When you are going to attempt to smear a politician, it tends to be a pretty good idea to check your facts and their background first.
It actually astounds me that anyone could make such a daft claim. It is well known that Scottish National Party MP John Nicolson is openly and proudly gay.
Edward Heath
Unsubstantiated claims could harm many
Sir Edward Heath was Conservative Prime Minister from 1970 to 1974. Seen by many as a progressive “one nation Tory”, he was fiercely in favour of Britain’s membership of what was then the European Economic Community (EEC) and the man who dismissed Enoch Powell MP from the Conservative Party for his notorious “rivers of blood” speech about immigrants. He finally fell when he tried to take on the National Union of Mineworkers in a strike over pay.
Heath was also a bachelor, and one of the few British Ministers never to have married. He was also seldom seen in female company, and this, coupled with unsubstantiated allegations about male friends, led to a great deal of speculation, even voiced in the media that he was gay. Whether this is true or not, Edward Heath took to the grave with him in 2005.
With investigations continuing into sexual abuse of children by politicians and other high-profile people in the 1970s, allegations have now been levelled against Edward Heath, serious enough that there are now three investigations about his activities.
The first involves brothel madame Myra Forde, whom it has been claimed that, as one of her clients, she knew that Heath had a penchant for little boys and used this to blackmail him into getting a court case against her dropped in 1992.
The second is that Edward Heath was involved in a VIP paedophile ring operating in Westminster in the 1960s, with at least one person alleging he was a “core member”.
The third involves allegations that Heath used his yacht, Morning Cloud, to visit Jersey, a British dependency in the Channel Islands, to visit a home where it is now known children suffered systematic sexual and physical abuse. It is further alleged that he took children aboard Morning Cloud to abuse them.
These are of course serious allegations, and given that it is now known there was indeed a VIP paedophile ring involving politicians in the 1970s, they deserve to be taken seriously. The abuse of children in the 1970s was never taken seriously, which resulted in high-profile people such as Liberal MP Cyril Smith and DJ and celebrity Jimmy Saville getting away with molesting children with impunity. Saville, once knighted for his charity work for children’s hospitals and at one time held up as a national treasure, is now thought to have been one of the most prolific active paedophiles in history, with over 300 cases reported – and people still coming forward. Things are very different today, and however flimsy the claim, the police take these matters extremely seriously and one wishes them every success in their investigations.
So, as a survivor of sexual abuse and as one who despises Tories, why should this worry me? Because of the connotations the abuse claims are already kicking up; that because Edward Heath may have been gay, and now child sexual abuse claims are being levelled towards him, people are already putting two and two together and coming up with five.
The internet is now awash with blogs and commentators on them by people stating that Heath’s dubious sexuality means he must have been a paedophile. Therein lies the danger. Unsubstantiated claims levelled, while there is an enquiry into VIP paedophile rings, people want to believe that Heath was guilty, and as he never married, and was alleged to be gay, he has already been tried and convicted by many.
Time to get things into perspective.
Firstly, and I cannot reiterate this often enough, the overwhelming vast majority of paedophiles are heterosexual men, many married with families of them own. A child is – statistically at least – much safer in the hands of a gay man or a lesbian woman than they are in the hands of a heterosexual male.
Some of the investigations are spurious to say the least, with at least one accuser known to be a fantasist, and others based on hearsay. The investigations apart, one of the more loony accusations that have been levelled against Heath is that he was blackmailed into the UK joining the EEC by people who had proof of him abusing kids. These claims are made by right-wing Eurosceptics who cannot accept the fact that any Tory PM was pro-European.
There’s no proof that Edward Heath ever sailed to or set foot on Jersey, let alone visited the Haut de la Garenne Children’s Home. Nonetheless, there is now one woman alleging that she saw 11 boys boarding Morning Cloud, and counted only 10 returning; the inference being that Heath murdered one of the boys – and of course not one of the other 10 ever saw anything and have never spoken about it.
Former Madame Myra Forde has denied any of the allegations. Through her former solicitor, she has stated “For the avoidance of any doubt, Myra Forde wishes me to make it clear that she had no involvement with Ted Heath of any kind and has no knowledge of any misconduct on his part.” and of the court case dropped, continued that the prosecution “took what, at the time, seemed a sensible decision that they could not prove their case and offered no evidence”. Consider also that for the case to be dropped would need Edward Heath to lean upon the Crown prosecutors, when he was not in office, and really had no power.
