The World Cup should be political

Predictably, when Peter Tatchell, a long-time gay rights campaigner, was detained in World Cup-crazy Moscow last week, there were plenty of wails along the lines of "Why can't people leave politics out of sport? What did he expect when he broke the law in Russia?".

Tatchell held up a banner that accurately said: "Putin fails to act against Chechnya torture of gay people", was arrested, questioned and detained for a few hours and then released on bail to appear in court on 26 June. He has since been allowed to fly home.

The protest put the Russian authorities in a sticky predicament - on one hand, the government had temporarily tightened already tight laws on freedom of assembly, making it illegal for a single-person protest to take place during the World Cup. On the other hand, Russia is desperate for the World Cup to be a public relations triumph. It would have been a marketing disaster if it emerged that Tatchell was locked up without charge or experienced any kind of police brutality. 

Tatchell himself said he was treated well by the police. It was a stark contrast from his visit to Russia in 2007 in which he was attacked so viciously by Russian neo-Nazis that he suffered brain damage, compounding the effects of an attack in 2001 by thugs in Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe. He is way more courageous than the random bellends on Twitter complaining because someone might have made the World Cup a little bit political. Those same random bellends have probably never been beaten almost to death because of his sexuality. I say "his" because it is almost always a man who gets upset when someone shines a light on an important issue during their ball game. And Katie Hopkins, because of course she did. 

When football associations around the world are working hard to fight homophobia and to ensure that all players, regardless of sexuality, feel comfortable and safe when they play, represent their country and socialise after the match, it is only right that Russia's record on gay rights be questioned. The tragedy of Justin Fashanu's suicide could easily happen again, particularly in Russia. 

By making a statement in Moscow, Tatchell joins a long and distinguished line of people who have politicised sport to great effect.

The most obvious example is that of Tommie Smith and John Carlos, who both bowed their heads and raised their fists in the black power salute when they won gold and bronze respectively at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics. The silver medallist, Australia's Peter Norman remained close to Smith and Carlos, both of whom were pallbearers at his funeral in 2006. It is one of the most iconic images in sporting history and it is still relevant today. 

In 1936, Jesse Owens' triumph in multiple events at the Berlin Olympics dented Adolf Hitler's desire to use the games as a showcase for Aryan superiority and it emerged that Jewish athletes were banned from competing, apart from one athlete with a Jewish father. Many Jewish athletes who had competed at the highest level perished in concentration camps and Captain Wolfgang Furstner, the head of the Olympic village, killed himself two days after the games after being dismissed from the military because of his Jewish ancestry. 

It is ironic that Jesse Owens' presence and success at the Berlin Olympics was, in and of itself, a political statement against Nazi racism and at the same time, the pageantry of the Berlin Olympics set the tone for patriotic spectacles at the Olympics in the decades to follow. It is, therefore, only right that the Olympics, as well as World Cups, are used as an opportunity to contemplate what it means to be patriotic and whether patriotism should be blind loyalty to your country.

In tennis, the late Arthur Ashe turned his AIDS diagnosis into an opportunity to raise awareness about HIV and AIDS. He used his last years well and his high sporting profile played an important role in overcoming prejudice and ignorance and certainly helped pave the way for better health policy, increased accessibility to medications, effective prevention campaigns and fundraising for research.

Meanwhile, in South Africa, sport played a role in ending the scourge of apartheid. While it would be fatuous to say that apartheid would not have ended without international sporting boycotts, particularly in rugby and cricket, from 1968 until the early 1990s, they were important in keeping the issue in the news. The decades of sporting wilderness were an acute reminder for South Africans of a racist and untenable political situation.

And it's not just Peter Tatchell getting political at this World Cup. Alliance For Choice, a group which is campaigning for abortion rights in Ireland and Northern Ireland, has been tweeting comparisons between abortion rights for every country competing in the World Cup as they play their opening matches this week. Even Paddy Power, the betting shop chain with a mischievous marketing team, has got in on the act, pledging to donate £10,000 to causes which are working to make football more LGBT+-inclusive every time Russia scores. With Russia giving Saudi Arabia a 5-0 drubbing in the opening match of the tournament, the fundraising is off to an excellent start.

With the next World Cup scheduled to be held in Qatar, it is clear that politics is not going to vanish from football, or indeed most other sports, any time soon. Qatar's human rights and worker safety record has, quite rightly, been widely reported - and its ability to retain the right to host the tournament could well depend on the political situation in the Arabian Gulf over the next four years. Meanwhile, Trump supporters have lost their collective shit over American footballers taking a knee during the national anthem as part of the Black Lives Matter campaign - this most peaceful of protests, amid examples in the streets of violence, has played no small role in keeping stories about race relations in the US on global news cycles.

