The Queen signs a new Commonwealth Charter today, declaring: ‘We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds.’
‘Other grounds’ is interpreted to be a reference to gays and lesbians, whose sexual activities are punishable by death, life sentences or flogging in 41 of the 54 Commonwealth nations.
Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay and lesbian pressure group Stonewall, reacted by calling the Queen ‘a feminist icon’ who has taken ‘an historic step forward’ on gay rights.
But another gay rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell, points out: ‘In truth, the Commonwealth Charter does not include any specific rejection of discrimination based on sexual orientation. This was vetoed by the homophobic majority of member states.
‘While I doubt that Elizabeth II is a raging homophobe, she certainly doesn’t appear to be gay-friendly. Not once during her reign has she publicly acknowledged the existence of the LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] community.’
More... Queen fights for gay rights: Monarch makes historic pledge on discrimination and hints that if Kate DOES have a girl, that means equal rights to the throne too MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: A brave (and radical) step, Your Majesty A Royal reminder that every mum is absolutely crucialWill the new Commonwealth Charter’s anti-discrimination provisions make much difference? Or, like the contents of the Queen’s Speech at the beginning of every parliament, are they merely a description of what the powers-that-be would like to achieve?
We never make the mistake of thinking the Queen is personally attached to any of the policies she describes in Parliament. Why imagine it’s different with the Commonwealth? There must surely be occasions when she thinks ill of the policies her government has asked her to outline. But I can’t think of a single occasion when her mask has slipped.
Peter Tatchell says: 'While I doubt that Elizabeth II is a raging homophobe, she certainly doesn't appear to be gay-friendly. Not once during her reign has she publicly acknowledged the existence of the LGBT community'As a Palace spokesman says of today’s announcement: ‘The Queen does not take a personal view on these issues. The Queen’s position is apolitical, as it is in all matters of this sort.’
The monarch began her reign in the pre-gay rights era, when homosexuality was an underground, illegal activity. Now, all discrimination against homosexuality is illegal.
In her lifetime, it has moved from being an aberration to becoming an official third sexual preference.
Ben Summerskill reacted to the Queen's comments by calling her 'a feminist icon' who has taken 'an historic step forward' on gay rightsIndeed, HM’s current government is making homosexual marriage legal. Does HM approve?
We’ll never know.
In any case, when the Queen acceded to the throne in 1952, homosexuality was not the monolithic concept it is today. Then, there were degrees of homosexuality, from slight to extreme, and little public pressure for any change in the law.
Her Majesty will have known homosexuals — and have been close to some of them — throughout her life.
It’s said she occasionally went incognito to a cinema near Buckingham Palace with a certain unmarried courtier. Her late mother’s household staff was evidently composed of disputatious, confirmed bachelors whom the Queen Mother addressed starchily one morning: ‘There is one queen in Britain today who has not had her breakfast.’
I don’t think much discrimination has ever been practised against homosexuals in the Queen’s household. But there isn’t much she can do about homophobia in her larger family — the Commonwealth — other than to articulate the desires of those who run its day-to-day affairs.
Apologists for the Commonwealth nations which execute, jail or flog homosexuals say they do so under their colonial-era laws. But this is nonsense.
Millions of Africans abominate homosexuality without having to rely on old laws they’re free to repeal. If they won’t allow the Queen to mention homosexuality among her Commonwealth’s new list of proscribed discriminations, there surely is no early prospect of them changing course.
Bigging up HM as an enemy of homosexual discrimination could easily backfire, reducing her influence rather than enhancing it.
The sight of North Korean soldiers weeping at the presence among them of leader Kim Jong-un, 30, defies understanding. As does the decision to embalm and exhibit for all time the body of Venezuela’s dead leader, Hugo Chavez. Why do Far-Left leaders enjoy the status of gods, even in death? Perhaps if you treat people like unthinking children, that’s how they’ll behave.
Much-praised historical novelist Hilary Mantel says her essay about Kate Middleton was ‘twisted’ by the Press to make it seem as if she was attacking the Duchess of Cambridge.
Having described Kate as a ‘shop window mannequin’ who was ‘designed to breed’ — and much else in the same vein — did she expect readers to reflect: ‘Ah, this is how Ms Middleton is perceived, not how Ms Mantel sees her’?
Perhaps Ms Mantel was misunderstood. But, in truth, she must share the blame. And be a little more gracious.
