A gay man who once worked as a drag queen is suing his boss for unfair dismissal and sexual orientation discrimination.
Dean Awford, 42, worked as a sales manager for furniture store Grays At Northwick for two years, earning an annual salary of £16,000.
He alleges that his boss David Gray continually directed homophobic insults at him and humiliated him in front of customers.
Awford told an employment tribunal he had made no secret of his sexual orientation but Gray would call him a "poof and "faggot", along with referring to him as "she".
He said: "During my employment I was subjected to continual harassment due to my sexual preference.. . Mr Gray was an extremely volatile and abusive employer.
"[On one] occasion I was in a white suit and he said 'look at you, you faggot.' Faggot is a word I don't like and I would complain verbally about what he was saying to me."
Gray, 56, denied Awford's claims, saying both men made banter about his sexual orientation.
Awford, who used to appear in clubs in Birmingham and Manchester as Scarlett Eclipse, said people expected to see a drag queen make remarks about homosexuality but he did not expect it in the workplace.
The case continues.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Friday, August 20, 2010
Former drag queen accuses boss of homophobia
A gay man who once worked as a drag queen is suing his boss for unfair dismissal and sexual orientation discrimination.
Dean Awford, 42, worked as a sales manager for furniture store Grays At Northwick for two years, earning an annual salary of £16,000.
He alleges that his boss David Gray continually directed homophobic insults at him and humiliated him in front of customers.
Awford told an employment tribunal he had made no secret of his sexual orientation but Gray would call him a "poof and "faggot", along with referring to him as "she".
He said: "During my employment I was subjected to continual harassment due to my sexual preference.. . Mr Gray was an extremely volatile and abusive employer.
"[On one] occasion I was in a white suit and he said 'look at you, you faggot.' Faggot is a word I don't like and I would complain verbally about what he was saying to me."
Gray, 56, denied Awford's claims, saying both men made banter about his sexual orientation.
Awford, who used to appear in clubs in Birmingham and Manchester as Scarlett Eclipse, said people expected to see a drag queen make remarks about homosexuality but he did not expect it in the workplace.
Dean Awford, 42, worked as a sales manager for furniture store Grays At Northwick for two years, earning an annual salary of £16,000.
He alleges that his boss David Gray continually directed homophobic insults at him and humiliated him in front of customers.
Awford told an employment tribunal he had made no secret of his sexual orientation but Gray would call him a "poof and "faggot", along with referring to him as "she".
He said: "During my employment I was subjected to continual harassment due to my sexual preference.. . Mr Gray was an extremely volatile and abusive employer.
"[On one] occasion I was in a white suit and he said 'look at you, you faggot.' Faggot is a word I don't like and I would complain verbally about what he was saying to me."
Gray, 56, denied Awford's claims, saying both men made banter about his sexual orientation.
Awford, who used to appear in clubs in Birmingham and Manchester as Scarlett Eclipse, said people expected to see a drag queen make remarks about homosexuality but he did not expect it in the workplace.
Catholic adoption agency barred from refusing gay couples
A Catholic adoption agency has been barred by the Charity Commission from restricting its service to heterosexual couples.
Catholic Care, in the diocese of Leeds, wanted to amend its charitable objectives to avoid equality legislation which requires it not to discriminate.
The decision came after a High Court order in March which required the Charity Commission to reconsider its decision not to let the agency change its constitution.
Under the 2005 Sexual Orientation Regulations, all businesses and services must not discriminate against gay people.
Catholic Care wanted to take advantage of a clause which allows charities to discriminate if their aims are to serve people of a particular sexual orientation. In practice, one example is gay charities being allowed to refuse employment to straight people.
It argued that if it catered to gay couples, it would lose its funding from the Catholic Church and be forced to close. It also claimed that gay couples were not harmed by its position as they can approach other adoption agencies.
However, the Charity Commission ruled that the charity had not shown enough evidence to be permitted to amend its objectives.
In its decision, the commission said that it was in children's benefit to have as wide a pool of potential adopters as possible and cited a High Court judgment which said that respect for religious beliefs was not a justification to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.
Catholic Care argued that it acts as a service for children who are particularly damage or hard to place with adoptive parents. In the ruling, the commission said that other local channels would fill the gap and that the charity currently only provides for an average of ten children per year.
In past submissions, Catholic Care has said that it will close rather than cater for gay couples and lose the financial support it gets from the Catholic Church.
The majority of Catholic adoption agencies in the UK have closed or cut their ties with the church since the two-year window for them to comply with the law passed.
Catholic Care could not be reached for comment yesterday.
Andrew Hind, the chief executive of the Charity Commission, said: “In certain circumstances, it is not against the law for charities to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.
"However, because the prohibition on such discrimination is a fundamental principle of human rights law, such discrimination can only be permitted in the most compelling circumstances.
"We have concluded that in this case the reasons Catholic Care have set out do not justify their wish to discriminate.”
A spokesman from gay charity Stonewall said: "We welcome the Charity Commission’s second refusal to allow Catholic Care special dispensation to discriminate against gay couples.
"Stonewall’s recent research on children with gay parents shows how their families are as loving and committed as any. A wider pool of potential loving parents is in the best interests of the children waiting for adoption."
Catholic Care, in the diocese of Leeds, wanted to amend its charitable objectives to avoid equality legislation which requires it not to discriminate.
The decision came after a High Court order in March which required the Charity Commission to reconsider its decision not to let the agency change its constitution.
Under the 2005 Sexual Orientation Regulations, all businesses and services must not discriminate against gay people.
Catholic Care wanted to take advantage of a clause which allows charities to discriminate if their aims are to serve people of a particular sexual orientation. In practice, one example is gay charities being allowed to refuse employment to straight people.
It argued that if it catered to gay couples, it would lose its funding from the Catholic Church and be forced to close. It also claimed that gay couples were not harmed by its position as they can approach other adoption agencies.
However, the Charity Commission ruled that the charity had not shown enough evidence to be permitted to amend its objectives.
In its decision, the commission said that it was in children's benefit to have as wide a pool of potential adopters as possible and cited a High Court judgment which said that respect for religious beliefs was not a justification to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.
Catholic Care argued that it acts as a service for children who are particularly damage or hard to place with adoptive parents. In the ruling, the commission said that other local channels would fill the gap and that the charity currently only provides for an average of ten children per year.
In past submissions, Catholic Care has said that it will close rather than cater for gay couples and lose the financial support it gets from the Catholic Church.
The majority of Catholic adoption agencies in the UK have closed or cut their ties with the church since the two-year window for them to comply with the law passed.
Catholic Care could not be reached for comment yesterday.
Andrew Hind, the chief executive of the Charity Commission, said: “In certain circumstances, it is not against the law for charities to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.
"However, because the prohibition on such discrimination is a fundamental principle of human rights law, such discrimination can only be permitted in the most compelling circumstances.
"We have concluded that in this case the reasons Catholic Care have set out do not justify their wish to discriminate.”
A spokesman from gay charity Stonewall said: "We welcome the Charity Commission’s second refusal to allow Catholic Care special dispensation to discriminate against gay couples.
"Stonewall’s recent research on children with gay parents shows how their families are as loving and committed as any. A wider pool of potential loving parents is in the best interests of the children waiting for adoption."
Germany's justice minister considering giving gay couples equal income tax rights
Germany's justice minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said today she is looking at how gay couples can be given equality in the income tax system.
Earlier this week, the country's highest court ruled that gay couples must be given equal tax inheritance rights and said the government must implement this by 2011.
The court is also expected make a ruling on income tax but Ms Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said that the government should not wait until the decision to to change the law.
Heterosexual married couples in Germany can access income tax breaks. The country does not allow gay couples to marry and registered partnerships, which were legalised in 2001, offer only some of the benefits of marriage.
According to AP, Ms Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger told the Muenchner Merkur newspaper that she also wanted gay couples to be allowed to adopt children but said this was unlikely to happen until after 2013, when the next general election will be held.
Earlier this week, the country's highest court ruled that gay couples must be given equal tax inheritance rights and said the government must implement this by 2011.
The court is also expected make a ruling on income tax but Ms Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said that the government should not wait until the decision to to change the law.
Heterosexual married couples in Germany can access income tax breaks. The country does not allow gay couples to marry and registered partnerships, which were legalised in 2001, offer only some of the benefits of marriage.
According to AP, Ms Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger told the Muenchner Merkur newspaper that she also wanted gay couples to be allowed to adopt children but said this was unlikely to happen until after 2013, when the next general election will be held.
BBC apologises for weatherman's rude gesture
The BBC has apologised after viewers saw a weatherman sticking his middle finger up at his co-presenters.
Tomasz Schafernaker, who has posed for gay magazine Attitude, did not realise he was on camera when he made the rude gesture to News 24 anchors Simon McCoy and Fiona Armstrong.
He tried, and failed, to disguise the gaffe by appearing to scratch his chin.
The mishap took place yesterday as McCoy introduced the weather segment.
McCoy said: "Now we'll have the weather forecast in just a minute. Of course it will be 100 per cent accurate and provide you with all the details you could possibly want."
Schafernaker, 31, responded to the joke by sticking his middle finger up, then looked horrified as he realised he had been caught on camera.
As the camera cut back to the news anchors, a gasp was heard and McCoy said: "There's always one mistake."
A BBC spokesman apologised for the incident, saying: "The News Channel presenter in the studio acknowledged a mistake had been made, and we apologise for any offence caused.
"Tomasz was not aware that he was on air, and whilst the gesture was only shown for a second, it was not acceptable."
Schafernaker had to apologise in 2007 after referring to the Outer Hebrides in the Western Isles of Scotland as "nowheresville", while a slip of the tongue last year saw him forecast a "muddy s**te" for Glastonbury festival.
In January, he made headlines by posing for Attitude magazine's supplement Active in skimpy shorts.
Tomasz Schafernaker, who has posed for gay magazine Attitude, did not realise he was on camera when he made the rude gesture to News 24 anchors Simon McCoy and Fiona Armstrong.
He tried, and failed, to disguise the gaffe by appearing to scratch his chin.
The mishap took place yesterday as McCoy introduced the weather segment.
McCoy said: "Now we'll have the weather forecast in just a minute. Of course it will be 100 per cent accurate and provide you with all the details you could possibly want."
Schafernaker, 31, responded to the joke by sticking his middle finger up, then looked horrified as he realised he had been caught on camera.
As the camera cut back to the news anchors, a gasp was heard and McCoy said: "There's always one mistake."
A BBC spokesman apologised for the incident, saying: "The News Channel presenter in the studio acknowledged a mistake had been made, and we apologise for any offence caused.
"Tomasz was not aware that he was on air, and whilst the gesture was only shown for a second, it was not acceptable."
Schafernaker had to apologise in 2007 after referring to the Outer Hebrides in the Western Isles of Scotland as "nowheresville", while a slip of the tongue last year saw him forecast a "muddy s**te" for Glastonbury festival.
In January, he made headlines by posing for Attitude magazine's supplement Active in skimpy shorts.
Cameroon: "Decriminalize same-sex act"
Cameroon should decriminalize consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex, Human Rights Watch and Alternatives-Cameroun said. The groups urged the government of Cameroon to put into effect immediately the recommendations of the UN Human Rights Committee to bring Cameroon's law into conformity with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Since 2005, Alternatives-Cameroun, Human Rights Watch, and other Cameroonian and international organizations have documented abuses and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Cameroon. Suspected homosexual men have been arrested and beaten on their bodies, heads, and even the soles of their feet while in custody. Women suffer violence in their families if they are suspected of being lesbians. In some cases, they have been forced to leave their homes or their children have been taken away from them.
"Cameroon should guarantee lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people the same rights as every other citizen," said Boris Dittrich, advocacy director of the LGBT rights program at Human Rights Watch. "There is no reason why anyone in Cameroon should live in fear of prosecution and abuse because of their sexual orientation or gender identity."
Alternatives-Cameroun and Human Rights Watch delivered an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Committee on July 12, summarizing the human rights abuses people in Cameroon have experienced on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. Cameroon does not include services for men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women in their HIV prevention programs, the groups told the committee. Alternatives-Cameroun has also found in its day-to-day work that this policy effectively bars access for many of them to health services, treatment, and care.
The UN Human Rights Committee issued a recommendation to Cameroon's government to end social prejudice and stigmatization against LGBT people and to guarantee public health programs that have "universal reach and ensure universal access to HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, care and support." The government should also carry out this recommendation, Human Rights Watch and Alternatives-Cameroun said.
"By implementing this recommendation, Cameroon would do the bare minimum to realize the fundamental human rights enshrined in its national constitution," said Steave Nemande, director of Alternatives-Cameroun. "To save lives, the government should immediately start implementing effective education programs to combat HIV/AIDS."
Cameroon is a party to the ICCPR. Articles 2 and 26 of the ICCPR, respectively, affirm the right to equal treatment and the right to equal protection before the law without discrimination. The UN Human Rights Committee, charged with authoritatively interpreting the ICCPR and monitoring states' compliance with its provisions, affirmed in its decision in Toonen v. Australia (1994) that sexual orientation is included in the protections against discrimination under articles 2 and 26.
Since 2005, Alternatives-Cameroun, Human Rights Watch, and other Cameroonian and international organizations have documented abuses and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Cameroon. Suspected homosexual men have been arrested and beaten on their bodies, heads, and even the soles of their feet while in custody. Women suffer violence in their families if they are suspected of being lesbians. In some cases, they have been forced to leave their homes or their children have been taken away from them.
