The row about Ken Livingstone’s New Statesman article is entirely confected by a Tory party that is increasingly worried that Ken will win the Mayoral election. Ken’s campaign has momentum because of his ‘Fare Deal’ fares-cut plan, so the Tories have decided to sling some mud.

In his article Ken was welcoming the advance of LGBT people into politics, and pointing out the Tory hypocrisy that Labour broke down by scrapping the Tories’ anti-gay legislation, illegalizing hate crime, and introducing civil partnerships.

Brian Paddick is making a foolish mistake in jumping on the Tory bandwagon, a sign of desperation as the Lib Dem candidate struggles to avoid coming fourth behind the Greens.

I for one will be delighted if Ken is back in the Mayor’s office this May.

Above all because Ken will put Londoners first by protecting policing and cutting fares. In tough times like these, Londoners can’t afford a Tory mayor who is so out of touch that he is raising transport fares, cutting police numbers and thinks it’s fine to have a second job paying £250,000 a year – an amount he calls ‘chicken feed.’

But also I want a mayor who will not just pay lip-service to LGBT Londoners but will be proactive. These days London is lagging behind other major cities when it comes to promoting equality. That is the Tory mayor’s fault.

We do not have a mayor who wants to see London leads the world on LGBT rights. As mayor, Ken made sure London had the first civil partnerships register in the UK, the Greater London Authority was hailed as an exemplary organisation in the Stonewall Employers’ Index, he actively celebrated LGBT Pride from City Hall, and he helped lead the fight against anti-gay bullying in schools. Ken blocked the Sandals holiday company from advertising across the transport system as part of a campaign to force them to drop their ban on same-sex couples.

One of the reasons I joined the Labour party was because of Ken Livingstone’s actions in fighting for equality for lesbians and gay men at a time when it was politically difficult to do so. For gay men like me, young and coming to terms with their sexuality, things were difficult. The Tory Government was passing anti-gay legislation that labeled gay relationships second-class, and allowed employers to sack people because of their sexual orientation. People have forgotten just how tough it was in the 1980s, and how vital it was that a fearless and principled politician like Ken stood out so clearly for lesbian and gay equality. Ken broke new ground for equality and ensured there were voices to counter the widespread homophobia of the time.

There are no bold moves from City Hall under the current Tory mayor. The mayor was nowhere to be seen at Pride last year, the last Pride before the Olympics. He has cancelled the annual Pride reception. One of the first acts of his administration was to cut funding to Soho Pride. He withdrew the Greater London Authority from the Stonewall Index. He has given no lead to pressurise the government over cuts that will hurt LGBT London.

And in the past, while Ken fought homophobia, Boris Johnson reinforced it. He defended the anti-gay legislation Section 28. As Chris Bryant MP tweeted last night, Boris Johnson said of gay marriage: “If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog.”

Alan Duncan is wrong today when he talks about taking LGBT issues out of politics. There is more to do for as long as LGBT people are still subjected to hate-fuelled attacks, young LGBT people grow up afraid of their own identity, or older LGBT people live in fear and isolation. Ken will work with LGBT Londoners to make progress, while Boris Johnson does not. Ken will put his administration back in the Stonewall Index. He will campaign for same-sex marriage and LGBT rights. He will establish a Mayor’s LGBT Advisory Panel. He will speak up for our city when the Government’s policies damage or ignore LGBT London. He will work to tackle hate-crime. You don’t have to take my word for it – just compare Ken’s record with the current Tory mayor’s. That tells you precisely why LGBT London needs Ken Livingstone as mayor. 

Ken Livingstone is not homophobic. His use of the word riddled has to be judged in context. It was clearly not used with any homophobic intent. All parties have lots of gay and bisexual MPs, as Ken noted. He is right to state that there were many gay MPs in the Tory party, from the backbenches to the cabinet.

After Labour’s election victory in 1997 many gay Labour MPs came out, while gay Tories remained in the closet and continued to vote against gay equality. Ken was making a simple statement of fact,” added Mr Tatchell.

Ken is correct to suggest that in the 1980s and 90s the Conservative Party was avowedly anti-gay, while having many gay MPs. Lots of Tories opposed gay equality, despite their own homosexuality. They were hypocrites and homophobes. Ken is right to point this out.

In recent years, the Conservative leadership has embraced gay equality, which is commendable. However, only two weeks ago it was reported that 100 Tory MPs intend to block David Cameron’s plan to end the ban on same-sex marriage. They still oppose gay equality.

Ken was very wrong to invite the sexist, homophobic cleric, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, to City Hall in 2004 but he should be judged on his overall record, which on gay rights is exceptionally good.

In the early 1980s, as leader of the Greater London Council, he pioneered gay rights policies that most MPs opposed at the time. It took many of them another 20 years to embrace gay equality. Ken supported the lesbian and gay community at a time when most other politicians did not. He deserves great credit.

It said democratic processes required that it be debated, but that it was not part of the country’s legislative agenda to pass it.

Uganda already criminalises gay acts with a penalty of life imprisonment, but it is understood the bill would expand the range of punishable offences.

David Bahati’s bill, described by Barack Obama a “odious”, originally called for the death penalty for “aggravated”, or continued, homosexuality.

AP reports the death penalty clause has now been removed. In its place is life imprisonment for a person convicted of a gay act more than once.

