The Queen’s Commonwealth Charter and What It Really Means for the LGBTQI Population
Feature Image Photograph Copyright Philip Toscano, 2013, AP
Last Monday (March 11th) was Commonwealth Day! The Queen, as head of the Commonwealth, did some stuff to celebrate: most notably, she signed an equal rights charter, which is the first time in her 61-year reign that she’s publicly supported gay rights. Fantastic!
The Commonwealth Charter represents the first time that the 54 constituent nations of the Commonwealth have created a document detailing their core principles. It consists of 16 articles which the countries adopted in December, and among them is a pledge for equal rights. The charter states, “We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds.”
“Or other grounds.” As you may have noticed, there isn’t actually a direct reference to the LGBT community there, but according to The Daily Telegraph, “the words “other grounds” are said to refer to sexuality.” Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of gay rights charity Stonewall, said, “This is the first time that the Queen has publicly acknowledged the importance of the six per cent of her subjects who are gay. Some of the worst persecution of gay people in the world takes place in Commonwealth countries as a result of the British Empire.” But if gender, race, colour, creed and political belief all get a specific mention, why not sexual orientation?
The Commonwealth stretches over 54 countries, and encompasses 30% of the world’s population. Out of those 54 countries, same-sex relationships are only recognised in 5: the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. More worryingly, in 41 countries, homosexuality is illegal: it carries a sentence of life imprisonment in Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Bangladesh and Guyana. In fact, Uganda is in the Commonwealth, a nation forever on the edges of our collective consciousness due to the infamous ‘Kill The Gays’ bill – and the death penalty already a reality in some parts of Nigeria and Pakistan. It seems that the specific wording of the Commonwealth Charter was changed in deference to the more conservative countries in the intergovernmental organisation.
Photograph Copyright Michael Key via Washington Blade
So it’s not as sunny as it may first appear. The Queen might be supporting gay rights, but implicitly rather than blazingly – we’re probably not going to see her decked out in rainbow flags any time soon, much to my dismay. Furthermore, it’s unlikely that the charter will actually change opinions or attitudes. In the UK, it’s pretty much taken for granted that you will not be discriminated against for loving who you love; there are no provisions being set out to help those who really need it, in nations where their sexual orientation puts them in a position of danger. It’s all very well for Commonwealth countries to sign a piece of paper to claim they will treat all people equally, but while persecution persists, it’s just that – empty claims.
However, there is a small consolation to be had here, as the charter specifically mentions equal rights for women:
We recognise that gender equality and women’s empowerment are essential components of human development and basic human rights. The advancement of women’s rights and the education of girls are critical preconditions for effective and sustainable development.
Considering the fact that Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge (married to Prince William, second in line to the throne), is currently pregnant – and rumoured to be giving birth to a girl – this charter comes in the wake of a change of legislation which will give any first-born child the right to ascend the throne. The old system male-preference cognatic primogeniture was not only a mouthful, but is due to be replaced by the Succession To The Crown Bill 2012-3, which is currently in the House of Lords report stage (and will probably be signed into law later this year).
Photograph Copyright Zoran Karapancev / Shutterstock.com
The Queen’s support for women’s rights is not something that’s ever been questioned though, and it feels like perhaps she missed and opportunity to really get behind the queer community with this charter. It may not change much, but the act of signing it does send a certain statement: that the Commonwealth ought to be all about fairness and equality, and perhaps the nations will take steps towards more progressive treatment. Till then, we can placate ourselves with the knowledge that the head of the Commonwealth supports us, even if some of the constituent nations don’t.
BBC Calls For Trans* Inclusive Comedy Scripts
Television’s portrayal of trans* characters will 99% of the time send you into fits of semi-incoherent, apoplectic rage. “Give me a freaking drink,” I implore, after watching another shitstorm of an episode of Glee, “so I can throw it in Ryan Murphy’s eyes! Won’t someone please give Unique the fabulous storylines she deserves?!”
image via glaad.org
“Stop calling her “he,” you arseholes!” I yelled at my telly on Saturday, as a long-running medical drama presented a young transwoman who was consistently referred to by everyone – even the HOSPITAL STAFF – as being male. And that’s not even starting on the fact that transmen are horribly, hideously under-represented anywhere that’s not Degrassi: The Next Generation (which I have never actually watched) or Boys Don’t Cry. Isn’t it just infuriating?