Finally, and this must be sacrosanct to any allegations, as much as some of us may hate Tories with a vengeance, the rule of law is that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Edward Heath can no longer speak for himself, but like any accused his innocence must be presumed until proven otherwise.
I had no love for Edward Heath, as I have no love for any Tories, and I am not for one moment suggesting that he is innocent of the allegations laid against him. Investigations are already proving that at the least it is strongly likely that he knew of a paedophile ring among MPs, and did nothing to stop that. But then, he was not alone in that, with Harold Wilson, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, and perhaps even Nick Clegg and David Cameron sharing that particular shame.
But to accuse a man who may – or may not – have been gay, and then automatically colour him as a paedophile, on the flimsiest of evidence, is to go down a very dangerous road indeed. And a road that could lead to members of the LGBTQI community and single cishet men targeted by lynch mobs as potential paedophiles. It happened once before in the UK in the 1990s, when red top newspapers whipped up public hysteria about paedophiles, and it could all to easily happen again.
Edward Heath was certainly a slimy bastard. I recall him as Prime Minister, with the nightly power cuts and the oil crisis of 1973, with motorists lining up and even fighting for petrol rations. He was a hapless Prime Minister and life was dismal under him. He could have been a child abuser, and he may not have been – that is for the police to investigate and any enquiry, made congnisant with the full facts, to decide; not the public and certainly not conspiracy theorists and keyboard warriors, who however well-meaning, could end up hurting innocent people in the process.
Paola Binetti – praying away the gay?
Make the strange lady go away Mummy, she’s scaring me!
Paola Binetti, Italian “Union of the Centre” Party member and member of the Italian parliament’s Chamber of Deputies, thinks she has come up with the answer concerning equal marriage in Italy – gays should just change gender.
“Why do we need to pass a law on civil unions for homosexual couples, and to engage in a lengthy semantic debate around what ‘marriage’ means today?’” Binetti asked in an interview with Huffington Post Italy, “Why must we embark on a bitter parliamentary battle on the value of the family, to decide whether certain reforms will strengthen it or weaken it further? It would be a complete waste of time: all debate has now been rendered void by the recent verdict of the Supreme Court in the case of the individual who has demanded the right to change sex without surgical intervention.”
Yes dears, you did read that correctly – she did suggest that gay people need only undergo gender reassignment to get married. Hang on for a bumpy ride, this is a woman with degrees in surgery and psychiatry.
“Sexual difference appears completely irrelevant. It is enough for an individual to claim not that they are a certain way or they look a certain way but merely they desire to be a certain way,” Binetti continued, “Just present your documents, declare how you feel and how you want to be considered and the die is cast.”
To steal a line from the BBC comedy series Blackadder Goes Forth, “I do believe the phrase rhymes with ‘clucking bell’.”
When I first came across this story, which appeared in The New Civil Rights Movement, I thought it had to be satire or a spoof. Surely no politician could be that stupid? So I went searching the internet. Sad to say that it is 100% genuine.
Some people really don’t get it, do they dears? Hello Paola, gay men like men, lesbians like women – they are not interested in the opposite sex, and have absolutely no desire to change gender. If any of my gay friends saw some muscled Adonis, say in a kilt, I could be wearing my sexiest outfit – and they would trample over me to get to him.
Oh well, I suppose no-one can every accuse her of transphobia.
Her comments follow the European Court of Human Rights condemning Italy for denying same-sex couples their human rights by not offering them marriages or civil unions.
72-year-old Binetti is a devout Roman Catholic and a Numery member of the ultra-conservative and controversial Roman Catholic organisation Opus Dei (Work of God), which Dan Brown mistakenly called a “secret sect” in his novel and subsequent movie The Da Vinci Code. As a member, Binetti has voluntarily asserted that she does indeed wear a cilice; a toothed metal belt worn around one of her thighs, to constantly remind her of the suffering of Christ (let me see; crown of thorns, scourged, crucified, spear in the side – nope, nothing there about wearing a toothed belt – they didn’t even break his legs because he was already dead).
This is not the first time Paolo Binetti has made homophobic statements. In 2007 she stated on Italian TV channel La7 that gays and lesbians needed medical care, maintaining that homosexuality is a disease.
