Saturday, July 04, 2009

Angela Eagle's Difficulty With the Truth on Gay Hatred

I wasn't going to return to this subject, but Angela Eagle's performance on the Today Programme merits some discussion, not least because she told an absolute whopper about the Gay Hatred legislation and the Conservative attitude to it. If I was feeling uncharitable I’d say it was a lie. Listen to the discussion HERE - scroll in to 1hr 41 mins.

It is not true to say that the Tories voted against creating an offence of homophobic hatred, as Angela Eagle alleged. They DID support the creation of an offence – in fact David Cameron stated on the floor of the House that they would do so – and as a result that part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 passed without division. So no Conservative voted against it.

The Tories did support amendments to the bill that would have inserted a ‘free speech’ clause of one sort or another. Edward Garnier tabled one at Committee stage on behalf of the front bench. Most Conservatives, on a free vote, then supported at Report stage another amendment tabled by LABOUR MP Jim Dobbin. In the House of Lords an amendment was successfully tabled by Lord Waddington. But when the bill was returned to the Commons, Labour ACCEPTED this amendment in order to get the bill on the statute book. In short, the Tories voted for creating an offence; but they voted for a free speech clause – as did Gordon Brown, Jack Straw and the Minister moving that part of the bill Maria Eagle. The argument that ‘only one Tory voted for it and that was John Bercow’ is a piece of shit-stirring, frankly – Bercow was voting with the LibDems and AGAINST Labour. At previous stages Bercow had not voted for the free speech clauses – but a handful of other Conservatives had done so too.

More recently, in the Coroners and Justice Bill, Labour are trying to remove the Waddington amendment. The Tory position is to retain the clause; Labour argue that it did not, in truth, reflect the will of the Commons.

Regardless, it is clear that the Tory position in relation to the homophobic hatred offence is that they supported it, and to say otherwise is a lie. The reason that people are free to stir up hatred against gay people is not for want of legislation but because Labour, typically, have still not actually brought this legislation into effect. Yet again, they have passed legislation largely for symbolic and strategic reasons but haven’t actually put it into law. You could argue that if Labour were serious about protecting gay people from hatred, they would implement that legislation rather than posture about it.

* I should make clear that the position I have outlined in the official Tory position on this legislation. It is not mine. I opposed this legislation as I made clear in a Telegraph column in November 2007.
Opposing this legislation is not anti-gay. Rather, it is pro freedom of speech. Such proposals would never see the light of day in the US, where freedom of speech is enshrined in the constitution. This issue makes the case better than anything else for a written constitution.
If, as is suggested by Justice Secretary Jack Straw, the burden of proof is on the accused to prove they didn't mean something in a hateful way, it will create a legal minefield. If someone calls a homosexual a ''poof", it can be meant in a number of ways, as this week's Ofcom ruling in favour of Channel 4 has shown. It can be meant in a hateful way but it can also be used as an affectionate term, believe it or not.

Having said that this legislation should be opposed by the Opposition, I have few expectations that they will do so. Tories will seek to amend the proposals but in the end political realities will dictate that they will not go into the ''no" lobby. A ''courageous" abstention will probably win the day.

UPDATE: Michael Brown writes in the Independent that he is bored with reading and writing about gay politics.


Anonymous said...

There is no excuse for discrimination against anyone. It cannot be justified.

I hope Labour take that into consideration in regards to their equality bill, which discriminates against various groups of people. Equality should mean just that, regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender or upbringing.

The Pride marches teach us that discrimination is not allowable, and everyone should have equal rights.

I cannot believe Tories will not support true equality. I can believe that the Tories will oppose the stuff that Labour are defining as equality, while creating their anti-Conservative smears, lies, obfuscations and deceits, Iain. Labour's hypocrisy becomes clearer by the day. They have lost their way.

ChikaBebe said...

very interesting post :)

Anonymous said...

Is this sordid business an undercover officially-sanctioned attempt by Nu-Lab to discredit the Tories in traditional Mcbride style?

