SYRIA

Today the Spectator published an article on their blog called "Don't be daft - last night's vote was nothing to be ashamed of." The vote they are referring to was a parliamentary decision on whether to intervene in the Syrian Civil war that has been going on for over a year. Our parliament voted not to.

What was the spectators argument for telling people not to be upset? "It was the legislature telling the executive to slow down, look more closely at the evidence, and think before beginning hostilities.  In other words, it was democracy." they even go on to say "maybe, for once, we should be proud." 

Proud? proud of what? That we as a major world power both politically and in the military sense have sat back and done nothing. The recent uproar by western powers with regards to the use of chemical weapons in Syria is a joke. The evidence has been there for months, videos and images have been available on the internet in plain site. America and the UK waited until the French government raised the issue to even bother voicing their opinion. 

Over 100,000 people are dead. UNICEF claim that over 400 children have been arrested and potentially tortured in Syrian prisons. There are over a million child refugees who have been displaced and what is the UK government doing? Nothing. 

How can the Spectator be "proud" of such a response? Many "eastern sympathisers" are cheering the fact that the UK is not using their power or their voice to influence the Arab world and as one ridiculous commenter wrote "Nice to see that Parliament for once didn't have an inflated sense of Britain's importance." Surely we have a responsibility as a major world power, because in fact we ARE a major world power, to help fight for peace, to stop atrocities such as the use of chemical weapons on anyone let alone children and to police conflict? 

I agreed with not going into Syria at the start of the civil war. The conflict was not as clean cut and straight forward as the Libyan revolution. The Syrian rebels are not a united front and in fact many of the factions fighting Assad's regime are linked to terrorist organisations and religious extremists. Assad has the backing of both Russia and China. We also cannot forget Egypt. A prime warning that the over throwing of an existing Arab power does not result in a more democratic and westernised government, however, Assad has gone too far. We are ignoring our moral responsibility to protect and aid the innocent people of Syria. 

It will not be easy, there is no clear route to take but surely the west, the east and the other Arab nations cannot allow Assad to go on committing such terrible atrocities against humanity? 

"Gay Marriage No Thanks"

A new anti-equal rights or as I like to call them "anti-human rights" group has been set up in England called "Gay Marriage No Thanks." This charming group of "professionals" have posted an advert in The Times (a publication that supports gay marriage) The advert is aimed at members of the house of lords currently reviewing the equal marriage bill. The advert lists their "10 good reasons why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed."

What ground breaking, intelligent reasons are these you ask? Well let's take a look.

• Intact biological families provide the gold standard for the well being of children.
• Children have a human right to be nurtured by both their biological parents.
• Gay parenting by definition denies the child from having one or both biological parents.
• Popular support for the bill is based on the unfounded theory that people are ‘born gay’.
• All school children will be taught that as adults they can have marriage relationships with either men or women.
• Adolescents commonly experience temporary same-sex attraction: this does not mean they are gay
• There is no evidence that SSM (same-sex marriage) strengthens marriage. In Spain marriage rates fell precipitously.
• Behind this bill is a militant move to deny gender difference.
• ‘Equal love’ leads to unequal marriage.
• Civil partnerships already provide all the legal and financial benefits of marriage for gay people.

Okay, now let's dissect these in depth and brilliant arguments against gay marriage.

1) "intact" and "biological" I don't see how this is an argument against gay marriage? If this group believes so strongly that children should be raised by their biological mother and father and no one else then what happens to the 42% of marriages in the UK that are expected to end in divorce? Not to mention the numerous foster families and adopted families raising children? If this argument is strong enough to prevent gay couples adopting then surely it should apply to all right? We wouldn't want to discriminate after all.

2) I think this group of "professionals" can't count because this sounds like the first argument repeated to me. 

3) Echo echo echo.