The bill further required the death sentence for anyone convicted of homosexuality who is living with HIV or who has been convicted of homosexuality before.

Attempted homosexuality would carry a seven year prison sentence, as would aiding or abetting acts of homosexuality.

A fine of up to 500,000 shillings (£135) or a prison sentence up to three years are included for people who are aware of any gay offence but do not report it within 24 hours.

The Ugandan government statement said: “As a parliamentary democracy the process of debate will continue.

“Whilst the government of Uganda does not support this bill, it is required under our constitution to facilitate this debate.

“The facilitation of this debate should not be confused for the government’s support for this bill.”

In an interview with radio station LBC 97.3, on which Livingstone presents a weekly Saturday morning show, he said the Tory party had shown “real progress” from a time when MPs were forced to resign if “exposed” as gay.

Saying the party had “caught up” with Labour, Livingstone added: “There’s no harm being gay in the Tory party. It was actually a slightly back-handed compliment”.

Many were condemning the London mayoral candidate yesterday after previews were released of an interview he gave to the New Statesman.

In the interview, he condemns “hypocrisy, like some Tory MP denouncing homosexuality while they are indulging in it”.

He adds: “Well, the Labour [MPs] have all come out . . . As soon as Blair got in, if you came out as lesbian or gay you immediately got a job. It was wonderful . . . you just knew the Tory party was riddled with it like everywhere else is.”

Gay Tory MP Alan Duncan said: “Many of us have managed to take this issue out of politics. It’s inexcusable for him to try to reintroduce it.”

When asked whether the word ‘riddled’ was offensive, having connotations of disease, Livingstone said this morning his New Statesman interview was light-hearted and should not be taken seriously.

But pressed on people being upset, he replied: “Well, no. Tory MPs who did nothing to defend gay rights seized on this because they want to spend the entire election talking about anything except fare increases or police cuts.”

The former mayor said he did not regret the word, adding that he and Boris Johnson “do say what we think”.

Livingstone added that “not a single” Tory MP who had become “worked up” over his comment had objected to Boris Johnson’s comment ten years ago “that he couldn’t see the difference between a man marrying a man and a man marrying a dog.”

Boris Johnson said today: “The Mayor is proud of the excellent gay men who have worked for him – not least his deputy Richard Barnes and the late Simon Milton, who was one of the first prominent men in public life to have a civil partnership.”

Liberal Democrat candidate Brian Paddick said: “When the Daily Mail columnist Melanie Philips said similar things about me being promoted when I was a police officer, I sued her and won.

“When he talks about homosexuality in the Conservative party as being “riddled with it like everywhere else” his remarks are clearly homophobic. He is a political opportunist who likes to be controversial in order to draw attention to himself, I think his true feelings towards LGBT people have seeped out.”

Gay Labour MP Chris Bryant told the Daily Politics on BBC2 that Livingstone’s use of the word ‘riddled’ was “pretty daft [...] I’m not a fan of this word riddled at all.”

He added: “I disagree with Ken using the term riddled but Ken Livingstone is not a homophobe. He has battled for LGBT rights for years, even when it was profoundly unpopular.”

In 2006, at the launch of an anti-homophobic bullying campaign spearheaded by the gay rights charity Stonewall, Livinstone told PinkNews.co.uk: “In my school of two thousand boys, roughly a third, maybe a half of them, whilst never thinking of themselves as gay, engaged in sexual acts with other boys.

“We had no idea that what we were doing was anything other than ‘naughty’ and something that our teachers frowned upon.”

He added: “It was mainly driven by the fact that we weren’t having sex. I grew up in a world where the average man didn’t lose his virginity until he was 19 and the average woman until they were 21. Many not until the night of their marriage, only after a whole day of eating and drinking, when you’re hardly going to get the best results!

“My generation has been wholly envious of the generations that followed in relation to sex.”

The law would take effect 90 days after the governor Christine Gregoire signs the bill. But opponents have vowed to fight gay marriage with a ballot measure, similar to California’s Proposition 8 that would give voters the opportunity to overturn pro-gay legislation.

Yesterday, the US 9th District Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8 broke the United States constitution. Although the court has jurisdiction over a number of states, including Washington, its decision was limited to California.

Before the state legislature’s session began this year, Governor Gregoire announced her support for the move at the capital, Olympia.

She told a press conference: “It is time in Washington state for marriage equality. It’s the right thing to do.”

“Our gay and lesbian families face the same hurdles as heterosexual families: making ends meet, choosing what school to send their kids to, finding someone to grow old with, standing in front of friends and family and making a lifetime commitment.

“For all couples, a state marriage license is very important. It gives them the right to enter into a marriage contract in which their legal interests, and those of their children if any, are protected by well-established civil law.”

Last week, she posted a video message to YouTube where she said: “As governor, I believe the state of Washington cannot be in the business of discrimination. As an American, a wife and mother, marriage equality is fair, just, and right. And it is time.”

Coffee giant Starbucks has been among multi-nationals based in Washington state to back the draft legislation.

A statement from the Seattle-based hot drink titan says it was “proud” to join other Washington-based employers like Microsoft and Nike as support for equal marriage brews in the state.

Mr Hughes joined former footballer Paul Gascoigne, comedian Steve Coogan and football agent Sky Andrew in agreeing a settlement.

