Of Ancient Times
Throughout the annals of history, homosexuality has generally been shunned and reviled by civil society. For the most part, this has resulted from religious injunction as well as a fear of sickness and disease. Another reason is an inherent personal distaste for practices that were seen as unnatural. It should be observed there are deep-seated religious as well as cultural dimensions to this aversion. In recent times, the homosexual community have added a political dimension that seeks an egalitarian level playing field. Their ultimate aim is greater acceptance by the wider community and thus respectability.
In fact, the distaste for homosexuality is deep-rooted in human culture and can be found in societies very far removed from Judeo-Christian ethics. Pre-Christian, non-Christian, and even anti-Christian societies have placed homosexuality outside the bounds of the respectable. In Mao’s China it was a capital offence: Bao Ruo-wang’s Prisoner of Mao includes a grisly account of a homosexual being executed.
Roman respectability also excluded homosexuality: Julius Caesar had a passionate attachment to a male friend when young, but his minders covered it up when he went into politics. The notion that the ancient world was a freewheeling paradise of liberated gayness until those “mean-spirited” Christians stomped on it is nonsense. Even the Ancient Greeks scorned the man who “played the woman’s part.” Social disapproval of homosexuality plainly has more to it than just a strict reading of Leviticus.
The British—i.e. Celtic, pagan—Queen Boudicca, rallying her troops to rise against the occupying legions in AD 61, told them that the Romans were “men who bathe in warm water, eat artificial dainties, drink unmixed wine, anoint themselves with myrrh, and sleep on soft couches with boys for bedfellows.” We British have, most of us, overcome our aversion to warm water and soft couches, but a recent survey in Britain revealed strong public resistance to further encroachments on majority culture by homosexuals.
In spite of the claims of contemporary gay historians, homosexuality has always been controversial and has never flourished fully in total freedom from moral opprobrium. The world's major religions have never formally endorsed homosexuality except in recent times and then only to a limited degree.
How far have things changed today? For the first time since the enactment of Emperor Justinian's legal code in the 6th century, Europe is free of laws that ban same-sex relationships. Quite remarkably, this has been achieved over the last fifty years when formerly two-thirds of European countries criminalised such arrangements. This is quite a remarkable transformation for a so-called persecuted minority group!
But now the historical mould is seemingly fragmenting. Behaviour that was once shunned as repugnant has become increasingly socially acceptable. Even some religious leaders currently embrace an open style of life that was formerly condemned as an abomination. Contemporary translators of the modern Bible have banished the word "sodomy" from their texts and a new anodyne versions of immoral practices have been reinterpreted to isolate its negative relevance and impact on gay lifestyles. This is being carefully orchestrated.
Within Christendom's largest congregation moreover, are unmatched levels of abuse by the clergy itself on defenseless youth. Two recent findings show that between 1950 and 2002 more than 10,667 children were molested by 4,392 priests in an epidemic of child sex abuse. Most were boys aged between 11 to 17. This involved between 4 and 7 percent of the US Roman Catholic clergy. Eighty percent were committed by homosexual priests and twenty percent by paedophiles, some of whom were serial offenders. It is certain that the number of abuse cases was underreported and the amount of damages of $657 million considerably understated since 14 percent of the relevant dioceses were unable to provide figures.
According to the Catholic Office for the Protection of Children, an average of one Roman Catholic priest every week was accused of sexual abuse in England and Wales in 2003 but none were prosecuted and all but two are still in their jobs. COPCA was set up by Lord Nolan who conducted an inquiry into abuse in 2001. He observed, 'Progress has been achieved at a time of continuing public awareness and concern about the handling of such issues by the Catholic Church, not only in England and Wales but also in Ireland, America, Canada and Australia.'
At the same time a major split is in the offing within the worldwide Anglican Church over the ordination of homosexual Gene Robinson as an Episcopalian Bishop in New Hampshire, USA. Robinson teaches that Jesus may have been in a homosexual relationship with one of his disciples. In the UK, Prime Minister Tony Blair has added to the controversy by appointing Jeffrey John, a homosexual cleric, to high office as Dean of St. Albans Cathedral in the face of stiff opposition to gay clergy. It is likely the debate will broaden to other denominations.
Meanwhile, homosexual priests in the Church of England will be allowed to 'marry' their boyfriends under a proposal drawn up by senior bishops. led by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. They will, however, have to give an assurance to their diocesan bishop that they will abstain from sex. The bishops are trying to uphold the church doctrine of forbidding clergy from sex except in a full marriage. They accept, however, that the new law leaves them little choice but to accept the right of gay clergy to have civil partners. The decision is likely to reopen the row over homosexuality that has split the worldwide Anglican communion. It may also overshadow an international meeting of senior bishops designed to heal rifts between liberals and conservatives over the issue. The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement estimates that within five years 1,500 homosexual Anglican clergy will have registered under the new law.
On the other hand, we face unprecedented disapproval by homosexual activists for fundamental Christian thought, as well as an aggressive challenge to the norms of civic, legal and social conventionality. The Catholic Church comes in for particular opprobrium. There is little doubt that the homosexual community has made a significant impact on First World democratic societies since the end of World War II. Though still a population minority of three percent, or less, their ability to effect change has been disproportionate to their number. They are, nonetheless, masters at spin and propaganda and have deftly placed themselves into positions of influence and power within the institutions of society. This defies the characterisation of an isolated minority group as they now enjoy considerable political muscle.
The Gay Marriage Controversy
Take, for example, the campaign for gay marriage, now estimated to cost £20million to set up and £40million to run each year. Don't be surprised when costs exceed what's forecasted. It appears the Treasury have not yet fully costed the new legislation. The gay lobby would have us believe this is a major concern when in fact only a small number of people will be involved. How do we know this?
In 2001, the Office for National Statistics found that there were fewer than 40,000 stable gay couples in Britain. But the figures were ignored. Compare this with the 4.6 million people who live together in non-sexual co-dependent relationships, whose needs are being entirely disregarded. In America, it is estimated there are 600,000 gay households
Reflecting the Left's preoccupation for pushing the homosexual agenda on British society, the case for gay marriage is another good example of exaggerating the figures in order to establish a cause. Should we be surprised to find one of Britain's leading lesbians behind such an attempt? In November 2002, Trade and Industry Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, a veteran extreme feminist, appointed Angela Mason, diversity campaigner and former director of Stonewall', as the new director of the Government's Women and Equality Unit. This is the equivalent of giving a chocoholic a job with Cadbury's.
Born in 1944, her original name was Angela Weir, but she took the name of Mason from her brief marriage to William Mason in 1971. At this time she was involved in anarchist and feminists politics at the London School of Economics. Known also as 'Rosemary Pink' she was accused and acquitted in 1972 of being part of the Angry Brigade who carried out a bombing campaign against politicians that terrorised the British establishment.
She 'came out' and began a relationship with Elizabeth Wilson, an active member of the Gay Liberation movement. Mason had a daughter in 1985 by artificial insemination. In 1999 she was awarded the OBE 'for services to homosexual rights' and two years later became the lesbian and gay rights advisor to Ken Livingstone's London Assembly cabinet.
In March 2004, the Government announced the introduction of a Civil Partnerships Bill. The Bill essentially includes the same conditions as a conventional marriage but ministers were keen to distance themselves from the gay marriage label. It is widely accepted that a Civil Partnership is marriage in all but name. This is hardly surprising! During the Second Reading of the Lords debate, Baroness O'Cathain revealed the Government actually intended to introduce the literal conditions of a conventional marriage whilst simultaneously deceptively denying any such possibility. It was done to avoid any public backlash.
Interestingly, Angela Mason's department had initially calculated there would be up to 425,600 civil partnerships by 2050. Less then a year later the figures were drastically revised down showing a take-up rate of only 42.550 - less than ten percent of the original estimate. When the government can knock 90% off its initial figure one has to ask if this indicates an utter incompetence, downright carelessness or a unrestrained attempt at fabrication? Robert Wheelan of the Civitas think-tank said, 'There is no evidence that people want this - the Bill is entirely symbolic. That is why its promoters can knock 90 per cent off their figures without a qualm.'
Compared with the historically low rate of heterosexual marriages of 260,000 each year, homosexual marriage hardly warrants the attention it is being given especially when gay couples can simply make reciprocal arrangements to safeguard each other’s interest. Where this is not possible, the government could make suitable legal amendments to provide relief in the relevant circumstances. The Bill creates an incentive for homosexuals and non-homosexuals to pretend they are in civil partnerships in order to gain additional rights and tax breaks. It has already happened with the French Civil Pact of Solidarity (PaCS) scheme.
