Northern Pride: What's Going On?

I just took a look at the Northern Pride website where an interesting post has appeared. Northern Pride is essentially Newcastle Pride (with some attempt at pulling in the surrounding area). The notice says:

'dpr no longer supports northernpride because of what dpr feels is bad work practices towards its volunteers.

dpr regrets any inconvenience caused to the general public for the closure of this site.
Legal Notice:

A Legal letter has now been drafted and posted to Northern Pride Events Limited forbidding use of the circle and star logo which is the copyright owner of dpr.

If you are using the logo on Facebook or npride.org.uk then you should withdraw from using it immediately.

Microsoft, owners of Facebook have also been sent a copy of this letter.
dpr

Friday 29th January 2010'

So what on earth is going on? A couple of days earlier on Northern Prides Facebook page, someone wrote:

'Does anyone know what is going on with Northern Pride? I ask as I have emailed the committee and heard nothing at all!It seems that not olny are the meetings no longer being advertised to their own comittee, and requests for details are seemingly being ignored, now it seems the web site is closed.Oh, would it also be p...osible to finally get the accounts out?In general WHAT IS GOING ON!'

The response from Northern pride was:

'Hi Mitch, unfortunately we're having some trouble with the website which means we can't email at the mo.Planning for 2010 is underway and there's a pretty ambitious budget, anyone out there who'd like to help us approach funders/sponsors then get in touch!'

No kidding guys! Hopefully these are just blips (lets not forget the issues Manchester Pride- then Mardi Grads - has a few years back-blips happen) and things will get back on track but the organisation needs to at least sort it's website and clearly explain what is going on. It does look like theya re currently facing some major problems. Incidentally, the FB page for Northern Pride is still using the logo so we'll have to see how things unfold.

Slutdom and the Marriage Mirage

Divorce rates are falling. The Office for National Statistics tells us that divorce rates are at a 29 year low. According to their site: 'In 2008, the divorce rate in England and Wales fell to 11.5 divorcing people per 1,000 married population compared with the 2007 figure of 11.8, a fall of 2.5 per cent. The divorce rate is at its lowest level since 1979 when it was 11.2.'

This week Mark Simpson flagged up a story that had appeared in the New York Times in which new research produced by San Francisco State University is revealed. the research examined how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study followed 556 male couples for three years and about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

Simpson doesn't pull his punches, writing that: 'Given the very real fear of being ostracised and shamed for talking in front of the goyim about how gay relationships actually are, instead of the Disney-esque way that gay marriage zealots would like to portray them, it seems a reasonable assumption that the 50% figure is an underreporting. Probably most gay male relationships in the Bay Area are open. As I’ve said before, in public, in front of the goyim, in my experience probably most gay male relationships are open.'

Monogamy and the notion of slutdom is not just a hetero/homo issue but the attempt by gay men and women to emulate their straight counterparts and their all-to-often mirage of monogamy, marriage and children does raise questions about some form of crushing of the queer identity. Simpson notes that open relationships are 'definitely not an attribute of the vast majority of hetero relationships. Many may have their ‘infidelities’, but very, very few have open relationships. For most the concept is a contradiction in terms. Especially if married.'

I suspect this is in large part because of the institution of marriage. With the introduction and increasing acceptance of Civil Partnerships, quer slutdom is increasingly cast, along with its symptoms - cruising grounds, cottages, saunas and sex clubs as an anachronistic and a shameful one at that. The message I've heard numerous times is " we don't need to do that anymore". Yet, this research seems to suggest (at least in the Bay Area) that as gay men and women form relationships, they construct them in such a way that in many cases, perhaps the majority of cases, they are open. It will be interesting to see if that continues and how law responds to these relationships. Slutdom, so celebrated in queer commerce, culture and porn seems keen to stay - at least for now.

Australia 'Bans' Small Breasts

A story that is as interesting as it is bizarre is coming out of Australia where the Australian Sex Party has stated that the Australian Film Board is now 'banning' depictions of small breasted women. The crux of the issue seems to be that these small breasted women are too 'child-like'. As such, small breasted actors could be said to appear as someone under 18 and such images would be illegal. Read the full story here. Presumably, a similar approach would be taken to those with a small penis; what about shaved/waxed public regions?

Perry v Schwarzenegger Makes it to YouTube

Discovering this has left me feeling elated. A group of Hollywood based film-makers have drawn upon the transcripts and first-hand account of bloggers and tweeters who have followed the Perry v Schwarzenegger trial and have started to film a series of reconstructions of the trial with actors. They seem to be of a first rate quality and are an amazing resource, ensuring that the Californian justice process is open (despite the best efforts of the US Supreme Court). I've embedded episode one below. Check out the marriagetrial.com website here. Well done guys!!

Election 2010

I'm sure if I was to back any one party on this blog I would come in for criticism off those who I wasn't backing (branded a "typical lefty liberal academic" or "naive right winger taken in by Cameron's smooth talking" depending on which way I go). Given I've been criticised as a lefty liberal on FB and Twitter in recent months you can probably guess which way I'm leaning but then again long standing blog readers will note my various discussions of an earlier life in Tory politics. What can I say? I'm complicated.

I'm not going to say who I'm backing although I have pretty much made my mind up in the last couple of weeks and it was different to what I would have said 6 months ago so who knows what I'll decide by the time of the election (which will probably be May). For most of us, the choice at the next UK general election will be a three horse race - Labour, Lib Dem or Conservative. The Greens are gaining round and are in many ways the most progressive in addressing the LGBTQ agenda, but let's be honest, they will be lucky to win one seat (I think they will). The Tories remain ahead in the polls by around 9 points (Labour in second place and Lib Dems trailing behind at around 18%) which means there is a strong possibility of a hung Parliament and a second election later this year.

The Labour years saw a mass of legislation that transformed the social landscape - the Civil Partnership Act, Gender Recognition Act, Equality Act and so on. The Human Rights Act was in my view the most important of these. The Conservatives are committed to repealing that Act. I am among the growing number of voices to criticise these various legislative examples and argue for a greater embracing of queer perspectives and (in simple terms) flexibility in how we view gender, sexuality and the state's relationship with individual lives. For example why should straight = marriage and gay = civil partnership? Can we have more flexible and creative forms of union that move beyond the monogamous heterosexist and narrowly defined partnerships of old? Yet, despite this criticism, I also recognise the huge steps forward we have taken as a nation and given a choice between having this legislation and not - I would in pretty much each case choose to have them.

Nonetheless, we could and we should have a public conversation about a more radical agenda that moves issues of sexuality and gender further forward. Yet, in reality, none of the main parties are proposing anything along those lines. We can however look at attitudes on issues such as sex work (or prostitution for Tories and Labour), social welfare reforms targeted at families and the married, alongside attitudes toward gender and sexuality more generally.

