Complain to the BBC over its grotesque 'debate' on killing queers

UPDATE 3, 17th Dec: Sunny has details of the saga's conclusion:

today Peter Horrocks, director of BBC World Service, posted another blog on the BBC Editor’s blog, accepting they had gotten it wrong:

The original headline on our website was, in hindsight, too stark. We apologise for any offence it caused. But it’s important that this does not detract from what is a crucial debate for Africans and the international community.

Today the NUJ also issued a statement attacking the BBC for posing the question in such an inflammatory way.

Good.

Sunny also points out a further detail I had missed in my earlier, coverage on this story - namely that credit for drawing attention to the existence of the Have Your Say debate in the first place goes to Twitter's @thedancingflea.


UPDATE 2: Per PinkNews, the BBC is unrepentant, saying that it recognises that the question posed was 'challenging', whilst totally failing to get to grips with the fact that they have, in effect, suggested that there is a reasonable debate of two halves to be had on the question of whether Uganda should embark on a homophobic holocaust.  Utterly shameful.

UPDATE: Comments are now closed on the HYS page, and the title has been amended to 'Should Uganda debate gay execution?'  So the BBC now presents the thread as an innocuous call for a debate about whether there should be a debate.  That's all right, then...

ORIGINAL POST:

As many people are currently discussing on Twitter, the BBC website's Have Your Say page currently includes the topic 'Should Homosexuals face Execution?'  Readers are invited to give their views on whether or not Uganda, which is currently debating legislation that would see gays put to death, has 'gone too far'.

To the non-psychotic, it will be only too clear just how objectionable it is for the BBC to give house room to this 'debate'.  I have submitted a complaint on the BBC's Complaint Homepage, and encourage you to do the same, here.  Should you find it useful, in drafting your own response, copied below is what I said.  Feel free to use some or all of it if you find it helpful.

I would like to register, in the strongest possible terms, my objections to the decision to host a debate entitled 'Should Homosexuals Face Execution?' on the Have Your Say pages of the BBC website. That the BBC would invite readers to deliberate the merits of murdering gay people is not merely offensive: it is also profoundly irresponsible, insofar as it can only serve to normalise and legitimise hate-fuelled violence.

Clearly, if the topic for this debate had been the case for systematically murdering Jews, it would never have seen the light of day. Yet, the policy proposal at issue here – the state sponsored killing of gays - is just as morally grotesque. In proposing this debate, BBC unmistakeably implies that the belief that gays should be killed is a reasonable one for people to hold, and that it has a place in civilised discussion. That is frankly sick. Indeed, the actions of the BBC, in publishing this thread, betray a inexcusable disregard for the personal security of gay people around the country. The debate can only encourage people to believe that homophobic violence is justified.

I find it difficult to put into words just how disappointing it is, in a climate of increased hostility to gay people, to see the BBC play fast and loose with the safety of the LGBT community. This thread should be withdrawn immediately, and a full apology offered this appalling and dangerous error of judgement.

ToryHome's weak new excuse over Cameron's Lisbon 'guarantee'

Earlier today I noted that John Redwood has called for an apology from Gordon Brown for not holding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.  As I said then, consistency demands that Redwood also call for an apology from David Cameron, who, after all (and unlike Brown), personally made and signed a 'cast-iron guarantee' that an incoming Tory government would hold a referendum on Lisbon.

At least one commentor on ConservativeHome appears to agree.  In a post today, Jonathan Isaby touts Redwood's list of things for which the PM supposedly ought to apologise, and the accompanying #SaySorryBrown hashtag (ably criticised for its supreme bad taste by Howard Denton, here). In response, one ConHome reader  suggests that Cameron should also apologise for his 'worthless' cast-iron guarantee.  Interestingly, this  commentor is then criticised in turn by two others who claim, in effect, that it is untrue that Cameron ever offered a cast-iron guarantee in the first place.  Instead, they claim, Cameron's promise was more carefully qualified.  Says one:

please could some posters stop implying that Cameron was dishonest in promising a referendum on Lisbon and then reneging on this post-ratification. To repeat for the umpteenth time the cast-iron guarantee was explicitly to offer a referendum if in power and the Lisbon Treaty had not by then been ratified.

What is the evidence for this?  Presumably these commentors have been persuaded by Tim Montgomerie, who at the beginning of this month tried to excuse Cameron's volte-face on Lisbon as follows:

DAVID CAMERON PROMISED A REFERENDUM ON AN 'UNRATIFIED' LISBON TREATY, NOTHING ELSE

...some will say that Cameron will have broken a “cast iron” pledge – made to Sun readers - to hold a referendum. That’s unfair. The sentence from that Sun piece that is always quoted is the penultimate sentence; “Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations." But the final sentence (my emphasis) is just as important: “No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum.” It is also important to remember when the pledge was made. It was made 26 months ago - crucially weeks before Brown was considering holding a 'honeymoon election' - and clearly referred to the ratification process.

