Upstart Publishing» Campaigns

When does a child have rights?

Terry — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:24:49 +0000

Most countries—though not the United States of America—have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which was first adopted in 1989. The Convention accords to children a wide range of rights including, most centrally, the right to have their ‘best interests’ be ‘a primary consideration’ in all actions concerning them (Article 3), the ‘inherent right to life’ (Article 6), and the right of a child “who is capable of forming his or her own views … to express these views freely in all matters affecting the child” (Article 12) (United Nations 1989).

Germany has ratified these rights in 1992, but signed them in 1990. Why therefore has Germany decided to allow a father to put his 11 year old transgendered girl into a mental institute simply because he believes transexuality is wrong?

The Youth Welfare Office of Berlin is putting an 11 year old transgendered girl into a father’s care who is putting her into a mental institute simply because he believes transexuality is wrong. This young girl will be taught how her feelings are wrong, and pushed more into the denial that has claimed the lives of so many transgendered people; thanks to biased decisions by the Youth Welfare office this child’s life could be irrevocably ruined. I am starting this petition to try and make it known that this is not okay, that this is a breach of some of the basic human rights of this child

Please sign the petition and show the Germany government that they need to stand by their pledges.

Gay Marriage: Church of England loses faith.

Paul — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:56:20 +0000

Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, warns David Cameron not to legalise gay marriage within a church, not one of his churches, mind you, but places of worship owned by religions, such as the Quakers, the Unitarians and some Liberal Jewish sects, whose understanding and interpretations of the Bible and other religious texts is more in line with the present day world.

In a recent interview with the UK’s Daily Telegraph he accused the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, of copying the behaviour of dictators.

“Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman,” said Dr Sentamu. “I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just change it overnight, no matter how powerful you are.

He’s wrong on so many counts

1 – The law on civil partnerships specifically banned the right to hold such ceremonies on religious premises.

So the state is already stipulating where a gay wedding can, or cannot, be held.

2 – He is discriminating against other religions.

A number of religions the Quakers, the Unitarians and some Jewish sects want to hold gay marriage ceremonies.

3 – His religion isn’t exclusive

He would only be justified in taking this stance if his church was the only religion in the UK. It’s not.

Loss of Faith

Watching some of the debates on this matter I note that the religions opposing this initiative have two main objections:

1 – That they would be forced to hold gay marriage ceremonies

This had already been argued. The law protects religious beliefs and they have the right to refuse to hold a specific marriage ceremony on grounds, such as the partners are regular church goers or in the case, say of the Catholic Church if one of the partners has been divorced.

If their interpretation of their religious texts precludes a gay relationship they have the right to exclude, but not the right to discriminate on say employment rights.

One of the big arguments is that Lillian Ladele, a Christian Registrar, lost her job because she refused to marry same sex couples. This is a false argument as a civil marriage is not a religious ceremony. This is giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s as these ceremonies do not include any subservience to god – that is the point of them.

2 – That they would have to just their stance with their own congregation

This I think is the biggy. Once the Quakers or Unitarians had held a same sex marriage on religious premises then it would not be unreasonable for gay, and reasonable members, of other religious groups to challenge the anti-gay bias.

Organisations, such as Stonewall would promote and support such campaigns. This would be reasonable a stance.

However, it is the church’s faith and reasoning that is being challenged. If they cannot make reasonable arguments to support their viewpoint – then either their viewpoint, their faith or their God is wrong.

The political angle

Worryingly John Sentamu has threatened to use the political power of the church in the House of Lords to slow and harm Cameron’s government’s laws. In a similar way the Catholic Church has made veiled hints that they will oppose devolution in Scotland.

This is serious. I accept that the church has the right to oppose certain laws. The recent revolt in the Lords on capping benefits, which is being poorly implemented, and will harm many poor families, is a justified concern of religious groups.

If the threat is actually activated then the only result can be the disestablishment of the Church of England and the loss of their seats in the House of Lords.

Again the logic is flawed

As each church seems to have an exclusive contract with God and all the others are doomed to going to Hell – then what does it matter what other religions do.

Semantics

A lot of this is about semantics. Suddenly marriage is defined as meaning a man and a woman being hitched for the purpose of producing children.

However marriage can include:

A couple who don’t want children
A couple who can’t have children
A couple who don’t have sex
A couple too old to have children
A couple who have an open marriage

So why not a same sex marriage?

Long gone are the days when marriage was all about finding an heir to keep the family farm together.

Conclusion

To prevent a specific religion from holding a gay wedding, if they want to, is discrimination. However, I feel that this strong opposition from many of the established religions is a fear that they will have to strongly argue with their own congregation on why they think they should exclude. This suggests that they know their arguments are weak.

