Humanists welcome UN sec-gen's gay-rights support – with reservations

With some reservations, the UK gay humanist charity, the Pink Triangle Trust (PTT) – owner of this blog – has welcomed the unequivocal support for gay rights given by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in his speech to the recent African Union summit.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation had been ignored or even sanctioned by many states for too long, Ban Ki-moon told the summit. He told delegates that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity “prompted governments to treat people as second class citizens or even criminals”.

“Confronting these discriminations is a challenge, but we must not give up on the ideas of the universal declaration (of human rights),” he said.

Reacting to this support the PTT’s secretary George Broadhead said: “The situation for LGBT people in African states seems to be going from bad to worse and, as in the rest of the world, it is clear that much of the hostility they face stems from religious teachings. Examples are the Anglican Church of Uganda’s support for the Anti-Homosexuality Bill and the Anglican Church of Nigeria’s support for a similar bill.

“With Islam now becoming more dominant in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, the prospect for improvement in these North African countries seems bleak indeed. Whilst the support of such a prominent figure as Ban Ki-moon is very welcome, will politicians and religious leaders in these countries, in which homophobia is so entrenched, take any notice?”

The bishop, the religious ranter and the nice Mr Hill – the tale continues

Further to our story of yesterday about Mr Green and the contrite Bishop Benn, it seems that the latter has now specifically asked the former to withdraw the latter’s endorsement of the former’s idiocy in a booklet called Britain in Sin.

Green, you see – well, you do see if you know much about him – is, ahem, a bit of a, how shall we say, er . . .

He runs this tinpot right-wing outfit called Christian Voice, which is enough to give religion a bad name – if it didn’t already have one, which it does.

One form in which it doesn’t have a bad name is when people just get on with it and believe in others’ freedom to do their thing, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else or frighten the horses.

And that makes me think of a think tank I’ve often quoted in this blog called Ekklesia, which I monitor. You don’t have to believe in a god in order to appreciate the words of some who do.

And it’s Symon Hill’s article on the Ekklesia site that has informed me of the contrite bishop’s wish to wash his hands of the tommyrot that Stephen Green has upchucked into print.

Hill writes:

Along with several other bloggers, I drew attention two days ago to Bishop Benn’s endorsement of a booklet called Britain in Sin, written by Stephen Green of the fundamentalist group Christian Voice. The booklet opposes the welfare state, legislation guaranteeing equal pay to men and women, power-sharing in Northern Ireland and the UK’s membership of the United Nations.

A couple of days ago an email came to Ekklesia from the press office of Bishop Benn (well, Suffragan Bishop, but that waters down the alliteration) to say that, after endorsing Green’s booklet, the good bishop wished to disassociate himself from it. Later, his press officer sent another email, quoting Benn: “I have asked Stephen Green of Christian Voice to immediately withdraw my apparent endorsement of his booklet. I apologise for any hurt caused or misunderstanding given.”

By the way, in my post yesterday I appeared to make light of OCD, or obsessive compulsive disorder, and Symon Hill, who suffers from it as a clinical condition, ticked me off in a comment.

No offence meant, Symon. I know it’s listed in clinical circles as a clinical condition, but I dare say we can still use it – as people do with many other bits of terminology – with a degree of levity. And it was so used, diluted by the words “something of a” before it, as well as being a play on several initials: “OTT OCD”.

And thanks for looking in.

The cautionary tale of the bishop and Mr Green

Here is a cautionary tale. If you’re ever asked to endorse something, damn well read it.

The poor old Bishop of Lewes, Wallace Benn, failed to do that with a booklet by Stephen Green, the “foghorn”, as Hugh Muir puts it in the Guardian, for Christian Voice, a grubby little outfit that shouts a lot from a very right-wing Christian perspective.

We all know that Green’s a tiny bit batty when it comes to gay matters – something of an OTT OCD situation with him. Obsessive because he seems to think of little else. Compulsive because he keeps trying to create a stink about such things. Disorder because – well, it’s a disorder.

Muir writes (last paragraph):

Green last crossed our path with claims that Tesco’s profits dropped because it sponsored a gay event. He believes in that sort of thing. Believes in all sorts of wacky things: that we’ve sinned by signing up to European legislation, by banning the cane, passing parking laws, by outlawing marital rape. That the Queen has broken the Ten Commandments by allowing her governments to pass gay-friendly legislation.