Montgomerie tries to make out that the final sentence of Cameron's Sun piece (“No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum”) was a caveat to readers, warning them that, if ratification were to happen before a Tory government got the chance to offer a plebiscite, it would be game over.  Unfortunately, though, this is just wishful thinking on Montgomerie's part: the cited sentence says no such thing.  All it says is that it would be wrong for Lisbon to be ratified without going to the people.  It does not add: 'However, if that happens, we will not then be able to abide by the cast-iron guarantee, and have a referendum.'

The present state of play is that the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum.  This is precisely what Cameron told The Sun should not happen.  Cameron did not say that, if this bad thing were to happen, he would no longer abide by the cast-iron guarantee. Indeed, it would have been far more reasonable at the time for Sun readers to have understood him as saying that, if it were indeed to occur, then by virtue of the cast-iron guarantee the Tories would sort it out, by belatedly holding the referendum the country had wrongly been denied by Brown.  Montgomerie, meanwhile, tries to rewrite Cameron's text so that it says: 'No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum. But let not that (or my cast-iron guarantee) mislead you into thinking that the Conservatives will necessarily consult you either.'

Clearly, on the basis of what he told The Sun, then, Cameron is still committed to holding that referendum, dispute the best efforts of his cheerleaders to persuade people otherwise.

Y8EUJERM3KFM

John Redwood calls for Cameron to apologise over Lisbon

Not explicitly, of course.  But by logical implication.

Today, John Redwood produces a list of ten things for which he thinks Gordon Brown should offer the British people an apology.  It is generally an absurd list, and at least one of the things for which Redwood believes an apology ought to be forthcoming - 'Running up the largest ever public debt' - is out-and-out untrue (at least if, as any sensible person would, we have in mind debt as a proportion of GDP).

This, however, is the most eye-catching entry on Redwood's list:

2. Failing to honour his promise to give us a vote on Lisbon.

Now, of course, Labour never promised a referendum on Lisbon - it promised only a referendum on the now-defunct European Constitution.  But, since Tories invariably claim that there is no difference between the Treaty of Lisbon and the old European Constitution, let us grant them that for the sake of argument, and not try to defend Brown on those grounds.  The more salient point is that, surely, if Redwood thinks that Brown owes an apology for not holding a referendum on Lisbon, when the government had already committed to a referendum on its ancestor, the EU Constitution, then he must also think that there is an even stronger case for an apology from David Cameron, who made a 'cast-iron guarantee' to hold a referendum on the definitive document - the Lisbon Treaty itself - and then abandoned it.

Now, Gordon Brown, of course, was not Prime Minister in 2005, when Labour made its manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution.  But clearly it would not do to try to argue that Brown is off the hook for this reason - he is the current Labour Prime Minister, and as such inherits responsibility for the manifesto commitments made by his party at the last election.  But equally clearly, if Redwood thinks that Brown bears responsibility for not honouring a promise made by his party in 2005 then he also must thinks that there are even stronger grounds for an apology from David Cameron, who, in September 2007, personally made, in the pages of The Sun, a 'cast-iron guarantee', on behalf of his party, to hold a referendum on Lisbon, and put his own signature to it.

In the wake of Redwood's post, ConservativeHome and various Tory tweeters are furiously promoting a #SaySorryBrown hashtag.  I fully expect that they will now, with equal vigour, promote also the alternative #SaySorryDave hashtag.

Cameron's Lithuanian ally: children need protection from 'evil' of homosexuality

Last month I exposed how the Conservatives have allied themselves in the European Parliament with Valdemar Tomasevski, a Lithuanian MEP who has described homosexuality as a 'perversion', and who voted in his national parliament earlier this year for a draconian new law banning public discussion of homosexuality.

Today, on Left Foot Forward, Will Straw publishes striking new evidence of Tomasevski's homophobia:

David Cameron’s Lithuanian partner has revealed his homophobic views in an email to Left Foot Forward. Valdemar Tomasevski MEP – leader of the ‘Electoral Action of Poles in Lithuania’ and a member of David Cameron’s alliance of far right Europeans – describes homosexuality as an “evil” from which children should be protected and says “we cannot allow these people to claim … that homosexuality is normal.”

Tomasevski's anti-gay beliefs were set out in an email to Straw after Left Foot Forward requested an English translation of a Lithuanian interview appearing on the MEP's website.  The email, which also describes Tomasevski's opposition to almost all abortions, says:

“I accept existence of homosexuals – we are tolerant state. But homosexuality is also a very good example of the wrong understanding of tolerance. We have to respect every human being, including those who experience sexual attraction to the same-sex. 

But we cannot allow these people to claim and explain even to children at kindergarten that homosexuality is normal and encourage people to become homosexuals. Those who talk about tolerance should understand that and respect the constitutional right to protecting children from evil.”

The so-called 'Law on the Protection of Minors' supported by Tomasevski does far more than merely prohibit teachers from giving information about homosexuality to  kindergarten-age children.  Rather, it bans discussion of homosexuality in any media that could be accessed by minors. According to Amnesty, 'the law deprives young people of their right to freedom of expression and access to information and risks isolating children who are already amongst the most at risk of violence at school or within the family.'  In September, the European Parliament passed a resolution criticising the law, and pointing out its incompatibility with European human rights documents.  As I have previously noted, Conservative MEPs refused to support that resolution.

