Online Features Columnist Sophie Mogridge talks LGBT issues. You can read Exeposé Screen’s review of Out There here.
On BBC’s Out There, Stephen Fry points to his laptop screen on which plays the harrowing footage of a mass hanging in Iran. “If anti-Semitism led to Auschwitz, then homophobia leads to this”, laments Fry. It’s one of the most chilling images to have ever crossed my television screen and highlights Fry’s very question: how can falling in love with another person ever be considered criminal?
In the age of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) logrolling it can be easy to forget that homosexuality is, in many countries, constitutionally illegal and that many men and women die worldwide as a direct consequence. Astonishingly, in Iran alone there have been over 100 cases of capital punishment because of homosexuality in the last century. For our “democratically” Westernised minds, such cruelty may seem abhorrent – we are living in the twenty-first century after all – but it must be recognised that homosexuality laws are not worldwide. Death, imprisonment, life sentences are commonplace; and tens of countries simply will not recognise a marriage even when conducted abroad.
Although it can hardly be considered a consolation, capital punishment is not the most popular legal response for homosexuality. Many men and women across the globe are subjected to “corrective rape”. In Out There, Fry meets a young Ugandan woman named Stosh who fell victim to such punishment. Absurdly, the monster that raped Stosh and stole her penetrative virginity did so because he hoped it would “cure her of her homosexuality”. Currently, there are plans emerging within the Ugandan government to criminalise homosexuality entirely as they believe it “inevitably” leads to all manner of malignant diseases; yet, in a painful twist of irony, Stosh’s rapist only succeeded in proving the exact opposite. As with many other same-sex partners, Stosh had never contracted sexually transmitted diseases from the benevolence of her homosexual relationships. Yet, her one “relationship” with a man not only made her pregnant, but infected her with HIV. Actions speak louder than words.
Image credits: Marco Raaphorst
On first impressions, we Britons are fortunate to be living under a constitution which provides us with the cusp of marriage equality. Yet there is perhaps a rather dark downside – laws criminalising homosexuality never existed in many countries before Britain imposed it upon them. On further research, out of the 84 remaining countries criminalising homosexuality, half are former British colonies. So should Britain have the weight of homophobia on its shoulders? Should our current government step in and right the wrongs of past governments? We are lucky to be living in a constitution with a much higher level of tolerance than places like Sri Lanka, Uganda and Iran, but things can still get better. Even in the UK today, homophobia is still a prevalent issue – even within Exeter itself.
Having spoken to many gay students in Exeter, it does not seem uncommon for them to have been stereotypically labelled with nasty, condescending terms – some being asked to move out of their student homes – and others being held at arm’s length, as if suffering from an incurable illness. But that is what is essential to understand, homosexuality is incurable because it is not a disease, an illness or a choice. It is a feeling, and feelings and beliefs simply cannot be stamped out – Hitler definitely proved this point.
Sexuality itself comes down to who you love, and to whom you are attracted – so why do people across the globe continue to condemn, criticise and attack homosexuality? In the midst of same-sex marriage lobbying, this quote went viral on the internet: ‘Claiming that someone else’s relationship is against your beliefs is like being angry at someone for eating a doughnut because you’re on a diet’. Whilst not saying the quote should be taken literally, but just because homosexuality is not your cup of tea (or indeed doughnut) it doesn’t mean you should become part of its condemnation.
Amy Young discusses the fight for LGBT rights in Russia- a topic which currently clouds the imminent Sochi Winter Olympic games.
The next Olympic event, the Sochi Winter Olympic Games in 2014, should be a time to celebrate the athletic achievements of the world through a variety of winter sports. It should not be an event we would expect to see at the centre of political controversy and protest. But, due to Russia’s new ‘gay propaganda law’ passed in June, this is now the case. This is a situation that is already being constantly updated by various news sources, and so it is difficult to accurately judge what will occur during Sochi 2014. What we can only report now, is the information with which we have been presented thus far.
Russia’s new law states that it is illegal to teach children about any ‘non-traditional relationships’, or to treat those relationships as if they are equally acceptable to heterosexuality. Russian President, Vladimir Putin, argues that this propaganda law is: “Not about imposing some sort of sanctions on homosexuality […] It’s about protecting children from such information”. Alarmingly, this new law was passed unanimously in the Duma in June: 434 votes to zero. Now, both Russian nationals and tourists alike can be punished for spreading “such information”, which can include anything from a fine to a prison sentence. However, tourists can only remain in prison for approximately fourteen days, but they can also be deported. Since the law was passed, both Russian citizens and tourists have been arrested in violation of it.
