SlutWalk 2012

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.'

Read more and find out about the campaign here.

CAAN Rides Again

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.”

If that's something you agree with, sign up here.  Don't think somebody else will protect your sexual freedom, they need your support.  You can sign to say you support that statement here.

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.

WANTED … GUYS FOR PHOTOSHOOT with DEL LAGRACE VOLCANO

A call from Galop which may be of interest...

Galop is looking for 8 guys to model for a poster campaign about consensual sex aimed at gay & bi men. The aim is to remind guys that we all have a responsibility to make sure the people we’re having sex or playing with agree to what we want to do. The photoshoot will be with Del LaGrace Volcano, whose iconic work over the last two decades has defined queer identity and life.

The images will be sexy but not explicit. We’re looking for cis and trans guys with a variety of ages, bodies, skin colours and adornments etc. This campaign is not about stereotypes but about real guys and real bodies, in all their wonderful diversity!

The photoshoot is taking place on MONDAY 2nd and TUESDAY 3rd JULY. Galop is offering £50 per model and a copy of your choice from the shoot. If you are interested and available please get in touch asap! Contact Catherine on 020 7704 6767 or at catherine.bewley@galop.org.uk.

Spaces of Contention: Vapourising Cruising Objections

Twitter followers will have seen in the last few days that I was fascinated by a  story concerning the Occupy movement in London.  Pink News reported that Occupy had responded to criticisms of their site on Hampstead Heath (a well known cruising site) by suggesting that their presence could 'vaporise' gay cruising.  It was a clear example of two sub-cultures fighting over constructions, the queering, of space.

In much the same way that we see conflict between a 'boy-racer', 'chav' culture and the sub-cultural practice of dogging, once again we were apparently seeing a space in conflict.  This was the all the more fascinating for the Occupy movement has sought to position itself as a leftist group, far more in line with radical queer approaches than conservative conceptions of space.  It was - put simply - a bit rich for a group which appears to defecate on a public space to object to ephemeral consensual encounters with typically no lasting trace.

However, the story didn't end there.  Pink News has revised the story, now making clear that the 'Occupy London' comments were from one individual - Timothy Sullivan - and didn't represent the Occupy movement.

Ronan McNern, member of the Occupy London press team and co-founder of the LGBTQI anti-cuts collective Queer Resistance, told PinkNews.co.uk this afternoon: “I was furious when I saw these comments, which are not representative of Occupy London, and against our own Safer Spaces Policy, which is very clear: ‘Racism, as well as ageism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, ableism or prejudice based on ethnicity, nationality, class, gender, gender presentation, language ability, asylum status or religious affiliation is unacceptable and will be challenged.’ “These comments are not representative of Occupy London. Occupy is made up of individuals and these are the comments of an individual – comments that run contrary to positions decided by Occupy in its very earliest days and remain at the core of how we relate to and show respect for one another."

Although Sullivan now appears to have been side-lined, he spoke an essential truth.  His presence, and that of his fellow Occupy folks transforms the space, and their permanent presence will inevitably disrupt cruising behaviour within that space.

Although the response from Occupy is to highlight their own policies and their opposition to homophobia, it's unclear whether opposition to cruising per se amounts to homophobia.  If that were the case, then some gay men - such as the author Paul Burston - who have condemned contemporary cruising, are themselves homophobic.  Moreover, it pre-supposes that men who engage in cruising are gay - a very non-queer perspective on public sex behaviour from a groups that describes itself as 'Queer'.

I don't however think that his comments were motivated by malice.  Rather, I suspect he was trying to be a little clever and it backfired.  If you assume that the same socially conservative group who object to  cruising also object to Occupy, then his argument can offer something of a moral 'short-circuiting' - would you rather have men splashing their semen about the place or a few people rustling up vegan sausages in a morning? The alternative is that he was just an idiot.  A conclusion which one can not dismiss.

The story also highlights the problems with these social stands.  If you favour x, you must also favour y.  Just as this story suggest (shock horror) that not all lefty anti-capitalists support public sex, public sex advocates do not always support lefty anti-capitalists.  It might seem simple to suggest that these positions are not mutually exclusive and yet, we often do make these very assumptions.

Of course, whether we are discussing public sex or Occupy, we are talking about the 'ownership' of public sex and conflicts of legitimate use.  That debate will continue to run.

Read the full story here.

