By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982
A group of activists is today publishing this open letter (below), which calls on David Cameron's Conservatives to reconsider their grouping with the Polish Law and Justice party - and for the invitation to Michal Kaminksy to attend Conservative party conference fringe events later today to be rescinded.
Dear Mr Cameron,
As the Conservative Party gathers in Manchester, just a few weeks after thousands marched for Pride, we want to share our concern that the Conservative conference is lending legitimacy to a group of political parties in Eastern Europe whose views on gay rights are anything but progressive.
We know you say that the Conservative Party’s history of opposing gay rights and supporting Section 28 has been left behind. But if your Conservative Party really cares about equality then you must recognise the need not just to condemn the views of the Polish Law and Justice Party but to stop them from being spread in Manchester and throughout Europe.
It is not just that your new Polish allies oppose gay marriage and adoption but that their vile rhetoric – branding homosexuality as a ‘pathology’, gays as ‘perverts’, and describing ‘the affirmation of homosexuality’ as ‘the downfall of civilisation’ – was used to whip up hate during their election campaign. Your Party's decision to host an LGBT event at conference is a good step in the right direction. But it will seem empty - a two faced gesture - if in the same week you fawn over allies whose homophobia has no place in modern Manchester, in modern Britain, or in Europe.
Mr Cameron we want to believe the Conservative Party has really changed - please help us by rescinding the invite to the Polish Law and Justice Party and urging them either to change their views or quit your new European group.
Yours sincerely,
Patrick Stewart
Stephen Fry
Jo Brand
Eddie Izzard
Tony Robinson
Arabella Weir
Steve Cram
Roberta Taylor
Angela Mason, OBE
Michael Cashman Labour MEP and President of the European Parliament's Intergroup on LGBT Rights
Arlene McCarthy Labour MEP (North West)
Glenis Willmott, EPLP Leader
Allison Curbishley
Amy Lamé
Peter Guiness
Derek Simpson, Joint General Secretary UNITE
Tony Woodley, Joint General Secretary UNITE
Billy Hayes, General Secretary CWU
Wes Streeting, NUS President
Dave Prentis Gen Sec UNISON
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Christians (most religious people really) really hate it when you use their holy book against their prejudices.
Having said that, Jesus was so broad-minded that he even consorted with tax collectors. Outrageous! A line must be drawn somewhere.
I'm not going to pile in with everyone else, Stewart. All I would say is that a white/black man lying with a black/white woman was viewed as 'unnatural' within living memory. Fortunately, most churches recognised that with the arrival of Christ, Love replaced the Law. The Law that used to justify slavery, and the stoning of people who collected sticks during the Sabbath, or who entered the temple while menstruating or wearing pigskin, was completely superseded by Jesus, who frequented with prostitutes and thieves, and whose crucifixion was demanded by pious Pharisees, who showed the same kind of intolerance, I'm afraid Stewart, which you're showing.
All in all, deeply unchristian.
As for the red herring about the cause of sexual orientation, its irrelevant - the fact is that there are gay people and the question is how to treat them as equal citizens and not discriminate against them on the grounds of sexual orientation. You wish to discriminate, but you must realise that isn't going to be re-introduced into law. The fact is that all the ludicrous scare stories which the fringe religious fundamentalist Right tried to frighten people with have come to nothing, and its only a handful of full-time religious extremists who continue to stress about what is hardly an issue any more
Because, correct me if I'm wrong, that's also described as a sin in the Bible. Who gets to decide which sins can be edited?
Let me guess - you?
I don't see any 'evidence' you have provided to prove sexuality changes. Though of course, you mean changes to suit you don't you?
I don't want people to try to tell me what my standards ought to be.
Come on now, can you not see the tiny-teeniest bit of irony in that? Or hypocricy? Just a teent teeny tiny bit of hypocricy? Shall I tell you?
"In my book, hatred based on ignorance is wrong."
I don't hate and I'm not ignorant. I have provided evidence that sexuality is changeable, so - and I hate this expression I'm about to use - deal with it!
I could play the 'hate' card as well. You and the Monkey obviously hate the fact that I speak my mind. 7 out of 8 people who voted in Brian Souter's referendum in Scotland re. Section 28 wanted to KEEP it. It's time to reconsider where, let's call them 'alternative lifestyles', should figure in a civilised society.
You're right, you're not in a position to judge anyone. I suggest you stop.
Tony Woodley, Joint General Secretary UNITE
LOL. Two really enlightened people. Puurrrlleeeaasse.
There can be no such thing as an 'invalid' sexual orientation. You are what you are. Nobody can deliberately choose their sexuality. That's not to say that people don't experiment, but that's not the same thing as deliberately changing one's sexual orientation.
Stewart. With all due respect, grow up. Do you seriously believe, given the bigotry in society, at least in this tight little island that people would CHOOSE to be homosexual?. And pre 1967 it was actually illegal to be so - a situation thay led to suicide (also illegal rill 1961) and blackmail. You are either heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual - people fall into one of these three categories. Does a heterosexual choose to be heterosexual? I doubt it, I suspect that we are born with our individual proclivities already insitu.
It's an old film but you should watch "Victim" (directed by Basil Dearden 1961) to see how harsh life was - and lets face it, there is still prejudice.
Northern Monkey - I think we've only agreed on one thing ever.
