Why gay people should vote Tory.

« It's done. | Post 500- Deidre Alden's speech with LOLitics subtitles. »

Why gay people should vote Tory.

by Benjaminbrum @ Monday, Sep. 29, 2008 – 09:47:50 am

No no no, don't worry, I've not suddenly switched brains with a tory.

There's a fringe meeting (nearly typed Fridge) tomorrow as part of the Tory party conference (let's call them what they are, Tories, none of this Conservative nonsense).

Here's the details:

'Why Gay People Should Vote Conservative'

Tuesday 30 Sept, 12.30 - 2.30 pm

Jury's Inn Hotel, 245 Broad Street, Birmingham, B1 2HQ.

Chaired by Jean Eaglesham, chief political correspondent Financial Times
with Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Herbert MP; Stourbridge parliamentary
candidate Margot James and Ben Summerskill, Stonewall.

Wine and refreshments served.

Please come along and forward to anyone you feel might be interested -
it's open to the general public and is outside the secure zone.

The secure zone is an interesting euphemism for the "Ring Of Steel" that's been erected right in the middle of the city.

I'm in two minds about whether to attend or not. I'd like to go and hear the amount of spin they shove out about being inclusive etc. Are they hoping that gay people have forgotten Thatcher (the milk snatcher) and Section 28 and the evil committed by the government in the 80's? They're famed for being the party of inclusion aren't they? (Can you hear the sarcasm?)

But then I also don't want to get snapped in the company of Tories as I don't want to appear to be endorsing what they're saying as a party. I wonder if Deidre Alden will go along? She's not exactly famed for being a fan or supporter of the gay community.

Maybe I should wear a sign round my neck saying "never kissed a Tory, never will!".

Maybe I could rewrite that Katy Perry song... "I kissed a tory..."

What do you think I should do?

--Update--

The BBC carried this on their website.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7644851.stm

Apparently it's a "duty to vote Tory" and not should as I advertised.
Options:
Tags:

11 Comments on Why gay people should vote Tory.

Hide subcomments

- deleted user (Visitor)
- Monday, Sep. 29, 2008 @ 11:06:24 am
Yes , I think you should go Ben - surely you are an intelligent , independently minded person , rather than blindly following the 'i hate the tories' brigade .
I've just been listening to Ian Duncan Smith , taking part in a live debate , from Birmingham , on R5live , talking a lot of sense about society , crime , and possible sensible solutions , best wishes , ~ Martin .
- - Benjaminbrum
  - http://www.twitter.com/benjibrum
  - Monday, Sep. 29, 2008 @ 11:12:38 am
  I don't just blindly follow the "i hate tories" brigade.
  
  I've searched my soul, looked at their previous record and seen that they don't have a great record on voting in favour of equalisation of the age of consent for gay men, civil partnerships, section 28, sexual health education around AIDS.
  
  They demonised the gay community in the 80's, marginalised us in the start of the 90's and the strides in equality have only been possible under the Labour government.
  
  I'm not sure I want to be mistaken for a Labour voter who's flipped to being a Tory.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- deleted user (Visitor)
- Monday, Sep. 29, 2008 @ 12:24:11 pm
Your choice obviously , although as you say it's open to any interested people , so by no means an exclusively tory event .
I've never belonged to any political party , and though I'm quite 'gay friendly' I'm not gay but I would probably go to it if I lived there , as I like a lively debate - which you could take part in !
I'm sure there are many older members of the conservative party who still hold some traditionally anti-gay views , but which is'nt reflected in much of the parlimentary party and certainly not in Cameron's shadow cabinet , and so it's up to younger and more enlightened 'conservative minded' folk to bring the party up to date , which under Cameron seems to be happening .
btw I once spoke with a gay man , in his 60's , who disagreed with the gay age of consent being lowered from 18 to 16 .
- Martin .
- - deleted user (Visitor)
  - Monday, Sep. 29, 2008 @ 12:31:28 pm
  And regarding the 'there is a danger that is a threat to us all' , aids-awareness , government-funded advertising campaign in the 80's , it went out of its way to imply that everyone was equally at risk - i.e not to stigmatise gay men , which I think was approved of by some anti-sex outside of marriage religious folk , and picked up by some parents who did'nt want their teenage offspring having sex with anyone .
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- - Benjaminbrum
  - http://www.twitter.com/benjibrum
  - Monday, Sep. 29, 2008 @ 12:42:52 pm
  I don't know if the current shadow cabinet are that "gay friendly". Cameron is proving himself as quite the Spin Master.
  
  Also that's a slippery term. People can say "I'm gay friendly, some of my best friends are gay" or "I'm gay friendly just as long as you don't flaunt it in my face" or "I'm gay friendly just as long as they stay in their own areas and don't bother me".
  
  And people can term themselves as being gay friendly but actually their actions demonstrate an ingrained homophobia.
  
  *shrugs*
  It's not an easy thing to define.
  
  Personally, I'd like to see a strong commitment from the very top of the Tory Party that they'll never sign something like Section 28 in again.
  