Same-Sex Marriage for Denmark

Various media outlets are reporting the news that the Danish Parliament has passed a new law enabling same-sex marriage in the country.  It's due to come into force on 15 June this year.  Interestingly, Denmark already had a system of registered partnerships in place (since 1989) so the move has similarities with any UK move to introduce same-sex marriage, given we have civil partnerships.

I get the impression that this will be religious as well s marriage ceremonies but the media reports are unclear.  GayStarNews states (in the best report on this I can find) that 'couples already in civil partnerships will automatically be granted 'married' status' which suggests that registered partnerships will be abolished as part of the move and people automatically converted to a marriage (whether they want it or not).  Far from something to welcome, this seems an unacceptable application of state power.

Hopefully in the coming days, a bit more information will come out but the brief "yay, Denmark has 'gay' marriage" perspective that seems to dominate the UK reporting fails to address the significant questions around religion (GayStarNews does touch on this) and the implications for civil unions.    It would be deeply regrettable if the UK was to simply replicate this approach, and it is even more regrettable that the LGBT media is not giving this move a little more scrutiny.

A Conspiracy of Silence

A little earlier today I posted what I considered an honest, open and reflective piece on an what I thought was an interesting article by Julie Bindel in today's Guardian.  I always have to take a deep breath when mentioning Bindel on my blog or in tweets as she generally causes a vitriolic outburst from many of the people I respect and agree with.  I do not however accept the silencing of her voice that flows from such scorn.  It's certainly true that I've had my own spat with Bindel in the past and I know this is someone who gives as good as she gets (as do I).  Yet, I always come back to a simple statement of principle:  If I agree with someone - regardless of who they are - I say so and the same is true if I disagree with someone.  That this seems a controversial position for so many people in the feminist, queer, and equality movement(s) depresses me.

Yet, the forces of silence are on all sides.  I was surprised to receive the following tweet from Bindel earlier.

I concluded that she must have been sent a summary of some sort and reacted to that rather than having read the piece.  Although I can see it might not be ideal to read, it's honest, accepts the general thrust of her argument, and accepts and confronts my own evident prejudice.  I suggested she read what I actually wrote.  Bindel replied:

What am I to conclude from this?  Should I have hidden my own reaction - for it was there whether I gave voice to it or not - or should I have toned it down in some way, been less specific?  The trouble is that when we fail to confront them, our prejudices fester.  If Bindel truly wants this issues considered, reflected upon and responded to, we must be open about them and move forward in a spirit of open dialogue.  

Bindel also noted her own contradiction about facial hair which I've blogged on back in 2010.  I knew her own views.  It was therefore all the more odd to see her get upset over my post.

Of course because Bindel receives so much vitriolic abuse, the default assumption is that people are having a go.  It's a reflex.  You criticise me a little bit, you must be in the 'bad' camp.  That I openly disagree with Bindel on a number of issues, for example sex work coupled with the fact I'm a man inevitably puts me on the fast train to the 'bad' box.  This might be all good and well for a journalist but not for someone who regards herself as seeking to influence the discourse.  As such, Bindel needs to still be open to debate, and to reconsider and challenge her own views, as I do mine.

This position places me under fire from all sides.  There are many - many many many - who take the view that I shouldn't give Bindel the time of day.  In fact, I - and many of them  - would probably agree with Bindel on some things and disagree on others.  I just happen to think it's good manners to be open and debate in a decent and honest way, calling out people when they say something wrong or offensive but always from a position of respect.  When you do agree, work together, build alliances and make things happen.   When you disagree, be open and clear about why.  I freely admit that I don't always follow these values myself, but they are what I strive for.  Let's not be players in the sexual conspiracy of silence.

Gay Olympic Athletes Should File Asylum Claims

Mark Stephens is Chair of the Board of Governors at the University of East London (UEL) and a high profile lawyer - well known for his various media appearances talking about erm, well, the media.

He caused a bit of a stir this week when he spoke at the increasingly thrusting and energetic UEL as part of their series of public lectures.  His talk was entitled:  'Rainbow Legacy: why we must assert the rights of the international LGBT community during the Olympic Games' and he suggested a very practical way that LGBT athletes could improve their own rights, and those of their countrymen as well as highlighting the issue of continued criminalisation of homosexuality in 84 participant countries.

He stated:  "I invite LGBT athletes who don’t feel safe to apply for asylum in this country on the grounds that you will face persecution at home if you are open about your sexual identity. The British Government will have to hear your application, and in doing so, they will have to engage with the human rights abuses perpetrated against the LGBT communities across the world."

