ACOMSDave

Community Journalist

  • Home
  • Community Journalist
  • Events
  • Media Page and Press Kit
    • Projects and Work
  • Resources & Documents
    • LGBTQ+ Support Groups and Documents
  • NIGRA
  • Archives
  • Contact

Here for Business – Equality and Human Rights Commission

15/07/2013 By David McFarlane Leave a Comment

ehrc_logo3The Commission is working in partnership with businesses to help them to meet their obligations under equality law and understand how they can identify human rights risks.
Here you will find a series of interviews with businesses and short and snappy guidance that will help you to do better business.
 
 
‘The Equality Act: Guidance for Small Business’ explains how the 2010 Equality Act relates to their operations and what they need to do to ensure they stay within the law. It includes practical advice in managing important business challenges such as recruitment, promotion and what to do to ensure as many customers as possible can access their services.
‘A guide to business and human rights’ helps businesses identify and manage human rights issues which may arise in their business operations. These could include supplier considerations and the impact on their customers. For example, businesses might think about the right to privacy and the confidential information they hold online about customers and staff.
Start reading now via the links shown below:

  1. Guidance for Business
  2. Human Rights matter for business
  3. Working better
  4. Partnership working
  5. Tools and Resources

 

Filed Under: History Tagged With: EHRC, equality, Human Rights, LGBT, workplace

HISTORICAL GAY CAMDEN…

14/07/2013 By David McFarlane Leave a Comment

camdenlgbtforumCamden LGBT Forum issued early in the year an A5 booklet Camden & Islington LGBT History Month 2013.  Which was just as well as History Month is, effectively a Camden phenomenon. There was an event in deepest Clapham, south London run by QuAC (Queers Against the Cuts) though the date might have been just happenstantial).  And not much elsewhere in what might vaguely be called inner London, though there were events in Croydon and other places.
 
Room 106… Room T 102… [?]
‘My’ first event was in SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies), LGBTQ and Religion / Faith.  It was held in Room 106. The organisers, (“… [s]peakers from the Christian and Muslim communities, as well as SOAS lecturer and writer, Ben Murtagh”) did not turn up!)).  A ‘Room T 102’, on the same floor as the room we were on, is mentioned at the back of the booklet in connection with this discussion.  Most of us probably spent the evening wondering if we should be in another Room (even building; UL, and SOAS itself are enormous) we got on with it anyway.  There was one Irish, one Polish and one Italian Catholic, all male, in my case ‘collapsed’, two Jewish persons, one transgender, a ‘lapsed Anglican’, (a young heterosexual man who is doing a MA on religion and sexuality), and ‘Lee’ / ‘Leigh’ who’s background was Pentecostal.  There were two largely quiet young women of Anglo-Caribbean (and Pentecostal) origin.
In the nature of things very few conclusions were come to, we simply discussed our inherited faiths and our environments.  Catholic Irish don’t take a denunciatory attitude to Gay people, they never have; sex, sexuality, and orientation simply were not discussed.  ‘Sex education’ was handled very awkwardly, if at all.  (Currently sex education in the Republic is quite open, and – ‘liberal’ is the word, – probably due to a number of female, Fianna Fáil, Education ministers, Máire Geogeghan Quinn and Mary Burke.  LGBT matters are dealt with, though as ever, the B and T tend to be neglected).  The Pole and the Italian said that homosexuality was not discussed, except in terms of total rejection.  The M-to-F Trans woman was of quite rigidly Orthodox background, and said her own feeling was that anything other than heterosex was frowned upon. Sex variant people were simply perverts – end of story.   Or get lost – you were no longer of the Faith – or the family.  She had had a long and problematical journey out of this mind-set.
A problem with religion in our political context is that all the parties have similar policies.  They’ll do as little as possible to put them into effect, and we can always expect half a dozen Tory closets to do something stupid.  (The fact that there is – in context – a major homophobic party in Northern Ireland is more useful than not.  It means than nearly everyone else feels the need to be pro-LGBT, or at least, consider the matter.  The current leader of the UUP has attended Belfast LGBT Pride for a number of years now.  As have all the other (non-‘Paisleyite’) parties).
The churches can treat LGBT members any way they feel.
Vincent Nichol, immediately on becoming Archbishop of Westminster and RC Primate of England unilaterally closed down the Soho-based LGBT Apostolate and masses for LGBT people.  Quite what this has to do with Christian charity it is difficult to fathom.  And may create a problem of authority.  They’ll probably continue in disguised form.
So far as the ‘Room 106’ discussion was concerned, it is a pity nobody turned up with a notion of how to lead such.   (Michael Brown took the chair at – basically, -my request, but obviously could only facilitate the conversation; not lead it).  We, inevitably, gave our ‘testimonies’ and left, we didn’t even swap e-mail addresses.  Which was a bit of a lost opportunity.  I managed not to get to other events, partly because some were at awkward times, an interesting talk on Magnus Hirschfeld, The Scientific-Humanitarian Committee and the First Wave of the Queer Movement in Germany 1897 – 1933, was held in Islington Town Hall at six in the evening.  The time and venue were not problematical for me.  I didn’t remember the event until about 6.15 p. m. on the actual day.
I didn’t, but probably I ought to, have gone to Jonathan Kemp’s readings from his books in Islington Museum.  I felt it was somewhat redundant, and I should just read and review the books in the standard fashion.
 
