SlutWalk London 2012 will be taking place on Saturday 22nd September 2012, meet 12.30pm at Top of Piccadilly (near Hyde Park Corner).
The protest received wide-spread media coverage last year and represents an important public statement about rape - and tackles conceptions of people 'asking for it' when it comes to rape. Put simply, Slutwalk is the radical notion that nobody deserves to be raped.
Campaigners describe on their website the background to the campaign: 'On 24th January 2011, a Toronto policeman told a group of law students that in order to avoid being raped ‘women should avoid dressing like sluts’.
This sparked outrage around the globe, with sluts and allies from Chicago to Amsterdam standing up and saying that we have had ENOUGH of being victimised and labelled, speaking out for freedom, equality and fun and saying that nobody gets to tell us how to be women...We believe that rape is always the fault of the rapist, never the survivor. And until that attitude is held globally, we will continue to speak up.'
Sexual health campaigners GMFA are really making an impact with the latest issue of their magazine. As Pink News reports, a survey of over 1,000 gay men by sexual health charity GMFA suggests just under 7 percent believe they were led to having unprotected sex after watching bareback pornography, but more than half thought it led others to do the same.
98 percent of the respondents said they watched porn.
The magazine makes the following summary of their findings:
You lot are a horny
bunch.
You LOVE watching
anal and oral sex.
Muscle guys turn you
on the most.
A good chunk of you
like to watch bareback
porn but do not think it
affects your sex
decisions.
But you think younger
guys and people with
less intelligence copy
what they see in porn.
l 7% of you say
watching bareback porn
has led you to taking
risks.
Some of you like to
put yourself in front of
the camera.
And some of you have
put this stuff on the
internet (links please?).
9% of you have had
videos uploaded to the
internet without your
consent.
You like lots of
different porn stars but a
lot of you wouldn’t date
one.
You wouldn’t care
if someone you were
dating did porn in
the past.
You don’t care if a
mate has done porn -
and the majority of you
would be happy to watch
them.
The summary points are a little biased. A 'good chunk of you like to watch bareback' suggests what? 20%, 30%? The figure in the study is 95.8% so saying 'almost all' seems a fairer description.
Interestingly, the magazine also made use of bareback voices in the form of porn filmmaker, Liam Cole, of Treasure Island Media who commented that; “If you can find true pleasure in
condoms themselves, and record
that honestly, the viewer will
recognise that authenticity...but an artificial ‘sexing
up’ is only going to fool the most
gullible people.”
“I don’t believe they need to be
‘sexed up’,” adds English Lads’ Nick
Baker. “We just make them part of
the scene from putting them on to
removing them.”
So Cole prima facie appears to accept a role for condom porn - as documenting 'authentic' sex. However, given this kind of sex is rarely seen as 'authentic', it's pretty hard to imagine 'authentic' condom porn, as it pre-supposes pleasure and desire which - for some - is hard to equate with condoms. Although - as you would expect - the piece does maintain a safe sex emphasis, it is perhaps the comments of Cole which are most supported by this survey.
I'm delighted to say that the Consenting Adult Action Network (CAAN) is back, reinvigorated and energised. I'm not involved in the group, but do support their mission.
CAAN works to campaign for sexual freedom, with a simple mission statement:
“We believe in the right of consenting adults to make their own sexual choices, in respect of what they do, see and enjoy alone or with other consenting adults, unhindered and unfettered by government.”
“We believe that it is not the business of government to intrude into the sex lives of consenting adults.”
They've also published a new newsletter with some interesting updates on the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act and look at the various socio-legal sexuality stories currently in debate. A must-read for anyone interested in law and sexuality. You can view/download the new newsletter here.
I always tend to be suspicious of 'pack mentality' initiatives, typically trendy projects that everybody piles in on and serve as nothing more than the most ephemeral worthy event, soothing the egos of celebrities and 'ordinary' members of the public alike. Sometimes however, I've just got to get over my own cynical streak and get involved.
So it is with the Out4Marriage campaign, a campaign that Pink News is promoting with gusto. Unsurprising, given that the project was conceived by PinkNews.co.uk founder Benjamin Cohen and Mike Buonaiuto, the director of the Coalition for Equal Marriage viral video. Inspired by the 'It Gets Better' Campaign, the idea is that individuals record videos of themselves coming out for marriage, explaining why they are supporting a change in English law and always ending with the same phrase.