Read more here.

OUT4MARRIAGE

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.



Check out their website here.

Marriage Equality?

There is a Yes Minister joke that the British Civil Service would take care of the hardest part of a proposal by putting it in the title.  So seems to have been the case when it comes to the publication yesterday of the government consultation 'Equal Civil Marriage: A Consultation'.

Many on the usual social media sites and LGB advocacy and campaign groups sprang to life seeking to motivate people into responding to the consultation.  I deliberately held off.  I wanted to see how the debate initially shaped up and - something I'm not convinced everyone who is commenting has done - read the actual consultation document.

Let's deal with the politics of this first off.  The Conservatives need this.  Ever since Cameron announced he was in favour of 'gay marriage' at the Conservative Autumn conference last year, it's been a done deal. It's win-win for Cameron.  He has a majority to pass a bill on same-sex marriage of some description.  if the party does it with just one or two dissenters, he can claim it to be a further sign that the party has genuinely changed.  Something that LGBTory - the LGB group of the party - has been keen to establish as a narrative.

Peter Bone

On the other hand, he may have a fight on his hand.  I don't think this is likely but let's explore the scenario.  In this situation, the comments of Peter Bone (the MP famous for introducing Mrs Bone at PMQs and looking like a man who once ran a football team and slept with Ulrika Johnson) would gain wider support among MPs and party activists in the same way that the NHS Bill did for for LibDems.  This would give Cameron a sort of 'Clause IV moment', defeating his party and able to demonstrate he is a true reformer.  Either of these scenarios also allow the Tories to knock on the head the developing narrative that the Lib Dems are a moderating influence on the coalition.  Tory strategists know this is an effective line and this would go some way to neutralising it.

This brings us to the Liberal Democrats themselves.  Long committed to this reform - and long before it was popular to be - this will probably appear on lots of LibDem election literature as an achievement.  Unfortunately, it doesn't take them any further forward in terms of support in off-setting tuition fees or NHS reforms, and the Tory strategy outlined above removes any possible 'credit' for the LibDems.  The one plus is it does enable them to do is to say that a minister in government has achieved something.  It's a questionable narrative but the party needs every crumb of comfort they can get.  The LGBT+ LibDems have however created a useful resource supporting the bill and telling people step-by-step how to respond to the consultation.

For the Labour Party, this is the natural extension of their reforms.  That narrative - which has not yet been clearly articulated - enables them to reach out to the New Labour voters who have deserted the party since 2010 (arguably in stages since 2001).

So politically, everybody - more or less - backs the idea of same-sex civil marriage.  It's a done deal.  The real politics and the real legal debate should therefore be about the nature of the law, and what it embraces.

Puzzlingly, few activists have engaged with this.  Peter Tatchell has called the consultation out on this issue but seemingly everyone else - notably Stonewall - are fighting what I would describe as the 'wrong war', and seeking to argue for a law on civil marriage.

Every Government figure I've seen on and in the media since the consultation emphasises the same line - this is about 'civil marriage' and not 'religious marriage'.  This is a bid to neutralise the challenge from religious lobbies - notably the Catholic Church  - to attack legal reform.   Don't be fooled by the media brouhaha, the Government need not cave in as dramatically as they have.

The proposals on the table - and this aspect is not up for debate as the consultation makes clear - prohibit religious same-sex marriages or to be more precise, do not change the present arrangements in that regard.

Let's revisit the overall aims of the legal reform, as set out by the Government:

• To remove the ban on same-sex couples being able to have a marriage through a civil ceremony.
• To make no changes to how religious organisations solemnise marriages 
• To allow transsexual people to change their legal gender without having to legally end their existing marriage or civil partnership

So, even if a religious institution wanted to solemise a same-sex marriage they would prevented from doing so by law.  The Government had two alternative approaches.  Firstly, they could have enabled religious institutions to choose not to conduct marriages.  However, as the Church performs a combined civil and religious ceremony, LGB activists could have argued that it was discrimination that only they were begin rejected by a particular church as a class (expect a legal case revolving around comparison to divorcees and so on).  So, the chance of a legal challenge down the line would be high and the churches would have seen this.   Not an attractive option for anybody.