QuACers
QUAC’s event was held in an architectural wonder – the Mary Seacole Centre – (the central (?) library in Peckham) it is spheroid.  The rooms and study pods do have corners.  I inserted myself into a corner furthest from the door – nearest the wine – but ought not to have.  I had a very heavy cold and a braying cough, as did a woman near the door.  We both had to leave the room and share Fisherperson’s Friends as the rest of the audience simply could not hear the speaker from Syriza.  I asked him if he could send upstart a version of his talk.  He said that he only had notes, but would try to do something
 
Links:
 
Camden and Islington LGBT Forum

S McGouran

Filed Under: History Tagged With: Camden, Camden and Islington LGBT, History Month, Islington, LGBT, LGBT Forum

ERNST ROEHM – STREET FIGHTIN' MAN

14/07/2013 By David McFarlane Leave a Comment

 
(Out-take from Gay Star No. 4 Summer 1981)
STAR GAYS NO. 4
By Peter Brooke
 
ERNST ROEHM Fan Club ERNST ROEHM Grave ERNST ROEHM Hitler and ERNST ROEHM
 
 
At the end of the First World War, there was a widespread passionately held belief in Germany that the soldiers at the Front had been ‘stabbed in the back’ by politicians at home.  When the General Staff realised that defeat was inevitable, they arranged for the transfer of power to the German Parliament (whose powers had previously been very limited).  They argued that the Parliament (‘Reichstag’) could make a better peace with the victorious allies than they could themselves, since the allies would be more sympathetic to a fledgling democracy in Germany than they would to the old Prussian military oligarchy.  At the same time, the allies would have an interest in negotiating a reasonable peace, sine the German army was till intact and able to mount substantial and costly opposition to any possibility of an invasion.
No sooner had power been transferred, however, than the army, its morale shattered began to break up, while large scale rioting broke out at home.  The new government tried at first to appease the rioting by getting rid of the monarchy and expressing revolutionary sentiments. Later they suppressed it viciously, using the ‘Freikorps’ – groups of soldiers who had informally banded together in opposition to the revolutionary movement.
But in t he meantime, Germany had suffered a military and political collapse which eventually resulted in the humiliating terms of the Treaty of Versailles.  It was in this period that the ‘German Workers Party’ (later National Socialist Germany Workers Party) was founded, in Munich, capital of Conservative and Catholic Bavaria, in 1919.
Ernst Roehm was one of the first members of the Nazi Party, and a highly influential one, owing to his position as Chief of Staff of the Reichwehr (German Army) in Bavaria.  Together with is commandant, Franz von Epp, he had been active in the Freikorps immediately after the war.  He illustrates the ambivalence that existed between the army, the local government in Bavaria, and the extreme right.  The Munich putsch of November 1923 was originally projected as a march on Berlin (in imitation of Mussolini’s march on Rome) headed by the Bavarian government. Roehm was closely involved in the negotiations to bring this about.  In the event, of course – though only at the last moment – the negotiations proved abortive and Hitler spent a year on Landsberg gaol, where he wrote Mein Kampf.
Paramilitary Strength
During that year, the movement split in a bewildering number of directions, but the main disputes were those between, on the one hand, a socialist wing in North Germany  (mainly led by the brothers Gregor and Otto Strasser, and by Goebbels) and the right wing in Bavaria.  And, on the other hand, those who wanted to pursue a parliamentary road, and those who wanted to build up the movement’s paramilitary strength.  Roehm was very much in favour of paramilitary activity and, after the failure of the putsch, had formed the ‘Frontbann’ – a private army independent of party discipline.
While in prison, Hitler kept aloof from these disputes, ensuring that all sides maintained their personal loyalty to him, but in 1925, after his release, he concentrated on building a unified party command to which all paramilitary activity would be subordinate.
With the defeat of his views on the need for an independent paramilitary force, Roehm left Germany and went to Bolivia as a Lieutenant Colonel on the General Staff of the Bolivian army.  He came back in 1928 and had an autobiography – The Story of a Traitor – published by the Nazi Party’s publishing house in the same year. Early in 1931, Hitler appointed him as Chief of Staff of the SA.
Stormtroopers
The SA (Sturmabteilung – stormtroopers, or ‘Brownshirts’) had been established in 192, dissolved after the putsch, and revived again after Hitler’s release from Landsberg in 1925.  Their leader since then had been Franz von Pfeffer who, however, fell out with Hitler in 1930, by which time a rival had emerged in the shape of the SS (Schutzstaffeln – protective squads).  This had been led, since January 1929, by Heinrich Himmler, who had originally been introduced to the Nazi Party by Roehm.
When Roehm was appointed, he was known as an early ‘hero’ of the Nazi movement, a close friend of Hitler’s (despite their differences on opinion) and also as a confidante of the Reichswehr leaders, notably the powerful General Schleicher.   Nonetheless, it was still, apparently an odd choice.  Hitler’s argument with Pfeffer had turned on the autonomy of the SA from the political structure of the Nazi party.  Roehm had in the past had much more extreme views on the need for such autonomy than ever Pfeffer had (and he delayed agreeing to take the job for nearly a year because of this issue.)
As an older NSDAP member than Hitler he was less likely to be absorbed in the Hitler-myth that almost any other Nazi leader. He had been out of the country when Hitler was most vigorously establishing his supreme control over the movement.  His main contribution to the Munich putsch had been to secure promises of help, which, in the event, were broken.  And he had not played a prominent part in the movement since his return from Bolivia.
In addition to which, of course, e was gay, and made few attempts to conceal the fact.
Genteel Young Ladies
