Ukip and Teh Gayers

Charities representing lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender (LGBT) people have criticised UKIP for being the only one of the seven main political parties to not mention gay people in its manifesto.

As politicians come under increasing pressure to tackle issues facing the LGBT community, Ukip’s track record has been marred by a string of embarrassing gaffes.

Had to happen, eh?

Despite not mentioning homosexuality, the party did affirm its opposition to giving an inclusive relationship education to primary school pupils – claiming it would “encourage experimentation”.

A party spokesperson told the Independent: “UKIP believe absolutely in equality, and as such have produced a manifesto for all, rather than driven by the needs of differing special interest groups.

“We believe that amongst other things properly funded healthcare, that lower taxes, that a decent defence and political freedom from the European Union are things that are good for all people regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual preference. It is a message of equality and universality.”

However, the party has been condemned for the glaring omission.

Alistair Stewart of the Kaleidoscope Trust said it was “disappointing, if not surprising”.

He added: “The absence of any reference to the LGBT community really stands them out compared to almost all other parties, who have flagged their commitment to supporting LGBT voters.”

Stonewall said: “It’s extremely disappointing that UKIP has failed to recognise or agree to help tackle issues affecting the way certain groups of people can live freely as themselves without fear of persecution or discrimination.

“We’re at an extremely important point in the LGBT movement where, if we have any hope of achieving this, complacency is not an option.”

At which point (and please do note, I have no official position of any kind within Ukip and am a supporter and have been an employee and candidate) you can all just fuck off.

Of our current selection of MEPs one is openly gay (I’ve worked with him and his partner, good blokes) making our gay representation something like 5x that of the general population. When I worked for the party we all worked damn hard (and celebrated when we succeeded) to get our transgender lesbian into that same Parliament. Another of my colleagues was the Gay Officer for his student union.

We don’t mention these things as politics because we simply don’t think they’re the stuff of politics. Sex and sexuality is something for consenting adults to decide upon, not the province of either politics or a political party.

Another way of making this same point is that given that we actually walk the walk we see no reason at all to bleat about talking the talk. We’ve gone well past the stage of needing to do that.

37 comments on “Ukip and Teh Gayers

  1. The freedom of the individual: thought, expression, association are being viciously undermined on many fronts by identity politics. The party that champions the person rather than the herd gets my vote. Crickets.

  2. But the same accusation can be levelled at all the parties.

    Nowhere in the Labour manifesto is mentioned the owls we were all promised last year (it was on Twitter, so it must be true).

    Unicorns are left out of the Green document. If we are not going to have these alluring, if mythical, animals gambolling amongst the wind farms, then what is a Green government for?

    And the Tory one completely omits the idea of eating babies, which I am assured by The Guardian is their signature policy.

    The Lib Dems don’t mention tuition fees, but that is understandable in the circumstances.

    Really, with so much missing, presumably to be enacted post-election, how are you supposed to know how to vote?

    You can’t get a fag paper between them.

  3. “we all worked damn hard (and celebrated when we succeeded) to get our transgender lesbian into that same Parliament.”

    Well, if you felt the need to, you felt the need to. Certainly raised the hilarity value for the onlookers.

  4. I’m torn as ever between finding this funny and despairing at the way British life is slowly being transformed into a game of Rik from the Young Ones shouting at his dad.

    Vicious narcissistic liars will always trump genuine liberals as long as the media have a big dog in the fight and the majority of people are either stupid or aren’t listening.

    I forecast more of this shite until some sort of apocalyptic breakdown, at which point cue lots of people shouting at dad for allowing it to happen.

  5. (LGBT) people have criticised UKIP for being the only one of the seven main political parties to not mention gay people in its manifesto

    Would they have been happy if the UKIP manifesto contained a drawing of Elton John?

    BTW, I like Elton John and won’t hear a word against him. I even named one of my sons after an Elton song.

    Don’t think he’ll ever forgive me for being called Rocketman.

    Despite not mentioning homosexuality, the party did affirm its opposition to giving an inclusive relationship education to primary school pupils – claiming it would “encourage experimentation”.

    I don’t want my little monsters to be given an “inclusive” “relationship” “education”, or “relationship education” of any kind.

    That is not what we employ primary school teachers for.

    Stonewall said: “It’s extremely disappointing that UKIP has failed to recognise or agree to help tackle issues affecting the way certain groups of people can live freely as themselves without fear of persecution or discrimination.

    Certain groups of people such as… Christians?

  6. With the Johnny Rockard thing t’other day, UKIP are now the only party who believe that the government should keep its nose out of your sex life and have officially said as much. In today’s UK, that’s a really big deal. It has also been the official position of every gay lobby group since forever, so what the hell are they complaining about?

    “What we do in the privacy of our own bedrooms is no business of the government.”
    “Couldn’t agree more. In fact, we agree so strongly that our manifesto doesn’t even mention what you do in the privacy of your own bedrooms.”
    “Oppressors!”