The second option I would suggest, would have been to remove civil marriage powers from churches.  It avoids the discrimination both in the proposed provisions and the first option I just outlined.  It would upset many in faith groups, and would be a more radical or complicated message to convey to the public.  It would not stop churches performing religious ceremonies for whoever they wanted but the actual civil - legally binding - marriage would come into existence outside of a religious institution.  Although the harder road, I believe this would have been the better solution.

If it worked for them...

If you want a model of how this would look in reality, just look at the marriage of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles.  A 'legal' ceremony followed by a religious one.  Legally, they became married in Windsor Registry Office but for the Queen and many, they became married in the Chapel at Windsor Castle.  This would be genuinely equal under law and would also remove any potential legal challenges.  I am sure that this is where we will eventually end up but it's a shame that all three parties are running scared of religious groups this time around.

Thanks to the government proposals on transgender marriage, it is now possible for someone legally defined as a male and someone legally defined as a female to enter into a marriage in a religious building and then for one of those individuals to transition so that there will be some individuals who are legally a same-sex couple and who married in a combined religious/civil ceremony.  Don't be fooled, these proposals create as many legal anomalies as they remove.

Speaking of which, the proposals also contain a paragraph (2.16) which will long be a focus for family law student seminars and tutorials in the coming years.  It states:

'Specifically, non-consummation and adultery are currently concepts that are defined in case law and apply only to marriage law, not civil partnership law. However, with the removal of the ban on same-sex couples having a civil marriage, these concepts will apply equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples and case law may need to develop, over time, a definition as to what constitutes same-sex consummation and same-sex adultery.'

This is a polite way of saying that the law tends to think of consummation in terms of penile/vaginal penetration (although no orgasm or ejaculation is needed).   This paragraph in the consultation is the equivalent of lifting a giant rug, shoving half-baked proposals under it, and hoping that nobody will notice.  We did.  This could have significant implications for different-sex marriage and the Government knows that but doesn't want to get into that debate.  We should.

Adultery too will need to be re-visited and a sensible move would simply be to abolish it.  Anything else, and the Government will be lost in the midst of another legal mess.  Again, a potentially major reform for family law.

Speaking of half-baked botches, Let's turn to civil partnerships.  The proposals set out a way that people can 'covert' from a civil partnership to marriage and answers my question in previous posts about the continued presence of civil partnerships - they stay.  Hurrah!  Unfortunately, they remain for same-sex couples only, and in doing so fails to address the arguments of the ongoing Equal Love legal challenge.  That legal challenge will come and I can't understand why the Government isn't pre-empting such a challenge.

Paragraph 2.20 sets out another wonderful fudge:

'The Government is not considering opening up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples because we have been unable to identify a need for this. However, we appreciate that there are a number of views on this issue.'

How have they explored this need?  What constitutes a need?  If civil partnership ceremonies for same-sex couples fall below some mystery figure as a result of these reforms, will they then be abolished as there is 'no longer a need'?   Big questions with potentially hugely significant answers, but who is asking them?

This consultation is a significant document but it's formal questions are limited and fail to engage with the real difficulties.  That should not stop the big campaign and advocacy groups from questioning the Government.  Yet as things stand, we are failing to provide that scrutiny to these proposals.  The legal community similarly needs to wake up to the potentially half-baked and wide-ranging reforms that could come through as a result of these reforms with historic implications for marriage.

Read the full consultation here.

Gay-Straight Alliance Club

The Guardian carries a wonderfully uplifting story today concerning Copland community school in Wembley which imports US model in which gay and straight pupils join forces to tackle discrimination. 

The Guardian notes that: 'In the US, where there are such clubs in more than 4,000 high schools, the alliances support gay pupils, creating an environment where they can socialise with straight friends and work together against discrimination. At the London school, the alliance was the brainchild of sixth-former Kimberley Duah, 18, who ran for election as head girl pledging to set one up.'

For me, the most powerful aspect of the story is that posters in the school were initially ripped down.  This has result in ladders now being used to place the posters higher.  Too often these initiatives can be an opportunity for an organisation to tick another box, to appear able to say "look at us, we're brilliant" but the ripping down of these posters  -and the continued need to place them high on the walls - serves to evidence the very real need for this group.  It's not just some PR exercise, or media stunt.  It is a positive and very real attempt to address what is clearly an environment in which homophobic attitudes continue to be evident.  Things seem to be starting to change in the school which is to be welcomed and how wonderful that these bright kids have taken ownership of the problem and sought to lead a solution.