Sure sign of weakness when they resort to this. I thought we'd heard the last of "18 years of Tory mis-rule" some time ago. Seems i was mistaken.

Rab C. Nesbitt said...

I hope that 'straight pride' march Old Holborn is trying to organise gets off the ground.

I'm all for equality.

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't Labour be doing a more useful job for gays by aiming their homophobic claims at Islam - isn't homophobia enshrined in that religion?

Maybe they don't as it might lose them some of their core votes.

Anonymous said...

Let us assume that they had passed a law on 'religious hatred' and it had not been kicked into touch.

And let us suppose they passed a law on 'homophobic hatred' [whatever that means...]

What would happen in a debate at the Oxford Union on the role of Islam in sexuality ?

Would they be allowed to 'hate' heterosexual fornication but not preach views on homosexuality ?

And what if someone starts accusing the 'zionist lobby' of not supporting gay rights.

I'm just asking...

Plato said...

Ah Damian, would you like another cuppa... and perhaps a biscuit?

If Labour are stooping this low already, Christ knows what the next 10 months will be like.

Anonymous said...

Angela Eagle has just been on BBC Moneybox lying again, in her capacity as pension's minister.

A couple of outrageous lies about Brown's pension grab.

She appears to have a propensity for untruths.

Cynic said...

A desperate Minister - in all sense of the word.

john miller said...

It really is worrying. Being a socialist seems to mean that you have no morals at all. The boss tells you to lie, so you just go ahead and lie.

It seems to be like a religion. God tells you to hate someone, so you just follow the commandments.

Labour ministers seem to have given up any pretence at governing. They are now in election mode and that seems to consist solely of doing the rounds of the media telling barefaced lies about the Tories.

What is most worrying is these lies, like Gordon's, are easily disprovable with five minutes research. It shows that the lies are for the masses who just beleive what they hear.

The only defence is to run a counter campaign that lists some of the lies Labour are using and compare them to the truth.

Surely no one would elect a government of compulsive liars?

Oh. you could be right...

Rebel Saint said...

Firstly - a case of semantics. DISCRIMINATION is a useful & necessary part of personnel & social life. I want my schools to be discriminating about who they choose to teach my children. I teach my children to be discriminating in their choice of friends. I want our country to be discriminating in who they allow to become citizens of our country. What we DON'T want is UNFAIRNESS or INJUSTICE. UNFAIR discrimination or UNJUST discrimination is a bad thing. I get sick to death of telling me not to be discriminating. I will always exercise discrimination and so should we all. We'd be in a lot less of a mess if we'd been a bit more discriminating about who we voted for.

Secondly. The point about the equality bill is that it is patently unequal!! It gives gays all sorts of protections that are not afforded to any other group. The 'free speech' clause that Lord Waddington introduced is virtually identical to the free speech clause that is included in the incitement to religious hatred laws. It simply defines what is & isn't considered "incitement to hatred". Given the increasing amount of hostile & malicious accusations that seem to be occurring I consider it as a completely necessary amendment.

What-is-more, I seriously suspect the motives of those who want to remove a free speech clause? Why would they want to do that? Of all the misguided & draconian laws this government has introduced these past 10 years, why is the only one they want to repeal this particular free speech clause? And is it even constitutional to remove part of a law that was only voted in little over a year ago?

Is the fact that NuLab is in bed with Stonewall anything to do with this I wonder?

londonmuslim said...

"stir up hatred against gay people",

is this the same chap who only supports the wearing of the burkha when he sees a bikini on a Saudi beach.

Bill Quango MP said...

Angela Eagle's has taken over from Caroline Flint as the least able, most out of depth minister.
She does fulfill her main function of making Yvette Cooper appear knowledgeable.

Anonymous said...

This is a classic example of always be careful when a politician says "You voted for/against/abstain". Unless you know nuances of each aspects, it is very easy to get a very false impression.

Very commonly there are many unrelated laws wrapped together, the current terrorists laws being a good example.

davidc said...