But why does the gay community appeal for gay marriage if only a few will take advantage of it? A leading homosexual activist reveals the answer. Michelangelo Signorile used Out! magazine in 1994, to state that homosexuals should '...fight for same-sex marriage and it benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely... To debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake - and one that would perhaps benefit all of society - is to transform the notion of "family" altogether.’ As will be discussed shortly we are now seeing the detrimental effects of this radical proposal on the institution of family life.
The Bill before Parliament was hardly modest. It is a fundamental rewriting of the entire basis of family law, pension and taxation law and will prove discriminatory. What is intended amounts to social vandalism since marriage is our prime social and legal institution. It will add to the instability of family life that is already seriously threatened with a growing number of fatherless children. As Lord Higgins has observed, '...this Bill opens a Pandora's Box.'
Critics of the Government point out that millions of heterosexual couples will be ignored because there is no provision for them. This will probably lead to a Human Rights issue should the Bill proceed as intended. The Government will eliminate one minority discrimination only create another for a majority.
They think that gay marriage is good for the stability of traditional marriage, which beggar’s belief as all the evidence is against this foolhardy contention. Yet logically and correctly think that making provisions for opposite sex couples will undermine the popularity of marriage. Other studies, however, show an abnormally high divorce rate among gays and lesbians.
The privileged legal status of marriage is unique because it bestows the offspring for future generations. It essentially guarantees a continuity and good marriages add immeasurably to an ordered civil society. By adopting the gay marriage model we begin to undermine the value of traditional marriage. Heterosexual couples are already demanding special provisions of a civil partnership to avoid the responsibilities of conventional marriage. So it is likely that the historical position of marriage will be undermined,
Already, religious gay activists object that the Civil Partnership Bill is confined to a secular process. They want the full-blown rights of a religious ceremony officially compelling the Church to marry gays, lesbians and transsexuals.
The Government are also keen to impose new legislation on the people of Northern Ireland whilst Stormont is suspended. In a recent census in the Province, only 288 same-sex households were found. Using Government estimates, a mere 15 same-sex couples will take up the offer of gay marriage. The survey also revealed that 87 percent of the people, across the divide, were against the idea of changing the basis of family law altogether. Less than 500 couples a year are expected to take up the idea in Scotland.
Gays and lesbian activists pretend they only wish tolerance when in fact they want to seduce 'straights' and change the heterosexual character of society in general. The demand for gay marriage should be viewed in this context. It should be closely observed that the notion of a civil partnership, or same-sex marriage, has connotations of permanence and monogamy. Such qualities are the essence of heterosexual love even if experienced imperfectly. Homosexual love, on the other hand, is characterised by impermanent relations and a constant promiscuity that best explains an addictive lust. Apart from this, same-sex marriage is an oxymoron since marriage is based upon a close union of a husband and wife.
At the time they were considering the impact of gay marriage, the government estimated that by 2010 between 11,000 and 22,000 persons would be in a civil partnership in that single year. As it turned out, this was a sloppy estimate because after the first year of implementation it was established in 2007 that 16,106 gay weddings had taken place involving 32,212 homosexual men and women. Gay men were involved in 9,648 and lesbians in 6554 same-sex partnerships.
Two points can be made here. First, this is indeed small fry if compared to the hotly disputed claim of a 3.6 million homosexual population. Second, the formal union involved mostly people in the middle and late forties. This reflects other evidence elsewhere that younger homosexuals largely shun gay marriage. Since the official estimates have been so unreliable it is difficult not to think that future numbers will slowly decrease.
Politics of the Gay Lobby
A good number of the most powerful and wealthy gay lobbying groups are American and appear to be specifically aimed at four areas of concern (1) Human Rights, (2) Law, (3) Politics and (4) Education. Worldwide, there are literally thousands of groups doing their own thing and many have their own website pushing particular local ideas and interests.
The largest American homosexual lobby is the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), based in Washington, DC, which claims nearly half-a-million members and an annual income of over $16 million. Their purpose is to secure human rights for homosexuals by spin doctoring to Congress. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), concentrates on media relations and the entertainments industry. Currently three-quarters of the people deciding what's on the front page of the New York Time are openly homosexuals. The Los Angeles Times said they were possible the most powerful media lobbying group. They advocate the use of hate crimes, fighting HIV/AIDS, working to improve lesbian health and protecting homosexual couples. The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund has income over $10 million and is the homosexual-specific equivalent of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which itself is very active in gay rights with an income of over $25 million. There are a growing number of Americans who are concerned with the establishment of organisation like the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network and the Gay Straight Alliance who have more than 1,000 clubs on school campuses nationwide. There are many more groups that are not mentioned here.
Here at home, we have a handful of groups which include Outrage, Stonewall, the Terrence Higgins Trust, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, the Albert Kennedy Trust, the London Lesbian and Gay Switchboard, GALOP a London based lesbian, gay, Bisexual and transgender a community safety charity and the Lesbian and Gay Employment Rights organisation. Gay rights groups have infiltrated the Trade Union movement who, in turn, have adopted a very sympathetic attitude to homosexual interests. Most important institutions now have a gay rights interest group dedicated to advancing or protecting their cause.
The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) is a world-wide federation of national and local groups dedicated to achieving equal rights for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people everywhere. Founded in 1978, it now has more than 350 member organisations Every continent and around 80 countries are represented and their groups range from small collectives to national groups and entire cities.
Unsuccessful in supporting a gay rights motion before the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva last year, mainly because of Muslim opposition, they are to try again in 2004.
It could be argued that Islam, with many mixed messages between attitude and behaviour, morality and mendacity, feudal and fresh vision, is the remaining bulwark against further encroachment. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), representing 1.2 billion Muslims has so far successfully resisted all efforts enhancing gay rights at the UN.
During 2003, the UN Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual Employees (UNGLOBE) met in New York to consider a UN resolution on 'Sexual Orientation and Human Rights'. This was considered a '...showdown with religion", particularly Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants. Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General attended briefly suggesting the world should become '...much more tolerant and compassionate.' He said that people should not adopt prejudicial attitudes towards others because of their choices and preferences.
When the Brazilian/Canadian resolution was debated it drew support from Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Venezuela. The main opponent, however, was the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) that represents some 1.2 billion Muslims. The Commission decided, in a recorded vote of 24 in favour and 17 against, with 10 abstentions, to postpone consideration of the draft resolution until 2004.
Should the resolution be finally approved, and many think it inevitable, then two highly contentious problems will arise. First, it will be Christendom's most major challenge since it was established. Second, it will seriously curtail personal freedom of speech/religion.
The UN Declaration of Human Rights guarantees 'freedom of religion' but this is only possible when religious freedom '...doesn't conflict with the aims and intention of the United Nations.' Thus, any constraint on freedom of religion is a denial of that freedom and the UN guarantees are worthless. The effect of this is the UN could forbid a religion from teaching its core values. More important, perhaps, if approved any opposition to gay rights in the UN will be circumscribed as it will constitute an illegal restraint of homosexual human rights.
In March, 2004, Brazil conceded the prospect of defeat by the Muslim vote and withdrew the resolution. But it is likely the issue is not dead yet.
In 2002, the European Parliament debated the question of 'Fundamental Rights in the EU'. Some member states wanted to include homosexual rights on marriage and adoption. In a heated debate many conservative MEPs challenged the inclusion of sexual orientation discrimination. When put to the vote it was narrowly carried with a margin of only 26 votes.
The UK Government played an active role in negotiating two European Directives on equality. Their impact will be significant in tackling discrimination across the EU. The Employment Directive outlaws discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, religion or belief, disability and age in employment and vocational training. New legislation - The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 and the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 - came into force in December 2003. Amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will come into force in October 2004 and new legislation outlawing discrimination on grounds of age.
On 1 January 2002, we signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights. As a result, a quiet revolution regarding many of our sex laws on homosexuality has taken place. Changes have been directly imposed on us by the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of gay litigants who felt unfairly treated. One of the first to complain were homosexuals Euan Sutherland and Chris Morris. They felt that Britain's differing ages of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex infringed their human rights to privacy and equal treatment. The Lords had previously resisted lowering the age of consent for sex between men from 18 to 16, so the Government threatened the Parliamentary Act to push through changes that would permit young people over 16 to indulge in homosexual acts.
One could be forgiven for thinking that the European 'sword of Damocles' forced the issue. But most of our legislatures took the view that 'equality' before the law was essential, others saw no difference between gays and heterosexuals. Thus, homosexuality was not abnormal, not dangerous, or prone to disease any more than heterosexuality. The Bill overwhelmingly passed 313 votes to 130.