Nonetheless, there are evidently challenges ahead.  Although the school indicates they have had no complaints from parents etc, the Guardian piece does note that the school is located 'in an area with a substantial south Asian population, many children's views are shaped by the religious beliefs of their parents.'  This raises questions about the course schools are on in tackling homophobia and the potential challenge that may well come at some point from groups arguing that their religious freedom is being infringed.  A long culture war continues to stretch before us.

Read the full Guardian piece here.

Why Are Faggots So Afraid of Faggots?

This is the name of a new book from Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore which will be available in the UK alter in the year.  I managed to get a copy sent over from the States last myth but other than a quick skim, I've not yet managed to read it properly.  However, it's already got many academics and folks interested in sexuality chatting about the ideas in this radical collection.  SF Weekly carries an interview with Sycamore in which she talks about her ideas and this new edited collection.

You can check it out here.

Erotic Awards 2012

I've been meaning to post this for some weeks and I've not got around to it (bad, useless Chris).  Anyhow, the Erotic Awards have a spanking (as it were) new invigorated website.   You can read details of upcoming events which raise money for the excellent Outsiders Trust and also nominate people for the awards later this year (Michael Peacock of R v Peacock fame is a former winner) under a wide range of categories.

Check out the website here.

Some People Are Gay...in Prison?

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.

Read the full Pink news story here.

Studying Sexuality

There have been a couple of really interesting blogs on conferences on the theme of sexuality - and their strengths and weaknesses.  QRG writes about a recent 'Pornified' conference.  There are some interesting observations but it is limited by the fact QRG didn't actually attend.  There are difficulties in interpreting these things - perspectives and gender would have been slightly tweaked by my presence - I was invited to speak at one of these conferences but I've forgotten which - but I couldn't get funding to attend.  I suspect the same was true for a few others so it doesn't take much to skew these things.  Nonetheless, some interesting comments.

Of greater interest, and perhaps value is a post by Jane Fae on a sexology conference (which I'd also hoped to attend but once again, I find myself in a funding black hole).   Fae makes some really interesting observations about disciplines coming together - but this is in part a growing agenda from the funding bodies so it's not entirely 'organic'.  Nonetheless, some fascinating broad perspectives about what is going on in the academic discussion and exploration of sexuality.

Apple's Siri, Abortion, and the Feminist Backlash

Bridget Crawford on Feminist Law Professors has posted a fascinating couple of posts on the growing issue of Siri's 'anti-chocie politics'.  Siri, as many of you will know, is the talking assistant included with Apple's new iPhone 4S.

The commentary stems from a piece on the site 'The Raw Story' in which Siri was revealed to be helpful with many things, but not when it comes to obtaining an abortion. According to the piece, ask the Siri, the new iPhone 4 assistant, where to get an abortion, and, if you happen to be in Washington, D.C., she won’t direct you to the Planned Parenthood on 16th St, NW. Instead, she’ll suggest you pay a visit to the 1st Choice Women’s Health Center, an anti-abortion Crisis Pregnancy Center (CPC) in Landsdowne, Virginia, or Human Life Services, a CPC in York, Pennsylvania. Ask Google the same question, and you’ll get ads for no less than 7 metro-area abortion clinics, 2 CPCs and a nationwide abortion referral service. Ask in New York City, and Siri will tell you “I didn’t find any abortion clinics.”

The piece notes that Siri can help with the following questions (a game everyone plays when they first receive their iPhone 4S):

1. Viagra.
2. Hospitals to go to if you’ve had an erection lasting for more than 5 hours.
3. Places you might be able to score marijuana.
4. Where to dump a body: in Brooklyn, it recommends a smelting plant in New Jersey.
5. The meaning of life: Siri will alternately quote from Douglas Adams (42) or Monty Python’s “The Meaning Of Life.”
6. What to do if a hamster is caught in your rectum: in D.C., she’ll direct you to Charming Cherries Escort Service.
7. Asked how to obtain a free blow job in D.C., she’ll direct you to the same escort service. (We doubt that they are free.)
8. If you’d like to see a naked woman in Brooklyn, Siri will suggest a variety of Manhattan-based strip clubs.
9. If you’re in Queens and seeking breast implants, she’ll recommend 4 local plastic surgeons.
10. But if you ask Siri about vaginoplasty, she’ll scold you about your language.