Straw's new findings certainly reinforce the need to ensure that the Conservatives are pressed for answers to these questions, which I asked earlier this week:

* Why did Conservative MEPs, unlike their Labour and Lib Dem counterparts, refuse to support a European Parliamentary resolution, in September of this year, criticising Lithuania for its passing of a law that has been condemned by human rights watchdogs as an abuse of LGBT and young people's human rights?

* What assurances can the Conservatives provide that their decision not to support the resolution criticising Lithuania was not in any way influenced by their alliance with Lithuanian MEP Valdemar Tomasevski, who is a supporter of the law in question?

* What assurances can the Conservatives give that their positions on homosexuality, and a raft of other human rights issues arising at the European level, will not in future be decided, in whole or in part, by considerations of loyalty to their socially illiberal  new  allies in the European Conservatives and Reformists group?

Some more substantial questions for William Hague

Liberal Conspiracy reports that Labour MP Denis MacShane yesterday sent an email to journalists attacking William Hague, following the latter's claims in the Mail on Sunday that David Miliband and Labour 'spend their time trying to orchestrate a ruthless smear campaign against the Conservative Party’s allies in the European Parliament.'  MacShane's email set out ten questions for William Hague and the Conservative Party over Europe, which, having seen the email, LibCon have republished in full.

Now, MacShane's attacks on the Tories' European alliance have not, in my view, been at all effective, and the emailed list of questions is also fundamentally wrong-headed.  The questions are intemperate, and each take a 'When did you stop beating your wife?' type format, for instance:

4. Does he [Hague] support kaminski’s homophobic language?

6. Will hague be joining his new friends in Latvia when they commemorate the Waffen SS?

10. Does he agree with the Economist that he has created a “shoddy, shameful alliance” with Kaminski and Vile?

This type of non-serious questioning is counter-productive: it only aids the Tory counter-claim that Kaminski and others are the victims of a baseless smear campaign.  If interest in the details of the Conservatives' Euro alliance dies a premature death, or the public and media swing decisively behind the Tories' narrative, it will be because of misjudged attacks like this.   And that would be an unforgivable failure on Labour's part, because there are far more important questions that should be put before the Conservatives - questions that they will also find considerably more difficult to field.

For instance, Sunder Katwala has carefully exposed how Michal Kaminski has repeatedly contradicted himself when describing the details of his political history, and made numerous claims that  simply do not cohere with the evidence.  E.g., Kaminski told the Observer he 'never opposed' a Polish apology for the Jewadbne massacre, but now admits that he did campaign publicly against it, in the face of TV footage showing that he did so.  Likewise, he has changed his story over his wearing of a fascist symbol, the Chobry Sword.  Hence, inter alia, Hague should be asked:

* What explains the contradictions between the various versions of Michal Kaminski's political history that he has given to the British press?

* What action has been taken by the Conservative Party to determine which of the versions of his political history submitted by Michal Kaminski to the British press is the correct one?

* Has Michal Kaminski contradicted, in any of his media interviews and appearances since becoming leader of the European Conservatives and Reformists group, information that he gave to the Conservative Party as part of their vetting of him, prior to his assuming the leadership?

* Does the Conservative Party believe it is compatible with Kaminski's remaining on as leader of the ECR that he has been found not to have told the truth about his past?  If so, why?

Leaving Kaminski to one side now, and following my own investigations into another Conservative ally - anti-gay Lithuanian MEP Valdemar Tomasevski - here are some further questions for Hague and the Tories:

* Why did Conservative MEPs, unlike their Labour and Lib Dem counterparts, refuse to support a European Parliamentary resolution, in September of this year, to criticise Lithuania for its passing of a law banning public discussion of homosexuality that has been condemned by Amnesty and other human rights watchdogs as an abuse of LGBT and young people's human rights?

* What assurances can the Conservatives provide that their decision not to support the resolution criticising Lithuania was not in any way influenced by their alliance with Lithuanian MEP Valdemar Tomesevski, who is a supporter of the law in question, personally voted for it in his national parliament before becoming a MEP, and is on record as having described homosexuality as a 'perversion'?

* What assurances can the Conservatives give that their positions on homosexuality, and a raft of other human rights issues arising at the European level, will not in future be decided, in whole or in part, by considerations of loyalty to their socially illiberal  new  allies in the ECR?

These are just some of the questions to which the Conservatives must be pressed for answers.  It would be an injustice if they are allowed to evade them because of ineffectual blustering from Denis MacShane and others.

Last night's candle-lit vigil in Trafalgar Square

There is not much to add to the fairly comprehensive reports from the BBC and Pink News about last night's vigil in Trafalgar Square in memory of murdered gay man Ian Baynham.  But here are a couple of the grainy photos I took of the crowd with my iPhone, and some impressions of the event.

Although the vigil was billed as, in part, a protest against homophobic crime, the mood was not angry or combative, but instead generally calm and reflective, and always good humoured.  In fact, the most strident speech of the night was from MP Chris Bryant, who raised the spectre of Jan Moir (the mention of whom drew universal boos).  Bryant made the good point that interjections like Moir's drip additional poison into society, and damage the cause of tolerance.  But his somewhat aggressive speech seemed  to me a little out of keeping with the rest of the event, which emphasised unity and pride, but not recriminations.  You can listen to Bryant's segment (and that of Maria Eagle, who read out a statement from Gordon Brown) here. 