These issues are not reasons alone to determine the choice of party (or indeed to choose an independent) but they are the issues this blog will be focusing on in the run up to a general election. It's hard to remember a leader so despised as Brown (Major was seen as weak but liked), the economy is still looking seriously dodgy, the public remain a little sceptical about the Tories and the Lib Dems will have a greater profile than ever before thanks to the leadership debates. It should be an interesting ride.

Prop 8 Update

The prop 8 trial tracker has continued to be amazing in its coverage of the Perry case in California. There now seems to be a break from the giving of evidence, before we move to closing submissions. You can read an excellent summary of the trial's 'greatest hits' thus far here.

The Bindel Effect

I'm sorry, I know I've been utterly useless at regular posts as of late. In my defence, unlike so many bloggers I do have a job (that isn't blogging) and with that, and my thus far poor efforts to crack on with my book, finish some articles and putting together some journal special issues, finding the space in which to reflect and write blog posts has proved challenging! Nonetheless, I hope you'll persevere with me and should you really want to follow my string of consciousness, I remain as active as ever on FB and Twitter (links on the right).

Anyway, to Julie Bindel. Now then, there is a chance you have no idea who she is. She regularly pops up in the Guardian where she describes herself as 'a freelance journalist and political activist'. For what it's worth, let me make clear that I think she's wrong on most issues and continues to perpetuate myths (notably around sex work). However, I do respect her right to put forward her views and I do not find a deep uncontrollable anger swelling inside me as soon as I see her name (I save that for Tory MEP Daniel Hannan). Yet, for many in the queer and trans communities she does exactly that whilst many researchers and academics who engage in the study of sex work are understandably vexed at her pronouncements.

Earlier this week she put in an appearance at Queer Question Time in London. For those of us not on the London queer circuit, it's something of a parochial event but for many commentators, it is of course on their doorstep and all hell was seemingly let loose. One blog describes (and shows) the protest which included 40 people. Yes, we're talking small numbers but from the online reaction you'd think it was 40,000. Gay novelist and commentator Paul Burston posted Facebook statuses in support of Bindel and changed his picture to a photo of her. The blogosphere repeated the list of charges against her such as on this blog by the trans poet Adam Fish, whilst many bloggers such as the self described 'kinky tranny dyke' Sarah brown described the series of events and cyber upset on her blog.

I'm not sure the protests made a huge amount of difference except perhaps to raise the fee Bindel can ask for her next op-ed piece. If Bindel is to be challenged, it must be done rationally and with clearly marshaled arguments. Then again, Bindel does sometimes make it hard to respond rationally. As with Nick Griffin on the BBC's Question Time, they should be allowed a democratic space but we should not make their voice reach further or be heard louder than it might otherwise have been by our own reaction to their presence.

Values and Kids TV

My favourite character in the political drama The West Wing was Toby (no surprise to those who know me) and one of my favourite scenes is where he defends PBS and Sesame Street. This (and my last post) got my thinking about kids TV. A quick trawl of YouTube highlights so many value laden shows that I grew up with in the 80s.



One of the earliest shows I watched was 'The Get Along Gang' (I had the toy haunted mansion. lol), clip below. A show based on the whole notion of 'getting along' and overcoming difference.



Then there was the endless string of shows about battling 'evil', from Thundercats and Transformers through to He-Man and the Gummi Bears. Then there were the shows that fostered a sense of conservative values such as one of my favourite shows as a child, The Wind in the Willows:


There were also shows that celebrated difference. Listening back to the opening credits of Raggy Dolls, it's hard not to find new meaning in the lyrics:



Later on, we even had shows that addressed the emerging issue of the environment - notably Captain Planet.



When I look at my generation, now in their late twenties or early thirties, it's a generation that has so clearly been affected by these values. If those shows socialised us into the people we are today, how are today's children's shows socialising kids? How are they shaping conceptions of gender,sexuality, right and wrong? Lacking kids, I really don't know the answer, but I hope those who do will post some comments. What shows did you watch as kids?

Reflections on Quentin Crisp

I have nothing to say other than 'read this'. The ever brilliant Mark Simpson has written a really interesting piece on Quentin Crisp and 'Hurtian Crisp'. His observations on the AIDS campaign are very engaging. Take a look here. Strangely, when I hear the Thames logo at the start of the first clip, I am back as a child in the mid 80s waiting for Dangermouse. So too does Hurt take is back to a forgotten world.

Perry v Schwarzenegger Day 5

Sorry for not getting this up sooner. A day 5 summary can, as ever be found on the excellent Trial tracker website. The fifth day focused on that totemic issue of the right, children. Conceptions of the family and at one point explore 'a mathematical formulation on cognitive competence'. Read it all here. There have also been some less than welcome developments in Washington State and Robert Cruikshank explores those developments and possible implications for Perry here.

Obama: Softly Softly Catchy Monkey?

Things aren't going that smoothly for Barack Obama. We learnt this week that his opinion ratings have dropped to a record low for this point in the Presidency. The Sunday Times carries a cartoon by Gerald Scarfe (pictured right) depicting Obama putting the sign 'No I can't' over the Camp Delta sign. Healthcare continues to divide the left and upset the right and he has been less than fulsome in putting forward the case for progressive policies relating to sexuality. Some on the left may still hope that this is a strategy best described 'as softly, softly, catchy monkey'.

Out gay Sunday Times journalist, Andrew Sullivan thinks not. His column isn't live on The Times website (maybe there is a 24 hour delay or something?) but this is his page and hopefully the article will appear. Anyway, in that article Sullivan describes Obama as 'a liberal pragmatist in politics and a traditional conservative in his understanding of the presidency'. For Brits, realising that any US President is constitutionally not some all powerful figure (very far from it) is hard idea to get our heads around given he seems to have all the 'theatre' of power.

Sullivan describes notes of the current political scene that 'those on the left who foolishly saw him as a revolutionary are in a sulk right now. Those on the right who still see him as a leftist ideologue keep railing against the reality in front of their eyes - as if contemplating a small c conservative black Democratic president is too much for their brains to grasp'. Sullivan describes Obama as stepping back 'to help to unwind polarisation and allow society to evolve'. This is where I do differ from Sullivan. Obama can create the mood music of the country. He can say, "you know what, if people of the same sex want to get married they should be able to do so, and I hope those folks down in California and across our great nation, are able to move beyond overcome some of the fears and prejudices I know some people hold". What are the right going to do? Call him the devil? They are already doing anyway. Is the Supreme Court going to feel bound to split on partisan lies? Look at the decision this week on the televising of the Perry trial and it largely is. Obama should confront the idea that to be a liberal in America is not a bad thing, not akin to the devil. To do so does not require legislation, merely the sound of his voice.

As a candidate, he offered hope and the people of the world, not just America, responded. As President, he needs to remember that in the words of Harvey Milk, 'people can't live on just hope alone'.