  7. But it’s like that DT hacks question about minority representation in the pictures in the manifesto. UKIP’s response was simply for the minority members of UKIP in the room to stand up and tell him to fuck off.

    As usual though the press reported it as “when did you stop beating your wife…”

  8. One of the big problems with arguing with the left (fwoabw) is that they are so fucking inconsistent.

    Used to be they wanted the state out of your sex life; now they demand the state in it.

  9. If we are all equal then it is clearly wrong for any of those groups who form the specially favoured clients of socialism to receive promises of special favours–from any party. That UKIP does not–and should not–single out any particular client group of the left for the promise of special favours is excellent.

  10. One up for UKIP. Unless they’re proposing specific policies based on orientation. I suspect the others aren’t either, so are just gum-bumping.

    The excess campaigners required these days will just have to find other work.

  11. “Certain groups of people such as… Christians?”

    Steve, careful now or we might end up funding Christian pressure groups as well, and they can look after themselves.

    Don’t forget, their God is all-powerful and even if things do go pear-shaped an eternity in paradise awaits. And the C of E, despite being reduced to a few little old women (of both sexes) remains established. There are more urgent causes.

  12. Earlier this month, Ukip’s prospective parliamentary candidate Kendrick ‘Dickie’ Bird was accused of calling former Liverpool and Chelsea Fernando Torres “a gay boy like the rest”, according to a report by the Oxford Mail.

    I never thought I’d say this about a man named Kendrick, but he sounds pretty cool. Fernando Torres does look like a girl. I prefer footballers who are studly examples of raw masculinity and Brut aftershave, such as Chris Waddle.

    BTW the typist missed out a word in “former Liverpool and Chelsea Fernando Torres”. Does nobody read the papers before going to print these days?

    In comparison, the Liberal Democrats dedicated an entire page to showcasing its efforts to support those who identify as LGBT

    If I was an LGBT, I’d say “thanks, but I’m good.”

    while the Labour Party has promised to continue tackling homophobia at home and abroad.

    And abroad, eh? “Dear Pakistan, don’t be horrible to gays, or we’ll write you a sternly worded letter. Love, the Labour Party”

    the Conservatives mentioned LGBT rights in its section on its Big Society policy, in a paragraph on “equal rights”, and reminds readers that the Coalition introduced of gay marriage.

    Is English of second language? Or of Independent bravely of fighting of discrimination of illiterate numpties?

    Meanwhile the Green Party has published a 10-point list of policies to “advance LGBTQ rights”

    Cottaging is OK, but the disco-saunas will be closed to meet carbon targets.

    The SNP’s stance on LGBT rights is as yet unclear, as it has not yet released its manifesto.

    I’m pretty sure Nicola Sturgeon used to be a man, so they’re good.

  13. What’s particularly ironic here is that Stonewall are well-known for being some of the most intolerant bastards out there, only representing ‘gold star’ gayness and lesbianism. They’re notorious for perpetrating their own discrimination against the BT+ part of the spectrum.

  14. The excess campaigners required these days will just have to find other work.

    I doubt it ever occurs to such campaigners that what often irks many of the people they claim to represent, most likely a majority of them, isn’t the very occasional oafish comment, or not being collectively namedropped in someone’s political manifesto, but the campaigners themselves. Does it occur to them that quite a few gay people hear their prattle and wish they’d stop making the rest of us look like dogmatic, sour-faced, needy little bitches?

  15. Seems like a perfectly reasonable policy to me. This bit is quite silly though:

    > the party did affirm its opposition to giving an inclusive relationship education to primary school pupils – claiming it would “encourage experimentation”.

    If you’re going to have relationship education at all (big if there) then it should include all flavours of consenting adults.

  16. Jack C – do we not already fund the CofE? Granted, they’re not much of a “Christian pressure group” these days.

    David – Does it occur to them that quite a few gay people hear their prattle and wish they’d stop making the rest of us look like dogmatic, sour-faced, needy little bitches?

    Probably not. What do you expect them to do, get jobs where they might be expected to produce something?

    Easier for professional campaigners to be gayer-than-thou and constantly on the look out for things to complain about.

    Next up in Stonewall’s litany of despair: why doesn’t the Beano reflect LGBT issues?

  17. Easier for professional campaigners to be gayer-than-thou and constantly on the look out for things to complain about.

    And as a result, the campaigners become caricatures in a not dissimilar way to that of Larry Grayson for an earlier generation. They’re making “us” look ridiculous, like utter tits.

  18. Steve – “Don’t think he’ll ever forgive me for being called Rocketman.”

    I think my son would like that. I keep telling him there’s nothing wrong with being called Tiny Dancer.

  19. “Jack C – do we not already fund the CofE?”

    What, do we? The CofE is loaded, so I’d hope not, and I’m pretty sure we don’t. It is written that “the Lord shall provide”, not the state.