He then talks of the booklet, and the fact that the good bishop called it “interesting and disturbing reading”.

However, the good bishop has now been forced to eat his endorsing words.

He “now concedes to the Ekklesia website that he actually hadn’t really read it. Indeed he wishes to ‘completely and absolutely’ disassociate himself from the document. Oh Lord, what a mess.”

You gotta laugh.

How Ratzo may do Ireland a big favour – by not going there

Pope Ratzinger may may do the Irish people a great favour by threatening to stamp his foot and throw his toys out of the pram if the Irish pursue their plan to shut their embassy in the Vatican.

If they do go ahead with it – and of course they should – he may decide not to attend the Eucharistic Congress in Dublin next summer.

Well that’ll save Ireland a lot of money, if the monster’s visit to England last year (and other countries, of course) is anything to go by.

Abortion ads on TV? Wait for the proverbial to hit the fan

This is going to be a helluva can of worms. God botherers will be out in force.

“Private clinics that charge for pregnancy services including abortions will be able to advertise on television and radio under new rules,” says the BBC.

The new law takes effect in April.

One comment beneath the BBC story says, “Abortion is always a terrible thing whatever your ethical and moral beliefs on the issue.”

And that’s true. I’m not sure about advertising abortion clinics when, say, murderous tobacco can’t be advertised. I’m not comfortable about abortion on demand as a form of contraception. I don’t feel qualified to state an opinion, although such a lack of qualification won’t stop what I expect will be a deluge of protest.

I do believe, however, that abortion should be available on demand when a mother’s life or wellbeing is at stake, where there’s been a rape, even when the baby might suffer a shitty life because of a known serious problem with its brain or limbs. And I believe the Catholic Church should be put publicly in its place when it gets on its high horse about abortion.

I recall one story from Brazil in which anyone who helped a young, frail girl to have an abortion – a young, frail girl who’d been raped by her stepfather and was expecting twins – would be excommunicated, and that meant doctors and her mother. Whatever you think of the damnably silly business of excommunication, it’s a serious thing to devout believers and can ruin their lives.

This little girl might not have survived the birth. Fortunately, the abortion went ahead.

We reported on that in 2009 – rather angrily, as I recall.

But abortion nonetheless is not something that should be taken lightly. And the reason I mention the ads story at all is that it will be the religious element that will bleat the most, as if no one else could put forward a moral case for or against advertising abortion clinics. My reference above shows that religion can’t take the moral high ground in such matters.

Decisions should be taken on medical and social grounds, not because an imagined deity might not like the idea – a deity, it has to be said, that sanctions genocide and other horrors in the Old Testament.

Political correctness and censorship

Oh, dear, it’s time for oversensitivity again. Mo (sorry, Mohammed, pbuh) is depicted with a pint of beer in his hand, so politically correct students get all pompous and silly about it.

I refer to the excellent cartoon series Jesus and Mo, which appears monthly in the Freethinker, has become at least two books, and is to be found online. Your humble blogger has an RSS feed, so he misses not one frame.

Those seeming to be offended are the students’ union at University College London (UCL), the first secular university in Britain.

“UCL was founded in 1826 as a secular alternative to the strictly religious universities of Oxford and Cambridge,” says the National Secular Society in the link above, “despite strong opposition from the Church of England. It was the first higher education institution in England to accept students of any race or religious or political belief and was christened by Thomas Arnold ‘that Godless institution in Gower Street’. It is therefore particularly important to support and defend the right to freedom of expression without religious interference and to make a clear distinction between illegal attacks on individuals because of their religion and ‘offence’ used as a means to stifle this freedom.”

Perhaps anyone choosing to be offended by this ought to see the entire series and engage with the often philosophical conversations that occur among Jesus, Mo(hammed) and the barmaid in the Cock & Bull (with occasional contributions from another Mo, Moses).

See also the Freethinker take on the story here, and sign the petition here.
 _____________
UPDATE: I'm glad to see that the students' union has now backed off. A victory for free speech!

We’re taking a break – Happy Christmas, folks!