Another case concerned a homosexual local government officer from Yorkshire identified only by the initials ADT. He was prosecuted for indulging in group sex with four others in 1996. The police seized a video of the five men engaging in oral sex from the home of one of them. ADT was convicted of gross indecency and given a two-year conditional discharge. Dissatisfied, he took his case to the Strasbourg Court. They upheld his claim that the police had violated fundamental principles by '...an interference with the applicant's right to respect for a private family life' under article 8 of the ECHR. He was awarded nearly £21,000 in damages and £12,391 in costs. An elated Peter Thatcher described the ruling as an 'historic victory.'
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 soon followed. This ended the offences of soliciting by homosexuals, buggery, gross indecency, group sex and of assault with intent to commit buggery. Now, 'cruising' has become endemic in many public parks, particularly in large conurbations. Formerly, the police may have prosecuted the worst cases, but now their more concerned with telling gays how not to be mugged or assaulted. On the other hand, 'cottaging' - gay sex in a public toilets - is still an offence though hardly policed at all. Local gay lobby groups have successfully managed to influence individual forces throughout the country to treat cottaging within extreme circumspection invoking Article 8 and 14 of the ECHR which relates to 'respect for private live' and 'prohibition on discrimination' respectively. With the aid of gay groups and homosexual police, individual forces have drawn up lengthy and often detailed instructions on how homosexual infringements in public toilets are to be policed, if at all. Current indications are that gay law-breaking in public toilets will feature less and less in police statistics even though it is likely to grow.
Indeed, homosexual activity in the public toilets in Farringdon Road Park, Swindon, is not an isolated example. These toilets have a long history of being used by gay men seeking 'unlawful' sexual encounters. It should come as no surprise that a few have been assaulted. Swindon Borough Councillor, Barrie Thompson feels that gay people have every right to be in the park without being molested. In order to prevent violence on gay men, the local authority has spent £90,000 on improvements in better lighting and bushes have been cut back to hinder attackers. The local constabulary has increased patrols and are committed to the 'True Vision' scheme which concentrates on protecting homosexuals from the consequences of their own conduct. Since the behaviour is illegal, little wonder that hardly any 'homophobic' incidents are reported. From what is in the local press it appears the police are indifferent to the cottaging incidents.
It would be cynical to think this exercise is not being repeated elsewhere throughout the country!
Indeed, the exercise is exceeded elsewhere! Unable to resolve a public nuisance the Enfield Council have closed toilets in public parks due to an 'inappropriate' use by gay men. Meanwhile, local people want the homosexuals flushed out of park toilets. The Tories in Camden, however, have asked gay rights group to contribute £70,000 to the annual cost of clearing condoms from Hampstead Heath. Perhaps, instead, they should also ask the Police Authority to make a contribution, since the police are apparently willing to facilitate the act of cruising itself?
In the meantime the Cumbria Police are bucking permissive trends. They are stepping up patrols of public toilets following complaints from the public of illegal sexual activities by homosexuals. In the past several men have been prosecuted for gross indecency.
Hate Crimes
How has the law affected gay rights? In Canada, for instance, a man was fined for a newspaper ad containing citations of four Bible verses about homosexuality. A teacher was suspended for one month for writing a letter to the editor on homosexuality. Three years ago, the Ontario Human Rights Commission penalized printer Scott Brockie $5,000 for refusing to print material advocating homosexuality from a gay lobby. Brockie, who had previously printed items for homosexuals, argued that his Christian beliefs prevented him from printing material that was specifically aimed at encouraging homosexuality. He has now appealed unsuccessfully and incurred additional costs of $40,000. His rights as a Christian are subordinate to those of homosexuals not to be discriminated against and he must restrict the practice of Christianity to his home and church and not to take it with him into the public marketplace. The Mayors of Hamilton and London, Ontario have also been found guilty by the Commission after they refused to proclaim 'gay pride days' in their cities. In another Canadian case, a man was charged for posting a billboard containing Biblical references prohibiting homosexual behaviour.
Further afield, a Colorado woman who left a lesbian relationship to become a Christian was ordered by a judge not to expose her adopted daughter to Christian teachings on homosexuality. A Cardinal in Spain who gave a sermon on marriage was sued for 'incitement to discrimination. Scandinavian or Dutch Christians who publicly criticise homosexuals or oppose their demands face prison. In July 2004, Swedish Pastor Ake Green, a member of the Pentecostal movement was sentenced to a month in prison. He gave a sermon describing homosexuality as '...abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society'.
More recent, two men preparing to carry crosses were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct at the Dayton Gay Day celebrations. Dayton, Tennessee, was the venue for the famous Scopes monkey trial in 1925.
In April 2004, the Canadian Senate passed a controversial Bill which will outlaw public expression against homosexual behaviour and which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison. The effect here is that heterosexual parents can raise their children without State protection, but should they wish to protect their children from the deadly consequences of homosexuality, it is now a hate crime. Many homosexual activists have already publicly stated that expressing an opinion defending the traditional definition of marriage 'promotes hatred towards homosexuals'. Critics of the new Act charge that the parliamentary process has been manipulated with undemocratic and dictatorial tactics to push through legislation that could criminalize Canadians who express an opinion opposing homosexual behaviour for any reason - including religious faith, moral convictions, medical consequences or humanitarian concerns. Many Christians see these worldwide events as the first formal steps to undermine religion.
This is quite a remarkable achievement for the gay movement in Canada because they are relatively so few. In June 2004, for example, and for the first time ever, the Canadian Community Health Survey released details of research into nearly 84,000 Canadians between the ages of 18 to 59. Only 1.0 percent identified themselves as homosexual, while 0.7 percent said they were bisexual. Predictably, there was a storm of protest from the gay-rights groups who felt the figure was between 5 and 10 percent. Along gender lines, the survey found that 1.3 per cent of men considered themselves homosexual compared with 0.7 per cent of women. Some 0.9 per cent of women said they were bisexual, compared with 0.6 of men.
Remarkably, 'sexual orientation' is not defined in Canadian law and could include polygamy, polyandry, polygyny, polyamory, paedophilia, bestiality and a number of other dangerous deviant behaviours.
As an interesting aside, in its pursuit of civic freedoms the powerful American Civil Liberties Union already supports polygamy, so is it only a question of time before they support the others?
But think, why should the ACLU support polygamy? In doing so they conceal the fact it requires three people to form a family where children are often conceived through artificial insemination. Thus, according to historical moral and civic conventions, gay marriage and family are an utter sham. Progeny is the blue-print of traditional marriage, however customised, the exception in homosexual ones.
In May 2005, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal fined William Whatcott $17,5000 for exposing homosexuals to 'hatred and ridicule'. He had distributed flyers in mailboxes which referred to homosexuals as sodomites sharing '...their filth and propaganda with Saskatchewan's children.' Whatcott remained defiant and continued to press for free speech.
Similarly, the French government approved a bill in June 2004, that will criminalise 'sexist and homophobic' remarks. It will make 'incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence against a person on the basis of gender or sexual orientation' punishable by a year in prison and a £30,000 fine. Press freedom watchdogs 'Reporters without Borders' criticise it as a real backward step that will stifle public opinion. Feminist and teachers groups similarly condemned it. In a statement published in the daily Le Monde, they said that, 'Calling someone a dirty dyke or a fag would become a serious insult in legal terms while there would be no punishment for calling someone a whore or a slut.' Curiously, in 2002 there were 41 violent acts against homosexuals, 86 in 2003.
The Pink Police
Paradoxically it seems, when the police give increased attention to 'human rights' they are in danger of undermining their traditional role as upholders of the law. This will invite growing public criticism. They are failing to distinguish between right and rights. Some homosexuals choose their lifestyle in the common knowledge it is fraught with serious personal health and psychological risks. By protecting these manifestly self-destructive 'rights', the police ignore the groundswell of opinion that considers society is being damaged.
Understandably, the police are reluctant to involve themselves in politics, yet fail to comprehend that gay rights are not about the attainment of truth or social justice but the achievement of power - the essence of politics.
The British Police go further and are keenly recruiting homosexual and transsexual men and women who then form gay associations to keep a keen eye on anyone critical of homosexuality.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens nominated Inspector Paul Cahill, 32, for the MBE for his 'services to diversity'. Cahill heads the 1,000 strong, publicly funded Gay Police Association and he wishes to silence Christian objections to homosexual police. Clear evidence that queer cops are in the ascendancy! Sir John Stevens was the first Commissioner to appoint a homosexual affairs officer with a salary of £30,000.
But now, the new boss at Scotland Yard, Sir Ian Blair, who also actively promotes ‘gay right’ has appointed 24 diversity advisers on £35,000 salaries. Additionally, he has contributed £3,125 to the schools campaign so that little kids can learn more about homosexuality during the Gay History Month.