So enjoy the World Cup, cheer on your country's team, get a bit excited if your team wins in the office sweep - there is nothing wrong with any of that. But if you think politics is going to vanish from sport any time soon, you're naive and you are siding against people of courage from across the decades.

Photography by Коля Саныч

Optical illusions

"Optics" is becoming the new "I misspoke". The new bullshit excuse. The new cliche when something isn't a good look. Or high praise when it is a good look.

Remember the fad of saying "I misspoke!" when all someone did was expose themselves as an idiot/racist/sexist/cloth-eared dolt/intellectual bankrupt? Misspeaking is when a kid calls a teacher Mum or Dad, it's a genuine slip of the tongue, it's often a Freudian slip, such as Sophy Ridge saying Kezia Dugdale is the leader of "Scottish Labia".

Now this election campaign we've all endured - largely with the able assistance of vast quantities of liquor, with all its car crashes from across the political spectrum - has popularised the good versus bad optics cliche. But it's lazy, shallow and lacking in nuance.

It was terrible optics for Tim Farron, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, when he flubbed and flopped in response to questions about his attitude towards gay sex. Never mind that he has a better voting record than Theresa May on LGBT rights and it would appear he can keep his private religious beliefs out of politics - the story became an excruciating series of images of Farron looking uncomfortable.

Compare those scenes with Theresa May being asked by Andrew Marr if she thought gay sex was a sin. Without hesitation, she crisply answered "No.", And that was the end of the debate, even though her voting history on LGBT rights has only recently become progressive. It was obvious that she was ready for the question. It looked like she had been rehearsing her answer in the bathroom mirror.

It was good optics.

Now she is desperately trying to eke out a deal with the notoriously homophobic DUP - surely these are the worst optics of all for her if she is trying to convince anyone that she gives a damn about LGBT rights.

And this nonsense is not limited to politics.

A few days ago, The Pool reported on a ridiculous PRWeek event in which an all-male panel addressed the audience on how to fight sexism in the workplace. PRWeek is generally pretty sound - it's a good source of news on the PR industry as well as a fine place for PRs (and journalists looking to cross to the dark side for more money) to find jobs. So you'd think an event run by an organisation dedicated to public relations would not be quite so tone-deaf as to host a festival of weapons grade mansplaining. Yet that is what happened.

The explanation for this debacle (at an event called "Hall of Femme" - I ask you...) was that "the optics might have appeared off".

"The optics might have appeared off".

Jesus H. Christ on a two-wheeled perambulation device. No, This is not merely about how it looked. It's about how it was. It's about how bloody patronising it is to expect a room full of women listen to a room full of men tell them where they're going wrong and to offer pearls of wisdom about speaking loudly, rather than being listened to, and "stretch opportunitoes" when, for some women, the opportunities simply are not there.

The "optics might have appeared off" is a shallow excuse for stupidity.

And, sometimes, when the optics are good, the reality is bloody awful. Just ask Theresa May.






Photography by savertashe2/F;ickr

Uganda fails at humanity (but they're not alone)

Really, Uganda? In 2012, you think it's acceptable to pass a law whereby homosexuality can be punished by death or life imprisonment? As a result, there have been angry calls for boycotts of Uganda and for cutting off all foreign aid.

This may sound like a perfectly reasonable response on the surface, but a more nuanced, less simplistic response would be saner - and less likely to disadvantage people in genuine need.

Firstly, let's examine an economic boycott of Uganda. It's pretty easy to boycott Uganda as a holiday destination, so that's a moot point. But what about not buying goods exported from Uganda to Britain? Will that achieve anything? Probably not. The Ugandan shilling is currently losing value and while oil exports could  boost the economy significantly, any improvements to the economy are hampered by high population growth, poor job creation and underdeveloped infrastructure.

In 2009, Britain exported £50 million worth of goods to Uganda. In return, Uganda exported just £12 million worth of goods to Britain. Basically, Britain is making more money out of Uganda than Uganda is making out of Britain. When you break it down, it looks even more paltry - in 2009, Britain bought £4 million worth of fruit and vegetables, £3 million worth of electrical machinery and £1 million worth of tea, coffee and spices. A boycott of these goods, especially the produce, tea, coffee and spices, is going to hurt Ugandan farmers more than anyone else.