Luckily, I’m not the only one who thinks this needs changing, and if you live in the UK, then you – yes, YOU, RIGHT THERE, reading this right now, drinking tea from your chipped mug – can help be the change you want to see.
The BBC Writersroom has joined forces with Trans Comedy to launch the Trans Comedy Award, a competition for writers to create a script which actually represents trans* people accurately:
The Trans Comedy Award opens up an opportunity for the transgender community and members of the general public to portray transgender characters and the transgender experience in a fresh affirming manner, without resorting to cliché or stereotype.
We are looking for original comedy sitcoms, comedy dramas or sketch shows featuring transgender characters and/or themes and written for television. An award of up to a maximum of £5000 will be shared between the selected writer(s) in order that they may develop a pilot or taster.
image via bbc.co.uk
Yup – the BBC is running a nationwide search for new comedy writing talent, which actually talks about what it’s like to be trans* without resorting to those squick-worthy “jokes” about Thai ladyboys. Scripts should be a half-hour pilot episode, and can be sitcoms, comedy-dramas, or even sketch shows with recurring trans* characters.
We’re not looking for issue-led stories. We want to see comedy which comes from the characters and their interactions with friends, family, colleagues etc. So you can touch on the issues of relationships for example but keep it balanced with always comedy in mind.
If you think you’ve got what it takes, then you’d better start writing: the deadline for entries is February 28th. Check out the BBC Writersroom website for more information on rules, FAQs, and how to enter. And if this leads to some trans* friendly shows being (finally) commissioned, then all the better.
We Won A Thing: UK House of Commons Votes to Legalise Gay Marriage
feature image by © Paul Brown/Demotix/Corbis
I was all ready to write an article on how the right-wing of the Conservative party are still trying to ruin stuff for us adorable queer Brits – how 23 Conservative party chair men were lobbying for the bill to be delayed; how a Member of Parliament is allegedly receiving death threats for his opposition to the bill; how it will apparently negatively affect the chances of the Conservative government being re-elected in 2015 – but then I realised that there was no way I’d finish writing the article before the vote happened on February 5th, the result of which would kind of render my previous idea moot. Instead, I sat tight and followed the bill’s progress online – mainly through The Guardian live-blog, because I am a fan of the liberal media. The numbers looked good – 380 MPs had expressed their support, and the Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, is in favour.
This was the second reading of the “Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill”, and there was a huge debate before the voting took place, where 71 backbench MPs (MPs who aren’t Cabinet ministers) got to give the House of Commons their two pennies. The debate started at 12.45pm, and the vote took place at 7pm. Results came out at 7.15pm.
And we won.
We won big. Out of 650 MPs, the bill passed its second reading 400-175, a majority of 225. The more astute of you may have noticed that this means 74 MPs abstained (one – the Speaker, John Bercow, notorious fan of the gays, cannot vote), but even with them all voting against, the bill still would have passed with a majority of 149 votes.
via the guardian
However, it isn’t all sunshine and rainbows – the numbers belie a much bigger problem. Out of 303 Conservative MPs in the House of Commons, “140 or so” voted against the bill, according to Conservative MP for East Worthing and Shoreham, Tim Loughton. He added that “there are 132 Conservative MPs who voted in favour”, and 31 abstained – which means that only 44% of Conservative MPs supported David Cameron’s party line on the bill. Conservative MPs have discussed the overwhelming number of people who have spoken to them opposing the bill – does this mean they will lose part of their key demographic? How is David Cameron going to handle the fact that more than half of his party rebelled, voting in favour of the old ways? It’s certainly going to damage the new Conservative party image he’s trying to cultivate: it’s hard to say you’re in charge of a progressive party who support equality when 56% of your MPs don’t. The bill only passed because of overwhelming support from the other parties, notably the Liberal Democrats (the smaller party in the UK Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition) and Labour.