Time to wish everyone a Happy Christmas, I reckon. Note that I’m not averse to using that term (and the link here tells you why), even though this is a blog that looks towards a nonreligious view of our universe.

And that brings me to Christmas cards. We see a story in the Daily Mail (where else?) whingeing about how stores are “ashamed” to sell religious cards, “but obscene ones litter the High Street”, the headline concludes.

“Christian leaders” are once again wheeled out to complain about this – but, you know, I can’t say I’d noticed. I’ve seen religious cards on sale in several places and never given them a second thought.

The “ashamed” tag above seems to come from one such “Christian leader”, our old friend Stephen Green of Christian Voice. He says he believes there’s anti-Christian prejudice; there’s “militant atheism and nasty secularism” (there are some nasty Christians and those of other religious persuasions about, Mr Green, too, you know, but you think it “nasty” only because it doesn’t agree with you).

Then we get Don Horrocks of the Evangelical Alliance, who says supermarkets “appear” to be ashamed to sell religious Christmas cards.

So, a scientifically carried-out statistical study, then? Seems not. I can’t prove them wrong, but I think we need more rigorous evidence than that these gentlemen have seen some saucy cards and not many religious ones. Let’s face it, they’d ideally wish to see all Christmas cards as religious, because they can’t see that Christianity took over the festivals that we had at this time of year.

As for your humble blogger, well, I don’t buy religious cards. I don’t especially object to receiving them. I look for cards that are Christmassy, in all the ways that word sums up joy and friends and some relaxation and maybe a bit too much to eat and drink. Cards with reindeer, with Santa, with lots of snow, village scenes – these are the sorts I’d buy. I used to buy humanist ones, but felt I was preaching (Christians, take note).

Right, then. Happy Christmas to all those who’ve looked in on the Pink Triangle blog over the past year. Have a Happy New Year, too. We’re closing down from today till the first week in the New Year.

Out of Africa: homophobia – and religion is behind it

Leo Igwe gets everywhere – and deserves to do so. Fresh from a long article in the new Pink Humanist, he has now appeared in Digital Journal, the Toronto-based online news source.

He’s a brave campaigner indeed, and he’s convinced – according to this article – that religion is behind most of the hatred of gays that comes out of Africa.

“I would say religion is behind most, not all of the homophobia coming out of Africa,” he says “Religion permeates all aspects of mainstream social, moral and cultural thought.

“Most homophobes use religion as a basis, as a justification of their hatred and antagonism. I have also encountered non religious Africans who are homophobic and they base their homophobia on what they claim to be the unnaturality of homosexuality.”

Another pillock

Here’s another moron who thinks being gay is a lifestyle choice. But he’s a religious nut, so what do you expect?

And this utter turd – Rev. James Gracie from the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) – has caused controversy by likening being gay to paedophilia, polygamy and theft.

What are these people on, for goodness’ sake? Certainly not anything that teaches them understanding, compassion and a sense of natural justice – the things many Christians pride themselves on having (and some, indeed, have, but not this nutter).

Seems it’s all part of religion’s battle to prevent the Scottish government from legalising gay marriage.

The story’s in Pink News.

Now you see it, now you don’t, now you do

I don’t know what it says about attitudes that a school in Michigan in the USA edited the word “gay” out of a Christmas song.

Well, it was the music teacher, according to this story. Then the school put the word back again.

It comes in a line in “Deck the Halls”, which reads “Don we now our gay apparel.” Your humble blogger makes use of the line in a Christmas article in the new Pink Humanist

The teacher took the word “gay” out and substituted “bright”, not necessary because she was homophobic, but because the pesky kids giggled every time they sang it.

Even allowing that kids will be kids, it says something about the way the word is still used as a minor insult, or that homosexuality is somehow funny (well, it can be funny, but we’re not talking Alan Carr here).

US foreign aid – and how gays are treated in recipient countries

US foreign aid – and how gays are treated in recipient countries Looks as if the USA is telling some homophobic countries what for. A memorandum from the White House says the administration will weight up how it distributes foreign aid depending on how countries treat their gay citizens.

The Middle East and Africa come in for criticism, according to this story.

And Hillary Clinton has told a gathering in Geneva: “Gay rights are human rights.”