After a hearing, Mr Hughes said: “the evidence in my case clearly demonstrates that the practice of hacking was widespread. It was criminal behaviour on an industrial scale.”

He added: “Sadly, the deficiencies of the original police inquiries, which failed to investigate the clear evidence of much of the criminal behaviour at one of the most important businesses in our country, are also all too apparent.

“We must now make sure that nothing like this can ever happen again.

“Anyone involved in criminal activity at the News of the World must be brought to justice, and all those who allowed a large company to behave in this way must be held to account.

“There must also be answers to the serious questions about how the police managed to fail so badly in their original investigation.

“I will now pursue this matter through my participation in the Leveson Inquiry, an inquiry which I fully support.”

Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator hired by the paper had already pleaded guilty to hacking into Mr Hughes’s messages, along with seven other people’s voicemails in 2006.

Mr Hughes was forced to come out as bisexual by the News of the World’s sister newspaper The Sun in 2005, in an interview to respond to claims to be made by the newspaper that he had contacted men using a gay telephone chat service.

News Group Newspapers is a subsidiary of News International, itself a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.

The Labour London mayoral candidate told the publication he condemned “hypocrisy, like some Tory MP denouncing homosexuality while they are indulging in it”.

He added: “Well, the Labour [MPs] have all come out . . . As soon as Blair got in, if you came out as lesbian or gay you immediately got a job. It was wonderful . . . you just knew the Tory party was riddled with it like everywhere else is.”

Gay Tory MP Alan Duncan said: “Many of us have managed to take this issue out of politics. It’s inexcusable for him to try to reintroduce it.”

But a spokesman for Mr Livingstone, who was London’s mayor from 2000 to 2008, told the Evening Standard: “Ken is clearly saying the advance of lesbian and gay people into politics is unequivocally a good thing. He has fought for equality for gay and lesbian people throughout his life, and the fact they are represented in all major political parties is a sign of the progress that has been made.”

In 2006, at the launch of an anti-homophobic bullying campaign spearheaded by the gay rights charity Stonewall, Livinstone told PinkNews.co.uk: “In my school of two thousand boys, roughly a third, maybe a half of them, whilst never thinking of themselves as gay, engaged in sexual acts with other boys.

“We had no idea that what we were doing was anything other than ‘naughty’ and something that our teachers frowned upon.”

He added: “It was mainly driven by the fact that we weren’t having sex. I grew up in a world where the average man didn’t lose his virginity until he was 19 and the average woman until they were 21. Many not until the night of their marriage, only after a whole day of eating and drinking, when you’re hardly going to get the best results!

“My generation has been wholly envious of the generations that followed in relation to sex.”

Mr Livingstone was criticised last year for having earned money working for an Iranian television station which led to Tory calls for him to be banned from Pride. Press TV, for which Livingstone presented a series of programmes, had its licence revoked by Ofcom last month after it was revealed to be editorially controlled by Tehran.

In 2004, Mr Livingstone invited Islamic cleric Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi to City Hall. Dr Qawardi, who is banned from entering the US, has argued in the past that gays should be put to death and has also supported female genital mutilation and suicide bombings in Israel. Some of his statements have been filmed, while others were published as quotes on his personal website.

But in 2001, Mr Livingstone introduced the first gay relationships register, four years ahead of the introduction of civil partnerships. In 2010, he published an LGBT election manifesto for his campaign this year, saying he would appoint an LGBT advisory board and hold an annual Pride reception, reintroducing measures then removed by Boris Johnson.

He told the current issue of the New Statesman: “It is very hard to find anything in Boris’s career that he’s serious about. He just loves life too much to really succeed as a politician.”

Libya dominated the headlines last year, but the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender population of the country received very little attention internationally.

I interviewed Khaleed, a 31-year-old LGBT activist about his life in the North African country. In this first part he talks about his life before the overthrow of Muammar el-Gadaffi. Later this week he’ll be speaking about what has changed and what hasn’t since the revolution.

“There are absolutely no groups, organisations or even individuals in Libya that speak publicly about gay rights, the subject itself is a social and religious taboo. But this doesn’t mean that LGBT people do not exist, on the contrary some people are known and recognised as gay within their communities,” he tells me.

“Libyan law has a penal code against ‘men having sex with each other’ which could lead to a 5-years imprisonment [Section 407.4 of the Libyan Constitution]. However, I never heard of publicly documented cases of men being charged under this penal code, and, to my disappointment no efforts were made by any human rights or LGBT rights organisations either to investigate potential cases, nor discuss LGBT rights in Libya.”

In fact the only documented case to my knowledge was one I reported on 25.12.2010 when two men were arrested for “indecent acts,” with minimal information and despite many efforts no further information regarding this case was obtained.

Most LGBT people use the internet in Libya to socialise, exchange ideas and arrange to meet – especially through the gay social networking site Manjam, its one of the few ways available for them to explore their identities and sexuality. Yet even here, in virtual cyberspace, they are not safe.

“My personal experience as a gay man in Libya hasn’t been easy. I was investigated by policemen for having an online profile on manjam. Officers from the internal security agency during Qaddafi’s regime came to my home and outed me to my family which caused huge problems. I took me over two long years before I managed to work things out with them.”

