This is a page of uncompromising, unashamed rants. There are various things that I'm sure really annoy us in the whole area of LGBT politics and here is a good place to express our feelings about such things. If you'd like to rant about something, feel free to let me know! If you want to do it anonymously, simply send it to me at [email protected] and I will post it in total confidence.

Journalism

There seems to be this tendency, more in America (thankfully) than in the UK to cling to particular 'truths' which are held to be correct, and whenever there is a debate, people refuse to assess the debate by thinking about it, instead relying on simply spouting these ingrained truths. Whenever there are questions about gun-controls the response comes: 'But there is a constitutional right to bear arms!' What they don't say is something that goes one stage deeper than that and actually considers why the rule was there in the first place - they don't reply: 'But we have to have the right to protect ourselves from the uncivilised and murderous Red Indians.'

The reason for this approach is clear - the threat is no longer present (if it ever was) and the latter response would be patently ridiculous. And yet they cling to the former response in complete refusal to admit that even Founding Fathers could get things wrong and ignoring the fact that the constitution has been edited, added to, and amended.

Yet one of these rules that is blindly spouted without much thought, throughout the world, is the obsession with 'Freedom of the Press'. I'm all for Freedom of the Press, yet the time when this is most blindly shouted about and spouted as a defense rather than resorting to a deeper analysis, always seems to be in the cases where freedom of the press isn't being discussed at all.

Freedom of the Press, you see, in my humble opinion, is freedom for those practising journalism and the cases where people blindly go on about preserving a free press always seem to be where journalism is the furthest thing from the minds of those being defended.

The main focus of this attack is, of course, the dear old Daily Mail. When there were the new proposals laid out to replace Section 28 the Daily Mail had a mob-stirring story about how even the teachers objected to these changes because 'they could still allow for homosexuality to be promoted in schools'. There was indeed some considerable outcry amongst teachers, but this wasn't about the possibility that homosexuality might still be promoted but because they thought the new regulations might still prevent them from protecting people being bullied for their sexuality.

The Press should definitely be entitled to report on what news they see fit (within some boundaries, which I think are staked out quite fairly by the Press Complaints Commission - such as that they shouldn't report on minors where it would be intrusive or do damage), and even portray it in whatever light they seek to. What I do not believe they are entitled to do and what I do not count as 'journalism' is what the Daily Mail so often does - report things which simply are not facts, claiming things happened which simply did not. That is not journalism and cannot be condoned or forgiven under protests that we must preserve 'Freedom of the Press'.

Representative Democracy

Everyone reading this will be lucky enough not to live in a direct democracy. Demos¹, you see, means 'the people' or more properly, I believe, 'the mob'. We should all be grateful that we do not live in a system where the country is controlled by the whims of the mob, where a simple majority is all that is needed on any issue, regardless of the rights of the individual or of a group in the minority.

Most people (if not all) reading this will live in a representative democracy and yet a large number of them, as is the case throughout such societies, don't seem to understand the principle by which such a system works. Under representative democracy it is not the case, as many seem to believe, that you vote for someone to do your bidding; in fact you vote of the person you believe is most competent to lead the country. This is why you can happily write to your MP with a suggestion and they should listen (and may well write back), but they do not have to do what you say - not even if every one of their constituents wrote and agreed with you. This is because you have entrusted them with the power - you have said you believe that they will be best able to control the country - not that they will be most willing to do what you say.

I am told that one of the great problems with the current government of Australia (often compared to 'New Labour') is their unwillingness to lead - instead they believe their job is to reflect the views of the population. The urge to lead is, of course, something not to be taken up lightly (and leading is certainly dangerous when taken up by the wrong people), yet it is certainly something that a government must do, and what it is employed to do.

One example where this is shown (and why this is relevant) is related to the topic above - the Daily Mail's mud-raking. The Daily Mail printed a few weeks ago a 'coupon' for you to cut out and send to the government urging them to reconsider the repeal of Section 28 and keep this legislation to 'protect our children'. This example fundamentally misunderstands what the function of a representative government is. The government (at least in the UK!) is not there to rubber-stamp the gay-bashing that the Daily Mail seeks to incite the mob into performing, regardless of how many people want this, when of course such a mob (presumably being in the majority) could happily take care of its gay-bashing without any government help, thank you very much! What our government is there to do is to protect this minority group from such a mob.

If a million people wrote in to the government demanding the right to stone homosexuals and just ten people wrote in to ask the government to protect them, surely any intelligent, responsible, socially aware person can see whose position it is the government's responsibility to support?

Paedophilia

A paedophile, as opposed to a pederast, is defined as someone who is attracted to prepubescents. Note the way that I didn't say prepubescent boys or girls. That is because at this age, before hormones kick in during puberty, the differences between the genders is minimal and this is often part of the attraction. Generally, therefore, paedophiles are unlikely to make a distinction between the sexes and tend to pray on both alike.

It is surprising, therefore, that homosexuals continue to be portrayed as paedophiles, when the reason this idea first came into people's minds is very simple and analysable.