"Cameroon should guarantee lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people the same rights as every other citizen," said Boris Dittrich, advocacy director of the LGBT rights program at Human Rights Watch. "There is no reason why anyone in Cameroon should live in fear of prosecution and abuse because of their sexual orientation or gender identity."
Alternatives-Cameroun and Human Rights Watch delivered an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Committee on July 12, summarizing the human rights abuses people in Cameroon have experienced on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. Cameroon does not include services for men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women in their HIV prevention programs, the groups told the committee. Alternatives-Cameroun has also found in its day-to-day work that this policy effectively bars access for many of them to health services, treatment, and care.
The UN Human Rights Committee issued a recommendation to Cameroon's government to end social prejudice and stigmatization against LGBT people and to guarantee public health programs that have "universal reach and ensure universal access to HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, care and support." The government should also carry out this recommendation, Human Rights Watch and Alternatives-Cameroun said.
"By implementing this recommendation, Cameroon would do the bare minimum to realize the fundamental human rights enshrined in its national constitution," said Steave Nemande, director of Alternatives-Cameroun. "To save lives, the government should immediately start implementing effective education programs to combat HIV/AIDS."
Cameroon is a party to the ICCPR. Articles 2 and 26 of the ICCPR, respectively, affirm the right to equal treatment and the right to equal protection before the law without discrimination. The UN Human Rights Committee, charged with authoritatively interpreting the ICCPR and monitoring states' compliance with its provisions, affirmed in its decision in Toonen v. Australia (1994) that sexual orientation is included in the protections against discrimination under articles 2 and 26.
Civilizational War
THE CIVILIZATION OF ISLAM
One of the clearest lessons about Islam is found in the Sharia. The largest part of the Sharia is devoted to regulating the life of Muslims down to the smallest detail. There is no aspect of life that is not regulated-sex, food, art, business, education, prayer, manners, speech and how to think and not to think. There is no aspect of life that is outside the power of Sharia-religion, politics, ethics, culture are included. The Sharia is the operating manual for a complete civilization. Islam is complete within itself and needs nothing from the outside.
The Sharia has one other quality that is as important as the totality of its scope. The civilization of Sharia is not just different, it contradicts our civilization.
Inside Islam justice, religion, politics, law, human rights and compassion do not mean what they mean to us. All of these ideas are based on the principles of submission and duality as found in the Sharia.
OUR CIVILIZATION
Our civilization is based on the principles of the Golden Rule and critical thought. We do not always fulfill the principles, but they are the ideals we strive for, and can be used for debate and self-criticism to correct and improve our culture.
Our principles lead to the ideals of critical thought, self-criticism, equality of all peoples before the law, freedom of thought and ideas, freedom of religion, public debate, separation of church and state, liberal democracy and a free-ranging humor.
These are beautiful ideals and they are worth keeping and striving towards. Do we meet them? No, but what is more important they contradict the Sharia. It is one thing to fail to achieve these ideals, but it is entirely another to see them disappear as a public option under the impact of Sharia. Sharia law limits critical thought, self-criticism, equality of all peoples before the law, freedom of thought and ideas, freedom of religion, public debate, separation of church and state, liberal democracy and humor.
CIVILIZATIONAL WAR
Part of the genius of Islam is the totality of Sharia, which includes a concept of war that attacks the host civilization at every aspect of its being. In modern times the military power of Islam is weak, but this is more than compensated by its ability to attack along legal and cultural lines under the guise of being a religion.
As Sharia is applied to a society, the host civilization is annihilated in each and every manifestation of culture. This annihilation is demonstrated by a peculiar fact about the history of Islamic countries-part of it is missing. Afghanistan used to be a Buddhist civilization. We see its remnants in ruins and fragments such as the Bamiyan Buddhas that were destroyed by the Taliban. Who knows the Buddhist history of Afghanistan? Practically speaking, it does not exist. Who knows the history of how Turkey, North Africa, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq went from being Christian to Islamic?
We don't know the history because of the total annihilation of the past cultures by Sharia law. As time goes on customs, law, art, literature, and ethics of the host culture are replaced by Islamic values under the application of Sharia. The result is that there is nothing left of the history before the implementation of Sharia law.
There is a second aspect of this annihilation-the dhimmitude of the Kafirs (non-Muslims) remaining inside Islamic society. If you talk to Christians who are left in Islamic countries, they are an abused people who are unable to fight back after centuries of suffering and degradation under Sharia law. They are not supported by other Kafirs and are left to suffer under the oppression that will eliminate their few numbers. Whatever memory they have of the past is ignored by those who should be defending them.
If we are to go down the Sharia road, history teaches that it has always led to an Islamic mono-culture. In the end, there is no such thing as a little Sharia.
One of the clearest lessons about Islam is found in the Sharia. The largest part of the Sharia is devoted to regulating the life of Muslims down to the smallest detail. There is no aspect of life that is not regulated-sex, food, art, business, education, prayer, manners, speech and how to think and not to think. There is no aspect of life that is outside the power of Sharia-religion, politics, ethics, culture are included. The Sharia is the operating manual for a complete civilization. Islam is complete within itself and needs nothing from the outside.
The Sharia has one other quality that is as important as the totality of its scope. The civilization of Sharia is not just different, it contradicts our civilization.
Inside Islam justice, religion, politics, law, human rights and compassion do not mean what they mean to us. All of these ideas are based on the principles of submission and duality as found in the Sharia.
OUR CIVILIZATION
Our civilization is based on the principles of the Golden Rule and critical thought. We do not always fulfill the principles, but they are the ideals we strive for, and can be used for debate and self-criticism to correct and improve our culture.
Our principles lead to the ideals of critical thought, self-criticism, equality of all peoples before the law, freedom of thought and ideas, freedom of religion, public debate, separation of church and state, liberal democracy and a free-ranging humor.
These are beautiful ideals and they are worth keeping and striving towards. Do we meet them? No, but what is more important they contradict the Sharia. It is one thing to fail to achieve these ideals, but it is entirely another to see them disappear as a public option under the impact of Sharia. Sharia law limits critical thought, self-criticism, equality of all peoples before the law, freedom of thought and ideas, freedom of religion, public debate, separation of church and state, liberal democracy and humor.
CIVILIZATIONAL WAR
Part of the genius of Islam is the totality of Sharia, which includes a concept of war that attacks the host civilization at every aspect of its being. In modern times the military power of Islam is weak, but this is more than compensated by its ability to attack along legal and cultural lines under the guise of being a religion.
As Sharia is applied to a society, the host civilization is annihilated in each and every manifestation of culture. This annihilation is demonstrated by a peculiar fact about the history of Islamic countries-part of it is missing. Afghanistan used to be a Buddhist civilization. We see its remnants in ruins and fragments such as the Bamiyan Buddhas that were destroyed by the Taliban. Who knows the Buddhist history of Afghanistan? Practically speaking, it does not exist. Who knows the history of how Turkey, North Africa, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq went from being Christian to Islamic?
We don't know the history because of the total annihilation of the past cultures by Sharia law. As time goes on customs, law, art, literature, and ethics of the host culture are replaced by Islamic values under the application of Sharia. The result is that there is nothing left of the history before the implementation of Sharia law.
There is a second aspect of this annihilation-the dhimmitude of the Kafirs (non-Muslims) remaining inside Islamic society. If you talk to Christians who are left in Islamic countries, they are an abused people who are unable to fight back after centuries of suffering and degradation under Sharia law. They are not supported by other Kafirs and are left to suffer under the oppression that will eliminate their few numbers. Whatever memory they have of the past is ignored by those who should be defending them.
If we are to go down the Sharia road, history teaches that it has always led to an Islamic mono-culture. In the end, there is no such thing as a little Sharia.
Australian senate candidate Wendy Francis says gay marriage is 'emotional child abuse'
A Queensland senate contender in Australia has provoked outrage by calling gay marriage "child abuse" which will lead to "uncontrollable depression and suicide".
Family First candidate Wendy Francis apparently made the remarks on Twitter yesterday.
Although there is some confusion over whether she posted them, she told an interviewer she agreed with the sentiments behind the tweets and had approved them.
The original remarks have been deleted but screengrabs show she wrote: “Children in homosexual relationships are subject to emotional abuse. Legitimising gay marriage is like legalising child abuse."
When followers responded angrily, she added: "Gay marriage = kids with no mothers or no fathers, parent-less generation; uncontrollable depression & suicide. Is that the Aust we want?"
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, she confirmed in an interview that she had approved the tweets.
Ms Francis said: "The gay slur thing; I am not homophobic.
"It is one thing to be homosexual; it's another thing altogether to then impose that on children.
"And I personally do not agree that kids being brought up with a gay couple as surrogate parents is in the best interests of the children."
She added that allowing gay couples to raise children was a "social experiment" that should be considered "emotional child abuse".
Family First believes that marriage should be reserved exclusively for heterosexual couples and claims it defends the rights of "Australian families".
Ms Francis' webpage says she is also concerned about the impact of popular culture on children.
Family First candidate Wendy Francis apparently made the remarks on Twitter yesterday.
Although there is some confusion over whether she posted them, she told an interviewer she agreed with the sentiments behind the tweets and had approved them.
The original remarks have been deleted but screengrabs show she wrote: “Children in homosexual relationships are subject to emotional abuse. Legitimising gay marriage is like legalising child abuse."
When followers responded angrily, she added: "Gay marriage = kids with no mothers or no fathers, parent-less generation; uncontrollable depression & suicide. Is that the Aust we want?"
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, she confirmed in an interview that she had approved the tweets.
Ms Francis said: "The gay slur thing; I am not homophobic.
"It is one thing to be homosexual; it's another thing altogether to then impose that on children.
"And I personally do not agree that kids being brought up with a gay couple as surrogate parents is in the best interests of the children."
She added that allowing gay couples to raise children was a "social experiment" that should be considered "emotional child abuse".
Family First believes that marriage should be reserved exclusively for heterosexual couples and claims it defends the rights of "Australian families".
Ms Francis' webpage says she is also concerned about the impact of popular culture on children.
THE CIVILIZATION OF ISLAM
After a PinkNews.co.uk poll showed high support for opening up civil marriage to gay couples, we asked UK gay rights groups to set out their views on the issue. Eight accepted our invitation, but Stonewall, Britain's largest LGB charity declined to take part and clarify their stance on the issue.
Civil partnerships give gay couples all the rights of marriage, although they may not currently be held in religious settings. The coalition government is exploring how faiths can be given the option of holding them.
However, the majority of gay rights groups support changing the law to allow both gay and straight couples the option of choosing marriages or civil partnerships.
The groups we asked to participate were: Stonewall, LGBT Labour, LGBTory, Delga (the Liberal Democrat LGBT group), OutRage!, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, the Lesbian and Gay Foundation and Scottish groups The Equality Network and The LGBT Network.
We asked groups to provide a 400-word statement on the issue.
Stonewall declined to participate but all other groups said they did support changing the law.
Matthew Sephton, LGBTory
LGBTory is in favour of marriage equality, regardless of sexuality or gender identity. We believe this is necessary to promote an equal legal footing for all committed relationships, of whatever kind.
Currently, with Civil Partnerships, there are inconsistencies which mean those in them do not have the same rights as married couples. For example, under international law, if a married couple travel to another jurisdiction they are obliged to be recognised as such; there are no such recognition for Civil Partnerships. Also, if one half of a legally married couple decides to undergo a sex change and stay married, for that union to be recognised the law forces them to be divorced first and then have a Civil Partnership. As well as being an upsetting ordeal, this also has the consequence of changing the start date of their union, which affects areas including tax and pensions. If marriages were non gender specific, there would be no such need and we would like to see amended legislation that makes this the case.
On the religious side, LGBTory welcomes the Prime Minister's recent announcement at the Downing Street LGBT reception that Civil Partnerships will be able to take place in religious contexts. For those people who wish to take this up (and we do not want to see religious institutions forced to take part against their will) this is a positive step forward by the new Government and one which we would like to see included in any change to the marriage laws.
The question of how much of a priority the achievement of such a change in the law is where, we believe, the difficulty lies. We believe that gay marriage (or, more precisely, our wish for non gender-specific marriage, as highlighted earlier) should be achieved as part of a package of reforms on LGBT issues, but that to start on it in isolation would be a mistake.
In the UK, we continue to have issues of life and death and personal safety concerns that exist for the LGBT community. The deportation of asylum seekers whose lives are in danger in their home countries because of their sexuality or gender identity is one such example and that must stop. Another is the need to guarantee full and comprehensive treatment for HIV and in actively pursuing a cure for the virus.
There is also the injustice of the arbitrary gay blood ban and the need to tackle homophobic bullying in schools. Also in education, ensuring that homosexual relationships are taught as part of a broad and balanced sex education curriculum in ALL schools is absolutely vital, regardless of type or of any religious affiliation.
In short, we believe there are overwhelming reasons why a change in the marriage laws is not only desirable but also essential. However, there are other areas of policy where the Government must act first. As an LGBT group, we will be pressing for these reforms to be achieved at the earliest possible opportunity in order that we can subsequently reach the point where marriage for all is not only a possibility but an everyday reality.
James Asser, LGBT Labour co-chair
The last 13 years saw the biggest ever advance in LGBT rights with most of the major aims we were campaigning for throughout the 80s and 90s achieved. This doesn’t mean, however, we have yet achieved full equality or that there aren’t things still to fight for. One area where we still have further progress to make is gay marriage; but it is a measure of how far we have come that we are now having a serious debate about gay marriage that we couldn’t have had 15 or even 10 years ago.