The other problem is that this bill is not yet law. It has to pass to the Committee stage and the Reporting stage, be voted on again at the third reading, and then go through the same stages in the unelected House of Lords. Legislation will be batted back and forth between the two houses before everyone gets bored of scrutinising the fine print and it is officially signed into law by the Queen.
See that 2 in a green circle? That’s where we are right now. via parliament.uk
Of course, complaints will arise. I’m envisioning middle-class white men waxing lyrical about how the Institution of Marriage has been Irrevocably Destroyed. I’m envisioning Church of England bishops kicking up a fuss, and Daily Mail columnists asking “won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children?!”. But the future looks bright. The bill is pretty much guaranteed to pass into law, though nobody can say for sure if it will be sooner or later. As Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg puts it:
“No matter who you are and who you love, we are all equal. Marriage is about love and commitment, and it should no longer be denied to people just because they are gay.”
Actually a Good Thing: England Delays Decision on Female Bishops
feature image via The Telegraph
Despite Scotland’s branch of the Anglican Church deeming it legal to ordain female bishops in 2003, it’s taken a while for this news to leak south of the border to England. This week has seen the General Synod debating the ordination of female bishops within England, and on July 9th, they decided – in a nutshell – that they were going to put off deciding. Ridiculously though, it was the best possible result for women. “But HOW can that be?” I hear you wail, while silently cursing the patriarchy. To be fair, I suggest we blame our second-favourite cause of female oppression this time: the Evangelicals.
via the telegraph
The Anglican Church has a complicated decision-making process that involves drafting legislation years in advance of voting on it; this legislation on female bishops has been in the works since February 2009. At the Synod at the beginning of July, the three houses – Bishops, Clergy and Laity – decided to vote on it. Would it be permissible for England to allow female bishops? 42 out of 44 of the diocesan synods support the measure, so it should have been a clear-cut case… except it wasn’t.
The right-leaning members of the Church – comprising mainly of Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical Anglicans – were firmly “theologically opposed” to the measure. No doubt they cracked open the Bible, and pointed to choice bits of rhetoric. Saint Paul is a particular favourite:
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent –1 Timothy 2.11-12
Biblical teaching like this seems not to have affected the Anglican Church in other countries. The Church of England’s ordination of female bishops is not a New Thing. The first female bishop was Li Tim-Oi, ordained in the Anglican Diocese of Hong Kong and Macao, in 1944. 1944, you guys. That’s… a long time before I was born. That’s ten years before my dad was even born. Barbara Harris was ordained as an Episcopal bishop in Massachusetts in 1989, and female bishops became legal in Ireland (and Northern Ireland) in 1990, though none have yet been consecrated. My girlfriend was born in Belfast that year. It’s mad to think that the entirety of her life, female Anglican bishops have been legal in her country, but not in mine. So seriously, what gives?
It turns out the right-wing presence in the House of Laity was large enough to cause significant problems for the proposed legislation, and in May a late amendment to the legislation was tabled. This resulted in Clause 5.1 being hastily added in an attempt to appease them: in essence, it states that any parish that doesn’t want a female bishop can opt to have a male bishop installed who shares their views on women in the church. Not just “a male bishop”, but a male bishop who agrees that women are incapable of ordering and ordaining male clergy within the church.
This created a difficult situation for supporters of the bill. Do they vote for the long-awaited piece of legislation that aims to finally give female priests the chance for promotion they deserve in England? Or do they flush it, on the basis that it would “enshrine discrimination in law”? The Archdeacon of Hackney, Rachel Treweek, described the problem to The Guardian:
It would be very easy to say, ‘Oh, let’s all just vote in favour and get this through.’… I want to get it right now. I don’t want to get something in legislation which means we’re having to come back to this.