Roehm’s homosexuality had made him enemies from the start – principally Rudolf Hess, Martin Bormann and Walter Buch (head of Uschla – the Nazi’s internal secret police).  But in February 1932, Hitler dismissed these attacks, saying:  ” …the SA is a body of men formed for a specific political purpose.  It is not an institute for the moral education of genteel young ladies, but a formation of seasoned fighters.”  The following month saw the publication of letters from Roehm complaining of the difficulty of obtaining boys in Bolivia. This led to an attempt from within the SA to assassinate him.  While he tried to prevent publication, he made no attempt to deny that he had written the letters.
Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in January 1933, and set about wiping out all the opposition parties to establish a one party sate.  The SA and the SS had become by the middle of the year organs of the state.  The SA which, since Roehm took command, had increased from around 60,000 members to around two and a half million, even had its own prisons.  The only non-Nazi power centre left by 1934 was the (very heavily infiltrated) army.  The army was willing to be incorporated into the Nazi system (it adopted the eagle and swastika as its insignia in May 1934) but Roehm argued that it should be subjected to SA command and remoulded ideologically.
Throughout 1933, in fact, the SA, while given plenty of opportunities to brutalise opposition groups, was chafing under the political control which prevented it from overrunning the society completely.  In February 1933, Roehm proposed that the army shod be subjected to the SA and was denounced by Hitler, who pointed out that an army would be more effective in a European war than a uniformed mob.  Roehm denounced this his friends as a ‘new Versailles treaty’ and, over dinner with Himmler, accused the SS of supporting reaction.  In April he complained  ” … the Party isn’t a political force anymore; it’s turning into an old age home”.  At another meal with Himmler in that month, Himmler denounced his homosexuality; Roehm burst into tears but the next night he held an especially large and noisy gay party at the SA headquarters).
Anarchic Force
By June 1934, a clear alliance had formed against Roehm consisting of Hess, Bormann, Himmler and Goering (Goebbels until the last moment was attempting to promote reconciliation).  They could argue that the state was well on its way to becoming a monolithically Nazi state, yet the SA was an anarchic force operating independently of it.  The SA, on the other hand, took the view that it was itself the Nazi revolution, so the state should be subjected to it.  It was reluctant to become just another component part of the state under the direction of the political wing of the movement (which it had traditionally regarded – always excepting Hitler himself – with contempt).
In June 1934, Hitler, who had, in typical manner, delayed choosing between the two perspectives for as long as possible, threw in his lot with the anti-Roehm group and resolved the issue once and for all with a dramatic purge of the SA leadership.  This also entailed a speedy resolution of his previously ambivalent attitude to homosexuality.  On the day of the purge, he ordered Roehm’s successor as Chief of Staff of the SA, Victor Lutze (who had been proposed by Himmler, to enforce Paragraph 175 of the German legal code (the German anti-gay law).
Hitler On Homosexuality
That he had been thinking along these lines previously is suggested by a conversation he had with Rudolf Diels, the first commandant of the Gestapo (which had been established in Berlin by Goering partly as a counterbalance to the SA) in January 1934.  Paradoxically, Hitler’s argument against homosexuality may also a tribute to the high personal regard he undoubtedly had for Roehm:
“He [Hitlerl lectured me on the role of homosexuality in history and politics.  It had destroyed ancient Greece, he said.  Once rife, it extended its contagious effects like an ineluctable law of nature to the best and most manly of characters, solely eliminating for the reproductive process those very men on whose offspring a nation depended.”
Roehm would certainly have appeared to Hitler to be one of the ‘best and most manly characters’ and his aggressively masculine homosexuality had already been extensively theorised upon in German in a manner that would have been unthinkable in Britain.  (E. g. in Hans Bluher’s The German Wandervogel Movement as an Erotic Phenomenon and in Benedict Friedlander’s group – a breakaway from Magnus Hirschfled’s Scientific-Humanitarian Committee – the Community of the Special).
According to Hans Peter Bleul (in his Sex and Society in Nazi Germany), Hitler was also worried about the possibility of an Order of the Third Sex – a gay freemasonry organising in secret for its own purposes.   This notion may well have been encouraged by Roehm’s tendency to pick gay men for the leadership of the SA (though Karl Ernst, the SA leader in Berlin, who is represented in [the play, then film] Bent as gay, had a reputation for seducing high society heiresses).
Male Comradeship
I am unable at this point to reconstruct Roehm’s own politics.  He was of course fundamentally opposed to parliamentary democracy and had been a Royalist before becoming a Nazi.  Like many Nazis he was nostalgic for the war and the male comradeship of the army.  Tight army discipline, by relieving the individual of much of the responsibility for decision making, can allow for a high degree of individual anarchy, and this seems to have been how Roehm envisioned the Nazi state.
He was not particularly anti-Semitic and argued against the emphasis on anti-Semitism after the take-over of power (though, of course, the SA was the main vehicle for Nazi anti-Semitic activity prior to the war).  Despite his love for the army, he was not particularly interested in territorial expansion.  He doesn’t seem to have held any particular economic theories (though Hjalmar Schacht, the economist who fashioned the Nazi welfare state was one of his proteges).  In contrast to the elitist SS, the SA was designed to be a mass movement and, though opposed to parliamentary democracy, he probably had some vague notion that power should come from below.
He could perhaps be summed up as an anarchist, who was opposed to all moral conventions but who accepted that, without moral conventions, the strong will triumph over the weak and who was therefore determined to be one of the strong.  We may also suggest that he was encouraged in this point of view by his feelings as a gay man watching thousands of young men reduced to utter poverty and purposelessness in the early 1920s.  In a Germany that had been deliberately economically crippled in the aftermath of an (in his view) undeserved defeat.
 
