Birmingham Protestors ~ Your Children ARE Old Enough

Not at all homophobic…

LGBTI-Inclusive Education, Birmingham, and Bigotry.

There are growing protests against LGBTI-inclusive education at a primary school in Birmingham, England, and they are taking an ugly turn, fed by disinformation, lies, and accusations of ‘Islamophobia’. The protests have become so disturbing that the local authority has won an injunction to place an exclusion zone around the school gates, which comes into force as from Monday, 3 June 2019.

Pupils at Anderton Park Primary School are 80% Muslim, and many parents have objected to the teaching of an award-winning LGBTI-inclusive programme, No Outsiders, which has twice been approved by the schools ombudsman, Ofsted. Parents are objecting to this programme, on the grounds that it is ‘sexualising’ children, and claiming that children of 4-5 years of age are “too young” to be learning about relationships. There have also been some protestors, who do not even have children at the school, spreading propaganda, including showing fake pages which they claim comes from No Outsiders literature, showing scantily-clad figures in same-sex sexual encounters. One Islamic preacher, from Batley, Yorkshire, over 100 miles from the school, spreading these pages accused the teachers of being paedophiles.

The self-appointed leader of the protest, who has no children of his own at the school, but is uncle to two pupils, has been giving speeches daily, some of which have gone off at a tangent, talking of “bombs falling down on the heads of Muslims” around the world. There have been reports of hardliners insisting on taking part in talks between teachers and parents, only to shout the teachers down and stop them from talking.   Teachers have been harassed and threatened, and the head teacher, whom protestors want to resign, has even received death threats. Other parents who have no problem with No Outsiders and who want their children to attend the school have been accosted by protestors outside the school gates and shouted at, right in front of little children.   Some parents have said this is taking part even streets away, and one Muslim mother stated that she was confronted by a man who shouted at her that if she took her child to the school, “You are not a true Muslim and you will burn in Hell.” Some of the protestors took their children out of the school.   Some other parents are now too frightened to take their children to school. A group of women who gained permission from the school to hang rainbow flags and messages of support were suddenly confronted by a group of men, were pelted with eggs, and told “Get out of our community.”

The protests are attracting people from well outside the area, including not only Muslims but also anti-LGBT Christians. One such preacher who comes from Bournemouth, again over 100 miles distant from the school, claimed that teaching “gay equality” was confusing children, then related a claim about a little girl who would not help a friend who had fallen down, “in case I get called a lesbian”. This story almost certainly never happened – strange how many ‘Christians’ think it is okay to tell lies, if they think the ends justify the means. He then went on to rattle off dubious statistics about gay people and sexually transmitted diseases. The protests are reported to be spreading to other schools, and even more bizarrely, there are reports of extreme right-wingers, who are usually the first to be against Muslims, joining in.

So just what is LGBTI-inclusive education? Well for a start it does not teach anything to do with sexual relationships. If little ones as young as four were being any kind of explicit sex education, I would be the first to complain. But the simple fact is that it does not.

LGBTI-inclusive education merely teaches that LGBTI people exist, and that as such they should be receive exactly the same amount of common dignity and respect which cisgender, heterosexual people are not only accorded but take for granted. It is about teaching tolerance, and that is hugely important.

One mother protesting asked, “Do you know how hard it is to explain to a four year old why someone has two mummies?” I have no doubt it is, dear.   But then, given that she and other parents are so unwilling to give a child an answer to such questions, it must fall to the schools to give that child the answer they deserve in an honest, tactful, and age-appropriate manner. To teach them that some people are attracted to and love people of the same gender, that that is quite natural, and perfectly okay. Just as natural and normal as anyone being attracted to and falling in love with someone of the opposite gender.

Some parents completely object to this, claiming that little children are too young and are not interested in any form of relationships at all. Are they really? Well, I do hope that those parents who claim such do not tell their little ones fairy stories about beautiful princesses and handsome princesses, etc, given that their children are obviously too young to hear about and not interested in relationships at all. Indeed, one Christian caller to a radio show spouted this nonsense about not teaching small children about relationships. My immediate thoughts were to wonder if he has never once told his children (and sadly, yes, he does have children) about Adam and Eve, Mary, Joseph, and the ‘Baby Jesus’, or many other couples in the Bible for that matter.   I think we all know the answer to that.   Too young to hear about relationships is rubbish. Not only are children definitely interested, society openly encourages it, and teaches about relationships from the cradle upwards. If anyone has a problem with this, please be my guest to dump all your fairy tale books, your Disney DVDs, and your Bibles and Qur’ans.

Some claim their children are too young for relationships, and they are being sexualised. Because of course, no child as young as 4 has never had a little girlfriend or boyfriend, or has never had a crush, have they? Newsflash, when I was 5 I was besotted with the little girl along the road from me – and the little boy across the road from me. If one were actually to do a poll of people, they would find that the vast majority of us had ‘special’ friends we ‘loved’, even from an early age.

And this should come as no surprise. Far from thinking that children are not sexual beings, yes, they are. Now I know that’s going to horrify quite a few people, but the fact is that we are all, each and every one of us, born ‘sexual beings’. However, I am by no means punting paedophilia here. Indeed, actual sexual longings do not start to kick in until adolescence. But nonetheless, children are attracted to each other from an early age, and while the feelings may not be sexual, there is an enormous deal of affection involved, and little hearts can be broken ~ much worse than adult ones.

And of course, the protestors also claim that teaching about other genders is not age-appropriate.   Really? Except that science has observed that children as young as 3 are quite capable of expressing gender, and that pertains to cisgender children every bit as much as any other gender. And again, society actually actively encourages this from the cradle upwards.   Parents still dress little boys in blue, and little girls in pink. They will paint their nurseries in such colours, and decorate them with things they think are appropriate to the child’s assigned gender. There may be fairies and unicorns for a girl, or cars and rockets for boys. But of course, the moment a child is adamant that they are another gender, it becomes a different matter. “You’re too young to know.” says no one, ever, to the cisgender child. That’s exactly what one mother continually told her child ~ until the day she found her 5-year-old with a pair of scissors, sobbing their heart out, and trying to cut their penis off. That mother had a stark lesson in gender dysphoria, and her child today is a beautiful and confident little girl.

Sexual and gender identity in children is therefore also important to LGBTI-inclusive education.   For far from confusing children, if they do find themselves attracted to a child of the same gender, or if they feel they do not identify as the gender they were assigned, it teaches them that such feelings are perfectly normal, and that if they have such feelings, they can approach their teacher to talk about it. But it also teaches cishet children that such things are perfectly normal, and that aspect of LGBTI-inclusive education helps to reduce harassment, ostracisastion, and bullying of LGBTI children.

The protestors in Birmingham are claiming they are not homophobes and transphobes. Of course you’re not dears ~ in exactly the same way the racist starts a sentence “I’m not a racist, but…” They are homophobes and transphobes, and they are the ones confused, and trying to impose their dark ages religious hate ~ both Muslims and Christians ~ upon children, who more than likely would be the very ones to be accepting and tolerant of all.

No one is born a bigot; it is learned primarily in the home, and is spread by other adults and peers.   Those parents in Birmingham protesting were brought up in bigotry, and they are now attempting to instil that not only in their own children, but by seeking an end to the No Outsiders programme, and seeking the resignation of the head teacher, to indoctrinate all children at the school with the same. That must never happen, and contrary to what some protestors are stating, that’s not ‘Islamophobia’ (I hate that stupid word, dears), it is merely that a civilised society cannot and will not ever tolerate the intolerance of others, no matter where it comes from. If anything, to claim that LGBTI-inclusive education is anti-Muslim is dangerous.  Not only are those claiming such trying to push one extremist interpretation of Islam, then trying to play the victim, but it also has the potential to make less people believe genuine case of anti-Islamic bigotry when it does occur.

Many Muslims ~ and Christians ~ have absolutely no problem with LGBTI people. It is time for the protestors in Birmingham to get on board with that, and time to let the educators get on with teaching tolerance, respect, and dignity for all.

A final word for the protestors, should any be reading.  By sheer weight of numbers, some of your children will almost certainly turn out to be gay, lesbian, transgender, or some other part of the LGBTI spectrum.  Just what are you going to say when they come out?  Are you going to love them any less?

Scottish Labour Thinks Cishet Animals Are More Equal than Others

Elaine Smith MSP

Whilst bigotry exists in every country, Scotland in recent years, while by no means immune from hate, has been a shining example of LGBTQ tolerance and acceptance.

The Scottish National Party (SNP) administration in the devolved Scottish Parliament introduced the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act in 2014, the most comprehensive overhaul ever of marriage legislation in Scotland, which ensured equal marriage for people of all sexual orientations and genders.   When the Bill was going through parliament, it had cross-party support, and when it went to the public consultation period (mandatory as the people are sovereign in Scotland), the response from the Scottish people was overwhelmingly in favour.

Likewise, the SNP administration is currently pressing ahead with transgender legislation reform to bring it into line with international best practice.

The leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson, is openly lesbian. The co-convenor of the Scottish Green Party, Patrick Harvie, is openly gay. Scottish Labour’s former leader, Kezia Dugdale, is openly gay.   SNP leader and First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, although cishet herself, won Politician of the Year in the 2016 Scottish LGBTI Awards.

So, amidst all of this pride Scotland can rightfully take in LGBTQ issues, who did new Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard appoint as his Spokeswoman for the Eradication of Poverty and Inequality?   Someone who takes a firm stance against LGBTQ equality, while putting her god and religious faith above the sovereign wishes of the Scottish people, that’s who.

Enter Elaine Smith, list Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) for Central Scotland, who was one of the most vocal opponents to equal marriage in the Scottish Parliament, likening it to polygamy and claiming it would lead to unforeseen circumstances.

Speaking in 2013, Ms Smith stated “Whilst the government has said that it has no intention of allowing polygamous marriages as part of this legislation which changes the essential nature of marriage, it has not explained in any detail and with research analysis its reasons for taking that position.   Further, if the government is sincere about its support for ‘equal love’ then it appears to have a contradiction on its hands.”

In her opposition to the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill, Ms Smith also wrote “It is not, in my view, the Government’s job to interfere in the operation of churches, which is what this proposal seems to do.

“The potential consequences, of course, would not stop with the ceremony.

“The consequences of the legislation will be far reaching and would not just affect religious celebrants but could impact on people right across the country, particularly those with personal religious views. Teachers, local council workers and parents could all fall into categories potentially affected.”

Read that again carefully, dears; “It is not, in my view, the Government’s job to interfere in the operation of churches, which is what this proposal seems to do.”

And…

“The consequences of the legislation will be far reaching and would not just affect religious celebrants”

Ms Smith, who also wrote, “if Christianity is no longer the framework for society consideration must then be given to what is replacing it”, seems to think that the Christian faith somehow has the monopoly on marriage.   If that is the case, will she be the first to tell those in Scotland married under other faiths, and those atheists married under no religious faith, that they are not married in her eyes, or those of her faith?  Perhaps Ms Smith would do well to reflect that in the Bible there is no definition of marriage as one man / one woman (there is in fact no definition of marriage in the Bible), and that the most common form of marriage found in the Bible is, ermm, polygamy.

And the part on celebrants is not lost on me either. The Marriage and Civil Partnership Act made provisions for the first time for non-religious celebrants being able to carry out marriages, without first seeking permission to do so.

This is a woman fit to speak on equality? Who looks to her religious faith first, and says “My bat, my ball”? I don’t think so somehow.

When confronted with Ms Smith’s past record, new Scottish Labour leader appeared to have been caught off-guard and waffled his way through an interview on BBC Good Morning Scotland (aired 9 January 2018). Leonard responded, “Well, Elaine’s position on that (equal marriage) is not one I support.” Pressed on the matter, the Scottish Labour leader responded, “it’s not in keeping… well… look, we’ve got a rising level of child poverty in this country, more people in work are living in poverty. We’ve got a huge rise in inequality, the top 1% richest people in Scotland earn more than the bottom 50% put together.”