  I was also unconvinced about lowering the age of consent to 16. I thought the campaign should have been to bring the age of consent for heterosexuals up to 18. But then, I'm not sure an "age of consent" is a totally useful idea.
  - - deleted user (Visitor)
    - Monday, Sep. 29, 2008 @ 10:46:23 pm
    If you'd like to explain your last point I'm sure that could spark off a lively debate ;
    A phobia , as I understand it , is an extreme , irrational terror , and I kind of resent the gay lobby accusing anyone who does'nt entirely agree with all of their points of being mentally ill .
    For a few months I enjoyed regularly going to a gay pub , over the road from where I was then living , in Norwich .
    I admire how Peter Tatchell has evolved from being a 'gay rights campaigner' to being a 'human rights campaigner' .
    It would be interesting to chat with you if we lived nearer , and if you decide to attend the meeting tomorrow evening I'll be very interested to read your report of it ~ Why not go ! - If you do'nt feel comfortable , just walk out !
    - Martin .
    - - Benjaminbrum
      - http://www.twitter.com/benjibrum
      - Monday, Sep. 29, 2008 @ 11:05:02 pm
      I'm probably not going tomorrow, it's during the day and I can't take two hours off for lunch. (Unless someone was leaving)
      
      Homophobia often doesn't include the "irrational" part in it's definition.
      
      "Homophobia is a fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuals."
      
      The legal point of section 28 was that it "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".
      
      I don't even begin to understand what "promoting homosexuality" means. I do understand what not promoting "the acceptability of homosexuality" means. Insert any other minority group in that statement and people would decry it as being racist. At that point in the 80's gay/queer bashing was slowly falling out of favour. Section 28 was a law which gave an impression to the public that the government sanctioned homophobia and led to confusion in schools about what could and couldn't be said about sex and sexuality. Because that's a area where we want as much ambiguity as possible, when lifestyle decisions may actually have a life and death impact.
      - SeasideMan ^Pro
        
        Tuesday, Sep. 30, 2008 @ 10:00:47 pm
        
        It's about time the term "homophobia" stopped being used. There is a good discussion of why here:
        
        http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/prej_defn.html
        
        Here is the most relevant part:
        
        " By drawing popular and scientific attention to antigay hostility, the creation of these terms marked a watershed. Nevertheless, they have important limitations.
        
        Critics have observed that homophobia is problematic for at least two reasons.
        
        First, empirical research does not indicate that heterosexuals' antigay attitudes can reasonably be considered a phobia in the clinical sense. Indeed, the limited data available suggest that many heterosexuals who express hostility toward gay men and lesbians do not manifest the physiological reactions to homosexuality that are associated with other phobias (see Shields & Harriman, 1984).
        
        Second, using homophobia implies that antigay prejudice is an individual, clinical entity rather than a social phenomenon rooted in cultural ideologies and intergroup relations. Moreover, a phobia is usually experienced as dysfunctional and unpleasant. Antigay prejudice, however, is often highly functional for the heterosexuals who manifest it"
        
        The term "sexual prejudice" is thought to be preferable.
        
        Tom.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        Benjaminbrum
        
        http://www.twitter.com/benjibrum
        
        Tuesday, Sep. 30, 2008 @ 10:58:47 pm
        
        Lets agree to stop using the word when homophobia in all it's instances ceases to exist.
        
        How exciting it must be for people to write about homophobia from their ivory tower of sexual, gendered and racial privilege. Lets turn this entity over and study it and make it sound like gay people are just getting their pants in a twist because they say homophobia instead of "sexual prejudice".
        
        Once again, Tom, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I can give you back your olive branch from last time if you'd like...
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        SeasideMan ^Pro
        
        Tuesday, Sep. 30, 2008 @ 11:18:20 pm
        
        It's clear that you haven't comprehended the points made on the link. You've adopted sarcasm as a defence mechanism.
        
        I'll say no more.
        
        Tom.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        Benjaminbrum
        
        http://www.twitter.com/benjibrum
        
        Tuesday, Sep. 30, 2008 @ 11:24:21 pm
        
        I read the link.
        
        I didn't like the link.
        
        I didn't "adopt sarcasm" as a defence mechanism, it's a bit of a default setting when people just cut and paste a chunk of information without explaining what something meant to them.
        
        I assure you, homophobia exists. I've been on the end of it and it's not nice. To have those experiences, painful as they were, effectively dismissed isn't helpful or constructive.
        
        I'd love to be able to sit with you, personally, explain some of the situations I've found myself in where people have been homophobic and then have you say "it's not homophobia it's sexual prejudice". It's an easy papering over of pain, suffering and represents the thin end of a wedge.
        
        There are countries in the world where it's illegal to be gay and carries a death penalty. That's not "sexual prejudice" that's state sanctioned homophobia.
        
        So, I'm sorry I used sarcasm in my reply, homophobia isn't a pleasant subject at any time of the night or day and it makes me feel physically sick that there's LGBT in the world who are suffering and there's little to nothing I can do to prevent it.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink

Why gay people should vote Tory.

11 Comments on Why gay people should vote Tory.

Leave a comment (Login)