Theresa May not believe in equality for gays

We were intrigued to discover on the invaluable TheyWorkForYou website that new Equality Minister Theresa May "voted moderately against equal gay rights." Equality regardless of gender, race, sexual preference/identity is, after all, generally considered to be a good thing these days by all but a limited number of morons, and so you'd probably be safe in assuming that the Government would as a result wish to promote such a worthy ideal. You might therefore also assume that anyone thought suitable to the post of Equality Minister would vote very strongly for equal gay rights, wouldn't you?

Theresa May MP, Equality Minister - seems to not like gay people very much.

(image from Wikipedia, used in accordance with Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence)

Our interest was piqued, so we ran a quick Google search using the request "Theresa May gay lesbian equality" and very rapidly found a document published by Pink News which lists some revealing facts on May - like, for example, the time in 1998 when she voted against equalising the age of consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals. Then, in 2000, she voted against moves to repeal the notorious Section 28 (commonly known as Clause 28), a piece of legislation that banned local authorities from "promoting homosexuality" and effectively left health centres unable to provide sexual health advice to gays and made teachers afraid to prevent homophobic bullying of school children.

Mrs. May was voting in a way rather at odds with equality again in both 2001 and 2002, when she supported measures aimed at preventing same-sex couples from adopting children. There was a brief moment in 2004 when it looked like she might have given up her prejudice as - in common with the majority of the Conservative front bench - she voted in favour of civil partnerships, known to many as gay marriages; but it's worth noting that over the last few years the Tories have been attempting to attract the so-called pink vote and will say or do just about anything if they think someone will cross their box at the ballot, as has been the case with Prime Minister David Cameron when he apologised for Section 28 last year (this despite the fact that his record when it comes to gay rights isn't a great deal better than May's - he also voted against repealing Section 28). However, in the very same year, she didn't vote in any of the four votes that eventually led to the adoption of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which allows those who have undergone gender correction surgery to legally change the gender recorded on their birth certificate and other documents.

In 2008, she voted in favour of an ultimately defeated bill which would have required couples seeking IVF treatment to provide a male role model - in other words, preventing lesbian couples from having children by this method (Cameron voted in favour of that one too, by the way).

No mainstream political party would discriminate against Jewish, black or Asian MPs in this day and age, but one does have to wonder - in view of the dubious voting records of both their leader and Equality Minister, as well as the decision to join the European Conservatives and Reformists group in the EU, thus allying themselves with the openly homophobic Polish Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc party which we have written about on this blog at some length - if the Conservatives are not yet as comfortable with homosexuality. Last week's election saw ten new Conservative homosexuals take seats in the Commons, but they may find they are merely tolerated in order to provide the illusion of equality rather than welcomed with open arms.

If you think Theresa May is unsuited to her new post, have a look at Sack Theresa - Calling for the resignation of the Women and Equalities Minister.

Cameron scores more brownie...erm, pinkie points

Ever vigilant in his quest to score more political points and gain more votes for his party, Conservative leader David Cameron has apologised to the gay community for the infamous Section 28 legislation which outlawed what it termed "the promotion of homosexuality in schools."

Precisely what constituted "promotion" of homosexuality has never been clear, but it left teachers unwilling to prevent bullying of children thought either rightly or wrongly by their peers to be gay, for fear that in stating homosexuality is acceptable and not "wrong" they would fall foul of the ruling and lose their jobs. In addition to this, gay support groups were prevented from offering advice and counselling to school children.

David Cameron: friend to gays? Doubtful. Insincere vote-whore? Probable.
Picture adapted from a copyright-free image at Wikipedia.

Local authorities were likewise prevented from carrying out any action that might "intentionally promote homosexuality" or from publishing "material with the intention of promoting homosexuality," meaning that health advice leaflets aimed at gay people had to be removed from medical surgeries if they suggested that homosexual relationships were normal and healthy.

Gay rights activists, who have campaigned long and hard for the legislation to be repealed, declared the apology "historic."

"If we do win the next election, instead of being a white middle class middle-aged party, we will be far more diverse," Mr. Cameron said, during a Tory fund-raiser. "The Conservatives had the first woman prime minister and we are bound to have the first black prime minister and the first gay prime minister."

However, just six years ago Mr. Cameron voted in support of retaining Section 28 in a Parliamentary ballot that was eventually successful in achieving the legislation's abolition. In 2008 he attracted scorn from gay people when he voted to restrict lesbian couples' right to in vitro fertilisation in a vote aiming to toughen up existing laws which state that clinics offering the treatment must consider the "need" for a child to have a mother and a father.

We can't help but think, in view of that last paragraph, that Mr. Cameron is not being entirely sincere when it comes to his new friendliness towards homosexuals. In fact, we rather suspect that he's a bit of a homophobe, but willing to do absolutely anything just so long as there might be a few extra votes in it.

