Out-take from Gay Star No. 2
July / August 1980
DO THE GAY ACTIVISTS ALLIANCE SUPPORT IAN PAISLEY ???
During the recent Gay Pride Week in London, members of the Northern Ireland Gay Rights Association were attacked at a meeting organised by the Gay Activists Alliance by supporters of the Troops Out Movement who argued that we should not be making any demands for a change in the law. They said that the Government, which could make those changes, the Westminster Government, is a foreign Government which has no business legislating for Northern Ireland. By demand-ing changes in the law we are recognising the right of this foreign Government to rule over us.
It’s funny how one always has to go to London to hear arguments like that. No one here has ever suggested that we put our interests into cold storage until the great day when Mr. Haughey becomes our Prime Minister. Whether we want to see a united Ireland or maintain the union with Great Britain, the argument is stupid and only English people – or people who have been living a long time in England – could have thought of it.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
NIGRA is solely concerned with improving the lot of homosexuals in Northern Ireland. It contains members with nationalist sympathies and members with unionist sympathies. NIGRA as such will continue to work for gay people whatever government is in power. We don’t argue that our interests are necessarily more important than the Constitutional question, but we leave it to members who feel strongly on either side of that question to join whatever other political bodies they like, without their decision prejudicing their membership of NIGRA.
At present, Northern Ireland exists as a region governed by Westminster and separate from the Republic. There is no point in us asking favours from Mr Haughey who – in the unlikely event of his wanting to – can do nothing for us. Westminster is the government with which we have to deal. If that situation changes, we will change with it.
But perhaps our interests are affected by such ‘political’ considerations. One thing we can probably all agree is that we don’t want to be governed by Dr Paisley who has been very active in opposition to us. Paisley is very popular in Northern Ireland not because of his campaign against us, but because he has represented himself as the most hard line opponent of a united Ireland. And, rightly or wrongly, most of the people living here are strongly opposed to a united Ireland.
PAISLEY IN POWER?
Because of Paisley’s popularity, any devolved government in Northern Ireland – whether it is relatively powerless thing proposed by Humphrey Atkins [the then Secretary of State – upstart 2013] or a full-blown independent Parliament – is likely to be headed by Paisley. That is not a prospect that can fill us with delight. So we are not enthusiastic about the idea of having a devolved government in Northern Ireland.
Furthermore, although the law in the rest of the United Kingdom is far from satisfactory, it is still better than the law here and in the Republic (where, in both places, the pre-1967 laws are still in force).
We are therefore pressing for the same laws to apply throughout the UK. And in that general principle we have – according to a recent opinion poll – the support of over 90% of both Protestants and Catholics. For most people, homosexuality is a marginal issue and, in what they would see as the main issues, we have always had much the same legislation as the rest of the UK, since Stormont used to pursue a ‘step by step’ policy of keeping in line with Westminster. For example, we have the welfare legislation Labour introduced after the war [WW2 – upstart 2013] despite the fact that our largely Tory devolved government disliked it. Since there is no great desire for legislation that is very different from that passed at Westminster, it seems that, so long as we remain in the UK, there is no need for us to have any sort of devolved Parliament.
REMOVAL OF THE TROOPS
But the Troops Out supporters aren’t interested in such a modest, ‘reformist’ approach. They think that we should throw our interests as homosexuals to the winds, and lend all our support to efforts to get rid of the army (i. e. that we should join the Provisionals. Or possibly the Irish Independence Party [the ‘double-I’ P, now defunct. It, like the People’s Democracy, ‘kept the seats warm’ for Sinn Féin – upstart 2013] who are the only people who are calling immediate withdrawal of the troops). The likely result of the immediate withdrawal of the troops (after a period of open and vicious warfare) would be the establishment of an independent Ulster – with Paisley on top. If there were to be a united Ireland, the troops would have to enforce it. Is this what these people want? Is it what they think we should want?
No. We are not prepared to campaign for the removal of the troops. And we are even prepared to oppose the removal of the troops unless there is some guarantee that it won’t result in a (possibly smaller) Paisleyite state. And as long as we are in the UK, we want (at least) the same laws as far as homosexuals are concerned as prevail in the rest of the UK. In making this demand, we expect the support of everyone throughout the UK who is involved in gay politics. And we support them in their search for further changes. AS far as those of us who want to see a united Ireland are concerned, that no more compromises their principles than demanding better pay and conditions would compromise the principles of a trade unionist who wanted to see a united Ireland.
The only possible effect of the policy proposed by the Gay Activists Alliance would be to split us into a Republican Gay Rights Movement and a Loyalist Gay Rights Movement, both of them subjecting their particular interests as gays to the greater interest of their respective ’causes’. We are not prepared to oblige them.
Semi-editorial written, probably by Peter Brooke, then – 1980 – GS Editor.
HISTORICAL GAY CAMDEN…
HISTORICAL GAY CAMDEN (or in this case the Camden LGBT Forum)
Historical Gay Camden 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 females, 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 ?? Centre – 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
Written by S McGouran
Internal links to other interesting articles: