Month: September 2010

by

Stonewall Chief Executive claims that marriage equality is too expensive

Ben Summerskill: Stonewall not fighting for gay marriage because ‘it could cost £5 billion’

This one leaves me utterly flabberghasted, even in spite of Stonewall’s long history of questionable positions and decisions.

The organisation has done some really good work in terms of raising awareness; opposing homophobia in schools, in the media, and in sport; and lobbying politicians.  However, they also have a nasty habit of gobbling up a vast proportion of the funding available to LGBT organisations, pushing aside or ignoring local groups who are already working on particular issues, and toadying up to government representatives and corporate interests.

This is the organisation that charges a huge amount of money for inclusion in their ‘Diversity Champions‘ programme for employers (which can’t do many small businesses and public sector bodies any favours), ignores input from those effected by many of their schemes (e.g. LGBT student societies were entirely sidelined in a recent guide to gay-friendly universities), and insists that it’s still entirely appropriate to campaign as an ‘LGB’ organisation (despite the fact that most of the issues they campaign upon impact trans people, and they’re getting all that ‘LGBT’ funding!)

The organisation’s name couldn’t be any less appropriate. Stonewall was a riot in which some of the most marginalised gay, lesbian, bi and trans people (e.g. drag queens, butches, prostitutes and homeless street kids) took a stand against institutional bigotry and discrimination.  To name an assimilationist, corporatist, trans-exclusive organisation after this event seems like some kind of sick joke.

Ben Summerskill – the current Chief Executive of Stonewall – seems to embody everything that is bad about the organisation.  I was able to attend a Parliamentary Committee briefing last year where representatives of LGB, trans and feminist organisations gave evidence in relation to the Equality Bill, and was deeply shocked to hear some of Summerskill’s arguments:

Lynne Featherstone (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD): This is really to Stonewall. I wondered what concerns Stonewall might have, if any, about the new disparities that will be created by the Bill—for example, in terms of harassment, the exclusion of sexual orientation. I would like your views on that.

Ben Summerskill: I can certainly say on the issue of harassment we are not convinced that there is a need for protection in this area. Members of the Committee who have dealt with Stonewall in the past will know that we tend only to ask for things where we can provide hard evidence of need, and we tend then only to ask for prescriptions that might put things right.

Lynne Featherstone’s face was a picture; I think she hardly expected a representative of Stonewall to claim that that there was no need for protection against harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation when the proposed Bill saw fit to (rightly) include such protections on the grounds of other ‘diversity strands’, such as race.

Summerskill was also quick to defend Stonewall’s decision to nominate Julie Bindel for their ‘Journalist of the Year’ award. He ultimately admitted on a number of occasions that this nomination was pretty disrespectful towards trans people (others who have issues with Bindel, such as many intersex individuals and sex workers, didn’t get a look-in) but claimed that un-nominating her would ultimately be far too dramariffic. Yeah, right.

Given this noble history, I wasn’t too surprised to hear that Summerskill doesn’t believe in fighting for marriage equality.  After all, Stonewall were quite content to compromise on civil partnerships; they didn’t seem to think there was a chance of achieving full marriage equality…and so didn’t bother fighting for it.  It was, however, the sheer audacity of Summerskill’s arguments that shocked me.

I understand those who believe that marriage is an oppressive, patriarchal institution (an example of this position can be found here).  Moreover, the experiences of the LGBT lobby in the USA demonstrate that equal marriage campaigns can be a massive drain on resources that keep activists from addressing more urgent issues, such as everyday violence on the streets, queer poverty or homelessness.  Summerskill apparently drew upon both of these arguments, but in a somewhat confused and contradictory manner.  If Stonewall believes that marriage equality campaigns are a drain upon resources, why did they bother campaigning for civil partnerships?  Moreover, since when did Stonewall take a radical feminist or queer stance on anything?

I personally believe that the oppressive nature of marriage is a contingent and historical situation rather than a necessary one: it’s possible for there to be a tradition which celebrates a relationship in an open, non-prescriptive fashion.  Moreover, if married individuals are to be afforded certain benefits or privileges by the state, it’s important that all relationships are afforded equal recognition as long as this questionable system of privileging remains.  The current system in the UK, whereby separate institutions of marriage and civil partnership exist for ‘gay’ and ‘straight’ couples, merely enforces the idea that ‘gay relationships’ are that much different to ‘straight’ ones.  And that’s before we get on to the massive complexities caused by the Gender Recognition Act, which forces trans people to divorce or annul their partnership should they want to acquire a Gender Recognition Certificate (lest we end up with a gay marriage or a straight civil partnership!) Marriage equality will mean that trans people can just get married without having to worry about their own legal gender status and how it relates to the legal gender of their partner.

The really impressive bit, though, is where Summerskill argues that marriage equality will be ‘too expensive’.  Since when did equality come with a price tag?  Since when was it acceptable for a civil rights organisation to throw up its hands and say “sorry guys, we’re in recession right now, we’ll just have to wait until the economic climate is more appropriate for our liberation”?

I’ve heard a whole load of people argue that Stonewall does not represent them, particularly in recent months days hours.  I’d like the join them.  As a trans person, Stonewall officially doesn’t give a damn about representing me…however, as a bisexual individual, they’re meant to be acting in my interests.  I don’t see that happening any time soon, and therefore would like them to stop pretending that they’re campaigning for my rights when they seem so keen to do the exact opposite.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/09/20/ben-summserskill-stonewall-opposed-to-gay-marriage-equality-because-it-will-cost-5-billion/#
by

Someone please put George Osbourne on Jobseeker’s Allowance

I’m upset, I’m angry, and I’m pretty certain I have nothing to say that you can’t also find in a bunch of other left-wing blogs, forums, twitter and facebook feeds.  Moreover, we’re mere months into a Tory-dominated government so I know there’s plenty more to come.  Still, this is my place to vent, so vent I shall.

George Osborne is to cut a further £4bn from the benefits bill for the jobless, in a hard-talking clampdown on those whose “lifestyle choice” is to “just sit on out-of-work benefits”.

Honestly, the logic here is utterly astounding.  The Conservatives have this brilliant plan:

1) Cut lots of jobs.

2) Punish jobless people and portray them as lazy bums.

Said plan assumes that either there are plenty of jobs still out there or that it’s a doddle to survive on benefits, and cutting them will just deprive the jobless of the odd bit of mindless entertainment that they don’t need anyway.

Get real, George.

The reason why benefits apparently need cutting is that we’re in a recession.  One of the significant side-effects of said recession is increased unemployment, which happens to arise from a decrease in the number of jobs as businesses cut back…and that’s before the government pretty much destroys the public sector.  I thought all of this was pretty obvious.  Hence, less jobs to go around, and more people on benefits.  What the hell else are people meant to do, starve?  Rely on charity?  Maybe beg on the streets.  I’m pretty sure the government wouldn’t be too keen on that either.

In the last year or so alone, the job pages (I say “pages”: these days it’s usually less than a page) in my local paper have shrunk by over two thirds.  Meanwhile, a significant number of the adverts are scams (write on envelopes from your own home!) or hardly offer enough to live on (earn some extra money by delivering papers!)  I live in an area which apparently still has a relatively high number of jobs, at least compared to other parts of the country; that fact disturbs me a great deal.

I know people who have several part-time jobs in order to afford to live.  I know people who have never had a job, and now probably never will…it’s far from impossible to pick something up on the minimum wage, but experience is everything right now.  If someone drops behind due to personal circumstance or whatever, they’re likely to be screwed.  I know people with degrees – with first-class degrees – who consider themselves lucky to get a minimum wage job.  I know people with first-class degrees who can’t even manage that – they’re either “overqualified” (because they have a good degree) or “underqualified” (because no-one will give them a job). It’s benefits or nothing.

Anyone who thinks the benefits system is a doddle probably hasn’t been on benefits.  Either that, or they’re bloody lucky.  The bureaucracy is arcane and complex: even if you’ve got your head around the system, there’s no guarantee that the Job Centre (or any other benefits agency) won’t screw up and leave you without any money for a few days.  Or weeks.  Or months.  I missed out on several months of post-operative incapacity benefit because I was too freakin’ incapacitated to claim it for for the first few weeks, and then spent the following few weeks making the mistake of trying to sort out a back-claim, rather than instead sorting out a claim from that point.  I was lucky: I had money to fall back on.

Then, of course, if you need jobseekers or incapacity or whatever they’ve replaced that with now, you probably also need somewhere to live.  Hence you probably need to apply for housing benefit, which you need to apply for separately.  Same goes for Council Tax benefit.  Sometimes it’s possible to spend weeks chasing all of this up whilst the debt mounts if they manage to miss some of your details or forget a payment.

As for Jobseeker’s allowance itself: fifty quid is probably enough to get by on, if you’re damn good at budgeting.  Oh, and if your housing benefit has come through, and it covers the rent for somewhere that isn’t full of damp and falling apart.  You’d also better hope you don’t need particular medication as well.  That’s more forms to fill in…if you’re able to get it for free at all.  It’s going to be worse for people who need private treatment (trans people in places like Oxfordshire or Wales, for example), or people with mental health issues such as anxiety problems.  The system is utterly blind to the individual.

Sure, some people might be able to budget, or save up to get Sky or something.  That certainly doesn’t go for everyone, however.  Moreover, does the government think we all have to be mindless automata who dedicate all of our time to jobhunting until we manage to find something?  People need time to recharge their batteries, have a rest…and that’s particularly the case if you’re overjoyed to get a rejection letter/call/email, on the grounds that the organisation you applied for a job with actually recognised your existence.

Moreover, if you’re on Jobseeker’s, many Job Centres have this brilliant idea that voluntary work is Bad.  Their logic is that you could be applying for work when you’re dossing around helping people for free.  This ignores the fact that it’s perfectly possible to balance the two activities.  It further fails to take into account that volunteering is a great way to bolster your CV in-between jobs whilst actually giving something to the community.  If the Conservatives wanted to take this Big Society nonsense seriously, they’d be talking about this problem.

Finally, there’s the issue of it feels to be on benefits.  The attitude of the government and the media implies that you’re meant to feel shame for being such an utter failure and a drain on society.  Yeah, right.  Last time I checked, it was bankers, not poor people, who were responsible for the recession in the first place.

Once again, I’m lucky.  I’m at university right now, and hope to continue my education for some time yet.  I can afford this.  I’m not out of touch with reality though, as George Osbourne and others within the government seem to be.  Being on benefits is not a “lifestyle choice” – for many, it’s a soul-destroying ordeal.

by

Erasing Transphobia on Big Brother

I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve deliberately kept a distance from Big Brother during its decade-long run, and I can’t help but feel you’ve got to be a little bit weird to even consider going on the show. I found out, however, that it was impossible to avoid picking up random, seemingly pointless gossip from both people around me and the “Entertainment” section of Google News as I scrolled past.

Amongst these random tidbits of information, I was pleasantly surprised to hear about Nadia Almada – a trans woman – winning the show a few years back. Nadia’s victory and general media presence seemed to signal that an important step forward had been taken in terms of tolerance and acceptance. She seemed to be a broadly popular figure during her fifteen minutes of fame, and it was positive to see that most of her detractors criticised her in a way that didn’t question her womanhood. I only wish we could take that kind of thing for granted.

Fast-forward a few years, and Channel 4 seem to be doing some kind of “Ultimate Big Brother” show in order to “celebrate” the long-awaited demise of their former flagship “reality” programme. Once again, I can’t help picking up the odd bit of news…and this time it isn’t so positive.

Nadia is apparently unpopular this time around…well, I thought, perhaps she annoyed people, perhaps the public are fickle, etc. A few stories caught my eye, however, and you didn’t need to put too many of them together before you started to pick out some emerging themes.

Reality television shows have always thrived on conflict and drama and it’s no surprise therefore that a great deal of the said drama is completely made up. I remember a TV crew turning up at a local venue in my area to film a reality show that followed some girl around…they basically took over an existing night, booked their own band, plonked their girl in the middle of the dance floor and told her what to say. Similarly, there’s a fair few stories out there about how protagonists and villains are created within other shows by editing the footage, showing particular events and hiding others.