Perry v Schwarzenegger Day 4

Day four of the Perry v Schwarzenegger case can be viewed in summary on The Advocate site here and the excellent Trial Tracker here. As the Trial Tracker site notes, there wasn't much law on day four prima facie. Yet, there is often the misconception that law is about fixed ideas and rules. In common parlance takes the form of "you must do xyz, it's the law". Yet if we take the adversarial system which is highlighted in the Perry case and is the same system as English courts, we see it's all about two arguments. One side putting forward one argument and the other defending/responding. Law is about the uncertain, not the fixed. Uncertain facts, uncertain interpretations. When you get deeply political cases like Perry, the idea of law as uncertain, fluid and widely open to the interpretation and will of individuals appears unusual. It isn't. Law is not about a dusty set of rules, it's about people, lives, values. Law lives.

Law was certainly living during day four of the Perry trial in which a string of financial figures were exchanged- costs of insurance, costs of schools and so on, then stats on who would and who wouldn't marry, projections and a jumble of numbers. Yet, these numbers are important in the consideration of the practical effects of over-turning proposition 8/. Here's a taster:

'P: Williams Institute says that at 17%, SF County has highest percentage of gays and lesbians in the state.

E: That’s what it says.

P: You assume that the net impact of the spending due to savings on federal income tax if they are married is by spending 100% of those savings in SF on taxable goods.

E: Yes. That’s an upper end estimate.

[We’re back and forth with Prop. 8 trying to undermine every shred of his economic forecast. ]

P: Report on five years of SF Human Rights Commission equal rights ordinance. Admitted as evidence.

P: Look at page 12 for litigation update. [Trying to show that since litigation is settled and behind SF, there’s no more cost to enforce.]

P: Long series of questions saying that legalizing marriage will not automatically convert domestic partnerships to marriage and that therefore there will still be domestic partners and therefore the need for the domestic partner coverage under the current SF laws.'

So suddenly law is not about rules, it's about economics. Then it became about the practical effects of prejudice that the lack of marriage can create. Here's another taster:

'D: Every day hassles?

M: In prejudice literature we call them every day discrimination events. In ways that hate crimes have social meaning so do these. They are not annoyances when they represent social disapproval. They are felt differently.

M: Examples are plentiful. I read the plaintiffs’ testimony. One of things with which I was struck was filling out forms. Gay people do respond to that. The only way I can explain it is that it’s not about the form, the form evokes social disapproval and rejection and memories of events, including large events that have happened in the past. So it’s this minor thing that people may not even remember, but they have enormous significance. Maybe one was treated in an unfriendly way by one’s partner’s parents. It’s not nice for anyone, but it has great social meaning of rejection and disrespect they have felt in the past.

Judge: What kinds of forms?

M: What I mean by forms is any kind of administrative form, particularly where you have to fill out your marital status. There is no place to put anything, so I say single even though I have been in a relationship for 40 years. I don’t want to get into a long discussion with a clerk in a motor vehicle office. It’s not demanding to cross out a form, it’s not memorable. But it’s memorable to gay and lesbian people because it means social rejection.

D: Type of form is that which you might see at a bank?

M: Yes.

D: Travel hassle mentioned by plaintiffs?

M: Yes, very similar. It’s not so much what happened but the meaning of it. A clerk asking about a king size bed is not a big deal, but for a gay person it has huge meaning.

D: Does the fact that that you draw in a box or get the right bed take away the problem?

M: No. It’s not about the result; it’s about “I’m gay and I’m not accepted here.” Someone might not get a job promotion or might not get married not because of prejudice or because they are being blocked, but for example if you are not married, and you are asked constantly if you are getting married it can be prejudice that creates stress. It has double meaning: the action of the non-event (not getting married), but also for the event that results in the continued daily hassles. Not a factor of their lives, but of the negative way in which they are viewed by society.'

As the trial continues, the law will be about emotion, principles, values, ideas and interpretations. Law lives.

Women get bored easily...apparently

Oh Lynx thank you. I'm conscious I seem to have posted an awful lot of important and serious posts recently and it's time for a lighter (but I would suggest equally important) story. Lynx deodorant (better known as Axe to some readers) has a new advert for 'Lynx twist' which is supposed to be an evolving fragrance. What's particularly interesting about this ad is it's like a throwback to a forgotten age. All men are heterosexual seeking to attract women. Women are these feminine creatures that do so get easily bored so if you keep changing how you smell she will stay interested. Of course, it's progress of sorts that it is the man seeking to persuade the demanding women of his charms. Lynx has always traded as the ultra-masculine fragrance and you could say it hasn't done them any harm. It would just be nice if once in a while they recognised that maybe it's not just straight men who buy it (although I'm not one of them. lol). Watch the advert bellow and tell me what you think by clicking comments.

LGBT History Month

Can it really be that time of year already? Next month is February and that means Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month. The UK website of LGBT History describes themselves as:

'We are lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people and their friends.

We exist in all times and places. We speak each and every language. We laugh and cry. We talk and remain silent.

We are emperors and peasants. We are conservatives and revolutionaries. We are actors, artists, bricklayers, bookies, cab drivers, cooks and clowns. We are employed and unemployed. We raise our children and we bury our dead.

When we can, we attend school, college and university. When we can, we go out into the streets. We read the papers and watch the TV. We attend church, synagogue, temple and mosque. We are free and confined. We celebrate and we hide. We are happy and sad. We are supported and alone.

Our lives are both ordinary and extraordinary. This website celebrates all we were, all we are and all we may yet be.'

I find it a very powerful statement and LGBT History Month is run by some wonderful people and produces outstanding resources on their websites. Like all fabulous causes, it needs your support to continue and in addition to taking a look at the site for some resources/info (especially students!) I hope you'll dip into your pockets/student loans and buy a badge or T-shirt from the site. My triangle badge came this morning and they've now sold out (so seriously chuffed I managed to get one). Rectangle badges are still available (£2.50 including postage - bargain!) and by wearing it you raise awareness of LGBT History Month and help contribute some important funds. Support LGBT History Month here.

Perry v Schwarzenegger Day 3

I'm not going to compete with the vast amount of blog coverage on the ins and outs of the case. Yesterday appeared to be dominated by a more sociological exploration of marriage and how marriage be constructed together with more on notions of identity. Read an excellent summary on the Prop8 Trial tracker blog here. For me, the most significant aspect of this case was the US Supreme Court and their video suggestion. If Perry v Schwarzenegger ever makes it to the US Supreme Court the signs don't look good for those opposed to Proposition 8.

