pro-liberation.

As a member of the New Frontiers Church of which her husband is a minister she has also pledged to: “be subservient to the wishes of my husband in all things” and submit to “male servant leadership and joyful female submission” – a remarkable attitude for a prospective female MP. I wonder what her views on abortion, same-sex civil partnerships and LGBT adoption are?  And when it became OK for the state and religion to cross over in this manner?

For a full briefing of the recent LGBT gaffes committed by the Tories see http://issacgreaves.eu/attackoftheclones/

The public have a right to demand proper coverage, proper investigation and a proper apology or some heads on plates. Instead we have 768 google hits for Gillian Duffy , and only 9 for Philippa Stroud.

My only comfort is that she probably won’t get elected because the constituency in which she’s standing has a strong and popular Lib Dem MP Paul Burstow who is standing for re-election.

Suzy

Why haven’t we done that yet?

by maxattacks

It was in today’s Gaurdian that same-sex marriages are soon to be legalised in Portugal, a deeply Catholic country. Now what gets me is that not only Portugal but South Africa, Spain, Holland, several South American countries and six US states have also done the same, why are we not joining them already?! Granted Civil Partnerships was a great start, but more is needed, we are the party for progress and equality after all.

Max

Homophobia is HATE

by Nash

The biggest event of last week’s (this year’s, even) social calendar for Birmingham students was of course the annual ‘Homophobia is Gay’ bar crawl; a fantastically organised event full of lovely people – many of whom will probably be staying clear of me for a bit. It is a truly deserving cause; I think we can all agree. Sadly, this fine event couldn’t happen without one minor incident. I don’t wish to blow it out of proportion, but I think it demonstrates just why we need this kind of thing.

To get from Joe’s Bar to Reflex, we took a bus. There is no bus that can rival a gay bus. But we weren’t the only passengers; partway there a small group of youths – commonly referred to as chavs – made to leave. Naturally we were all wearing the lovely event T-shirts, proudly displaying our anti hate-crime credentials. One of the youths felt obliged to shout something along the lines of “Dirty Queers”. Not wishing to fault his powers of observation, I find this sort of behaviour completely unacceptable – as did the rest of our party who made this quite clear. Without wishing to bore you with details, I will say that something of a shouting match took place. Just before leaving, one of the youths stuck his unwelcome head back up to the top deck and spat at one of our number.

Her response was reasonable given the circumstances. I do not know why he felt this was a) necessary, or b) acceptable. Maybe he felt insulted by the fact that she wouldn’t want to sleep with him? (She was heterosexual, as were many of us, but I don’t think that would make any difference, he was an ugly bastard). Now normally I would laugh at irony, but this just left me feeling sick. Resisting the urge to gas the scumbag, even I lean to the right at times; I started to question why this sort of thing should have happened.

What doesn’t help is the fact that society in general still sees this kind of thing as acceptable, maybe not the spitting, but the homophobia behind it. These young people, must have picked up these attitudes somewhere, hate must be planted. Their parents maybe? Their friends? What doesn’t help is the lack of action being taken to stop it at its source. This sort of hate crime should be treated with zero-tolerance from an early age. Schools – all schools, especially ‘faith’ schools – should be the arena for this. Only by informing children that all forms of hate crime are wrong, from an early age, can we prevent them from turning into the hideous creatures I saw last night. Homophobia is as evil as racism or sexism, that is what the campaign is all about, and that is what we need to teach society!

Thanks

(many thanks to the LGBTQ and Liberal Democrat societies, and others, for organising such a fab event!)