As well as holding a senior position in the Italian government, since 1991 Paolo Binetti has been overseeing the work of the medical facility of the Biomedical Campus of Rome.
Be afraid, dears – be very afraid.
UKIP leader Nigel Farage
Hidden “conscience clause” would protect religious bigots while stripping LGBTQI people of human rights
In a document not released to the media, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) have suggested that they would introduce a “conscience clause” which would create legal protection for Christians who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds.
The document, Valuing our Christian Heritage, states that the party, while not rescinding England’s Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013, that the party opposed same-sex marriage and would amend the English law to allow “reasonable accommodation” to those opposing equal marriage on religious grounds.
The document states;
“UKIP opposed same-sex marriage legislation because it impinged upon the beliefs of millions of people of faith. Rushed through Parliament without proper public debate, the legislation is significantly flawed. It should have been subject to a review of the state’s role in marriage. We will not repeal the legislation, as it would be grossly unfair and unethical to ‘un-marry’ loving couples or restrict further marriages, but we will not require churches to marry same-sex couples. We will also extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue.”
In his introduction to the document, UKIP leader Nigel Farage gives his own views on the subject;
“Sadly, I think UKIP is the only major political party left in Britain that still cherishes our Judaeo-Christian heritage. I believe other parties have deliberately marginalised our nation’s faith, whereas we take Christian values and traditions into consideration when making policy. Take the family, for instance. Traditional Christian views of marriage and family life have come under attack of late, whereas we have no problem in supporting and even promoting conventional marriage as a firm foundation for a secure and happy family.”
The document, the contents of which are not mentioned in the UKIP 2015 manifesto, was not released to the media. It was however distributed to some churches and the strongly anti-gay group Christian concern.
Any such clause would give legal protection to any business which openly refused business to same-sex couples on grounds of their sexuality. Moreover, the wording “We will also extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue.” could effectively be used by employers to refuse employment to, or even fire, LGBTQI employees on the grounds of their sexuality. And given that two key UKIP policies are the repeal of the UK Human Rights Act, and pulling the UK out of the European Union – where we currently enjoy the protection of the European Convention on Human Rights – that would effectively give those discriminated against with no means of appeal in law.
UKIP claims not to be a bigoted party, and often point to members and politicians they have from various sections of societies, including the LGBTQI community. Sadly, even those have been known to voice bigoted views. Scotland’s only UKIP politician, David Coburn MEP (Member of the European Parlament), who is openly gay and is in a long-standing relationship, has always taken a strong stance against same-sex marriage. In an interview with Huffington Post (30 October 2014), Coburn attacked the subject, expressing his views in deeply offensive terms, stating, “It’s just for some queen who wants to dress up in a bridal frock and in a big moustache and dance up the aisle to the Village People, quite frankly if that’s the cost of upsetting a hell of a lot of people, then I don’t think it’s a price worth paying.”
NIgel Farage claims that UKIP is an all-inclusive and open party, whose manifesto is the best going. When any party hides a ‘manifesto within a manifesto’, particularly one which seeks to strip rights from the LGBTQI community (or anyone for that matter), while attempting to hide those policies from the media and the public in general, then that belies the true nature of that party. Likewise his unequvical opposition to equal marriage and his strong support for “traditional” marriage, coupled with his failure to either reprimand or dismiss David Coburn from the party speaks volumes about Nigel Farage personally and UKIP as a whole.
Some of us believe in democracy, where politicians are open towards and respect the rights of all sections of society. But then, some of use believe that all people should have equal rights – even queens dressed in frocks, with big moustaches, and dancing to the Village People.
PDF of the document can be found here:
But she’s apparently kind to animals…
I was going to do a full blog challenging every one of these points, Loves, but there’s simply too much to address. So instead, I’ll leave this here to judge for yourselves. I will however make a few observations upon it.
Every election throws up candidates who are controversial, eccentric, offensive, and downright barmy, and the UK General Election, which takes place on 7 May 2015 is no exception. Susan-Anne White could fit all the above categories and is standing on the above ticket, which even puts UKIP in the shade for bigotry, ignorance, and frankly daft ideas.
Claiming to be “Biblically correct NOT politically correct”, Ms White’s agenda is anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-adultery, and pro-child discipline. Her agenda also includes other measures such as the UK pulling out of the EU, banning the legalisation of dangerous drugs, opposing global warming science (which she claims is pseudoscience), CCTV in all abattoirs and banning Halal slaughter, which of course are clearly Biblical because… …ah… …ermm… …perhaps Ms White would like to explain those ones herself?