Asked again on Elaine Smith’s stance on equal marriage, Mr Leonard waffled on, “There are huge challenges that we face, and I think Elaine Smith is well equipped to lead the Labour Party’s campaigns against that growing inequality and against that rise in poverty. That’s why I appointed her to that position.”

Utterly pathetic, and a clear indication that the leader of the Labour Party (North British Branch) should have done some serious homework before making the most unsuitable appointment possible.

But it does not stop there. Ms Smith is also opposed to LGBT-inclusive sex education in Scotland’s schools, and thinks that teachers should have the right to opt out of teaching it.

She stated, “On the specific issue of teachers, there are particular concerns. The Government’s proposal indicates that they would not expect a local authority to take ‘immediate’ disciplinary action against a teacher who expresses concerns about the use of certain educational materials.

“There is also the issue of parents and what control they have over the information their child receives. I have already been approached by parents with children at nondenominational schools who are concerned about sex education in primary schools.

“They are aware that they can seek to withdraw their child but are concerned that in doing so their child will then suffer from bullying and be set apart from their peers.

The government has indicated that it does not consider it appropriate to say that issues relating to same sex marriage, same sex relationships and homosexuality should never be raised in primary schools and neither can parents opt their children out of such discussions.”

Well, that latter part is utter rubbish. Parents fully have the right to withdraw their children from sex education if they so wish. And where is this bullying Ms Smith speaks of? Can she give any data or figures, which back up the claim that children opted out of sex education, are bullied by their peers?

Or could it be that given the widescale acceptance and respect LGBTQ Scots appear to be enjoying, the only people who are attempting any bullying are ignorant homophobic and transphobic bigots, who attempt to hide behind their faith?   Does that sound in any way familiar, Ms Smith?

For someone who is supposedly an ‘equality’ spokesperson, Ms Smith’s commitment to equality is derisory. Here is one more snippet from her opposition to equal marriage:

“I do not regard same sex marriage as a simple matter of equality particularly as we already have civil partnerships for same sex couples. Just because something is not identical does not make it unequal.”

Different – but not unequal? Now, where have we heard that before in a supposedly ‘leftist’ context?

Where is your Pride?

CEMB at Pride in London

When you deny your own a voice, you have none.

Pride parades and marches can be wonderful events. They are a celebration of one’s sexuality and gender. They are all about LGBTQ people being loud and proud. They are also a firm statement to the cishet majority, “We’re here, we’re queer; get used to it.”

The Pride movement grew out of the Stonewall riot of 28 June 1969, when police raided the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village, New York City. The Stonewall inn was a progressive bar which was frequented by the local LGBTQ community. The riots which followed the raid led to “Stonewall” becoming a bye-word for LGBTQ direct action. A year later, on 27 June 1970 the first “Gay Liberation” march took place in Chicago, followed by Los Angeles and Philadelphia the following day. These marches were to remember Stonewall and to stand up for gay rights. It was from these that annual marches sprang up across the globe, taking the name “Pride” and coming to encompass the entire LGBTQ movement. As society moves towards a greater understanding of sexuality and gender, but with a great deal of prejudice still existing they are more important now than they have ever been.

We therefore see that Pride events are deeply steeped in political activism and taking a stance for LGBTQ rights. So you would think that they would be a legitimate time for protest, wouldn’t you? Except in the United Kingdom, you would be wrong.

On 8 July Pride in London took place, at which members of the secular group “Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain” (CEMB) took part, with some carrying placards stating “Allah is Gay”, “Fuck Islamic homophobia”, “Islamophobia is an oxymoron” and “Throw ISIS off the roof”. Enter East London Mosque, who lodged an official complaint with Pride in London, who objected to the “Islamophobia” from the CEMB.

Mosque spokesman Salman Farsi stated “We’ve raised a complaint with the co-chairs of the event that the group was inciting hatred against Muslims, and in particular [in relation] to our good name, based on absolutely groundless reasons. For us to see such a mainstream event that is supposed to celebrate tolerance and love used as a hate platform was really quite shocking. One of the signs said ‘Islamophobia is an oxymoron’. Our religion doesn’t promote hatred or homophobia. Yes, there might be theological topics dealing with homosexuality in Islam, but that’s clearly very separate from promoting hatred and homophobia,”

Except of course, you cannot separate the two. Islam, like all the Abrahamic faiths, IS a homophobic religion. And the East London Mosque is rarely out of the news, having been investigated on more than one occasion for links to Islamist hate preachers.

So, how would you have expected Pride in London to respond to this? One would have expected them to rally behind their own LGBTQ participants, wouldn’t one? Except you would be wrong. Instead Pride in London sided with the East London Mosque and condemned the CEMB.

Pride in London responded, “If anyone taking part in our parade makes someone feel ostracised, discriminated against or humiliated, then they are undermining and breaking the very principles on which we exist. Our code of conduct is very clear on this matter. All volunteers, staff and parade groups agree that Pride celebrates diversity and will not tolerate any discrimination of any kind. While our parade has always been a home to protest, which often means conflicting points of view, Pride must always be a movement of acceptance, diversity and unity. We will not tolerate Islamophobia.”

Where was the hate? Where was the alleged “Islamophobia”? It surely cannot be in saying “Allah is Gay”, as that could only be an insult if being gay was in any way derogatory. Contrary to press reports, there were no signs saying “Fuck Islam”, but rather “Fuck Islamic homophobia” – those are two different things. And sorry, but Islamophobia IS an oxymoron; a contradiction in terms which ultimately makes sense, like “military intelligence”. Islam is a hateful and hate-filled religion. That is not a statement against individual Muslims, but rather against the barbaric dark ages bastard child of Christianity. Islam is one of the biggest threats in the world today, and most of those who suffer at its hands are in fact Muslims. That’s not prejudice, it is a fact.

It appears to me that Pride in London really shot themselves in the foot over this one. So having calmed down from headdesking, I was just about over it when story No.2 broke.

Belfast Pride took place on 5 August, in the wake of the UK having a General Election and the Conservative Party only squeezing back into power after doing a deal with the biggest party in power in Northern Ireland, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP); a Christian-based party known for their extreme conservative opposition to equal marriage and other LGBTQ and human rights issues. Northern Ireland is the only part of the British Isles which still does not allow same-sex marriage, and that is a direct consequence of DUP policies.

Eleanor Evans (right) at Belfast Pride

Bisexual woman Eleanor Evans attended Belfast Pride carrying a home-made placard stating “Fuck the DUP”. She was already halfway thought the parade, having passed a number of police with not problem, when a Belfast Pride official came running towards her and shouting at her. Evans clam that the official told her “Either put the sign down or leave the parade.” before trying to rip the sign out of her hands and pushed her. Evans, an LGBTQ charity worker, who attended the event with her transgender sister, reported the incident at an information point, and was curtly told she would have to email them for official action to be taken.

Belfast Pride duly investigated that matter, have utterly denied that Eleanor Evans was pushed or assaulted, or any other wrongdoing on the part of the official concerned, and have not offered any apology. Seán Ó Néill, Chair of Belfast Pride, instead claimed that Eleanor’s sign “breached the Parades Commission’s guidelines”, which state that parade participants “refrain from using words or behaviour which could reasonably be perceived as being intentionally sectarian, provocative”. Eleanor’s sign was most certainly not sectarian – it did not single out the DUP as being Protestants – and I have personally seen much, MUCH more provocative signs at many parades. Including the extremely provocative Orange parades which are a blight upon both Northern Ireland and my own native Scotland, many of which are attended by DUP politicians and other members.

Oh, and were it not enough that Belfast Pride enforced Evans to take her sign down, a DUP politician has now reported her to the Police Service of Northern Ireland for “hate speech”. Tell me that’s not victimisation of an LGBTQ person?

So, reeling from a double whammy, I breathed a sigh of relief, and though I could not be there, I was happy for friends who were attending Glasgow Pride on 19th August, and all the happier that it would be opened by Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland.

It was in the late afternoon that people started posting of arrests at Glasgow Pride. Homophobes? Transphobes? Nope. LGBTQ people.

Arrests at Glasgow Pride

In a bloc of LGBTQ members of Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) one marcher carrying a placard declaring “These Faggots Fight Fascists” was approached by police, and he and another IWW member were arrested for “alleged breach of the peace with homophobic aggravation, police obstruction and resisting police arrest”. Except the sign was not homophobic, as the man carrying it is gay, and identifies as a ‘faggot’. Arresting a gay man for carrying a sign saying “faggot”, claiming homophobia, is akin to accusing a black person using the N word of being racist, and arresting them for hate speech. The protestor was carrying the sign to reflect recent events in the USA, where neo-Nazis descended on Charlottesville University. It was a message of solidarity to those fighting fascism across the Atlantic Ocean.

In a separate incident another man, and two women of the LGBTQ women’s drumming band Sheboom were arrested but later liberated after breaking from the parade and playing outside a Roman Catholic cathedral. Glasgow bye-laws prohibit this.

So, again you would expect Pride to stand by LGBTQ participants, and again you would be wrong. In a press statement, Pride Glasgow said;

“Pride Glasgow is extremely disappointed in the actions of a small group of people that tried to target the Pride Glasgow Parade yesterday. Whilst Pride Glasgow promotes an Equality for all agenda and free speech the actions of this group jeopardised the safety of everyone attending the parade.

The Pride Parade in Glasgow has always been a platform for protest alongside a celebration of LGBTI life and we are saddened that this shameful attempt to sabotage the parade has come from within the LGBTI community.

Pride Glasgow fully encourage the participation of uniformed services in the Parade including the Police and whilst we understand that others may have a different view on this. Actions which endanger others will not be permitted.

Pride Glasgow support the actions of Police Scotland in dealing with this group to ensure the safety of everyone on the Parade and the Festival. Pride Glasgow has worked closely with the police and relevant agencies to put appropriate measures in place to deal with incidents at all levels especially given the current threat level.

This year’s Parade was one of the biggest ever to happen in Glasgow and with over 90 floats and walking groups alongside over 6000 individuals the majority of which followed the correct guidelines set out by Glasgow City Council for Parades but we were disappointed that Sheboom a group who have taken part historically in the parade felt the need to break this by splitting the parade and continuing to play music outside the Cathedral which is a requirement from Glasgow City Council for all Parades to cease music during the passing of any place of worship.”

I would love to see just how anyone was put in danger by peaceful protestors. Yes, IWW objected to the police presence on the parade – which I do not agree with them protesting; it’s only right that we show that LGBTQ people are in ALL walks of life. But on the other hand it appears to me that the police got heavy-handed. I am actually a veteran steward of many peace marches and I would immediately like to know why police officers, supposedly taking part in the parade, took it upon themselves to approach the individual with the “These Faggots Fight Fascists”, or Sheboom, without approaching Pride Glasgow stewards or officials first. That is the usual course of action to take, and it is only when stewards will not act that police action is usually taken.

As to Sheboom, if they broke from the march and played outside a RC cathedral, they were indeed in the wrong.  However, the bye-laws concerning playing outside places of worship were instituted to prevent sectarian provocation, which too often has erupted in violence.  In the past.  To arrest peaceful members of a lesbian drumming band on the same pretext is unspeakable.

As far as I can see, no-one jeapordised the safety of anyone at Pride Glasgow. Well, certainly not until members of Police Scotland started wrestling peaceful protestors to the ground and handcuffing them.

For Pride Glasgow to say that they promote free speech whilst supporting the arrest of a man stating that he fights fascism is in itself derisory. I have heard that some were against the parade being “politicised”. Well, if that’s the case, then why did Pride Glasgow invite the Scottish National Party (SNP) First Minister of Scotland to open it? You don’t get much more political than that – particularly in Scotland. Indeed, whilst I appreciate the importance of a serving First Minister of Scotland opening Pride Glasgow, if they are so fond of free speech and non-partisan, why did they not invite ALL party leaders in Scotland to jointly open the event? In fact, that would have been much more fitting, given that Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson and Scottish Labour Leader Kezia Dugdale are both openly lesbian, and the co-convenor of the Scottish Green Party, Patrick Harvie, is gay.