A major breakthrough was civil partnerships giving full legal recognition to gay and lesbian relationships for the first time with all the benefits available to and equal legal status with married couples.
It shouldn’t be forgotten, and all too often is, what an important step forward civil partnerships were, and that it was something we had to fight to achieve. Full legal rights for gay and lesbian couples with the protection and recognition that brings is no small thing. Anyone who has been to a civil partnership will have seen how important it is to the couple, their friends and family to be able have their relationship recognised and we shouldn’t undermine that. Nor should we underestimate how important it has been internationally with over 500 civil partnerships taking place in British consulates. And let’s not be under any illusion, having civil partnerships will make it much easier for us to achieve full marriage.
Looking to the future LGBT Labour supports introducing gay marriage and we’re campaigning within the Labour party for it, including during the leadership election – with all five candidates giving their support. We’d like to see the law changed allowing civil marriage to be available to gay and lesbian couples, as well as civil partnerships made available to straight couples, offering both equality and choice.
We also support the moves led by LGBT Labour patron, Lord Alli, to allow churches to hold civil partnerships. Additionally we will keep campaigning on the pledge in our international LGBT manifesto for full recognition internationally of all British couples – whether married or in civil partnerships.
Whilst we should celebrate our successes, we must never be complacent and must continue campaigning for equality. LGBT Labour campaigned when Labour was in office for the recognition of relationships with legal rights; it is now time to take the next step with gay marriage and we’re campaigning for that too.
Adrian Trett, acting chair of Delga (Liberal Democrat)
Recently countries across the world have been approving same-sex marriage at increasing speed. Ten nations have so far approved it with more looking likely soon.
Our stance is simple: The UK should be leading this list of liberal diverse nations. That’s why Delga, (LGBT Liberal Democrats) decided to introduce a motion at this year’s Autumn Conference, to ensure it will become enshrined in our Party policy and as a result provide a lever for us to take the issue into government where we are part of the Coalition.
When Adrian Trett, Acting Chair of Delga wrote the motion he called it “equal marriage” because that’s what this is all about, it is about being equal, whether Gay or Straight, Lesbian, Bisexual, Cis or transgender. While Civil Partnerships were an enormous step forward, until we are able to choose to classify our relationships as marriage if we wish, we will not be equal. One’s commitment to another person should be open, and free to be celebrated in whichever way you and your partner choose.
Any two individuals, whatever their gender or sexual orientation should be able to choose either a civil partnership or Marriage and celebrate it wherever they want, in a religious building (if that venue is in agreement) or elsewhere. Our motion also calls for overseas marriages and civil partnerships to be rightly equated to their correct equivalents.
We can’t win this campaign alone however, and would like to use this opportunity especially to call upon our Coalition Conservative counterparts LGBTory to join us. We know we have support within the Government. The Deputy Prime Minister and our Party Leader, the Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP, said in the Pink News on the 17th February 2010, “I support gay marriage, Love is the same, straight or gay, so the civil institution should be the same”. This is clear and unwavering support for our motion. We know there are many others as well.
If ever there was a time to stand up and be counted on this issue, the time is now. Together we can make a difference. We can increase the support we have in the Government and win a Commons vote if enough of us stand together to be counted and show them that this is what we want. The question is, will you stand with us? There is no time like the present.
Peter Tatchell, OutRage!
The main issue is not whether same-sex marriage is a priority but whether LGBT people should be banned from getting married. We should not be banned. Equality is the number one issue. No LGBT organisation claiming to support equal rights should remain silent and inactive while we are denied the right to marry. Such outrageous homophobic discrimination must be challenged.
Campaigning for marriage equality does not preclude us from also campaigning against homophobic bullying or for LGBT asylum rights. It is not a case of having to choose one campaign over another. It is possible to simultaneously push for equality on several fronts.
Nor is the main issue whether same-sex marriage is a good thing. I share the feminist critique. Marriage has a history of sexism and patriarchy. I would not want to get married. But as a democrat and human rights defender, I support the right of other LGBTs to marry, if they wish. I resent the fact that people are deemed ineligible to marry, simply because they love a person of the same sex.
Every LGBT organisation should be publicly backing the right of lesbian and gay couples to get married in a registry office on exactly the same terms as heterosexual men and women. Imagine the outcry if the government banned black couples from getting married and required them to register their relationships through a separate system of civil partnerships instead? Most of us would condemn it as racist, to have separate laws for black and white people. We’d call it apartheid, like what used to exist in South Africa. Well, black people are not banned from marriage but lesbian and gay couples are. We are fobbed off with civil partnerships.
Civil partnerships are not equality. They are a new form of discrimination. Separate is not equal. In terms of law, civil partnerships are a form of sexual apartheid. They create a two-tier system of partnership recognition: one law for heterosexuals (civil marriage) and another law for same-sex couples (civil partnerships).
This perpetuates and extends discrimination. The homophobia of the ban on same-sex civil marriage is compounded by the heterophobia of the ban on opposite-sex civil partnerships. Just as a gay couple cannot have a civil marriage, a straight couple cannot have a civil partnership. Two wrongs don’t make a right. In a democracy, we should all be equal before the law.
Rev Sharon Ferguson, Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement
I am so glad that you are talking about 'marriage equality' and not 'Gay marriage'. Marriage is the celebration and legal recognition of the commitment between two people – the gender of those involved should not be an issue. Like most LGBT organisations, LGCM welcomed the legal protection that Civil Partnerships afforded. However, even though from a legal perspective CP's hardly differ from civil marriage there are still a couple of very important aspects of inequality that should not be ignored.
Firstly, straight couples have the choice between a religious marriage and a civil marriage – same sex couples do not. (This is being partially addressed through the amendment in the Equality Bill proposed by Lord Ali). Secondly, by having a separate system for legally recognising same sex relationships the message is clearly that our relationships are not equal and not worthy of the institution of marriage. Many people may object to the institution of marriage per se as it is firmly based in patriarchalism, heterosexism and the ownership of women but if this is the accepted format for recognising relationships then it should be the format available for all people regardless of whether they choose to use it or not.
LGCM has always been very clear that we believe that our sexuality is a gift from God (see our Statement of Conviction) and something to be celebrated. Therefore we should have the same opportunity to celebrate our relationships in the sight of God through religious marriage as everyone else.
As the only difference between the rights and responsibilities of CP's and marriage seems to be that marriage must be consummated and CP's do not have to have a sexual element, it is clear to me that the reason for the distinction is based in religious homophobia. Neither civil nor religious marriage is denied to non believers or people with a non Christian faith and yet it is denied to lesbian and gay people of faith.
The current law also produces a particularly ludicrous scenario for some trans people. If one person of a married couple transitions and the couple choose to remain together, in order for the trans person to be legally registered in their new gender their marriage is basically annulled and they would have to enter into a Civil Partnership instead. Some couples wish to remain true to their vows and to remain married but this then causes many other legal issues for them. It is a similar situation for a same sex couple in a CP if one of them transitions, their CP is dissolved and they can then enter into a marriage.
This two-tier system brings about discrimination and segregation. Consequently, LGCM whilst supporting and celebrating every step in the right direction, will continue to campaign and fight for full equality for all LGBT people which includes the right to both civil and religious marriage. Rev Sharon Ferguson, Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement
Lesbian and Gay Foundation
The Lesbian & Gay Foundation’s priorities are set out in our five year strategic plan and revolve around reaching full equality on all issues, in all walks of life, for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. We believe in full marriage equality for those lesbian, gay and bisexual people who wish to get married, and likewise that civil partnerships should be available to heterosexual couples. Equality means that we all have the same access to the legal opportunities to express our love and commitment, and at the moment this is not the case.
The LGF’s mission statement is “Ending Homophobia, Empowering People” and in 2010 – our 10th anniversary year – that remains our priority. In May we launched our Enough is Enough! Action Against Homophobia campaign, as a direct reaction to the horrifying homophobic attacks on Michael Causer, Ian Baynham and James Parkes.
The campaign highlights that homophobia is still a daily reality for lesbian, gay and bisexual people in the street, at school, at work and for many in the home. Enough is Enough! encourages people, groups and organisations to come together and take positive action to highlight that homophobia is unacceptable and has no place in our society.
There is still a massive need for us to help empower our community, and encourage people to use their rights and legal protections, from lesbian and bisexual women being told that they don’t need a cervical screening when they do, to encouraging people to report homophobic hate crimes and incidents, to urging lesbian, gay and bisexual people to vote, to get involved in public life and to make their voices heard.
We are committed to using the new Equality Act legal protections to challenge discrimination and inequality, and to campaign for lesbian, gay and bisexual peoples’ equal access to public services, and for those services to be receptive to the needs of lesbian, gay and bisexual people. There’s no denying that over the last ten years lesbian, gay and bisexual people have made phenomenal progress in terms of equality. As the LGF looks to the next decade, we hope that we haven’t just made great strides but have full equality on every level – including marriage.
Tim Hopkins, Equality Network
The Equality Network is one of the three main national LGBT equality organisations in Scotland (alongside LGBT Youth Scotland and Stonewall Scotland). We base our work on regular consultation through our network of LGBT people and groups across Scotland.
Civil partnership was a huge step forward, which we worked hard for, but since 2006, people have been telling us that it’s not enough.
In our 2009 national survey, 85% of LGBT people said that same-sex marriage is needed. Only 6% thought the law is OK as it is, and only 9% thought that allowing religious ceremonies for civil partnerships is the answer. 54% said this is a high priority issue.
And it’s not just activists in our network who think this. In July, we asked hundreds of people at Glasgow Pride what their top priorities for LGBT equality were. Same-sex marriage came third, after hate crime and bullying in schools.
Why is equal marriage important? Partly because there is still discrimination in the law: trans people are forced to divorce to get gender recognition, because otherwise a same-sex marriage would be created. And civil partnership is less well recognised abroad than same-sex marriage would be.
But crucially important is that human rights are not just legal rights. They include social and cultural rights. And while our relationships are segregated into a separate status that was invented to deny us marriage, we will never have full social and cultural acceptance and respect. “But it’s not a real marriage is it” is an excuse that homophobes will continue to use. Segregation is not equality.
So we are already 18 months into a campaign to open both marriage and civil partnership in Scotland to couples regardless of gender. It is vital that we keep civil partnership available alongside marriage – while three in four LGBT people told us they would prefer marriage, one in four said they’d prefer civil partnership.
Alongside our colleagues in other Scottish organisations, we have been lobbying hard. A Scottish Parliament committee has already been considering the issue, and we will work to get legislation introduced after the Scottish Parliament election in May 2011.
But it would be easier for us if there was also a strong campaign south of the border, and we would welcome that!
Nick Henderson, LGBT Network
Let same-sex couples marry. Well this is what we have been saying for years! We launched our petition (PE 1239) to the Scottish Parliament in January 2009, requesting a change in the law to allow same-sex couples to have a civil, or a religious marriage, if that faith group consents. This is exactly the right that straight couples have, and we believe, we have always believed, that equality should mean just that – equal rights. A law that discriminates is one that is unjust, and must be changed.
LGBT Brits, banned from marrying, or having foreign same-sex marriages recognised at home (see the travesty of a High Court judgement, Wilkinson v. Kitzinger 2006), get no extra benefits from the ban on same-sex marriage. It’s not like we get a council tax rebate or the chance to win a free holiday in return for giving up our human right to marry. LGBT people pay the same taxes, so why are we not afforded the same rights?
We have always wondered why LGBT people in Britain are not angrier about their denial of rights, especially in the face of all this political consensus. Anyone looking at same-sex marriage in California will have witnessed a monumental battle fought in the streets, the courts and the constitution of California itself for the right to marry; energising millions of Americans, gay and straight, who simply want equality.
Because the battle for same-sex marriage is not really just about the right to marry; it’s about a discriminated against minority finally achieving legal equality. When the federal judge in California struck down Proposition 8 last week, he also said that Domestic Partnerships, which provide the exact same rights as marriage in California, did not convey the same social meaning as marriage, and are unconstitutional. The reason, he said, that they were not an acceptable substitute to marriage was that the state of California created Domestic Partnerships so that it could keep denying same-sex couples their right to marry.
The same goes for us. The reason Britain created Civil Partnerships was so it could keep withholding the human right of marriage from LGBT people. The result is that we are barred from enjoying full citizenship, we are rejected from equality before the law, and we are denied acceptance of our human capacity to love, honour and cherish another for the rest of time.
Civil partnerships give gay couples all the rights of marriage, although they may not currently be held in religious settings. The coalition government is exploring how faiths can be given the option of holding them.
However, the majority of gay rights groups support changing the law to allow both gay and straight couples the option of choosing marriages or civil partnerships.
The groups we asked to participate were: Stonewall, LGBT Labour, LGBTory, Delga (the Liberal Democrat LGBT group), OutRage!, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, the Lesbian and Gay Foundation and Scottish groups The Equality Network and The LGBT Network.
We asked groups to provide a 400-word statement on the issue.
Stonewall declined to participate but all other groups said they did support changing the law.
Matthew Sephton, LGBTory
LGBTory is in favour of marriage equality, regardless of sexuality or gender identity. We believe this is necessary to promote an equal legal footing for all committed relationships, of whatever kind.
