Thursday, March 01, 2007
Jason Wilkinson
Jason Wilkinson, a familiar figure to many on the Leeds gay scene, died this week. The cause of death is still not known.
Jason was a stalwart of the alternative gay cammunity in Leeds. In the past he was involved with queer cabaret, a member of the Lavender Cafe Orchestra, taught ballroom dancing at Nancy's before Victor Victoria was a twinkle in anybody's eye, and was one of the first members of Gay Abandon.
Click here for photos
He was also well known to many of us as a hairdresser, working for many years with Harvey Huckerby in Headingley and the city centre.
His cremation takes place on Friday 2nd March. There will be a ceremony of celebration at All Hallows at 2pm (Regent Terrace, Leeds LS6 1NP [map] followed by a private cremation. From 3.30 or so, people will meet less formally at St Michael's Church Hall, St Michael's Road, Leeds, LS6 3AW [map] for a celebration of his life. There'll be a buffet, a pay bar and a bit of a disco and a cabaret from around 6.00 onwards. Jason's family plan to leave around 7.00 and the hall is booked until 9pm.
We hope to carry a full obituary in the next edition of Shout!
Jason was a stalwart of the alternative gay cammunity in Leeds. In the past he was involved with queer cabaret, a member of the Lavender Cafe Orchestra, taught ballroom dancing at Nancy's before Victor Victoria was a twinkle in anybody's eye, and was one of the first members of Gay Abandon.
Click here for photos
He was also well known to many of us as a hairdresser, working for many years with Harvey Huckerby in Headingley and the city centre.
His cremation takes place on Friday 2nd March. There will be a ceremony of celebration at All Hallows at 2pm (Regent Terrace, Leeds LS6 1NP [map] followed by a private cremation. From 3.30 or so, people will meet less formally at St Michael's Church Hall, St Michael's Road, Leeds, LS6 3AW [map] for a celebration of his life. There'll be a buffet, a pay bar and a bit of a disco and a cabaret from around 6.00 onwards. Jason's family plan to leave around 7.00 and the hall is booked until 9pm.
We hope to carry a full obituary in the next edition of Shout!
Friday, February 02, 2007
Fireball tickets nearly gone
victorvictoria.co.uk
Fri 2nd Feb 6pm: We've just heard that there are currently FOUR (yes, 4!) tickets remaining for the Victor Victoria FireBall.
If you don't want to miss the last outing with the team, dash down to Xibit or The Bridge Inn right away. They both have TWO tickets.
Of course, by the time you read this, that might no longer be true.
Fri 2nd Feb 6pm: We've just heard that there are currently FOUR (yes, 4!) tickets remaining for the Victor Victoria FireBall.
If you don't want to miss the last outing with the team, dash down to Xibit or The Bridge Inn right away. They both have TWO tickets.
Of course, by the time you read this, that might no longer be true.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Ewe turn if you want to...
Of Gay Sheep, Modern Science and the Perils of Bad Publicity | New York Times | 25 Jan 07
A researcher at Oregon state university probably didn't know what he was letting himself in for when he published work looking at why 8% of rams are gay. Following a Sunday Times article (Science told: hands off gay sheep) and the story being widely reported on blogs, Dr Roselli and his university was deluged with over 20000 complaints from animal rights protesters and gay activists complaining either about his killing sheep, cutting open their heads to attach sensors, or trying to 'cure' homosexuality. The only problem is, almost none of the claims were true, as the Guardian pointed out (Gay sheep? Let's get the facts straight). The researchers did try to turn straight rams gay, but failed.
Now Roselli is fighting back, sending emails in response to the protests, asking blog authors to correct their entries, and stating that "he is as repulsed as his critics by the thought of sexual eugenics in humans. He said human sexuality was a complex phenomenon that could not be reduced to interactions of brain structure and hormones." [NYT]
The question is - should we object to research into sexuality? I don't think so. Of course, understanding what makes us gay might offer those who look for it an opportunity to 'cure' us, and we can and should fight against any attempts to do that. But understanding our sexuality (and sheep's, for that matter) also offers us potential benefits - for example by demonstrating that our sexualities are natural variations on the norm.
Of course, why I'm queer isn't something I want me or my mother to spend time worrying about - but aren't you just a bit curious?
A researcher at Oregon state university probably didn't know what he was letting himself in for when he published work looking at why 8% of rams are gay. Following a Sunday Times article (Science told: hands off gay sheep) and the story being widely reported on blogs, Dr Roselli and his university was deluged with over 20000 complaints from animal rights protesters and gay activists complaining either about his killing sheep, cutting open their heads to attach sensors, or trying to 'cure' homosexuality. The only problem is, almost none of the claims were true, as the Guardian pointed out (Gay sheep? Let's get the facts straight). The researchers did try to turn straight rams gay, but failed.