Secondly, cutting all foreign aid sounds like a fine plan in theory. It is always the fallback option of the right and the hysterical whenever a developing country does something douchey. (Except, of course, when right-leaning groups are actually fine with countries expressing the sovereignty by passing homophobic laws and even offer charitable support to such things as therapy to "cure" homosexuality, but I digress).

The good news is that there are ways to continue to assist vulnerable people in Uganda while still taking a stand against the government. By giving foreign aid directly to carefully selected, non-religious Ugandan NGOs, aid can go directly to people who need it without handing cash over to the government. Or why not take a powerful stand and ensure aid goes to groups in Uganda who are fighting for gay and lesbian rights? There are plenty of groups who could use the funds to stand up to the absurd government.

But in the midst of all this, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that there are anti-gay laws in 76 countries. Yes, 76 countries still live in the dark ages and criminalise consensual sexual behaviour of a significant proportion of their populations and the rest of the world is largely silent. But, hey, Saudi has the oil, the Seychelles is a nice place for heterosexuals to go on honeymoon, who doesn't like a spot of shopping on Singapore's Orchard Road...


Image courtesy of www.kozzi.com

What does Nick Griffin have in common with Paris Hilton and sharia law?

Congratulations, Nick Griffin. With just two mindless tweets you have managed to align yourself with not only a bigoted bed-and-breakfast owner but also noted airhead, Paris Hilton and sharia law.

Griffin, leader of the far-right British National Party and a Member of the European Parliament, yesterday tweeted the address of the gay couple, Michael Black, 64, and John Morgan, 59, after they won £3,600 in damages after Christian bed-and-breakfast owner Susanne Wilkinson told them they could not stay in one of her double rooms because of her religious beliefs. The couple will be donating the damages money to charity.

In response to this sane ruling, Griffin felt the need to tweet the following from his now-suspended Twitter account:

"A British Justice team will come up to [the couple's address which I am not going to share because I am not a colossal twat] and give you a... bit of drama by way of reminding you that an English couple's home is their castle. So No to heterophobia!"

Wow. So not only did Griffin reveal the address of two private citizens, he did so with the purpose of making a threat. Yes, he reckons a "British Justice team" (complete with capes and underpants over tights, I hope...) will come over and give Black and Morgan "a bit of drama". As pathetic as his BNP lynch mob sounds, it is still a threat as well as an invasion of privacy. And then he claimed that this whole sorry affair was a case of "heterophobia." So he truly believes the rights of oppressed, hard-done-by heterosexuals across Britain are going to be threatened if gay couples are allowed to stay in B&Bs.

It all comes down to Paris Hilton's narrow notion of homosexuality. She was secretly recorded in a taxi last month saying that "gay guys are the horniest guys in the world" and described them as "disgusting". She later claimed, via her publicist, she was expressing concern over unprotected sex in the gay community but with compassion like that, all she managed to do was fuel a stereotype. Such comments reduce the lives of all gay men to sexual acts and rampant promiscuity, and ignores the fact that plenty of gay men and women are in stable relationships or are celibate. Indeed, Black and Morgan have been together for nine years.

Susanne Wilkinson needs to be reminded that homosexuality is no longer illegal here in Britain. If Black and Morgan were dealing drugs in their room, committing murder or making child pornography in there, then yes, she'd be well within her rights to kick them out and call the police. But as far as we know, the couple just wanted a bed for the night. Hell, they might not have even planned to have sex under her precious roof. Nine years is a long time to keep up that early relationship level of shaggery.

Given her conservative Christian beliefs, does she also ban unmarried heterosexual couples from staying in her B&B? Or adulterous couples? What if she found out that a heterosexual married couple partook in anal sex in her premises? Or if two heterosexual couples stayed in two rooms, turned out to be swingers and did a midnight wife swap? None of what actually goes on in her rooms is any of her business as long as it's consensual and legal.

"But it's her house so it's her rules!" I hear the voices yell from the peanut gallery. Except that she has voluntarily started a business in her house. A business, like a hotel, whereby couples of all persuasions may see your property advertised and fancy a nice weekend away. If the judge ruled in her favour, it'd set an idiotic precedent for anyone running a business from home. What if a Christian accountant who worked from home decided he or she didn't want gay people as clients? Could a Christian architect refuse to design a house for a gay couple if he or she worked from a home office?

In a civilised, progressive, fair capitalist society, people have the right to run a business but they don't have the right to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality. How exactly are the rights of business owners being infringed upon if their have to offer their services to and make money from people they disapprove of? They're not. They can continue to hold whatever views they like, they are free to express those views, they can worship at churches where other people might hold those views, they can continue to maintain heterosexual relationships - and they can still make money.