Currently, with Civil Partnerships, there are inconsistencies which mean those in them do not have the same rights as married couples. For example, under international law, if a married couple travel to another jurisdiction they are obliged to be recognised as such; there are no such recognition for Civil Partnerships. Also, if one half of a legally married couple decides to undergo a sex change and stay married, for that union to be recognised the law forces them to be divorced first and then have a Civil Partnership. As well as being an upsetting ordeal, this also has the consequence of changing the start date of their union, which affects areas including tax and pensions. If marriages were non gender specific, there would be no such need and we would like to see amended legislation that makes this the case.
On the religious side, LGBTory welcomes the Prime Minister's recent announcement at the Downing Street LGBT reception that Civil Partnerships will be able to take place in religious contexts. For those people who wish to take this up (and we do not want to see religious institutions forced to take part against their will) this is a positive step forward by the new Government and one which we would like to see included in any change to the marriage laws.
The question of how much of a priority the achievement of such a change in the law is where, we believe, the difficulty lies. We believe that gay marriage (or, more precisely, our wish for non gender-specific marriage, as highlighted earlier) should be achieved as part of a package of reforms on LGBT issues, but that to start on it in isolation would be a mistake.
In the UK, we continue to have issues of life and death and personal safety concerns that exist for the LGBT community. The deportation of asylum seekers whose lives are in danger in their home countries because of their sexuality or gender identity is one such example and that must stop. Another is the need to guarantee full and comprehensive treatment for HIV and in actively pursuing a cure for the virus.
There is also the injustice of the arbitrary gay blood ban and the need to tackle homophobic bullying in schools. Also in education, ensuring that homosexual relationships are taught as part of a broad and balanced sex education curriculum in ALL schools is absolutely vital, regardless of type or of any religious affiliation.
In short, we believe there are overwhelming reasons why a change in the marriage laws is not only desirable but also essential. However, there are other areas of policy where the Government must act first. As an LGBT group, we will be pressing for these reforms to be achieved at the earliest possible opportunity in order that we can subsequently reach the point where marriage for all is not only a possibility but an everyday reality.
James Asser, LGBT Labour co-chair
The last 13 years saw the biggest ever advance in LGBT rights with most of the major aims we were campaigning for throughout the 80s and 90s achieved. This doesn’t mean, however, we have yet achieved full equality or that there aren’t things still to fight for. One area where we still have further progress to make is gay marriage; but it is a measure of how far we have come that we are now having a serious debate about gay marriage that we couldn’t have had 15 or even 10 years ago.
A major breakthrough was civil partnerships giving full legal recognition to gay and lesbian relationships for the first time with all the benefits available to and equal legal status with married couples.
It shouldn’t be forgotten, and all too often is, what an important step forward civil partnerships were, and that it was something we had to fight to achieve. Full legal rights for gay and lesbian couples with the protection and recognition that brings is no small thing. Anyone who has been to a civil partnership will have seen how important it is to the couple, their friends and family to be able have their relationship recognised and we shouldn’t undermine that. Nor should we underestimate how important it has been internationally with over 500 civil partnerships taking place in British consulates. And let’s not be under any illusion, having civil partnerships will make it much easier for us to achieve full marriage.
Looking to the future LGBT Labour supports introducing gay marriage and we’re campaigning within the Labour party for it, including during the leadership election – with all five candidates giving their support. We’d like to see the law changed allowing civil marriage to be available to gay and lesbian couples, as well as civil partnerships made available to straight couples, offering both equality and choice.
We also support the moves led by LGBT Labour patron, Lord Alli, to allow churches to hold civil partnerships. Additionally we will keep campaigning on the pledge in our international LGBT manifesto for full recognition internationally of all British couples – whether married or in civil partnerships.
Whilst we should celebrate our successes, we must never be complacent and must continue campaigning for equality. LGBT Labour campaigned when Labour was in office for the recognition of relationships with legal rights; it is now time to take the next step with gay marriage and we’re campaigning for that too.
Adrian Trett, acting chair of Delga (Liberal Democrat)
Recently countries across the world have been approving same-sex marriage at increasing speed. Ten nations have so far approved it with more looking likely soon.
Our stance is simple: The UK should be leading this list of liberal diverse nations. That’s why Delga, (LGBT Liberal Democrats) decided to introduce a motion at this year’s Autumn Conference, to ensure it will become enshrined in our Party policy and as a result provide a lever for us to take the issue into government where we are part of the Coalition.
When Adrian Trett, Acting Chair of Delga wrote the motion he called it “equal marriage” because that’s what this is all about, it is about being equal, whether Gay or Straight, Lesbian, Bisexual, Cis or transgender. While Civil Partnerships were an enormous step forward, until we are able to choose to classify our relationships as marriage if we wish, we will not be equal. One’s commitment to another person should be open, and free to be celebrated in whichever way you and your partner choose.
Any two individuals, whatever their gender or sexual orientation should be able to choose either a civil partnership or Marriage and celebrate it wherever they want, in a religious building (if that venue is in agreement) or elsewhere. Our motion also calls for overseas marriages and civil partnerships to be rightly equated to their correct equivalents.
We can’t win this campaign alone however, and would like to use this opportunity especially to call upon our Coalition Conservative counterparts LGBTory to join us. We know we have support within the Government. The Deputy Prime Minister and our Party Leader, the Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP, said in the Pink News on the 17th February 2010, “I support gay marriage, Love is the same, straight or gay, so the civil institution should be the same”. This is clear and unwavering support for our motion. We know there are many others as well.
If ever there was a time to stand up and be counted on this issue, the time is now. Together we can make a difference. We can increase the support we have in the Government and win a Commons vote if enough of us stand together to be counted and show them that this is what we want. The question is, will you stand with us? There is no time like the present.
Peter Tatchell, OutRage!
The main issue is not whether same-sex marriage is a priority but whether LGBT people should be banned from getting married. We should not be banned. Equality is the number one issue. No LGBT organisation claiming to support equal rights should remain silent and inactive while we are denied the right to marry. Such outrageous homophobic discrimination must be challenged.
Campaigning for marriage equality does not preclude us from also campaigning against homophobic bullying or for LGBT asylum rights. It is not a case of having to choose one campaign over another. It is possible to simultaneously push for equality on several fronts.
Nor is the main issue whether same-sex marriage is a good thing. I share the feminist critique. Marriage has a history of sexism and patriarchy. I would not want to get married. But as a democrat and human rights defender, I support the right of other LGBTs to marry, if they wish. I resent the fact that people are deemed ineligible to marry, simply because they love a person of the same sex.
Every LGBT organisation should be publicly backing the right of lesbian and gay couples to get married in a registry office on exactly the same terms as heterosexual men and women. Imagine the outcry if the government banned black couples from getting married and required them to register their relationships through a separate system of civil partnerships instead? Most of us would condemn it as racist, to have separate laws for black and white people. We’d call it apartheid, like what used to exist in South Africa. Well, black people are not banned from marriage but lesbian and gay couples are. We are fobbed off with civil partnerships.
Civil partnerships are not equality. They are a new form of discrimination. Separate is not equal. In terms of law, civil partnerships are a form of sexual apartheid. They create a two-tier system of partnership recognition: one law for heterosexuals (civil marriage) and another law for same-sex couples (civil partnerships).
This perpetuates and extends discrimination. The homophobia of the ban on same-sex civil marriage is compounded by the heterophobia of the ban on opposite-sex civil partnerships. Just as a gay couple cannot have a civil marriage, a straight couple cannot have a civil partnership. Two wrongs don’t make a right. In a democracy, we should all be equal before the law.
Rev Sharon Ferguson, Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement
I am so glad that you are talking about 'marriage equality' and not 'Gay marriage'. Marriage is the celebration and legal recognition of the commitment between two people – the gender of those involved should not be an issue. Like most LGBT organisations, LGCM welcomed the legal protection that Civil Partnerships afforded. However, even though from a legal perspective CP's hardly differ from civil marriage there are still a couple of very important aspects of inequality that should not be ignored.
Firstly, straight couples have the choice between a religious marriage and a civil marriage – same sex couples do not. (This is being partially addressed through the amendment in the Equality Bill proposed by Lord Ali). Secondly, by having a separate system for legally recognising same sex relationships the message is clearly that our relationships are not equal and not worthy of the institution of marriage. Many people may object to the institution of marriage per se as it is firmly based in patriarchalism, heterosexism and the ownership of women but if this is the accepted format for recognising relationships then it should be the format available for all people regardless of whether they choose to use it or not.
LGCM has always been very clear that we believe that our sexuality is a gift from God (see our Statement of Conviction) and something to be celebrated. Therefore we should have the same opportunity to celebrate our relationships in the sight of God through religious marriage as everyone else.
As the only difference between the rights and responsibilities of CP's and marriage seems to be that marriage must be consummated and CP's do not have to have a sexual element, it is clear to me that the reason for the distinction is based in religious homophobia. Neither civil nor religious marriage is denied to non believers or people with a non Christian faith and yet it is denied to lesbian and gay people of faith.
The current law also produces a particularly ludicrous scenario for some trans people. If one person of a married couple transitions and the couple choose to remain together, in order for the trans person to be legally registered in their new gender their marriage is basically annulled and they would have to enter into a Civil Partnership instead. Some couples wish to remain true to their vows and to remain married but this then causes many other legal issues for them. It is a similar situation for a same sex couple in a CP if one of them transitions, their CP is dissolved and they can then enter into a marriage.
This two-tier system brings about discrimination and segregation. Consequently, LGCM whilst supporting and celebrating every step in the right direction, will continue to campaign and fight for full equality for all LGBT people which includes the right to both civil and religious marriage. Rev Sharon Ferguson, Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement
Lesbian and Gay Foundation
The Lesbian & Gay Foundation’s priorities are set out in our five year strategic plan and revolve around reaching full equality on all issues, in all walks of life, for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. We believe in full marriage equality for those lesbian, gay and bisexual people who wish to get married, and likewise that civil partnerships should be available to heterosexual couples. Equality means that we all have the same access to the legal opportunities to express our love and commitment, and at the moment this is not the case.
The LGF’s mission statement is “Ending Homophobia, Empowering People” and in 2010 – our 10th anniversary year – that remains our priority. In May we launched our Enough is Enough! Action Against Homophobia campaign, as a direct reaction to the horrifying homophobic attacks on Michael Causer, Ian Baynham and James Parkes.
The campaign highlights that homophobia is still a daily reality for lesbian, gay and bisexual people in the street, at school, at work and for many in the home. Enough is Enough! encourages people, groups and organisations to come together and take positive action to highlight that homophobia is unacceptable and has no place in our society.
There is still a massive need for us to help empower our community, and encourage people to use their rights and legal protections, from lesbian and bisexual women being told that they don’t need a cervical screening when they do, to encouraging people to report homophobic hate crimes and incidents, to urging lesbian, gay and bisexual people to vote, to get involved in public life and to make their voices heard.
We are committed to using the new Equality Act legal protections to challenge discrimination and inequality, and to campaign for lesbian, gay and bisexual peoples’ equal access to public services, and for those services to be receptive to the needs of lesbian, gay and bisexual people. There’s no denying that over the last ten years lesbian, gay and bisexual people have made phenomenal progress in terms of equality. As the LGF looks to the next decade, we hope that we haven’t just made great strides but have full equality on every level – including marriage.
Tim Hopkins, Equality Network
The Equality Network is one of the three main national LGBT equality organisations in Scotland (alongside LGBT Youth Scotland and Stonewall Scotland). We base our work on regular consultation through our network of LGBT people and groups across Scotland.
Civil partnership was a huge step forward, which we worked hard for, but since 2006, people have been telling us that it’s not enough.
In our 2009 national survey, 85% of LGBT people said that same-sex marriage is needed. Only 6% thought the law is OK as it is, and only 9% thought that allowing religious ceremonies for civil partnerships is the answer. 54% said this is a high priority issue.
And it’s not just activists in our network who think this. In July, we asked hundreds of people at Glasgow Pride what their top priorities for LGBT equality were. Same-sex marriage came third, after hate crime and bullying in schools.
Why is equal marriage important? Partly because there is still discrimination in the law: trans people are forced to divorce to get gender recognition, because otherwise a same-sex marriage would be created. And civil partnership is less well recognised abroad than same-sex marriage would be.
But crucially important is that human rights are not just legal rights. They include social and cultural rights. And while our relationships are segregated into a separate status that was invented to deny us marriage, we will never have full social and cultural acceptance and respect. “But it’s not a real marriage is it” is an excuse that homophobes will continue to use. Segregation is not equality.
So we are already 18 months into a campaign to open both marriage and civil partnership in Scotland to couples regardless of gender. It is vital that we keep civil partnership available alongside marriage – while three in four LGBT people told us they would prefer marriage, one in four said they’d prefer civil partnership.
Alongside our colleagues in other Scottish organisations, we have been lobbying hard. A Scottish Parliament committee has already been considering the issue, and we will work to get legislation introduced after the Scottish Parliament election in May 2011.
But it would be easier for us if there was also a strong campaign south of the border, and we would welcome that!
Nick Henderson, LGBT Network
Let same-sex couples marry. Well this is what we have been saying for years! We launched our petition (PE 1239) to the Scottish Parliament in January 2009, requesting a change in the law to allow same-sex couples to have a civil, or a religious marriage, if that faith group consents. This is exactly the right that straight couples have, and we believe, we have always believed, that equality should mean just that – equal rights. A law that discriminates is one that is unjust, and must be changed.