Now Roselli is fighting back, sending emails in response to the protests, asking blog authors to correct their entries, and stating that "he is as repulsed as his critics by the thought of sexual eugenics in humans. He said human sexuality was a complex phenomenon that could not be reduced to interactions of brain structure and hormones." [NYT]
The question is - should we object to research into sexuality? I don't think so. Of course, understanding what makes us gay might offer those who look for it an opportunity to 'cure' us, and we can and should fight against any attempts to do that. But understanding our sexuality (and sheep's, for that matter) also offers us potential benefits - for example by demonstrating that our sexualities are natural variations on the norm.
Of course, why I'm queer isn't something I want me or my mother to spend time worrying about - but aren't you just a bit curious?
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Archbishop: Discriminate against poufs, or the kiddies suffer
Kelly in cabinet row over gay adoptions | Guardian | 22 Jan 07
Adoption warning by Catholic leader | Guardian | 23 Jan 07
Here's a surprise: Catholic leaders are trying to get an exemption for the church so that they can continue to discriminate against poufs and dykes. Recently the law changed, saying that it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality in the provision of goods and services. But the law needs a second bit of paperwork, the 'Sexual Orientation Regulations' to explain exactly how the law will work.
The House of Lords recently rejected attempts to exempt Christians from the rules in Northern Ireland. The argument was that Christian hoteliers shouldn't be forced to offer a double bed to us dirty queers. One said he'd happily give us a twin room but not a double, which shows he has a strange lack of imagination about how and where we might get round to bumsex. But their lordships rejected this, and the poor Christian hoteliers of Northern Ireland now have to face up to the possibility that we might be busy sodomising each other under their roof (I doubt they care as much about lesbians, because they probably can't quite imagine what they might be getting up to in bed. It's just the bumsex that really freaks them). If, by some chance, you ever get to stay in a Christian guest house, I suggest making strange noises in the night and leaving stains on the sheets just to upset them.
Now the government is trying to work out what the rules will be in England and Wales, and the ground has shifted. The Catholics' head honcho in the UK, Archbishop of Westminster Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, has said that Catholic adoption agencies might have to close, rather than be forced to place children with gay couples. Meanwhile, the (ex?) 'Equalities Minister', Catholic Ruth Kelly is arguing within government that Christians should be given an exemption. Blair, who is frequent rumoured to be considering conversion to Catholicism, is said to be sympathetic, although other ministers have firmly rejected the idea.
In a deeply dishonest statement, Murphy-O'Connor said "We believe it would be unreasonable, unnecessary and unjust discrimination against Catholics for the Government to insist that ... Catholic adoption agencies must act against the teaching of the Church and their own consciences by being obliged in law to provide such a service."
Let us get this quite straight. It is not discrimination to require every faith to obey the law. Giving any faith an exemption from any law would be discrimination, against all those of us who have to obey it.
A useful test for many gay issues is to consider how we would apply the same rules to other minority groups. Should we ban discrimination on the grounds of race, but allow BNP supporters to have an exemption? Or only fascists who manage to find an obscure bit of the bible to justify their hatred?
But Murphy-O'Connor turns the screw some more, and says that the law might force the closure of Catholic adoption agencies. This is nothing more than an attempt at blackmail: "Let us discriminate, or the poor kiddies will have to live in care." Still, Murphy-O'Connor has form when it comes to putting the church's interests ahead of child welfare: in the past he has admitted placing a known paedophile priest whom he was warned would re-offend in another parish. Still, better to expose children to paedophiles than to us lot.
The government should call his bluff. Do the Catholics really think that it's better to give up on adoption rather than risk a poor child being placed with a dyke couple? Well, actually, they probably think the child would be better off dying miserably in a gutter than being placed with a loving and caring queer couple, but if that's their attitude let's see it out in the open. If the law goes ahead without exemptions, and the Catholics close their adoption agencies, then we know the truth about their attitudes. And maybe then the government would also be forced to fund adoption agencies properly instead of leaving it in the hands of bigoted organisations.
More and more, we hear calls for 'strong personal belief' to be respected by giving exemptions to certain laws. But why is a person-of-faith's strong personal belief any more important than an atheist's strong personal belief against unjust discrimination? I have strong personal beliefs - just because they're not motivated by a belief in god does not make them any less valid. And our collective beliefs are - at least in theory - reflected by the governments we elect.
We can't restrict what other people believe, and we shouldn't restrict what people can say, but it is perfectly reasonably for us to restrict what people do.
Murphy-O'Connor is entitled to his beliefs. It's fair for him to campaign to change the opinion of the majority. But he - and his followers - shouldn't be above the law.