Quite simply, since paedophiles tend to abuse boys and girls alike, there tends to be a higher instance of male-to-male sex than there is with adults, since the ratio is approximately 50:50 male-to-male:male-to-female, rather than about 1:9. Therefore, there is indeed more 'gay' sex going on involving paedophiles, but that doesn't translate as more paedophiles who are gay.

There isn't much more I can say - it doesn't get simpler than that.

'On the Homophobic Nature of Society' by Cathy

A long time ago, when a very close friend of mine told me that he had feelings for another man, I can remember saying 'I hope for your sake you're not gay'. Well since then I've seen him battle with his own feelings, with the agonising decisions which anyone questioning their sexuality must make, and above all, I've seen him battle with society's fears and prejudices.

To watch a close friend suffer heartbreak is painful, but to watch them suffer and know that you are one of the few people in their life that they can talk to about the way they are feeling is even worse. To know that not only do they have to go through the experience of watching a serious relationship break-up, but that they must also hide these feelings from family and school friends.

Furthermore to know that the relationship never really got a real chance because it was between two people who, according to the silent majority, have no right to be together is an additional burden. A burden which sometimes for some young people becomes too much to bear. The suicide statistics for young gay men are shocking; it seems that so many frightened young people feel so alone, so isolated, so ostracised by the homophobic environment in which they are forced to live, that life becomes unbearable.

That is the reason why, what seems like a harmless joke, a casual word, hurts me so much. That is why I feel like I should speak out and ask you, 'Why are you doing this? Do you really want to contribute to all this pain and suffering?'

Homosexuality is not contagious, you won't 'catch' it. No-one's asking you to hold hands with your friends, when you'd rather be out playing football. Just don't let your contribution be the final words that kill ...

Acceptance vs. Ghettoism

I never really understand the inherent dichotomy between acceptance and ghettoism. Too many gay people in my country seem to view gayness as some exclusive club, one in which everyone dresses impeccably, in which shallowness is the order of the day, and which flaunts a vanity and an intolerant view of any appearance that would not ordinarily find itself upon the covers of 'gay interest' magazines. They complain about being isolated in society, about wanting to be accepted into society, and then open gay-only clubs - of course, we call them gay-friendly, because we wouldn't want to be accused of intolerance, but how many of them would be pleased to find that all the men they find attractive are straight? Clearly, we do not really seek to encourage laddishness into gay-friendly environments, we only want to be seen to be encouraging such. In my town, a gay pub opened, which was considered an amazing coup by all, and a certain failure by as many. It was, indeed, a failure! But what was to blame? There was a gay clientele, so that worked. Regular straight customers felt omitted from events and conversations, so they dwindled. There were none of the anticipated violent clashes between drunken straight/gay groups in the streets nearby. Yet, when it closed the two landlords elected to blame homophobia - there were claims that Combat 18, a fascist group, had broken windows and daubed anti-gay propaganda. This came as some surprise to the barstaff and regular gay visitors, since no-one had witnessed any such thing. There was and still remains no offensive grafitti on the pub's visage. No, the truth as it emerged, though sadly never included in the newspaper coverage, was that the brewery had taken the licence off them for running up bills on the previous publican's credit and defrauding the brewery. It is a shame, but that is the truth as observed and witnessed by an awful lot of closely associated and supportive gay people.

So, my home town is branded in Gay Times as homophobic, because it is a much more acceptable view of the world than corrupt gays fiddling their employers. I am openly gay to anyone who is bothered to ask, but I must say that few people are inclined to ask - it's not an issue, and for those that find it an issue, they are people who exhibit every manner of prejudice.

And this is really the point. If we continue to persist in removing ourselves from debates, if we insist that we should always be afforded some kind of special treatment why should we be surprised to find ourselves isolated and scrutinised. We are no more judged than we are fat people, ginger-haired people, skinny people, bald people, old people, single mothers, children, youths, recreational drug users, supporters of political parties to whom we do not personally subscribe. The concept of prejudice is too widespread and far too human to overcome with pressure groups. It is in our very nature to identify and isolate something in others in order to assert our own view of ourselves. Unfortunately, we never seem to view anything positive when we do so. We don't like people with ginger hair - but why? Well, they have ginger pubic hair, don't they - snigger... And aren't they supposed to have terrible tempers? Well, if that were true in any sense whatsoever, I could forgive someone being in a black mood if they found themselves so judged. But the fact is it is not true. It is just further evidence of the need to prejudice one's self towards another.

I do not believe the way ahead is to demand integration whilst practising isolation. I do not believe the way ahead is to kowtow to 'public thinking' - a phrase that so often seems a contradiction - or to actively rebel against it. That only confirms and cements views. Sexism, like racism and every other important division we put between ourselves and our fellow man or woman is only a state of mind, and that is difficult enough to overcome one-on-one. The true error here is in thinking that we can make people care about the other feller - it has never been in the human animal to care for the other feller, as Darwin would no doubt remind us. We have strayed too far down the path and I doubt we will find our way back now.

Please prove me wrong. Please.