LGBT Brits, banned from marrying, or having foreign same-sex marriages recognised at home (see the travesty of a High Court judgement, Wilkinson v. Kitzinger 2006), get no extra benefits from the ban on same-sex marriage. It’s not like we get a council tax rebate or the chance to win a free holiday in return for giving up our human right to marry. LGBT people pay the same taxes, so why are we not afforded the same rights?
We have always wondered why LGBT people in Britain are not angrier about their denial of rights, especially in the face of all this political consensus. Anyone looking at same-sex marriage in California will have witnessed a monumental battle fought in the streets, the courts and the constitution of California itself for the right to marry; energising millions of Americans, gay and straight, who simply want equality.
Because the battle for same-sex marriage is not really just about the right to marry; it’s about a discriminated against minority finally achieving legal equality. When the federal judge in California struck down Proposition 8 last week, he also said that Domestic Partnerships, which provide the exact same rights as marriage in California, did not convey the same social meaning as marriage, and are unconstitutional. The reason, he said, that they were not an acceptable substitute to marriage was that the state of California created Domestic Partnerships so that it could keep denying same-sex couples their right to marry.
The same goes for us. The reason Britain created Civil Partnerships was so it could keep withholding the human right of marriage from LGBT people. The result is that we are barred from enjoying full citizenship, we are rejected from equality before the law, and we are denied acceptance of our human capacity to love, honour and cherish another for the rest of time.
Is marriage equality a priority?
Time to end the ban on same-sex marriage
London - 19 August 2010
A recent Pink News poll, found that 98% of its readers believe that civil partnerships are not enough. They want full same-sex civil marriage.
The main UK gay lobby group, Stonewall, does not call or campaign for marriage equality; claiming it is not a priority.
All other major LGBT groups oppose the ban on gay marriage and want registry office civil marriages to be open to all couples, without discrimination.
Peter Tatchell of OutRage! writes for Pink News
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/08/18/gay-rights-groups-set-out-positions-on-marriage-equality/
The main issue is not whether same-sex marriage is a priority but whether LGBT people should be banned from getting married. We should not be banned. Equality is the number one issue.
No LGBT organisation claiming to support equal rights should remain silent and inactive while we are denied the right to marry. Such outrageous homophobic discrimination must be challenged.
Campaigning for marriage equality does not preclude us from also campaigning against homophobic bullying or for LGBT asylum rights. It is not a case of having to choose one campaign over another. It is possible to simultaneously push for equality on several fronts.
Nor is the main issue whether same-sex marriage is a good thing. I share the feminist critique. Marriage has a history of sexism and patriarchy. I would not want to get married. But as a democrat and human rights defender, I support the right of other LGBTs to marry, if they wish. I resent the fact that people are deemed ineligible to marry, simply because they love a person of the same sex.
Every LGBT organisation should be publicly backing the right of lesbian and gay couples to get married in a registry office on exactly the same terms as heterosexual men and women.
Imagine the outcry if the government banned black couples from getting married and required them to register their relationships through a separate system of civil partnerships instead?
Most of us would condemn it as racist, to have separate laws for black and white people. We'd call it apartheid, like what used to exist in South Africa.
Well, black people are not banned from marriage but lesbian and gay couples are. We are fobbed off with civil partnerships.
Civil partnerships are not equality. They are a new form of discrimination. Separate is not equal.
In terms of law, civil partnerships are a form of sexual apartheid. They create a two-tier system of partnership recognition: one law for heterosexuals (civil marriage) and another law for same-sex couples (civil partnerships).
This perpetuates and extends discrimination. The homophobia of the ban on same-sex civil marriage is compounded by the heterophobia of the ban on opposite-sex civil partnerships. Just as a gay couple cannot have a civil marriage, a straight couple cannot have a civil partnership.
Two wrongs don't make a right. In a democracy, we should all be equal before the law.
Note:
The views of other LGBT organisations and campaigners can be viewed here on the Pink News website:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/08/18/gay-rights-groups-set-out-positions-on-marriage-equality/
Britain's main gay rights lobby group, Stonewall, declined to participate and was not willing to express its point of view.
London - 19 August 2010
A recent Pink News poll, found that 98% of its readers believe that civil partnerships are not enough. They want full same-sex civil marriage.
The main UK gay lobby group, Stonewall, does not call or campaign for marriage equality; claiming it is not a priority.
All other major LGBT groups oppose the ban on gay marriage and want registry office civil marriages to be open to all couples, without discrimination.
Peter Tatchell of OutRage! writes for Pink News
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/08/18/gay-rights-groups-set-out-positions-on-marriage-equality/
The main issue is not whether same-sex marriage is a priority but whether LGBT people should be banned from getting married. We should not be banned. Equality is the number one issue.
No LGBT organisation claiming to support equal rights should remain silent and inactive while we are denied the right to marry. Such outrageous homophobic discrimination must be challenged.
Campaigning for marriage equality does not preclude us from also campaigning against homophobic bullying or for LGBT asylum rights. It is not a case of having to choose one campaign over another. It is possible to simultaneously push for equality on several fronts.
Nor is the main issue whether same-sex marriage is a good thing. I share the feminist critique. Marriage has a history of sexism and patriarchy. I would not want to get married. But as a democrat and human rights defender, I support the right of other LGBTs to marry, if they wish. I resent the fact that people are deemed ineligible to marry, simply because they love a person of the same sex.
Every LGBT organisation should be publicly backing the right of lesbian and gay couples to get married in a registry office on exactly the same terms as heterosexual men and women.
Imagine the outcry if the government banned black couples from getting married and required them to register their relationships through a separate system of civil partnerships instead?
Most of us would condemn it as racist, to have separate laws for black and white people. We'd call it apartheid, like what used to exist in South Africa.
Well, black people are not banned from marriage but lesbian and gay couples are. We are fobbed off with civil partnerships.
Civil partnerships are not equality. They are a new form of discrimination. Separate is not equal.
In terms of law, civil partnerships are a form of sexual apartheid. They create a two-tier system of partnership recognition: one law for heterosexuals (civil marriage) and another law for same-sex couples (civil partnerships).
This perpetuates and extends discrimination. The homophobia of the ban on same-sex civil marriage is compounded by the heterophobia of the ban on opposite-sex civil partnerships. Just as a gay couple cannot have a civil marriage, a straight couple cannot have a civil partnership.
Two wrongs don't make a right. In a democracy, we should all be equal before the law.
Note:
The views of other LGBT organisations and campaigners can be viewed here on the Pink News website:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/08/18/gay-rights-groups-set-out-positions-on-marriage-equality/
Britain's main gay rights lobby group, Stonewall, declined to participate and was not willing to express its point of view.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Winds from Malawi's ammended flag
Let fly the defaced flag,
Cutting across the Southerly winds,
As the Malawi sun,
Passes through some black back ground.
Let the world behold the unfurling of a white sun,
Because darkness no longer roams the Blantyre,
Lilongwe,
Mzuzu,
Dedza,
Salima,
Nkhata-bay,
Rumphi,
Chitipa,
Kasungu,
Nkhota-kota,
Nsanje,
And Mulanje
Night.
Red no longer lives,
Where once the rising sun peeped through the cloud.
It is black in its stead,
A symbol of the tarred miles we have walked,
Under the professor,
A professor without real students.
As naughty University of Malawi students scuffle for limited space,
And lecturers eat chips marked with chalk dust,
The professor without students has made a classroom out of the nation,
Filling the Makiyolobasi Director General's mouth with some weighty verbage
At the mention of the professor without students's name.
As the flag waves at the passing sun,
Making friends with everyday winds,
Chasing sanity from the solemn sky,
Some contemporaries of the professor without students wave good-bye,
To the national-class that stares above from below,
Making do with the thumbing of the professor without students' s feet.
The flag huggs the night owl,
Looking perplexed at its lazy flow,
And the professor with students says 'No',
See you somewhere beyond the blue sky,
Having been failed by the Ocean vehicle I pushed,
To promote your well-being.
So the flag waves again,
Waving bye to the man no longer being,
Having lost his invisible life flag,
Somewhere Down South,
Whence he trodded to seek new life,
Perhaps a new breath.
The sound of the new flag howls no more,
As now it is the professor without students's howl,
Condoling the morning star,
Over the other real professor's over-flown soul.
'Flags, like poles that hoist them, do not live long'
He reminds the class-of-a-nation that nothing is eternal under the new flag,
And that flying from Down South will not make it eternal.
But knows the class-of-a-nation that the professor without students through an invisible arrow,
Into the soul of the gone sparrow,
Sending him up yonder,
Beyond the new flag
Cutting across the Southerly winds,
As the Malawi sun,
Passes through some black back ground.
Let the world behold the unfurling of a white sun,
Because darkness no longer roams the Blantyre,
Lilongwe,
Mzuzu,
Dedza,
Salima,
Nkhata-bay,
Rumphi,
Chitipa,
Kasungu,
Nkhota-kota,
Nsanje,
And Mulanje
Night.
Red no longer lives,
Where once the rising sun peeped through the cloud.
It is black in its stead,
A symbol of the tarred miles we have walked,
Under the professor,
A professor without real students.
As naughty University of Malawi students scuffle for limited space,
And lecturers eat chips marked with chalk dust,
The professor without students has made a classroom out of the nation,
Filling the Makiyolobasi Director General's mouth with some weighty verbage
At the mention of the professor without students's name.
As the flag waves at the passing sun,
Making friends with everyday winds,
Chasing sanity from the solemn sky,
Some contemporaries of the professor without students wave good-bye,
To the national-class that stares above from below,
Making do with the thumbing of the professor without students' s feet.
The flag huggs the night owl,
Looking perplexed at its lazy flow,
And the professor with students says 'No',
See you somewhere beyond the blue sky,
Having been failed by the Ocean vehicle I pushed,
To promote your well-being.
So the flag waves again,
Waving bye to the man no longer being,
Having lost his invisible life flag,
Somewhere Down South,
Whence he trodded to seek new life,
Perhaps a new breath.
The sound of the new flag howls no more,
As now it is the professor without students's howl,
Condoling the morning star,
Over the other real professor's over-flown soul.
'Flags, like poles that hoist them, do not live long'
He reminds the class-of-a-nation that nothing is eternal under the new flag,
And that flying from Down South will not make it eternal.
But knows the class-of-a-nation that the professor without students through an invisible arrow,
Into the soul of the gone sparrow,
Sending him up yonder,
Beyond the new flag
Joseph Kamwendo should reverse decision
Joseph Kamwendo, that stunted young man (but more skillfull, anyway) should reverse his decision to resign from the Flames. We need him; we love him; we support him.
Kamwendo should not make some rushed decisions simply because of that confused man called Kinnah 'Electric'(Electric kunyumba kwake!?) Phiri. A man who played boring soccer but never missed the chances, especially kuheda mpira, because of the size of his head. You know, our coach has, sort of, an over-sized head, which he uses to intimidate the likes of Kamwendo and Esau Kanyenda.
This coach is, to say the truth, useless, tactless, and ... I don't know what: a failure. Yes. A man who goes about carrying luck in his side pocket.
Kamwendo should not base his decision on this confused man called Kinnha Phiri. Kinnah has done his miserable part. He was just fortunate that he went to the Angola Afcon with the Flames. Even with a monkey as coach, the Flames would have gone to Angola in January this year.
Only that, with a monkey or chicken as coach,the Malawi Senior Football National Team would have bitten Angola and Mali. Because because confused Kinnah Phiri was there, in charge (sadly), the team (as expected) lost. All credit must go to the confused man who found himself at the right place at the right time- the tactless Kinnha Phiri himself.
Kamwendo should not resign because of this Kinnah Phiri. The coach always wants to find scape-goats.
Let's chase this guy before he kills Malawi football. He ius uselessly dangerous.
As for Kamwendo, please don't quit.
But, should you stick to your decision, I say: You were a useless player, too. A pint-sized player who resigned when he was at the pinnacle of his carrier. I think it is because of your new hair-cut.
Again, if you decide not to rescind your decision, I add: Sudzatalika mphwanga! Loo, takaonenei kufupika!
But, should you reverse your decision, I say: Man, you are the greatest player of this decade. Talented, skillful, and what have we. You are the source of our pride.
Now, Joseph Kamwendo, which path do you choose to take? Wishing you, and Kinnah Phiri, of course, all the best. That is, if you make good decisions.
I rest my case.
Kamwendo should not make some rushed decisions simply because of that confused man called Kinnah 'Electric'(Electric kunyumba kwake!?) Phiri. A man who played boring soccer but never missed the chances, especially kuheda mpira, because of the size of his head. You know, our coach has, sort of, an over-sized head, which he uses to intimidate the likes of Kamwendo and Esau Kanyenda.
This coach is, to say the truth, useless, tactless, and ... I don't know what: a failure. Yes. A man who goes about carrying luck in his side pocket.
Kamwendo should not base his decision on this confused man called Kinnha Phiri. Kinnah has done his miserable part. He was just fortunate that he went to the Angola Afcon with the Flames. Even with a monkey as coach, the Flames would have gone to Angola in January this year.
Only that, with a monkey or chicken as coach,the Malawi Senior Football National Team would have bitten Angola and Mali. Because because confused Kinnah Phiri was there, in charge (sadly), the team (as expected) lost. All credit must go to the confused man who found himself at the right place at the right time- the tactless Kinnha Phiri himself.
Kamwendo should not resign because of this Kinnah Phiri. The coach always wants to find scape-goats.
