Hey all,
I read a headline recently about the Queen supporting gay rights - so I clicked on it and read the article, turns out she doesn't really support gay rights at all. Let me outline my case and you tell me what you think...
FYI - This is the link I read that made me want to write a post on it:
http://gma.yahoo.com/queen-elizabeth-fights-discrimination-114804600--abc-news-topstories.html
The ABC article I linked to above says:
The Commonwealth Charter states opposition to "all forms of
discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, color, creed, political
belief or other grounds."
"The queen has to remain politically neutral," Arbiter said. "While we
won't hear her personal views on this, the fact that she is endorsing it
publically in front of television cameras, it really does speak
volumes."
Oh the Queen has to remain politically neutral? Hmmm, and that's the reason she can't reference gay rights more directly? Well in that case why is the gender reference in the charter? If the queen believed in equality of the sexes then that's her personal opinion but she doesn't need to declare it to the world as that is a political opinion...right? Complete nonsense...
Let me tell you the real reason there's no 'sexual orientation' protective wording in the clause...because a lot of the Commonwealth is comprised of homophobic countries who do nothing to protect minorities and, in some instances, violently promote their further marginalisation and persecution. The fact that the Queen, who is the head of the Commonwealth, panders to this view instead of leading the Commonwealth to equality and human RIGHTS for all is COWARDLY. Oh and don't give me the whole 'she's the figurehead so ofcourse she doesn't draft the wording' argument - she's the freaking Queen and if she wanted to change it and take a more proactive approach to her PR and what the Commonwealth stands for she could - she just doesn't want to because hey its only the gays right? who cares about that minority? Well apparently not her by the look of things..She probably knows that if she did explicitly support gays some countries may leave the Commonwealth or fail to recognise her some other way...so she keeps silent on the matter to appease the human right abusers and keep her country member numbers up...classy Liz...
I know many in the press are foaming at the mouth about how "excited" we all should be by this royal approval by silence...but to me its pathetic. Either she stands for something or she stands for nothing. I know the royal family don't do anything political these days because...well...they don't do much at all really apart from try and stay relevant (although I don't mind the younger royals - but I really hope they do better than the current crown wearer.
We really do deserve better than this Queen - she has such an opportunity being the head of the Commonwealth to try and spread a worthwhile message and make meaningful change to the lives of so many gays who are struggling RIGHT NOW in these homophobic countries and she does nothing...our Queen is a coward and is apparently quite content with it - shame on her and shame on us for letting her get away with it.
Is The Queen Spineless? My answer is yes unfortunately - I don't want to sound harsh but I am bitterly disappointed by her actions and feel that she lets down LGBT persons across 1/3 of the globe by saying nothing and not standing explicity for gay rights
GayLadForLife
Also the Guardian done a good critique of the Queen's lack of action too - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/11/queen-gay-rights-commonwealth
I disagree with your assessment. I don't think you actually grasp how constrained the monarch is. The whole concept of the royal family within the commonwealth is in, at best, a precarious position, and any strong stand she takes is more ammunition against them.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard for gays that don't have children to understand quite how strong the urge is to protect their future. A childless couple can make all kinds of decisions for themselves that those with children can't, because every such decision is also being made for them.
I'm old enough to have had friends beaten by the police (in Canada) for being gay. I have no issue with the queen doing things in small steps, and I think that, through an imperfect understanding of her position, you are giving her short shrift.
Wow, Kevin, well said. As a gay man myself, AND a member of the Monarchist League of Canada, you state it very well. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteWell I disagree, if she specifically excludes the protected characteristic of sexuality from a new "charter" which states "We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds.” then she really isn't doing much apart from bleeting like a sheep without actually doing anything.
ReplyDeleteWhat if we left "race" to be in "other grounds" because a lot of commonwealth countries happened to be racist? Would people in the Western world be happy with that? Why is it that some people are willing to accept this which is less than equality? Its a matter of principle - she is supposed to be LEADING the commonwealth, not ignoring their blatant abuse of human rights
And yes I do grasp how constrained the monarch is, but she has more power than you seem to realise, even if it is only symbolic - she is a worldwide figurehead and has spoken at countless forums including the UN - so if she talks about matters such as gender equality and women empowerment she should be willing to stand up for other groups who are still being persecuted and often executed for who they are
Its such a small step in terms of progress for gay rights in the Commonwealth - it seems hardly worth making - I can actually see racist CW countries pointing to it as justification for persecuting gays! As they could argue "being gay isn't a human right! its not listed along these others in the CW charter so our laws banning it are justified!"
I don't have beef with the Queen or royal family per se, but they do not support gay rights - I grant you that they aren't against them but they definitely do nothing worthwhile to promote them
What obligation does she have to support them? Do you support the rights of the Jews in Russia? Have you blogged about the oppression of the Aboriginals in Australia or North America? Have you spoken out about the plight of Catholics in China or Muslims in America?
ReplyDeleteDoes her being queen mean that she has an obligation to vocally and visibly support the causes that you support? We each have an obligation not to oppose freedom for anyone, but to claim that anyone "ought" to do more is invariably a shallow avoidance of our own shortcomings.
Until each of us has risked everything we might leave to those we love, what right do we have to ask her to do the same?
You're right in that she doesn't HAVE to support anything - but if you're making and signing a charter for the commonwealth pertaining to rights - in particular a section on human rights - why omit a reference that protects sexual orientation - especially as this is a right which needs protecting nowadays (especially in African countries which are enacting new violent laws against it)
ReplyDeleteIf I was making a charter for russia I would protect different races from discrimination yes - and support aboroginals where necessary to try and achieve equality in the systems of America and Australia etc etc - I certainly wouldn't ignore them when others are actively trying to deny them fundamental rights
You missed the point again - She "ought" to treat sexual orientation like any other of the protected characteristics she cited - I'm not arguing for special treatment - just equality...
How is she risking everything??? People HERE in the UK support gay rights mostly - so she may lose a couple of commonwealth countries supporting human rights - what do they give her anyway??? Apart from a stain on the Commonwealth... - and she may be successful in promoting human rights in these countries which would be amazing.
I am perfectly within my rights to voice the opinion that she recognise gay rights just like other rights - and I don't think it would be such a big effort to do so - and certainly not as dramatic as "risking everything she might leave to those she loves"
Do you honestly believe that she had any meaningful say in the wording of the charter?
ReplyDeleteCertainly you're within your rights, just as I'm within my rights to disagree with you. It's also within my rights to say that I think you underestimate how tenuous the position of the crown is within the commonwealth, and how much danger it might put her grandchildren's legacy in to try to lead from the front. Maybe she's greedy, maybe she's bigoted, maybe she doesn't have the courage of her convictions. Nobody but her knows the truth behind what she has done or not done.