The behaviour of Pride organisers in London, in Belfast, and in Glasgow, over these incidents has been disgraceful. Well, this faggot fights fascists too. And that includes the fascism of political Islam, the fascism of the DUP, and of the fascism of the extreme right both in the USA and here at home. I stand by the CEMB, I stand by Eleanor Evans, I stand by the IWW, and I stand by Sheboom – all of whom were taking a stand against those who would quite happily kill every participant in every Pride event. It is only a pity that Pride in London, Belfast Pride, and Glasgow Pride apparently do not have the guts to make that stance too, but are quite happy to sleep with the enemy instead.

Pride? Try “Abject Shame”.

Fools and Bairns

Who is fit to parent?

A Christian couple have had their application to adopt two boys they were foster parents to turned down, and are now claiming that they are being persecuted for holding “anti-gay” views.

The couple fostering the children had been told that a couple had been found to adopt the boys. But two days later, when they heard that the couple in question were two gay men, they put forward their own adoption application, stating it would be the “best option for them and their emotional wellbeing.” The couple had made a previous application to adopt the boys, which was turned down on the grounds that their family home was too small, which they accepted at the time.

Describing themselves as “a normal couple”, they wrote to their local council, stating “We are Christians and we expressed the view that a child needs a mother and father. We love everyone (regardless of sexual orientation) and we love the children and believe that they would benefit from the foundation offered by a mother and a father,”.

They continued that they had “not expressed homophobic views, unless Christian beliefs are, by definition, homophobic.”

Their local council then responded to the couple, telling them “having heard that the prospective adopters were a same-sex couple you shared some opinions in relation to this proposed placement which are concerning and which would not enable the service to progress an inquiry to be assessed as prospective adopters, as these views could be detrimental to the long-term needs of the children.”

In steps Andrea Williams of the Christian Legal Centre and Chief Executive of the anti-LGBT group Christian Concern (no show without Punch). Williams, who has a past record of championing heterosexual ‘traditional’ marriage and condemning and fighting same-sex marriage and parenting, stated that she and the Christian Legal Centre were standing by the couple and affirmed “This couple’s viewpoint is lawful and mainstream.”

Interviewed by Maajid Nawaz on LBC Radio, Williams claimed that studies proved that children were best brought up by a mother and father (married of course), but when asked to provide a source for these studies, she failed to give a reference to any UK-based scientific research, instead making reference to a single, obscure, Christian-based source from the USA, and skirted round the question. When Maajid Nawaz further pressed her that her views would also logically preclude single parents, she equally side-stepped that question. Frankly, Maajid (a lovely, very handsome young man, who is a reformed Islamist extermist ~ I would dears, in a New York minute) had her tied in knots and getting extremely flustered. It was a treat to listen to.

Andrea Williams claimed that the couple had not put tried to make an ideological stance on this case. I utterly refute that, but even if they had not, it is pretty obvious that Williams certainly is doing so. But then she has a past track record of jumping in with her twisted bigotry, which pays little or no regard to children she may be harming in the process.

By their own words and actions, as far as I can see from the scarce information available, the couple have condemned themselves. Their very use of the term “normal couple” should be enough to set off alarm bells in anyone’s head, because that strongly infers that same-sex couples are not normal. They only acted to adopt the boys two days after being told adoptive parents had been found, and only then when they were told that the propective parents were two gay men. And they made this application despite previously being told, and accepted, that their family home was too small to adopt the children. Terms like “ we expressed the view that a child needs a mother and father” and “they would benefit from the foundation offered by a mother and a father” certainly suggest that a same-sex couple could not offer the same support and foundation of that of a heterosexual couple.

They can claim “We love everyone (regardless of sexual orientation)” and they had “ not expressed homophobic views” all they want, but that sounds too much to me like the person who says “I’m not a racist, but…”

And no, Christian views are not by definition homophobic. Far from it, if Jesus ever existed, then he never, not once, made any reference to anyone’s sexuality. But what I will say is that there are many ‘Christians’ ~ including this couple, and the odious Andrea Williams ~ who concentrate too much on the Old Testament while paying too little attention to the man whom they claim is their saviour. The same man who allegedly told his people not to judge, accepted all, and turned away none.

As for her part, I am not afraid to call Andrea Williams out as a bare-faced liar right here and now. According to Premier.org.uk, Williams stated “They (the Christian couple) said immediately we want to look after them”. This is not so. Again, the couple did not act until two days later, and again, only when that the children may be placed with a same-sex couple.  So hardly “immediately”.  This is not the first time I have caught a ‘Christian’ blaspeming their own faith by breaking the Ninth Commandment, and “lying for Jesus”. In fact, the more conservative the Christian, the more common it becomes, to the point I have come to expect it.

In the LBC interview, Maajid Nawaz was of the view that just because people hold illiberal opinions, that should not preclude them from fostering or adopting children, and went further to say that as children are naturally prone to rebel, it does not follow that any child will share the views of the parents. I would agree, to an extent. However, we are not talking merely about political or ideological views here, but religious indoctrination and brainwashing. I have seen too much of it to ever be convinced that a strict religious upbringing does not have an effect upon the views of children; I happen to know of a anti-Catholic sectarian street preacher from Kirkcaldy, Fife, whose own two sons are as equally brainwashed and bigoted as he is.

And Maajid Nawaz himself is an interesting case in point. He had an upbringing in a traditionally conservative Muslim home. His own rebellion took the form of throwing himself into Islamist extremism, for which he spent five years in an Egyptian prison. Having worked with Amnesty International, he turned his back on that and turned right around, now holding very liberal views. Yet he remains a devout follower of Islam; a religion which holds some very disturbing, illiberal views on LGBT+ people.

Even from a political / ideological viewpoint, children will often follow in the footsteps of their parents. My grandad was a communist. My dad was a socialist (although became a bigoted old bastard in his latter years). To this day I describe myself as “slightly to the left of Leon Trotsky”. I am a diehard socialist, proud to be one, and I learned much of that from my father. By equal measure, one could hardly ever see Carol Thatcher carrying the banner, left breast bared, leading the revolution, could one?

So certainly, having views which are illiberal or controversial should not be a barrier to fostering or adopting ~ within limits. How many of the thugs running about with the EDL/SDL or Britain First came from parents who hold equally bigoted views? Quite a few I would venture.

As we say in Scotland, “Fools and bairns spik at the cross whit they hear by the ingleside.”, and if a local authority feel that anyone is unfit to parent a child because they fear that child may be indoctrinated with hate speech, which may manifest itself in a dangerous form later in life, then I for one would have to agree with them. In effect, authorities who make such bans are only saving the children from future heartache of perhaps ending up in court, or even in prison.

So who is fit to be a parent? The Christian couple and Andrea Williams openly state that it is only heterosexual same-sex married couples. That got me to thinking; but what if it was two straight men or two straight women who merely shared a house, and brought up a child, would Andrea Williams complain about that? Did she ever have a complaint about the movie “Three Men and a Baby”, it’s sequel “Three Men and a Little Lady”, or the US sitcom “My Two Dads” (apart from how bloody awful all of the above were ~ Charlie Sheen, what were you thinking?)? If she ever did object to these things, I’ve certainly never heard her saying so. Ah, but then, the characters in them were all heterosexual.

And that got me to thinking further; traditionally just who did bring up children? Did all children historically have the upbringing of a mother and father? Guess what? For the most part, no, they did not.

Among the working class of the UK, it was largely mothers who brought up the children. And when I say mothers, I emphasise the plural. It was certainly a truth, even in my lifetime, that mothers rallied together and helped each other out. As kids we were all in and out of each other’s houses, and every mum treated the children of others as their own, and looked after them as needed. Most fathers were the breadwinners, often working long hours, whom the children rarely got to see and had little contact with; another reason why mothers turned to each other, because they had no-one else to turn to.

And even among the middle and moneyed classes, it was not a matter of children ‘benefiting’ form the upbringing of a mother and father. Middle class fathers were in professions which often involved them working long hours, while those further up capitalist ladder would often be away to meetings or even out of the country. As to the children themselves, many were brought up in their formative years by nannies or au pairs, before being shipped off to boarding schools, where they spent most of the year being supervised by all male or all female staff, depending on whether they were at a boys or girls school. I don’t hear many religites shouting blue bloody murder about girls being brought up in all-female convent schools, do you?

So, having seen that side of it, I wondered if there was ever an instance when men brought the kids up. Yes, there was one, and it was right here in bonny Scotland. From the late 19^th to the early 20^th century, the city of Dundee became famous for it’s three main industries; “Jam, Jute, and Journalism”. Of these three industries, it was only the latter which was an all-male preserve. The jam works and the jute mills which covered Dundee employed women almost exclusively. Because it was women who were the breadwinners ~ and who controlled the purse strings ~ it was the fathers who stayed at home and looked after the children. Dundee women of the time condescendenly referred to their husbands as the “tea bilers” (boilers). Aye, you don’t like it when the boot’s on the other foot, do you fellas? Like working class women, these men had to rely upon each other in their community to help with and look after their children. No-one could ever say that any Dundonian ever suffered from being brought up by an entire community of “dads”.

And that is of course before I get to women (or men) who were widowed by the rampant disease of the past, industrial accidents which were all too common, or indeed war, and who ended up single parents (funny how single mums often get castigated, but if their partners died in war they are ‘heroe’s, isn’t it?) as a result. Again, this was overwhelmingly women, and again it was other women, other mothers, they turned to for help, who were only too happy to offer that help, to welcome the children of others into their homes, and look after them like they were their own. Indeed, even of those servicemen who survived, they were often away for years, while mums were left to bring up the kids by themselves, and with the help of other mothers in the same boat as them.

Despite many more women working today, and some men becoming “househusbands” (hate that term – a homemaker is a homemaker, regardless of gender, and it’s one of the hardest jobs in the world), this community spirit between women survives in many places to this day. Nature teaches us that the majority of species have a nurturing instinct in the female of the species. Why then should it be any different for Homo Sapiens Sapiens? It is still true that women will rally around each other where needed, and above all, they will instinctively protect children, even those of others, and even if that means putting themselves in a place of danger in the process. Women are indeed strong, and they are never stronger (or more vindictive) where the welfare of a child ~ any child ~ is involved.

Yet men can and often do demonstrate similar instincts. The example of Dundee proves this, as do the dad’s who want to (and sometimes do) lay out the referee at a sports match who cards their kid, or the dad of the kid who has just fouled their kid. I’m not for one moment condoning such behaviour, but it does display an instinct to defend and protect. It would also be a sorry excuse for a man who could ever turn away from a child in need or danger. Indeed, do not the traditionally male roles in the armed forces, the police, and the fire service underline this need to nurture and protect?

Therefore, the claim that a child needs the input from both male and female parents is clearly a false one, for the simple reason that it has rarely happened. And Andrea Williams and those of her ilk need not worry about children same-sex parenting, because for generations of countless millions of children, that has always been the norm.  Probably even for you reading this.  Probably even for Andrea Williams.

Pray for Orlando – but make sure you MEAN it.

Moment of silence, Orlando vigil

Beware of hypocrites in sheeps clothing.

I have been trying to write this for over a week, but my mind’s not been in the right place to do so. I’m not sure it’s still in the right place, but I am satisfied that I did the right thing in waiting.  However, if I don’t get this out, I am going to make myself ill.

The shooting in the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, where 49 LGBT+ people enjoying a night out in what they believed was a safe place, was truly stuff of horror. I have never been so moved to tears, so utterly shaken, since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001. Four nights running I cried myself to sleep. As the days went on, it became clear that the gunman, Omar Mateen, had very complex motives indeed.

The first thing we learned, which the media were very quick to tell us, was that Mateen was a Muslim. As more facts emerged, it was reported that he swore allegiance to the leader of Daesh. Then he was reportedly “angered” by the sight of two men kissing. Then it was reported that he used to beat his ex-wife. It was said he drove miles seeking out a gay nightclub to carry out his massacre. The media gradually built up a picture of an angry, homophobic, misogynistic, radicalised Muslim, with possible links to Islamic State.