Let's chase this guy before he kills Malawi football. He ius uselessly dangerous.
As for Kamwendo, please don't quit.
But, should you stick to your decision, I say: You were a useless player, too. A pint-sized player who resigned when he was at the pinnacle of his carrier. I think it is because of your new hair-cut.
Again, if you decide not to rescind your decision, I add: Sudzatalika mphwanga! Loo, takaonenei kufupika!
But, should you reverse your decision, I say: Man, you are the greatest player of this decade. Talented, skillful, and what have we. You are the source of our pride.
Now, Joseph Kamwendo, which path do you choose to take? Wishing you, and Kinnah Phiri, of course, all the best. That is, if you make good decisions.
I rest my case.
President Bingu wa Mutharika talks about Life ministers
Malawi President Bingu wa Mutharika has said Malawi cannot afford life ministers. Swearing in new ministers, some of them returnees into his cabinet, he said nobody should think ministerial posts are for life. He also defended his inclusion of his wife, First Lady, Callista Mutharika, on the cabinet list.
"As President, I am in the saddle where I have the opportunity to look at the whole Malawi and the world to correct things. You need to understand that the posts are not your personal possessions," he said at Sanjika Palace in the commercial city of Blantyre.
"Nobody has the right to be life minister. Positions change and nobody should complain of being fired when I move people around," he said in the televised statement.
He was reacting to the Malawi Law Society (MLS) and civil society outcry after he fired four prominent ministers in last week's mini cabinet reshuffle.
Five ministers and two deputies took their oaths.
Mutharika, also the African Union (AU) chairperson, added he was aware some of the cabinet ministers were attending meetings that betrayed their oath, and warned the new seven cabinet members to desist from the same.
"Don't think I am not aware of the meetings some of you attend (behind my back)," he warned.
About his wife, Mutharika said she was not a cabinet member, but that she held a high position in the country alongside the chief justice.
"She should have been here taking an oath if she were appointed a minister. What I did is usual. What was usual with the repressive regime under the Malawi Congress Party?" he challenged, reminding the MLS to take a refresher course in law or to read the law before... making irresponsible statements.
"If the so-called experts read the Constitution," he schooled the MLS, "not all positions are defined. As President I have the powers to create positions when necessary."
Unconstitutional post
The MLS earlier argued the First Lady's appointment into cabinet was unconstitutional and unsual. The former cabinet minister who headed tourism and wildlife ministry, has been given what the President calls a "Coordinator and Director of the Maternal, Infant and Child Health (Safe Motherhood) in my office".
"She is above any appointment, including a ministerial position. Little knowledge is dangerous," he said.
One of the fired ministers, former Finance and later Local Government and Rural Development minister, Goodall Gondwe, said he felt useless.
"I am disappointed. All I do is wake up in the morning and sit. All I can wait for is to attend Parliament as a Member of Parliament. Know that I am also automatically fired from the position of the Leader of the House," he said.
Other ministers fired include Khumbo Kachali from the Public Works and Infrastructure ministry, Professor Thomas Chirambo from Health, and Patricia Kaliati from the Ministry of Women, Child and Community Development
"As President, I am in the saddle where I have the opportunity to look at the whole Malawi and the world to correct things. You need to understand that the posts are not your personal possessions," he said at Sanjika Palace in the commercial city of Blantyre.
"Nobody has the right to be life minister. Positions change and nobody should complain of being fired when I move people around," he said in the televised statement.
He was reacting to the Malawi Law Society (MLS) and civil society outcry after he fired four prominent ministers in last week's mini cabinet reshuffle.
Five ministers and two deputies took their oaths.
Mutharika, also the African Union (AU) chairperson, added he was aware some of the cabinet ministers were attending meetings that betrayed their oath, and warned the new seven cabinet members to desist from the same.
"Don't think I am not aware of the meetings some of you attend (behind my back)," he warned.
About his wife, Mutharika said she was not a cabinet member, but that she held a high position in the country alongside the chief justice.
"She should have been here taking an oath if she were appointed a minister. What I did is usual. What was usual with the repressive regime under the Malawi Congress Party?" he challenged, reminding the MLS to take a refresher course in law or to read the law before... making irresponsible statements.
"If the so-called experts read the Constitution," he schooled the MLS, "not all positions are defined. As President I have the powers to create positions when necessary."
Unconstitutional post
The MLS earlier argued the First Lady's appointment into cabinet was unconstitutional and unsual. The former cabinet minister who headed tourism and wildlife ministry, has been given what the President calls a "Coordinator and Director of the Maternal, Infant and Child Health (Safe Motherhood) in my office".
"She is above any appointment, including a ministerial position. Little knowledge is dangerous," he said.
One of the fired ministers, former Finance and later Local Government and Rural Development minister, Goodall Gondwe, said he felt useless.
"I am disappointed. All I do is wake up in the morning and sit. All I can wait for is to attend Parliament as a Member of Parliament. Know that I am also automatically fired from the position of the Leader of the House," he said.
Other ministers fired include Khumbo Kachali from the Public Works and Infrastructure ministry, Professor Thomas Chirambo from Health, and Patricia Kaliati from the Ministry of Women, Child and Community Development
Bulletin of the Oppression of Women
July 7-August 9, 2010
July 7, 2010
India
A woman alleges her father-in-law asked her to join flesh trade for giving birth to girls.
July 8, 2010
Iran
Iranians still facing death by stoning despite 'reprieve'. Fifteen could still die in horrific sentence after being allegedly convicted of adultery.
July 9, 2010
Pakistan
Women's Action Forum (WAF) is outraged at reports of yet another "judgement of stoning to death due to illicit relations".
India
The boss of an award-winning Indian restaurant tried to strangle his wife for opening the bedroom windows.
UK
A boy who took revenge for being dumped by starting a house fire which killed his ex-girlfriend and her sister has received a life sentence.
July 10, 2010
Jordan
A married 36-year-old woman in Jordan was stabbed to death by two of her brothers over a suspected extra-marital affair.
July 11, 2010
Iran (Hat tip to AtlasShrugs)
A 26 Year old woman was raped and murdered by Basij Members for wearing a "Bad Hijab".
July 12, 2010
USA
Nonie Darwish sets the record straight about terrorizing Muslim women.
Saudi Arabia
A Saudi woman who is seeking a divorce from her husband has claimed that a judge has refused to listen to her complaints at five scheduled hearings because she came to court without a male legal guardian each time.
July 13, 2010
Saudi Arabia
A group of young Saudi men have launched a campaign to convince Saudi men of the unappreciated virtues of polygamy.
Pakistan
A Muslim doctor rapes a Christian student nurse and attempts to murder her by throwing her out of a fourth floor window.
India
A 35-year-old woman was allegedly stripped and whipped after she defied the diktat of a kangaroo court to remarry her second husband.
Bangladesh
A housewife was attacked with acid.
July 14, 2010
Pakistan
A man shot his mother dead allegedly over honour at their house.
July 15, 2010
Iran
Maryam Ghorbanzadeh was recently convicted of adultery, and although she is pregnant, was sentenced by an Islamic court to death by stoning.
Canada
A Calgary mother won't spend a day in jail for killing her teenage daughter with a head scarf - a decision that has prompted outrage.
India
Three Hindu girls were raped and brutally tortured by Jihadis.
Indonesia
T wo shariah police officers receive 8 year sentences for the rape of a student.
Bangladesh
The chattel status of women in Muslim-majority countries is once again highlighted in this disturbing report.
UK
An unemployed Roxburgh Park man charged with aggravated burglary and sexual assault believed the allegations were no big deal.
July 17, 2010
Afghanistan
Women in Taliban-held areas of Afghanistan say they are once again being threatened, attacked and forced out of jobs and education as fears rise that their rights will be sacrificed as part of any deal with insurgents to end the war in Afghanistan.
Kuwait
An Egyptian man reportedly entered a women's salon and stabbed his wife 31 times in front of her astonished colleagues and clients.
July 18, 2010
Gaza
Gaza's Hamas rulers are banning women from smoking water pipes in cafes, claiming it violates tradition and leads to divorce.
July 19, 2010
Bahrain (hat tip to Atlas Shrugs)
Muslim cleric teaches not to break bones when beating wife.
July 23, 2010
USA
New Jersey judge accepted Islamic sharia law that says husbands have control over their wives in his ruling.
Pakistan
A woman is freed after spending 14 years in prison without trial for "blasphemy".
July 24,2010
Jordan
A 16 year old Jordanian girl is murdered by 30 machine gun rounds by her uncle after sexual assault in "honor killing."
July 25, 2010
Saudi Arabia
Saudi technology guards against women escaping from home.
UK
Female circumcision will be inflicted on up to 2,000 British schoolgirls during the summer holidays - leaving brutal physical and emotional scars.
July 26, 2010
UK
Raped British girls "revert" to Muslim faith.
July 27, 2010
Saudi Arabia
Saudi girl drinks bleach to escape forced marriage.
July 30, 2010
Iran
The Iranian woman whose sentence of death by stoning was commuted to hanging after an international campaign, today sent a message from inside Tabriz prison calling for further support so that she might be reunited with her children. Update HERE. Brazil's President offers asylum. More HERE. Turkish police have arrested an Iranian lawyer who represented Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the woman sentenced to death by stoning for adultery
Pakistan
Rampant child molestation in Pakistan.
UK
The demand for virginity repair operations has surged.
August 1, 2010
Malaysia
An ethnic Indian woman, seeking to quash her three children's conversion to Islam by her ex-husband, has been threatened by him not to pursue the court battle to get the custody of their youngest daughter.
August 2, 1010
Iran
The wife of a jailed Christian man is told to convert to Islam in order to negotiate his release.
August 4, 2010
Malaysia
Malaysia state backs child marriages.
August 5, 2010
Saudi Arabia
Lawyers and human rights activists demand changes to sponsorship rules after a housemaid in Taif was reportedly denied a final exit visa after the death of her sponsor.
August 6, 2010
USA
A symposium on honor killings.
UK
A botched honor murder.
Afghanistan
The Afghan girl featured on a controversial Time magazine cover is in the US to have her nose rebuilt.
USA
'Honor killing' Dad had secretly taped his daughters.
Indonesia
Fi ve people have been caned in public.
Egypt
A woman has gone public with a rare television interview alleging that police raped her after she stopped to ask for directions in a rural part of the country.
August 7, 2010
USA
Update on Rifqa Bary.
UK
Predatory Muslim gangs force middle class girls into sex trade.
Aug. 8, 2010
France
Brice Hortefeux, the interior minister of France, called for immigrants who practise polygamy or female genital mutilation to have their citizenship withdrawn.
August 9, 2010
Afghanistan (Hat tip to JihadWatch)
The Taliban publicly flogged and then executed a pregnant Afghan widow by shooting her three times in the head for alleged adultery.
July 7, 2010
India
A woman alleges her father-in-law asked her to join flesh trade for giving birth to girls.
July 8, 2010
Iran
Iranians still facing death by stoning despite 'reprieve'. Fifteen could still die in horrific sentence after being allegedly convicted of adultery.
July 9, 2010
Pakistan
Women's Action Forum (WAF) is outraged at reports of yet another "judgement of stoning to death due to illicit relations".
India
The boss of an award-winning Indian restaurant tried to strangle his wife for opening the bedroom windows.
UK
A boy who took revenge for being dumped by starting a house fire which killed his ex-girlfriend and her sister has received a life sentence.
July 10, 2010
Jordan
A married 36-year-old woman in Jordan was stabbed to death by two of her brothers over a suspected extra-marital affair.
July 11, 2010
Iran (Hat tip to AtlasShrugs)
A 26 Year old woman was raped and murdered by Basij Members for wearing a "Bad Hijab".
July 12, 2010
USA
Nonie Darwish sets the record straight about terrorizing Muslim women.
Saudi Arabia
A Saudi woman who is seeking a divorce from her husband has claimed that a judge has refused to listen to her complaints at five scheduled hearings because she came to court without a male legal guardian each time.
July 13, 2010
Saudi Arabia
A group of young Saudi men have launched a campaign to convince Saudi men of the unappreciated virtues of polygamy.
Pakistan
A Muslim doctor rapes a Christian student nurse and attempts to murder her by throwing her out of a fourth floor window.
India
A 35-year-old woman was allegedly stripped and whipped after she defied the diktat of a kangaroo court to remarry her second husband.
Bangladesh
A housewife was attacked with acid.
July 14, 2010
Pakistan
A man shot his mother dead allegedly over honour at their house.
July 15, 2010
Iran
Maryam Ghorbanzadeh was recently convicted of adultery, and although she is pregnant, was sentenced by an Islamic court to death by stoning.
Canada
A Calgary mother won't spend a day in jail for killing her teenage daughter with a head scarf - a decision that has prompted outrage.
India
Three Hindu girls were raped and brutally tortured by Jihadis.
Indonesia
T wo shariah police officers receive 8 year sentences for the rape of a student.
Bangladesh
The chattel status of women in Muslim-majority countries is once again highlighted in this disturbing report.
UK
An unemployed Roxburgh Park man charged with aggravated burglary and sexual assault believed the allegations were no big deal.
July 17, 2010
Afghanistan
Women in Taliban-held areas of Afghanistan say they are once again being threatened, attacked and forced out of jobs and education as fears rise that their rights will be sacrificed as part of any deal with insurgents to end the war in Afghanistan.
Kuwait
An Egyptian man reportedly entered a women's salon and stabbed his wife 31 times in front of her astonished colleagues and clients.