Interesting to note that Ms White wants to “recriminalise” homosexuality. She would have a hard job, as homosexuality was never actually criminalised. Buggery, Sodomy and Gross Indecency (under the Labouchere Amendment of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885) were the offences under which gay men were prosecuted, but being homosexual in itself was never a criminal offence. It’s equally interesting to note however that she claims that after stating “Oppose the LGBT agenda while showing compassion to those who struggle with gender confusion.” Yes, the LGBTQI community have encountered that particular brand of “compassion” many times before.
Please note I am using Ms White’s terminology here, as I have no doubt she thinks gay men and lesbian women “struggle with gender confusion” and is unaware that gender and sexuality are two different things.
No doubt I am the very sort of person who would make Ms White want to heave. I like dressing in pretty, feminine clothes, right down to frilly panties and I’ll happily shag anything I fancy, male or female, which moves – and a few things that don’t. To steal a line from one of my favourite movies, Chopper Chicks in Zombietown, “my tongue has been places you don’t even know you’ve got and it’s great.” And being a pansexual genderqueer crossdresser, I’m not struggling with gender confusion at all. I fully embrace it, I love it, and far from feeling any shame, I’m proud of it. One can only wonder just how much “compassion” Ms White would afford the likes of me?
Another bizarre stance is to raise the age of consent to 18 and enforce the law. I don’t know how Ms White imagines teenagers with raging hormones are going to obey that law, how she intends to enforce it, or what point needlessly making criminals of young people and wasting police time would achieve exactly.
I would also question her claim that she is being “Biblically correct” on this one. This is what the Bible has to say on Mary’s conception of Jesus; “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.“ (Matthew 1:18, KJV). Now, at that time Jewish girls were betrothed in arranged marriages at age 12. So if Joseph had not “known” Mary before she conceived, then that could mean she was as young as 12 years old when she conceived Jesus.
That’s before we even get onto the story of Rebekah, whom even rabbinical and Biblical scholars agree may have been as young as three years old, that’s right dears – 3, when she was betrothed to Issac.
What was that about being “Biblically correct”, Ms White?
But then, for a woman, we see that Ms White’s manifesto is particularly misogynistic. when we consider that she wants to “Oppose feminism and restore dignity to the stay-at-home mother” (which no serious person has ever seriously questioned the dignity of women who choose that noble role), and “Restore the concept of the family wage with the father as the bread-winner”.
Which only leads me to wonder just why she, as a woman, does not choose to “stay-at-home”? Particularly when being so “Biblically correct”, she should be staying at home and not be seeking political office at all;
“The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” (Titus 2:3-5, KJV)
“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.” (1 Timothy 2:11-13, KJV)
Them’s the words of the Bible, which you claim to be the unerring word of God, Ms White dear, not mine.
UPDATE: Susan-Anne White came last in the constituency of West Tyrone, polling a mere 166 votes and thereby losing her deposit. So far no reaction has been posted in her blog.
Francis seemingly not so progressive as he seems
Were the Roman Catholic Church, not despicable enough in their bigotry, on Tuesday 7 March 2015 the New Civil Rights Movement reported that their prejudice had hit a new low, in reporting that the Vatican has yet to officially recognise the new French Ambassador, Laurent Stefanini (pictured), supposedly because he is openly gay.
“Last January, the Council of Ministers appointed Stefanini France’s Ambassador to the Vatican.” reported the New Civil Rights Movement, “That post, to the historic Villa Bonaparte Embassy in Rome, is considered a plum assignment, often given as a reward for years of service by members of France’s diplomatic corps. That ambassadorship has been vacant for more than a month now, but Stefanini has yet to be credentialed by the Vatican, and the rumors are growing that it is because Stefanini is gay.”
Now French weekly journal, Le Journal du Dimanche, has stepped into the fray, reporting that not only has Ambassador Stefanini been formally rejected by the Vatican, but far from officious and bigoted curia officiating the decision, his rejection goes right to the top, the order allegedly coming from Pope Francis himself.