4) Unfounded theory that people are not born gay? Okay, at what point in your lives did you chose to be straight? at what point did you stand up and say I am not sexually attracted to male genitalia but female genitalia and vice versa? It is NOT a choice, people are BORN gay. It takes one to know one I'm afraid. Unless you yourself are gay and have gone through the process of realising your true feelings and having to come out to society then you cannot possibly assume what it is like or how we feel.

5) ALL children should already be taught in schools that it is okay for them to grow up and love who they want. Otherwise schools would be teaching inequality, prejudice and hatred. Telling children that it is NOT okay for them to be gay is hate speech and immoral.

6) Yes it is true that adolescents commonly experience attraction to both sexes during puberty, I myself at the age of 14 found myself attracted to a girl despite knowing I was gay. However, I don't think adolescents are allowed to marry? Therefore, 14 year olds won't suddenly wake up one morning during their honeymoon and realise they have made a slight mistake making this ANOTHER invalid argument against gay marriage.

7) No evidence that same sex marriage strengthens marriage? You are right. It has NO effect on straight marriage what so ever so all of the critics out there worried about their own marriages ... don't. As for Spain, the number of marriages has decreased due to Spain's disastrous financial situation. Adults in their 30's, 40's and 50's are losing their homes and having to move back in with elderly parents. People just cannot afford to get married.

8) Militant move to deny gender difference? Yes biologically there is a difference but I don't see how that has any affect on society? Men and Women should be treated equally and transgender people need to be treated with the respect and love they deserve. Therefore this argument, by implying it is not okay to see no difference between genders in a social context, is either Sexist or Transphobic, both of which are disgusting.

9) "equal love leads to unequal marriage" this one doesn't even make sense. There is no point.

10) Yes civil partnerships already provide the legal benefits of marriage, however this is not a fight for legal benefits but for social acceptance and equality. How are we ever to be accepted and treated as full equals if we continue to be marginalised and segregated? When interracial marriage was first made legal if it had been called a "bi-racial civil union" that would meant a continuation in prejudice, hate and segregation for mixed race couples wanting to be with the person that they loved. 

So in conclusion, there is not a single valid argument in their campaign to deny gay people the right to marry the one they love. This will NOT stop the fight for justice and acceptance, it will NOT stop gay people from loving one another and one day I WILL walk hand in hand with my husband and our child. Those opposed to gay rights will be laughed at just as those opposed to women getting the vote and the rights of ethnic minorities are laughed at today. 

Duma, Autocracy and Appeasement

It is with a heavy heart and a sad determination that I write this post. The Russian state has given final approval to a law banning "propaganda of non traditional sexual relations" by 434 votes to 0. This law is essentially a gagging order on any member of the gay community, LGBT human rights group or foreigner who talks, shows or addresses the fact that they are gay or in support of gay rights. Anyone in breach of this law will be fined or imprisoned (foreigners may be held for up to 15 days before deportation.)

There has also been a rise in the number of homophobic murders in Russia. Last month a 39 year old man was stabbed and trampled to death by three men before having his body thrown into his car and set alight. This follows the "suspected" homophobic murder of Vladislav Tornovo, a 23 year old boy who was found naked and beaten after being raped with beer bottles.

Now I want to talk about "Putin's Russia." When this abhorrent persecutor returned to the Kremlin a year ago Russia and the International community expected oppression to follow quickly. He is restricting peoples rights to protest, arresting opposition and weeding out any politicians who represent a threat to his increasingly autocratic rule. Several formerly senior figures of the Russian government have already fled to Europe. We live in a world today with increased communications and (theoretically) ideals. As a result Putin and his government are trying to place stricter restrictions on the internet and human rights groups (for example with the implementation of this new law.) Kirill Rogov (an opposition observer) said "The Kremlin is trying to destroy the infrastructure of the protest movement." I now ask myself one question ... Where is the International Community? Where is Obama? Where is the German-centric powerhouse that is Angela Merkel? What are they doing to stop this atrocity?