 
More reading on ERNST ROEHM:

  1. Mein Kamp
  2. Wikipedia – Ernst Röhm
  3. Spartacus Educational – Ernst Rohm

 
 
 

Filed Under: History Tagged With: ernst roehm, ernst rohm, homosexuality, nazi party, roehm, weimar

The National Union of Students (NUS), Lesbian and Gay Liberation Campaign Conference 1988

14/07/2013 By David McFarlane Leave a Comment

(Out-take Update Vol. 2, No, 2 (03.09.1988))
CAUCUSES
The National Union of Students (NUS), Lesbian and Gay Liberation Campaign held its conference in the QUB (the Queens’ University, Belfast) Students’ Union building this year.  That may seem an odd way of putting things, but that is what happened.  “In Belfast” is the wrong phrase.
Locals were not informed about the event until a few days prior to its happening.  Participants had to sleep, eat, and live in one of the city’s least amenable building for living, eating, and especially, sleeping.  Some escapees remarked on how peaceful and pleasant the town seemed.
The Conference itself was not especially interesting to outsiders.  Some time ago a Lesbian Caucus was set up, with guaranteed places on the Campaign Committee.  This led, in the national ballot, to an over-all lesbian majority on the Committee.  This has disconcerted some men, (though they are probably somewhat embarrassed by the feeling), for sexist reasons.  They are uncomfortable with women being in charge.
Others appeared to have very vague ideas about what a caucus was.  They perceived it as a ghetto for women.  One (rather handsome Indian-looking) man let a scabby cat out of the bag.  He said something to the effect “Why isn’t there weighted representation for, say, members of the Revolutionary Communist Party?” (!)  In other words, some of the men did not like the largely businesslike, rhetoric-free politics of the present Committee.
Locals pointed out that the Caucus was quite legitimately viewed as a power-base.  If that view was not acceptable there were a number of alternatives.  One was a return to free-for-al elections.  Another was to split the Campaign along gender lines.  A third, the preferred option, was the status quo ante.
Another somewhat controversial point was the question of the Irish language.  It was suggested that Campaign (and all NUS) documents should be translated into Gaelic.  As few people in Northern Ireland speak Gaelic on a day to day basis locals felt it would be more trouble than it was worth.
A rational solution to this problem created by good Brit intentions was to donate any monies set aside to the promotion of the Irish language directly to Gaeilscoileanna (Irish language schools).  They were legitimate and pacific enterprises.

Filed Under: History Tagged With: Conference, gay, lesbian, LGBT, National, NUS, Students, Union

The 2nd All-Ireland Gay Conference 1982

14/07/2013 By David McFarlane Leave a Comment

(Out-take from Gay Star No. 9 (Nov. 1982))
… and still the niffy Liffey flows…
Pride FlagThe following impression of the Dublin conference is partial, pig-headed, probably egomaniacal and, I hope, accurate and entertaining.
I arrived at the Conference venue – the Junior Common Room of Trinity College, Dublin, at ten o’clock or thereabouts, on Saturday morning.  Having parted with my registration fee, I nipped into a biggish room and borrowed a corner of the Derry community bookshop Bookworm‘s table to lay out my wares. They were two editions of your favourite organ and some of the Ayatollah posters.
Almost immediately, two people swept down and said that the posters were racist.  “How do you mean?” sez I.  “It’s got slant eyes” sez they.  “Aye”, sez I, “but they slant downwards!”  This confused both parties, and my interlocutors went off muttering about the Steering Committee disapproving of the poster.  So did Ian Paisley — odd auld world isn’t it?
The first Workshop I sat-in on was Coming Out / Personal Liberation.  If you are interested, I was accused of being racist, again, by a person who persistently used the scientifically neutral term “Brit”.  We didn’t really get beyond the ‘Coming Out’ stage in this Workshop, due to the fact that most of us hadn’t, but mainly because of the small number of women in our group [making it unrepresentative – upstart 2013].  One man had had the odd experience of discovering his Gayness in the Curragh Prison Camp.  We broke for socialising and a snack – freebie tea / coffee and nibbles, and also very tasty veggie meals supplied by a pleasant couple and (one assumes) their child.  It is unusual to find Dublin whole-foody types with smiles on their faces.  They take the British Road – “I am sour, therefore, I am serious”.  Belfast is more American – people seem to like displaying their (very healthy) teeth.
The next Workshop was Gays in a Patriarchal Society.  This became largely a conversation between the Dublin Gay Collective and some Gays from Manchester, with sensible comments from some (largely independent) women. Some of the Dublin men were very sharp in their criticism of Gay male pornography, as part of capitalist, and therefore patriarchal, society – it was no different from pornography featuring women.  The Mancunians said that Gay (male) porn is not intrinsically oppressive of the Gay men on either side of the camera, one of them defended ‘cottaging’.
In opposition to this a DGC spokesperson said that he did not even accept the definition “man” anymore, and that he rejected phallic, capitalist society with its sexploitation and its emphasis that sex (in men) equals ejaculation.  Then he said that we should solidarise with the Republican Movement and the IRA.  Is it political axe-grinding to point out that guns could hardly be more phallic?
I tried to make the point, against the same person’s contempt for both ‘camp’ and ‘macho’ men that these stereotypes are at least an attempt to create a niche for Gay man.  I did, and still do, emphasise the creative element of the construction of these stereotypes.  And, no matter how unpalatable it is to some of us, capitalism is generally a progressive factor in the – short-term – liberation of Gays.  Gay USA may be appalling, but at least it is open, up-front and brazen.  Gay USSR or Gay PRC (People’s Republic of China) are unknown factors.
Sharon from Belfast made the point that women are, to a very great extent, entrenched in their mother / homemaker roles, and that a new consciousness has to be created before we can talk of drastic changes in society.  Most of the women in the Workshop rejected the idea of joining the standard political parties.  I detected a note of condescension towards people who were not “politically aware”.  Some men innocently made fairly crass remarks about women and their role in society.  But they were there, and appeared willing to learn.
 
Through the fireplace
The next event after a wee break (incidentally, to get from the JCR to the dining / socialising area, one had to duck through what had been a fireplace – it was a bizarre, Lewis Carrollian sensation) was billed as Gays and the Media.  Again, this was pitched high, as the Dublin radicals said that all bourgeois media were anti-Gay.  The Mancunians again took up the issue, and pointed out that they had used local radio to good effect.  So, also, I thought, had IGRM (the Irish Gay Rights Move-ment), but apparently this wasn’t Kosher, so to speak.  The question of [London] Gay News was raised, and a broad front to oppose its banning [in ‘Éire’] was mooted – this appears not to have got off the ground.  An Irish Gay News journal was discussed, and no conclusion was come to; it will inevitably be the organ of the Dublin Gay Collective, which is the biggest of the various Collectives.
This Workshop struck me as being largely a matter of craw thumping on the part of the radicals, against the “big two” (southern Gay groups – NGF and IGRM) and against the media in general.
At the end we all adjourned for tea / coffee, then EVERYONE rushed out to watch videos of Bette Midler doing her wonderfully, off-colour, ideologically unsound stuff.  This left two people in the dining area – both “bureaucrats” one from NIGRA and one from NGF.  The NGF apparatchik had a brush in his hand, and busied himself sweeping up.  Your own NIGRA Orgman offered to help, and being politely refused, wondered off feeling pretty redundant.
At four o’clock the next morning I found my host.  I doubt if any other city should show such “cool” in the face of an appalling guest. Just think what you would do in Belfast or Derry if a loony rang your doorbell at that time.
The first session on Sunday was Gays at Work / In the Trade Unions.  I sneaked off to Roy Holmes’s piano recital at the Hugh Lane Gallery (Parnell Square North).  It was a demonstration of how capitalism enforces its basic ideas.  There is no entry fee for these recitals (this was Roy Holmes’s first – in Dublin) and so you had children and tourists milling about making noise.  The audience were without a doubt the worst behaved I have ever sat among, his playing was wonderfully apt in Fauré and Mozart, but he isn’t heavy-handed or humourless enough for Liszt.  He may as well have been telling dirty jokes to banjo accompaniment, for all the interest it evoked at the back of the hall.  It had not been paid for – therefore it could not be good.
 