LGBT protesters ahead of the Sochi Winter Olympics. Image Credits: RUSA LGBT
America and Canada have been amongst the countries showing support for the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community in Russia, and future Sochi 2014 athletes, such as New Zealand speed skater Blake Skjellerup, have pledged to wear rainbow pins in support during the Games. Since then, the International Olympic Committee has warned that any spectators or athletes who protest during the Games could be open to punishment, including arrest and deportation, and any protesting athletes could also be disqualified from their events.
The extent of homophobia in Russia (before and after this law was created) is worrying to say the least. For example, last year Dmitry Kiselev, the anchorman and deputy Director of Russian state broadcast holding company VGTRK, announced on television that homosexuals must be banned “From donating blood and sperm, and if they die in car accidents, we need to bury their hearts in the ground or burn them as they are unsuitable for the aiding of anyone’s life” (translated into English on ‘The American Prospect’). He has since denied that he is homophobic.
Anton Krasovksy, a Russian journalist and television personality, was fired from his own cable channel KontrTV, after he stated on air “I’m gay. And I’m as much of a person as you, my dear viewers, as President Putin, Minister Medvedev, and the deputies of the Duma”.
A Kamensk-Uralsk-based group called “Occupy Paedophilia” use social media to pose as homosexual men, in order to lure real homosexuals and then subject them to horrendous physical abuse, which they record and post online. This organisation was founded by Maksim Martsinkevich, a convicted criminal who has served a three year prison sentence for inciting ethnic hatred. The group films men they beat, pour urine over or force to drink urine with seemingly little intervention from authorities.This kind of brutal and shocking behaviour is sickening, and yet it is happening.
Naturally, public protests have erupted around the world, and the champion of this protestation from a British standpoint, is none other than renowned “Actor, Writer, Lord of Dance, Prince of Swimwear & Blogger” – Stephen Fry. I am one among many who has shared his breathtakingly powerful letter with as many people as I could. Addressed to the “Prime Minister, M Rogge, Lord Coe and Members of the International Olympic Committee”, the letter compared the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics with Hitler’s 1936 Berlin Olympics, and requested that the Winter Olympic Games be boycotted, as, if the games are allowed to go ahead, “The Five Rings would finally be forever smeared, besmirched and ruined in the eyes of the civilised world”.
In response to this request, David Cameron announced on Twitter that he shared Stephen Fry’s “deep concern”, but believes that: “We can better challenge prejudice as we attend” the Games. But can we? After the IOC has declared any protesters are open to arrest during the Sochi Winter Olympics, will protesters actually be deterred from challenging prejudice? Unlikely. Therefore, instead of suggesting we boycott the Games, Fry has instead created “the Sochi Salute” – a gesture in which attending athletes cross their arms over their chest. He believes that such a gesture would unite them in solidarity against Putin and the Duma, to show that an Olympic spectacle cannot distract from the discrimination occurring in Russia.
Among those who have voiced concern over Russia’s ‘gay propaganda law’, are Swedish high jumper Emma Green-Tregaro and Swedish sprinter Moa Hjelmer. Both showed their support for LGBT rights by painting their nails in rainbow colours during the qualifying rounds of the World Athletics Championships in Moscow. When questioned about this, Green-Tregaro stated: “To me, love for another person is the most beautiful thing in the world, and that’s what I want to show, no matter the gender”.
On the other hand, the Russian pole vault gold medallist Yelena Isinbayeva supports her nation’s legislature, claiming that: “We have our laws that everyone has to respect […] We consider ourselves normal standard people […] Everything was fine, this comes from history”. I have many problems with Isinbayeva’s statement. I believe that there is no such thing as “normal” – no one way that everyone should be forced to live. People are different, and that is not something to be ashamed of, and not something that can be ignored. Much discrimination also “comes from history”, but that does not mean it is acceptable. However, the Swedish Olympic Committee has warned that behaviour similar to that of Green-Tregaro and Hjelmer will not be tolerated at the Sochi Winter Olympic Games.
But what is the difference? They are both sporting events, and during both LGBT Russians will still be persecuted on a daily basis. Why let them protest in this way now, and not later? It is because Sochi has been turned into a symbol of the struggle between Russian politics and LGBT supporters. At this Olympic event, the world will be watching and in attendance, which makes it the perfect opportunity for spectators and athletes alike to protest to the biggest audience. But it is not as simple as that. This struggle will continue before and after the Sochi Games, and to think otherwise is ludicrous.