Calling All US Law Students

Sign on to the National LGBT Bar Association's amicus brief in Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez! Background: In 2004, the Christian Legal Society’s chapter at the University of California Hastings filed a lawsuit after the school denied a funding request because of the group’s anti-LGBT discrimination policy. The question before the Court now is whether the “Constitution allows a state law school to deny recognition to a religious student organization because the group requires its officers and voting members to agree with its core religious viewpoints.” Amicus Brief Opportunity: The National LGBT Bar Association stands firmly behind UC Hastings’ decision to not fund a student group that openly discriminates against its LGBT students and will be filing an amicus brief (currently being drafted) with the court defending the University and their anti-discrimination policy. As the voice of the LGBT legal community, the LGBT bar is committed to promoting inclusion and fighting bigotry at our nation’s law schools. If your LGBT law student group or student bar association would be interested in signing on to our amicus brief, please email us at info@lgbtbar.org no later than January 29, 2010. We hope you will join us for this historic opportunity.

Hollingsworth v Perry: US Supreme Court Rules

It seems odd that so much attention in the Perry case isn't on the subject of marriage (so far) but on the process of the trial. Yet, even on the issue of process over substance, the world seems split between a more liberal attitude and a conservative one. This split has now largely been reflected in the US Supreme Court. They had to decide how to proceed with the televising of the trial to a series of other courtrooms (thus extending the number of people who could watch this internationally important case) and the YouTube issue. The 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court bans the televising of the case and the idea of clips on YouTube is also dead. It is, to put it mildly, a bonkers decision.

In an editorial today, the New York Times describes the decision as 'a sad example of the quashing of public discourse'. Absolutely. Eden James, Director of the Courage Campaign added 'who else besides the five justices holding on to their conservative majority for dear life would bar recordings of a trial that will shape this country for generations to come?' The full decision can be viewed here. Those conservative judges to seem to be eagerly flexing their muscles as if the twenty first century was just some crazy idea in a dystopian novel. For us Brits, the case is a reminder of the pitfalls of having a heavily politicised Supreme Court and we should remember this when we talk about making are own new Supreme Court more like the US model with confirmation hearings and so on.

Justice Breyer once again stepped up to the plate as the voice of reason in his dissenting judgment (joined by Justice Stevens (appointed by Ford, Rep), Justice Ginsburg (appointed by Clinton, Democ) and Obama appointee Justice Sotomayor). For someone more at home with English judgements, the strong and clear language of Breyer is particularly striking. He concludes: 'I believe this Court should adhere to its institutional competence, its historical practice, and its governing precedent—all of which counsel strongly against the issu-ance of this stay. I respectfully dissent.'

So say us all.

"Leg Buckling Orgasm"

Thought that would get your attention. Just a quick mention of a brilliant piece in the Times Law section in which the wonderful Gary Slapper outlines 'weird cases' and talks about one case in which a claimant sought to receive damages of £50,000 through arguing that her gynaecologist had unprofessionally produced that result in her twice in less than two minutes, during an intimate examination at his clinic. Read the full story here. It's a fabulous story.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger Day Two

Sorry for not getting this up sooner. I'm finding it a bit of a nightmare to try and follow the trial on Twitter through the evening, but there seems to be an emerging consensus in the blogosphere that the best source for trial info is a blog run by the Courage Campaign. Courage Campaign describes it's aims as: 'The Courage Campaign is an online organizing network that empowers more than 700,000 grassroots and netroots activists to push for progressive change and equality in California and across the country. As a leading multi-issue advocacy organization in the progressive movement, the Courage Campaign's work is made possible by thousands of small-dollar donations from community members.

Whether it's helping kill the GOP's electoral college initiative "dirty trick," count the infamous "double bubble" votes in Los Angeles after Super Tuesday, or push for the ultimate closure of the "yacht tax loophole," the Courage Campaign has waged many successful campaigns.
Our partners include MoveOn.org, CREDO Mobile, Democracy for America, PowerPAC.org, California Nurses Association, National Union of Healthcare Workers and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Los Angeles.

The Courage Campaign is also an affiliate member of the Progress Now national network of statewide advocacy organizations. Our online organizing tools are powered by Blue State Digital, a leader in online fundraising, social networking, and constituency development programs for clients including Obama for America, the Democratic National Committee, and the Alliance for Climate Protection.'

So now you know. The Prop 8 Trial tracker website is designed, in the words of Courage Campaign 'to get the truth out'. They add that 'as the trial Prop 8 unfolds, we can expect right-wing organizations like the National Organization for Marriage and their allies to continue their misinformation campaign to undermine the proceedings and reframe the debate about marriage equality.'

The trial tracker site can be accessed here and I think it's the best source for info on the trial. The Advocate has posted another summary too and that can be viewed here.

For me, the highlight of day two was the evidence of George Chauncey which also dominated the trial. Those students that I teach should be familiar with his work (if not LAW326 students, you might want to be before you hand your assignment in - hint hint!) along with many others. His Book, Gay New York is an excellent text that offers an historical overview of gay life. Chauncey was asked a series of questions that go beyond the narrow question of law and are worth reading in full here. One aspect that leapt out is the examination of the relationship between the Police and gay groups specifically in relation to the offence of solicitation for sex by one man to another:

'There were approximately 50,000 arrests under this charge from 1924 to the 1960s when then-Mayor Lindsay disallowed the police from using entrapment to arrest homosexuals. Similar laws were in place in other states, such as California.

TS: What effect did these laws have on gay people?

C: One effect was to register society’s disapproval of homosexuals. Sodomy laws were used to keep gay soldiers out of the army. It stood as a sign disapproval of homosexuals. A phenomenal number of people ran a foul of the law.

TS: Did it affect people who wanted to go out in public?

C: It did for some. At times when there were police crackdowns, people were very careful about going out in public. Disorderly conduct charges were not that serious in and of themselves, but it opened people up to more problems. Police would call their parents, landlords and work place to confirm data. So that would lead to them being known homosexuals which could lead to loss of jobs and homes, which sometimes it did lead to.

Cameras in Court

As I've previously blogged, one aspect of the Perry v Schwarzenegger trial that has caught the attention of bloggers, activists and media types alike is the presence of cameras in the court room and the last minute intervention by the US Supreme Court to ban the uploading of those videos as planned on to YouTube. I think we should hear more from the US Supreme Court today so keep watching Twitter later on tonight (UK readers). For those looking in on the UK, my criticism of the lack of video streaming may seem like someone living in a glasshouse throwing stones. Cameras are not allowed in English courts (although the new Supreme Court has taken progressive steps on this) but just as with the Perry case, this is increasingly appearing anachronistic. I'm therefore really pleased to see Sky News have started a campaign to allow cameras in English courts. They say on their website that:

'A petition will be started after the General Election, following the successful campaign for leaders' debates, the head of Sky News said.

In a speech to the Cambridge Union Society, John Ryley said: "There remains one more branch of our democratic system which broadcasting has still not properly penetrated - the courts.
"If the legislature is to be subject to far greater scrutiny so too must the judiciary, so the public can fairly judge the balance of responsibility between them.'