Historical cottages
Back at the talk-in we were told that a picnic was to be held “on College Green”.  As nobody bothered to tell me where this place was I wandered off to St. Stephen’s Green.  And, of course, feeling silly wandered back almost immediately.  Then we got down to something called Structures for Development.  This displayed an alarming gap between the radicals and ordinary Gays.  There was anger, to the point of shrillness, with NGF (the National Gay Federation) and IGRM over the Charles Self affair.  NIGRA was quite sharply criticised for the handling of the Kincora affair — but nobody actually suggested anything concrete.
I was shaken by the lack of historical perspective shown by some people here.  Ten years ago Gay Ireland lived in the shadows and conducted its affairs in a very few grotty pubs and grottier public conveniences.  The Dublin and Cork Gay Collectives struck me as incubating yet another ‘Bureaucratic Org’.
This developed into a Closing Session, which I had to leave early, and at which, mysteriously, NIGRA was accused of excluding women from the Carpenter Centre.

Seán McGouran

 
The last few lines should be explained.  It was a trap that should have been sprung earlier.  At which point I could have explained as follows: NIGRA put all its money (£2000) into the Carpenter Club as an investment.  We hoped the (purely commercial) venture would devolve into a Gay Centre – it did, as a matter of fact.  But the main investor decided he was opposed to ‘politics’.  He bought out Jeff Dudgeon, and made life problematical for NIGRA – claiming that a further £2000 investment (the four grand was given to NIGRA by Thatcher’s government as a consequence of the Dudgeon Strasbourg case) – had been ‘a loan’.  NIGRA did not ‘own’ a brick of the building that probably cost at a minimum hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The people making these accusations were not kids from the Falls or Shankill Roads but members of the property-owning class.  It all grew out of a refusal by Jeff to allow the venue to be used at no rental for a women-only disco.  That was because it was leaching money – and a disco was opened in a plush hotel doing his enterprise down.  Some things then happened simultaneously – the major investor vanished.  The staff then purged the low-life he had allowed in.  And the rival establishment’s defects became more apparent.  A main one being their greed.  They had no overhead costs and the hotel made a mint from the bar – on a night when it would otherwise have been bolted and barred.  But they charged more than the Carpenter did.  And punters had to use taxis to get there, and back home.
So far as the women’s disco is concerned, Jeff probably made the wrong decision – but bad luck begets bad luck.  A short-term loss might have encouraged more customers over time.  It meant that some women – but hardly the regular disco-going ones – avoided the place.  It meant that when the place closed they were, to an extent, embarrassed when it became obvious who was the owner.  It is not a sensation that endears most people to an organisation.  NIGRA remained in the doghouse.
Some years after the above Conference (of three – the grisly truth about the 3rd will be recounted another time) the ‘radicals’ involved themselves in AIDS-work.  That was very worthy and useful.  It also opened their eyes to reality.  The first things anyone ‘on the scene’ asks is along the lines of ‘Who the fuck are you?’, whether it is begging for money for good causes, selling a paper, or simply asking for information.
(That is not entirely accurate, in Belfast we had established our credentials and could take some risks, in carrying out surveys, issuing questionnaires – though as the commercial ‘scene’ developed it got more problematical.  One proprietor jibbed at condoms and safe-sex information being handed out at his disco.  Though he didn’t argue with the notion that the punters were there to find sex-partners.  We had to stand well away from one of the pubs to do the same, or to distribute a free-sheet, upstart mostly.)

Filed Under: History Tagged With: All Ireland, dublin, gay conference

A revisit to the reporting by Sinn Fein on A SAVILE INQUIRY and Kincora!