Sandi Toksvig was, for want of a better word, the compère for the evening, explaining the order of events to the crowd, and introducing each speaker in turn, as well as several wonderful performances from the London Gay Men's Chorus (along with The Pink Singers, Diversity, and some additional voices from Brighton, Birmingham and Reading), and the London Gay Symphonic Winds. She was the perfect choice:  always heartfelt, sombre where appropriate, but also adept at keeping everyone entertained with jokes, and, in particular, with two heart-warming anecdotes about her own experiences as a gay parent,  both of which merit repeating.

First, she said, her daughter had once come home from school and told her that another child in the playground has confronted her with: 'Your Mum's a lesbian.'  Sandi said she had felt cold as she asked her daughter how she had responded, but was pleased to hear that the interrogator had been given the retort: 'Yes? Did you need any more information?'  Sandi then recounted how she had overheard a friend of her son ask him what it was like to have two mums.  The reply was: 'It's great! Even when one of them is ill, you still have the other to do everything for you!'

Through these and other comments, Sandi expertly conveyed just how caring, warm and - yes - normal same sex partnerships and parenting can be.  And the speaker who appeared on behalf of Ian's friends and sister also built up a remarkably three-dimensional picture of the man for whom the gathering was taking place: fun-loving, impish, but also sincere, principled, and considerate.  We heard that Ian was not the kind of man to ever let anti-social or homophobic taunts and abuse pass unchallenged.  That put me in mind of my own partner, standing next to me, who takes very much the same view.  I am sure there will be very many debates among LGBTs in Soho and beyond as a result of Ian's murder about the extent to which we have a responsibility to stand up to homophobia in the street, and at what risk to ourselves.

When the event drew to a close, Sandi told us all to leave proudly, openly holding hands with whomever we liked.  And so we all did.  And hopefully we all got to wherever we were going safely.

PS: see also Cosmodaddy's blogpost on the vigil here, and some additional photos of the event (much more professional than mine, it hardly needs saying) here.

So Guido, does this photo prove that Robert Mugabe is a decent guy?

Guido Fawkes drops a bombshell:

Guido gathers that a photo exists of a Downing Street dinner from late November 2005 in honour of the Polish Justice Party prime minister, Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz. The guests at the party included Michal Kaminski.

One might think that there is a fundamental difference between entertaining foreign politicians and getting into parliamentary coalitions with them.  But put that troublesome thought aside.  Guido assures us that:

This development spells the end of crude attempts by Labour to portray Cameron’s European allies as neo-Nazis.

I suppose it might.  But only if, in the same vein, the photograph below, of another glad-handing engagement in Downing Street, conclusively exonerates another individual who stands accused of being a not very nice chap:

And there is also this, from when Mugabe was made a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath by John Major's government in 1994:

Try again Guido.

Did the Tories refuse to condemn Lithuanian hate law to appease their anti-gay Euro ally?

The Conservatives’ insistence that Michal Kaminski is merely the innocent victim of a smear campaign has been rather undermined by evidence (ably compiled by Sunder Katwala) that he has repeatedly misrepresented the details of his political journey. But Kaminski is not the only member of the Tories’ new European alliance to have been lacking in transparency of late: Tory MEP Daniel Hannan was also less than open with the readers of his blog when he failed to disclose that, thanks to their choice of friends in the European Parliament (EP), the Tories recently faced a serious conflict of interests over an EU motion criticising Lithuanian plans to introduce a draconian piece of anti-gay legislation.

On 17th September, the EP voted for a resolution criticising Lithuania over its so-called 'Law on the Protection of Minors.' In a post on his Telegraph blog a few days later, Hannan described the law in question as 'a pretty asinine piece of legislation', and likened it to Section 28, which was 'on the British statute book for nearly a decade and, throughout that period, was never once invoked.' That rather underplays the severity of the Lithuanian law, which, as I have previously explained, bans discussion of homosexuality not only in schools but also in any public place or media that could be accessed by young people. The law has been condemned by a raft of human rights watchdogs, including Amnesty. So 'asinine' hardly covers it.

Hannan goes on to claim that the EP’s adoption of the resolution criticising the law represents an infringement of Lithuanian national sovereignty. It is worth noting that he seriously misstates what the EU's intervention over the law amounted to. He opens his post by saying that 'MEPs have voted by 349 to 218 against a law recently passed in Lithuania', thereby implying that they had overturned or vetoed it, rather than merely criticised it. He then goes on to say:

This, though, isn’t really about equality; it’s about democracy. Lithuanians should make their own decisions through their own elected representatives. To have a duly approved statute challenged by the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency – a body, by the way, which will have no legal basis unless and until the European Constitution Lisbon Treaty is approved, but which has been established anyway – is outrageous.