July 18, 2010
Gaza
Gaza's Hamas rulers are banning women from smoking water pipes in cafes, claiming it violates tradition and leads to divorce.
July 19, 2010
Bahrain (hat tip to Atlas Shrugs)
Muslim cleric teaches not to break bones when beating wife.
July 23, 2010
USA
New Jersey judge accepted Islamic sharia law that says husbands have control over their wives in his ruling.
Pakistan
A woman is freed after spending 14 years in prison without trial for "blasphemy".
July 24,2010
Jordan
A 16 year old Jordanian girl is murdered by 30 machine gun rounds by her uncle after sexual assault in "honor killing."
July 25, 2010
Saudi Arabia
Saudi technology guards against women escaping from home.
UK
Female circumcision will be inflicted on up to 2,000 British schoolgirls during the summer holidays - leaving brutal physical and emotional scars.
July 26, 2010
UK
Raped British girls "revert" to Muslim faith.
July 27, 2010
Saudi Arabia
Saudi girl drinks bleach to escape forced marriage.
July 30, 2010
Iran
The Iranian woman whose sentence of death by stoning was commuted to hanging after an international campaign, today sent a message from inside Tabriz prison calling for further support so that she might be reunited with her children. Update HERE. Brazil's President offers asylum. More HERE. Turkish police have arrested an Iranian lawyer who represented Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the woman sentenced to death by stoning for adultery
Pakistan
Rampant child molestation in Pakistan.
UK
The demand for virginity repair operations has surged.
August 1, 2010
Malaysia
An ethnic Indian woman, seeking to quash her three children's conversion to Islam by her ex-husband, has been threatened by him not to pursue the court battle to get the custody of their youngest daughter.
August 2, 1010
Iran
The wife of a jailed Christian man is told to convert to Islam in order to negotiate his release.
August 4, 2010
Malaysia
Malaysia state backs child marriages.
August 5, 2010
Saudi Arabia
Lawyers and human rights activists demand changes to sponsorship rules after a housemaid in Taif was reportedly denied a final exit visa after the death of her sponsor.
August 6, 2010
USA
A symposium on honor killings.
UK
A botched honor murder.
Afghanistan
The Afghan girl featured on a controversial Time magazine cover is in the US to have her nose rebuilt.
USA
'Honor killing' Dad had secretly taped his daughters.
Indonesia
Fi ve people have been caned in public.
Egypt
A woman has gone public with a rare television interview alleging that police raped her after she stopped to ask for directions in a rural part of the country.
August 7, 2010
USA
Update on Rifqa Bary.
UK
Predatory Muslim gangs force middle class girls into sex trade.
Aug. 8, 2010
France
Brice Hortefeux, the interior minister of France, called for immigrants who practise polygamy or female genital mutilation to have their citizenship withdrawn.
August 9, 2010
Afghanistan (Hat tip to JihadWatch)
The Taliban publicly flogged and then executed a pregnant Afghan widow by shooting her three times in the head for alleged adultery.
Lest we forget: Malawi: Fired cabinet minister dies
Malawi's Professor Moses Chirambo, fired from cabinet last week, died at a South African clinic, about four days after President Bingu wa Mutharika relieved him from heading the Ministry of Health.
Death of Malawi's first ophthalmologist hit Malawians as they were trying to embrace new ministers sworn in on Wednesday. Mutharika himself said, at Sanjika Palace, no one was a 'life minister'.
"We are just waiting for the funeral programme. First there must be a post mortem to determine what he died of," his son, Masuzgo, told Africanews Sunday from the family home in Area 10.
Unconfirmed reports indicate he died from an anaesthetist related cardiac complication while undergoing Prostate removal surgery.
He comes from the Northern Region of Malawi in Rumphi District.
Government announced Mutharika had sent his heartfelt condolences to the family through the public Malawi Broadcasting Corporation.
Prof. Chirambo retired from active Ophthalmology in 2008 when he was appointed Minister of Health after joining politics to win as a Member of Parliament in his home area.
"In 1983 , he established the Southern Africa Development corporation (SADC) school of Ophthalmology in Lilongwe, Malawi supported by Sight Savers International; this school has trained over 500 clinical officers and cataract surgeons (midlevel eye personnel) from all over SADC countries and beyond ; and now several countries including Botswana, Namibia, Zimbabwe and Zambia have started their own training programmes," writes Dr. Khumbo Kalua, a medical practitioner, in his blog.
In 1995, Chirambo got an International ward from the American Academy and IAPB for his fight in blindness; and continued to get several awards.
Kalua adds that Chirambo was Regional Advisor for Sight Savers International for a long time. Between 1983 and 1987, Dr Chirambo, Professor Johnson Gordon and many other colleagues conducted the first population based childhood blindness survey on vitamin A & Xerophthalmia studies in Africa.
For those who knew Chirambo, he will be missed by many.
"Professor Chirambo was a great achiever in Public Health Ophthalmology & Epidemiology," add Kalua.
The late Prof. Chirambo was fired alongside Ministers of Local Government and Rural Development Goodall Gondwe, Women Child and Community Development Patricia Kaliati, and Development and Infastructure Khumbo Kachali.
Death of Malawi's first ophthalmologist hit Malawians as they were trying to embrace new ministers sworn in on Wednesday. Mutharika himself said, at Sanjika Palace, no one was a 'life minister'.
"We are just waiting for the funeral programme. First there must be a post mortem to determine what he died of," his son, Masuzgo, told Africanews Sunday from the family home in Area 10.
Unconfirmed reports indicate he died from an anaesthetist related cardiac complication while undergoing Prostate removal surgery.
He comes from the Northern Region of Malawi in Rumphi District.
Government announced Mutharika had sent his heartfelt condolences to the family through the public Malawi Broadcasting Corporation.
Prof. Chirambo retired from active Ophthalmology in 2008 when he was appointed Minister of Health after joining politics to win as a Member of Parliament in his home area.
"In 1983 , he established the Southern Africa Development corporation (SADC) school of Ophthalmology in Lilongwe, Malawi supported by Sight Savers International; this school has trained over 500 clinical officers and cataract surgeons (midlevel eye personnel) from all over SADC countries and beyond ; and now several countries including Botswana, Namibia, Zimbabwe and Zambia have started their own training programmes," writes Dr. Khumbo Kalua, a medical practitioner, in his blog.
In 1995, Chirambo got an International ward from the American Academy and IAPB for his fight in blindness; and continued to get several awards.
Kalua adds that Chirambo was Regional Advisor for Sight Savers International for a long time. Between 1983 and 1987, Dr Chirambo, Professor Johnson Gordon and many other colleagues conducted the first population based childhood blindness survey on vitamin A & Xerophthalmia studies in Africa.
For those who knew Chirambo, he will be missed by many.
"Professor Chirambo was a great achiever in Public Health Ophthalmology & Epidemiology," add Kalua.
The late Prof. Chirambo was fired alongside Ministers of Local Government and Rural Development Goodall Gondwe, Women Child and Community Development Patricia Kaliati, and Development and Infastructure Khumbo Kachali.
Malawi opens 8,500 measles centres
Malawi established more than 8,500 centres across the country to carry out measles vaccination. The country was hit by a measles outbreak that killed hundreds. Minister of Health, Professor David Mphande said this year's mass immunisation campaign aims at vaccinating children missed out at birth. The campaign is taking place a year earlier due to an early outbreak.
Mphande told journalists in the capital city Lilongwe that the ministry had also put out mobile clinics to beef up vaccination in remote areas and as a compliment to the established health facilities.
"With an average of eight percent missing rate after birth, the pool gradually grows and these are people at risk," also said World Health Organisation's (WHO) country representative to Malawi, Felicitas Zawaira.
She added, normally, such people would be covered through campaigns.
The preventive health department earlier announced there would be no danger in children up to the age of 15 vaccinating more than once and that the ministry would not force anyone to get vaccination.
However, a number of Apostolic faithful, including a bishop, have been arrested and tried in court for barring their faithfuls from accessing vaccination. A number of children that died came from such religious groups.
The media has also been asked to send out 'rightful information' to the public on the pandemic.
Mphande told journalists in the capital city Lilongwe that the ministry had also put out mobile clinics to beef up vaccination in remote areas and as a compliment to the established health facilities.
"With an average of eight percent missing rate after birth, the pool gradually grows and these are people at risk," also said World Health Organisation's (WHO) country representative to Malawi, Felicitas Zawaira.
She added, normally, such people would be covered through campaigns.
The preventive health department earlier announced there would be no danger in children up to the age of 15 vaccinating more than once and that the ministry would not force anyone to get vaccination.
However, a number of Apostolic faithful, including a bishop, have been arrested and tried in court for barring their faithfuls from accessing vaccination. A number of children that died came from such religious groups.
The media has also been asked to send out 'rightful information' to the public on the pandemic.
Zimbabwe minister threatens press with jail over leaks
New York, August 13, 2010—A Zimbabwean minister who threatened to jail journalists should retract his statement and honor an agreement to implement media reform, the Committee to Protect Journalists said today. Information Minister Webster Shamu made the threat on August 4 against journalists who used information he said had been leaked from cabinet meetings.
Shamu said that journalists and ministers could face jail sentences of up to 20 years under the 1970 Official Secrets Act for using confidential information from cabinet proceedings to “further their political agendas”, according to news reports. The legislation, which dates back to the Republic of Rhodesia, prohibits government employees from disclosing official information to the public that the state considers “prejudicial” to the safety or interest of Zimbabwe.
Shamu issued the threat after a cabinet meeting in which ministers traded accusations over information leaks to the press, according to local journalists. One of the latest leaks was a cabinet agreement to stop the state-run Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation from playing pro-ZANU-PF songs every half hour. Shamu was reportedly planning a new series of pro-ZANU-PF songs for the country’s state-controlled TV and radio stations, according to local reports.
“Instead of implementing media reforms pledged since 2008 under the Global Political Agreement, Zimbabwe’s ZANU-PF-led coalition government is reviving an outdated, repressive law to criminalize independent reporting,” said CPJ Africa Advocacy Coordinator Mohamed Keita. “We call on the information minister to retract his statement, and move to make media reforms a reality.”
A coalition government between the former ruling ZANU-PF party and two opposition parties, MDC-M and MDC-T (the two split in 2005), was formed in January 2009 after a disputed March 2008 election in which CPJ documented a spike in journalist arrests.
Shamu said that journalists and ministers could face jail sentences of up to 20 years under the 1970 Official Secrets Act for using confidential information from cabinet proceedings to “further their political agendas”, according to news reports. The legislation, which dates back to the Republic of Rhodesia, prohibits government employees from disclosing official information to the public that the state considers “prejudicial” to the safety or interest of Zimbabwe.
Shamu issued the threat after a cabinet meeting in which ministers traded accusations over information leaks to the press, according to local journalists. One of the latest leaks was a cabinet agreement to stop the state-run Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation from playing pro-ZANU-PF songs every half hour. Shamu was reportedly planning a new series of pro-ZANU-PF songs for the country’s state-controlled TV and radio stations, according to local reports.
“Instead of implementing media reforms pledged since 2008 under the Global Political Agreement, Zimbabwe’s ZANU-PF-led coalition government is reviving an outdated, repressive law to criminalize independent reporting,” said CPJ Africa Advocacy Coordinator Mohamed Keita. “We call on the information minister to retract his statement, and move to make media reforms a reality.”
A coalition government between the former ruling ZANU-PF party and two opposition parties, MDC-M and MDC-T (the two split in 2005), was formed in January 2009 after a disputed March 2008 election in which CPJ documented a spike in journalist arrests.
CPJ: Puntland editor jailed after airing rebel leader interview
New York, August 16, 2010—The Committee to Protect Journalists calls on authorities in the semi-autonomous region of Puntland to immediately release jailed radio journalist Abdifatah Jama, who was sentenced on Saturday to six years in prison on charges related to an interview with Islamic rebel leader Sheikh Mohamed Said Atom.
CPJ said court proceedings against Jama, deputy director of the privately owned Horseed FM, violated basic standards of fairness. The court issued its ruling just a day after Jama’s arrest, closed the proceedings to the public, and denied Jama access to a lawyer, the journalist’s supervisor, Mahad M. Ahmed, told CPJ. Horseed plans to appeal the court ruling, Ahmed said. CPJ called on Puntland court officials to free Jama pending appeal and to overturn Saturday’s summary ruling.
Armed police stormed the station in the port city Bossasso on Friday evening, arresting Jama and seven other staff members, according to local journalists. The other staff members were soon released, but Jama was convicted and sentenced the next day under Puntland’s anti-terror law.
The interview with Atom, which was conducted by another Horseed journalist, was aired earlier on Friday. The interviewer asked a series of critical and challenging questions of Atom, and the report provided political context, according to Ahmed, the station’s executive director, and another, independent CPJ source.
The anti-terror law, passed by parliament on July 20, is itself unclear. In an interview with CPJ, Ahmed said the contents of the law have yet to be disclosed to the public.
“Puntland authorities are cracking down on independent coverage of the conflict in their region, and Abdifatah Jama has been unjustly caught up in this repression,” said CPJ’s East Africa Consultant Tom Rhodes. “Puntland authorities should immediately release Jama, whose treatment was patently unfair, and end their obstruction of independent news coverage.”
Judge Farah Hassan issued a stiffer sentence than that recommended by prosecutor Mohamud Mohamed, who had sought a three-year term, the National Union of Somali Journalists reported. Police transferred Jama to the Bossasso Detention Center on Sunday.