The piece also includes a note from another reader who asked Siri why it was anti-abortion, to which the answer came: "I just am, Kristen." Read that piece in full here.

There's now an online petition to Apple stating: 'Apple: Stop promoting anti-choice extremists. If a user asks for family planning services, they should be directed to a group that offers full services, like Planned Parenthood--not to a hard-right clinic with an extremist agenda.'

You can sign the petition here.

However, in the last hour Apple have responded to this concern, releasing a statement which according to Mashable states: “These are not intentional omissions meant to offend anyone. It simply means that as we bring Siri from beta to a final product, we find places where we can do better and we will in the coming weeks.”

So that's OK then.  Abortion comes to Siri soon.  Plus, there's those distracting Apple TV rumours to keep you thinking happy Apple thoughts (said the man the typing this on an iMac).

Project Bolo

I want to share a truly moving and important project with you.  The India-based Project Bolo is an LGBT oral history project, but given it operates in a country that regards homosexuality as a taboo - and whose recent attempts at decriminalisation are still stuck in the courts -means that the people who appear in these film are incredibly courageous.  The Project describes itself in the following terms:

''Project Bolo' records and documents individual profiles of LGBT persons who have, in their own way, stood up for what they believed in and challenged norms and stereotypes loaded on them by the society. They are also persons who have made a significant mark in their own professional areas of work, be it literature, filmmaking, law, activism, healthcare, journalism, IT, media, etc. Through these recorded interviews, 'Project Bolo' hopes to serve as an inspiration to the LGBT community and offer real-life role models.

This multi-generational oral history project, 'Project Bolo', hopes to serve as an inspiration to the LGBT community and reconstruct the unique history and progress of the Indian LGBT movement from the early 40s to the present day. Project Bolo in its first phase Vol 1, carried out during 2010-2011, recorded and documented oral histories of 20 LGBT persons in four cities - Mumbai, Pune, New Delhi and Lucknow : Aditya Bandopadhyay, Ashok Row Kavi, Betu Singh, Bindumadhav Khire, Dalip Daswani, Gauri Sawant, Geeta Khumana, Giti Thadani, Hoshang Merchant, Jehangir Jani, Lachi, Laxmi Narayan Tripathi, Manvendra Singh Gohil, Nisha, Parmesh Shahani, R Raj Rao, Ruth Vanita, Saleem Kidwai, Shivananda Khan, Sunil Gupta. Project Bolo is produced by The Humsafar Trust in association with Solaris Pictures and supported by UNDP (India).'

The project has a wonderful website with transcripts and videos of the individuals who took part in phase one of the project.  Check it out here.   The ever brilliant Indian gay magazine, Gaylaxy also includes a piece looking at the project in their latest issue which you can view or download here.  There's also a rather brilliant piece about gay students coming out on college campuses.  Moving stuff.

World AIDS Day

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.

In fact, take a look at the US based lesbian Curve magazine for example and there's no mention of World AIDS Day at all that I can see.  The same is true for the British magazine Diva.  To be fair, it's also absent from the website of some gay male publications such as Gay Times.  The Manchester based outnorthest has a big focus on the local campaign to 'know your status' which probably represents where HIV health policy thinking has gone more recently, and is significant for placing less emphasis on prevention (not that any campaign would accept such a claim). This can be contrasted with the San Francisco based Bay Area Reporter which argues that prevention was the big theme of 2011.

POZ magazine has a fascinating floor speech from the Democrat House Representative Jim Himes, linking to this CSPAN page, suggesting you listen from 8.53 when he goes on to argue that we can end AIDS this generation.  Queer UK gives a focus to the launch of a new support centre in Suffolk for the Terrence Higgins Trust - Britain's largest HIV and sexual health charity.  The Australian Star Observer reported that the National Association of People Living with HIV/AIDS (NAPWA) has used World AIDS Day to call for Australia to commit to adopting new technology to fight HIV transmission, with the goal of eliminating transmission and new diagnoses before the end of the decade.  The Advocate uses the event to focus on homophobia, arguing that as long as homophobia exists, AIDS won't die.

Finally, Canada's Xtra! magazine takes a historical approach to World AIDS Day with a video of the US activist Cleve Jones (famously characterised in the film, Milk) and how he originally came up with the idea of the AIDS Memorial Quilt.  Well worth a watch.

Occupy My Throat...

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Melanie Phillips voted Stonewall’s ‘Bigot of the Year’

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.

UK Passport Reform?

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).