One is left to speculate if they have properly considered the financial implications of recruiting homosexuals because research by Sigma (1999) suggests that more than half of gay men infected with HIV are medically retired? Current research for the British Royal College of Psychiatrists (December 2004) indicate that as many as 43% of a sample of homosexual respondents had a mental disorder, and 31% had contemplated committing suicide. This does not augur well for the running of an efficient and effective police force?
Additionally, newly promoted Acting Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick is testimony to the fact the law enforcement sodomy lobby is no longer frowned upon by the boys in pink. This represents a revolution in the traditional ethos of British policing. A homosexual with a controversial background, Paddick has publicly stated he finds anarchy appealing. He pioneered a 'softly, softly' approach to cannabis in south London; an experiment that has now spawned an increase in drug abuse and criminality. No criminal charges were brought against him when his lover of over five years, a former French model, James Renolleau made drug allegations that could have compromised his position as a police officer. He also alleged that his policeman lover boasted of a promiscuous sex life before they met. Now Paddick has admitted that police '...officers are petrified of putting a foot wrong dealing with any gay-related issue.' So, is today's modern police force compromised in its duty to impartially enforce the law fully?
London's police force has been paralysed by anxiety over the issue of diversity. Eager to prove its anti-racist, pro-gay, feminist credentials, the Met prefers to fight supposed prejudice than real crime. One sorry result of this neurosis about discrimination is the creation of a vast bureaucracy, which does nothing but waste resources. The Met is now awash with race units and equality action plans, all geared towards heightening the climate of grievance. So within the shambolic organisation there is a consultation, diversity and outreach unit; a diversity directorate that includes six separate diversity teams covering everything from age to sexual orientation; a diversity champion; an equal opportunities and diversity board; a positive action team; a lesbian, gay and transgender advisory group and a cultural and communities unit. It is just as keen on gay rights, and will be one of the key hosts for "Celebrate", a European gay police conference in London at the end of the month. The central theme is the "ability to actively celebrate difference, not merely to tolerate or even respect it". The Met is also to be represented at the "Big Gay Out" festival in London next month.
But now the Lothian and Borders police in Scotland are the first force to issue guidelines which actually collude with officers suffering from a mental disorder. Transsexual police will be given time off for hormone therapy and a sex-change operation as well as being offered up to two years paid leave. Peter Thickett, the forces human resources director said, 'This.. is something we are very proud of...' Any officer who 'outs' a transsexual will face gross misconduct charges. More forces are bound to follow.
Meanwhile, on a lighter note, gay officers in Hampshire are angry they can't wear earrings on-duty, but those at the Brighton Police Station can fly the gay police flag.. Initially, the Gay Police Association website ascribed to the 10 percent lie by stating there are nearly 6 million homosexuals in the UK. It's too much for them to separate fact from fancy! This misinformation relies on the discredited Kinsey formula. Moreover, Kinsey referred to a four percent and not ten percent average in American society. Nevertheless, it's interesting to note that South Wales gay police continue with the idea there are 5.8 million homosexuals in the UK, whereas the West Midlands Police 'Rainbow Club' go further suggesting that between 10 and 14 percent of the population are gay, a view shared by Inspector Kelly Whiting of Hampshire police.
The ten percent deception has been neatly exposed by non other than gay activist Bruce Voeller who admitted in his book 'Some Uses and Abuses of the Kinsey Scale.' that the 10% figure is a myth to promote the homosexual agenda. He remarks, '...after years of our educating those who inform the public and make it laws, the concept that 10 percent of the population is gay has become generally accepted as "fact"... As with so many pieces of knowledge and myth, repeated telling made it so...'
But the GPA has now revamped its website. Nonetheless, take a good look at it - its not about policing! It's exclusively concerned with promoting the singular case for homosexual police. It's not about honouring policing, it's about celebrating homosexuality in uniform. And they are a highly politicised pressure group! They believe they have the backing of 48 chief constables throughout the country. They've even made a formal complaint against an award winning journalist and broadcaster for making tongue-in-cheek flippant remarks about gay police in a national tabloid. They're behaving like a fifth column intent on provoking 'hate' legislation to avoid criticism. In common with homosexual activists, they leave no room for free speech. They arrogate to themselves the authority to determine who may and may not speak and what language they must use.
Consider the case of North Wales Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom who referred to homosexuals as 'queers' in a private meeting at police headquarters. The GPA publicly jumped on his back and secured an immediate apology. Ian Saunders of the GPA later criticised him declaring, '"He should act quickly to demonstrate that this error of judgement is not indicative of a homophobic culture within his force.'
This is a sensitivity that borders on the hypocritical because the term queer is commonly used within gay circles. A formal complaint of using 'abusive and insulting terms resulted in no further action. A spokesman for the Gay Police Association said, 'His words will have seriously affected the confidence of the lesbian and gay staff of the North Wales Police in their chief constable.'
Now, Assistant Chief Constable Simon Taylor and gay Chief Inspector Neil Ferguson of the Norfolk Police are busy recruiting homosexual people from the Brighton gay community. Apparently, there are 292 same-sex couples in Norwich, the counties largest city. In 2002, the Norfolk Constabulary recorded just 42 'homophobic incidents'. However, Sussex gay liaison officer, Lisa Timerick, is angry because recruiting forces have not allowed their officers to march in uniform at the Pride event, but then have the cheek to poach gay recruits from her patch. Ferguson was subsequently to resign his job and alleged he had been discriminated against by his own force and lodged a claim for £4000,000. Before the case reached the employment tribunal in Norwich it was settled with a £30,000 payment. Force spokeswoman Angela Black said the resolution did not involve any allocation of blame.
Lisa Timerick hit the headlines again in May 2005, when it was reported that she and homosexual Sergeant Mark Andrews were sponsored to the tune of £5,000 by the Superintendent's Association, to go on a 'gay community relations' six weeks jolly to the USA. The pair will march in uniform in San Francisco's Gay Pride Parade on June 26. Residents of Brighton, which included some 40,000 homosexuals, expressed their anger at the waste of money, but a police spokeswoman said, 'The pair will have a hectic schedule of meetings with police, community leaders and nightclub owners.' Caroline Graham of the Mail on Sunday tracked the pair bar-hopping in San Francisco's gay Castro district. She observed, 'It is 1.30am and The Cafe, one of San Francisco's most notorious gay clubs, is throbbing. A heaving mass of bodies gyrates on the dance floor, strobe lights highlighting men kissing passionately. In the middle of the melee, Sergeant Mark Andrews, 'pride' of the Sussex Police Force, grinds his hips against the male dancer behind him. Moments later, he turns his attention to a young man in a red shirt and drapes his arm around the anonymous stranger before leaning in for a kiss. Andrews seemed transfixed when a black and white video of two men engaged in lewd sex acts was shown, and went on to indulge himself in kissing more anonymous males.
Consider also the concern of a traditional Christian group who objected to police officers, who for the first time in 2003 marched in full uniform in a gay parade. The surprising element is that only one group protested! But incredibly, the Manchester Police logged the complaint as a 'hate incident'. At best this displays a degree of confusion, at worst an insensitivity that borders on the paranoid. It is difficult to know how the police can ascribe to the notion of hate since it is an expression of extreme emotional thought or feeling. Please also note, some forces refuse to allow officers to parade in uniform. So, apart from Christian groups, there are serious reservations from within the police.
Contrast all of this with the 1987 statement of former police chief James Anderton who believed that people with AIDS were responsible for their own predicament. He famously said, 'Everywhere I go I see increasing evidence of people swirling about in a human cesspit of their own making.' It now appears the police have joined them in spite of the fact medical opinion sides with Anderton.
Meanwhile, the Cumbrian Police have recently launched a 15 strong team of specially trained liaison officers to provide confidential advice on homophobic crime on the basis victims fear attending court. As this is a well recognised public fear generally, it is difficult to know why homosexual victims are getting preferential treatment. Indeed, but what is the evidence that homosexuals endure disproportionate hate crime? Well, according to the most thorough research in the UK by Sigma Research in 2002 only 7 percent of homosexuals claimed they had been physically assaulted, whilst 34 percent said the had been verbally abused. What's more, there is a very high conviction rate. According to new data from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in 2004, seventy percent of anti-gay hate crimes reported to the police in England and Wales resulted in convictions. It is an astounding conviction rate! If the police clear-up rate for burglary, theft or assault were as high, people would be dancing in the streets.
Another report covering all 42 areas by the CPS in 2005 show that gay complainants '...feel uncomfortable taking crime complaints through to prosecution.' The CPS prosecuted 317 cases that contained homophobic elements between April 2004 and March 2005. Of these, 190 resulted in a guilty pleas and a further 34 resulted in conviction after trail. The conviction rate for homophobic crimes was 71 percent. Above all, this is an indication of just how little gay hate there is in our society.