I suppose this is all par for the course when it comes to reality television. Look a bit deeper though, and you can see something far nastier is going on.

It appears that one of the other people in the show was sustaining a fairly constant barrage of transphobic abuse in Nadia’s general direction. Moreover, it seems that this was cut from a great deal of the TV footage. That kind of treatment is enough to put anyone on edge – particularly if others aren’t standing up for you. The show’s producers and Channel 4 seemed content simply to hush this up, and paint Nadia as some raving angry woman.

A couple of examples:

‘I feel betrayed by Channel 4′ says Ultimate Big Brother’s Nadia Almada

[…] Numerous tantrums and arguments with fellow housemate Coolio, as well as harsh words to winner of Big Brother 11 Josie Gibson about her relationship with fellow housemate John James Parton, caused Nadia to leave the house to a chorus of boos. She returned home to find her car had been egged and a stack of hate mail on her doormat. Once again the question is raised as to whether it is all in the edit and if even the most well known Big Brother alumni know what is in store for them when they leave the house. Nadia said: “Going back on Big Brother has ruined my life. I was the victim in that house but I was shown to be the villain.

“I feel betrayed by Channel 4. There was no loyalty from them, no duty of care. They failed to protect me.

“Coolio targeted me on the first night and he wouldn’t leave me alone. He kept asking about my gender status and he humiliated me over it.” […]


Ex-housemate Makosi Accuses Big Brother of Covering up a Race Fight

Apparently the now evicted housemate, Makosi, has accused Big Brother producers of trying to cover up a race row. She went on to claim that bosses chose not to show viewers clips of Coolio using racist and homophobic comments on the show.

The American gangsta rapper agreed to leave the show during a long series of blazing fights with transgender housemate Nadia Alamda. However later, after being kicked off the show, Makosi revealed why Coolio, age 47, had to be let go.

She said that she was just disgusted by his behavior with Nadia, because he kept calling her “they.” The first thing that he asked her when he got into the house was if Nadia was a he or she. Makosi told him that she was a girl. Then on the second day he tried to get Makosi and Josie Gibson to touch Nadia in an inappropriate way. […]

The deliberate editing of Ultimate Big Brother seems to have fucked over Nadia on a pretty epic scale. It seems like she’s been made into (one of?) the villain(s) of Ultimate Big Brother – the viewers see one set of events in which she shouts at people, resulting in her becoming unpopular and being evicted. However,  anyone who has to put up with sustained abuse is likely to have a “tantrum”.

If the accounts of various Ultimate Big Brother contestants are true, the makers of Big Brother seem to have been facilitating harassment and discrimination even as they downplayed their importance. They literally erased transphobic abuse even as they got rid of the guy who was responsible for it, thereby turning the victim into the troublemaker.

Moreover, the fact that Nadia has apparently recieved serious harassment since leaving the show is particularly troubling. On one hand, any individual who takes part in reality television is putting themselves in danger of negative publicity: on the other hand, the creators of these programmes should surely take responsibility for their part in ruining someone’s life. This is particularly the case when we’re talking about individuals who are already more vulnerable than most. As a trans woman, Nadia is particularly at risk of harassment, violence, murder, self-harm and suicide. Removing transphobic abuse from Ultimate Big Brother was not a neutral act: it facilitated further abuse and possible violence even as it invisibilised the processes by which trans people are discriminated against.

To add insult to injury, presenter Davina McCall threw in an offhand transphobic comment of her own.

The whole affair is reminiscent of how other individuals from minority groups have been treated on reality television in the past: for instance, selective editing created a handy villain on Castaway 2000 whilst downplaying the impact of homophobic abuse. Quite frankly, the whole genre stinks of exploitation, and always has done. In that sense, the treatment of Nadia isn’t in the slightest bit surprising, but it’s no less sad for that. I wish her the best, and hope ill-wishers start leaving her the hell alone.