If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Cameron apologises for Section 28
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Too right too, imo. What does everyone think about this?
Although:
It's not a fucking competition.
But anyways, I reckon the Conservatives are still blatantly the last party you'd vote for in terms of gay rights. But equally, I think they've realised that they can angle a low tax "keep more of your money" manifesto to a mainly childless group, so it's probably a good political move. I just hope their attitudes are changing, rather than just their politics.
But let's look at the recent record of the Tories shall we?
On this very issue, in 2003:
The removal of the clause designed to repeal Section 28 of the Local Government Bill (is it just me, or are these things deliberately worded to confuse you as to who's voted for what?)
Conservatives: 23 against, 71 for
Labour: 301 against, 3 for
Lib Dems: 38 against, 0 for
That's quite a turnaround is such a short time, if what Cameron says is true.
But let's look at some more recent votes, to see the new pro-gay Tories.
Equality Act 2007 Amendment - Lords (essentially an amendment to allow religious institution to discriminate against gay people)
Conservative: 4 against, 68 for
Labour: 103 against, 10 for
Lib Dems: 42 against, 1 for
Oh dear.
Seriously, go on The Public Whip, look up any vote on gay rights, and the Tories will almost always be on the side of denying them. And not a little bit, usually overwhelmingly. Now on most issues you could put it down to them simply holding the view that laws protecting people's rights aren't the best way to go about it. But Section 28 was a huge example of how it wasn't about that at all, because this was an example of state intervention specifically targetting homosexuality. A law that as recently as 2003, was still backed pretty convincingly by the Tories. Now that's a hell of a turnaround in such a short time.
Although:
"The Conservatives had the first woman prime minister, and we are bound to have the first black prime minister and the first gay prime minister," he said.
It's not a fucking competition.But anyways, I reckon the Conservatives are still blatantly the last party you'd vote for in terms of gay rights. But equally, I think they've realised that they can angle a low tax "keep more of your money" manifesto to a mainly childless group, so it's probably a good political move. I just hope their attitudes are changing, rather than just their politics.
But let's look at the recent record of the Tories shall we?
On this very issue, in 2003:
The removal of the clause designed to repeal Section 28 of the Local Government Bill (is it just me, or are these things deliberately worded to confuse you as to who's voted for what?)
Conservatives: 23 against, 71 for
Labour: 301 against, 3 for
Lib Dems: 38 against, 0 for
That's quite a turnaround is such a short time, if what Cameron says is true.
But let's look at some more recent votes, to see the new pro-gay Tories.
Equality Act 2007 Amendment - Lords (essentially an amendment to allow religious institution to discriminate against gay people)
Conservative: 4 against, 68 for
Labour: 103 against, 10 for
Lib Dems: 42 against, 1 for
Oh dear.
Seriously, go on The Public Whip, look up any vote on gay rights, and the Tories will almost always be on the side of denying them. And not a little bit, usually overwhelmingly. Now on most issues you could put it down to them simply holding the view that laws protecting people's rights aren't the best way to go about it. But Section 28 was a huge example of how it wasn't about that at all, because this was an example of state intervention specifically targetting homosexuality. A law that as recently as 2003, was still backed pretty convincingly by the Tories. Now that's a hell of a turnaround in such a short time.
0
Comments
I can't see what the point in apologising for this actually was. Section 28 was an entirely cosmetic piece of legislation. Not one person was ever prosecuted for breaking it. So I have no idea why Call Me Dave has done this.
It was only a few years ago that the World Health Organisation took gayness out of their BIG Book of Diseases. :rolleyes:
I'm just waiting for Brian Souter, CEO Of Scumcoach, to apologise for providing over £1million in funding to the Scottish pro-s28 campaign. Money that came from Scumcoach's profits, i.e. the taxpayer.
Because it was an unjustified, irrelevant piece of legislation that made criminals out of innocent people? Its immaterial that no one was prosecuted although there was one attempted prosecution back in May 200 when the Christian Institute unsuccessfully took Glasgow City Council to court for funding an AIDS support charity which the Institute alleged promoted homosexuality.
I think it's wrong that (it seems to me) he's purely apologising to use it as a political point to win some votes.
That's politics for you though.
How odd, and also rather flattering of homosexuality really that it is such a desirable path to choose that we have to sheild people from it or they will all try it.