For Khaleed the whole episode was terrible and frightening: “I was interrogated by the criminal investigation bureau for thirty long minutes, but which seemed like eternity. I was then ‘ordered’ to stop meeting people through manjam because ‘there are people there who have contacts with foreign intelligence networks’.”

“After the investigation I removed my previous profile but stayed in touch with all the contacts I have made before. But to my horror I found out that the government’s security agency was monitoring my calls and online activities. Furthermore, they hacked into my personal email and showed all my correspondence to my mother, which made me refrain from accessing any LGBT and political online sites for a while.”

For all the pious talking by politicians in the West about liberating Libya, Khaleed wants to underline the following: “I just want to say something to readers in Europe and North America:” he stresses; “The technology to monitor the internet and entrap people like me fighting for Human Rights unfortunately comes from governments and companies in the West.”

Khaleed is not entirely sure why his internet accounts were hacked and investigated but he has his suspicion: “It seems to me as a police response to previous commentary I made about human rights in Libya, and because of my participation with several liberal and secular discussions on websites that were considered to by anti-regime. The reason I feel this way is because I have heard of no similar investigation been or being made against some of my friends or acquaintances.”

In part two, I speak with Khaleed about the revolution as well as his hopes and fears for the new Libya.

The landmark ruling is just the latest twist in the battle over same sex marriage in the state.

In May 2008, the state’s supreme court ruled that Proposition 22 passed in 2000 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

By June of 2008, a new voter initiated proposition, Prop 8, a new ban on gay marriage, overturning the earlier ruling had received 1.12 million signatures in support. On the same day as Barack Obama was elected, just over seven million Californians voted in favour of banning same sex marriage, compared to six and a half million voting to retain it. During the time that gay marriage was legal, more than 18,000 gay couples got married during the time that same sex marriage was legal.

In 2010, following a lengthy public trial, effectively appealing the decision of voters, Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled that the voter-initiated Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage in California, is unconstitutional.
Judge Walker ruled that Prop 8, as it has become known, violates the equal protection clause in the United States constitution by denying gays and lesbians the right to marry a member of the same sex.

Supporters of Prop 8 appealed his decision and today a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled 2-1 that Judge Walker’s decision was correct.
“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently,” the ruling of the court states.

Supporters of Prop 8 also claimed that Judge Walker was biased as he did not disclose that he was gay when conducting the trial. The Court of Appeals ruled that he was not required to make such a disclosure.

The 9th Circuit’s decision only applies to California, although it holds jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregan and Washington. The govenor of Washington state recently said she will sign legislation to introduce gay marriage.

“Ever since the beginning of this case, we’ve known that the battle to preserve traditional marriage will ultimately be won or lost not here, but rather in the US Supreme Court,” Andy Pugno, general counsel for Protect Marriage said.

The governor of California Jerry Brown posted on Twitter: “The court has rendered a powerful affirmation of the right of same-sex couples to marry. I applaud the wisdom and courage of this decision.”

David Bahati, the original sponsor of the legislation that would see gays imprisoned for life and executed for repeat offences, has tabled the draft law again, reports say.

Clauses call for the death penalty for “aggravated” or continued homosexuality, while those who fail to report incidences to police would be jailed.

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill is designed to “protect the traditional family” and also requires Uganda to not ratify any international treaty that would run contrary to its provisions.

It provides for life imprisonment for people who have gay sex, “touch another person with the intention” of having gay sex or have an illegal “gay marriage”.

The bill further requires the death sentence for anyone convicted of homosexuality who is living with HIV or who has been convicted of homosexuality before.

Attempted homosexuality carries a seven year prison sentence, as does aiding or abetting acts of homosexuality.

A fine of up to 500,000 shillings (£135) or a prison sentence up to three years are included for people who are aware of any gay offence but do not report it within 24 hours.

The bill received worldwide condemnation from countries, gay rights campaigners and human rights groups.

Last month, the former president of South Africa, Thabo MBeki, criticised the anti-gay bill, saying it “doesn’t make sense” to intervene in people’s private lives.

Mr Mbeki was taking questions at the Makerere Institute of Social Research (MISR) in Kampala when he was asked about the draft legislation and specifically what he would say to its sponsor.

Mbeki, who served as deputy President and President of South Africa following the abolition of apartheid, said: “I would say to the MP; sexual preferences are a private matter. I don’t think it is a matter of the state to intervene.”

“I mean what would you want? It doesn’t make sense at all. That is what I would say to the MP. What two consenting adults do is really not the matter of law.”

US President Barack Obama described it as “odious”.

Haavisto, 53, was standing for the Green League. He received 37.1% of the vote, and Niinistö secured 62.9.

He had made it through to the final round of voting, but trailed behind Niinistö, of the National Coalition Party, going in.

Currently, Europe has two gay prime ministers: Iceland’s Johanna Siguraardottir and Belgium’s Elio di Rupo.

There are currently no openly gay presidents.

After sitting as member of the Finnish Parliament in the late 80s and early 90s, Haavisto worked for the UN, travelling widely before his return to domestic politics in 2007.

Haavisto is in a Finnish registered partnership with Antonio Flores, who is originally from Ecuador.

Already the first gay candidate for presidency, Haavisto would become the first openly gay man elected directly by the people as a government figurehead in Europe.

Belgium’s Elio di Rupo was appointed prime minister by the king after forming a coalition. The country had gone a year and a half without a central government.

