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.
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.
3 comments:
I think it's difficult to hold Cameron responsible for the views of MEPs. For example, would you hold an MEP in the EPP responsible for something that Berlusconi does or says? Would Merkel be forced to agree with everyone in the EPP on every issue?
I accept that this situation is uncomfotable for Cameron, but I disagree that it affects his own personal commitment to eradicating prejudice.
It certainly goes to Cameron's judgement that this individual was accepted into the group. This is not like the case in which the Tories just happen to sit alongside some questionable characters in the EPP. Tomasevski is in the ECR because the Tories invited him to be. Unlike the EPP the ECR is wholly their baby. they can be judged on it's composition. Sorry to say, but you are one of innumerable Tories who have either failed to see, or refused to acknowledge, that basic point (see the comments over at LibCon).
In accepting Tomasevski, the Tories have propped up and legitimised an individual with a record of homophobia in his home country. That shows that Cameron is at least not interested in protecting gay human rights internationally. And at home? All ECR members must sign up to some shared common principles, including the importance of the family. In being co-signatories, the Tories have already publically declared that on some issues, including the family, the is a shared outlook between them and their partners. Are we to conclude, then, that the Tories think that virulent homophobia is compatible with family values? Sorry, but it is impossible for gay people not to have new doubts about Cameron after this.
Good work.
It is also worth noting in this context that there are three Tories serving in the cabinet of the notorious Doncaster Mayor, Peter Davies (he of cutting Gay Pride funding). It would be a decision of the local party to work with Davies, but the national party could veto if they wanted to.
Post a Comment
New as this blog is, I haven't yet found the need to set out anything resembling a comments policy. Until such a need arises, the only rule that seems appropriate is: please be civil. I think everyone has enough common sense to know, roughly, what that entails, without further elaboration.