North Korea bans British tourists

The North Korean (official homepage here, somewhat more telling Wikipedia article here) Foreign Ministry will no longer issue visas to British nationals, according to reports.
The Korea International Travel Company say, "in connection with the recent measures taken by UK government not to allow DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] citizens to enter the UK we also will not receive any UK citizens as tourists to DPRK for the time being." Peter Hughes, the UK Ambassador in the restrictive state, has replied saying, "as far as I'm aware, the UK has not refused visas for any DPRK citizens so this decision is hard to understand." However, Nick Bonner - who is head of Koryo Tours, the British-owned firm responsible for taking around half of all Western tourists to North Korea annually, believes that the moves are likely to be in response to tough new sanctions proposed by the United Nations in the wake of last month's nuclear test. So far, the ban extends only to UK citizens and not to those from other UN countries - why this should be remains unclear; but Kim Jong-Il, the nation's leader, is most definitey not a man known for acting in a logical way.

Kim Jong-Il - not known for acting in a logical way.
Very well-known for being a bit of an evil dictator.

Pyongyang, the nation's capital - where only the most politically reliable and healthy citizens are permitted to live - receives just 300 visitors from the UK each year; so you might be forgiven for thinking none of the above matters very much. It does, though, not least of all because although the majority of those people are likely to have been immigrants to Britain visiting family members, some will be tourists.

Tourists who, by visiting North Korea, contribute to the economy of a state declared by the UN to be guilty of widespread human rights violations and which has been declared by Freedom House to be "a totalitarian dictatorship and one of the most restrictive countries in the world" which "subjects tens of thousands of political prisoners to brutal conditions."

According to defectors, refugees who convert to Christianity in China but who are subsequantly repatriated to North Korea routinely end up in prison camps or are executed. Similarly, criticism of the government - though a right protected under the nation's constitution - is likely to lead to arrest and confinement in a so-called "re-education" facility. Ri Kwang-chol, a doctor who defected, claims that babies born with physical defects are commonly killed soon after birth. The state is known to force girls aged just 14 to work in kippumjo prostitution teams until they are 25, at which age they are married off to Kim Jong-Il's guards. The UN says that the physically disabled are sent to what it calls "special camps."

Public executions take place, leading the UN to express "very serious concern" and the US Department of State reports that:

"Methods of torture and other abuse reportedly included severe beatings; electric shock; prolonged periods of exposure to the elements; humiliations such as public nakedness; confinement for up to several weeks in small "punishment cells" in which prisoners were unable to stand upright or lie down; being forced to kneel or sit immobilized for long periods; being hung by the wrists; being forced to stand up and sit down to the point of collapse; and forcing mothers recently repatriated from China to watch the infanticide of their newborn infants."

It also says that:

"Officials prohibited live births in prison and ordered forced abortions, particularly in detention centers holding women repatriated from China, according to refugee reports. In some cases of live birth, there were reports that prison guards killed the infant or left it for dead. In addition guards reportedly sexually abused female prisoners."

Amnesty International has accused the country of discriminating against the lower classes when distributing necessities such as food. Fancy a nice holiday in sunny North Korea? Sounds like a lovely place, doesn't it? And just think, the money you spend while you're there will help Kim Jong-Il's government.

Beats me why anyone would want to go there. But then, 195,000 UK tourists visited Dubai in the first quarter of 2009, obviously unaware or not caring that the country recently carried out the mass imprisonment of immigrant labourers who had the temerity to complain about their poor wages and living conditions (Dubai being well-known for appalling treatment of foreign labour, especially Indians) or that British national Keith Brown was sentenced to a draconian four years in prison after authorities found a .003g (according to the Daily Mail) speck of cannabis stuck to the bottom of his shoe. Or Tracy Wilkinson, who spent two months in a cell when a drugs test turned up codeine in her bloodstream - after she'd been injected with the drug in a Dubai hospital. And then there's Dubai's sex industry, with many workers being the victims of human trafficking and exploitation.

Dubai - a place to feel pretty, and witty...but most definitely not gay...it is not a good place to be gay.

Bear in mind too that Dubai is part of the United Arab Emirates which, says the US Department of State, violate human rights with numerous fundamental practices and policies - but then, the UAE has not signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the Convention Against Torture. Though their constitution protects the right to free speech, all publications must be licensed by the Ministry of Information and edited by government-approved figures, and negative comments about Islam are punishable by imprisonment. What's more, homosexual relationships - and indeed, all sexual relations other than traditional, married, heterosexual relationships - are punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation and even the death penalty. Dubai's Penal Code imposes a punishment of ten years imprisonment (Article 177) for consensual sodomy.

I know what I'd bugger - any chance of me having a holiday in Dubai anytime soon; I prefer places where people can live free of oppression. Brighton again for me this year, I think.