In the Pink – new gay humanist magazine hits the cyberstreets

A new magazine for humanists who are gay or gay-friendly has just launched. The Pink Humanist is published by the owners of this blog, the Pink Triangle Trust (PTT), and edited by Freethinker editor Barry Duke.

Duke, a veteran gay journalist and photographer, formerly of Brighton, now languishing in Benidorm on Spain’s Costa Blanca (lucky bastard!), has put together a colourful mix of articles, including one that Freethinker readers will recognise as a fine display of his own acerbic, cut-to-the-chase (or cut-to-the-jugular) voice.

Here is the press release the magazine has put out today:

The UK gay Humanist charity the Pink Triangle Trust (PTT) has re-launched its online magazine with a new title, The Pink Humanist.

The PTT, which was founded in 1992, started publishing a printed magazine entitled Gay & Lesbian Humanist back in 1993 and continued this until it went online in 2008.

Though described as an LGBT publication, the new magazine is aimed at all atheists, Humanists, sceptics and freethinkers and is the only one of its kind worldwide.

The editor of The Pink Humanist is Barry Duke who is well known in UK atheist and Humanist circles as the editor of the Freethinker, a monthly journal which was founded in 1881. Duke was also closely associated with the National Secular Society for many years.

Contributors to the first issue of The Pink Humanist include Russian gay activist Nikolai Alekseev, who has been praised by human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell for “his amazing, ground-breaking work over many years”.

Barry Duke said: “As editor of the oldest freethought magazine in the world, I am delighted to have been invited to launch the newest.

“Since 1974, I have devoted my life to promoting LGBT rights, atheism, Humanism and rationalism, and The Pink Humanist will, I hope, help raise awareness of the need to challenge religious privilege wherever it occurs in public life, and stem the rising tide of homophobia, especially in Africa where mainly foreign evangelicals have been allowed to muddy the waters of tolerance and generate unprecedented levels of hostility towards the LGBT community.

“My hope, too, is that freethought writers from all over the world will donate original articles, comments and reviews for inclusion in future issues of the publication.”

In the current issue, there’s a piece on Britain’s greatest code breaker, Alan Turing; an article on Andrew Haigh’s recently released Weekend, which has been wowing critics and audiences around the world; a piece on the plight of gays in Russia; an article by Yours Truly about the use of the word “Christmas”; and much, much more, as well as an audio blog by freelance writer and voiceover artist Andrew John, of Celtica Radio, who takes a few pots at the hoo-ha over the latest Benetton ad, featuring the Pope kissing a fella, and the twit who coined the word “Gaystapo” (which we blogged about recently).

So do pop in, browse around, leave some comments and some votes. Especially on my article. Only joking.

Leo Igwe on barbaric bill in Nigeria

Leo Igwe of the Nigerian Humanist Movement has just issued a statement about the bill to be passed in Nigeria outlawing all kinds of things to do with same-sex relationships. See the post here. Here’s Igwe’s statement in full:

I condemn in no uncertain terms the recent passage by the Senate of the the anti gay marriage bill. The passage of this bill once again demonstrates how disconnected Nigerian politicians and lawmakers are from the realities of the 21st century. It has confirmed that our lawmakers indeed prefer to fiddle while our social, political and economic house called Nigeria, burns. Otherwise how does one explain the relevance of this bill at a time when Nigeria has become almost a failed state due to terrorist attacks, sectarian violence, corruption, poverty, diseases, abuse of office, tribalism and nepotism, misguided politics and mistaken sense of statecraft?

The passage of this bill has shown clearly how misplaced our priorities are. Or better, how misplaced the priorities of those who claim to lead this country are. Our senators should answer this question clearly, “How does an anti-gay marriage bill contribute to the greatest good of the greatest number of Nigerians?”

Does this bill put food on their table or money in their pocket? No. Does it provide them with jobs? No. Does it enhance their much needed security and peaceful coexistence? No. Does it improve the standard of education in the country? No. Does it make Nigerian parents more responsible in terms of child support, upbringing and other family responsibilities? No. Does it improve the love and harmony in homes and communities across the country? No. Will this bill improve trust in marriages and relationships in Nigeria? No. Will it in any way strengthen the much talked about marriage institution or family values? No. Can the senators tell me the practical, political, moral relevance of this bill except to legislate and institutionalize hatred and persecution of minorities, gay cleansing, moral hypocrisy and inquisition.