WHAT ABOUT THE PAEDO'S, EH? EH? YOU SAID THEY HAD A VALID SEXUALITY LOL!!!!11!
How did I do? I hope I got the apostrophe appropriately wrong for you.
Let me quote you
"Of course they're all 'valid' because they're all part of human nature and cannot be chosen.
."
Correct?
Well that sentence makes no sense. That's like asking 'is any skin colour valid'. Of course they're all 'valid' because they're all part of human nature and cannot be chosen.
I think what you're trying to ask is 'are all forms of sexual activity valid'. In which case, my answer would be yes, providing it is between consenting adults.
Peter Tatchell described being homosexual as "a choice, and we should be glad it’s that way and celebrate it for ourselves."
A US court has awarded special rights to "ex-gays" because they became heterosexual and are persecuted by some homosexual groups.
Sexuality is not a fixed trait, so please don't believe everything Stonewall et al tell you.
No Stewart, homosexuality isn't a sin. The only sin is your quite remarkable ignorance. And you don't write out of love, you write out of spitefulness and hatred.
So any sexuality is vaild?
The one in ten was Kinsey's discredited figure from the 1950s, which is still used today. I believe the correct figure is nearer 3% of the population being homosexual.
To those who mock me/call me names, etc.,
I have every right to express my opinion. Homosexual behaviour is a sin, but the good news is that it can be overcome, as all sin and temptation can.
Please don't accuse me of 'hatred' when you don't even understand where I'm coming from. If I hated then I wouldn't care if others lost their souls.
Sometimes I try and add a bit of humour to my blog posts, but I write out of love. That's something *you* (Northern Monkey, Charlie Farley, Richard Blogger, et al) need to try to understand.
Let's try and explain to him where he's wrong. Libertarianism is a political belief. Sexual orientation is not a belief, but a fundamental characteristic like skin colour or gender. Schoolchildren should be taught about all elements of society and no group should be written out of the text books because of their skin colour or sexuality. Libertarianism is however, no different than believing in socialism or liberalism. We generally let people make their own minds up of these beliefs as they get older.
And, as you well know, gay pride parades first began to show strength in numbers at a time when homosexuality was brutally oppressed. Now even today when homosexuality is still a stigma in society and discrimination still goes on, it has the same effect. It's effectively saying 'we're proud of who we are and we won't be bullied by the ignorant'. Now, as far as I know, libertarians have never suffered such oppression.
"Last time I looked, Old Holborn, only 1 in 100 voters was a libertarian extremist
Why the big fuss?"
Where can I apply for public funding for a Libertarian Pride March? Can we get schools to teach Libertarianism to five year olds? Can we set up fake charities and get the taxpayer to foot the bill? Can we demand a quota of Libertarians on TV and the Public Sector?
Thought not.
Why the big fuss?
Really, how can you tell? Is there some tattooed mark on LGBT people, and if so, where? (I bet you enjoyed yourself looking.)
It is a heterosexual-based planet that we all inhabit. People are entitled to object to homosexuality and that includes politicians.
If you are talking about someone making a pass at you then surely it does not matter what sex they are, if you are not interested, you are not interested. I find a polite "no thanks, I have someone already" works best. But what right have you to object to someone else's sexuality? What goes on in other people's bedroom is their affair, nothing to do with you. I am straight and married, but what happens in our bedroom is no business of your's. The exact same thing can be said about what my gay friends do.
So keep your bigotted objections to yourself.
Why the big fuss?
It's interesting how you accuse Labour of being obsessed with gay rights, yet the only thing you ever seem to write about is homosexuality.
Some people can object to homosexuality if they like, but they're obviously myopic cretins since objecting to somebody because of their sexual orientation is as ignorant and stupid as you can possibly get.
Biologically we're not a 'heterosexuality based' planet. By far the largest number of creatures, and the vast preponderance of the planet's biomass, is bacteria who reproduce asexually.
@ madasa fish
On the paucity of Labour supporters today. Just because the comment section of this site has been infested with Tories and Libertarians, don't assume it represents the country
Don't be unkind to Labour supporters.
You are on a Labour supporting site after all - although I have to say there appear to be fewer Labour supporters today than hairs on my head :-)
Stewart, but people like yourself who childishly insist it revolves around them are right? I don't think so, do you really think that Jesus (if he existed) would have this creepy obsession with homosexuality that you do or be filled with quite so much hatred and nastiness?
Alex, are you going for a record number of Tory-bashing articles in a row? If you're short I'll knock you one up on ID Cards or something.
Re the CFOI.
The Editor of the Jewish Chronicle has come out in support of this guy on a couple of occasions. I pointed this out to Will Straw after one of his anti fascist rants. Got no reply
Nobody outside luvvie land gives a toss about the opinions of this lot of supporters. Jo Brand, FFS.
It is a heterosexual-based planet that we all inhabit. People are entitled to object to homosexuality and that includes politicians.
Labour’s obsession with the Tories’ friends - and ‘gay’ rights
Ironic?
Mr Cameron we want to believe the Conservative Party has really changed
Really? With that list of signatories?
You must think we're stupid .
(
Now that these Labour luvvies and activists have awoken, maybe they can utilise their brains and privileged situation and turn their attention to some of the many travesties of this government - or are they just engaging in Labour versus Tory mudslinging?