Stephen Fry suggests in his letter that there are those who are separating sports from politics. If this is the case, then is it not hypocritical to prevent athletes from wearing something that alludes to gay pride? Is that not pushing Russian politics into sports by threatening disqualification, prison and/or deportation purely because of a small rainbow pin?
The IOC justify this decision through Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter: “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas”. However, Fry uses Rule 6 of the Olympic Charter to support his argument: “Act against any form of discrimination affecting the Olympic Movement”. Due to the seeming hypocritical nature of these rules, how can the IOC use one rule in violation of another?
Without doubt there will be varying degrees of protesting during the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. For some, the threat of being arrested or deported is nothing in comparison to the physical, emotional and mental abuse that innocent people are subjected to daily in Russia. I believe those people to be very courageous individuals indeed. However, due to the fact that the after-effects of this ‘gay propaganda law’ are constantly being updated in the news, what will actually happen during Sochi 2014 is not clear. I just hope that this mindless discrimination against the LGBT community will end.
The exciting world of screen certainly doesn’t grind to a halt following The Oscars. Next up, albeit on a perhaps less publicised level, are the 2013 Empire Awards (24th March), where Judi Dench and Daniel Craig for their performances in Skyfall have been nominated for Best Actress and Best Actor, respectively. The hugely successful film has been nominated for a total of six awards, but it will face stiff competition.
Anne Hathaway, Jennifer Lawrence, Golden Globe actress Jessica Chastain and Naomi Watts complete the line-up for Best Actress, while others nominated for Best Actor include Robert Downey Jr. and Martin Freeman.
Image credit: Empire Magazine
The first Empire Awards ceremony was held in 1996 and has continued to develop as a prestigious set of awards for those judged to be outstanding in the film industry. The awards are voted for by readers of Empire Magazine, and have been sponsored by Sony Ericsson and, more recently, Jameson Irish Whiskey.
On a different note, the British Film Institute’s 27th annual Lesbian and Gay Film Festival will be held in London over 11 days from 14 to 24 March. At least 21,000 people attended the event last year, and it’s expected that as many will go this year too.
More than 100 films will be on show, including a Canadian drama entitled Margarita, which tells the story of a Mexican nanny’s complicated lesbian love life. Another fascinating feature is Intersexion, a documentary about people who are born with no fixed gender. Kylie Minogue features in Jack & Diane.
Harry Potter fans and lovers of Daniel Radcliffe alike will be excited to know that Radcliffe will possibly be starring as Igor in a revisionist take on Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. First played by Dwight Frye in the 1931 film, Igor is infamously Frankenstein’s hunchback lab assistant. He actually did not appear as a character in Shelley’s novel but has now regularly featured in screen adaptations.
Fellow Harry Potter star Emma Watson looks set to play Cinderella in a live action movie version, to be directed by Kenneth Branagh. Cate Blanchett will also star as the wicked stepmother. Watson has recently starred in The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Noah and This is the End. Other possible contenders for the role of Cinderella have been rumoured to include Imogen Poots, Gabriella Wilde and Alicia Vikander.
With the recent passing of the same-sex marriage bill and to highlight LGBT history month, Exeposé Features looks at the issues behind the change to the legal definition of marriage in Britain.
James Crouch, Exeposé print Features editor
Listening to the debate over the introduction of gay marriage is fascinating. Only this government could introduce a measure that appears so popular and have it met by muddled half-hearted support surrounded by grumblings of even semi-coherent disapproval.
Now I will say only this of the political process behind the change. It is true that no-one voted for it in the 2010 general election because no-one proposed it and there has been little or no consultation. Opinion polling does show that only a minority support depriving homosexual couples of any rights, but whether or not the majority support changing the definition of ‘marriage’ is far from clear. It is this substantive issue which is so important.
What is key here is the fact that marriage and its’ definition is not a private matter. It is a social institution, it is public property as it were. The rights, preferences or interests of individuals should have no sway over the definition of such public property. I feel wholeheartedly that this is the angle we must look at: whether or not we should effectively change the definition of marriage.
Those often in support of gay marriage view it as the right of every consenting couple to get married. They view it as the right of a man or woman to publicly demonstrate their love to another and commit. But that in itself does not give a reason to change the definition.