Le Journal du Dimanche reported;
“France has just discovered the hard way that softening has its limits. It was “a decision by the pope himself,” a source inside the Vatican told Le Journal du Dimanche. The letter from the Archbishop of Paris, Cardinal André Vingt-Trois, which was presented to the Pope on February 11, which brought together Cardinals asking him to accept the French ambassador has not changed his decision. Jean-Louis Tauran, the Camerlengo of the Holy Church, also interceded on behalf of Stefanini. In vain. The pope told several cardinals he would not yield.”
The journal continues that the rejection “has poisoned relations between Paris and the Vatican.” If true, then I would say that is the understatement of the year. Given the Vatican City State is officially a country, then this is no less than an international incident.
Do excuse me if I voice my true feelings about the Church of Rome. Totally perverse, this ultra-conservative political organisation for whom matters spiritual often take a back seat, who make up scripture as they go along (rarely adhering to the Bible), and which creates much more suffering in the world than it relieves, has the audacity to still condemn the LGBTQI community for perfectly natural sexuality as an “abomination” and stand firmly against equal marriage, yet they are still complicit in protecting paedophile and sadistic clergy who commit wholly unnatural acts upon children.
Seems someone needs to remove the beam from their own eye before they attempt to remove the mote from a brother’s.
Two thousand years after an innocent man was (allegedly) nailed to a cross, and five hundred years after a decent and honest priest, seeing how rotten they were, nailed a proclamation to his church door, the Vatican still wields way too much power in the world. There was a time when the Pope was top boss of all the countries in Christendom. Kings could rarely make a move or almost even fart without asking the Pope’s permission first, Bishops were the real power behind the throne, and the consequences for disobedience could be severe. The map of Europe changed several times in history due to decisions taken in Rome.
It is time Pope Francis realised these days are far gone, and bloody good job too. Today civilised nations make their own destiny and answer to none but themselves. France is a secular republic which owes the Papacy no favours. If they choose a gay man to be ambassador to the Vatican, then the diplomatic and proper thing to do is accept that ambassador with good grace. Yes, grace, Rome. I’m sure you are not unfamiliar with the word or concept,
If these allegations are true, and I see no reason to doubt either the New Civil Rights Movement or Le Journal du Dimanche – the Vatican’s continued silence tells its own story, then not only has the Pontiff shown himself to be openly homophobic, but a hypocrite to boot. I will remind him of his own words on 29 July 2013;
“If a person is gay, and sought the Lord with good will, who am I to judge?”
Who indeed, Frankie Baby? I am only sorry there is no higher authority for you to answer to. But as there is not, then I will reserve my right to judge you and your political organisation masquerading as a church down here.
Majority of Scots LGBT community back independence
Hello dears, as I write this, there is only one day to go until the Referendum on Scottish Independence on 18 September 2014. And it pleases me greatly that Pink News held a poll in which 54% of the Scots LGBT community stated they would be voting Yes.
2163 Scottish readers of Pink News took part in the poll, in which 54% said they would vote Yes, 44% said they would vote No, and 2% were undecided. When asked which party they would vote for in a Scottish election, 35% said Scottish National Party (SNP), 26% Labour, 10% Green, 9% Liberal Democrats, 7% Conservative, 5% Scottish Socialist Party, and 8% unsure.
The First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament), stated “I am delighted this PinkNews poll has produced a majority for the Yes campaign, as well as the opportunity to build a fairer country that comes with it. It is a fantastic response from Scotland’s LGBT community and is a further demonstration of the rise in support for a Yes vote we have seen across Scotland. An independent Scotland will herald a new era for equalities, enshrining rights and protections in a written constitution.”
Now, I have met Alex Salmond and he is a lovely man who can completely disarm people with his warm smile, and who could charm the birds out of the trees. However, whilst it is all very well and good to speak of building a fairer country and enshrining rights in a new constitution, he may well want to end the funding of his party by the Stagecoach bus company boss, Brian Souter, a known homophobe who once launched a campaign to retain the notorious anti-gay Section 28. He may also want to offload the many Holy Willies in his party who are equally homophobic and who would seek to push their own faith in an independent Scotland – that is NOT happening. Those are just two reasons I am not and cannot be a member of your party, Alex Sweetie.