Read the full story here.

Calling All Undergraduates: Sprinkle Journal CFP

Apologies for the short notice, but I've just been sent this Call for Papers:

Sprinkle, a peer-reviewed, undergraduate Sexual Diversity Studies journal, seeks academic submissions for Winter 2010 edition. Papers should be 1500-2500 words in length and show critical engagement with issues of gender and sexuality from all disciplines. Please send submissions via e-mail as .doc or .rtf attachments to sprinkle.journal@gmail.com with identifying information: name; email address; institution of study (if applicable), only in text of email (attached papers should contain no information that would identify the author). Papers must be submitted by January 15th, 2010.

Read more about the journal here.

Perry and Video Streaming: The USPC Order in Full & Day One in Review

The Special Perry page on the California Supreme Court site now has the United States Supreme Court Order which does relatively little to shed light on this decision. You can view the original file here and I've reproduced it at the bottom of this post. There was a dissenting opinion by Justice Breyer (pictured right). Now if I was a US law academic (or even student) that would be enough to say but for us Brits, a little more explanation is needed. Just Breyer was appointed by the Clinton Presidency back in 1994. He's generally viewed as being more liberal and was himself born in San Francisco. Breyer seems to be saying, yes we need more time to consider this but while we consider this, we should not be imposing a ban.

The Advocate wesbite has posted a summary of the discussions yesterday (it got too late into the night to keep following the Twitter updates over here). This summary can be viewed here. Perhaps one of the interesting aspects of the case is that the plaintiffs (yes they still use that term in the US) are represented by the strongly conservative Ted Olson who introduced the case by stating: “This case is about marriage and equality,” he said. “Plaintiffs are being denied both the right to marry, and the right to equality under the law. The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly described the right to marriage as "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of the happiness of free men.’” Of course, as we're increasingly seeing in the UK, and as Matthew Parris long argued, the case for gay marriage is a conservative one. What can be more conservative? The Advocate also notes Judge Walker's repeated line of questioning was 'why the courts shouldn’t abstain from the issue and allow marriage equality battles to be played out on in the political process'. The Advocate adds that Olson replied “Because that is why we have courts,”. The Advocate strangely omits, what those who did follow on Twitter will recall, which is there was a long pause before this response. This might seem like small beer but I thought it significant. Olson should have been able to answer such a fundamental question without hesitation and his failure to do so further dented my confidence in this case succeeding. Given my record on predicting the turns in this case, that conclusion bodes well for US GLBT activists!

I also learn from The Advocate that later on 'marriage historian Harvard University professor Nancy F. Cott took the stand, speaking about the fluidity of the definition of marriage and the discrimination that minorities have historically faced in attaining such rights. “Only those who cannot marry their partner of choice - or marry at all - are aware that the ability to marry is an expression of one’s freedom,” she said'. Celeb watchers will be interested to note that Dustin Lance Black was present in the gallery. Black was responsible for the Milk screenplay and has been very active in the equality cause. Others might recall his entanglement last year in some barebacking personal sex photos (and a video that never showed up) posted on Perez Hilton's website (since removed following outcry's from the gay community).

(ORDER LIST: 558 U.S.)

MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 2010

ORDER IN PENDING CASE
09A648
HOLLINGSWORTH, DENNIS, ET AL. V. PERRY, KRISTIN M., ET AL.

Upon consideration of the application for stay presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court, it is ordered that the order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 3:09-cv-02292, permitting real-time streaming is stayed except as it permits streaming to other rooms within the confines of the courthouse in which the trial is to be held. Any additional order permitting broadcast of the proceedings is also stayed pending further order of this Court. To permit further consideration in this Court, this order will remain in effect until Wednesday, January 13, 2010, at 4 p.m. eastern time.

Justice Breyer, dissenting.

I agree with the Court that further consideration is warranted, and I am pleased that the stay is time limited.

However, I would undertake that consideration without a temporary stay in place. This stay prohibits the transmission of proceedings to other federal courthouses. In my view, the
Court’s standard for granting a stay is not met. See Conkright v. Frommert, 556 U. S. ___, ___ (2009) (slip op., at 1–2) (Ginsburg, J., in chambers). In particular, the papers filed, in
my view, do not show a likelihood of “irreparable harm.”

With respect, I dissent.

The Shorty Awards

Appalling and a disgrace - yes that is how I'd characterise the US Supreme Court decision on the Perry (Proposition 8) YouTube video but it's also how people might characterise this shameful begging of votes. Seeing as The Times Higher has jumped in and asked for votes, I feel I can do to.

This is the second Shorties and according to the site: 'The Shorty Awards honor the best people and organizations on Twitter. These unique awards are for the Twitter community, by the Twitter community. Online voting is public and democratic, culminating in an awards ceremony that recognizes the winners in 27 official categories as well as those in brand new crowd-sourced ones.'

You need to have a Twitter account then go to this link http://shortyawards.com/lawandsexuality and vote for me - please. Thank you lovely people and please spread the word!

Astonishing: Prop 8 Video Banned

Well it shows what I know. The US Supreme Court has, it seems, banned the YouTube broadcast of the Proposition hearing. I don't know why yet as that doesn't seem to feature int he reports and I can't yet see anything on the Supreme Court website. I'll keep checking and post something when I find it (if you find something, elt me know!). The Advocate says in their report that the court 'will block the planned broadcast of the footage on YouTube until the justices have more time to consider the issue. Today’s order will be in place until Wednesday'. What the hell? Why? The Californian court had been taking part in a trial to open up the legal process. The special Proposition 8 page on the court's website was a pragmatic acknowledgement of the degree of public interest in this case and televising this case for the world would be the right thing to do - if anythign the YouTube posting was in my view, not enough. This decision appears to relate to the pre-trial hearing so all hope is not yet lost but I look forward to seeing the justification for this barmy decision.

And so it begins California?

The sun is most definitely going down here in a wintry UK but it's early morning in San Francisco with the latest proposition 8 trial getting underway later today. I previously blogged on the televising of the trial and I'll be embedding videos onto this blog as they are released on the court's YouTube site. Yet as I scouted around the US blogs, one, the wonderful Petrelis Files brings news of an attempt by anti gay marriage campaigners 11th hour attempt to stop the very modest televising of this trial. The trial is set to galvanise LGBTQ campaigners across the world and particularly in San Francisco. I hope these attempts to prevent the outside world viewing this proceedings will fail (I feel confident they will) and I hope we see Proposition 8 overturned (much less confident). I suggest that those like me, desperate for news on developments get themselves on twitter where sources like The Advocate will be tweeting developments as they happen.