In the end, they took a third option – the three houses voted to postpone the bill until a “special” Synod in November. The purpose of this was to ramp up pressure on the House of Bishops – led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams – to get rid of the offending clause.
via David Walker
Williams has conceded that the amendment is “a corner into which the Church has backed itself and out of which we are trying to get”, but also implied that senior Bishops might not be able to come up with a better legislative compromise. It seems that the supporters in the house of Clergy and house of Laity will have to fight hard to get the bishops thinking of solutions. “Never in my experience has the church been so out of step with the good news and of the people of this country,” laments Celia Thomson, Canon Pastor of Gloucester cathedral.
In reality, this delay of the bill was the best possible result for female clergy, but that’s not the key issue here: it’s that the people who still believe in theologically-sanctioned sexism are being taken seriously, even pandered to, and thus impede actual progress. Evangelicals have threatened to leave the Church if the legislation passes; coincidentally, this mirrors the threat of the Anglican Church as a whole to break with the UK as the state religion if gay marriage law passes.
On a world scale, 18 provinces of the Church of England have no legal bars to ordaining female bishops, with female bishops serving in 5; so far the world has not ended, and God has not struck them down as heathens. How can we say the Church of England supports female bishops in Cuba if it does not support them in England? It’s time the home of Anglicanism caught up with the rest of the world, before it gets any more embarrassing.
Here’s What’s Happening With Gay Marriage In The UK
If I were to explain the gay marriage situation in the UK by comparison to US states, I would say we’re like Illinois: second-parent adoption is legal and the laws governing discrimination are pretty good, but we’re still working on the gay marriage front. Gay marriages conducted abroad are recognised as civil unions within the UK, but that’s as far as it’s gone… and then Prime Minister David Cameron actually did something I approve of, and announced his support for gay marriage in October 2011, with the planned legislature coming into effect in 2015. So, PARTY TIME! Right?
You’d think so, wouldn’t you? But you’d be wrong.
David Cameron gives marriage equality the green light
The structure of the UK political system actually means that it’s very easy for Prime Ministers to pass whatever legislation they want. A prerequisite of becoming the PM is having a majority of the 650 seats in the House of Commons, as determined by the general election. Cameron’s Conservative party won 305 seats in the 2010 election, and thus had to form a coalition with the 57 Liberal Democrats (who are a bit like liberal Democrats, but not) in order to create a majority. Thanks to well-enforced party discipline, members of Parliament will almost always vote with their parties or else fear the wrath of the party Whips— who sadly don’t use actual whips.
The Lib Dems are the only party who unequivocally support the measures, and it’s probably their leader, deputy PM Nick Clegg, who has caused Cameron to announce the plans. Unfortunately, some MPs decided that they were morally opposed to gay marriage. Not just some. A sizable number. And they had the Church on their side. And therefore, Cameron decided that there could be a free vote on the issue, allowing politicians to vote with their conscience without fearing being reprimanded by the party. As most of the opposing Labour party also support gay marriage, in theory this shouldn’t be a problem. In reality though, the dissenters are making a lot of noise.
Peter Bone, Conservative MP for Wellingborough, called the proposed marriage law “completely nuts” and insisted that marriage is between a man and a woman. Though Bone himself seems like a total bonehead, a lot of other Tory MPs share his view. According to Coalition for Equal Marriage, 62 MPs have confirmed their plan to vote against the actions, with 50 of them coming from the Conservative party. More worryingly, 326 MPs — just over 50% of the House of Commons — are yet to announce their intentions.
There has been a public consultation on the proposed plans, but the responses gathered from 100,000 people have been overwhelmingly negative. This can mainly be attributed to the Church of England. Because, my dear friends, the UK has an official state religion, i.e. the Anglican Church. The top 26 Bishops in England sit in the unelected House of Lords as the ‘Lords Spiritual,’ with the most important being the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams. Surprise surprise, he opposes the government’s proposed legislation:
“If it is said that a failure to legalise … same-sex marriage perpetuates stigma or marginalisation for some people, the reply must be, I believe, that issues like stigma and marginalisation have to be addressed at the level of culture rather than law.”