Then as time went on, we found out that as well as Daesh, Mateen had also claimed allegiance in the past to Al Queda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, and various other radical Islamist groups, whose ideas and interpretation of Islam all disagree. His ex has stated that he rarely attended mosque but merely paid lip-service to Islam, the FBI stated that while there was evidence he was radicalised, there was no proof of links to any radical Islamic group. It seems then that far from the “soldier” which Daesh were quick to portray him as, Omar Mateen was a lone nutter with a chip on his shoulder, who claimed allegiance to conflicting radical Islamist groups, while really knowing diddly-squat about any of them.

Probably most damning of all revelations were that far from seeking out a gay nightclub, Mateen was in fact a regular customer and well-known at Pulse, Orlando, and that he had profiles on gay dating apps. So now of course, he is being portrayed as a self-loathing, semi-closeted gay man, and that’s why he carried out his crime.

Not one of us knows the inside of Omar Mateen’s mind, so we will never know the true motives behind the killing. It could have been religious based, it could have been self-loathing, he could have been mentally ill; we simply do not know, and that he was killed, we will never know.

Can we then absolve the influence of religion upon his crime? Some seem to be doing so, including those who are maintaining that it was a purely homophobic attack. That was certainly the view of political columnist and author Owen Jones, when he walked out of a Sky News interview about the attack, accusing them of downplaying the homophobic nature of the attack.

Of course, Jones was right. Sky were deliberately trying to push the Islamist nature of the attack and completely ignoring the homophobic element. It cannot be ignored. Even the US media, whilst touting the pulse attack as the worst gun attack in US history (wholly inaccurate; try Wounded Knee), they completely ignore one sobering fact; the Pulse attack was the single largest killing of LGBT+ people in one place since the Nazi holocaust. That little fact is something which must be pressed as much as possible.  Likewise, unlike the media trying to play this massacre down, I will call it what it is; a terrorist attack.

For cishet people, through their cishet media mouthpieces, to try to portray the Pulse shooting as anything else than primarily homophobic in nature is either to pursue an agenda against Islam, or ignore it as “not my problem”. To portray the shooting as a ‘gay-on-gay’ attack, is tantamount to blaming the victim.

But all the rhetoric coming out of the media begs the question, can we equally ignore the religious element in this mass murder? Not for one moment. Whether confused about his sexuality or not, there is one thing for sure; Omar Mateen was a homophobe, and that begs the question, just where did that homophobia stem from?

Bigotry, all bigotry, is a learned behaviour. No person wakes up one morning thinking “I hate all gays.”; it comes from indoctrination. As I said, we’ll never know the inside of Omar Mateen’s mind, but it is already known he had been radicalised and had some knowledge of Islam, which like it’s Judeo-Christian cousins, is a deeply homophobic religion. Some people, particularly apologists for Islam and for other religions, can try to downplay the Islamic religious element all they want, but it cannot be ignored. When Daesh are pushing gay men off the top of buildings, when there are Islamic countries where being gay or any other part LGBT+ can earn one anything from a jail sentence to being lashed in public, or even the death penalty, to ignore the homophobic influence of Islam is to bury one’s head in the sand, while wearing blinkers at the same time – a good trick if you can manage it. Unfortunately, there are so many today who think “Ooh, we can’t upset the Muslims.  How dare you be so Islamophobic.” (I hate that word), that we are all supposed to walk on eggshells.

Well, tough titty dears. Call me an Islamophobe all you want. Indeed, call me anti-relgious – I am – because I am not going to miss Christianity in this article either. And once you’re done calling me all your names, you can go kiss my sweet atheist arse. But I am not for one moment going to refrain from pointing the finger firmly at Islam for the Pulse shooting, when it most certainly was one of the motives.

But Islam as a faith is only part of the indoctrination. We then have to ask where it began, and as is usual with most bigotry, we need look no further than the home environment and parental influence. There is a lot of truth in the old Scots saying “Fools and bairns speak at the cross whit they hear by the ingleside.” Look to a bigot, any bigot, then look to one or both of their parents, and nine times out of ten, you shall find that they are equally bigoted, and have brainwashed their child into the same poisonous mindset. And of course, that is never more true where the family has deeply held religious beliefs.

Omar Mateen’s father, Saddique Mateen, after the killing gave an apology and claimed his son’s terrorist act had nothing to do with religion. Less than 24 hours later, Mr Mateen senior released a video, supposedly an apology, in which he stated “God will punish those involved in homosexuality… …not an issue that humans should deal with.” It later transposed that Saddique Mateen hosts an extremely pro-Taliban TV show on the California-based Durand Jirga Show, and in Facebook videos has often appeared in uniform, declaring himself the leader of the “transitional revolutionary government of Afghanistan”, that he has ties to the US congress and his own intelligence agency, which he says he will use to subvert and overthrow the present Afghan government. If Omar Mateen was a nutball, it seems it must have been hereditary.

But we also see that Saddique Mateen is indeed an Islamic fundamentalist, he is indeed a homophobe, and we then see where Omar Mateen’s Islamist leanings and his religious homophobic bigotry began; at the hands of his own father.

And that of course does not, for one moment, justify the worst ever terrorist attack upon LGBT+ people. It was a truly evil thing for Omar Mateen to do. But while he may have been mentally-ill (and the continued media stigmatisation of the mentally ill is not lost on me either), I sincerely doubt he was a psychopath and / or did not know what he was doing was wrong; that is, he was not of the legal definition of insane. I maintain he deliberately set out to kill as many gay men and women as possible, in full knowledge of what he was doing, and if anything, that makes it all the worse. However, his Islamist brainwashing does go to some extent to explaining the complex motives he held.

Not that I would ever wish to stir up anti-Islamic hatred. This is not the point of this article, but rather it is a reaction to and a criticism of a faith with a Dark Ages view of sexuality. Don’t worry Christians, I’m getting to you and I’m not going to miss you either. Just you take your place in the queue, because know what? You’re next in line.

I certainly would never wish to be seen as buying into the rhetoric of Donald Trump, who was obscenely quick to make the Orlando shooting about him, and try to claim that it supports his plans if elected US President to ban Muslims from entering the USA. Trump claimed on Twitter that he had been right about Islamic terrorism, and then Tweeted “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!”

Were that vile Tweet not enough, the fact that there was an armed police officer outside of the Pulse nightclub was not enough for Trump; he thinks that people in clubs should be armed. On Monday, 13 June, he stated on CNN, “If you had some guns in that club the night that this took place, if you had guns on the other side, you wouldn’t have had the tragedy that you had. If people in that room had guns with the bullets flying in the opposite direction right at him… … right at his head, you wouldn’t have had the same tragedy that you ended up having.”

Of course, we all know that Donald Trump is electioneering, and we know that his electioneering is based on a ticket which is equally bigoted against Muslims and Latin Americans. Unfortunately for the Donald, there are certain facts where his racist and anti-Islamic rhetoric falls down completely;

• Omar Mateen was not an immigrant; he was a US citizen, born in the USA. Therefore, a ban on Muslims entering the USA would not have made a blind bit of difference.
• People carrying guns in nightclubs, in a crowded place, with alcohol mixed in, would indeed have a very different outcome; with bullets flying in all directions, it would be a bloodbath in which many, many more would perish.
• Of the 49 dead and 53 injured in the Pulse nightclub, the overwhelming majority were Latinx. Would Donald Trump and those in the US gun lobby who support him be so ready to push the “arm everybody” line if they were aware of that fact?

That the majority were in fact Latinx, the irony of the attack was that it was a US citizen attacking people at least from immigrant backgrounds, and some of whom were more than likely immigrants, which of course is the complete mirror of Donald Trump’s racist rhetoric – about immigrants killing US citizens.

So, what about the response from some Christians, and why do I have such a problem with them?

Well, firstly there was the response from some Christian homophobes, which was to be expected. Even as the attack was happening, one particular lowlife crawled out from under his stone long enough to Tweet “Someone is doing God’s work in Orlando. #FeelingBlessed” There have indeed been many bigoted Christian pond scum who were just rubbing their hands with glee at 49 LGBT+ people being wiped out. Of course, some didn’t realise at first that it was a Muslim terrorist, and soon changed their tune when they found out. Others simply did not care who did the shooting, so long as somebody did it. When it comes to LGBT+ people, creationism, subjugation of women, abortion, atheism, wanting a theocratic government, declaring their God is the only true god, and being willing to kill for that belief, you could not get a pubic hair between some Christian fundamentalists and Islamist fundamentalists.

Of course, many of such are keyboard warriors; trolls stuck in their mom’s basement who can only pull their obese arses away from their computer long enough to waddle off for another 2 litre bottle of cola (and it’s always diet cola – WTF?), and another share-size bag of cheetos, sweating profusely at the exertion of doing so, whom we should not worry about too much. But others may be physically fit, heavily armed, and easily influenced by Christian pastors ‘rejoicing’ the killing and continuing to spread their homophobia. One such is Pastor Roger Jiminez of Verity Baptist Church in Sacramento, who stated;

“People say, like: Well, aren’t you sad that 50 sodomites died? Here’s the problem with that. It’s like the equivalent of asking me — what if you asked me: Hey, are you sad that 50 paedophiles were killed today?’ Um, no, I think that’s great. I think that helps society. You know, I think Orlando, Florida, is a little safer tonight.” He added: “The tragedy is that more of them didn’t die. The tragedy is I’m kind of upset that he didn’t finish the job… …I wish the government would round them all up, put them up against a firing wall, put a firing squad in front of them, and blow their brains out,”

Jiminez also posted a video of his sermon, which YouTube promptly removed for violating their hate speech policy.

Not that Jiminez was alone in his twisted rhetoric. He was soon echoed by Pastor Steve Anderson of the Faithful World Baptist Church, of Tempe, Arizona, who came out with a similarly vile rant in another video, also removed by YouTube;

“…we’re supposed to be sad because a bunch of perverts in a gay bar are killed… … we’re supposed to sympathize with that. Well, frankly, I’m not sad about it at all. I don’t condone violence, I never have… but I’m not gonna sit here and cry about it and say it’s a tragedy, because it’s not…”

The video followed earlier comments by Anderson, in which he stated there were “fifty less paedophiles in the world”. Same rhetoric as from Jiminez, except of course it is a fact that children are much safer in the company of LGBT+ people than they ever have been in the company of Christians, particularly Christian clergy. Yes dears, I went there – and I make no apologies for that, because it happens to be a fact. The vast majority of paedophiles, both active and inactive, are cishet men; even men who prey upon little boys tend to be otherwise heterosexual. The LGBT+ community has the lowest incidence of paedophilia -fact. And it’s not gay clubs hiding and protecting kiddy fiddlers – it’s the Vatican doing that. Stick that one RIGHT up your cassock, Frankie Baby.

I only wish it were easy to ignore the insane rantings of the likes of Jiminez and Anderson. Unfortunately, as we in the LGBT+ community know all too well, we cannot. They are every bit as dangerous as fundamentalist Islamists. In fact, given that Christianity is still the largest religion in the world, and there are many, many more people out in western, developed, at least ‘culturally Christian’ nations than there are in Islamic countries, homophobic Christian preachers are probably a greater danger, due to the hate they stir up. Steve Anderson is the natural successor to the leader of the 16th century Scottish Protestant Reformation, John Knox. And if he thinks that’s a compliment, it’s not. Just like Knox, people like Anderson stir up the hate, which inevitably leads to violence. But when that violence happens, he is nowhere to be seen and claims not to condone it. And that dears, is and always has been, the worst kind of cowardice.

But it is not so much the hate preachers who anger me. Not even crazy TV evangelist Pat Robertson who says Christians should just sit back and “let Muslims and gays kill each other”. Because of course, the LGBT+ community are well-known for launching attacks upon Muslims. Look out, Daesh, we’re coming for you – to redecorate your tents with hanging drapes and throw pillows.