Don't forget you can also follow me on Twitter by clicking the Twitter logo link on the right hand side of this blog or on my Twitter page at: http://twitter.com/lawandsexuality

Gay, Muslim and Homeless

The Albert Kennedy Trust (AKT) is probably my favourite charity, performing a really important role. This fabulous charity (promo vid below) defines it's aims as:

To ensure that all lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans young people are able to live in accepting, supportive and caring homes, by providing a range of services to meet the individual needs of those who would otherwise be homeless or living in a hostile environment.

They aim to do this by:

• Providing appropriate homes through supported lodgings, fostering and other specialist housing schemes.
• Enabling young people to manage independent living successfully.
• Improving attitudes within society towards lesbian, gay and bisexual young people.

Why am I telling you all this? Well, they've scored a media goal today in a bid to raise awareness of an important issue - homeless gay Muslims, fleeing forced marriages, and so called 'honour killings'. The BBC story is worth reading in full (thanks to Sean for flagging this story up).

The story is prompted by a reported rise in the number of Muslim men and women coming to the charity in the last six months. Some of the most challenging tutorials I've ever had with both undergraduate and postgraduate students (some of you might be reading this!) has been when we've discussed Islam and sexuality and time after time I've heard the assertion by Muslims in those tutorials that 'there are no gay Muslims' which is logically true if you accept the idea that those two statuses are incompatible. This might make for challenging and interesting discussions in the tutorial setting but it makes for a nightmarish environment for those who do consider themselves gay and Muslim. Far from going away, I think this is an issue that will continue to grow.

A Very Public Transition

Blogs have always meant different things for different people with many people initially setting up blogs as the confessional public diary in the early boom years of blogging. Since then, they've evolved into being about information, debate, hobbies and interests but there remains a role for the confessional. As readers, we become voyeurs, gaining an insight into the intimate moments and thoughts of an individual that we might not otherwise see. I think Belle de Jour's blog, and subsequent books were successful not because they were about sex (although that helped) but because they gave insights into a type of sex - sex work - that those outside that environment rarely see and understand. Transgender is another phenomenon that those 'outside' can not fully appreciate. I include myself in that category of the outsider, not fully appreciating the complexities of issues and realities of day-to-day existence. As time has progressed and I've developed friendships with those who would describe themselves as trans, I've learnt that broad assumptions and conclusions are pointless. Each is (why are we surprised?) a different individual with different experiences and perspectives.

I've met a guy who I thought was stunningly attractive but had a vagina rather than a penis, presenting me with questions about my own sexuality. I've met women who continue to live their lives, mapping routes to venues so as to avoid 'dangerous' spaces where they might receive abuse or violence because of their more 'masculine' appearance. It's in that context, that the confessional blog can provide us with much needed perspectives and understandings.

I was recently alerted to this blog about Jane, transitioning from male to female. Of course there are a few blogs that explore this experience but this blog is different, firstly for being at the early stages of that process and secondly for there being a blog by Jane's partner giving another perspective on the same events, developments, hopes, triumphs and set-backs.

Jane's first post in which she describes buying nail varnish is both funny and moving whilst the discussion of the same events by Jane's partner were both powerful and moving. When we read Jane's partners comment: 'The negative times will come. I’m not ready yet'; the raw realities of life are brought home and we are once again reminded that many of us, are simply those voyeurs looking in, seeking understanding of something we can barely grasp.

Read Jane's blog here and her partner's blog here.

"Buy her, take her home and have a wank"

So said a DJ at the Mayhem night club in Southend during a 'Babes on the Bed Competition'. This information comes courtesy of the Sunday Times (yes I know - 'wank' in the Times, changing times indeed). The News Review section has started serialising a book by Natasha Walter called Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism. It explores ideas of pornography in our society - specifically 'soft' porn. The competition described above was for a Nuts magazine competition with the winner appearing on the cover. What's more interesting is the exploration of feminists' response to these 'sexualised' women, for whom playfully toying with a sequined thong on a shaven crotch in a club is a good way to attract men. It's a relatively superficial exploration but it does try and explore what feminism means for women today and how that fits with liberation. The book can be viewed/bought here and the extract that appeared on Sunday can be viewed here.

Here's to You Mrs Robinson

I previously blogged on the fall of Iris Robinson. She is a woman who has pointed both barrels at the gay community and fired a repeated series of barrages. The face she is now suffering depression and her life is dropping to pieces has given myself and others such as Tory blogger Iain Dale cause to pause and not go after her as much as others have. Dale cites knowledge of friends who have suffered from depression. I've suffered from bouts of depression for half my life and know how debilitating it can be. Nonetheless, that reluctance to kick Robinson when she is down has appeared to be in a minority within the LGBT blogopshere and I can understand why. I am of the view that those who live by the sword should die buy the sword and despite my starting point above I am joining in the latest response and encouraging others to do the same.

A movement has started through Twitter to encourage people to buy Mrs Robinson by Simon & Garfunkel in a sarcastic response to Robinson's fall. Despite my reservations I think it's an appropriate farewell to a thoroughly unpleasant and now it appears, potentially corrupt and hypocritical politician who has said and done far worse to her foes. You can download the track for a bargain 79p off iTunes here. The aim is to send it to number one by next weeks chart. Download it from Monday (11th) folks and get it to #1. Also check out @shane_reaction on Twitter who together with Liam Killen on Facebook seem to be leading the campaign and are working hard to promote it.

There's a brilliant satirical version on YouTube which you can view/listen to below but make sure you buy the original off iTunes (or other source of your preference) at this link:

*UPDATE* I've now been told of the Facebook support group viewable here. Join and lend your support. Download details also there.

The Metrosexual and the New Decade

Mark Simpson, father of the metrosexual, and all round good egg has talked about the metrosexual going forward into the new decade in his latest blog post. He takes issue with those who suggest that the metrosexual has 'peaked'. It's certainly true that the metrosexual doesn't seem to be as 'of the moment' as it did. A few backs, my then hometown of Sheffield had a night at The Forum called Metrosexual but I'm not sure it would be the sort of name places would go for now (am I wrong?). Simpson argues that 'Metrosexuality, men’s passionate, epoch-making desire to be desired, is a long, long way from peaking.' His blog (as ever) is worth a read. The observation of orange Geordie's is a good one and will sound familiar for anyone who's been on the scene in the NE. Check out his blog here.

The Big Questions?

I normally avoid the BBC's 'The Big Questions' like the proverbial plague. Dull, old fashioned and like a time wharp to the early 1990's it needs a re-boot. It is of course the BBC's effort at religious/ethical programming and bless them they try. The trouble is it's probably too dull for attracting new viewers and far too 'trendy' for those who want good honest, wholesome like granny religious programming. Anyway, I was drawn in this morning by a trailer before saying one of the questions would be 'should you be honest about your sexuality'. Peter Tatchell was one the 'panel' so I Sky plused it and watched it later so I could skip through the other stuff. Well, it was largely as dull as I remembered. You can (if you're a UK viewer) watch it again on the BBC site here. To be honest, I could link to any programme like this that has discussed the topic in the last 20 years and the programme would be the same. There's also a discussion board that has a fair bit of activity on this subject here.