14/07/2013 By David McFarlane Leave a Comment

FOLK DEVILS IN THE 1980s… & TODAY
Sinn Féín likes to present itself as ‘modern’ and au fait with ‘modernity’, including in sexual matters.  So it has a, not-too-loudly proclaimed, policy on LGBT rights.  Admittedly, SF consulted the LGBT community including NIGRA (the NI Gay Rights Association), and upstart magazine, in the framing of the policy.  But the temptation to make an anti-Unionist point is difficult to resist.  One such temptation appears in the Nollaig / December 2012 edition of Party journal An Phoblacht  (The Republic).  On page 13 is Cover-up and lies at heart of the British Establishment – Peadar Whelan, who may not be responsible for the lurid headline.    A box at the top of the page shows Jimmy Savile hobnobbing with various British Establishment figures.  The legend is: The revelations around Jimmy Savile and the suspicions that people in authority knew about and covered up his abuse have clear echoes of the scandal surrounding the Kincora Boys’ Home in Belfast in the 1980s.
‘Kincora’, (the name of an Edwardian villa in a ‘leafy’ part of east Belfast), was not in any real sense a “Boys’ Home”.  It was a hostel for employed adolescents.  It opened its doors as such in 1958, when the school-leaving age was 15, raised to 16 some years after that.  (The youngest person to stay in the hostel was 13 year’s old – and that was overnight.)  Such matters are important this article is decorated, if that is the mot juste with the famous image of William McGrath in Orange regalia.  There is a palimpsest of Kincora House, a Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) cap badge, bits of heraldry, a Top Secret stamp, and images of two pre-adolescent boys.  One is of Brian McDermott whose disappearance and death the  Irish Times journalists made strenuous efforts to pin on McGrath and other staff.  His brother was later accused of the murder although never charged – see the following The Irish Independent
Peadar Whelan’s article is a tissue of – not outright ‘honest’ lies – so much as hint and innuendo.  There are four short paragraphs about Savile and the BBC that are “…clear echoes of the scandal surrounding the Kincora Boys’ Home in Belfast in the 1970s and 1980s.”  ‘Kincora Boys’ Home’ is written as if it were the official title of the place.  It didn’t really have an ‘official title’ and, as stated, was for employed teenagers, who needed particular care or a halfway house to ‘family life’.  Some inmates had been institutionalised for most of their young lives (Belfast Corporation’s Welfare Committee did its very best with hostels, attempting to make than as ‘home-like’ as possible within its budget, despite the flaring up of ‘The Troubles’.)
“[T]he systematic abuse of young boys in the home…” is not merely improbable – it was impossible.  There were no “young boys'” to abuse.  There is the assertion that McGrath was “head of the loyalist paramilitary group Tara”.  As early as 1972, the UVF (Ulster Volunteer Force – an actual loyalist paramilitary group) decided that Tara was essentially a figment of McGrath’s imagination. He wasn’t “central to the formation of the… Ulster Defence Association (UDA) in 1971…” he circulated flyers calling for an Ulster Protestant army, but various Defence Associations were already in operation, their coming together was pretty inevitable.  The UDA, and to an extent the UVF, (despite its aspiration to be IRA-like), are ‘franchise’ operations and not centralised and disciplined conspiratorial organisations.
We get McGrath’s “links” with “both major unionist parties” (Peadar Whelan is probably too young to realise how ironic that phrase is.  There used to be one Unionist party, it perceived itself as a ‘movement’.  The Ulster Unionist Council, ran it, with heavy input from the Orange Order – the Order’s relationship to the Party was something like the Trades Unions to the Labour Party  – only much stronger.  “Indeed… the Grand Master of the Orange Order…” UUP MP Martin Smyth “presided over the dedication of McGrath’s Irish Heritage Orange Lodge”.  How big does An Phoblacht or Peadar Whelan think the Orange Order or ‘Northern Ireland’ are?  Martin Smyth may have driven – or walked – to such dedications in a matter of minutes.
 
… not the property of the Minister… 
McGrath “preached regularly… Ian Paisley’ s Free Presbyterian churches.”  Not if ‘regularly’ has any real meaning.  He hired or was allowed to use one or two different church-venues at the discretion of their Ministers and Elders. Presbyterian churches, Free, Reformed, Non-Subscribing, or mainstream are not the property of the Minister but of the congregation by way of elected Elders.  This is not arcane information, difficult to get at.  Flicking through a book on the subject, or making a phone call to anyone involved in these groups would have done the trick.
Private Eye magazine alleged that “senior military and judicial figures engaged in sex with the boys”.  What ‘senior military and judicial figures’?  This ‘scandal’ was made public over thirty years ago.  In the UK’s wonderful legal system it is impossible to libel the dead.  (Meaning: they don’t have to have actually done anything.)  So why not throw out a few names just for show?  Can it be that this is a matter of ‘smoke and mirrors’?  There is no actual substance to it?  Are we expected to believe that Kincora’s clientele are particularly long-lived?
 
Bibles Behind The Curtain
“A British army officer was… told… to drop any contact or investigation into Tara…”  When?  Who was the ‘British officer’?  An Phoblacht must know quite well that this is not journalism – it certainly is not ‘investigative journalism’ – it is gossip and hearsay.  The officer in question was probably told McGrath was a fantasist with no real insight into what was happening in Ulster, he wasn’t even useful for tittle-tattle about the real paramilitaries who didn’t trust him, especially when it became obvious that he had no source of weapons supply.
He had smuggled Bibles into countries behind the ‘Iron Curtain’ but that was hardly relevant to Belfast in the 1970s.  And such activity would have necessitated some sort of Secret Service sanction; something else that would have made the Loyalist paramilitaries dubious about his bona fides.  The UVF and UDA eventually got their weapons from the USA and Canada viâ, (in particular), Glasgow.  The explosives mostly came from quarries in Scotland.
There is some more trivia about this busybody having contact with all sorts of VIPs, moderately important people, and persons of no consequence whatsoever.  Some of the latter ended up in the armed forces of ‘Rhodesia’ and Apartheid South Africa (neatly puncturing the notion that Apartheid was all the doing of the ‘goddamned Dutch’.)
This is not a defence of William McGrath.  He had deeply unpleasant views on nearly everything.  A ‘British Israelite’ he was thereby essentially a racist (and probably ‘anti-Semitic’. In that he would have denied that Jews are actually Jewish).  He was a deeply closeted homosexual, forcing himself onto young men he met on the fundamentalist Protestant Christian circuit.  He forced himself onto one of his charges in Kincora, (a psychologically fragile young man), who reacted very badly to the experience.
One, now well-known Gay man in Belfast *, was in McGrath’s charge at this period.  He was astounded to discover what he had been up to.  Which is a tribute to McGrath’s cunning and deceitful nature – he probably went to his grave safe in the knowledge that he was not a pervert like those ‘homosexuals’ – he almost certainly deceived himself.
An Phoblact‘s pious wish that the Savile scandal may “reawaken investigations into Kincora and the role of the British military and intelligence services” will not be granted – and it knows it.  As Peadar Whelan writes: “Despite his [McGrath’s – upstart] trial and five separate inquiries into the Kincora scandal, the real story has yet to emerge.”   Well, actually, it has emerged: three Kincora staff members – clearly acting separately – took advantage of the fact that their charges were young men in their teens.  Most of the “sex” seems to have been pretty low-level groping.  Any psychological damage (rarely mentioned in all the material printed since 1981 – thirty-two years ago!) was practically speaking non-existent. Except in the one case mentioned about in relation to McGrath in particular.  upstart suggests to the Republican Movement and its journals that this folk-tale be spiked, if not thrown on the back of the fire.