I've previously expressed my view that same-sex marriage is politically inevitable in English law and it remains my view. However, there is a always the possibility that in an apparent silence from the pro same-sex marriage lobby, we might concede an open goal. Moreover, the historical narrative will suggest that there was no great demand for same-sex marriage - that it was merely an example of political expediency by the Coalition government of 2010-2015. This campaign suggests otherwise.
I'm also incredibly conscious that I'm uncomfortable with marriage and whilst some queer theorists reject the die oaf marriage full stop, I disagree with that strand of Queer Theorists, accepting instead a fluidity which allows a range of social and legal partnerships to emerge. Anyway, the other week I had a go at making a video for the campaign. The end result is below. It's rather hideous but I tried. I hope you'll think about recording one too.
Channel 4 correspondent and Pink news founder, Benjamin Cohen has produced a nice little video as part of the It Gets Better Project in which he talks about being gay and Jewish (not to be confused with the straight, rugby playing, anti-bullying campaigner and homo pin up - Ben Cohen).
I know these videos have attracted some criticism from within the LGBTQ 'community' for simplifying things, for suggesting that things 'get better' when perhaps they don't but I think the message is an important one - and you can explain that things can remain complex but also that they do get better. The message is simply one of hope, and heaven knows we all need that in our darkest moments.
Check out the lovely Benjamin below (and watch out for Krishnan bobbing around in the background):
By now, many of you will be aware of the news last week from LA regarding new rules on the use of condoms in the production of porn films. I'm knocking together a piece for elsewhere so forgive me for not commenting further than my previous posts (see this and this, and also this). However, you can read more about the latest developments here on LA Weekly and also this piece from the wonderful Katherine Sansom.
With the festive season upon us, and the year coming to a close it is perhaps inevitable to look back on the last twelve months. The big story has been partnership rights and marriage rights as the Coalition Government looked to focus the social policy agenda on 'families' in the wake of austerity at home, a global economic crisis and riots on the streets. The UK took steps towards same-sex marriage and this time next year it should be on the statute book. We'll then know what that means for civil partnerships and the ongoing legal action from the Equal Love Campaign. As I argued in the Huffington Post earlier in the year, this shift is in line with conservative thinking and presents some interesting questions for conservatives in the States. Yesterday saw the sixth anniversary for civil partnerships but we still don't know if those who are in civil partnerships today, will be this time next year and whether other people will have access to those rights. More than 46,000 civil partnerships have been held since the December 2005, with 18,049 of those taking place in the first year. How this area pans out in English law will be a key issue of law and sexuality in 2012.
In the US, as Obama sinks in opinions polls -and looks to an election in 2012 that he looks set to win not because of his skills at governing but because the GOP candidates look unelectable, his law and sexuality policy win has been the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Although signed this time last year, it's now been in force and is changing lives. NBC's Nightly News included a great feature last night on life in the armed forces post DADT. I've pasted it in below. The long term implications of the repeal will be to contribute to a cultural change in America enabling further progressive measures to pass. The problematic question for Obama is 'what now?' as US lobbying groups inevitably sharpen their political knives over the issue of same-sex marriage and the Perry case continues to progress (with the reassuringly legal pace of a snail) through the US courts.
Feltham Young Offenders Institute appears to be in some hot water according to Pink News. They report that Prison staff at the Feltham Young Offenders Institute refused official recommendations to display positive images of gay and bisexual relationships to inmates, according to a report released today.
They don't include a link to the full report but it can be viewed here. The report seems more positive on equalities than the picture painted by the Pink News Story. Of greater concern for me was that young people didn't always have access to free telephone calls to their legal representatives but they did have relevant legal books in the library. Seriously folks? That's adequate for the demography likely to be needing advice? (let alone a breach of legal rights).
Anyhow, the fact prison officers resisted the display of the posters is disheartening but I suspect it came from a culture in which such posters -it was specifically the Stonewall posters - might have led to increased bullying etc. Feltham does, the report indicates, have issues with gangs to the extent of riots and in that environment the prison officers might think the Stonewall posters are inappropriate - for a host of reasons. It doesn't necessarily indicate homophobia on their part. I'd rather the posters were up, but this seems an area that the Inspectorate should have probed more, and groups such as the Howard League for Penal Reform should be less quick to condemn (as they do in the Pink News piece).