  20. Matthew L – “If you’re going to have relationship education at all (big if there) then it should include all flavours of consenting adults.”

    Why? But by all means 1.3% of the population is Gay. Let’s give over 1.3% of available time to explaining cottaging.

  21. Cottaging is no longer on-trend, as they say.

    Something to do with Gayocity not being pushed underground.

  22. UKIP’s actual policy is opposition to sex education for primary school pupils, full stop. Neither gay nor straight nor polyamorous BDSM whatever. So, the SJWs turn that into a supposed attack by omission on gays.

    As someone who was a supporter of gay liberation (remember that term?) when most of the current crop of hysterical SJWs were still ova, I regret my naive liberalism more and more with every passing day. My part was tiny in creating a monster, but frankly I wonder if I should have been supporting Clause 28 instead of opposing it. Liberals like me were used to destroy liberalism. It is a regret.

    We are in the grip of a new and fanatical religion. It terrifies me.

  23. The UK government is to give extra funding for gay rights campaigners in Russia amid growing concerns over the introduction of legislation outlawing the promotion of homosexuality.

    In an interview for the BBC, Culture Secretary Maria Miller said it was the “right thing to do”.

    Additional money will be given to protest groups such as Stonewall.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25955930

    So, government funded “charity” attacks party standing for election against the government. Is this not rather corrupt? And this is the point really. The SJWs aren’t merely speaking as private citizens in an open debate. They are State backed to the hilt.

  24. Steve wrote:

    BTW, I like Elton John and won’t hear a word against him. I even named one of my sons after an Elton song.

    Has your son forgiven you for naming him Little Jeannie?

  25. Jack C: I suspect the others aren’t either, so are just gum-bumping

    or bum gumping?

  26. The tyranny of the gayist lobby is that they do not even want parties who put forward different options for them to vote on – they want all parties to offer their line, which is not democracy.
    In my capacity as a Christian who completely opposes the gay line, UKIP offers hope on what has now become an issue of religious freedom, namely can people be free to live their lives without the threat of coercive state power being used against them, resulting in fines, imprisonment and the like.

  27. Terry,
    Chin up old thing. 1) You’re exaggerating wildly, 2) at the very worst, Christian dissenters will be treated very much more gently than when the boot was on the Christian foot,

    Seriously, all this talk of all-powerful, tyrannical lobbies, etc etc, is a bit hysterical isn’t it? Bunch of pooves.

  28. @Jack C

    I kind of agree with you, but then it comes to the point where parents don’t want their six year olds taught about homosexuality – not an unreasonable thing, you might think – and they complain to the head teacher.

    Then what happens?

    In 99% of cases, the head says ‘I’m really sorry but that’s government policy.’

    In 1% of cases (perhaps) the head is a nutter and puts a call into social services, who then get involved? I know, sounds a bit mad, but it’s the sort of thing that does very occasionally happen. Spend some time in the family courts and… Ooops. Forgot. You can’t!

    Either way, in approx 0% of cases does the parent of the six year old get their way.

    I don’t actually personally mind all that much – I’m not a frothing religionista, I don’t really think you can convert kids to gayism, and if gay is your way that’s OK (as the great Tom Mabe put it) – but I am against parents’ wishes, when the kids are that young, being overridden.

  29. Interested,
    What do they actually teach them? I don’t think encouragement of homosexuality is on the cards.

    There’s a lot to complain about in state education than that.

  30. Jack C: So you compare the middle ages/early modern era–times of almost unimaginable brutality – with now and say that since Christians aren’t being threatened with public execution it is ok to piss on their freedom of speech. Whatever any individuals position on Xtian belief, the suppression of free speech won’t –and isn’t –stopping with the followers of Jesus. It maybe they are a try-out for much more to come.

  31. Jack C – “I don’t think encouragement of homosexuality is on the cards.”

    There are certainly Gay activists who are happy to say that encouraging homosexuality is the intent. Why would you think otherwise? They don’t think it is genetic – gender is a social construct remember. They think that it is a choice and a choice they want to encourage.

  32. Jack C – “at the very worst, Christian dissenters will be treated very much more gently than when the boot was on the Christian foot”

    It has been a long time since any Christian jailed someone for saying in public that homosexuality shouldn’t be illegal. There is not even a law that says it is a crime to say homosexuality should be illegal. The Gay and Human Rights lobbies are still happy to throw people in a police cell and ruin their lives.

  33. Ecks,
    No, I’m not saying it’s okay to piss on a Christian’s freedom of speech. Indeed, it’s a true Christian’s mission to warn people away from sin …. so long as people remember to hate the sin and not the sinner, I’m all for it.

    What I’m against is all this “tyrannical all-powerful lobby” rubbish. A sense of perspective is all I ask.

    (Oh, and Christian abuse of others is rather more recent than the middle ages, not that I hold individual Christians responsible for that).

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.