Jerónimo Saavedra Acevedo was the president of the Canary Islands in the 80s and 90s, but it was not until 2000, when he was sitting in the Spanish senate, that he came out as gay.

The Finnish president’s direct powers over the government are limited. Though he or she has a say in international policies, the position is seen largely to represent the country’s social values.

Haavisto said: “More than one million people have supported me and I’m quite satisfied with that.”

The incident comes amid public discussion on the island over the introduction of hate crime laws to protect gay and transgender citizens.

Driver Marco Borg, 43, was charged on Saturday with causing injury and disrupting public order.

While there is no further penalty for homophobic motivation under current laws, the Times of Malta reports that Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi has instructed Justice Minister Chris Said to work on amendments to laws to prevent hate crimes.

In footage of the incident filmed by another passenger, the driver in charge of the bus at the time is seen restraining Borg after he attacked the two women, aged 21 and 17, last Friday.

In the UK, it was reported this week that two lesbians were attacked on a train after kissing.

Bus company Arriva said he had been let go, adding that is had “a zero tolerance policy when it comes to violence of any sort and would like to make it very clear that it condemns categorically and without reserve not only this incident but indeed any bullish, violent and other such reproachable and anti-social behaviour”.

“Moreover, the bus operator wants to make it absolutely clear that it has a very clear and open diversity policy which all employees are bound to respect.”

Malta continues to debate new hate crime laws after two girls were the victims of a homophobic attack last month.

In an interview with Malta’s Sunday Times, the girl said two men, who were later arrested, had called her and her girlfriend “twisted” before attacking them, leaving her with bruises and facial injuries.

Cyrus Engerer, a spokesman for LGBT Labour in Malta said state intervention would be necessary to tackle anti-gay incidents.

He told Malta Today: “It’s not possible for a mentality of a country to change if the laws of that same country remain unchanged.”

But the introduction of special hate crime laws are opposed by some.

Lawyer and opinion writer Claire Bonello told the Times of Malta: “It makes little sense to punish the different motives of a crime when the end result is the same – injury to the victim …

“If a person is attacked because the aggressor feels some sort of personal animosity towards the victim, why should that attack be punished less severely than one where the aggressor hates the victim because of the latter’s religious affiliation or belonging to a minority group?

“The whole notion of hate crimes does away with the concept of equality in the eyes of the law.”

At a press conference today, Malta Today reports Prime Minister Gonzi saying the government will include homophobia in hate crime laws in future: “We are sending a message to society in general, not to pass judgement of people, and that we expect the forces of law to enforce laws and eliminate all forms of discrimination.”

Prop 8, the 2008 voter initiative that banned gay and lesbian marriages has been the subject of constant legal battles.

In 2010, Judge Vaughn Walker in August, which ruled that the ban on gay marriage in California was wrong. The decision came after a lengthy “trial” of the arguments for and against allowing gay couples to marry. “The evidence presented at trial and the position of the representatives of the State of California show that an injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8 is in the public’s interest,” Judge Walker wrote at the time. He initially ordered for gay marriages to resume in the state with almost immediate effect.

An appeal to his decision was immediately launched but
unusually, the official ‘defendants’ of that appeal, then governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney-General Jerry Brown, refused to defend the ban.

It is likely that regardless of tomorrow’s ruling, there will be an appeal of the judgement of some kind. 40 states have some sort of ban on gay marriage.

Organisers have called for supporters to bring a positive attitude to the event to show the government their passion for equality.

The Love Equally March is being promoted by the Scottish Youth Parliament, the Equality Network, LGBT Youth Scotland, Stonewall Scotland and NUS Scotland.

Grant Costello MSYP, SYP Chair said: “All the evidence shows the majority of Scots support marriage equality, and the historic response to the Government’s consultation on same sex marriage demonstrates they are prepared to speak out for equality.

“Scotland’s young people are determined that the consultation is not the end, but just the beginning of the journey to a better nation with equality at its heart. We need all those supporters of marriage equality to march with us, be our Valentines and Love Equally on February 14th!”

Nathan Sparling, NUS Scotland LGBT Officer, said: “This Valentine’s Day, students from across Scotland will be taking part in the Love Equally march to show our unwavering support for Equal Marriage in Scotland. We’ll be marching on the streets of Edinburgh celebrating love, and asking for the Scottish Government to give us another reason to celebrate by making same-sex marriage legal in Scotland.”

Tom French, Policy Coordinator for the Equality Network, said; “We know that the majority of Scots support full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, but we cannot afford to just sit back and assume our politicians will lift the ban on same-sex marriage.

“Our opponents are running a well-funded campaign to pressure the Scottish Government to ditch their proposals, so it is vital that everyone who supports equal marriage speaks out. We urge equal marriage supporters to turn out for the Love Equally march on Valentines day and make our voice heard.”

Marchers will assemble at 2:30pm in Bristo Square and walk to the Scottish Parliament, arriving at 3.45pm. A Facebook event page can be found here.

A range of supporters for marriage equality will address the rally outside the Scottish Parliament.

Minister Samir Dilou said ‘freedom of expression has its limits’ and agreed homosexuality was a ‘perversion’ which needed to be ‘treated medically’.