The answer is very little. Traditionally America has always taken a firmer stance with Russia, insisting that the west should support human rights and democracy while Europe and Germany in particular (Russia's largest trading partner) have favoured peace and a stable relationship over the rights of the Russian people. However, Obama argues that today he needs Russia to help fight terrorism and to sort trouble spots in the middle east. Meanwhile Angela Merkel has been seen to be more outspoken in addressing Putin's oppressive regime. (If you haven't seen the video of the femen protesters storming Merkel and Putin after the arrest of pussy riot then you have got to watch it now! Merkel made a wonderful comment about rights and protests afterwards aimed at Putin but I cannot find it anywhere to quote for you)

The reasons as to why Obama (and Merkel) is wrong to use appeasement when dealing with Putin, apart from the OBVIOUS fact that it will result in millions loosing their rights, their voice, their representation, their protection and their LIVES, is because Russia needs a good relationship with the west as much as the west needs it. They are conscious of their assets, relationships and business deals with the West and they have to work on maintaining this relationship equally. The West can afford to push back on Russia , which is why I am DISGUSTED and shocked by the fact that America and Germany refuse to go into Syria despite the clear use of chemical weapons.

If the west put pressure upon Putins vile regime and showed open opposition by defending their democratic values and supporting Putins opposition, would empower and encourage opposition to autocratic governments all around the world. It is NOT a battle that cannot be won,  as has been proved by the rapidly shifting political landscape of the Islamic world. Finally, I would like to leave you with the closing statement of the Economists article "Tougher Love Needed" it says

"One day change will come to Russia - as it will to Syria. When that happens among the losers will be those who appeased or backed the dictators. It is far better for Mr Obama to identify himself strongly with those who embrace the West's values, in Russia as everywhere else."

Prince Harry the "hero"

Last week the media went wild over the story of Prince Harry defending his gunner from a homophobic attack. 6 soldiers threatened to "batter" Lance Corporal James Wharton (23) Who then went to Prince Harry, his senior officer at the time "I told him, “I think I'm going to be murdered by the infantry.”" Prince Harry then confronted the 6 soldiers, swearing at them and warning them of the consequences of such an attack. 

This event has been described as a "Jaw dropping story" and Prince Harry has been called a hero by many gay rights groups, media outlets and celebrities. I do not think it is right to use the word "hero" to describe an action that any normal, decent human being SHOULD do. Prince Harry is clearly a good and kind human being. Someone that young people should aspire to be like. He sets a wonderful example as a person and as an ambassador for the United Kingdom and I do not mean to undermine his actions in any way. I, like everyone else, applaud him for his actions and cannot deny a bit of a crush. 

However! I feel that the media have not been focusing on the real story here. The fact that a prospective attack like this was even possible. A British soldier within his own camp genuinely believed his life was in danger from the very people he was working with. People should be outraged and scared at the thought! If our troops are capable of acting like that towards their own "brothers" how can they be trusted to act morally and responsibly towards enemy troops and civilians?

Harry's response of "I knew one of his officers and we cleared everything up. I also told those other lads to back the fuck off, too" feels a little bit like a cop out to me. I personally feel that a threat like this should be treated more seriously and dealt with in a better way than having a chat and using a few swear words. Why should an attack like this be treated LESS seriously when done between SOLDIERS than when done between civilians on the streets? I would also like to add in this quote "Lieutenant Wales looked a little surprised  to see me in one piece, unbeaten, and mentioned that I’d ‘survived the night" I think this quote speaks for itself.

In conclusion, Prince Harry is a wonderful role model and a decent human being. He should be proud of his actions and deserves the respect he has earnt. Lance Corporal James Wharton who is now married and a gay rights activist is an extraordinary wonderful example to the gay community and gay youth of today but this story should be more worrying and sad than positive.  Let us hope that people like Prince Harry and James Wharton continue to make the world a better place, helping to fight prejudice and normalize being gay in the media and within the army. 

Read the Daily Mail article here.