On the other hand, some children experience far worst bullying, but they don't get preferential treatment. In fact more than 31,000 children sought counselling from the charity ChildLine during the last twelve months. Research shows that a teenager is stabbed to death every two weeks. And what about violence against women? According to the Home Office, two women are murdered each week. In 2003 there were 11,441 rapes, but only 5.8 percent resulted in convictions and some rape crisis centres in London have closed for lack of funds. Moreover, according to a recent Commons Select Committee on Health about 500,000 elderly people suffer assault or abuse each year which hardly merits any public concern. And what about the 12,500 elderly people who, unable to warm their home sufficiently, freeze to death each winter? It has been estimated that homophobic hate crime represent only 0.03% of all recorded crime. Gays don't realise how privileged and pampered they are by the pink police!
Looked at sensibly, if any group in society deserve the new legal aggravation principle it is the police themselves who each year incur over 14,000 assaults, some seriously, even allowing for the underused 'assault on police' charge. We charge them with subduing violence, often at great risk to themselves, so it is right we should shield them as they protect society.
But now a police funded website has been launched in May 2004 to tackle hate-crimes against race and religion under the title of 'True Vision'. Twenty-three police forces throughout the country have signed up for the scheme, more are expected. Predictably, homophobic and transphobic elements are included.
Raw data from two of our largest police forces show just how small the problem is. During 2003-04 the Metropolitan Police recorded 1,514 homophobic crimes, 13,183 racist crimes, 60,615 domestic crime and 190,501 cases of violence. The West Midlands Police recorded 4,058 race crimes and only 309 homophobic 'incidents' during 2001-2002.
Alarming media stories, sometimes written by homosexuals or gay apologists, of serious violence and intimidation towards gays are regularly exploited by gay activists. Indeed, they are at the forefront in generating it by persistently falsely claiming they are the unwarranted victims of severe homophobic hate and violence. This, they say, explains why homosexuals feel depressed or attempt suicide. But anyone serious about this issue has to ask, where is the scientific evidence? Other than that created by homosexuals who have good reason to exaggerate it, very little exists.
In America, for example the cause célèbre murder of homosexual student Matthew Shepard in 1998 became a symbol for gays demanding federal hate crime laws to include sexual orientation. New evidence by ABC's 20/20 news anchor, Elizabeth Vargas shows that the killers were not involved in a hate crime, merely robbery and that one was under the influence of drugs. The source of the hate is not traced to the police, but to two of Shepard's friends, Walt Boulden and Alex Trout. It is they who spread the idea that Matthew was attacked because he was gay. This revelation is seen by gay activists as an oversimplification and a distortion, but they have a political reason for sustaining the homophobic myth.
American activists still push for a federal hate crimes statute. But the facts are against them. There is no epidemic of anti-homosexual crime.
The 2003, the FBI reported 7,489 hate crime incidents, of which 1,239 were based on sexual orientation and two-thirds of these were for intimidation, vandalism and property destruction. Hate crimes of violence represented a very small figure. There were 16,503 criminal homicides in the USA and only .03 percent were based on homosexual bias. Of the 857,921 aggravated assaults, a mere 162, or .02 percent, were based on sexual orientation.
Until we have similar relevant data, based upon a disciplined and independent source, we must treat with extreme caution any claims by gays of serious hate crime based on sexual orientation in the UK.
In the meantime, the police in Croydon have launched a specific homosexual surgery to tackle homophobic crime. PC Jeff Wade claims it is a response to public demand. His colleague, PC Lee Worsfold, caused a storm earlier this year when he made the choice to go back on the beat as a woman. Now called Louise, he is waiting two years before deciding whether to have a sex change. In the last ten months there has been 13 reports of homophobic crime in Croydon but the police believe most go unreported. PC Andy Hewlett, of the Metropolitan Lambeth Police is involved in a publicly funded project to raise awareness of homophobic bullying in primary and secondary schools. 'Homophobic terminology is prevalent in many of our schools', he said, 'Words are often the start of the chain of abuse that can lead to more serious and often violent crimes.' Thus, police propaganda will attempt to make respectable that which many people think is not.
This new found enthusiasm by heterosexual police for supporting homosexual rights is difficult to understand. The popular reason given is to crack homophobic crime, which seems facile because the police don't jump into bed with criminals to catch thieves and burglars. It may, however, be a malign extension of the Macpherson effect in which the police expiate a hidden inner guilt about alleged institutionalised racism. The effect now broadens to allegations of homophobia.
In any case, it is probably confined to the top brass who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that gay rights, like gay parades, are as much about politics as anything else. Thus the even-handedness of the police is being slowly undermined because of external political pressure from a minority group of recent origin and narrow perspective. More menacing, they now appear to want to control what we feel and think rather than what we do!
At the present time, three police forces ask recruits about their sexual preference which is welcomed by Stonewall. Since the Home Office is revising the national recruitment form to include sexual identity from October, the practice will become universal. We should not be surprised that the Gay Police Association are also encouraged by the move on the basis it may lead to less 'marginalisation' of gay police officers. GPA Strategic Director Sian Lockley simplistically observed, 'If we already do gender and race monitoring how do you defend not doing sexual orientation monitoring? There is no difference.' But there clearly is! One can orientate ad nauseam, and some do, but race is immutable. Sexual preference is a choice, and therein lies the rub of the matter.
Where does the Home Office stand in all this? Well, Home Secretary David Blunkett addressed a LGBT Spectrum conference in October 2004, to congratulate them for establishing a national network of homosexual staff in the Home Office. Spectrum has network hubs in London, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Cardiff, Bristol, Sheffield, Birmingham and Belfast. Their numbers have increased from 12 to over 400 since it was established. It's the fastest growing homosexual network in the Civil Service. .
Gay Justice
Meanwhile the Metropolitan Police have added an ignoble 'first' to its history. Among its ranks is a homosexual police constable convicted of gross indecency in an alley in Bexleyheath with a 15-year-old boy in 2000. The officer, PC Matthew Cowling, 23, was even put on the Sex Offenders Register for five years. He denied and was cleared of other charges of indecent assault and gross indecency. Given a conditional discharge by the Court, he was sacked but then successfully appealed to the Police Authority tribunal who returned him to duty with back pay of £24,000. A source at Scotland Yard said, 'it's ludicrous but unfortunately is typical of the way the police is going.'
It's worth pointing out that the homosexual lobby managed to get a late amendment to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, giving them an added legal importance. Under Section 146, sentences can be increased for any offence against a victim based on actual or presumed sexual orientation. Like the Canadian law, sexual orientation is not defined. Likewise, equally ambiguous is the Equality Act 2006 which cosily states that sexual orientation means an individuals sexual orientation towards a person of the same or different sex, or both.
Two interesting ideas follow from this! First, the law will treat more severely a mugging of a strong young healthy homosexual cross-dresser than a frail and infirm old lady, if the former thinks the mugger dislikes his attire. But who is the more vulnerable? What will happen next time worried parents on a housing estate take the law into their own hands to rid themselves of a paedophile? Will the paedophile, like the homosexual, enjoy the additional legal advantage of the aggravation principle? This law manages to invert discrimination and demonstrates how poorly it was conceived!
Even the Crown Prosecution Service, which appears excited by dubious gay research. is getting in on the act. Search their public policy statements on homophobia and you will not find one reference to the term 'homosexual'. Instead, page after page has references to homophobia. Remarkably, even this is defined as a '...dislike directed towards lesbian, gay or bisexual people ...or dislike directed towards their perceived lifestyle.'
So, if you should dislike homosexual practices you run a perilous legal gauntlet! And when is a crime a homophobic crime? When the CPS subjective test is applied - when the victim perceives it as such. This criterion obliterates the distinction between the truth and falsehood and offers encouragement to individuals with a grievance who find it useful to make a false claim that an event was homophobic
Is it any wonder that Tapper should feel confident in complaining about Hammond because the politically correct police are impelled by the administrative fiat of the heterophobic CPS. We should not be surprised that the Association of Chief Police Officer's have jumped into the same bed as the CPS on this matter.
The gay lobby has seduced the police and Crown Prosecution Service. Their greatest prize, however, has been to traduce our ‘Learned Judges’. In March 2004, the judge’s training body - the Judicial Studies Board, produced its 300-plus page Equal Treatment Bench Book. Endorsed by the Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, the book is tendered as ‘equality’ advice to inform, assist and guide judges and magistrates. The Lord Chief Justice commended the book as, ‘…something which judges should have by their side.’