For example, a religious marriage (for most faiths in the UK at least) is not legally binding – and so does not meet this criterion that homosexual marriage will – which I’m sure most religious people would view as drastically more important than the legal binding of a state sponsored marriage. These people go through the civil marriage process to achieve the legal rights. In terms of actual rights, gay men and women have already achieved near parity in the many rights civil partnerships give. The truth of the love and commitment surely comes from the couple, the name is worthless. A union without this does not magically gain it when called love.
But if marriage is a public and social institution, for society’s benefit, then what is that benefit? That everyone is in a loving relationship? Well, you can do that without being married, so it can’t be that. To make sure that everyone has the same legal rights? Well, that’s already been achieved without this change in the definition of marriage.
For me, society benefits because it is able to endorse a set of values and forms of conduct whereby we have children and perpetuate society. This sounds like a tiny part of marriage, but I argue there is nothing more fundamental in nature than reproduction and continuation of ourselves. And I argue this social institution is about trying to get all its members to raise the new generation, the continuation of ourselves, in the best way possible.
As is commonly spouted on TV and radio, ‘marriage is the best condition in which to raise children’, and I agree. This is not to slate single mothers and fathers, I myself was raised by a single mother for 20 out of 21 years of my life. I merely argue that the most worthwhile reason for marriage is for its adherents to state that they intend to a raise family and wish to do so in the guise that society would prefer.
This is why, of course, we used to have laws that made adultery illegal and made divorce impossible without evidence of some outside element that made the marriage untenable (such as impotence or infidelity). It was because the state tried to make it hard for couples to split and endanger the good upbringing of the next generation. That was the sole purpose of the state’s interference.
This is why I do not support ‘gay marriage’ as it is termed. I do not believe society has anything to gain by giving state endorsement to homosexual relationships any more than heterosexual relationships. What do I care about what goes on in your bedroom and why do I care that you love each other? But, as a member of society, I care that you bring up your children in the happiest and most secure situation we can all structurally provide.
I simply don’t view this as a matter of equality. This is an issue of what marriage is as a social institution and what it means for society. It is not just something which can be played around with personal preferences, but has to be focussed on the family nature of marriage. This is why I remain uncovinced by the change in the definition of marriage.
Picture credits: LiangHH
Conor Byrne
For advocates of equal rights, gay rights activists, and many ordinary citizens in British society, the news this week that gay marriage is to finally be legalised in Britain has met with joy, relief, surprise, and celebration. 400 MPs in the House of Commons voted in favour of legalising gay marriage and 175 voting against. Prime Minister David Cameron enthusiastically announced: “Last night’s vote will be seen not just as making sure that there is a proper element of equality, but also helping us to build a stronger and fairer society”. Ed Miliband agreed with Cameron, stating: “this is a proud day and an important step forward in the fight for equality in Britain”. But there has been a considerable backlash, particularly from other politicians who strongly oppose plans to legalise gay marriage.
The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 first declared that a marriage is void if the respective partners are not male and female, while same-sex marriages were simultaneously prohibited in Northern Ireland and Scotland. However, in 2004 the Civil Partnership Act was passed and came into effect in December 2005, granting same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities of marriage but not allowing gays to marry in the sense that heterosexual couples are able to. There has been increasing levels of support for gay marriage in the UK, with a June 2012 survey showing that 71 per cent of the British population were in favour of same-sex marriage.
In Europe, the situations regarding same-sex marriage vary substantially. Same-sex marriage is currently legalised in Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. In contrast, however, the constitutions of countries including Belarus, Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Serbia and Ukraine define marriage strictly as being between a man and a woman. Despite this, the situation in Europe is incomparably better in relation to gay rights in other continents. In Africa and some parts of Asia, for instance, continuing hostility remains, while the execution of a 16 and a 17-year old in Iran, allegedly for homosexuality, shocked the world displaying how gay rights are not universally accepted by any means. The Iranian President notoriously denied that homosexuals even existed in Iran.
So, is it likely that the gay marriage bill will be passed in Britain, and same-sex marriages will finally be legalised? Will we see our society becoming even more equal, or will continuing hostility mean that this is only a dream, with no hope of becoming reality? This is such a controversial issue that it is unlikely that anyone will ever be completely satisfied. What can be noted, however, is how gays have been granted increasing rights over a long period of time, with the concept of same-sex marriage generating more acceptance and support in a forward-thinking, liberal society. But issues of religion and tradition remain critical, meaning that the road to gay marriage on the same basis as heterosexual marriage is likely to be paved with troubles.
exeposedev 