The report points to positive treatment of one trans inmate, stating:
'A transgender young person who arrived during the inspection was interviewed on the day of his arrival by the liaison officer to assess and address his needs. He was placed on a unit with a higher than average staffing level to address his support needs. Staff told us that they had previously put in place a programme of support for transgender young people, including the opportunity to wear suitable clothing for their preferred gender.'
On sexualities, the report concludes that:
'Some impressive work had been undertaken to support gay and bisexual young people and to raise awareness of issues among young people and staff.'
Hardly condemnation. The report and the Pink News story point to the presence of a group - PRIDE - as a positive sign but many years of report writing made me question thesis action. The report writes (and this bit is repeated in the Pink News report):
'A support group for gay young people, PRIDE, had been established which met whenever there were young people who wanted to attend it. All young people were told about it on induction, which provided an opportunity for young people to offer information about their sexual orientation if they wished.'
So, how often has it met? How many people attend? What do they do? How useful did people find it. As currently phrased, this sounds like something that exists on paper but not in practical reality.
Hillary Clinton is a busy woman and so I can only imagine the US Secretary of State was a) too busy to pre-read a speech she delivered this week in Geneva and b) the victim of her staff having a little fun. Along with the White House she announced a commitment by America to the 'human rights' of LGBT people around the world - and a commitment to promote human rights issues in this area. She also announced a new Global Equality Fund with $3 million in the kitty - and the hope other countries would chip in (the world is after all flush with cash). For America, the $3 million figure is interesting - presumably Obama and Hillary had a root around the backs of official sofas for some small change, but the wider issue is of course America lecturing the world on LGBT rights - I mean really?
So, the question about whether Hilary actually knew what she was saying (surely she'd correct it or ask "hang on guys, this is for real?"was taken up by the media. Via the wonders of open government, the teleconference briefing on the story was published on the US State Department website. You can read it here. One member of the media asked if Hilary had actually written the speech. This was the punchy and clear response from officials:
Well, she has a terrific amount of input into all of her speeches, but this is a speech that is very much crafted in her voice and with her guidance and her intentions in mind. I mean, she knew when she was going to give the speech. She knew that, as she said in the speech, that it is a topic that is still sensitive for some, and she wanted to be aware of that, sensitive to that, respectful of that. As she said in the speech, she wanted to give people a chance to raise what they were concerned about, afraid about, et cetera. And yet it’s something on which she also said in her speech over time – over the course of her life, her own sensitivities and convictions have deepened.
And so I think, as I said at the outset, the speech was – because of her guidance and because of the work that she did on the speech, she worked through multiple drafts and makes edits and captures exactly what kind of tone she wants and writes out paragraphs longhand, et cetera. And I think in doing that, she really – she very purposefully made it both firmly principled and also unimpeachably respectful. And I think in that respect, it reflects her broader vision and her leadership in this area.
It is of course to be welcomed that America broadly takes this approach but perhaps their speech and political efforts should be focused inwardly as well as externally. Moreover, careful reading of the speech will reveal an administration balancing freedom of religion with sexuality and a focus upon ensuring LGBT people are not criminalised,a rested and physically injured. It avoids the tough questions of same-sex marriage, employment protections, goods and services rights, adoption and fertility rights, medical access for those seeking to transition and so on.
This failure -and that's what it is - enables countries such as Nigeria to dismiss these calls, and the whole speech to amount to nothing more than vacuous remarks.
The US administration also issued a Presidential Memorandum - quite literally a note from the boss to government agencies. That memo applied to the Departments of State, the Treasury, Defense, Justice, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Export-Import Bank, the United States Trade Representative, and such other agencies as the President may designate.
It made a series of specific directions to agencies, requiring them to:
• Combat the criminalization of LGBT status or conduct abroad.
• Protect vulnerable LGBT refugees and asylum seekers.
• Leverage foreign assistance to protect human rights and advance nondiscrimination.
• Ensure swift and meaningful U.S. responses to human rights abuses of LGBT persons abroad.