What disappointed me was how unoriginal the arguments were (hey, I was being optimistic that I might be surprised). It was all a bit Groundhog day. Tatchell was joined by a trendy woman vicar (surprise surprise, the slightly more progressive one) and an older woman member of the church synod (the let the homos burn in hell one). The audience was the usual smattering of the barmy and the worthy. A glimmer of hope was raised when the presenter, Nicky Campbell asked about whether we should be open about all aspects of our sexuality - by extension - fetishes, fantasies and so on. Now that was a subject far more worthy of debate and one we've not had endlessly. Alas, it didn't really develop. Watch the programme yourself here.

Cover me in Rubber and throw me to the Bailiffs

Interesting story coming out of California about worries for the porn industry there. I've long supported the existence of barebacking porn, and I know this fact alone is enough to get the backs up of many in and outside the industry. Barebacking 'gay' porn appears to be a particular phenomenon with companies such as Treasure Island Media being at the forefront of this, and indeed celebrating all things bareback. And hell why not? The answer is HIV/AIDS. Don't you realise, people DIE?! Well of course, but I also recognise that barebacking is a choice. I recognise that many bareback in private but have to state they don't in public. I recognise the safe sex campaigners who get paid to talk about safe sex but then some (I make no claims about numbers) enjoy barebacking.

Now we learn, several healthcare groups in California are Alex Padilla published a story at the start of last month in Forbes in which he concludes: 'The costs and consequences of adopting a condom-only regulation far outweigh any benefits. The adult industry has done an excellent job policing and testing itself. The government is likely to do more harm than good to the health of both porn performers and the general public if it meddles in adult entertainment.'

AIDS Healthcare Foundation responded with this statement on their website. The argue that: 'as concerned citizens who are appalled by the epidemic rates of STDs within the adult film industry, we believe it is unethical for industry executives and consumers to continue to enjoy the profits, tax revenues and gratification of adult film without ensuring the safety of performers.'

In reality, testing does seem to work as Padilla notes. Porn is big business but we don't see big STD cases associated with those in the industry. Aids Healthcare doesn't address the subject of those who may already be infected with say HIV, but we can imagine their response would be the same. Paul Morris at TIM seems to think on Twitter that California will lose the porn industry if these measures go through. He should know a heck of a lot better than me. After the growth of file-sharing and the recession, this is probably the last thing that California's porn industry needs and it will simply drive it somewhere else.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation had earlier tried to argue before the courts that the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health has "passively observed an ever-growing epidemic" within the porn industry. That case failed. Let's hope this new legislative effort will go the same way.

Change to Comments Settings

I'd really like more students and readers commenting on the blog but my worry has always been spam. I have until now moderated all comments, just as a filter but I was still getting loads of spam through to moderate. Word verification stopped that and so I've now done away with moderation. This means your comments should appear immediately after you complete the word verification stage. Should the spammers return I'll have to go back to the old way, but I hope this encourages more of you to comment on posts.

Dogging: A Love Story - Review

It's been a long time coming but my DVD finally turned up yesterday (it's not showing anywhere at a cinema near me and it was simultaneously released to DVD) so I gave it a whirl last night. Regular readers of this blog will know I was very excited at the prospect of this film. Public sex is my main area of research and dogging is not the typical subject of cinema. Most of the main media has included the film in their reviews over the last month or so and they seem to have been universally poor. Turns out they were fair as well as poor. The film lacked pace and the story quickly became muddled. It was trying to be many things and failed at most. Luke Treadaway,a fabulous actor, just didn't really gel in the main role as Dan. Richard Riddell peaks in his read through of Dan's story (you see it in the trailer where Dogging is described as 'British' as warm beer) but is generally over-acting his heart out and not getting laughs. The true star who comes out of it as a lovable, funny and interesting character is Jim played by Michael Sorcha. On the basis of this performance, one to watch.

So what about the depiction of dogging? Well it starts of well. The opening credits include footage that is drawn heavily on dogging porn and I thought it both clever and interesting. The fact they chose actual dogging locations in the North East was also an interesting move, the depiction of the role of the Internet was also good (although this got muddled with the IM thing). The vox pops in Newcastle city centre, in which members of the public are asked about dogging was also interesting but didn't integrate into the film as well as they could. I'm not sure if these were 'mock' interviews or genuine. Anyone know?

When Dan is first taken dogging, we see the excitement and enthusiasm that can go with this phenomenon before he mistakenly approaches a steamed up car that has a family inside innocently eating a take-a-way. This was funny and had the ring of authenticity but the scene once again became muddled and then we had someone just walking into the space. Great idea blown by a script that needed a bit more work.

One of the interviewees talked about the Police spoiling his fun. It was a shame these themes weren't then explored. The Police apart from one scene where Dan mentions sirens in the distance are not present in the film and so we get a skewed view of dogging. As the film evolves, dogging becomes viewed as something a bit sad, a bit pathetic and a bit of a mystery which throws away the earlier interesting perspectives and ideas. We even have a character who is a trainspotter turned dogger, keeping a notebook and writing down, well we don't know what, and nobody objects, which is weird. No "what you writing mate?", "you writing down my plates mate?" etc.

The final series of scenes revolve around a 'big meet', almost likening dogging to rave culture, with people secretly arranging to go to a distant rural venue (the lake district in this case - just past Kendal), and people run around openly and happily - the sophisticated tension we see earlier depicted is gone, a character we ordinarily meet as 'normal' is now cast as a dodgy weirdo whose life is ruined by a front page story. We are supposed to applaud the central character for doing this. Why? It makes no sense? It's the final act that turns the film from a film that depicts dogging into a film that deliberately seeks to undermine and attack this social phenomenon, with no clear reason give other than it's a 'bit weird'.

Originally, I really wanted this film to work, but on the whole, it doesn't. They would have done far better to take Daniel Davies's 2008 novel, The Isle of Dogs and turned that into a film (the book was republished last year and can be bought here). That book does combine a good understanding of dogging with humour and some scenes of tension. The Police are also (rightly) a very real element.

I think this is not a consequence of a talent shortage but rather (as Ellis suggests below), a lack of support. I understand the film had difficulty being made and this is probably reflected in the end result. Below, you can see the film's Director, Simon Ellis discuss the film:

Prop 8 Legal Challenge WILL be televised (sort of)

Well Proposition will be televised. 3 stationary cameras will be in the court room and will be available for public view the following day on YouTube. The courts YouTube page can be viewed here.