It says a lot of silly things about avoiding terms that might discriminate or are prejudicial. Expressions like ‘he’ or ‘she’, ‘postman’, ‘chairman’, ‘asylum seeker’, ‘man and wife’, ‘immigrant’, ‘mixed race’ ‘West Indian’, ‘or even Asian’ are out. It’s a good example of political correctness gone mad! Ruth Lea, of the Centre for Policy Studies think-tank, said: ‘Some of this material is outrageously offensive to women, some of it is just wrong, and the people who produce this should be exposed as the charlatans they are.’
Judges and Magistrates, it exhorts, should understand that transvestites may need to cross-dress in court and are warned it is exceptionally cruel to imprison them because they face added problems in jail. Gay relationships should not be judged according to the principles of heterosexual life and promiscuous gays should not be discounted as parents. No explanation is given to substantiate these last two assertions. But the simple fact that they are made is evidence of the impermanence and fragility of gay relations. A judge would be foolish not to take these matters into consideration, especially where children are concerned.
They urge that transsexuals be searched by police officers of the opposite sex to the transsexual’s birth certificate. This seems at odds with a recent decision by the Appeal Court. A transgendered male-to-female police recruit was turned down for the job with West Yorkshire Police. They feared suspects being body searched would be offended. The five Appeal Judges rejected this as unreasonable and the rejected recruit is likely to receive £100.000 damages against the chief constable.
What a novel twist! Transgendered police can search whoever they like without compunction, yet non-transgendered police are constrained when it comes to transgendered suspects. One wonders what the advice might be for transgendered police searching transgendered suspects?
And what about the case of Nigel Coleman, 47, from Swindon? He pleaded guilty in October 2004, to assaulting Thomas Clarke. The court heard that Coleman had refused to be interviewed by a transsexual probation officer because it is against his strictly-held Mormon beliefs. However, the court chose not to let him be seen by another officer and sentenced him without a report to two months imprisonment. He is now lodging an appeal on the grounds his religious freedom, as defined by the Human Rights Act, has been denied. His lawyer, Martin Guyll-Wiggins, observed, 'He could not understand how somebody who was committing such a great sin could be in a position to help him with his sins.'
The ‘Bench Book’ hints that gay sex under the age of consent is acceptable. ’The vast majority of young gay men are aware of their sexual orientation before 16 and seek partners of about their own age," it states, adding that there is ‘no persuasive evidence that boys or girls can be seduced into homosexuality’. It contends that gay parenting equals that of traditional families. No research of any significance is offered to substantiate these claims. Indeed, the claim is a clear falsehood. Repeated studies clearly demonstrate that a substantial minority of homosexuals are 'seduced' into the lifestyle by older predatory gays and lesbians.
On the other hand, American and British research unambiguously shows the downside of homosexual parenting. Children from such homes were more likely to report having had sex with a parent, experience homosexuality as their first sexual encounter, be sexually molested, become homosexual or bisexual and report dissatisfaction with their childhood. Other studies indicate children of homosexuals doubt their own sexuality, are embarrassed by their homosexual parents and are teased and taunted by their peers.
American researchers Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai, experts in the field of quantitative analysis, evaluated 49 studies on homosexual parenting - studies often used to 'prove' that a child is not adversely affected by gay parenting. All 49 studies were found to have a least one major flaw.
Lerner and Nagai, who published their 2001 analysis in a paper entitled 'No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us about Same-Sex Parenting', conclude: 'The methods used ... are so flawed that these studies prove nothing ... the studies on which such claims are based are all gravely deficient ...Therefore they should not be used in legal cases to make any arguments about homosexual versus heterosexual parenting."
This conclusion was shared by Professor Lyn Wardle, who criticised the same-sex parenting research in a 1997 article in the University of Illinois Law Review. After examining the use of this research in US legal cases, Wardle argues that until concerns about the current 'badly flawed' research are dispelled, 'it would not be rational to adopt a public policy endorsing or legitimating homosexual parenting'.
British sociologist, Patricia Morgan, weighed in with her own analysis, 'Children as Trophies - Examining the Evidence on Same-Sex Parenting'. Morgan criticises the research for often including only very young children, which precludes any possibility of picking up long-term effects. She says many of the children spend their formative years in heterosexual families before the homosexual family is formed, which makes findings difficult to interpret.
The few studies which track children to adulthood are also flawed, according to Morgan. She criticises Fiona Tasker and Susan Golombok's work published in 'Growing Up in a Lesbian Family' for comparing children of lesbian women who have Ph.Ds with those of poorly educated lone parents and for downplaying negative effects such as teasing by peers.
Morgan says is it is astonishing that 'gushing personal testimonies' by lesbian parents should be 'reverentially accepted by public bodies, academics and research institutes who would immediately laugh away the use of similar materials as evidence elsewhere'....
Interestingly, Sarantakos's research, which compared 58 children of same-sex couples with the same number in matched heterosexual families, found a far higher proportion of children in the same-sex families identified themselves as homosexual or were labelled as such by their parents. He found the result unsurprising because the gay family provides the genesis for homosexuality.
In the final chapter of the Bench Book on ‘Sexual Orientation'’, Judges are urged to avoid identifying witnesses as homosexual or lesbians. They are recognised as a persecuted minority, particularly vulnerable to discrimination, overt homophobia and crude hate. They live in constant fear of physical or psychological assault.
The chapter is shot through with highly questionable and controversial conclusions based on disingenuous scientific premises and questionable research, or no science at all.
It starts with the basic premise homosexuals make up about 10% of the population. In spite of conceding methodological faults with the Kinsey research, it is still used. Three other academic authorities are cited – Janus [1993], Laumann [1994] and Vilain [2001].
It is misleading. Janus found that 4% of men and 2% of women considered themselves homosexual. The Bench Book has quietly added the 5% and 3% of confessed bisexuals to the total to inflate the figure. More reliable would have been a British survey in 1991 among 19,000 men who found that only 1.1% had a sexual partner in the previous year, (3.6% ever). A.M. Johnson et al., Nature. December 1992.
It claims the Laumann research [1994] concedes 10.1% gay men and 8,6% of women. The same Laumann study is referenced here on our The Ten Percent Gay Myth webpage and gives a much lower scale.
The Bench Book claims the 2001 Vilain study, though controversial, points to predetermined genes as the cause of homosexuality. This is a remarkable claim from a peculiar source. Vilain, if not a homosexual, is very sympathetic. An associate of his has published in paedophile magazines. Vilain claims his research means homosexuals should have same-sex marriage and inheritance rights. His study has drawn considerable academic criticism. How do we explain that thousands of homosexuals have changed and now lead normal contented heterosexual married lives with children? If genes were the determining factor this would be impossible! Indeed, the Vilain study is a feeble and unconvincing attempt to bridge the gap between genes and homosexuality.
Obviously the authors of the Bench Book are unaware that prominent gays now admit the 10% claim is a lie. During the Texas sodomy case in March 2003, a brief representing 31 gay and pro-gay groups said, ‘The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey [NHSLS]. The NHSLS found that 2.8% of male, and 1.4% of female population identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual. See Laumann, et al., The Social Organisation of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994). This amounts to nearly 4 million openly gay men and 2 million women who identify as lesbians.’
Odd that the Bench Book claims Laumann’s study says one thing only to be significantly contradicted by homosexual brothers and sisters in America?
They suggest that the commonly held view that homosexuality is associated with paedophilia is ‘extremely offensive’. They say there is no evidence that gay men are more likely to abuse children than heterosexual men. But this a play on words because although the association is commonly held they are two distinct considerations here.
Clinically, paedophiles have a sexual interest in children of both sexes, while homosexuals are interested in children of a like sex. So they are quite wrong to sustain the myth that all homosexuals are disinterested in children and young people. A Considerable volume of research demonstrates their proclivity to abuse youth. Think again of the case of the homosexual Catholic priests in the USA? In fact, research shows up to one in every four homosexuals are initiated into their lifestyle as a result of previous predatory homosexual abuse.
They also claim that gays can constitute an enduring family. This is not backed up with empirical science. It is only based on legal opinion that is unsatisfactory. We will shortly encounter reliable research by the American College of Pediatricians that completely repudiates their claim.
But if the Bench Book is to be criticised for publishing discreditable research, it is to be damned for its flippant, disdainful and irresponsible way in which it treats the question of HIV/AIDS.
One can understand the deception of attempting to disassociate AIDS from the homosexual culture and onto the heterosexual community. Quite recklessly they state, ‘…AIDS has become an outmoded concept.’ They infer the situation is far less serious if treated like a ‘…manageable, though chronic, condition, much like diabetes.’ This is an arrogant claim. Whilst considerable advance has been made in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, it’s still a killer disease. No cure has been found though treatment can postpone full-blown AIDS.