But the Fundamental Rights Agency cannot 'challenge' the law in any meaningful sense. It has no mandate to overturn national legislation: its remit is merely to analyse data, compile reports on the extent to which fundamental rights are respected, and offer advice to states that are trying to improve their record on respect for these rights. So, contra Hannan, the vote was about equality, not democracy. Unless, that is, Hannan thinks democracy is such a delicate flower that it is violated whenever a democratic decision is exposed to scrutiny of any kind.

Although Hannan is critical of the European resolution, he does not explicitly let on how he and his fellow Tory MEPs voted. In fact, (as I noted here) the Tories voted against successive motions to criticise Lithuania, before abstaining on the final resolution.

And here is something else that Hannan curiously fails to tell his readers: one of his allies in the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group is Lithuanian MEP Valdemar Tomaševski, who, as I have previously revealed, is not only on record denouncing homosexuality as a 'perversion', but also personally voted for the homophobic Lithuanian law in question in his national parliament, just days before vacating his seat to join the EP, and the Tories' new Eurosceptic coalition.

So, then: the Tories were offered an opportunity to endorse a resolution criticising a draconian Lithuanian law that constitutes an abuse of LGBT human rights, and they refused to take it. And later, when writing about the resolution, and explaining the basis of Eurosceptic opposition to it, prominent Tory MEP Daniel Hannan singularly failed to disclose the crucial fact that he is part of a coalition that includes a Lithuanian MEP who personally supported the law under scrutiny.

The Conservatives invite us to believe that their new European alliance alters not one iota their own stance on homosexuality. Presumably, then, they would want us to conclude that their refusal to condemn Lithuanian homophobia was borne of firm Eurosceptic conviction, rather than a desire to please, or avoid confrontation with, an ally whom the resolution would have condemned by implication. Nobody exercising a healthy degree of scepticism will think that this is obviously true. And it is still more difficult to think so in light of Hannan's conspicuous failure to openly acknowledge the Tories’ association with Tomasevski in the first place. On the contrary: the impression that the Tory position on Lithuania was affected by internal ECR politics is only increased by Hannan's (strategic?) silence.

There are, then, now reasonable grounds for suspicion that the Tory line on issues like homosexuality has already been, and will continue to be, at least partially determined by considerations of loyalty to their European allies. The concerns being raised about those allies are not mere smears on individuals. They express serious misgivings about what the Tories themselves now stand for, and how they will act.

Join the vigil for Ian Baynham, and stand up against hate, in Trafalgar Square tomorrow

From the Pride Life website, via @PeterTatchell:

Bring your non-drip candles (no glass please) to the square from 8pm.

A silent, candle-lit vigil will be held in Trafalgar Square on Friday October 30 in memory of Ian Baynham, the gay man who died from his injuries after being attacked there on September 25, and as a protest against all homophobic and hate crime in the heart of London.

People are asked to gather in the Square from 8pm and observe a 2-minute silence at 9pm, with the vigil finishing at 10pm. Those who cannot make it to the square are asked to organise vigils wherever they are and join those in the square in spirit, and by posting photos and comments to the organisers, Facebook group 17-24-30, make it a globally recognised event.

In an interview, organiser Mark Healey said: "What we're planning to do is to spend the first half of the evening focussing on the victims of hate crime, remembering Ian, remembering the other victims like David Morley, and making sure that family and friends have an opportunity to say what they want to say. We've invited the family and friends to come and speak, we've had friends of David Morley who have said that they want to speak as well, so we're going to try and create a space on the platform for these people to have their say.

"We need a show of numbers. The square can hold 15,000 people; the police are expecting us to have about 10,000 but we really should fill the square. This is an opportunity for us to really push the issue home to make sure it's at the top of the agenda. Too many people are dying on the streets and we should all be safe to walk around freely without being hassled and abused or killed in this manner."

More information is available from Facebook group 17-24-30.

A week ago, Nick Griffin said on Question Time that 'a lot of people find the sight of two grown men kissing in public really creepy. I understand homosexuals don't understand that, but that's how a lot of us feel.'  There's been more than enough bigotry in the spotlight - it's time for voice for equality to be heard.  So please spread the word about tomorrow, and, if you live in London, think about attending. 

I'll be there, with my partner, from 8pm.

Nick Herbert's spurious case for repeal of the hunting ban

Writing in the Telegraph today, Shadow Environment Secretary makes what he calls a 'compelling case' for repealing the hunting ban, on three counts: (1) the law doesn't work, (2) it victimises hunt employees; (3) it violates the civil liberties of rural people.  All three arguments are totally spurious.

With regards (1), Herbert writes:

...lawyers predicted that the legislation, widely regarded as a dog's breakfast, would be unworkable. And so it has proved. The law which makes it an offence for your dog to chase a hare, but not a rabbit, has seen only nine prosecutions of registered hunts in four years, just three of which have been successful. The Crown Prosecution Service has all but given up pursuing the cases and the Association of Chief Police Officers say that enforcement is "definitely not a policing priority." Hunt membership has actually increased.

The League Against Cruel Sports has achieved three successful private prosecutions under the Act.  That, presumably, is better than nothing, if one is interested in animal welfare, though not good enough.  But the claim that the law ought to be repealed because it has not to date been enforced adequately is utterly illogical. It implies that, because conviction rates are so low, we ought to repeal the prohibition on rape as well.