The attack on Gayday magazine, whose editor has faced religiously inspired hatred and death threats, comes after a month of scandals which has brought gay issues to the fore in Tunisia.

But there has been a long build-up to the current situation.

The post-revolutionary electoral campaigns used homosexuality as a political weapon between the various groups vying for power in the new Tunisia.

Supporters of the now ruling Ennahda party used ‘homosexual panic’ tactics to allege that liberal and secular parties would legalise gay rights and marriage if they were to win, they mockingly likened these other parties’ rallies to gay pride parades.

It put the spotlight on Tunisia’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community who were used to being overlooked rather than the focus of public debate.

Sex scandals and panic

Despite the uncertain atmosphere, Gayday magazine, which claims to be the first online gay title in Tunisia, launched in March 2011 and initially received little attention other than from LGBT Tunisians.

But two scandals hit prominent members of the interim government lead by the Ennahda party three weeks ago. The first was the release of the brother of the Tunisian Minister of Justice, after an allegation that he raped a young boy. The second, occurring just a few days later was a video posted on the internet by a left wing activist allegedly featuring the current Home Office minister, Ali Laarayedh in an erotic homosexual act with a fellow cellmate during the 1990s.

This gave the opposition more opportunity to use gay hatred to lambast and discredit the ruling Ennahda party. Online homophobic reactions rapidly spread over the Tunisian cyber-space.

Fadi, editor of Gayday magazine told PinkNews.co.uk: ‘It feels like suddenly, the subject of homosexuality is no longer a taboo, judging by the magnitude of homophobic posts across the Tunisian cyberspace. Of course there is some positive side just by raising the issue, but what concerned us was the excessive amount of homophobia as a political weapon.’

Liberty March denies LGBT Rights

A ‘Walk for liberties, all liberties’ attracted nearly 10,000 Tunisians on 28 January. It came after a series of human rights violations, mainly against freedom of expression. Participants chanted ‘We won’t sell our freedom!’

But most of the Tunisian gay, bi and trans people didn’t feel their presence or rights were welcome.

‘I didn’t go simply because I see freedom is portrayed by Islamists as a contradiction to their principles. They interpret it as a license for alcohol, nudity and sex which they oppose firmly,’ said Lilia, a lesbian activist.

And Marwan, a 24-year-old gay engineering student added: ‘There was no point for me to join the march. Gay rights don’t figure on their list, they don’t even consider us humans!’

Still some remained defiant, like Bilel, a 35-year-old gay teacher who told PinkNews.co.uk: ‘I went to the march because I think it’s the right time to demand freedom for all.’

The few who made it were shocked to be greeted by homophobic signs and slogans used by their fellow left wing activists.

One read: ‘0.0% is better than a successful faggot’ [ie it is better to have no support than to be a ‘gay’ like the interior minister]..

Fadi said: ‘It was really disconcerting and alarming to witness those homophobic signs and slogans during a march for human rights. It made us feel that our rights are not included.’

Gay Day Magazine ‘cursed’

Just two days after the march Gayday magazine’s cover stirred a second wave of homophobic attacks. A couple of leading and influential opposition Facebook pages posted it with provocative headlines. For example, the ‘Tunisie’ page for instance, which has almost 900,000 fans, received 423 comments it posted the cover along with the title: ‘A magazine for fags is issued in Tunisia’. This has been shared 116 times so far.

Most of the comments on the page were homophobic. They included: ‘God’s curse on them’, ‘That’s what pro-freedom activist call for, perversion and adultery in the name of freedom of expression’ and ‘The democracy we have is excessive and ridiculous. We are in a Muslim country and a magazine like this is intolerable!’

Then Samir El-Wafi, a journalist and celebrity TV presenter known for his tabloid, ranting interview techniques joined the homophobic bandwagon, posted the cover of the magazine on his Facebook page (with over 75,500 fans) followed by the following description: ‘In the chaos of freedom of expression and freeing the media, a first Tunisian magazine for fags was issued!

‘In the name of freedom and in a conservative country whose people are facing a struggle between modernity and tradition; a magazine for fags dares to come out and challenge all the circumstances, rules, morals, ethics and customs.

‘Do we need a further strife because a very small minority expresses its perversion… not caring about the feelings and the sacred beliefs of a majority?

‘Today a magazine, tomorrow a pride march, then gay marriage… and after that who knows?’

The post got 381 likes, 124 comments and 165 shares.

The next day Fadi, received hateful messages and death threats.

One from someone identifying themselves as ‘Emna’ said: ‘You are a zero. We don’t give a fuck about you. You ought to be out assisting in building the country. This is so immoral, calling to protect dirty people. God will never forgive you. This is very haraam [forbidden], we are Muslims and we can never be proud of your gay shit. You need to go and see psychiatrists and not start a magazine. Shame on you.’

‘Sabrine’ messaged him to say: ‘How could you be so impolite to do this, you belong to a Muslim society. Don’t you know that these things upset God? You’re so sinful and this one of the signs to the end of time. Fucking bitches.’

And Aymen posted on the Gayday magazine Facebook page: ‘You’re dead; don’t come to Tunisia you faggot. Even hell is disgusted to have you!’

There were, however, a few positive comments. One read: ‘I saw the link on Facebook and I was very happy to see the coming out of this magazine. I salute you for challenging and bypassing all the taboos and homophobic prejudices. It’s really a shame to see such a narrow mentality. Anyway, congratulations and good luck.’