This argument is clearly flawed. Culturally, gay people already have all of the same rights as straight couples, but there are still pockets of discrimination: namely, we don’t have the right to call ourselves “married.” If the law categorically states that people of all sexualities are equal, then society will acquiesce. Importantly, making marriage equal means that asking someone about their relationship status will not automatically reveal their sexual orientation: everyone with that official commitment will be married. Furthermore, if a trans* person transitions after marrying their beau, they will still be legally married rather than having their relationship transmuted into a civil partnership. Not that the Church cares about that. You can turn this post into a drinking game: take a shot every time I mention “the Church.” You can start apologising to your liver now.
These guys are not having it
Due to the integration of church and state, the Church of England genuinely do have a political presence; unlike the Evangelical support of Republicans in the U.S. though, this is institutionalised. The Church’s main fear seems to be that churches would be forced to conduct same-sex marriages in church. It is a legal right of UK citizens to get married in an Anglican church, even if they aren’t believers. If gay couples can get married, they might want to get married in church and this would be terrible and cause the zombie apocalypse! As you might expect, the Church in Wales also holds this position which is disappointing.
Therefore, the game of political ping-pong begins. If political ping-pong was an Olympic sport, we might actually stand a chance of a medal. The government’s proposals are for “civil marriage:” there is no compulsion for Anglican churches to conduct ceremonies. Actually, they might not be allowed to at all, even though some Christian denominations — like the Quakers — would be totally down with it.
The Anglicans have countered this by claiming that if a same-sex couple sued for discrimination over not being allowed to get married in church, the European Court of Human Rights could theoretically order the government to change the law. See, the UK is about 200 years behind America in that we don’t have a written constitution or Bill of Rights. There is no golden standard by which other legislation can be judged; the ECHR is the best we have, and many Euro-sceptic Conservatives hate it on principle for taking sovereignty away from Britain. Despite what the ECHR says though, the British government wouldn’t force churches to allow gay people to marry there. Churches already have the right to refuse to marry previously divorced people, and no successful legal challenges have been made to this.
But alas, all this concession isn’t enough for the Church, who are threatening something pretty radical. Senior bishops say that if the Government push ahead with these plans, it will culminate in the Anglican Church losing their special position within the UK, and may even herald disestablishment. A disagreement over gay marriage could see the Church and the State divorcing. To quote Cole Morton of The Daily Telegraph, who seems to sum it up pretty well:
“The Church of England is unique in seeing gay marriage as a threat to its existence. It was built to care for every soul in every parish, with priests who automatically become agents of the state. They have a legal duty to marry anyone in the parish who wants it and is eligible. Now, for the first time in 500 years, there could be a difference between the Church definition of marriage and the way it is defined in English law. The Church leadership believes this will undermine its unique position, rights and privileges as the established church– deeply ironic considering it was only created so that [King] Henry VIII could defy the Pope and remarry.“
Ultimately, looking at the numbers, it seems hopeful that gay marriage legislation will be passed. Deputy PM Clegg is determined, calling it a matter of “when not if”, and MP Andrew Mitchell claims that gay marriage has a majority in every age group save for the over-65s. Cameron will not back down from the one sensible decision he’s made while in power: if that results in the separation of Church and State, I will be among the first in line to raise a glass and say “about f*cking time”. And then make out with my girlfriend, knowing that if we wanted, we could be wife and wife some day.
Herstory Spotlight: Vita Sackville-West Wrote Words, Wooed Women, Wanted Woolf
click for other "the way we were" posts
June is LGBT Pride Month, so we’re celebrating all of our pride by feeding babies to lions! Just kidding, we’re talking about lesbian history, loosely defined as anything that happened in the 20th century or earlier, ’cause shit changes fast in these parts. We’re calling it The Way We Were, and we think you’re gonna like it. For a full index of all “The Way We Were” posts, click that graphic to the right there.
Previously:
1. Call For Submissions, by The Editors
2. Portraits of Lesbian Writers, 1987-1989, by Riese
3. The Way We Were Spotlight: Vita Sackville-West, by Sawyer
Raise your hand if you’ve heard of Virginia Woolf. That ought to be about 99% of you feministas. Now keep your hand raised if you’ve heard of Orlando, the novel she wrote about her lesbian lover. Is your hand still up? If it is, can you name Virginia’s muse for that book? (Pro tip: yes, because she’s the title of this post).