No dears, the ones who have really got my backs up have been the hypocrites, with their crocodile tears for the Orlando victims; who all too often have been the same people who have sought to further oppress the LGBT+ community.

If someone hates me, let them hate me, and I’ll fight them with my intellect, my sarcasm, and where it is called for, with kindness and a soft word. What I cannot stomach is the hypocrite who pretends to be my friend, and yet holds a deep-set prejudice against me. Those are the ones you have to watch out for, or you’ll soon find a knife sticking out of your back.

In the wake of the Orlando shooting, there were a number of “good Christians” on social media posting “Pray for Orlando”. Some of the people I noticed posting this had in the past, the recent past, applauded moves to repress LGBT+ legislation. Indeed, in the two weeks prior to the shooting, there were two instances of American politicians calling upon anyone spotting a transgender woman in a ladies restroom to kill them. Some of the people I spotted posting these stories, agreeing with them, were among the same people posting their “Pray for Orlando” memes. Another such was one woman who posted a story about young children being taught to respect gender differences, and who stated “Well, that’s mine being home schooled.”

The hypocrisy is vertigo inducing.

But if keyboard warriors trying to find a salve for their guilty consciences was bad enough, those “in authority” doing exactly the same thing was bloody infuriating and insulting in the extreme. Governor of Florida Rick Scott (Rep), Texas senator Ted Cruz (Rep), Speaker of the House Ted Cruz (Rep), North Carolina senator Richard Burr (Rep), Texas representative Louis Ohmmeter (Rep), and Kentucky senator Mitch McConnell, are among just some of the US politicians who offered “thoughts and prayers” for the Orlando victims, but who have not only voiced strident homophobic and transphobic statements, who have not only pushed anti-LGBT+ legislation, but some are actually continuing to do so.

The very state the shooting took place in, Florida, and it’s governor are actually a prime example of this. Governor Scott is known to be against equal marriage, and while he says it is a matter best left to the courts, he made sure that Florida continued to drag it’s heels on the issue, long after other states had given up. More recently, Florida’s Children and Families Department began moves to remove sexual orientation and gender expression from the definition of bullying in care homes. As recently as March 2016, Governor Scott personally signed into power the state’s Pastor Protection Act, which shields churches and their clergy who refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. It took until the Thursday after the shooting for Governor Scott to even admit that the attack was targeted at the LGBT+ community.

When such vehemently anti-LGBT+ politicians come out with meaningless platitudes about offering “thoughts and prayers” for the victims, one has to ask if they truthfully mean it, or are they saying these things purely for their own publicity and ratings?

Likewise, on Sunday, 12 June 2016, the Vatican released this statement:

“The terrible massacre that has taken place in Orlando, with its dreadfully high number of innocent victims, has caused in Pope Francis, and in all of us, the deepest feelings of horror and condemnation, of pain and turmoil before this new manifestation of homicidal folly and senseless hatred,

“Pope Francis joins the families of the victims and all of the injured in prayer and in compassion,” the statement said. “Sharing in their indescribable suffering he entrusts them to the Lord so they may find comfort.

“We all hope that ways may be found, as soon as possible, to effectively identify and contrast the causes of such terrible and absurd violence which so deeply upsets the desire for peace of the American people and of the whole of humanity,”

I would ask all to study that statement carefully. Notice anything? There is not one mention of “gay” or “LGBT” anywhere in it. There is not even a mention of the Pulse nightclub, or even that the shooting took place in a ‘gay’ nightclub, or that the LGBT+ community was specifically targeted.  Little difference to Governor Scott’s initial response, and with spin that any career politician (which the Pope is, really) may be envious of.

This does not surprise me in the least. For a pontiff who has ‘opened a dialogue’ with and claims not to condemn the LGBT+ community, Pope Francis is vastly hypocritical on LGBT+ rights. The Roman Catholic Church, as ever under the mistaken impression that they have full rights over marriage – and families – has continually and consistently stated they will never recognise same-sex marriage, and the present Pope has himself called it “a major threat”. As recently as November 2015, the Vatican lambasted same-sex marriages and called attempts by same-sex couples to adopt children were “a great danger”. HA! And allowing their priests access to children isn’t?  Frankie; beam, mote, brother’s eye, Sweetie.

Of course, there have been other churches have similarly made sanctimonious statements about Orlando, while at the same time condemning LGBT+ people and continuing to oppose equal marriage and same-sex adoption, but as the single largest Christian communion in the world, it is the RC Church which angers me most. Not least because these are statements from a bloke in a dress, who is celibate, trying to make the rules for all humanity. Just a word Frankie dearest, if you’re not going to play the game, do not assume to write the rules.

Some Christians of course may try to claim it’s a matter of “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” Another load of sanctimonious, platitudinous crap. I fail to see any difference between that particular Christian soundbite, and the half-assed and hypocritical apology Saddique Mateen offered for his son’s actions. But worse than that, every time a Christian comes out with an anti-LGBT+ statement, every time they speak out against equal marriage, every time they try to prevent a same-sex couple from adopting a child, they provide the fuel for the fires of hatred. They can put their hands on their hearts and say “Oh no, not me.” all they want, but the fact is that is starts with even one individual Christian saying that homosexuality is unnatural (unlike a woman emerging from a man’s rib, which, among other things in the Bible is obviously perfectly natural), and it ends with someone going on the rampage and killing people purely because of the sexuality they happen to have been born as. And in that respect, the homophobic / transphobic Christian churches are absolutely no different from Islam. Bigoted Christians can try to play at Pontius Pilate, attempting to wash their hands of the blood all they want, but the fact is that they are every bit as complicit in the murder of not just those in Orlando, but every LGBT+ murder – and suicide – as if they had carried out the attack themselves.

At this point, I was going to go on a tirade about prayer solving nothing and use it to illustrate how God does not exist. However, I have been humbled by an atheist friend who had a Roman Catholic upbringing, who has shown me that hate is never the way. Were I to go on my tirade, then I would be as guilty of abusing the Orlando terrorist attack as those I mention above, only from the opposite perspective. Also I fully realise that there are many Christian churches and communities who do not judge others, fully following the teachings of their saviour, but rather welcome LGBT+ people, and many others society has rejected, with open arms. The same can be said for Islam, but it has to be admitted, to a much lesser extent. I am equally aware that of the 49 dead, some were indeed believers in God, so for me to carry out a blanket condemnation of all religious faith would serve only to dishonour their memory.

And while I may be a hardened, cynical, atheist bitch who does not believe prayer does any good, I fully realise that those faithful who do indeed offer prayers do so with only the finest of intentions, and to throw them back in their face would be hateful indeed. So, genuine faithful, on behalf of the entire global LGBT+ community, thank you for your compassion and your kindness.

My article is therefore not directed at those faithful who accept all and turn away none. Rather it is directed at the hypocrites who on one hand seek to further, judge, vilify, oppress and persecute LGBT+ people, then on the other hand offer prayers and ask others to do likewise, which as far as I can see is for no other reason than their own self-aggrandisement.  Any of such who may be reading this, your false prayers and crocodile tears are not only not welcome, you actually do those who are genunine a huge disservice.  Shame on  you.

More than anything, it is in memory of the 49 young people, mostly Latinx – let us never forget that – who thought they were in a safe place, only to be gunned down in the worst anti-LGBT+ terrorist incident in history.

Goodnight, my sweet darlings. Nothing and no-one can hurt you any more.

Xandra.

XXX

Salvation Army rejects gays – but accepts a paedophile

Also ignored sexual abuse of women.

I am utterly incredulous at two stories about the Christian charitable organisation, the Salvation Army.

In the UK the organisation has admitted they will not allow LGBT+ to serve as ‘soldiers’ or ‘officers’ (is it only me who finds the very idea of regimenting Christianity distasteful?), yet in a story from Australia, one SA officer, who did not act on the sexual abuse of two women, has also denied having a paedophile in their ranks, a man who admitted his offence, by claiming that not all child abusers are paedophiles.

In a BBC television show The Sally Army and Me, openly and actively gay comedian, female impersonator and TV / Radio presenter Paul O’Grady, better known to many as his drag queen persona Lily Savage, spent time with the organisation, concentrating on it’s charitable works, but also performing in a Salvation Army band. O’Grady was allowed to wear a Salvation Army uniform for the cameras, but the organisation has confirmed that as an actively gay man he would not be allowed to serve as an SA officer. The Salvation Army’s internal hiring policies ban gay men from serving, unless they remain celibate, which of course would be almost impossible to prove.

In the show, Paul O’Grady openly confronted Commissioner Clive Adams, chief officer of the Salvation Army in the UK, upon their policy concerning LGBT+ people. Adams confirmed “You wouldn’t be allowed to be a member. You could volunteer for us, you could come to our church services but if you want to become a soldier in the Salvation Army, you have to commit to what we believe.”

This is completely at odds with another claim from Commissioner Adams, who also stated that the organisation “abides by all applicable anti-discrimination laws in its hiring”. Indeed, I actually wonder if the Salvation Army is acting within employment law by banning sexually-active LGBT+ people from employment.

“That’s upsetting, really,” Paul O’Grady replied, “because I know so many men and women who are gay and lesbian and they’d be the most wonderful officers.”

The Salvation Army’s policies towards LGBT+ people have long come under criticism. In the USA in 2014 transgender woman Jodielynn Wiley had to flee her home in Paris, Texas, due to death threats and moved to Dallas. The US Salvation Army refused her emergency accommodation because she had not had gender reassignment surgery. She was eventually rehoused by another charity. In 2014 the Australian Salvation Army were forced to apologise after Major Andrew Craibe discussing a Bible passage (Romans 1:18-32) which suggests gay men should be put to death and which appears in the Salvation Army Handbook, confirmed he believed that it should be taken literally.

Also in Australia we have the recent claims of Major Peter Farthing, a man who himself failed to act over the sexual abuse of two women, trying to defend another member by alluding that he was not a paedophile.

Speaking at the Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse, the former SA Secretary for Personnel, Major Farthing, was speaking on the 1989 sexual abuse upon an 8-year-old little girl by SA officer Colin Haggar in a town in New South Wales. Haggar had admitted the offence, yet Major Farthing denied the man was a paedophile and refuted having a paedophile in their ranks.

“My understanding is that a paedophile is somebody whose primary sexual orientation is towards children or adolescents, and not all offenders are paedophiles,” Farthing told the commission.

“Some people offend in a kind of crime of opportunity – a situational crime.

“Left alone with a child, they might have some brokenness, something going on in their own life which may make them vulnerable to offend and they will abuse a child.”

Farthing concluded that while all such offences were “serious” in his view, “the nature of the offender is not the same. They are not all paedophiles.”

Major Farthing had also failed to act when Colin Haggar sexually assaulted two women in 1990. He told the commission, “it wasn’t a contemporary action”.

“It is not second nature to me. It is not something I’m greatly familiar with, and it is not something the Salvation Army have habitually done,” he said.

“So you know my mind didn’t immediately run I have to investigate this.”

Haggar was dismissed from the Salvation Army in 1992, but was later re-admitted and allowed to remain until his retirement in 2015.

Major Farthing could not of course be more wrong over the nature of paedophilia. Anyone who has a sexual attraction to children, whether they act upon those urges or not, is, by definition, a paedophile, and their urges are not even driven by sexuality.

The overwhelming vast majority of paedophiles are heterosexual men, most of whom are in relationships with women or even married. They often have families of their own and the vast majority of child sexual abuse is carried out by family members of close family friends. Even the majority of paedophile men who abuse little boys are otherwise heterosexual and will show revulsion to any suggestion of sexual relations with other adult men.

This is because paedophilia, like all abuse, is not about sex, it is about power. The paedophile just like any other abuser, whether they use sexual, physical, verbal, or psychological means, is an inadequate individual who seeks to assert power over their victims. Because they are so inadequate and powerless – or see themselves as such – abusers pick out the weakest targets, those least likely to be able to defend themselves. In the case of the paedophile, this just happens to be children, whom they seek to belittle, humiliate and control through sexual means. In reality the abuser, any abuser, is a bully, and in the nature of the bully, a coward at heart.