'She does fulfill her main function of making Yvette Cooper appear knowledgeable.'

i suggest the jury is still out on that one

BG said...

Anon 12:04 I agree 100%.

Iain, do you think this how the NuLabour strategy up to next May elections? Labour, the most tribal of all political parties, will be to try and paint the Tories as the 'nasty' party by unfounded slurs and smears? All part of the dark arts of propaganda.

In order to discredit and destroy Cameron's reputation. As this co-ordinated 'Tories are homophobic' attack has shown, Labour will stop at nothing to cling on to power for yet another five years - God forbid!

This has shown us once again it is Labour that is really the nasty party, with their poisonous and vicious mudslinging.

And to deflect attention from Gordon Brown's woeful record of clangers and cockups. His deluded speeches about spending is such fantasy he could teach HG Wells a thing or two about fiction. And his 0% RAISE - how we laughed.

Goebbels said 'If you a lie loud enough and often enough, eventually the people will come to believe it.' It seems NuLabour spin doctors and Brown's inner ring of McBryde, Balls and Mendalson have taken a leaf out of his book.

Hawkeye said...

John Miller said: "Being a socialist seems to mean that you have no morals at all. The boss tells you to lie, so you just go ahead and lie ... It seems to be like a religion."

You've hit on the head. Why do you think Lenin, Stalin, etc where so against religion? Because it was a competing value set to Marxism and thus challenged their power.

ITV3 showed The Killing Fields last night which showcased the vile philosophy of the left - dissent of any kind is not tolerated and all true believers must espouse the party line.

They all live in such fear of being denounced that they spend all their time looking for others to denounce and smear so that they may demonstrate their purity and loyalty to the party.

Socialism is a sickening religion that has killed nearly 100 million people in the last 100 years. Its time is past and the sooner it is eliminated from the political landscape the happier I will be.

I really hope that this election results in the total wipeout of the Labour party and the political annihilation of all their apparatchiks.

Armchair said...

I support the freedom of speech argument and think that if someone disapproves of gay people then they should be free to say so.

That DOES NOT mean that they should be able to harass or threaten gay people.

Gay people are simply part of life's tapestry and people really ought to have better things to worry about than what consenting adults do in their own time.

Siberian Tory said...

Alan Duncan dealt with this shit stirring light weight quite effectivley.

If the Labour party want to fight the election accusing us of homophobia that's fine by me, it's a sad state of affairs, but that's okay.

I doubt many people will be taken in.

Brian E. said...

I have strong objections to what appears to be a sting of demands for extra rights by homosexuals, many of which appear to be additional to those available to hetrosexuals. I have no objection whatsoever with equality, but we are reaching the state where certain groups are getting more than equality, they are getting priviledges. Whys should there be homophobic crime or racial crime, surely a crime is a crime for whatever reason it is committed, and the punishment to the perpretrator should be identical regardless of his perceived reason for commiting the crime. Removal of the right of free speach because it offends any group or individual is, to me, totally unacceptable, and I believe that some pressure groups are now becoming their own worst enemy as a result of their constant demands.
For the Conservative party to even enter into the fray, is, I think, a mistake. The extremists (and there are extremist gays just as much as extremists in other fields) will simply use it as a chance to extract even more priviledges.

Anonymous said...

It's funny how Labour's great and overarching concern about gay rights is only raised when Labour faces the prospect of a landslide defeat.

It's funny how they weren't so concerned when Ruth Kelly and Labour's Opus Dei cabal were trying to put their homophobic poison into law.

It's funny how gay rights weren't high on the agenda when Labour MPs and Councillors were harassing Gordon McMaster to the point of alcoholism and suicide.

The Tories haven't always been as progressive on issues of sexuality as I might like but, compared to Labour, they're the paragon of equality. At least no-one in the Tories has gay blood on their hands. Labour can't say the same.

Paul Halsall said...

I don't support hate speech laws. I am not any kind of absolute libertarian, but I think any law in which the state can restrict speech should be banned (as in the US with the First Amendment), or very very limited.