• Engage International Organizations in the fight against LGBT discrimination.
• Report on progress.
The memorandum is worth reading in full which you can do here, and although it received less attention in the media, it is equally vacuous. America, this isn't good enough.
The first day of December marks the global event of World AIDS Day. A brief moment when the LGBT community in particularly remember the lives that have been lost, condole the families of those gone and pay tribute to the survivors.
It's also a time of important fund-raising which can truly make a difference to people's lives. It is of course, also time of platitudes, of talking of safe-sex whilst engaging in bareback, of telling a younger generation "do as I say, not what I do". For wider society, it's one of those rare moments when the 'gay community' make it through into the mainstream media, and are once again associated with disease. Too often it seems to me, these campaigns are led by an LGBTQ community in a western context whilst heterosexuals are broadly seen to focus upon the 'otherness' of HIV/AIDS in Africa.
It's also fascinating to see how publications and the world consider this issue. The US magazine, Ambiente has a piece from Maria T Mejia in which she focuses on people who are still dying and the stigma surrounding HIV/AIDS. The British Attitude magazine looks at the Isle of Man which will be using World AIDS Day as the first LGBT event on the island - homosexuality being decriminalised in 1992. HIV and AIDS is not just an LGBT issue but once again we see the LGBT community taking the lead - on an island that doesn't even know their own HIV/AIDS stats. The US Bay Times argues that statistics matter less A(though they cite stats) and it is the individual lives behind those stats which matter. The musician, Sir Elton John, who has done so much to raise funds for HIV/AIDS will be in sunny Sydney to light the sail of the Sydney Opera House red - a wonderful image that you might see in your newspapers tomorrow. These images can be important in getting an 'old story' such as HIV/AIDS in the media unless you have a new 'angle'. Events within the Gay villages and ghettos around the world will also focus their efforts on raising the profile of world AIDS Day. The London based events magazine, Boyz, highlights the XXL 'Safe and Sleazy' session - also serving as a reminder that when we say LGBTQ, we typically mean gay men targeted for these sort of events.
There's been quite a bit of blog and twitter buzz surrounding a new campaign ad for same-sex marriage in Australia. On a personal level, I didn't find myself too excited by the advert but then again, I live in a country with a comparatively high level of so called 'gay rights'. The advert is carefully designed to promote commitment, and stray away from the legal rights debates elsewhere. Nor will you see protesting, pink triangles and rainbow flags. It's about promoting the 'normality' of same-sex relationships. Those of you who read my HuffPo piece last week will see the anger that questioning this argument can evoke within the self-styled gay community where those rights do not presently exist. Indeed - and I've said this before - it's a product of my privileged position that I can now criticise/analyse these issues.
The advert comes in the week that the Nigerian Senate used law to criminalise same-sex marriage and those who attempt to enter into it. Homosexuality is already punishable with 14 years imprisonment but in a clear recognition that they don't currently lock-up all Nigerian homosexuals, this new law punishes those who try to enter into marriage with 14 years imprisonment and 10 years for witnesses. Meanwhile, Russia continues to debate a new law which would - it is argued - prevent gay rights activists from assembling, protesting and discussing gay rights issues. The Russian government intervened today to express puzzlement at the global criticism of these proposals - arguing that discrimination laws are in place. It seems, in an eerie echo of the UK's very own Section 28 (now repealed) the law is designed to prevent the 'promotion' of homosexuality. A law, which we know from Section 28, has wide implications in reality. Is it 'to promote' homosexuality to say that homosexuality isn't bad, that there should be same-sex marriage? Services protection? Employment protection? Where is the line drawn?
From the privileged position of the UK, I found myself wondering if there's more we should be doing. The British government has already said it won't send aid to countries such as Nigeria which reject rights for homosexuals (although where the line is drawn remains unclear). More generally, we're pretty good at interfering in other countries - sometimes with diplomacy, sometimes as we still see today, with jets, bombs and drones.
Concomitantly, campaign adverts are often about saying, let's change and this is why we should do so. Rarely do they celebrate the complex reality of life after legal reform. Here's a challenge for the UK - let's interfere. Let's show the world the modern lived experiences of gay men, women and those who reject such labels. Let's spend some of the international aid budget (which is currently funding the BBC world service among other things) on a low-cost advert that shows that the sky doesn't fall in when gay rights are introduced. Let's show that's it's more complicated than the happy-clappy images of the Australian advert, but that life is complex, and still works well. Yes, it's time; it's time to share our story.