Should anyone doubt that, just look at Colin Haggar’s track record; having abused a little girl one year, he moved on to abusing two women the following year. If his “primary sexual attraction” was to children, why should he suddenly abuse two adult women? There are volumes of cases of sexual abusers and sexual thrill killers who have equally attacked children, adolescents, and women. Serial Killer Robert Black mainly targeted little girls, but once tried to abduct a teenage girl, thereby making him both a paedophile and a hebephile; one attracted to pubescent teenagers. Fred and Rosemary West abused their own children, the children of others, teenage girls and grown women.

Farthing is not even correct in claiming that child sexual abuse is a crime of “opportunity” or “situational”. Paedophiles are world class manipulators, who can spend weeks, months, years even, building up a trust in their targeted victim. Paedophiles from outwith families will weedle their way into the trust of the child’s family and of the child themselves before they strike. The idea of “stranger danger” and the stereotypical image of the paedophile as the dirty old man in the park in a shabby raincoat are very much myths. While not unknown, the vast majority of paedophiles are very far from being opportunists, and that is one thing which makes them so bloody dangerous.

And while they may indeed have someth “brokenness” within them, that can never excuse the behaviour of the paedophile who acts upon their urges. Contrary to what some claim, paedophilia is not a mental illness – or just another sexuality as some are nowadays trying to claim – but rather any psychologist worth their salt who has dealt with paedophiles will tell you it is a “learned sexual behaviour”, which is usually triggered by some catalyst in the past of the individual. All too often and all too sadly, in the case of paedophiles it is a “cycle of abuse”, where they too were sexually abused in childhood. That however can never excuse their actions. I would also argue that to say a paedophile abusing a child because they are “broken” and in a “situation” where they are left alone, is tantamount to shifting the blame from the abuser onto the child; another favourite tactic of paedophile abusers.

I would never deny that the Salvation Army does an enormous amount of good works, whether that is giving overnight beds to the homeless, supplying food banks to those in desperate poverty, supplying emergency accommodation to those in need of such, or many of the other good works that make a difference to millions worldwide. But for senior officers to hold such views against the LGBT+ community, to turn a blind eye to cases of sexual assault upon women, and to completely blindfold themselves to a paedophile within their ranks is wholly unacceptable and their priorities appear to be completely twisted.

It seems to me the SA would do well to consult sexual psychologists, who would be able to show them that LGBT+ people are normal – and by sheer weight of numbers they must already have LGBT+ members who have not outed themselves – but those who abuse women, children, anybody are far from normal and should not be trusted one iota.

Well, there’s one thing; at least the Salvation Army is being wholly consistent with the Bible, which while it calls gay men an “abomination” and calls for their execution, it seems to have absolutely no problem with sex with little kids, incest, rape, and the subjugation of women.

 

“Don’t vote for ‘Satanic’ SNP” Minister tells congregation

Wee Free clergyman brands gender and child policies “evil”.

In the run-up to the Scottish Parliamentary elections, a Free Church of Scotland minister has branded the Scottish National Party (SNP) as “Satanic” over their stance on gender fluidity and one of their key policies on children in an outspoken and strongly-worded letter to his congregation, asking them to think before voting SNP.

Reverend Paul Gibson of Knox Church in Perth, part of the “Free Kirk” or “Wee Frees” as they are known, published his letter online in the wake of the recent announcement SNP party leader and First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament) that if re-elected, the SNP would restructure gender recognition laws in Scotland to bring it into line with “international best practice”. This would include individuals being allowed to change their gender on their birth certificates without medical consultation or authorisation from a committee, and for non-binary people to be able to state their gender fluidity on official documentation.

Insisting that “The Scriptures plainly teach that God is the author of all life (and therefore the sole designator of each person’s sex)”, Rev Gibson, also taking a side-swipe at same-sex marriage, insists that human beings are made male and female, that God “ordained the institution of marriage between a man and woman as the pinnacle of all human relationships”, and that “He has not only enabled the biological process of procreation but also given this married partnership a divinely ordained responsibility of raising their offspring according to His precepts.”

Continuing in what can only be called a rant, Rev Gibson states “We have already seen widespread celebration of the oxymoron that is same-sex marriage… …our authoritarian “progressives” want to take us further into the darkness by effectively disregarding the God-given authority and responsibility of parents, as well as allowing – if not even encouraging – all people to choose which gender they wish to identify with. You almost have to pinch yourself each time you even think about it – so extreme is the departure, not just from biblical morality, but basic wisdom and common sense. Can a government really be this foolish and that Satanic?! The answer, tragically, is yes.”

Conceding that “there is a good degree of truth to the statement, “they’re all as bad as each other” – at least from a Christian perspective”, Rev Gibson goes onto claim that “I for one have no burning desire to champion the cause of one party over the others within the church, nor to make out that one is worse than the others purely on the basis of some long held political bias”, but then continues, “However, when you consider the massive potential there is for the Named Person Scheme to be used as a means of interfering with the role of parents who seek to raise their children according to Christian values, coupled together with our government’s plans regarding gender, you would have to conclude that true believers need to think long and hard as to whether such a political party – one which seems intent on destroying any lasting imprint of God’s design – can honestly be supported in good conscience before our Creator.”

Really, Paul dear? You are trying to say your god is the designer and creator of all life, who decides the sex of every individual, that the same god ordained marriage between a man and woman for procreation and bringing up children, you call same-sex marriage an “oxymoron”, you brand the SNP as Satanic, say you have no bias, then state that “true believers” cannot support the SNP?

A lot to get through here, but deep breath…

The SNP are Satanic, and by inference anti-Christian?

For a great many years now the SNP have been funded by the deeply religious Stagecoach buses founder and owner, Brian Souter. That is the same Brian Souter who led a campaign to retain the deeply homophobic legislation, Section 28 (in England) / 22A (in Scotland), which made it illegal to ‘promote’ homosexuality in schools. That legislation effectively made it illegal for LGBT+ young people to mention their sexuality and thus further entrenched guilt and depression in many. Although I truly admire the SNP government in Scotland and am a firm supporter of Scottish independence, that they continue to receive money from Souter is one of the main reasons I refuse to join the party.

Every Education Committee in Scotland must, by law, have a religious, i.e. Christian, representative upon it. In ten years in power, and in five years of a majority government, the SNP have done nothing to change that, despite only 39% of Scots now counting themselves as religious, and church membership and attendance in sharp decline in Scotland.

The SNP administration have built more new Roman Catholic schools than any administration previous to them.

Every school in Scotland must offer Religious and Moral Education (RME), which parents can opt their children out of. Few parents are aware of this right, and when the SNP government were petitioned by the Scottish Secular Society to change this to an “opt-in” – whereby the schools would have to ask parents if they wanted their children to receive RME – they downright refused to do so.

John Mason MSP of the SNP in 2014 tabled a motion in the Scottish Parliament stating that creationism should be taught in schools as science could not disprove it (yes, dears, he really asked science to prove a negative). The motion failed, but that it got as far as being considered underlines the fact that the SNP government is in fact riddled with Christians.

The SNP candidate for Central Scotland, Sophia Coyle, is a committed Christian and ardent anti-abortionist, and is also opposed to same-sex couples adopting children.

The Scottish government has an advisory committee on religion, which secular, humanist and atheist groups were not made aware of until 24 hours before it’s first sitting. The Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, Rev David A Robertson – effectively Rev Gibson’s boss – sits upon that committee.

God designates the sex of every individual?

Well firstly, biological sex, i.e. how we are born, and psychological gender are two different things. Gender Dysphoria is a recognised medical condition, which has been deeply researched by experts in the field, not “progressives”, and the conclusion of science is that a transgender woman is a woman, a transgender man is a man, and a non-binary person is a non-binary person – which is precisely what transgender and non-binary people have been telling cisgender people since time began.

Being transgender or non-binary is no more a choice than being cisgender is. If anyone disagrees with me, then I challenge them to present me with the peer-reviewed science disproving Gender Dysphoria, or stating it is a choice. And note I said “peer-reviewed science”. Do not even try presenting that dusty old book of Bronze Age goat herders campfire tales; that is not the proof, it is the claim.  And if anyone still disagrees and claims that gender is a choice, then tell me when you chose to be cisgender?

I think I speak for all transgender and non-binary people that while we are happy with who we are now, if we could have chosen to avoid the confusion with our gender identity, the mental turmoil, the mixed emotions, the depression, the ostracisation from family, friends, and society in general, the abuse, the threats and the actual violence visited upon us, we would have never opted for it. As it is we never got that choice, and all the psychological damage and abusive treatment we have suffered has been at the hands of others, not our own.

Of course the greatest place where Rev Gibson’s argument of his god designating everyone’s biological sex falls down is when intersex babies, with genitals from both sides of the gender binary are born. When an intersex baby is born, if God existed, would that then not be that God’s design? One wonders how Rev Gibson would cope were he father to such a child. Would he decide the child’s gender, and authorise surgery to assign his chosen gender? If he did so, would he not be interfering with God’s design? Or would he leave it to the child to decide when they were old enough which gender they were? If so, and surgery were carried out, would that child not then be interfering with God’s design? And would that child leaning towards one gender not then completely destroy Rev Gibson’s argument of gender being a “choice”? Or if the child grew to realise they were happly to remain intersex, which would be adhering to “God’s design”, would that not then completely destroy Rev Gibson’s arguments against gender fluidity?

If you’re reading this, Rev Gibson, I suggest you sit down and consider the above carefully – a large glass of perspective and soda may help. And while your at it, consider that the only person who is the ultimate expert on their gender is the individual concerned. And that applies to transgender, genderfluid / non-binary, and cisgender people.

Marriage was ordained by God as one man / one woman for procreation and bringing up families?

By ‘God’, Rev Gibson here of course means the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. I can only take it by making such a statement that to add to his sins, the reverend gentleman is also a young earth creationist, who maintains that the Bible is to be taken literally as the unerring word of his God, and that the entire universe, the Earth, and all life – including mankind – were created in six days, 6000 years ago (someone forgot to tell the Egyptians, in the same region where the scriptures were written, and who have a recorded history going back 7000 years). Unfortunately for Rev Gibson, that has long been proven to be cobblers, and just as mankind long predates the Bible, so does marriage, which has been found in every culture on the face of the globe as a social contract between two people who love each other.

If Rev Gibson insists that marriage was instituted by HIS God, then I leave it to him to tell every married couple in Scotland who are Muslim, Hindu, some other non-Christian religion, or of no religion, that they are not married. And once Police Scotland are done with him for Religious Hate Speech, he may wish to look at what Scots Law has to say about marriage, and the fact that it makes little mention of religious faith.

Likewise for Rev Gibson is to claim that marriage is for one man / one woman is to be a hypocrite to his own faith. In the scriptures polygamous marriage is the most common form, with monogamous marriage being the exception rather than the rule. I often found it amusing that religious objectors claimed that same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy, which they called sinful, when it is so common in the Bible; just as the same people claimed it would lead to incest, when it is equally common in the Bible, and if creationists were to be believed, then we would all ultimately be the descendants of incestuous unions of the children of Adam and Eve.

If marriage is for procreation and bringing up families alone, one has to ask if Rev Gibson has ever refused to marry an elderly couple, or a couple unable to have children due to matters of physical disability? This is another piece of hypocrisy I intensely dislike from homophobic clergy, who bang on about procreation and family, yet will happily marry elderly couples and those who cannot have children. This entire argument falls down on the fact that people marry for love, and for companionship. My own parents often stated they married for companionship, my siblings and I came along later. So if a heterosexual couple marry for love and companionship, although they be elderly, unable to have children through physical disability, or even if one or both are asexual, then exactly the same applies to same-sex couples.

Rev Gibson calls same-sex marriage an “oxymoron”. He must agree then that it makes sense? Or is he just as ignorant as many others using that word are nowadays? An oxymoron is not, as many think, a mere contradiction in terms. Rather it is a contradiction which ultimately makes sense.