Adoption warning by Catholic leader | Guardian | 23 Jan 07
Here's a surprise: Catholic leaders are trying to get an exemption for the church so that they can continue to discriminate against poufs and dykes. Recently the law changed, saying that it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality in the provision of goods and services. But the law needs a second bit of paperwork, the 'Sexual Orientation Regulations' to explain exactly how the law will work.
The House of Lords recently rejected attempts to exempt Christians from the rules in Northern Ireland. The argument was that Christian hoteliers shouldn't be forced to offer a double bed to us dirty queers. One said he'd happily give us a twin room but not a double, which shows he has a strange lack of imagination about how and where we might get round to bumsex. But their lordships rejected this, and the poor Christian hoteliers of Northern Ireland now have to face up to the possibility that we might be busy sodomising each other under their roof (I doubt they care as much about lesbians, because they probably can't quite imagine what they might be getting up to in bed. It's just the bumsex that really freaks them). If, by some chance, you ever get to stay in a Christian guest house, I suggest making strange noises in the night and leaving stains on the sheets just to upset them.
Now the government is trying to work out what the rules will be in England and Wales, and the ground has shifted. The Catholics' head honcho in the UK, Archbishop of Westminster Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, has said that Catholic adoption agencies might have to close, rather than be forced to place children with gay couples. Meanwhile, the (ex?) 'Equalities Minister', Catholic Ruth Kelly is arguing within government that Christians should be given an exemption. Blair, who is frequent rumoured to be considering conversion to Catholicism, is said to be sympathetic, although other ministers have firmly rejected the idea.
In a deeply dishonest statement, Murphy-O'Connor said "We believe it would be unreasonable, unnecessary and unjust discrimination against Catholics for the Government to insist that ... Catholic adoption agencies must act against the teaching of the Church and their own consciences by being obliged in law to provide such a service."
Let us get this quite straight. It is not discrimination to require every faith to obey the law. Giving any faith an exemption from any law would be discrimination, against all those of us who have to obey it.
A useful test for many gay issues is to consider how we would apply the same rules to other minority groups. Should we ban discrimination on the grounds of race, but allow BNP supporters to have an exemption? Or only fascists who manage to find an obscure bit of the bible to justify their hatred?
But Murphy-O'Connor turns the screw some more, and says that the law might force the closure of Catholic adoption agencies. This is nothing more than an attempt at blackmail: "Let us discriminate, or the poor kiddies will have to live in care." Still, Murphy-O'Connor has form when it comes to putting the church's interests ahead of child welfare: in the past he has admitted placing a known paedophile priest whom he was warned would re-offend in another parish. Still, better to expose children to paedophiles than to us lot.
The government should call his bluff. Do the Catholics really think that it's better to give up on adoption rather than risk a poor child being placed with a dyke couple? Well, actually, they probably think the child would be better off dying miserably in a gutter than being placed with a loving and caring queer couple, but if that's their attitude let's see it out in the open. If the law goes ahead without exemptions, and the Catholics close their adoption agencies, then we know the truth about their attitudes. And maybe then the government would also be forced to fund adoption agencies properly instead of leaving it in the hands of bigoted organisations.
More and more, we hear calls for 'strong personal belief' to be respected by giving exemptions to certain laws. But why is a person-of-faith's strong personal belief any more important than an atheist's strong personal belief against unjust discrimination? I have strong personal beliefs - just because they're not motivated by a belief in god does not make them any less valid. And our collective beliefs are - at least in theory - reflected by the governments we elect.
We can't restrict what other people believe, and we shouldn't restrict what people can say, but it is perfectly reasonably for us to restrict what people do.
Murphy-O'Connor is entitled to his beliefs. It's fair for him to campaign to change the opinion of the majority. But he - and his followers - shouldn't be above the law.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Poufs and dykes unite old enemies
Muslims, ultra-Orthodox unite in opposition to planned Gay Pride parade in Jerusalem | Haaretz | Israel News | 1st Nov 06
According to a report in Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, Orthodox Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem have finally found common cause. After years of conflict they have finally been united... by their common opposition to the Gay Pride march planned for 10 November. Nice to see them shelving their differences for the day.
At last year's march, 3 participants were stabbed by a protester. Rumours this year talk about fake bomb attacks planned to divert the 8000 (yes, 8000) police who will be there to protect the marchers. Let's get that straight.... they're planning to divert the police from protect the queers so that they can do what? stab some more marchers?
According to a report in Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, Orthodox Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem have finally found common cause. After years of conflict they have finally been united... by their common opposition to the Gay Pride march planned for 10 November. Nice to see them shelving their differences for the day.
At last year's march, 3 participants were stabbed by a protester. Rumours this year talk about fake bomb attacks planned to divert the 8000 (yes, 8000) police who will be there to protect the marchers. Let's get that straight.... they're planning to divert the police from protect the queers so that they can do what? stab some more marchers?