So, given the above, just how did we reach a situation where a poll shows that the majority would back independence and would vote SNP? Well, I reckon LGBT people are pretty well switched on and tend to be very intelligent. A great many will not have fallen for the rhetoric of the media who have continually tried to claim that the referendum is purely an SNP matter, when that is simply not the case. The official campaign for Scottish independence is Yes Scotland, a non-partisan, grass roots organisation, of which the SNP are but one of many parties and individuals who support it. Certainly, the SNP are the most vocal proponents of the independence campaign, but given they are the government in power in the Scottish Parliament and their raison d’etre is independence, it would be surprising if they were not. But to even suggest that the SNP are the ones driving Yes is as untrue as to suggest that the Conservative Party are the driving force behind the official campaign against independence, Better Together.
I would therefore suggest that the LGBT community are well aware of this (probably more so than the cisgender, heterosexual majority) and that is why they don’t believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Then there is the House of Lords question. I happen to know for a fact that there are a number of LGBT people on both sides of the border who dislike the fact that there are 26 unelected Church of England bishops, the Lords Spiritual, many of whom are homophobic, who have the ability to vote and influence government legislation upon them. We dislike it even more in Scotland, given that the Church of England is the English established church, and a minority faith in Scotland. Little wonder then that Scots LGBT people should wish to remove themselves from that poisonous influence.
LGBT support for the SNP is little harder to explain. The fact that England may have well have got same-sex marriage before Scotland, yet the Scottish government tabled their Bill first, may go some way towards doing so. Besides which, the English Same Sex Marriage Act was booted through Westminster with indecent haste, with the result of all knee-jerk legislation, it is deeply flawed. The Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Act, however, although it took much longer, is much more comprehensive and embracing of many more people. The Scottish Government working hand-in-hand with the Equality Network to make it so may very well have wooed a number of LGBT supporters.
And despite their funding from Souter and anti-gay religionists, the SNP government’s support for the LGBT community during the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow may have won a good deal of support as well. In Glasgow an LGBT rainbow flag flew over the city – after Green Party and SNP Glasgow Councillors forced the ruling Labour administration, who had downright refused to fly the flag, into a u-turn. The Scottish Government echoed this by flying a rainbow flag over the Scottish Parliament building in Holyrood, Edinburgh. Then came the First Minister’s speech at the opening of the games, in which he openly condemned the persecution of LGBT people in many Commonwealth countries; a speech for which he was congratulated by none other than LGBT rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.
All in all, it seems that the 54% are correct in their thinking, that only an independent Scotland can safeguard and further their rights.
And should Better Together shoulder any of the blame for their failure in this poll? As much as I disagree with them, I would never suggest that Better Together as an organisation is homophobic. As the old adage goes, however, politics makes strange bedfellows, and some of Better Together’s are not so much strange as odious.
At one point Better Together put a rainbow logo up on their Facebook page. It had to be taken down less than 24 hours later, due to a barrage of homophobic abuse from their own members and supporters. This does not in the least surprise me. Better Together has attracted quite a number of followers from the extreme right. It is to their credit that they refused the Orange Order membership and refused to have anything to do with the Orange march through Edinburgh opposing independence. They have not however distanced themselves from some other far-right organisations, such as the Britannica Party. And if Better Together wish to dispute that, perhaps they could explain why Britannica Party Treasurer Max Dunbar, along with his BP cohorts, was canvassing on a street in Glasgow City Centre on 31 August 2014, with official Better Together banners and handing out Better Together literature. That of course was the day he kicked a pregnant homeless woman in the stomach, before calling her an alcoholic or a drug addict – he has since been arrested for the assualt. Yes, you never read about that one in the tabloids, did you dears.
As long as Better Together associate themselves with extreme right, often violent, and certainly homophobic individuals and organisations, is there any surprise then that the LGBT community will continue to be repelled by them?
Better Togther have also ran an extremely negative campaign, in which they have been caught out in many lies, used scaremongering, and their supporters tend to be argumentative, unhappy and often aggressive – as a Yes campaigner, I can confirm this, as I’ve been on the receiving end of it many times. Compare that to the cheerfulness and often party atmosphere of Yes campaigns. One in Glasgow on Saturday, 13 September, was almost carnival-like. But again, you won’t read that in the tabloids. It is little wonder then that Yes attracts people with our positive message, while Better Together’s negativity turns people off, whatever their sexuality and/or gender.
Whatever the rights and wrongs however, with really is just hours to go now, it seems that the LGBT Yes vote is in the bag, and I for one could only be happier if it were a sassy pink Prada bag, full of rainbow sequins.
Xandra 
You must be logged in to post a comment.