Nevertheless, Iain, I think you are unwilling to consider how truly dangerous a possible 200-250 new Tory MPs, about whom we know very little, will be to gay people in a new parliament.

It may be that they are overwhelmingly young, libertarian, and just not bothered about gays.

It may be they be nothing like any of the commentators her, at Guido's, or on ConservativeHome.

But in fact, we have no good basis on which to make such a call.

OTOH, while there are some homophobic older Labour MPs, this is not likely to be the case for any coming up through the academic route, nor in fact via modern trades unions.

When it comes to voting in the next UK election, if LGBT people all voted on pure and longterm commitment to LBGT rights we should all vote for first, the Lib. Dems. and second Labour.

As it is, AT THE MOST, Cameron has made this a moot issue. But he has not proposed any additional pro-gay legislation (such as equal marriage rights).

Moreover, as a Person with AIDS, I can say that while I am dismayed at Labour's treatment of people living on disability (few people can have any idea of the intimate, and sometimes revolting detail one has to go into about toilet needs, for example, repeatedly, to complete strangers), I am absolutely terrified of what the Tories will do.

I admire the libertarian streak in Toryism, and see a real role for Red Toryism to be imported from Canada, but can you assure us a Tory Parliament will not be full of Anne Widdecombes and Jill Knights?

Irfan Ahmed said...

If you are to do the Daily Dozen today can you please include this:

adam said...

Labour party is founded to discriminate and prejudice so it is an integral part of their strategy to accuse everyone else of doing so to balance the books.

Also this Angel Eagle woman claimed there was nothing wrong with the economy and it was going strong in 07. One of the incompetents in government.

Alcuin said...

I am not too well informed on this subject, but write only to point out that BBC News bulletins are stating that "a row over homophobia has broken out between Labour and Conservatives", and replaying a soundbyte of Angela Eagle's remarks, with no counter from a conservative spokesman. I also noted in the Today interview that Eagle shouted down Duncan, who got very little say as a result.

This subject of course hits two BBC buttons - hated Tories and homophobia, so little surprise at this outrageous behaviour, but it really is time that the Tories started to take on these BBC hacks on.

Frankly I really don't see why this is a political issue, except that Labour wants to use it as a stick to beat Tories with.

Manfarang said...

Glad they are still showing the Killing Fields (First Casualty as it was called when they were making it).I got 500 baht for a day's work being in it as a CIA man no less.I was asked later to be a KGB man but I wasn't free go Phuket to do the shoot.
Anyway Hun Sen(glass eye)is still in power.No worries about gay hatred in this part of the world.
All together now-I'm a lumberjack and I'm ok.....

Anonymous said...

OTOH, while there are some homophobic older Labour MPs, this is not likely to be the case for any coming up through the academic route, nor in fact via modern trades unions.

Bollocks. Any Labour MP in the North of England or Catholic Scotland who is not first, foremost and forevermore anti-gay will not get past the selection stage.

Paul, get out of your middle class ghetto. Move out of your comfort zone and meet some of the socialists who'd gladly stove your head in because of your sexuality. Go out and meet some of your fellow travellers in Labour, the ones who drove Tatchell out of the party. Go meet the fundamentalist Catholics.

You would serve yourself and the gay community a lot better by dropping this mythologisation of the left as a land that's tolerant and welcoming. Walk around the diehard Labour-voting areas of Glasgow or Newcastle while loudly announcing your homosexuality and see how much tolerance you find. Or, rather, see how many stitches get.

Anonymous said...

can you assure us a Tory Parliament will not be full of Anne Widdecombes and Jill Knights?

Can you assure me that a Labour Parliament will not be full of Ruth Kellys and Miranda Grells? You do remember Grell, don't you? She's the Labour candidate who announced that homosexual men were by nature paedophiles. She's one of your wonderful New Candidates for New Labour.

But by all means, Paul, don't let little things like objective reality get in the way of your partisan fantasies and sneering.

Letters From A Tory said...