Seán McGouran

 
* Information with author – approach upstart – if you want specifics.

Filed Under: History Tagged With: investigative journalism, jimmy savile, kincora, kincora home for boys, LGBT, savile, sexual policy, sinn fein

THE GUARDIAN ENCOUNTERS MUGABE'S REAL REPUTATION

14/07/2013 By David McFarlane Leave a Comment

mugabe in CopenhagenThe Guardian‘s G2 section (Monday 18.03.13) carried a very odd report (labelled Fashion), Why is ‘Mugabe chic’ so popular in Zimbabwe?  It is described as “”dictator chic””, by David Smith, or his sub editors, despite the fact that President Mugabe is a member of one party (ZANU-PF) and his PM Morgan Tsangvari, is the leader of another the Coalition for Change.  Smith writes that this is not “only a fashion statement but an act of rebellion in major cities where denigrating “Uncle Bob” or “the old man” has become almost de rigeur”.
The newest item is a cap with 1924 on it – Mugabe’s birth date.  Smith writes that possibly “far from being a liability, the 89-year-old’s status as Africa’s oldest leader is a point of pride.”  It may well be.  Africans don’t have the currently fashionable (‘Anglospheric’) attitude to age.  Being ancient of days is respected, and for a man in his ninth decade Mugabe seems remarkably vigorous and clued-up. And he is of the generation that made Zimbabwe independent. Other elements of this fashion trend include Mugabe’s signature on items of clothing.  A very attractive mixed double, ‘models’ presumably, model t-shirts and jerkins with the signature all over them (leading one to wonder how this dour, isolated, ‘Marxist dictatorship’ acquired a flourishing fashion industry?  ‘Clothes horses’ are the very end of the process).
The [fashion] House of Gushungo is behind all this – apparently the “signature appeals to a particular group, typically around 30 and running their own business, who feel they are doing just fine under his 33-year rule”.  David Smith, and the editors of the Guardian appear not to realise that this (apparently tangential) item has exploded decades of UK Government-inspired ‘gray propaganda’.  Zim was backward, dictatorial, and an economic basket case.  We’ve all experienced BBC television operatives standing in front of market stalls groaning under the weight of beautiful fresh food telling us, gravely, that the supermarket shelves are empty.
This short article rather fizzles out, partly because it is unable to explain where all these successful ‘thirtysomethings’ come from.  Where did they acquire their education?  Where did they get the skills to design, and to market, this shmeer?  Is it because Mugabe (an Irish Christian Brothers’ product) took education seriously and encouraged the development of any skills and talents pupils my have had, whether it was farming, fashion or physics?  We can only hope that ‘Mugabe chic’ comes to Britain.  Let’s encourage some entrepreneurial African (or other ex-CB pupil) to do so.

Filed Under: History Tagged With: Africa, Guardian, Mugabe, Newspaper

QUEER HUMANISM

14/07/2013 By David McFarlane Leave a Comment

In the article Queerish London I made a smart-alecky remark about Gay / Queer Humanism.  Then I found the notes I took on the occasion of the talk by the novelist Jonathan Kemp…  It was a substantial and interesting talk.  He felt that Humanism like ‘queer’ was questioning and critical.  ‘Queer’ questioned ‘normality’ and the ‘normative’.  Is homosexuality simply a variant sexuality – or is there more to it than that?  ‘Homosexual’ was coined in 1869; in 1878 came ‘heterosexual’.  This had to do with the (presumably national – upstart) ‘identity politics’ as practised in ‘Britain’, France, the US and Germany – a Gay Pride demonstration at any time between 1890 and 1970 is simply unimaginable.
‘Homosexual’ held fire for some decades, but between 1895 and 1905 over a thousand books were published on the matter.  They expressed every possible reaction to ‘the problem’.  Except what we today would regard as a liberationist one.  Even Edward Carpenter, (a very famous poet / advocate at the turn of the 19th / 20th century), was craving indulgence.  There is still debate about whether or not ‘homo / hetero’ is a dichotomy, Jonathan quoted Foucault’s rejection of the notion and his reassertion of Freud’s idea that everyone is born ‘polymorphous perverse’. Those who label themselves ‘Lesbian and Gay’, want (in the title of Bruce Bawer’s book, A Seat at the Table), ‘queers’ want to burn the table.
 
Only connect 
It is a vivid image, but ‘Gay’ people – as in the Gay Liberation Front – also wanted to burn it.  We did not merely grow old, crabby and ‘reformist’, and add an ‘L’ to our titles.  We realised that we did not have the social power to bring about a revolution.  The ‘Gay’ movement was a product of the feminist / Women’s movement, and similar trends in the 1960s and 1970s, including the African-American Civil Rights (and after, ‘Black Power’) movements.  A major strategist of the former was the ‘shamelessly’ Gay Bayard Rustin.  The Black Panthers, as a movement, supported GLF.  Most early members of the NI Gay Rights Association had been members, or at least supporters of, the NI Civil Rights Association.  (When EM Forster wrote “only connect’…” he articulated something substantial.)
What homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, queer (and ‘L&G’) people want to ‘integrate’ into today (2012 / 2013) is a society we have done a great deal to change. I’m not suggesting that Mr. Kemp is claiming that British / English society is an unchanging monolith – but the change in the UK since I was 13 (March 1, 1960) seems barely credible.  Abortion was illegal, as was suicide (incredible though that may seem). Trade unionists appeared on television justifying strikes against the employing of some people, because of their skin-tint. Reputable journals campaigned against homosexual men – simply for being.  Most never mentioned ‘the problem’ unless it became impossible to ignore. The Observer, the Times, and some enlightened provincial papers (CHE [Campaign for Homosexual Equality]-founder Allan Horsfall’s local Nelson Leader for example), took a rational attitude to homosexuality, and to law reform.
‘Queer theory’ is deconstructionist (a problem with this is that ‘queer’ and ‘deconstruction’ are nebulous concepts – SMcG).  It is, apparently, a political metaphor without any fixed reference.  In its critique of politics, arts and the rest ‘queer’ can never settle. Meaning it has, thereby, no points of contact with matters of substance?  Surely one can only ‘critique’ if one has some solid core values?  Our history is in law court transcripts and in ‘gay porn’.  This, surely, ignores much literature and art produced by cultures which were not homophobic, including our own, ‘western’, ‘Christian’ one at points in its history.
 