This will be instead of a live feed on the Court's website which I think is a shame. Quite a few appear to be complaining that this means only the already committed will look at these videos. I think that's fair comment in the short term but in the long term, having them on YouTube will boost the likelihood of viral web transmission, and others encountering the material during searches (not least law students). For me, it shouldn't have been an 'either or' debate. I would have liked to have seen live transmissions on the court website to help deliver immediacy for those who can't physically be in the court room (and overflow room). It would also have delivered genuine transparency. These should then have been additionally uploaded to YouTube. Ahh well, at least we will get to see it but given the time delay and the time difference, it will probably be Wednesday when UK viewers get to grips with the case which kicks off on Monday.

Readers can get some idea of what it will look like thanks to the test transmission which I have embedded below.

Religion and Hatred (Pt 2)

Oh dear Mrs Robinson. I can't find it within me to attack or take joy in the fact that Iris Robinson is suffering from depression. That said, I seem to be in a minority within the LGBTQ community judging by the number of tweets, blogs and Facebook statuses that are taking great joy in the fall of this particular Northern Ireland politician. The story even made it to the main story on the US Advocate website just before I went to bed last night. As wife of first Minister, Peter Robinson she may yet bring down the NI government and with it, bugger up the peace process. Nice one Iris.

For those who don't know, Iris Robinson shot to fame by making a series of homophobic remarks over the last year or so, comparing homosexuality to paedophilia and offering to pass on the details of someone who could 'cure' homosexuality to those who got in touch with her. Seemingly a religious zealot, she appeared to secure few friends outside the devout and the right wing. The fact that she has now been exposed as having an affair with a 19 year old (she was 59 at the time), and also the BBC has suggested, has been involved some dodgy financial settlements all adds up to 'just desserts' for many.

Ina further twist, Attitude magazine is now offering her former lover a chance to appear on the cover which I think would be rather poetic.

Religion and Hatred (pt 1)

I've just been monitoring an exchange on Facebook on Stonewall's group page. One guy had posted:

'yes you shouldn't bully gay people, let god punish them 4 there evil practises, u can see the evil and darkness of sin oozing from there faces, there in constant pain and misery an are evil'

He is apparently a Muslim and the response by Stonewall was:

'Apologies to anyone who read the offensive post by [name deleted] below. This has now been reported to facebook and the police.'

Now then... The chap who posted this statement does appear to be a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic but that's just my view and isn't he entitled to his? On the one hand, the first person to criticise Islam finds themselves committing all sorts of social 'sins' and can quickly find themselves attracting the attention of law enforcement - so you could argue responding in kind is appropriate. On the other hand, is it really the best use of Police time to investigate the guy who posted this? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. As a gay man, do I feel offended by reading this? No. Should I not kiss another guy in his presence? Sod that, he'll just after get over his offfence too. Seeking solace in legislation and law for this sort of thing is to my mind bonkers. I want the right to be offended and to offend.

Had we been talking about hundreds of posts by this guy or a campaign of targeting the profiles of those who are 'friends' of Facebook, I would taking a very different position but I do think there needs to be some flexibility and a couple of unpleasant posts need to be kept in perspective.

Televised Trial of Proposition 8?

I'm in favour of televising as much of legal proceedings as possible. Of course there are downsides - I remember watching the Anna Nicole Smith custody case back in 2007 (how did I cope before live US cable news feeds?) and seeing Judge Larry Seidlin take centre stage and get momentarily drunk on celebrity. That said, I thought he was rather good although I suspect English judges would have a heart-attack at the prospect of anything similar in the UK. Well, our latest global court case could be the ongoing Proposition 8 proceedings in California. Pink News reports:

'Chief US District Judge Vaughn Walker announced his intention to record or webcast a pretrial hearing on 6 January, subject to approval from the governing body, as a precursor to the challenge itself, scheduled to begin on 11 January.'

Pink News phrases the story in such a way that it might be a misleading. The challenge is to the Supreme Court of California (not the US federal Supreme Court as is implied in the PN story - at least not yet) and Judge Vaughn Walker is Chief Justice of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case at the heart of this storm is Perry et al v Schwarzenegger et al. Due to the interest in the case, the US District Court has created a special page on their site viewable here.

The court (rather fabulously) is also providing a special e-mail announcement service that anyone can join. Subscription is free, open to anyone, and available at this link. The case is likely to dominate the first part of 2010 as far as the law and sexuality is concerned. Let's home it's televised (even with the time difference!) so that people around the world can view this important case as it happens. Students - subscribe to the announcement service!

US lifts HIV/Aids immigration ban

As the BBC, Pink News, and others are reporting, today marks the lifting of the US HIV/AIDS ban. It's a historic shift but we shouldn't be fooled it's an Obama initiative, it was heading in that direction anyway. The ban is a reminder of the fear that HIV/AIDS was met with in the 1980s and a reminder of death and disease at a time when HIV/AIDS is increasingly theorised both by academics and communities. Don't get me wrong, this theorising is important. I'm working on finishing of an article which seeks to apply a queer legal analysis to the English criminal law in this area but HIV/AIDS does not mean the inevitable tombstone in our communities. Even where HIV/AIDS is wrapped in discourses of disease and death, those discourses are themselves becoming fetishised and/or queered so as to take on meanings beyond the orthodox 'negative'.

500 years of lesbian and gay related material in the British Library

Readers might be interested in this event at the British Library. I'd like to attend myself but due to teaching commitments I can't possibly make it down to London in time (tour please?). The event is on Tuesday 9 Feb 2010, 18.30 – 20.00 in the Conference Centre, British Library. Price: £6 / £4 concessions. The BL site describes the event as:

'An illustrated talk for Lesbian Gay Bisexual Trans History Month by Bart Smith of the Library’s Humanities Reference Service. The event will be chaired by Amy Lame, BBC Radio London presenter and co-founder and host of the legendary club Duckie.

This talk will include content of an adult nature.'

More info on the BL site. Click here.

Murder in the Academy

The festive period brought sadness as well as joy. A gay US Assistant Professor of English was murdered in his home. Don Belton (pictured right) has been described as a 'literary path blazer and one of the important black gay writers to emerge in the 1980s'. Pink News reports that he was stabbed by a 25 year old male who admitted stabbing Belton following a sexual assault committed by Belton on the stabber a couple of days earlier. A tribute/info site has been set out called justicefordonbelton.com and the online reaction seems to be dealing with the case as a 'gay panic' murder. UK law students might rightly be slightly puzzled by this as it's not something that has been advanced in English law. In the US, the Matthew Shepard case is probably a good example of where people have applied this idea and the film-maker, Susan Potter explored the idea in a New Zealand context with her film 'An Ordinary Person'. Potter asked the question 'does the law make it impossible to murder a homosexual' and it will be interesting to see how that idea plays out in the case of Don Belton, if indeed it does at all.