A bit like Gordon Brown with the 10% lies, I do not understand why Labour continue to push things that are blatantly untrue. After the roasting they got in the papers this morning for their appalling 'homophobic' remarks yesterday, one would have thought they'd be sensible enough to drop it.

Obviously not.

Nigel said...

>>Nevertheless, Iain, I think you are unwilling to consider how truly dangerous a possible 200-250 new Tory MPs, about whom we know very little, will be to gay people in a new parliament...<<

Just as you seem unwilling, Paul, to consider why Labout spokespeople should think it necessary to lie in order to generate the FUD you seem to be experiencing.

As for Widdecombe, I believe she herself has assured you that she won't be around in the next Parliament.

Manfarang said...

Well the Tory party may have changed at the top but not at the bottom.

Anonymous said...

I've got to quibble on the terminology of homophobic. It should be homosceptic.

Phobia means fear. I don't fear homosexuals I am concerned, for you & them, that you're going to burn in hell.

Gareth said...

VotR said: "There is no excuse for discrimination against anyone. It cannot be justified."

Course it can. I discriminate every day in favour of my family and friends. I want to provide for my family and help my friends more than I want to provide for strangers.(Which is what the welfare state makes me do.)

Shouldn't such generosity be of my own choosing rather than done by force?

Gonk said...

What of former Tory candidate Dr Adrian Rogers of the swiftly-closed " Family Values " group ...he fought Exeter in 1997 with an absolutely disgraceful anti-gay campaign.

This is what I uneasily recall and I am still to be convinced that the Tories have totally changed.

N J Mayes said...

So Ben Bradshaw says people should examine the Tories' record on hate crime to see that they are anti-gay. I suggest people should examine Labour's record on every other form of crime to show that they are anti-everyone.

Anonymous said...

Someone recently pointed out to me how silly the whole political landscape looks at the moment. The same person said that we should be having the big debate, instead of discussing disparate microissues and indulging in smears of varying degrees.

He was absolutely right, we have all become distracted, and it made me think. What kind of country do we all want to be living in? What do we all want from the future? When you have an idea as to the answers, the next step is to work out which political party is best equipped to deliver this sort of society.

Having lived through the New Labour years, I am quite confident that they cannot provide the type of society I want to live in. They don't even have the desire to, let alone the capability. I wish, however, that I had a better idea of what the Tories would do, because at the moment I'd only be voting for them as a protest. I'm not saying I want detailed spending plans or micropolicy pledges, like Brown is demanding, rather I want to know the vision. If Cameron could stress his loyalty to the party's key ideals, that of a smaller state, greater personal autonomy but with it more personal responsibility, I'd be a lot happier.

This current hot topic of who has done the most for homosexuals, or who likes them more, is something of a distraction to my mind. I think, or at least hope, that in the 21st century no-one seriously thinks discriminating against people on grounds of sexuality can be condoned. If people do still have such backward views, I see no evidence that they are all among the ranks of the Conservative Party. To suggest such a thing strikes me as cynical, certainly without concrete proof.

Paul Halsall said...


I don't live in a middle class ghetto. I live on a council estate, and all my family is working class. I admit I have a Ph.D., but frankly none of my neighbours give a toss about that.

They are basically decent working class people. They know they have gay man, and most of them know I am HIV+. They are cool with it.

Of course there homophobic working class people, but this is not primarily a class issue.

It is a class issue in the US, where the under-class is religiously weird, but not here.

Newmania said...

That was a tremendously interesting post Iain and your reference back to your own attitude was illuminating not only on the subject of "Gays" but identity politics overall.
I think we have for the most part at the stage when we can move on, and gay men I know would be horrified to think they were defined but that one part of themselves not to say bored with talking about it .
On the subject of “Homophobia “ ( ugh) I could, not tell you whether working class people are more or less likely to be prejudiced .I can tell you though that according to surveyed evidence working class people have less racist attitudes than middleclass people and both are hugely less racist than any ethnic minority in this country . I would not be surprised if it was not at similar picture
My own impression is that this has changed quite significantly over the last twenty years but not because of legislation but by the gay men mixing and getting on with people in the open. I see no reason for more laws and I can think of one individual who refers to himself as a red blooded poof .