Puntland Information Minister Abdihakin Ahmed told journalists at a press conference on Sunday that Jama was “lucky” to receive a six-year sentence since the maximum sentence under the new anti-terror law is 20 years. The minister ordered journalists not to interview rebel forces under Sheikh Mohamed Said Atom, and said they would face “severe punishment” if they did, the union reported.
Since 2005, Sheikh Mohamed Said Atom has controlled a small area of Galgala, about 45 kilometers (30 miles) south of Bossasso with an armed militia. In May, Atom declared the area he controls an Islamic state and escalating battles ensued between the warring parties, local journalists told CPJ. On Friday, the same day Horseed interviewed the militia commander, Atom’s forces attacked Puntland troops in the Galgala region, killing five soldiers.
Puntland authorities have been clamping down on independent coverage of the regional conflict in recent weeks. On August 10, the information minister issued a letter indefinitely suspending VOA and Universal TV reporter Nuh Muse from working in Puntland, local journalists told CPJ. No explanation was given for the suspension, but CPJ sources said the government believed Muse had been arranging interviews with civilians caught in the conflict.
CPJ said court proceedings against Jama, deputy director of the privately owned Horseed FM, violated basic standards of fairness. The court issued its ruling just a day after Jama’s arrest, closed the proceedings to the public, and denied Jama access to a lawyer, the journalist’s supervisor, Mahad M. Ahmed, told CPJ. Horseed plans to appeal the court ruling, Ahmed said. CPJ called on Puntland court officials to free Jama pending appeal and to overturn Saturday’s summary ruling.
Armed police stormed the station in the port city Bossasso on Friday evening, arresting Jama and seven other staff members, according to local journalists. The other staff members were soon released, but Jama was convicted and sentenced the next day under Puntland’s anti-terror law.
The interview with Atom, which was conducted by another Horseed journalist, was aired earlier on Friday. The interviewer asked a series of critical and challenging questions of Atom, and the report provided political context, according to Ahmed, the station’s executive director, and another, independent CPJ source.
The anti-terror law, passed by parliament on July 20, is itself unclear. In an interview with CPJ, Ahmed said the contents of the law have yet to be disclosed to the public.
“Puntland authorities are cracking down on independent coverage of the conflict in their region, and Abdifatah Jama has been unjustly caught up in this repression,” said CPJ’s East Africa Consultant Tom Rhodes. “Puntland authorities should immediately release Jama, whose treatment was patently unfair, and end their obstruction of independent news coverage.”
Judge Farah Hassan issued a stiffer sentence than that recommended by prosecutor Mohamud Mohamed, who had sought a three-year term, the National Union of Somali Journalists reported. Police transferred Jama to the Bossasso Detention Center on Sunday.
Puntland Information Minister Abdihakin Ahmed told journalists at a press conference on Sunday that Jama was “lucky” to receive a six-year sentence since the maximum sentence under the new anti-terror law is 20 years. The minister ordered journalists not to interview rebel forces under Sheikh Mohamed Said Atom, and said they would face “severe punishment” if they did, the union reported.
Since 2005, Sheikh Mohamed Said Atom has controlled a small area of Galgala, about 45 kilometers (30 miles) south of Bossasso with an armed militia. In May, Atom declared the area he controls an Islamic state and escalating battles ensued between the warring parties, local journalists told CPJ. On Friday, the same day Horseed interviewed the militia commander, Atom’s forces attacked Puntland troops in the Galgala region, killing five soldiers.
Puntland authorities have been clamping down on independent coverage of the regional conflict in recent weeks. On August 10, the information minister issued a letter indefinitely suspending VOA and Universal TV reporter Nuh Muse from working in Puntland, local journalists told CPJ. No explanation was given for the suspension, but CPJ sources said the government believed Muse had been arranging interviews with civilians caught in the conflict.
Malawi: G-Mobile in US$25 m network roll out
Troubled G-Mobile, a mobile telecommunications company that intends to become Malawi's third, has announced it is rolling out a US$25 million network before the end of the year. The company was last month ordered to pay millions after it failed to roll out on time.
Chief Executive Officer, Peter Davies, in the commercial city of Blantyre he company is expected to invest more than US$150 million in the coming three years.
"We will be up and running before the end of this year. We mean to be the network of choice," he said, adding G-Mobile is earmarking a workforce of 60 in its first year, outsourcing most of its activities.
Davies challenged G-Mobile will establish a high quality service to distinguish it from its competitors. Two other mobile telecommunications companies, Zain Malawi, to fully rebrand to new owner Barti Airtel, and Tnm are in operation in Malawi.
"To date in Malawi, an array of factors, including logistical difficulties, has created a high rate of dropped calls and other service issues with established operators. G Mobile’s ethos is to raise the quality of services seen in the market while at the same time maintaining competitive pricing,” he explained, adding fair competition will help bring down call costs on the marketplace.
He said his company is looking forward to effectively competing with current market players to bring down the cost of making calls in Malawi.
The G-Mobile boss added Malawi has a relatively low penetration of cellular phones compared to other countries, and has one of the highest cost of calls in the world.
"This is a great opportunity for G-Mobile to make a significant difference to Malawi business and its citizens, assisting with socio economic development across the country,” he told the press.
Early this year, the company engaged Telkom Management Services of South Africa to plan and implement the network rollout, and later engaged ZTE to supply equipment.
Weiss+ Appetito will supply the company's environmental infrastructure.
G-Mobile is currently discussing with the Malawi Communications Regulatory Authority (MACRA) on reducing a penalty fee of US$6.9 million it was charged for failing to roll out on time.
The regulatory body imposed the penalty on May 20 and gave G Mobile who had been granted the country's third telecommunications licence as a cell phone operator 30 days to pay up.
G-Mobile Phone Company was given until March 20 to roll out its network or have its licence revoked. The company failed even after Macra extended the duration to April 12.
G Mobile Phone Company challenged the issue in the High Court in the northern region Mzuzu city where they were granted an injunction restraining Macra from penalising them them and also give leave for judicial review.
According to court documents, High court judge Lovemore Chikopa on July 12, heard the arguments for and against the grant of leave and the continuation of the injunction from both G Mobile and Macra lawyers.
While ruling that leave for judicial review and the injunction should be maintained, Chikopa said his ruling that G Mobile sought an extension of time in which to roll out its network and further claimed that Macra agreed to extend the deadline on condition that G Mobile paid a penalty in the sum of $6.950, 000 by June 19, 2010.
Chikopa said Macra argued against both the grant of leave and injunction saying there are no issues between them and G Mobile as the decision complained of is contained in a privileged communication that should not be even before the court.
Chief Executive Officer, Peter Davies, in the commercial city of Blantyre he company is expected to invest more than US$150 million in the coming three years.
"We will be up and running before the end of this year. We mean to be the network of choice," he said, adding G-Mobile is earmarking a workforce of 60 in its first year, outsourcing most of its activities.
Davies challenged G-Mobile will establish a high quality service to distinguish it from its competitors. Two other mobile telecommunications companies, Zain Malawi, to fully rebrand to new owner Barti Airtel, and Tnm are in operation in Malawi.
"To date in Malawi, an array of factors, including logistical difficulties, has created a high rate of dropped calls and other service issues with established operators. G Mobile’s ethos is to raise the quality of services seen in the market while at the same time maintaining competitive pricing,” he explained, adding fair competition will help bring down call costs on the marketplace.
He said his company is looking forward to effectively competing with current market players to bring down the cost of making calls in Malawi.
The G-Mobile boss added Malawi has a relatively low penetration of cellular phones compared to other countries, and has one of the highest cost of calls in the world.
"This is a great opportunity for G-Mobile to make a significant difference to Malawi business and its citizens, assisting with socio economic development across the country,” he told the press.
Early this year, the company engaged Telkom Management Services of South Africa to plan and implement the network rollout, and later engaged ZTE to supply equipment.
Weiss+ Appetito will supply the company's environmental infrastructure.
G-Mobile is currently discussing with the Malawi Communications Regulatory Authority (MACRA) on reducing a penalty fee of US$6.9 million it was charged for failing to roll out on time.
The regulatory body imposed the penalty on May 20 and gave G Mobile who had been granted the country's third telecommunications licence as a cell phone operator 30 days to pay up.
G-Mobile Phone Company was given until March 20 to roll out its network or have its licence revoked. The company failed even after Macra extended the duration to April 12.
G Mobile Phone Company challenged the issue in the High Court in the northern region Mzuzu city where they were granted an injunction restraining Macra from penalising them them and also give leave for judicial review.
According to court documents, High court judge Lovemore Chikopa on July 12, heard the arguments for and against the grant of leave and the continuation of the injunction from both G Mobile and Macra lawyers.
While ruling that leave for judicial review and the injunction should be maintained, Chikopa said his ruling that G Mobile sought an extension of time in which to roll out its network and further claimed that Macra agreed to extend the deadline on condition that G Mobile paid a penalty in the sum of $6.950, 000 by June 19, 2010.
Chikopa said Macra argued against both the grant of leave and injunction saying there are no issues between them and G Mobile as the decision complained of is contained in a privileged communication that should not be even before the court.
Kinnah Phiri is not a good coach; the guy just has stone-hard luck
Kinnah Phiri, the so called 'magic' coach for Malawi, is a miserable coach. I have always doubted his credentials. The guy just happens to bump into luck each time.
But he has nothing tactical about football in his big head.
Look at the way he makes scathing remarks about his own players in the press. Joseph Kamwendo, I must say, is my man- the epitome of skill and talent. Of course Fische Kondowe has no skill, the guy is just a useless hard worker. Not with Kamwendo! The marvelous player- one of the best Malawi has ever had.
And Kinnah wants to chase that kid. The problem with Kinnah is that he wants to promote his cousins in the national team. Did you know that there is a man called Saliwa Munthali, a cousin to Kinnah, who plays in the same position as Kamwendo? Kinnah wants this guy in (into the national team) at the expense of Kamwendo.
It is utter-most nonsense.
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to talk to Kinnah, at 12:46p.m, at Chitawira Shopping Centre (As I ate some Chimtuwi). Kinnah bought some sausages and a copy of the Guardian Newspaper (I mean our own Bakali Maulidi edited Guardian) and was heading out when I bumped into him.
I have interacted with him before, but only when he has a complaint to make against some Football Association of Malawi officials- more often when he feels that they are sabotaging him.
But this time, it was me complaining to him.
Kinnah Phiri, the so-called best Malawian (local) coach to date was brunt when I asked him about Joseph 'Shakira' Kamwendo. He said:
"The boy is big-headed. Let him resign, we have a lot of players of his calibre. After all, two months will not pass before he changes his mind and comes back into the Flames side. It has happened with Esau Kanyenda. Let the kid (Kamwendo) go and rest as he says."
I was disappointed. That's when I told him he was a 'rotary' coach, that everything that has happened was by chance, that he has o tactics and that he is, in truth, a failure.
He got angry, rushed to his vehicle and drove away. Of course he called me that evening and said I did not handle the issue well.
But I know, deep down, the way he cruised from Chitawira Shopping Centre, running away from me in anger, is the way he will appear when we, Malawians, will chase him from our national side.
Being a little bit too dark does not make a coach too local.
I rest my case.
It is my way of rushing out of a place, like did Kinnah, of course. Kinnah Phiri, you are a useless coach. I want my Kamwendo back.
But he has nothing tactical about football in his big head.
Look at the way he makes scathing remarks about his own players in the press. Joseph Kamwendo, I must say, is my man- the epitome of skill and talent. Of course Fische Kondowe has no skill, the guy is just a useless hard worker. Not with Kamwendo! The marvelous player- one of the best Malawi has ever had.
And Kinnah wants to chase that kid. The problem with Kinnah is that he wants to promote his cousins in the national team. Did you know that there is a man called Saliwa Munthali, a cousin to Kinnah, who plays in the same position as Kamwendo? Kinnah wants this guy in (into the national team) at the expense of Kamwendo.
It is utter-most nonsense.
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to talk to Kinnah, at 12:46p.m, at Chitawira Shopping Centre (As I ate some Chimtuwi). Kinnah bought some sausages and a copy of the Guardian Newspaper (I mean our own Bakali Maulidi edited Guardian) and was heading out when I bumped into him.
I have interacted with him before, but only when he has a complaint to make against some Football Association of Malawi officials- more often when he feels that they are sabotaging him.
But this time, it was me complaining to him.
Kinnah Phiri, the so-called best Malawian (local) coach to date was brunt when I asked him about Joseph 'Shakira' Kamwendo. He said:
"The boy is big-headed. Let him resign, we have a lot of players of his calibre. After all, two months will not pass before he changes his mind and comes back into the Flames side. It has happened with Esau Kanyenda. Let the kid (Kamwendo) go and rest as he says."
I was disappointed. That's when I told him he was a 'rotary' coach, that everything that has happened was by chance, that he has o tactics and that he is, in truth, a failure.
He got angry, rushed to his vehicle and drove away. Of course he called me that evening and said I did not handle the issue well.
But I know, deep down, the way he cruised from Chitawira Shopping Centre, running away from me in anger, is the way he will appear when we, Malawians, will chase him from our national side.
Being a little bit too dark does not make a coach too local.
I rest my case.
It is my way of rushing out of a place, like did Kinnah, of course. Kinnah Phiri, you are a useless coach. I want my Kamwendo back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)