The true test of a democracy is not how it panders to the so called will (real or imagined) of the majority, but how it treats and respects its minority. The test of a society’s humanity is how it protects and defends vulnerable members of the population. And with this bill, has the Nigerian democracy and society failed this test? The answer is an unequivocal “Yes”.

This anti gay marriage bill is a clear indictment of our sense of common humanity and our commitment to human rights principles as a people and as a nation. The state cannot legislate when it comes to sexual relationships among consenting adults. The politicians and lawmakers cannot dictate for adults whom to relate with. Lawmakers have no business in the bedroom of adults. For me this anti gay marriage bill is another pointer to where we have chosen to go as a nation – backwards. Today the global trend is to unban, not to ban gay marriage.

The Senate vote to ban gay marriage is another indication of how our politicians have refused to confront our real challenges and to tackle and address our real, urgent and pressing problems as a nation and as a people. Instead our lawmakers prefer to pursue shadows and to engage in wasteful debates and counter productive legislations. The whole idea of debating and passing a bill against gay marriage which has been going on since 2006 is a waste of our limited legislative resource, a huge distraction from more pressing issues and a mark of our warped sense of politics and law making. In fact it is an abuse of Nigeria’s legislative space. The obsession with homophobia among our lawmakers is unwarranted and uncalled for. It is rather an indication of political impotency and emptiness, lack of vision, focus and politically expedient programs for nation building and good governance.

I want to know from our senators and all those clamouring for anti-gay marriage legislation the rationale behind such a bill in a country where homosexuality is a crime. Can any gay marriage act or pact legally stand in a situation where homosexuality is illegal? The answer is no. So why do our Senators think we need an anti gay marriage legislation at this time?. Today as we all know most countries are striving to make their laws compatible and not in conflict with human rights. They are either reviewing, amending or repealing legislations like those against homosexuality, the death penalty and blasphemy, that not in line with human rights, or introducing new laws that are in accordance with human rights.

And instead of moving forward with these countries and working towards repealing obnoxious laws, our politicians and lawmakers prefer to move backward by tightening the laws against homosexuality on the basis of religious and fanatical sentiments, and ill defined sense of African culture and tradition. Culture is not static. Culture is diverse and dynamic. There were acts, norms and habits deemed culturally unacceptable centuries ago but which are commonplace cultural practices today. Those who are saying that respecting people with homosexual orientation is unAfrican are really misrepresenting the African culture. If there is anything history tells us it that Africans have been traditionally tolerant of people with same sexual orientation prior to the introduction of criminal provisions based on the alien religions of Christianity and Islam. African politicians and lawmakers should make African traditions compatible with human rights. Unfortunately, the anti-gay marriage bill entrenches and legalizes homophobia not human rights. Not only in Nigeria but in most parts of Africa, there is a growing trend to tighten laws against homosexuality and to ban gay marriage. There is a escalation of the clampdown on those really or imagined to be homosexuals in Ghana, Cameroun, Gambia, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Senegal, Malawi, Kenya etc.

Meanwhile, there has been some vague reference to the recent threat by the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, who, at the recent meeting of the Commonwealth to cut aid to countries that do not reform legislations banning homosexuality. Some have interpreted the statement as an attempt by the UK to impose its values on the rest of the world. I don’t think this is the case. Britain is a democratic country where the people’s voices and opinions matter.

I believe that the so called threat was a reflection of the voices and wishes of the British people. Britain has decriminalized homosexuality and has made significant progress in the protection of the rights of gay people. The British government is simply saying that they cannot be protecting the rights of homosexual persons and also be providing aid or financial assistance to countries where the same people, who are protected under British law, are persecuted or treated as criminals. No country even Nigeria would agree to provide aid or assistance to countries where black people are treated as criminals or thrown into jail because of the colour of their skin. How then do we expect Britain to extend aid to countries that persecute and legislate against individuals based on their sexual orientation? But this is the simple logic which the homophobia of many African politicians and lawmakers cannot understand or appreciate.