Hollywood values? 
The fact that Hollywood has dominated the culture of the ‘Anglosphere’ for a century ought not to blind us to the fact that it is a lop-sided culture.  Hollywood leans very heavily towards northern European, Protestant, norms and not those of southern (and Irish) Catholic Europe, the Jews, or the many other cultures on the planet – or even just in the USA.  Native American cultures largely found a role for people who were not prepared to accept the one their gender implied – one of the reasons why they were marked down for physical extermination.
 
The working class voice
The ‘working class voice’ is not heard in our (LGBT) history.  But working people were excluded from general being_gay_isnt_voluntary_but_hate_ishistory, except sometimes as ‘the mob’, until fairly recently (historically speaking).  And it could be argued that that ‘voice’ is still pretty muted, and it is being ‘cultivated’ by the enlightened element in the traditional ‘ruling class’ / bourgeoisie.  (This tends not to apply to Ireland, but the urban working class were not the majority class until recently.*  And the rise of DTP – ‘desk top publishing’ – is making history, even ‘literature’, genuinely democratic.)  We queers are not the authors of our own history mainly because we were, at best interesting oddities – like dancing bears.  Or at worst, human garbage who do not deserve to live alongside ‘normal’ people (the attitudes of the British Realm and the Nazi Realm were, as in many other cases, only matters of degree).
I am aware of the fact that the above reads like a rather ill tempered rejection of nearly everything Jonathan said.  It isn’t (and my notetaking is probably quite wayward, too), but his diversion into ‘queer theory’ was quite lengthy and needed to be dealt with.  I’m also aware that reportage and comment are rather intertwined above.  It is a pity this fascinating talk was not recorded.  Possibly Jonathan Kemp has a transcript or notes that can be written-up.

Seán McGouran

 
* ‘Ireland’ today means ‘the Republic’ / ’26 Counties’, excluding ‘Northern Ireland’.  But I mean (above) the whole island.  It’s true to say that the urban working class was large in ‘the North’.  Because of ethno-sectarian division it didn’t have the muscle it ought to have had.
Belfast was the fer de lance of the great 1919 strike, involving dock and railway workers, coal miners, encompassing London and ‘Red Clydeside’.  The lance was blunted.  There was no ‘Red Laganside’ due to sectarianism, sharpened by anti-Sinn Féin / ‘Bolshevik’ rhetoric from Orange platforms.

Filed Under: History Tagged With: gay, homosexuality, humanist, Jonathan Kemp, London, queer

"Human Rights and Human Wrongs" lecture by Right Honourable John Bercow MP

12/07/2013 By David McFarlane Leave a Comment

The annual Amnesty International Pride Lecture was held in the Europa Hotel on Thursday 14th July, 2013 at 7.30pm.
As Speaker of the House of Commons, the Rt Hon John Bercow has taken on the external roles of being an ambassador for Parliament and an advocate for democratic politics. A frequent speaker around the world , last night’s delivery of the annual Amnesty international  lecture at Belfast Pride was his third visit to the city. On his previous trip to the PSA 2012 conference he asked what a 21st century parliament should look like?
John Bercow William Crawley Grainne TeggartIn his  speech entitled Human Rights and Human Wrongs the 157th Commons Speaker explained why he felt the Speaker should also be a champion of equality and human rights.
Verbose, fond of word play and a little reminiscent of a loquacious Russell Brand, John Bercow was entertaining as well as informative as he delivered  his lecture  to an audience of over a hundred and answered  their questions  in the Europa Hotel exhibition hall. He was glad to be back in Belfast, though admitted “visiting politicians are scarcely a novelty in Northern Ireland this year”.
 
(Article taken from Slugger O’Toole Blog )

Filed Under: History Tagged With: Belfast Pride, Europa Hotel, Human Rights, MP, Pride Lecture, Speaker of the House

McCarthy: Health Minister must stop using public money to fight his own campaigns

11/07/2013 By David McFarlane Leave a Comment

Alliance Health spokesperson Kieran McCarthy has called on the Health Minister to stop his campaign against the right of same sex couples to adopt, after it was revealed his department has spent approximately £40k fighting the issue.

Mr McCarthy received the confirmation from the Minister after questioning him in a written letter on the cost of legal action to date. Mr Poots also indicated he would not accept the recent ruling by the Court of Appeal, admitting he is currently considering an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Kieran McCarthy said: “This campaign led by the Health Minister on behalf of the DUP has been a blatant waste of taxpayers’ money.
“The Health Minister has also said he is considering appealing the recent decision by the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. He cannot be allowed to continue spending public money in this way and must be stopped.
“I am again appealing to the Minister to accept the court’s decision and cease any future legal action. This law not only affects same sex couples, but also unmarried heterosexual couples and it is unacceptable that both these groups are prevented from providing a stable and loving home to the many children in our social care system in need of one.”
 
Further reading:

  1. Alliance Party
  2. Belfast Telegraph – Northern Ireland’s health minister Edwin Poots uses £40k of public funds to fight same-sex adoption

Filed Under: History

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • …
  • 35
  • Next Page »

Categories

Copyright ACOMSDave.com © 2026