According to Professor Robert Gallo, the man who jointly discovered that HIV leads to AIDS says a vaccine is unlikely to appear in the near future, warning that scientists working on the project are doing so with "two hands behind their backs". Seth Berkley, president and chief executive of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative addressing reporters at the 15th International AIDS Conference said that even under the most optimistic scenario an AIDS vaccine was still years away.
In June 2004, the Journal of Sexually Transmitted Infections announced the result of covert research. The alarming finding was that one third of HIV positive homosexuals did not know they were infected, and many of these admitted having unprotected sex. According to current estimates about 70,000 people have been infected with the virus. A spokesman for the research team said, 'A high proportion of HIV positive men continue to engage in high-risk sexual behaviour after diagnosis, emphasising the need for focused health promotion programmes to reduce the risk of HIV transmission to others.'
According to Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer, a third of those who are HIV positive are unaware of their infection. 'Worst of all', he observed, 'people who are eventually diagnosed as HIV positive have had their disease for an average of six years.' In 2005, the Aids Journal; the official journal of the International AIDS Society; observed that men diagnosed late were about ten times more likely to die within one year. They found that 1 in 4 HIV-infected homosexual men in England and Wales were diagnosed late in 2001 and 10% died within a year compared to only 0.5% of those not diagnosed late.
Interestingly, research (June 2004) by the University of Toronto HIV Social, Behavioural and Epidemiological Studies Unit estimates that 27 percent of gay and bisexual men in Ontario do not know they are HIV positive. Sixty percent of men surveyed knew of someone who had died of AIDS, and alarmingly, 45 percent never disclose their HIV status, either positive or negative, to a casual partner. Similarly, of the 14,395 homosexuals in a British survey almost a half knew of someone who had HIV. Men with HIV had a greater number of sexual partners.
According to the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention it is estimated that about one million people are living with HIV; a quarter of whom are unaware of their infection.. About 40,000 new cases of HIV infection occur each year. About 70 percent are among men and 30 percent among women, half of whom are under 25 years of age. Of these new male infections, 60 percent are through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. There are about 4 million gay men and 2 million lesbian women in America and an estimation in 2002 reveals that 501,669 have died of AIDS. Persons with other sexually transmitted diseases (with sores) have a two-to-three times greater risk of becoming infected with HIV.
A 2005 summer study of gay men in five US cities found that nearly half – 46% - of black gay men were HIV positive. This compares with one in five white gay men and one in six Hispanic men.
For comparison, about one in eight gay men in London has HIV and only about one in 12 in cities like Manchester.
The survey also found that two-thirds of black men were unaware of their infection, compared with only one in five white men. Dr Francisco's Sifakis of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore tested 1,767 gay men for HIV at bars, clubs, organisations and other venues in five cities in 2004-5. He found that 84% of the men who were unaware they had HIV had in fact been tested for it before, and nearly 60% in the previous year, which suggests an extremely fast-growing epidemic among black men.
Interestingly, during 2004, about 400,000 gay men and women made enquiries about reparative therapy through one American religious organisation alone.
It is estimated that there are about 88,627 individuals currently living with HIV in the UK, about a third of whom, or 27,000, are unaware of their condition. HIV rates continue to climb. Newly diagnosed cases reported for 2003 currently stand at 5,864. However, once all reports have been made, it expected that a record 7,000 new cases will be diagnosed for 2003 alone, a 20 per cent increase from 2002.
There is a continuing epidemic among the homosexual community and men having sex with men, accounting for approximately 1,641 of cases reported so far for 2003. The main increase, however, is among heterosexuals, the majority of whom acquired the virus in Africa. Approximately 3,371 new heterosexual cases have been reported so far for 2003. Injecting drug use and mother-to-children transmission each accounted for about 100 cases in 2003. The HIV and homosexual syphilis hot-spots are London, Brighton and Manchester.
In 2004, 920 people from Brighton and Hove were receiving treatment compared to 810 in 2003, a rise of 14 per cent. Meanwhile, Brighton's Elton John Centre, which treats people with HIV and Aids, has recorded a four-fold increase in patient numbers since 1995, from about 350 to 1,300.
Manchester Metropolitan University is the best place to be a gay student - if you are looking for the highest gay to straight ratio, unlimited events run by the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual society and the widest range of "queer theory" courses.
Newly diagnosed cases of syphilis among gay and bisexual men in the United Kingdom rose a whopping 1,412% from 1997 through 2002, according to a 2005 study in the journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Most of the new cases were diagnosed in London and Manchester, researchers say. Among other groups, syphilis diagnoses rose 213% among straight men and 22% among women during the same time period. Researchers say many of the gay men diagnosed with syphilis also were infected with HIV. According to the study, many of the syphilis cases also were transmitted through oral sex.
Between January and June 2004, 196 new cases of HIV have been reported in Scotland, making it likely that more new cases will be reported in 2005 than any other year since the country began offering HIV testing in 1985. The 365 new HIV cases recorded in 2004 was a record, but in the first six months of 2005, 196 new HIV cases have been recorded. According to the data, at least 89 of the new HIV-positive people identify themselves as heterosexuals, 61 as homosexual and 10 as injection drug users. Of the 89 cases among heterosexuals, 55 people -- most of whom were new immigrants to the United Kingdom -- said they contracted the virus as a result of a sexual experience in sub-Saharan Africa,
'It is also important to recognize that people are still coming into the country with infections,' David Goldberg, HPS' director said. An unnamed spokesperson for the Scottish Executive said she was disappointed by the rise in new cases but added that about £15 million has been earmarked to fight the epidemic. As many as 3,000 HIV-positive people live in Scotland.
The total bill for looking after all AIDS patients in Britain is £345million a year. But according to Professor Pat Troop, Chief Executive of the Health Protection Agency: 'Each HIV infection prevented can save between £500,000 and £1million in treatment and lost productivity... Moreover, the watchdog 'Migrationwatch UK' claims that the total cost of treating immigrant AIDS patients from Africa over the past five years has been over a billion pounds - enough for ten new hospitals.
Returning to the Bench Book, it is silent about the many dreadful viruses that gays are particularly prone to.
Right now a new drug-resistant form of gonorrhea with an overwhelmingly disproportionate effect on homosexuals is advancing East across America. Untreated, gonorrhea facilitates HIV. Dutch medical officials are sounding alarm bells about an obscure STD called lymphogranuloma venereum or LGV that is spreading among gay men in the Netherlands. Doctors fear it will make it easier for men to be infected with the AIDS virus. LGV comes from unprotected anal sex and taking part in fisting. The virus is spreading across Europe. French officials are also seeing an upsurge of cases. The first cases have now emerged in the UK early in 2005. LGV had been considered relatively rare until 2003 when around 100 cases were reported in gay men in Rotterdam, with further cases in France, Germany, Belgium and the US.
More recent research [July 2004] from the University of Washington in Seattle has identified a strain of syphilis amongst gay men that is resistant to antibiotic medication. This mutant strain jumped in some North American and European cities from 4 percent in 2002 to 37 percent in 2003.
In London, news of a rare outbreak of shigellosis follows a recent outbreak of hepatitis A and LGV amongst homosexuals. This outbreak is particularly serious for HIV positive people. It is spread through contact with faeces connected with sex toys, rimming and fisting.
Meanwhile, Peter Tatchell pleads for more medical attention to the growing menace of HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) or anal cancer in the gay community. He asserts a quarter of HIV-negative homosexual and bisexual men are infected rising to 93% of those who are HIV-positive.
A word of caution is also necessary regarding the prevention of sexual diseases because many assume a total immunity if they use latex condoms. The effectiveness of the latex condom is less certain than had been previously assumed.
American science tells us the following. If males use condoms 100 percent correctly all the time there is (1) a thirteen percent failure rate against HIV, (2) a fifty percent failure rate against gonorrhea, syphilis and chlamydeous, and (3) a one-hundred percent failure rate against genital herpes and human papillomavirus (HPV) which causes cervical cancer in women.
Yet, according to a 2003 World Health Organization bulletin and a 2001 NIH report, individual studies have demonstrated that condom use reduces the risk of infection for Gonorrhea by 39% to 62% in women and 49% and 75% in men: Chlamydia by 26% to 90% in women and 33% in men: Genital herpes by 30% to 92% in women and less in men, though no numbers were given: Trichomaniasis by 30% in women and significantly less in men, though no numbers were given: Syphilis by 40% to 60% in both sexes: Pelvic inflammatory disease by 55%m, and: Genital ulcers by 18% to 23% in both sexes.
There is no evidence that condoms prevent the transmission of human papillomavirus, which is a leading cause of cervical cancer.