Justa Thawt said...

What if the Conservatives took a neutral stance on gay issues. Suppose instead they were actively pro-heterosexual, family stability etc. Doubtless they would be vilified by their opponents but could this not work in their favour? Might they not get more votes overall?

kris said...

I am gay and speaking for myself, we need to get rid of "hate" legislation.

The issue isn't what motivates someone to assault etc, but the assault itself. Why is an assault against a white straight man lesser than a "hate" assault against a gay black lesbian?

hate legialation opens the door to this bs "equal opportunities" politicall correct culture where you dare not even criticise for fear of someone pulling the race etc card.

David.P said...

Eveyones getting sick and tired of "fag this" and "fag that". What about us married folk with kids, People do sweet FA for us.

WordVer: Pariz (gay no doubt) said...

Its all just political point scoring. Nothing more and nothing less

Keith Elliott said...

Well this was always going to be dangerous territory for you Mr Dale, and the true homophobic nature of many Tories is shining proud here. Brian E, David P to name just two of the many.

I'm not a supporter of the current Government and have never voted Labour. I was a Tory Party member on Tyneside from 1986 to 1998 adn I'm gay. The attacks on the Tory Party by Bradshaw et al are the ravings of men desperately trying to cling on to power. That notwithstanding, the Conservative Party's record on gay equality is pretty dreadful and as far as I can tell, Mr Dale, you have not addressed some of the very pertinent points made in response to you previous post on this topic.

As I said in the comment i made on your last post, I'd be interested to hear your views on those direct points made. Eg Adrian at 12.23 pm on the 3rd July.

ramp said...

Phobia means fear. I don't fear homosexuals I am concerned, for you & them, that you're going to burn in hell.

July 04, 2009 5:10 PM

As long as i dont end up where you are,i'll be happy.

Keith Elliott said...

Excellent, thank you Ramp. You make my point perfectly.

ramp said...

Excellent, thank you Ramp. You make my point perfectly.

July 04, 2009 6:57 PM

how so ?

Iain Dale said...

Keith, You seem to assume that anyone making an anti gay point on here is a Tory. You should make no such assumption. I'll have a look at the post you mention.

killemallletgodsortemout said...

Wouldn't it be nice if people were just accepted for being people, irrespective of their sexuality?

The constant whingeing by straight people on behalf of homosexuals is rather irritating, and homosexuals now have it made in our society, and as far as I know don't need the support of trendy do-gooders any more.

Homosexuals can't be hanged or imprisoned for being homosexuals, they mustn't be insulted or laughed at any more and we all accept that they are "special" in our society. They don't have to struggle to be heard any more.


Can we now move on?

Keith Elliott said...

But Iain you did recently publish the results of an online survey you had done which showed, as I recall, that the vast majority of readers of this blog (and presumably therefore, those that leave comments) are Conservative supporters.

Anyway, the issue here is the record of the Conservative parliamentary party which has, as I said, been pretty abysmal.

Iain Dale said...

Keith, about 60% are Conservatives, which means 40% are not.

Man in a Shed said...

Labour exist in their own fantasy narrative. The genius of New Labour was to moderate their narrative and get the rest of the population to join them in their fantasy.

The problem is that reality is just getting to hard to ignore.

That's why the lie so much - on so many subjects these days - its the only way of trying to connect what's in their minds with what they see and hear.

The Labour party is in effect insane.

Putin said...

Paul Halsall -watch what you are saying:

'it may be that they are overwhelmingly young, libertarian, and just not bothered about gays.

It may be they be nothing like any of the commentators here, at Guido's, or on ConservativeHome'

I have commented on all these sites and I can guarantee you there is not one faintly homophobic remark posted by me. Check for yourself.

Retract your comment please.

I have no intention of being the target of smearing whether personal, or collective.

Anonymous said...