And what is hilarious is that Griffin has effectively echoed the views of strict proponents of sharia law. By being perfectly OK with a gay couple not being allowed to share a room, he is encouraging the very society Islamophobes like him are terrified will come to Britain. It is, quite simply, an own goal from a proven buffoon.  

Image courtesy of www.kozzi.com

Same-sex marriage: it's good and it's conservative...

Ah, Boris Johnson, you mad-haired goofball, you. Pretty much most of the time I look at you and wish Siobhan Benita was the mayor of London but once in a blue moon, you make sense. In your own buffoonish way, of course. In last night's Evening Standard, there was a jolly old column by London's Conservative mayor that I agreed with wholeheartedly. BoJo wrote in support of same-sex marriage, recalls that he once thought it was already legal and was chuffing-well surprised to find that it's not. Well, not yet. 

Other leading Conservatives including Prime Minister David Cameron, Culture Secretary Maria Miller and Home Secretary Theresa May have all publicly voiced their support for marriage equality in Britain. Maria Miller got a round of applause (mostly from younger Conservatives, there were also some pursed lips in the crowd) for her positive statements on the matter yesterday at the Conservative Party Conference. 

Miller said: "I still believe in marriage. It's part of the bedrock of our society. The state should not stop two people from making the commitment to be married unless there's a good reason. I don't believe being gay is one of them."

Good. Now can we please just get on with making it legal and then we can all move on with our lives?

It is precisely because letting gay couples marry shouldn't be a big deal that it should become law. Live and let live. Peace out. If some churches don't want to conduct same-sex marriages, that is their business. I believe the conducting of same-sex marriages should be down to the conscience of the individual minister. I know of vicars who'd happily conduct such weddings and others that would not. 

Why would anyone want to be married by someone who clearly disapproves of their relationship is a mystery anyway. As there are no plans to force ministers of any religion to conduct same-sex marriages, if someone's only objection is "The Bible says no!", there will still be plenty of places where they can go and hang out with likeminded people. The issue of "Where will I find a cake topper for Cedric and Barry's wedding?" will probably never be an issue in their lives.

Marriage is, first and foremost, a civil contract. The religious bit is optional. You will still have to sign a civil document saying you're legally wed. This is where the "But if we let gay people marry, next we'll have people marrying their dog or their toaster!" argument is completely ridiculous. Dogs and toasters are not consenting adults. They are not capable of signing legal documents. Why are people even trying that argument on?

Likewise, the argument about marriage being about having kids is stupid. Yes, starting a family is a big deal for a lot of couples. But what about infertile couples? Couples who choose not to have kids? Couples who are too old to have kids? If you're making marriage all about baby-making, you're going to have to tell these people as well that they'd better call the wedding off. And given that gay couples can already adopt and society hasn't crumbled as a result, surely it'd be a good thing if same-sex parents want to make the big public commitment statement in support of maintaining a stable family life.

David Cameron said he supports gay marriage because he is a conservative. And let's face it, no matter how cool any of us think we are, getting married is a pretty conservative thing to do. At least outwardly. What married couples get up to behind closed doors is nobody's business, even if it is, shock, horror, gasp, cover the kids' ears, an open relationship and they consensually involve other people in their sex life. Yes, this is how some heterosexual married couples behave. Get over it. You're not required to join in. Equally, what gay couples do behind closed doors is nobody's business but theirs. The obsession some gay marriage opponents have over the mechanics of gay sex borders on that of a curtain-twitching stalker.

Once same-sex marriage is legalised here in the UK - and I do believe that will happen - life will go on much the same as before. Nobody will be forced to have a same-sex marriage. Plenty of gay couples are probably perfectly happy remaining unwed, just as plenty of heterosexual couples are - but the difference is that everyone will have the choice to get married or not. 

Civil partnerships for gay couples were a great leap forward in equality but letting such couples call their relationship a marriage would be a way to show respect, to honour their relationships. To say: "But I tolerate gay couples and their civil partnerships!" is, frankly rude. People we "tolerate" tend to be people we don't get along with or don't really like, but we have to be polite to them because they're colleagues or family or a friend of a partner. Nobody wants to be merely "tolerated".

I haven't got much new to add to the debate suffice to say that I look forward to the day when I can look back at this blog posting and laugh at how bizarre it was that we used to deny a significant proportion of the community the right to get married. Britain has an economy to fix. Let's quit farting about with gay marriage arguments and let it happen. And with the average wedding in the UK costing a rather insane £21,000 these days, not to mention the expenses guests face just to attend the damn things, more weddings can only be a good thing for the economy. What conservative can argue with that?