Herbert next says, with regards (2):

Some argue that the Hunting Act is so ineffective that it might as well be left on the Statute Book. But this is bad law, and bad laws should be repealed. While prosecutions have so far mainly failed, it is the professional hunt staff, whose livelihoods depend on their employment, who have found themselves in the dock and who still fear arrest, with all the worry and opprobrium that very public and drawn out prosecutions entail.

This argument is utterly bizarre.  We do not generally worry about the problems that lawbreakers face as a result of their illegal activities.  People-traffickers and contract killers also, presumably, cannot go about their business without fear of arrest and a public trial, and so find their livelihoods at risk as a result of the illegality of their chosen career paths.  Does Herbert worry about them also?

Herbert's final claim, with regards (3), is the most absurd of all:

Above all, the Act sits with ID cards, the attempt to introduce 42 day detention and the removal of trial by jury for fraud cases as an affront to civil liberties. It is but one of Labour's laws that have overridden individual rights and asserted the power of the State.

There is no civil liberties case at all for repealing the hunting ban: we simply do not have a right to harm or mistreat other creatures.  Herbert's appeal to the lofty principle of civil liberties is here  without foundation.  More generally, there is no compelling case for repealing the ban (as opposed to reforming it to make it more effective).  Unless, of course, one is simply not moved by considerations of animal welfare.  And if that is the Tories' position then, rather than engage in a desperate scramble for justifications for repeal, as Herbert does today, they should just be upfront about it.

Iain Dale's selective denunciation of homophobia

Yesterday, via Twitter, Iain Dale joined the rest of the known universe in condemning Jan Moir - for instance, by RT-ing a post by Total Politics editor Shane Greer, calling the Mail writer a 'bigot of the worst kind.' This follows a recent episode in which Dale was also a victim of homophobia from the Mail. Dale rightly complained to the PCC on that occasion, and I later followed his appeal for others to add their voices, by complaining to Paul Dacre and the writer of the offending column, Peter McKay (it hardly needs saying that, to date, I have had no reply).

But whilst Dale is happy to condemn a newspaper that has a history of targeting him personally, he singularly refuses to criticise anti-gay prejudice closer to home. Indeed, he has not merely failed to speak up against homophobia among Conservatives and their allies: in some cases he has gone out of his way to excuse it.

To take one example: as regular readers will know, recently I uncovered how Valdemar Tomasevski, a Lithuanian MEP who is part of the Tories' coalition in the European Parliament, personally voted for a severely repressive and homophobic law that has been condemned by human rights watchdogs, including Amnesty. Thanks to the considerable help of Sunny from Liberal Conspiracy, that news spread fairly widely around the leftie blogosphere, was picked up by The Observer, and commented on by Lib Dem Shadow Foreign Secretary Ed Davey. Yet Dale refused to be drawn on the subject, even when, on a visit to this blog, he was directly challenged to explain his inconsistent stance on homophobia by another commenter. Instead, he gave a brief, obscuscating answer, and disappeared.

On other occasions, Dale has alligned himself with the anti-gay views of others - for instance in this month's interview with the leader of the Conservatives' Euro alliance, Michal Kaminski. There, astonishingly, Dale sides with Kaminski in attacking both marriage equality and gay adoption.

First, Dale says that, whilst he favours civil partnerships, he objects to gay marriage:

ID: No I understand what you are saying and I agree with you on marriage – I’ve always thought that marriage is a word that symbolises something religious, and in this country you can’t contract civil partnerships in a church, you have to do it in a licensed premises.

Dale has made this nonsensical argument before - it was then, and is now, plainly wrong. Marriage is a state-regulated institution, whether or not it is also, for some, a sacrament. It is the state that decides who may marry, at what age, to how many spouses, and so forth - religion has neither the first nor last word. Dale is playing with fire in allowing opponents of equality to appeal to religion. For how can he now coherently argue against those who say that the legal regulation of sexual conduct is generally an innately religious matter, and therefore that homosexuality ought to be banned outright?

Likewise, Dale's claims about gay adoption do a great disservice to LGBT parents. When Kaminski says that gay couples ought not to be able to adopt, Dale says:

ID: But let’s look at this – I agree with you by the way, I think ideally a child should be raised by a man and a woman – but there are lots of kids nowadays who for whatever reason aren’t able to be raised by a man and a woman. And given the choice between putting a child in a children’s home for his or her entire childhood, or put in a stable home, regardless of whether the parents are of the same sex, surely it’s more important for the child to have a stable loving home?

Unlike Kaminski, Dale does not rule out gay adoption under all circumstances. But nonetheless, by his logic, gay couples ought always to be at the back of the adoption queue, so that they are never given a child if there is a suitable straight couple to hand. Instead, he implies, they should be a last resort, if the child would otherwise be placed in an institution. And yet we are invited to accept that this is not an anti-gay view.