It's neither homophobic nor homosceptic. Homophobia literally means "fear of that which is the same as you" - the homo- part of homosexual is from the Greek homos (meaning "the same") not, as ignorant people often assume, from the Latin homo ("man").

Anonymous said...

It is a class issue in the US, where the under-class is religiously weird, but not here.

Then will you take up my challenge? Accompany me through the Castlemilk, Easterhouse, Springburn and South Nitshill areas of Glasgow and introduce yourself to random working class individuals as a gay man. Explain to them that they should vote Labour because of Labour's strong commitment to gay rights.

If you do that, I will (assuming you aren't hospitalised in the process) gladly cast my vote for Labour at the next election. In fact, I'll even make them a cash donation and go door-to-door for them.

For you to state that the Labour-voting working class in the Labour heartlands is anything other than violently homophobic is to betray either a profound ignorance, a worrying naivety or a disgraceful streak of dihonesty.

Anonymous said...

Let's draw a line under this: for Halsall and his fellow travellers, the equation is simple:
Tories = Evil; Labour = Good

Reality isn't important. History isn't important. The homophobic streak that runs deep through the heart of Labour isn't even noticed. Instead, we have a fiercely burning and all-encompassing partisan loyalty - for these people, these ignorant people, there is no such thing as a legitimate reason to vote Conservative and there is no such thing as a good Conservative. You're wasting your time arguing with them.

By the same token, this tribal devotion and ignorant partisanship is what lies behind their wrongheaded assumption the "gay community" is some monolithic entity composed of identical people with identical interests and identical beliefs who should all vote an identical way (viz., for Labour).

In part, people like Halsall are very eager to promote this myth of the monolithic gay community because it allows them to strut and pose as community leaders. And, btw, Paul, we get that you have HIV. We've heard you. We heard you the first five thousand times you mentioned it. Very impressive. Well done. Yes, you are the only gay in the village. Now can you shut up about it, please?

Anonymous said...

Just seen the booooooing of the tory Mr Hunt at the gay parade in London,who said the gay people of britain think the torys have changed....giggle giggle

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:21

I would think anyone who didn't boo an MP of any colour or creed right now rather queer.

Anonymous said...

I do not think you should leave it there Mr Dale.

You are in a good position to protest further - not least to the BBC.

Eagle lied and she should not get away with it. ;labour are increasingly turning to bare faced lies. The commentariat know it but 'lay' supine before the 'lies'.

People who have opportunity (like yourself and Fraser Nelson) should oppose them where they get opportunity and interest.

Paul Halsall said...


Sure I'll go with you through a council estate. I already post in my own quite googleable name (and in fact I post in my own name everywhere).

What about you?

And you'd need to pay for me to come up to Glasgow or visit me down here.

keith elliott said...

Mr Dale, you've certainly touched a nerve here and it's getting nasty.

Looking forward to your comments, as promised earlier.

Iain Dale said...

They are on the other thread

ramp said...

is what lies behind their wrongheaded assumption the "gay community" is some monolithic entity composed of identical people with identical interests and identical beliefs
July 04, 2009 8:02 PM

Well said anonymous, being a gay myself i vote tory because i'm a right winger and cant stand socialists.

The Grim Reaper said...

Gordon Brown's New Labour - now with 10% more lies than before.

Nothing really to say about this issue. Though I'm surprised a Damian McBride-style figure hasn't reminded us of the "gay Gordon" meme yet.

Chris Menzies said...

I wouldn't worry too much about Ms Eagle. She should be more worried about her own Wallasey constituency. Last year, Labour won only one ward out of six. They lost Leasowe for the first time in thirty years. One Labour Councillor has recently crossed the floor giving the Tories the first ever Councillor in Seacombe War.

The Conservative Candidate is Leah Fraser: a local Councillor who stood in 2005 She is an excellent local councillor with a very high profile in the local press.

Wallasey Conservatives now have 14 of the 18 Councillors in Ms Eagle's current constituency. They are proably one of the best campaigning Conservative Associations in England.

Ms Eagle's personal life is not an issue-her expenses are!

