Tatchell / Gay.com misunderstanding

Politics for the non-conservative...
Post Reply
User avatar
nekokate
admin
Posts: 2418
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:13 pm
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Tatchell / Gay.com misunderstanding

Post by nekokate »

Further to Peter Tatchell's comments in one of his recent newspaper articles (that I've been unable to find online, so I can't comment on directly) there have been several spurious stories popping up online questioning George's stance on Gay Rights. Specifically, this article from Gay.com (CLICK).

Incase the article is edited or deleted in future, here's the full text copied/pasted:
Left-wing London politician George Galloway, a member of Parliament and strong anti-war campaigner, is being accused of dismissing gay rights to win Muslim votes.
The Scotland-born Galloway, a member of the RESPECT party (standing for "Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environmentalism, Community and Trade Unionism"), was elected in 2005 to represent neighborhoods in East London. He was thrown out of Tony Blair's Labour party in 2003 for his open opposition to the Iraq war.

Accused of war profiteering -- and hypocrisy -- by the U.S. leaders he constantly lambastes, Galloway told the Senate in 2005: "I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war."

After parliamentary redistricting in August created a new seat, to be contested by Galloway and Labour MP Jim Fitzpatrick, Galloway's Web site listed Fitzpatrick's favorable record on gay rights under reasons not to vote for him.

UK gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell accused Galloway of strategizing to attract Muslim voters, who make up a large part of his constituency.

"George appears to be appeasing homophobic sections of the Muslim community by attacking Jim Fitzpatrick over his support for gay rights," Tatchell told London's Evening Standard.

"He's using homophobia to gain political advantage, and he is betraying his own past appeal for gay equality. If his Web site is a mistake, George should correct it immediately.

"I'm saddened that he's using gay rights as a stick to beat his political opponent."

The offending passages have since been removed from Galloway's Web site.

Galloway has supported gay rights in the past. In 1994, he voted to equalize of the age of consent for homosexuality with that for heterosexuality at 16 years of age. He also supported measures to allow gays to become adoptive parents.

But Galloway's critics -- most notably Tatchell -- claim that the omission of gay rights in his 2005 election manifesto and the donations he accepted from Islamic sources undermine his commitment to gay rights.

(Hassan Mirza, Gay.com)
After discussing this with Mandy it's obvious that this is a misunderstanding. As Mandy has said in a reply to the article, the listing of Fitzpatrick's voting record, inclusive of his pro-gay votes, was not put up on the site as a list of reasons not to support him. It was merely a complete, unabbridged list from TheyWorkForYou.com of all of Fitzpatrick's voting history, good and bad. It was there as a historical record for visitors of GeorgeGalloway.com to read through and come to their own conclusions. As Mandy has pointed out, had it merely included just the negative stances Fitzpatrick had taken in the past, it could easily have been attacked as omitting the positives in order to create an unrealistic portrayal of the current Poplar MP.

I replied to the article citing two audio clips from my own YouTube account where George vociferously stands up for Gay Rights, although the URLs were published malformed due to Gay.com's message formatting which merely italicises any text placed between forward slashes.
User avatar
Mandy
admin
Posts: 2550
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:38 pm

Post by Mandy »

Thanks Kate ..
User avatar
faceless
Posts: 26468
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 6:16 pm

Post by faceless »

I saw that last night and was going to post a comment on there, then realised I had to sign up .. I passed.
User avatar
nekokate
admin
Posts: 2418
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:13 pm
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Post by nekokate »

faceless wrote:I saw that last night and was going to post a comment on there, then realised I had to sign up .. I passed.
Awwww, you're such a sweetly butch fella, Face!

I should add, incidentally, that I'm bisexual so I had no qualms. I should already have been a member!
User avatar
faceless
Posts: 26468
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 6:16 pm

Post by faceless »

Sweetly butch? Don't tell them that! haha
User avatar
luke
admin
Posts: 5610
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:32 pm
Location: by the sea

Post by luke »

:lol:

whats your profile neko, are there, um, any, er ... x rated pics :wink2: :lol: :cuteshy:
User avatar
nekokate
admin
Posts: 2418
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:13 pm
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Post by nekokate »

luke wrote::lol:

whats your profile neko, are there, um, any, er ... x rated pics :wink2: :lol: :cuteshy:
Now, now, Luke. This is a serious thread. Put your un-pervy hat on and sit quietly until you're spoken to! What would George think?? (Although he has himself asked for pics of me - innocently of course!)
User avatar
luke
admin
Posts: 5610
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:32 pm
Location: by the sea

Post by luke »

nekokate wrote:Now, now, Luke. This is a serious thread. Put your un-pervy hat on and sit quietly until you're spoken to! What would George think?? (Although he has himself asked for pics of me - innocently of course!)
it was worth a shot, can't blame me for trying :lol:
Post Reply