Human Rights minister excludes gays

Samir El-Wafi continued his homophobic attack when he hosted Minister of Human Rights and Transitional Justice, Samir Dilou, on his TV show on 4 February.

Dilou told El-Wafi he’s against having such a magazine in Tunisia: ‘This country has its own history, heritage, religion and customs and we need to deal with everything on such a basis.’

El-Wafi asked: ‘We can’t deny that this phenomenon of sexual perversion exists but shall we deny these people from expression mediums?’

And Dilou responded: ‘Yes, freedom of expression has limits.

‘They live as citizens but they must respect the red lines set up by our religion, heritage and civilization.’

When asked if the magazine should be banned, the minister said: ‘I have no knowledge if this magazine have applied for a permit or not but I’m against it even though I’m a minister of human rights.’

They concluded laughing that sexual orientation is not a human right and ‘sexual perversion needs to be treated medically’.

Fadi said: ‘The situation for LGBT people remains hostile in the shadow of all this exaggerated expression on homophobia. A friend of mine and I received couple of online death threats that says we deserve to be hanged or burnt in public.

‘It’s never a good time for anyone to come out at this time but I’m glad the subject is slowly breaking through the taboo shell. A lot of work is ahead of us to repeal the 230 Article [which makes gay sex illegal] and establish equality laws for LGBT individuals in Tunisia. Gayday magazine is only a start that I hope it serves as a medium that portrays us a humans, dispels the myths around us and advocates for our rights.’

See the El-Wafi and Dilou interview here (in Arabic):

Tim Montgomerie has previously been noted for his activities combining religion and politics, having founded the Conservative Christian Fellowship in 1990.

Talking to the Independent this weekend, he said many in the CCF were “upset, very perplexed” and felt “real disappointment” at his move to back equal marriage.

On his blog today, Montgomerie wrote: “It is because I value marriage so much that I have come to believe it should be extended to gay people and not kept exclusive.”

He continues: “Marriage is, for want of a better word, conservatising. I don’t mean in a party political sense. I mean it is one of the key social institutions that conservatives admire. It is about drawing people together.

“Not just the couple but also their extended family and other friends and loved ones. It is a deeply important social act that draws others to the care of the couple and draws the couple to the care of others, not least ageing parents.”

He writes: “I hope, over time, we will get to a policy where we can combine gay rights with religious liberty. On occasions – such as with Catholic adoption agencies – religious liberty has been compromised in unacceptable ways.

“The Government has promised that any gay marriage bill will protect the rights of religious groups to hold firm to their view that marriage must remain between a man and a woman. I may no longer share other Christians’ opposition to this social reform but we should live in a society where the state guards freedom of religion and association.”

Ben Summerskill, Chief Executive of Stonewall, welcomed Montgomerie’s announcement, saying: “We’re delighted that, having heard the arguments, one of Britain’s most influential evangelical Christians is now able fully to support marriage for gay people without compromising his faith in any way.

“Many people of faith are considerably more progressive than the religious leaders, such as Dr Sentamu, who often speak intemperately in their name.”

In his interview with the Independent, Montgomerie said the Archbishop of York, who compared a government move to introduce equal marriage with the actions of a dictatorship, was a “very good man”, but questioned the language he had used.

MediaGuardian put Montgomerie in 90th place on their 2010 list of the most powerful people in the media.

Govenor Christine Gregoire said: “As governor, I believe the state of Washington cannot be in the business of discrimination. As an American, a wife and mother, marriage equality is fair, just, and right. And it is time.”

Washington’s state senate approved a bill last night to give equal marriage rights to gay citizens, 28-21.

The lifting of the gay marriage ban is now almost certain to pass as it heads to the state’s House of Representatives, where it is not expected to encounter majority opposition.

(iPhone users may need to click here to view the video)

Their appeal argues that Britain’s twin legal bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships amount to illegal discrimination, contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. The bans violate Articles 8, 12 and 14 – respectively the right to privacy and family life, the right to marry and the right to non-discrimination.

The 31-page application, drafted by Robert Wintemute, Professor of Human Rights Law at King’s College London, presents a compelling case. Since there are no significant differences in the rights and responsibilities involved in civil marriages and civil partnerships, there can be no justification for the segregation of gay and straight couples into two mutually exclusive legal systems. It is discrimination based on sexual orientation. For this reason, we are hopeful that when the ECHR eventually delivers a judgement, probably in 2014, it will be in favour of equality.

Soon after the ECHR appeal was filed, the government announced its intention to consult on the issue of same-sex marriage. Mere coincidence? Perhaps. But the government was surely mindful that it will be required to explain to the ECHR its rationale for excluding gay couples from civil marriages and heterosexual couples from civil partnerships. It can now report to the ECHR that it is consulting. This consultation is, however, flawed. It is limited to same-sex marriage.

David Cameron mistakenly calculated that we’ll be satisfied with marriage equality. We won’t. So long as heterosexual couples remain banned from civil partnerships, which is the Prime Minister’s apparent intention, the Equal Love campaign will continue. We believe in straight equality just as passionately as we care about equal rights for lesbians and gay men.