Every election will result in one constituency or another having a higher than average swing. In 2010 there's a good chance that Constituency will be Wallasey

angela said...

This whole Gay Pride thing makes me sick. What's to be proud about? Homosexuality has existed since civilization began, and probably before. Greeks, Romans, Islam at the height of its power, despite certain modern Islamic preferences to chuck such miscreants from a height. Incas and Mohicans too, for all I know. For sure it is wrong to make an act between consenting adults that does no harm to anyone illegal, no matter one's own religious or personal persuasion, and for sure the hounding & imprisonment of Oscar Wilde is a stain upon history. As an aside, I wonder what Gordon Brown's sainted father made of it all? Was our Dear Leader brought up in an atmosphere of tolerance & approval? Was he not, and has since had an epiphany? Or is he just once more casting aside his moral compass in search of votes? Or just sending his wife out in search of them? This enquiring mind would like to know!

Ben Bradshaw & Chris Bryant made me hoot with laughter. Isn't Labour always going on about Tory toffs? And hasn't homosexuality always been rife among the aristocracy? And aren't most homophobic attacks carried out by what one would consider the Labour core vote? Until they defected to the BNP of course!

It is right that laws discriminating against homosexuals should have been abandoned. It is a victory of sorts that Civil Partnerships are now legal, although they apply to a narrow one-issue sect and discriminate against swathes of people who choose to live together for a lifetime in a non-sexual way but aren't allowed the same rights. Is that what the Pride is about?

Why do people have to be defined in such narrow terms? Whatever they espouse is just one aspect of a complex human condition. For goodness' sake, let us just have equality under the law for all.

Thatsnews said...

What a nasty piece of work she is.

Keith Elliott said...

Thanks for your comments Mr Dale. Which of the gay equality legislation passed during the past 12 years do you think would have been passed had the Conservatives had a majority in Parliament? Again, I'd like to stress I am not, have never been and probably never will vote Labour.

Lord Snooty said...

Keith and Adrian have made some substantive points that you studiously ignore, Iain.

Yes, Labour has no room for complacency on this issue. Yes, Bradshaw and Bryant were crass in the way they raised this. But just look at the voting records of Tory MPs (including Cameron) in recent years. All the limited advances have come from Labour and often opposed by Tories. Your distraction tactics on the Eagle interview are convincing no-one. Be honest, Iain.

Paul Halsall said...


"This whole Gay Pride thing makes me sick. What's to be proud about? "

Surviving the intense self-hatred of childhood and coming out is something for both gay and straight people to celebrate.

Paul Halsall said...

And Iain, as to Michael Brown, so what?

Some people want to say to 4 year olds on Christmas day that Fr. Christmas does not exist. There's always a republican on Crown occasions.

Some people need to learn how to w*nk better. [Note, I am observing you're no swearing rule :) )

Rebel Saint said...

kris said..."I am gay and speaking for myself, we need to get rid of "hate" legislation."

Well said sir. We must either accompany hate crime legislation with lust crimes, greed crimes, envy crimes, anger crimes, malice crimes etc, or have none at all.

I personally would like to see incitement to greed & envy crimes on the statute book - that would kill the advertising industry. Incitement to lust - that should do it for most entertainment & porn. Incitement to anger - that should see a good many of our MP's locked up.

Alternatively we ignore the motive and just try people for the actual offence. Much simpler me thinks.

gustavus said...

So, SO bored of the "gay card". If Labour are that desperate, ignore them. BORING.

Manfarang said...

Is the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans working class?

Little Black Sambo said...

"Who said the gay people of britain think the torys have changed?"

Who cares whether "the gay people of Britain" think the Tories have changed? The Tories certainly shouldn't. Go back to your "community".

Anonymous said...

Who gives a monkey's about Gays.
We are all the the S**t together.

Disco Biscuit said...

If Labour had actually implemented their own legislation, couldn't we get Angela Eagle prosecuted under it for stirring up gay hate?

BTW which one of the twisted twins is the lesbian? Never can remember.