The Oxford English Dictionary gives this definition of ‘oxymoron’;

“A figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g. faith unfaithful kept him falsely true).”

We can see from that example that “falsely true” whilst apparently contradictory in this instance, ultimately makes sense. Likewise, Liverpool beat poet Roger McGough made wonderful use of an oxymoron in his poem The Fallen Birdman; “People gathered round the mess, in masochistic tenderness”.

Therefore, if Rev Gibson is asserting that same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, he is essentially stating that it ultimately makes sense.

If I am wrong on this one, I am sure the lovely Clare Flourish whom I follow here on WordPress, and who is much more learned in the English language than I am, shall soon put me right.

There is “massive potential… …for the Named Person Scheme to be used as a means of interfering with the role of parents who seek to raise their children according to Christian values”?

The Named Person scheme is part of the SNP policy of Getting It Right For Every Child (GIRFEC). It is part of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act, which when going through the Scottish Parliament, had full support of almost every party, with only the Scottish Conservative Party (who are about as “Scottish” as a Wiltshire cricket pitch) opposing it. It has the full support of several children’s charities and Police Scotland, it is based on models from other countries and yet more countries are looking at GIRFEC and the Named Person scheme with views to emulating it.

GIRFEC recognises that every child is different and an individual and aims for them to achieve their best within their abilities, rather than treating all children as the same, and expecting them all to achieve the same standards. The Named Person scheme is not about interfering at all. Every child will have a Named Person within the education and / or social care systems whom the child or their parents can turn to in time of need. The Named Person equally shall be trained to look out for a child who is unhappy, failing, and how to help them, and the warning signs of abuse, and how to properly address that.

The only objectors to GIRFEC and the Named Person scheme are a tiny group of protesters, who are attempting to challenge it in court, and which is almost certain to fail.

I have to say, if Rev Gibson thinks that the Named Person scheme has the potential for interference in bringing up children, particularly in the Christian faith, then he must have a very dim view of Scotland’s educationalists and one can only wonder just how much contact he has had with Scottish teachers. It just so happens that through a job I was once in, I had quite a bit of contact with teachers in Scotland, and a surprisingly large number of them are in fact active Christians. Indeed, I find the number of Christian teachers quite disturbing and I would be more worried about them attempting to push their faith upon children irrespective of children’s wishes. These fears were realised a few years ago, when two head teachers at a South Lanarkshire primary school were dismissed after children had been presented with creationist literature at an after-school club ran by American evangelists.

If the Named Person scheme were such a worry to Scottish parents, then the tiny take up of the No To NP protest certainly does not bear that out. Likewise, the Scottish Tories have been extremely quiet about it in their campaign for the Scottish Parliamentary elections. The SNP won a majority government in the Scottish Parliament in 2011 – in a proportional representation voting system devised to make majority government ‘impossible’ – and are on track to win another majority government when Scotland goes to the polls on Thursday, 5 May, 2016. If Named Persons were really such a huge issue, then the Tories would be pushing that strongly, just about every parent in Scotland would be against it, and the SNP would be lucky to win a handful of seats. The fact that the same parents are fully intending to vote SNP tells it’s own story; that having been given the information about GIRFEC / Named Persons, they understand it, and they like it.

But then, in claiming he is not biased but given his strong opposition to Named Persons, Rev Gibson gives away that he is indeed biased, and given which party was the only one to oppose GIRFEC, it is obvious how he votes. He says it himself; “I for one have no burning desire to champion the cause of one party over the others within the church, nor to make out that one is worse than the others purely on the basis of some long held political bias.” Why even add that bit about bias unless he has one?

So what does Holy Wullie, sorry, Reverend Gibson, do? He effectively tells his congregation how to vote, stating that those “true believers need to think long and hard as to whether such a political party – one which seems intent on destroying any lasting imprint of God’s design – can honestly be supported in good conscience before our Creator.”

And goes further by calling the SNP “Satanic” and “evil”.

Want to see what a truly evil government is, Rev Gibson? It is one which tells severely disabled and terminally ill people that they are fit for work and takes benefits away from them. It is a government which seeking to make savings, goes after the poorest of the poor, while giving the obscenely rich tax breaks and incentives to make even more money. It is a government of one of the richest countries in the world which tells people who have paid into the system all their working lives that there’s no money in the pot for their pensions, and they’ll have to work for more years to come. It is a government which claims to be helping refugee children, taking only those from Syria, and turning a blind eye to the lone refugee children just across the English Channel, many of whom are at danger from trafficking and child prostitution. All that, and many other things visited upon the UK by the Tory Westminster government, are the epitome of evil.

And I personally think Rev Gibson is crediting his Wee Free parishoners with far too much intelligence; if they were at all capable of thinking long and hard, they would not be in the Free Kirk.

I am an atheist, and I am also a secularist; I believe in removing religion from politics and public life as much as possible. I fully recognise that everyone is entitled to an opinion, even the unco righteous like Reverend Gibson. I am also fully aware that for many Christians, including dear Clare Flourish, their faith is a main driving force in speaking out against all sorts of wrongs, and I admire their passion in that. The Society of Friends (Quakers), the Iona Community and St John’s Episcopal Church in Edinburgh are certainly no slouches at speaking out against social injustice.  When any member of clergy tries to tell their congregation how to vote however, they cross the line from opinion to interference in politics, and that needs to be challenged wherever possible. I am fully aware that clergy pay taxes on their earnings, just like the rest of us, the churches as organisations however do not, and given that Reverend Gibson and his own Wee Free Moderator, Reverend David A Robertson, have both been very vocal recently about SNP policies on transgender and non-binary people, then I for one say it is time to remove tax exempt status from the Free Kirk.

As a footnote, given that Reverend Robertson has long stated his support for an independent Scotland, one wonders if he will pull Rev Gibson up for his attack upon the SNP? Given that Robertson recently published an “open letter” to Nicola Sturgeon, saying much the same as Gibson, I sincerely doubt it.

---

The full text of Reverend Gibson’s letter can be read here:

http://www.knoxchurchperth.com/letters/april-19th-2016

“Open letter” from Reverend David A Robertson, Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, to Nicola Sturgeon MSP, First Minister of Scotland:

https://theweeflea.com/2016/04/01/the-ultimate-april-fool-an-open-letter-to-nicola-sturgeon/

Scotland’s Gay Concentration Camps

Rothesay, Isle of Bute

Polish gays shamefully interned during WWII

The Second World War and it’s aftermath brought about many actions which were at least questionable in their wisdom; William Joyce (Lord Haw-Haw) being executed for Treason, when as an Irish citizen, he could not be guilty of treason to the British state; Werner Von Braun, who used Jewish slave labour, given freedom by the USA in return for helping their space programme; Rudolf Hess, guilty of the death of millions, being jailed for life in Spandau Prison, when many below him were executed. Now historian Simon Webb has uncovered possibly one of the most shameful litanies of all; the incarceration of gay Polish men in concentration camps in Scotland.

The background to this was that after the fall of France in 1940, 30,000 Polish troops who had been fighting alongside the French in an effort to stave off the Nazi advance were evacuated to the UK. These troops were sent to Scotland to be a front line of defence in the event of a Nazi landing. Their commander was former Prime Minister of Poland, General Wladyslaw Sikorski. Sikorski was anything but popular among the Poles, and opposition groups sprang up against him. His solution was to silence any and all dissenting voices. On 18 July 1940, General Sikorski told the Polish National Council in London: “There is no Polish judiciary. Those who conspire will be sent to a concentration camp.” As he and his forces would be in the UK for the foreseeable future, the British High Command fully realised that he intended these camps to be placed on British soil.

Sikorski sent a secret order to General Marian Kukiel, appointed Commander of Camps and Army Units in Scotland, naming officers and others whom he wanted to be placed in special camps. Not only did this include political rivals or those who dared to question him, but what Sikorski described as “Person of improper moral level.” and for him that met drunkards, gamblers, the sexually promiscuous, and especially, homosexual men, for whom Sikorski had a particular dislike.

Sikorski basically decided to lock up anyone who disagreed with his government-in-exile, and anyone he had a personal distaste towards, and the British High Command where more than willing to accommodate his demands. Political opponents – real or imagined, generals, drunks, gamblers, the sexually liberal, and gay men, were rounded up, and sent to the first of many of his concentration camps, on the Isle of Bute.

Bute, in the news recently as the new home for some of the first Syrian refugees in Scotland, is a gorgeous little island, once a popular holiday destination for Glaswegians “gaun doon that watter”, which sits in the Firth of Clyd and which looks over to the breathtaking mountain scenery of the Cowal Peninsula. In the winter however, it is exposed and suffers the brunt of storms which sweep up the Clyde estuary from the North Atlantic Ocean. The first men to arrive were not even given proper barracks but instead were housed in nothing more than tents. Neither were all interned in the camp military men, but included civilians such as Michael Grazynski, President of the Polish Scouting Association, and Marian Zyndram-Kosciakowlski; who was Prime Minister of Poland from 1935-1939.

A toxic situation soon occurred in the Bute camp, when senior officers refused to have anything to do with the “pathological” prisoners; namely the drunkards and the homosexuals, the latter of whom naturally grouped together in the face of this open hostility. Whether there were gay liaisons in the Bute camp is unknown, however accusations of such were rife, and this led to the decision to separate the “pathological” cases from the political prisoners. As homosexual behaviour was an illegal and imprisonable offence in the UK at this time, it is doubtful that many in parliament as much as raised an eyebrow at this situation.

A new and harsher camp (if that were possible) was opened at Tighnabruich in Argyll, opposite the Isle of Bute. All gay prisoners were sent there and the commander was Colonel Wladyslaw Spalek. Further camps were built at Auchterarder in Perthshire, Kingledoors in Tweedsmuir, and Inverkeithing in Fife. They operated from 1941 and continued to operate even after the war, right up to 1946.

These camps were made possible by the Allied Forces Act, 1940, which enabled Allied commanders on British soil to rule over their own people as they saw fit. Under this act, governments-in-exile of Poland, Norway, The Netherlands, Belgium and Czechoslovakia the legal right to raise – and conscript – their own independent forces from among citizens of their countries resident in the British Isles. It also gave them the power to take punitive measures against any dissenters. All army camps and bases of these countries were considered sovereign territory of the Allied forces overseeing them, immune from interference by UK police or other authorities. This effectively gave General Sikorski free rein to behave as he liked towards his own countrymen in Scotland. This inevitably led to abuses of the Allied Forces Act and atrocities which UK authorities were powerless to prevent. Basically Sikorski could conscript any Polish man living in the UK, then if he were a political opponent, gay, or below Sikorski’s standards, he could be arrested by Military Police and interned in a concentration camp.

And for Sikorski, this did not merely mean political opponents, gays, drunkards or the like. Communists, and more controversially Jews, in Scotland soon found themselves being rounded up and placed in the camps. Isaac Deutscher was a journalist, writer, and the biographer of Joseph Stalin. A Jew and a proud Pole, he moved to Scotland after the fall of France and was all too willing to join up with the Polish forces to play his part in the Allied war effort. His reward was, no sooner than enlisting, to find himself arrested and interned on the camp on Bute.

Obviously, with camps near to centres of population, word was soon to leak out. Inverkeithing is a major town, was then an important port, nearby to Rosyth Naval Dockyard, and was a mere 14 miles from Edinburgh, the Scottish capital. Rumours started to fly that people were being held in camps in Scotland for what appeared no reason whatsoever. Moreover, there appeared to be a disturbing number of Jews being held in these camps. Some of the camps, including Inverkeithing, had basic barrack conditions, barbed wire surrounding them, and watchtowers with armed guards. Among the rumours were stories of maltreatment, starvation, beatings and even the death of inmates. It is known that on 29 October 1940, a Jewish prisoner called Edward Jakubowsky was shot dead at Kingledoors, for insulting a guard.