In our estimation, there is a sizeable minority of heterosexual couples who would prefer a civil partnership. They dislike the patriarchal history and language of marriage; viewing civil partnerships as a more modern, egalitarian alternative. In the Netherlands, where civil partnerships are open to both gay and heterosexual couples, two-thirds of civil partners are straight men and women. We could expect a similar take-up by heterosexual couples in Britain, if civil partnerships were open to everyone.

Cameron also miscalculated by ruling out any legalisation of religious same-sex marriages, even by faith organisations, such as the Quakers and Unitarians, who want to conduct them. This is an attack on religious freedom, as well as perpetrating homophobic discrimination. Moreover, given that the government has recently authorised religious same-sex civil partnerships, a continued blanket ban on religious same-sex marriages looks inconsistent and petty.

For all these reasons, the Equal Love campaign is building momentum. The right of gay couples to marry is backed by David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Boris Johnson and a growing number of Tory MPs, including Chloe Smith, Mike Weatherley and Margot James.

In 2010, the Green Party national conference was the first to vote to end the twin bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships. It was followed by the Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru conferences. Oddly, the Labour conference has declined to vote on the issue; although the GMB, Unison and all 13 Labour MEPs want the twin bans overturned.

The SNP government in Scotland is leading the way, with its public consultation period already concluded; while David Cameron inexplicably postponed the start of his consultation from last summer to next month.

Some people argue: what’s there to consult about? Homophobic discrimination is wrong and should therefore be abolished pronto. Would the government have a long drawn out consultation about repealing racist laws? I doubt it. It would immediately abolish them on the grounds that they were incompatible with a democratic society. Why should homophobic bans be treated any differently?

The public is on our side. A Populus poll in 2009 found that 61% of the public believe: “Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships.” Only 33% disagreed. It’s likely that there is similar support for heterosexual civil partnerships.

What’s the government waiting for? The time for equality is now.

This article first appeared in the Guardian. 

Home-schooled Sarah Crank told lawmakers it “would be the best birthday present ever if you would vote no on gay marriage”, the political blog ThinkProgress reports.

Maryland’s Democratic Governor Martin O’Malley introduced a bill last week which, if successful, would lift the ban on gay marriage in the US state of Maryland.

14-year-old Sarah told the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee: “I really feel bad for the kids who have two parents of the same gender. Even though some kids feel like it’s fine, they have no idea what kind of wonderful experiences they miss out on.

“I don’t want any more kids to get confused about what’s right and OK.

“I really don’t want to grow up in a world where marriage isn’t such a special thing any more. It’s rather scary to think that when I grow up the legislator or the court can change the definition of any word they want.

“If they can change the definition of marriage, then they could change the definition of any word.

“People have the choice to be gay, but I don’t want to be affected by their choice. People say they were just born that way, but I’ve met really nice adults who did change. So please vote ‘no’ on gay marriage.”

After being thanked for her testimony, the girl is asked where she is schooled. She replies that she is home-schooled.

When the recording began to draw attention on the blog, Crank’s mother waded in personally to support her child’s speech in the comments section, saying Sarah “and many others are affected by the one way tolerance that gays expect but won’t extend to others”.

She insisted her daughter wrote the speech herself and told one commenter “Your ill wishes toward her are the perfect example of the one way tolerance that is the norm.”

An attempt in 2011 to lift the gay marriage ban failed to pass through the state legislature.

Conversely, attempts to introduce a constitutional ban on gay marriage have also failed.

Last night, Washington’s state senate voted in favour of equal marriage rights for gays, making the passage of the law there a near-certainty.

Listen to the recording of Sarah Crank’s testimony below:

The protest was good-natured and polite, with around 40 members and supporters of the UK’s trans community giving out leaflets, displaying placards and engaging embassy staff in good natured debate.

Nonetheless, protesters were clear that the issue is serious and will not go away.

The dispute arises from the fact that under Swedish law, dating back to 1972, trans individuals may not obtain recognition in their identified gender unless they first undergo sterilisation. In many instances – MtF gender re-assignment, for instance – this will be the natural outcome of surgery anyway. But there are other circumstances – FtM re-assignment, for instance, where this is not the case.

Not only does this run counter to what is now accepted practice in a number of countries, including Portugal, the UK and Spain, but Sweden also sets an additional requirement: the destruction of any biological reproductive material, including sperm and eggs, which could later be used in IVF procedures. It is an approach that has been condemned by Thomas Hammarberg, the commissioner for human rights of the Council of Europe, who has said that such a requirement “clearly runs against principles of human rights and human dignity”.

Outrage is all the fiercer, as it is understood that there is a majority in the Swedish parliament in favour of abandoning this stance…but that moves to do so have been blocked by Sweden’s prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt in order to retain the support of minority right-wing elements within the governing coalition. This claim has, however, been explicitly denied by Minister Erik Ullenhag.

Giving support to the demonstration was internationally acclaimed gender variant visual artist/activist/educator, Del LaGrace Volcano, who said: “It has taken more than a decade for the mainstream lesbian and gay community in Sweden, represented by RFSL, to wake up to this issue, but THEY are now finally making some headway.

“My feeling is that a new, younger – and more militant – component within Sweden’s trans community are emerging: in the past, many tended to self-pathologise. This generation refuses to do so – and are determined to stand up for their rights as human beings.”

The Swedish ambassador was unavailable for comment at this time – but may do so at a later date.