The Kaminski interview is not the first occasion on which Dale has felt compelled to express solidarity with opponents of equality. In August he stood up in support of Roger Helmer, the Tory MEP who, you will remember, drew criticism for claiming that homophobia is just a conspiracy dreamed up by the left, to silence those with 'conventional' views. Dale disputed that claim, but nonetheless decided to entitle his post 'What Unites Roger Helmer & Me', and to write:

The thing about political parties is that they are broad churches or they are nothing. Political parties which seek to become narrow, moralistic sects will inevitably die or lose elections. The Left find it difficult to understand how Roger Helmer and I can be in the same party. I suspect we would both say that there is far more that unites us than divides us.

This response indefensibly trivialises Helmer's statement. When he was the victim of homophobia from the Mail, Dale suggested, persuasively, that an acid test to see if a statement is anti-gay is to see how it would strike us if made about, for instance, Jews. Well, if Helmer had suggested that anti-semitism does not exist, but is instead a leftist conspiracy designed to silence those with conventional views, he would have been drummed out of the Conservative Party. And Dale would not not professed unity with him - he would have disowned him. So why did he fail to do so when Helmer lauched an attack on gays?

Iain Dale performs a distinctive and useful service for the Tories, by helping them to limit the damage done by stories that challenge their record on LGBT issues. He has repeatedly signalled that such stories do not trouble him, either by keeping silent when he could have voiced concerns, or, as with Helmer and Kaminski, by actively extending his support. To many, that message will be powerful: after all, if prominent gay party activist Iain Dale is not bothered, these stories must all be a storm in a teacup, right?

Iain Dale has decided where his loyalties lie, and sadly they are not on the side of combatting prejudice or promoting equality. In fact, to be frank, I think Dale would not know LGBT equality if it slapped him in the face with a size 12, rhinestone-encrusted stiletto heel.

Tim Montgomerie, Boyz Magazine, and another voodoo survey...

Back to the blog: sorry for the extended hiatus.

As we know, the people at ConservativeHome are past masters of the voodoo survey.  And not only do they produce them - if the results are favourable, they are more than happy to hype the similarly shoddy work of others.

Boyz magazine, for the unacquainted, is not renowned for its hard-hitting investigative journalism.  It is a free publication placed in gay bars and clubs, and consists mostly of pop music reviews, club listings, and adverts for rent boys.  Its edition of 15th October, however, contains a 'special report' from correspondent David Bridle, on the Conservative Pride event held on Manchester's Canal Street as part of the recent Tory party conference.

Having attended the event, Bridle reports that he found that 'The Conservative Party has embraced its gay supporters in unexpected ways.'  The piece goes on to quote Iain Dale as saying that there are twenty to thirty openly gay Tory candidates in target seats.  All this was  music to the ears of Tim Montgomerie, who yesterday wrote a post drawing attention to Dale's estimate and to Brindle's endorsement, cheering:

Journalist David Bridle could not find a single Tory activist at the Manchester Party Conference who opposed "David Cameron’s hand of friendship to his gay supporters."

And how did the intrepid Boyz reporter come to this important conclusion?  Here is his fool-proof methodology:

As I wandered around the coffee bars and fringe meetings, I asked every traditional grassroot activist I could find: ‘Was the party really welcoming its gay members or was it just for show?’

Yes, that's right.  In effect, Bridle asked activists to say whether the Tories were (a) genuinely welcoming of gay people, or (b) two-faced.  And yet he was apparently 'surprised' to find that none were prepared to answer (b).

Bizarrely enough, though, Bridle then immediately contradicts his own findings, writing:

Some of the members argued that the party was doing it just for votes, but many of those traditional true blue ladies and gentlemen genuinely welcomed the overtures.

So (just so we are all clear): Bridle claims that he could not find a single Tory activist who did not believe that the party's extending of the 'hand of friendship' to gay people was genuine...

...except, of course, for the activists he found who said that it was only doing it to win votes...

...and the activists who did not themselves welcome the party's 'overtures' to gay people (of which there must  have been some, since Brindle says that 'many' of the grassroots Tories he approached welcomed the overtures, not that all of them did).

Oddly, Montgomerie's post fails to report these further, more equivocal findings.  Nonetheless, it looks like, in Bridle, he has found a pollster after his own heart.  Perhaps in future they can research BBC  bias together.

Revealed: the true extent of the Tories' hypocrisy on gay rights

Last week, I exposed how the Lithuanian member of David Cameron’s new European grouping had voted to support some very homophobic legislation.

To reiterate, the ‘Law on the Protection of Minors from the Detrimental Effects of Public Information', which has been described as a harsher and more wide-reaching version of Britain’s old Section 28, bans discussion of homosexuality not only in schools but in any public places and media that could be accessed by young people.

It has been condemned by Amnesty International, the European Union itself and activists in the UK.

Valdemar Tomaševski, the Lithuanian MEP in question, is also on record as having branded homosexuality a “perversion”. Yet the Tories apparently did not view that as a reason not to welcome him into their European alliance.

On the 21st June Tomaševski left his Seimas seat to join the European Parliament, five days after voting (see Row 10) to pass the homophobic law.

On 22nd June he asked to be admitted to the European Reformists and Conservatives group, and was accepted by the Tories the following day.