With performances by the likes of Jennifer Lopez and Lionel Richie at her wedding, Tamara Ecclestone's big day could exceed £12 million Formula One billionaire Bernie Ecclestone reportedly spent £12 million on the wedding of his daughter, Petra, in 2011. Now, the imminent marriage of 28-year-old daughter Tamara to Jay Rutland, 31, (who’s described as a former City stockbroker), threatens to exceed that sum, with performances by Jennifer Lopez, Lionel Richie and ‘DJ to the stars Calvin Harris’ as well as accommodations at the Hotel du Cap, private jets, expensive jewellery and world-class catering. Having settled tens of millions on the demure pair over the years, you’d think they’d give Bernie’s bank account a rest and pay for their own weddings. But perhaps the old gent would be offended not to be bled dry by his nearest and dearest. Somehow, former 1950s garagiste Bernie became the virtual owner of a major world sport and is worth an estimated £2.5 billion. Although divorce from his wife of 24 years, Slavica, and the provision of multi-million-pound mansions for their daughters made a deep hole in this fortune, he remains exceedingly rich.I think Chancellor George Osborne might find that a special ‘windfall’ tax in next week’s Budget on Bernie’s spoiled daughters would go down well with we huddled masses.
Foxy isn't dead yetHaving resigned in 2011 as Defence Secretary for allowing a friend, Adam Werritty, too much access to his office, Dr Liam Fox is on manoeuvres again.
The Tory MP wrote a cogent, persuasive argument yesterday pointing out that the world’s GDP has grown by 55 per cent to nearly $77 trillion since 2000, but Britain is not sharing in this bonanza because ‘we are over-taxed and over-regulated and we spend and borrow too much’.
Liam is a foxy fellow. He doesn’t attack those in charge (Cameron and Osborne); he prefers to appeal to those who are seeking replacements for the Prime Minister and Chancellor.
Is he a runner for either job himself? I think the answer is ‘yes’. If he can make Werritty disappear, he might do the same for our budget deficit.
Robin and Chris - what a fine pairNo doubt it was a comfort to Vicky Pryce to read the verdict of former Labour wife Margaret Cook on how ‘it is perfectly possible that she could be bullied in that way by a politically ambitious man’.Dr Cook, a haematologist, recalled one occasion when her then husband, former Foreign Secretary Robin, and she had ‘a heated argument’ over who could use the phone while she waited in a professional capacity for some important laboratory results. ‘It took the threat of death of a mother and baby — in his constituency — before he backed down,’ Margaret says in The Guardian. Surely there was a far better example of naughty Robin’s hauteur: didn’t he cancel their Wyoming riding holiday after being told at Heathrow to choose, on the phone, between his wife and his mistress by Alastair Campbell? He opted for his mistress, even though his wife had bought him a pair of chaps for their Wild West sojourn. That’s what I’d call off the Richter scale caddishness!Chris Huhne's lover, Carina Trimingham, ‘prefers to stay out of the limelight’, reports The Times.
I realise it’s just a hackneyed way of saying ‘out of sight’, but ‘limelight’ — the old method of highlighting theatrical performers — is hardly a fit description of the public attention recently enjoyed by Huhne and Ms Trimingham. Funny, though.
Wealth: Tony Blair has gone on to become a multi-millionaire, largely thanks to his U.S. contactsDon't mention the warTen years after the invasion of Iraq, many of the British and U.S. officials concerned recall how Tony Blair gave his unquestioning support to President George W. Bush.
Bush’s then deputy national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, says Blair told Bush — a year before the invasion — that he would support an attack on Saddam Hussein no matter what.
Is any of this relevant now? Blair’s position is that the war was justified, period. He has gone on to become a multi-millionaire, largely thanks to his U.S. contacts. His spy chief, John Scarlett of ‘dodgy dossier’ fame, got a knighthood and his ex-mouthpiece, Alastair Campbell, is so well regarded by the BBC — which he once sought to destroy — that I am surprised he has not become its chairman.
And the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War? Its findings have been delayed again, perhaps until next year. There’s a dispute over whether or not we can see the notes sent by Blair to Bush prior to the war. You don’t say!
The ill-behaved Canadian pop idol Justin Bieber, 19, is being unduly influenced by two, 20-year-old rappers, Lil Twist and Lil Za, according to The Mail on Sunday. They are ‘regulars on the LA party scene’. (Well, I know what that means. Not much. All serious — i.e. employed — folk there are in bed by ten.)Surely the new, foul-spoken Bieber is simply mid-transition from pre-teen idol to teenage rock star, a harmless Dr Jekyll turning into malignant Mr Hyde, all to please an older demographic.