Hurrah. What more can I say? A much deserved award for Ms Phillips. The Annual Stonewall Awards took place at a swanky do held in the V&A. A Pie and Pea supper this wasn't. In many ways, the event was perfect fuel for those who see Stonewall as a luvvie-orientated celebrity homosexual group which has become out of touch with the 'grass-roots'. Whilst I've certainly been among those who have criticised Stonewall int he past, this Annual Awards ceremony is an important way of a) garnering publicity for the group - and the fund-raising that can follow, and b) a way of networking with the great and good. Influence comes from contacts and so drawing people in to this event and making them -and the event - visible is important. To do that, a nice (and expensive) venue is needed. A few glasses of wine or champagne are mandatory and so it creates the impression of begin aloof. It needn't be. Stonewall has an obligation outside of these events to really engage with dissenting and diverse voices, explaining their own strategy and vision together with listening to the desires of those who are more likely to clean up at the V&A the morning after than attend a champagne bash the night before.
Stonewall is an amazing group that does some terrific work. It's a sign of how important they remain that people are exercised about how and what they should influence when it comes to social and legal change.
Charles Moore, the right-wing columnist has written an interesting piece in the Telegraph in which he challenges the recent acceptance by David Cameron of same-sex marriage. Whilst Cameron has cleverly taken the concept of marriage and used it to include homosexuals in a very 'traditional' conception of the family, Moore appears to short-circuit at such ideas and uses his piece to propagate the kind of hateful homophobia that many have to expect from the media of the right. In case his diatribe against 'tolerance' and homosexuality more generally didn't convince readers, he moves on to include a reference to Muslims (always a sure fire way to have readers in full boggle eyed mode). He writes:
'...for example, roughly as many Muslims in Britain as there are homosexuals. Muslims believe in polygamy – for men only, up to four wives. Muslims insist that women, just as much as men, welcome this rule. Suppose that Mr Cameron had got up and told his conference, “it shouldn’t matter whether commitment is between a man and a woman or a man and four women”, would he have been able to make the audience clap? Mightn’t they have recognised that a situation in which men were now permitted to marry four women would damage a society in which, until now, one man could only be married to one woman at a time? Wouldn’t they have said that the consent of those involved was not the only issue at stake? Wouldn’t they have been right?'
Now, for liberal loons like me, that's an easy one, yes, polygamy should be 'allowed' and recognised by the state. Moore reminds us that the 'victories' of gay marriage/same-sex marriage are in fact about the incorporation of homosexuals to heteronormative institutions. These acts of 'progress' are not about a fundamental re-appraisal of the marriage construct, which remains inherently conservative. As such, these attacks by the likes of Moore can act as a 'smokescreen', creating a reaction among LGBTQ activists to argue for same-sex marriage - if the nuts are against it, we must be for it.
Edwin J Bernard's ever excellent blog highlights the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act, that was introduced to the House of Representatives on Friday by Congresswomen Barbara Lee - a Democrat from California. The full Bill can be downloaded from Edwin's blogpost here. Edwin writes that: 'Thirty-four states and two U.S. territories now have laws that make exposure or non-disclosure of HIV a crime. Sentences imposed on people convicted of HIV-specific offenses can range from 10-30 years and may include sex offender registration even in the absence of intent to transmit HIV or actual transmission. Though condom use significantly reduces the risk of HIV transmission, most HIV-specific laws do not consider condom use a mitigating factor or as evidence that the person did not intend to transmit HIV.'
The Bill has garnered support from a number of campaigning organisations but it will be interesting to see how it does in the House (where there is a Republican majority). Whatever, the eventual outcome for this proposed legislation, it is well worth reading for anyone interested in HIV/criminalisation issues.
Hot on the heels of the LGF 2011 Homo Hero Awards, the wonderful organisation has produced a little video highlighting their work and activities/projects. There's a really nice bit at the end with all the team. Special shout outs to Adam who kindly took time out to speak to Law and Sexuality students last year during a Manchester field trip (ginger, glasses and talking to the camera) and also Darren who (small world) I was at high-school with (hands behind his head, leaning back - a pose he often struck in GCSE business studies).