Adding to this concern is recent research by Sigma which shows that even under the best of conditions there is a failure rate of between 10-20% in the use of condoms by gay men as they indulge in sex. Nevertheless, in spite of all this the medical profession go on advocating the idea of 'safe sex' through condom use. Such confidence is clearly undermined by current studies.
In the final analysis, Judges, Magistrates and the rest of society should ask why it is that so many nasty diseases target gay men? Even if homosexual impulses are no longer formally considered a psychiatric disorder, we should recognise that homosexual practices and behaviour are not normal in the sense we can describe them as natural. It involves a misuse of body functions. The result is that many suffer from the 'gay bowel syndrome'. Anal intercourse is thus a high risk behavior because so many vicious diseases can be spread from this maltreatment of the body, including HIV, HPV, Hepatitis A, B, and C, and a wide range of other sexually transmitted diseases. When homosexuals call for more gay pride we need to remind ourselves exactly what is being fostered.
Unlike the British Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the American Food and Drug Administration recently announced a new rule preventing gay men from making anonymous donations to sperm banks.
The Gender Recognition Act 2004
It’s worth mentioning that the gender-bender law has been partly forced upon us by the European Court of Human Rights! Government Ministers justified it on the grounds of constitutional reform, social inclusion and developing a culture of human rights. The aim is to protect anyone masquerading in the opposite sex to that which they were born! It will falsify sexual identity and could make honest people criminals. However, we need to be compassionate towards transsexuals in the knowledge they have a psychological and not physiological disorder.
Gender dysphoria is a condition in which a person is intensely confused or feels discomfort about their birth gender. It is without any biological basis and they may be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. Science is still guessing as it its cause. The NHS estimate about 1 in 30,000 adult genetic males and 1 in 100,000 genetic females seek to change their sex. But the Gender Recognition Act denies the biological basis of sexual identity. A small panel of ‘experts’ may defy nature and reverse the sexual identity of any person who thinks they belong to the other sex. Thus, biology is replaced with a disordered fantasy!
So, for example, a person born a man, married as a man and a father to children could obtain a birth certificate confirming he is a woman. If single, the Act gives a person all the rights to marry and any benefits that follow. It will be a criminal offence to make any reference to the persons true sexual identity. For the first time in British legal history, people will formally be compelled to lie. And this for a minority interest of about 5,000 people who suffer from gender dysphoria, of whom about 400 go on to receive transgender treatment each year so as to 'assume' the body of the opposite sex. Some then regret their reassignment and yearn to revert to their former condition.
The Act is silent about the question of child support. So, should a father become a transsexual and opt for official recognition to become a woman, he is free from any legal obligation to the child support agency if he divorces. And what about an employer who hired Jack who now wants a job with a different firm as Jane? It will be a crime to reveal this.
The implications for same-sex marriage are obvious. It exceeds what is available for the Civil Partnership scheme. No official or person could legitimately object if a priest unwittingly married two people of the same sex. It would be a crime to reveal the blushing bride was a boring bloke. Importantly, married transsexuals who undergo transgender surgery will have to dissolve their marriage because same-sex marriage is outlawed, if they wish to lay claim to the opposite sex! One answer might be for them to divorce and then enter the civil partnership scheme. It's all rather absurd! According to the Government, about 150-200 transsexuals are living in a marriage having undergone surgery and want happily to continue in wedlock. So the new law is a hindrance here. Homosexuals are denied the full recognition of a same-sex marriage, yet others of the same sex suffering from Gender Identity Disorder [GID] can marry at will. The magnitude of the implications is both farcical and extreme.
One of the more widely known transsexuals is Nadia Almada, 27, recent winner of Channel 4’s 2004, Big Brother. Portuguese by birth, he underwent surgery reportedly costing some £15,000. Flushed with victory he exclaimed, ‘I’m overjoyed I’ve been accepted as a woman for the first time. It’s the most amazing feeling – I could burst with happiness.’ Later he said he was a virgin who couldn’t wait to have sex as a woman. But what does this victory tell us about changing attitudes to sexual mores in the UK? Moreover, matters were not quite so romantic. Nadia had hoodwinked the British public because within months he sensationally confessed to being a transsexual prostitute. Earning £1,000 each week selling his body to men he exclaimed, '...the money was so good and the attention so great that I became addicted. I couldn't stop myself.'
Thanks to David Batty of the Guardian there is additional information. Problems associated with Gender Identity Disorder have there own peculiar twist. Take the case of Marissa Dainton, 36, who changed sex three times in 11 years. She started life as Mark Dainton in 1967. After assuming an identity as Patricia Vincent, she had her first sex operation in 1993. Four years on, she reverted to Mark and got married, but now she is a woman again. She once had a penis, then a vagina, and now nothing. ‘What happened to me should be a lesson in the need to make sure you're really ready before changing gender,’ she philosophical observes.
Remarkably, Dainton has reached a degree of understanding with his wife. ‘I was all prepared for us to separate but we didn't want to, so we agreed to find another solution,’ she observes. They intend to stay together to try to work out an amicable separation. ‘It's a very hard situation. As she sees it, she's lost her husband. I find myself in this bizarre situation of trying to comfort her in her grief and I'm the person she's grieving for.’
Changing sex has always been controversial. The first recorded cases in the early 20th century show doctors were baffled when apparently healthy people requested gender reassignment. Some doctors considered them a type of homosexual, transvestite or hermaphrodite; others labelled them mentally ill, deviants or perverts. Some patients were treated with electric shock therapy, supposedly to relieve their depression. Many doctors preferred to let someone commit suicide rather than offer them treatment.
By the 1960s, patients were travelling across the world for surgery, usually to Casablanca. But during that decade the term transsexual gained greater acceptance among the medical profession, and gender identity clinics, providing hormones and surgery, opened in the US and UK. The first British clinic opened at Charing Cross hospital in west London. Back then, it received about 50 referrals a year.
During the 1980’s, this had risen to 100-200. Now around 1,300 patients are referred annually. Last year the clinic, which is the main NHS centre for the treatment of GID, carried out 100 male to female sex changes and the number is expected to rise to more than 150 by 2005. Of these, only a few are female-to-male transsexuals - 450 out of the total of 5,000 sex changes. Among these, genital surgery is less common - and harder to achieve successfully - and so the change is easier to reverse should it not work out well.
Despite such success stories, primary care trusts remain reluctant to fund gender reassignment. Some health officials dispute its long-term benefits, while others regard it as a lifestyle, rather than a life-saving, treatment. This has led to a black market in transsexual hormones, increasingly accessible via the internet, and growing numbers of people travelling to the Far East for surgery.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) has set up a gender identity disorder working party to draw up new UK guidelines to address the concerns of medics and transsexuals. Its chair, Kevan Wylie, a consultant psychiatrist in Sheffield, wants to see patients assessed and supported by a range of counsellors, therapists, psychiatrists or psychologists, rather than just one psychiatrist as is often the case. He believes a team of experts is more likely to spot a patient's misgivings.
Dr. Wylie admits: "There is currently no consensus on treatment." He says that draft UK standards of care are expected to be ready next January. But this deadline looks increasingly unlikely because of certain professional difficulties.
The lack of medical consensus has led some to call for a moratorium on gender reassignment. Alan Finch helped to set up the Gender Identity Awareness Association, to dissuade people from genital surgery and campaign against what he calls the "sex change industry". In April, the chief psychiatrist of Victoria State began an inquiry into the Monash gender clinic, Melbourne, where Finch was treated. But Finch wants all treatment stopped, arguing that transsexualism was invented by psychiatrists.
"Their language is illusory. You fundamentally can't change sex," he says. "The surgery doesn't alter you genetically. It's genital mutilation. My 'vagina' was just the bag of my scrotum. It's like a pouch, like a kangaroo. What's scary is you still feel like you have a penis when you're sexually aroused. It's like phantom limb syndrome. It's all been a terrible misadventure. I've never been a woman, just Alan."
Finch, formerly known as Helen, wants to know why people who want a sex change are treated differently from other psychiatric patients who hate their bodies. He says: "The fact that someone's suicidal and wanting something isn't a reason to provide it. The analogy I use about giving surgery to someone desperate to change sex is it's a bit like offering liposuction to an anorexic
Birmingham University's Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility recently assessed the findings of more than 100 follow-up studies of post-operative transsexuals. They concluded that none of the studies provides conclusive evidence that gender reassignment is beneficial for patients.
It found that most research was poorly designed, which skewed the results in favour of physically changing sex. There was no evaluation of whether other treatments, such as long-term counselling, might help transsexuals, or whether their gender confusion might lessen over time.
Their findings of the few studies that have tracked significant numbers of patients over several years were flawed because the researchers lost track of at least half of the participants. The potential complications of hormones and genital surgery, which include deep vein thrombosis and incontinence respectively, have not been thoroughly investigated, either.