On 19 February 1941, Samuel Silverman, MP for Nelson and Colne, raised the question in the House of Commons on the whereabouts of two Jewish brothers called Benjamin and Jack Ajzenberg, who had been arrested by Polish soldiers in London and taken to a camp in Scotland. Adam McKinley, MP for Dumbartonshire in Scotland, the following year asked in the House what was happening on the Isle of Bute. As the government had no wish to upset the Polish allies, they would give no information. Asides from which, the Allied Forces Act made if impossible for them to act or even investigate.

On 14 June 1945, Robert McIntyre, the Member for the Scottish constituency of Motherwell, stood up in the House of Commons and asked the following question:

“Will the government make provision for the inspection, at any time, by representatives of the various districts of Scotland of any penal settlements, concentration camps, detention barracks, prisons, etc. within their area, whether these institutions are under the control of the British, American, French or Polish governments or any other authority; and for the issuing of a public report by those representatives?”

On the same day, Moscow Radion made the same accusation, concerning a Jewish academic called Dr Jan Jagodzinski in a camp at Inverkeithing. The British and then the world press was soon alight with tales of concentration camps in Scotland, and by now with the full horrors of the Nazi death camps being known, the people demanded to know what the hell was going on.

In an attempt to diffuse the situation, the Polish Government-in-Exile invited the press to visit the camp to Inverkeithing, to prove the prisoners were being treated well. This was exactly the same tactics of the Nazis, who reserved a few camps with good conditions, to allay any accusations of ill-treatment. This Polish exercise in propaganda failed to convince the press or the people, particularly when the first prisoner to whom reporters spoke turned out to be yet another Jew, by the name of Josef Dobosiewicz, who told the press that a prisoner had recently been shot dead in the camp. The commandant confirmed that this was correct, but that the man had been trying to escape. Again, the Allied Forces Act made it impossible for British authorities to act.

Almost a year after the end of hostilities, men were still being held in the camps. Enter Willie Gallagher, Member of Parliament for West Fife, and the only Communist to have taken a seat in the House of Commons. On 16 April 1946, Gallagher asked the Secretary of State for War to look into the case of two more Jews being held in a camp in Scotland; David Glicenstein and Shimon Getreudhendler. Given that Inverkeithing was in Gallagher’s constituency, one can only assume that these men were in that camp.

The exact date is unknown, but shortly afterwards, the Polish concentration camps were quietly wound down and closed. The Allied Forces Act was eventually rescinded in 1951.

British High Command was never blameless during the Second World War, and actions were taken either through error, or sheer bloodymindedness. In 1940 for instance, the British government decided to round up a number of German immigrants and intern them. They were hoarded onto the vessel HMT Dunera, and shipped off to Australia, where they were held in what can only be described as a concentration camp in the blistering heat of the Australian outback. These internees were German alright – they were German Jewish refugees who had fled to the UK to escape the Nazis.

And one consequence of a British civil service cock-up also involved Scotland and had a particularly tragic outcome. Camp 21 at Comrie was a Prisoner of War camp which housed some of the most dangerous and most fanatical Nazis captured, including brainwashed members of the Hitler Youth. Following an attempted breakout from a camp in Devizes in the south of England, a number of prisoners from there were transferred to Camp 21. Due to a clerical error, these included Feldwebel Wolfgang Rosterg, a known anti-Nazi and spy, who had informed the Devizes guards of the planned breakout. Placed among the Hitler Youth, when word got out he was a spy, they carried out a kangaroo court and lynched him to death.

The Allied Forces Act however was an odious piece of legislation, which allowed General Wladyslaw Sikorski and those who followed him to behave no better than the Nazis, rounding up political opponents, communists, Jews, and anyone he deemed undesirable – of which gay men made a sizeable proportion, placing them in concentration camps, maltreating, beating, and even executing them at a whim, on UK soil.

Sikorski was undoubtedly a war criminal, every bit as guilty as those Nazis who persecuted and killed Jews, political opponents, communists, and of course, homosexuals. But the British High Command and the parliament of the day share his guilt, by enabling his excesses, and making themselves powerless to take action to stop him, and yes, by turning a blind eye to these atrocities to avoid upsetting an ally.

“a dystopian LGBTI adventure novel”

Homophobe on Tumblr gets her ass handed to her.

When Tumblr user ‘webelieveinyoukris’  (I know, don’t go there, dears) posted a rant, attempting to use the “nature” argument against gays and lesbians, I don’t think she was quite prepared for the backlash.

The user having given an anology of three islands – straight, gay and lesbian – had her argument ridiculed when several LGBT+ people launched into a hilarious diatribe based around her theme.

Me?  I’m Captain Xandra, the Pansexual Pirate from Crossdresser Cove, in the Genderqueer Archipelago.  I always had a thing about sailors, and I have been known to hang around wet buoys.

Read the whole thread below:

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/this-homophobic-tumblr-post-transformed-into-a-dystopian-lgbti-adventure-novel-and-it-is-amazing/#gs.7xVYCJA

What of soul was left, I wonder, when the kissing had to stop?

Showing affection is not a cishet privilege

At the opening ceremony of the 2014 Commonwealth Games, gay actor John Barrowman grabbed and kissed a kilted male dancer.  It was a moment which was hugely applauded in the stadium, across Scotland, the UK, and around the world.

Gay and lesbian kisses are now becoming so commonplace in soap operas, that the media hardly bothers reporting them nowadays.  There are similarly quite a few same-sex kissing scenes in many movies.

So, given that the public is apparently so accepting of LGBTQI actors and celebrities kissing in the media and entertainment, one would think that people would be equally accepting to exactly the same thing being done by ordinary people in public.

And one would be dead wrong.

On 11 October 2014, 22-year-old Annabelle Paige and her unnamed girlfriend were shopping in branch of Sainsbury’s supermarket in Brighton, England, when she lovingly gave her girlfriend what she describes as a “light kiss”.  She thought no more of it, until the couple were approached by a store security guard.  The guard told them that he had received a complaint and they were to refrain from kissing, or leave the store.

Ms Paige said that the security guard told them “either leave and take it outside or continue our shop without being affectionate as it was making other customers uncomfortable.”  The female security guard told Ms Paige that a customer had said it was ‘disgusting’.  The use of this word rankled with Ms Paige, who remonstrated with the security guard who claimed a customer had said that.

Ms Paige stated “She told us she was sorry to have said that, but a customer had complained, saying what we were doing was ‘disgusting’ and had claimed they were worried for the safety of their child so the security guard felt she had to come and say something to us.”  Worried for the safety of their child?  Really?

Annabelle Paige and her partner lodged an official complaint with Sainsbury’s, who apologised profusely, and will be making a donation to a charity of Ms Paige’s choice.  A Sainsbury’s spokesman stated “This should never have happened – it is clear that Miss Paige and her partner were not behaving inappropriately and we are very sorry that they were treated in this way.”

The day the incident happened upon, incidentally, was National Coming Out Day.

One would hope this was an isolated incident.  But no.  In July this year, lesbian couple Mog Wilde and her long-term partner, Freya, were visiting the Cardiff Food Festival in Wales for Freya’s 35th birthday, when Mog kissed her.  “We were dancing to the live music and I kissed Freya because she looked so beautiful and it was her birthday.” Mog said.  The couple, who were in a public thoroughfare, were then approached by a security guard from G4S, who told them to quit or they would be removed from the event.  The security guard claimed that there had been complaints and remonstrated that there were children around.

One onlooker stated that there had been complaints from some “middle-aged ladies” but the couple reported that they got cheers and support from those around them, including a gay couple who also kissed – but were not approached by security.

A spokesperson for Cardiff City Council stated, “Festival stewards received a number of complaints from members of the public about a couple who were engaged in a very strong display of public affection at the festival’, they said.  “Once the couple in question had been identified a steward approached them. They reminded them that sexual behaviour of this level was inappropriate for what is very much a family event.  At no time did any Council employee ask the couple to leave.”  they concluded,  “The same course of action would have been taken regardless of the sexual orientation of the individuals involved.”

This incident took place on the same day as the Bristol Pride event, 30 miles away.

Back to supermarkets, this time British supermarket giant Tesco.  Just this week a gay couple were subjected to a tirade of abuse from a member of staff in a branch of Tesco in Brixton, London.  Steve Luetchford was shopping, when his partner happened to give him a peck on the cheek.  They were approached by a female member of staff who started shouting at them and told them to get out of the shop.

Steve told Pink News “Basically the BF kissed me on the cheek and woman went ballistic at us saying “how dare you do that here, there are children here, you people are disgusting do that at home you have no right to do that in

“I was like actually we do have a right and I said she didn’t have a right to talk to us like that she started calling us miss and told us to get out and kept going on about children being in the shop.”

Not one member of staff intervened to stop the verbal assault, and every one of them refused to give their names, although Steve stated, “one girl was really rude and insinuated we deserved to be spoken to like that.”

He later posted on Facebook “We weren’t at all being grotesque or sucking face.”

Tesco has since apologised and has said that the store manager is investigating the incident.

Three isolated incidents, but probably three which are the tip of the iceberg of a much bigger problem.  Okay, I’ll be the first to admit that the lesbian kiss between Mog and Freya (pictured above) was somewhat passionate, but then, it’s no different from what one can see cishet couples doing in public any day of the week.

And notice the common thread which runs through the complaints; all three complainants holding up the children card, with one claiming that parents were worried for the ‘safety’ of their child.  Yeah, because the child was really at risk by seeing two people being loving towards each other.  I frankly doubt there was any child in that case, if indeed there were children near in any of the three cases.

And there are other things to consider in the reaction to all three cases.

Sainsbury’s are reported making a donation to a charity of Annabelle Paige’s choice.  Did they then offer Ms Paige money?  If so, to my mind that is merely adding insult to injury.  I’ve worked in many customer services roles and problems are not solved by throwing money at them.

The Cardiff City Council spokesperson who claimed “The same course of action would have been taken regardless of the sexual orientation of the individuals involved.” has actually told a barefaced lie.  There were two gay men who also kissed, and they were not approached and told to desist.

Given that not one member of staff intervened in the Brixton branch of Tesco, and all allegedly refused to give their names, one wonders just why then Tesco are leaving the investigation to the store manager?  Just how committed are they to diversity, or to even getting to the bottom of this incident?  One would have thought that particular incident requires someone completely independent of the branch to investigate the matter.

It also does not escape my notice that security guards were involved in two of the incidents.  Having been on the receiving end of these petty-minded little Hitlers on a power trip every time they don a uniform, I have a particular dislike for them.  The difference is I know my rights, I know the limits of their ‘powers’ (basically little to none), and I’m not afraid to face them.  Once they see they are dealing with someone in the know, they usually shit themselves and scuttle away like the cowardly bullies most of them are.

This is kissing we are talking about, for gawd’s sake.  Yes, a kiss can be very intimate, even sexual, but most people, whatever their sexuality know the limitations in public.  The supermarket cases were apparently not intimate or sexual, and while the kiss between the lesbian couple was, they were cheered on by those around them.  And any homophobes / transphobes reading this, everyone has the right to show affection to a loved one in public, regardless of their sexuality or gender.  If you don’t like it, look the other way.  Indeed, you should do so anyway, as it’s an intimate moment which is nothing to do with you.  How would you like it if people stared at you kissing your partner?

There is no way that any cishet couple would have been similarly approached for any of the above three public displays of affection.  Indeed, one wonders how willing some little G4S toady or a frosty-faced cow in a supermarket would be to face up some muscled, tattooed bruiser and tell him to stop kissing his female partner?  It simply would not happen, because it’s nothing to do with public displays of affection, it’s nothing to do with protecting children; it has everything to do with homophobic / transphobic bigots seeing the LGBTQI community as an easy target and thinking they can impose their ‘standards’ upon them.  Like all abusers, homophobes and transphobes are bullies, and in the nature of the bully, cowards at heart.

I am reminded of a gay friend who was once arrested for walking down a public street in Scottish city, hand-in-hand with his boyfriend.  That was way back in 1983; have we really progressed so little in the intervening 32 years?

---

(“What of soul was left, I wonder, when the kissing had to stop?”  Robert Browning; ‘A Toccata of Gallupi’s’)