There are always going to be things that academics, commentators and campaigners nit pick and moan about with organisations such as LGF but it's important not to lose sight of the fact we - all of us - are better for the existence of organisations such as LGF. So thank you guys.
After the excitement of the recent Australian passport reform proposals on gender comes news of possible reform here in the UK. The ever impressive campaigner, author and thinker, Jane Fae broke the story about new gender rules on her blog (check it out here), and as Jane later commented, the story grew like topsy in the mainstream media and became spun within an inch of its life. Check out the Pink Paper take on things here (with no reference to Fae).
Today saw the launch of the Kaleidoscope International Diversity Trust. Based in London, the Kaleidoscope Trust works around the world to promote diversity and respect for all regardless of sexual orientation. They state that their supporters are drawn from all cultures, colours and creeds. Some may be gay or lesbian but many are not. They argue that all people should be free from discrimination, persecution and intimidation because of their sexuality and that laws that make people criminals for how they were born are wrong. Societies that deny some of their citizens their basic rights are weaker not stronger, they add. Interestingly, they are headed up by former Downing Street spinner Lance Price which should help give them a decent media presence.
I've just finished completing a really important survey that LGF are running. They recently launched the"I Exist" survey, to find out about a range of issues affecting lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people, from health to homophobia and relationships to legal rights.
It comes, they argue, in the wake of the 2011 census (which already seems so long ago!) which despite campaigning, did not include a question on sexual orientation. This survey attempts to address that balance and although LGF is based in Manchester, the more responses, and the greater the geographical spread, the more valuable the final report will be. So, click here to start the survey and say to policy-makers "I exist!"
It only takes 15 minutes to complete, but the answers you give will be used to sustain and improve services for LGB people. In return for your time, there is the chance to win some fantastic prizes, including £500 worth of holiday vouchers, an iPad 2 or £100 worth of shopping vouchers.
Interesting to see that Pink News is reporting on a campaign in Leeds to create a 'gay quarter'. The move apparently follows attempts to clearly establish a gay village in Liverpool. Followers of the Liverpool development might recall that it was in turn inspired by the Manchester gay village and proposals for development in Liverpool have been rumbling along for years. As with Liverpool, the creation of a queer space post Queer as Folk is symbolic of a progressive urban habitat. The possession of such spaces is a useful marketing technique and can hep re-position the city brand. It's therefore interesting to see that this seems a 'grass roots' campaign in Leeds, and not one coming from city officials or marketing consultants.
Nonetheless, gay campaigners are using the same the arguments. I'd be interested in hearing what really motivates people into this campaign. Is it merely as they say about making Leeds more welcoming, if so why choose this method. If it's something else, what?
The extension and creation of new queer spaces in our apparently transformed socio-legal culture suggests that these spaces continue to carry out a vital function(s), although whether that is the same function(s) as earlier queer space is something worthy of debate.
I confess I am a bit of a Muppets fan, and as a child, like so many generations, I was a big Sesame Street fan. I was therefore pretty thrilled with the campaign to marry Bert and Ernie. Whatever your thoughts on marriage (and I remain in the sceptic camp) I do believe that same-sex marriages should exist and it would be great for children to see two much loved male characters get married.
Sadly, the BBC reports the campaign has not succeeded. A statement from the show's makers said: "They remain puppets and do not have a sexual orientation."
But they conceded that the pair are "male characters and possess many human traits and characteristics".
The confirmed bachelors have lived together for 40 years and sleep in the same bedroom, albeit in single beds.
"Bert and Ernie are best friends," the statement from Sesame Workshop added. "They were created to teach preschoolers that people can be good friends with those who are very different from themselves.
If you've had some sort of deprived life and have never seen Bert and Ernie check out the clip below. Personally, they've always struck me as looking like Joe Orton and Kenneth Halliwell (with wig) - maybe Ernie will one day be found bludgeoned to death by a hammer? As it is, we see a much more gentle relationship in the clip below but I'm sure I'm not the first one to think Ernie was to later say: "this one's really hard Bert, what's in my pants?"
In case you were wondering...Grover was always my favourite character.