What do you think?

It’s Time

Terry — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:33:02 +0000

A pro-marriage equality video by Australian action group GetUp has become a Youtube sensation since its release before the weekend, racking up 1.6 million views over four days.

The film, entitled It’s Time, charts a relationship from first meeting to engagement, and is shot from the point of view of one character, who strikes up conversation with a man called Paul.

After the short follows the characters through first meetings with families, illnesses, holidays and celebrations, Paul proposes.

It is only revealed in the final moments that the character from whose point of view the story is shot is a man.

The films ends with the message: “It’s time. End marriage discrimination.”

GetUp, a non-profit organisation, launches campaigns with the aim of achieving an accountable and progressive Australia, concentrating on areas of economic fairness, social justice and environmental sustainability.

It’s time.

OLD GAY LIBERATIONISTS NEVER DIE – WE ONLY GO TO (HEMP)SEED

Terry — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:34:21 +0000

GALHA (the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association) hosted a talk in Conway Hall (Friday, 13March 2010). Squatting in Brixton: The Brixton Gay Community of the 1970s, was given by Dr. Matt Cook. He is Senior Lecturer in History at Birkbeck College, University of London. GALHA’s print / hand-out mentions the South London GLF (Gay Liberation Front). And the Brixton Faeries (a street-theatre group a member of which was Bette Bourne. Bette Bourne was currently playing Quentin Crisp in Resident Alien. A further element was Gay Left – a magazine with which NIGRA’S Gay Star had the odd passage of arms.

I managed to get to the meeting as Matt Cook ended his talk. One gathered from the questions that he had been more concerned with the squatting movement in south London, especially Brixton, than specifically with the Gay element in it. He appears not to have gone into GLF in detail and said virtually nothing about the Faeries or about the magazine. Gay Left inspired other magazines. From the vigorously non-deferential Gay Noise to the commercially viable Capital Gay. (Which was very friendly to NIGRA, C-F, and the rest.). Gay Noise was my inspiration. One Thursday night in 1981 I was told I was Editor of NIGRA’s official publication. I am not sure that the more respectable elements enjoyed all they read in Gay Star.

One veteran of Brixton GLF (as it in effect was) noted that the consumption of ganga was not mentioned. He thought that describing the organising group (GALHA) by its initials was a step back to the 1970s or even ’60s. It became clear he was not familiar with the meaning of the GALHA initials. (Consuming ganga is notoriously bad for the short-term memory). And Conway Hall is not a place where queers have ever needed to backward about coming forward.

After a few more questions and announcements of meetings germane to the subject in hand, we got down to socialising and drinking the generous quantity of vino available. (We acquitted ourselves excellently well, there was a half-bottle left at the end). It was dished out with generous abandon by a very fetching lanky young man. He was very friendly to us oldsters. Apart from him and some other interested young people (and a few merely middle-aged) the average participant was of the Freedom Pass generation.

I was surprised at how few people I recognised. We’ve all had about thirty five years of living since the halcyon days of upfront Gayness, ganga and general gorgeousness. (It struck me that one was probably a quite attractive twentysomething – pity I didn’t realise it at the time.). Joseph Healy was there. Many will remember him as an evangelist (in the 1980s in Ireland) for the poetry of Gay women and men. He’s now a Green Party member and will contest Vauxhall in the next General Election, against blood sports fan Kate Hoey. (The Gay community in Northern Ireland owes Ms Hoey considerable thanks for her efforts on our behalf in 1994. We had been left out of the further extension of legal rights for Gay people. She ‘fixed it’ with an amendment to the Criminal Law and Justice Bill.)

Another person I recognised was Ian Townson of Lancaster GLF, and now a resident of south London. There was something of a Lancaster / Brixton axis in the 1970s. It had to do with personnel. And with the fact that the two groups were among the only surviving GLF groups. Lancaster helped produce Gay Left and produced some magazines independently in the seventies.

There is one surviving GLF. In Belfast. The central group in NIGRA (the Northern Ireland Gay Rights Association) was the Gay Liberation Society. ‘Gay Lib’ was in origin a Society of QUB’s Student Union. It launched itself into the general community in the Autumn of 1972. The ‘Thursday night meetings’ are the longest-running and probably last manifestation of the state of mind which was GLF. And that is what it was – ‘programmes’ and ‘manifestos’ were decidedly secondary to the matter.

We will try to get our hands on reports from the meetings and other events being canvassed at this enjoyable and enlightening event.

I don’t really see a direct connection between Brixton / South London GLF and GALHA, as such, but the latter organised the event. So here’s its address:

Gay & Lesbian Humanist Association (GALHA for short)

PO Box 130

London

W5 1DQ

secretary@galha.org