And incredibly, only eight days later, at a Tory fundraising event linked to Gay Pride, David Cameron made a speech emphasising how much the Conservatives had changed on gay rights. That was also the day of his widely-publicised apology on behalf of the Conservatives for Section 28.

Since accepting Tomaševski into their European coalition, the Tories have shown solidarity with him as he prosecutes his anti-gay agenda.

Last week, on 17th September, the European Parliament agreed on a resolution pointing out that the Lithuanian hate law is in breach of EU and international treaties, and anti-discrimination texts.

Conservatives in the European Parliament initially backed Tomaševski to the hilt, siding with him to vote against motions for a resolution condemning Lithuania.  In the final vote, whilst their Eastern European comrades voted against the resolution, the Tories in the chamber meekly abstained.  To the last they refused to condemn their close ally.

Valdemar Tomaševski is leader of the small Electoral Action of Poles in Lithuania party, and noted for his "quest for more Christianity in politics."  These developments clearly raise questions about the sincerity of Cameron's apology for Section 28, and the depth of the party's commitment to eradicating prejudice against LGBTs.

@LouiseBagshawe and her bizarre contortions over Lisbon

Iain Dale, having taken a firm stand against anti-gay prejudice a little closer to home,  continues to keep shtoom over the Conservatives' homophobic allies in the European Parliament.  But that does not mean he has nothing to say about other aspects of Tory European policy.  Today he says that novelist and Tory parliamentary candidate Louise Bagshawe has 'articulated Tory European policy in three tweets better than either David Cameron or Eric Pickles did this morning.'

Here are the tweets he rates so highly:

Here's our policy on Lisbon: we oppose it, and we want a referendum. And if it's not ratified by polling day, we'll have one. And if it is?

If it is, we'll announce what we do about its lack of legitimacy then. The Tories: crossing bridges when we come to them.

Labour hates it when David Cameron is pragmatic. It's sweet how desperate for a Euro-split they are. This sceptic is fine w/ being practical.

These claims, though, are just as obfuscating and evasive as those of Cameron and Pickles themselves.  Note in particular the second tweet.  Bagshawe says that Lisbon lacks legitimacy.   A further tweet reveals that she thinks it is illegitimate precisely because there has been no referendum.  But surely if the treaty has been illegitimately imposed, as Bagshawe claims, then an incoming Tory government is constrained to hold a referendum, whatever the situation elsewhere in Europe.  For Bagshawe cannot seriously be claiming that it could ever be acceptable to leave an illegitimate constitutional change in force.  Pressing her on that question, though, the answer came there none.

In a separate tweet to Ged Robinson, Bagshawe defends the present Tory non-policy as follows:

there is no point at all in announcing policy for a situation that may well never happen. The Czech President wants to delay.

Wow.  Let us hope that nobody ever puts Bagshawe in charge of defence, or emergency planning of any kind.  What an encouraging indication of what the next generation of Tory candidates have to offer.

Moderate Tories also support the impartiality of British TV

Yesterday, I looked at how Labour should respond to Rupert Murdoch's officially abandoning them for the Tories.  Whereas the Tories have indicated that they would slash the regulations that prevent Murdoch from achieving his cherished goal of bringing the formula for hyper-partisan Fox News to Britain, I argued that the smart move for Labour is now to pledge to protect the impartiality of British TV:

In looking across the Atlantic, the British public are generally horrified by the kind of frothing, relentlessly partisan diatribe with which Fox pollutes the American airwaves, and grateful of the rules that prevent our own television channels degenerating to the same level.  Labour should throw a bright light on the Tories' enthusiasm for repealing these rules, and promise to defend impartiality.  They will have a strong case, which they can reinforce with innumerable examples from Fox of bizarre and bigoted invective, selective reporting, and manufactures news.  Most gratifyingly of all, they can sock it to Murdoch and the Tories at one and the same time.

Unbeknown to me at the time, Letters From A Tory was also writing on this issue yesterday.  A. Tory is generally a moderate centre-right blogger, and refreshingly progressive on some issues (e.g. animal rights).  On impartiality, he writes:

...the thought that Fox News or something similar could ever appear on our airwaves fills me with a sense of horror.  High quality news is essentially a ‘public good’ in economic terms, as it benefits the whole population if we are all better informed.  Therefore if Fox News comes along, society would theoretically be worse off because the population is exposed to poorer information about what is happening both at home and abroad.  While the BBC is by no means perfect, the impartiality rules on news broadcasting force companies to deliver news in a relatively unbiased manner – which I... see as extremely beneficial.  David Cameron plans to remove OFCOM’s role in policymaking rather than scrap the quango altogether, making it more of an enforcement body.  Whether or not this means that Cameron will change the impartiality rules himself remains to be seen.  There are a million and one reasons to start curbing the BBC’s power and reach, but the last thing this country needs is to throw away the rules that keep broadcasters on the straight and narrow.

The fact that moderate voices on the centre-right also support impartiality certainly bears out my analysis: with the Tories signaling that they are ready to deregulate broadcasting, it is a strategically sound move for Labour now to adopt a strong line in favour of impartiality.