Vita Sackville-West not only inspired a great piece of 20th century literature, but was also pretty awesome herself: she was an acclaimed poet, author, journalist and gardener; had an open marriage, countless lesbian lovers, and sometimes cross-dressed. Aren’t you glad you’ve heard of her now?
via blog.temperleyknight.com
But let’s backtrack. Vita (christened Victoria Mary Sackville-West) was born into aristocracy in 1892, and didn’t meet Virginia until the 1920s as part of the London-based literary collective known as the Bloomsbury Group.
Her first foray into lesbianism happened while at school, with a friend, Rosamund Grosvenor. Their affair continued even after Vita became engaged in 1912 to her future husband, Harold Nicolson: “It did not seem wrong to be… engaged to Harold, and at the same time so much in love with Rosamund”. Rosamund was also passionately in love with Vita, and the two exchanged (rather racy) letters . Excerpt: “I want to feel your soft cool face coming out of that mass of pussy fur like I did last night.”
In 1913, Vita married Harold and her affair with Rosamund ended. There were indications she was growing tired of her dear Roddie by then, though, saying she had “no personality.” A clear case a lesbian bed death, amirite? (Note: I am probably not right.)
Harold Nicolson, Vita Sackville-West, Rosamund Grosvenor and Lionel Sackville-West in 1913
Vita wasn’t just known for her compelling personal life, she also earned a reputation as a writer. She published her first verse drama, Chatterton, in 1909 at just 17; while her first novel was not published until 1919, she had allegedly completed eight novels and five plays before she turned 18.
Vita was not one for monogamy, and she had multiple lovers at once. Violet Keppel (later Trefusis) was another school friend. Even after the two women were married, they continued to see each other and, from 1918 onwards, sometimes eloped together to France, where Vita dressed as a man and called herself Julian. Vita’s novel, Challenge (published in 1923) was supposedly inspired this affair – the male lead being called Julian. The novel’s portrayal of bisexuality was seen as too overt, and it was banned from being published in the UK. Violet became jealous of Vita’s other affairs (most of which I haven’t mentioned, as they are just THAT NUMEROUS), which eventually led Vita to end their relationship.
Virginia Woolf and Vita Sackville-West in 1933, taken by Leonard Woolf
And then, of course, there is the aforementioned affair with Virginia Woolf, Patron Saint of Women, Defender of Feminism, etc. etc. The relationship between Virginia and Vita has become the stuff of pop culture; for instance, poet laureate (and badass lesbian) Carol Ann Duffy references it in her poem The Kray Sisters. Interestingly, the very moment the novel Orlando was conceived is recorded by Virginia as being October 5th, 1927:
“And instantly the usual exciting devices enter my mind: a biography beginning in the year 1500 and continuing to the present day, called Orlando: Vita; only with a change about from one sex to the other.”
Vita’s son, Nigel Nicolson, calls it “the longest and most charming love-letter in literature,” which is a claim that runs testament to just how deeply their love ran.
The reason Vita stands as such an icon to me is the sheer scope of her achievements. Besides her intriguing persona life, Vita was a prolific writer. She won the Hawthorden Prize for literature twice – once in 1927 for her long narrative poem The Land (which was dedicated to another of her lovers, the poet Dorothy Wellesley) and again in 1933 with her Collected Poems, making her the only person to have won the award twice. Her home in later life, Sissinghurst Castle, has the most visited formal gardens in the UK. In 1946, Vita became a founding member of the National Trust and also started a column for The Independent newspaper about gardening.
Portrait of Vita Sackville-West by Philip de Laszlo, 1910
By the time she died in 1962 – despite living through a time of social conservatism – Vita had succeeded in living a life involving more lesbian lovers and literary accomplishment than most can only dream of, and was more than just Virginia Woolf’s lover. Her life seems best summed up by Nigel Nicolson in his book A Portrait Of Marriage, about his parents’ open marriage:
“She fought for the right to love, men and women, rejecting the conventions that marriage demands exclusive love, and that women should love only men, and men only women. For this she was prepared to give up everything.”