Spark In Darkness

From the European Court of Human rights has recently ruled on a case.

The case of Schalk and Kopf v Austria that challenged the ban on same sex marriage.

It hinged on 3 rights in the convention

Article 12 (Right to Marry) and Article 14 (Anti-Discrimination) combined with Article 8 (Right to Family life).

I desperately wanted this -  if they had ruled in our favour it would have been huge. It would have been an uneqivocal ruling that, yes, we had a right to marriage, yes, our families are equal to straight families and no, discrimination against gay people is not ok. A ruling from the European Court of Human Rights

And while this ruling isn’t quite saying all those things are not true (well not quite… the decision on Article 12 pretty much says it isn‘t)… it’s also not saying they are. And that’s a depressing statement to come from the court. They had an opportunity to confirm that we the right to marriage included us, that the right not to be discriminated against truly included us (and that discrimination against us was not acceptable) and that our families truly had value.

And they didn’t take it. In fact, with all three they have undermined us pretty badly.

It would have been a powerful statement. Instead… we have another statement. And I hope this non-statement isn’t equally powerful.

And as to how powerful the statement would be? The rulings of the ECHR are binding (well for a given nature of binding – and by that I mean “when they feel like it“ but that may be cynical cynical me. Well, cynical and accurate me.) on it signatories. And it’s signatories? Well here’s a map It would have meant something. It would have been big. It would have been important.

Of course, it’s probably because it meant something that the judges were unwilling to make the ruling. But, on the bright side, it was 4 votes to 3. One judge, one judge leaning towards actual justice and who knows where we would be tomorrow.

Because looking at your politics for a second let’s me ignore the trainwreck on my doorstep

Kagan looks to be the next Supreme Court judge and there’s considerable kafuffle about her around the place. Namely because there’s a lot of speculation about her being ZOMG A LESBIAN!

Is she a Lesbian? I’m not going to speculate. She hasn’t spoken about it and the White House has vehemently denied it (in rather an offensive manner, to be honest) I’m also leery about why everyone is assuming she is a lesbian. I’ve seen “rumours” cited (like that ever meant anything) and, frankly, a lot of speculation based on the fact she’s single and the way she looks (c’mon, we know that’s not right). Also I think we need to stop all this pressuring and poking her to come out. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, you do not know what pressures, demons and badness is happening in a person’s life and in their mind to demand that they come out. If you don’t know how much it will cost her – and if you aren’t her, you don’t know – then you have no right to demand she pay that cost (also, I am amused by the usual suspects on the right saying she has to come out or its proof of her dishonesty – while at the same time fighting to preserve DADT)

The idea that she should stay in the closet to avoid Republican hostility (especially since the hate groups are losing their shit about the idea of a lesbian Supreme Court Justice) doesn’t seem very sensible to me. I’m an outsider though, so maybe I’m missing something – but look at the Republicans at the moment it seems the Democrats could declare that water is wet and the Republicans would be screaming in a foaming fury about the evident dryness how outrageously awful it is for the Dems to suggest otherwise. In fact, given that I’d rather think it would be better for Obama to propose the most commie-pinko, far-left justice whose robe is tie-died emblazoned by rainbows, black panther symbols and a big picture of a Che Guevara across the front and has epaulettes of marijuana leaves. After all, if they’re going to object ANYWAY?

Should she be outed? We should know better than that too. I support the outing of closeted homophobes. That’s basic self-defence and I approve and applaud when it is done. But Kagan, while her record probably isn’t worth all the crowing its getting, certainly isn’t a homophobe. That makes outing her crossing the line. She’s not an enemy, she’s not an opponent, she doesn’t deserve that shit.

Now, would it matter if she was an out lesbian? Yes, let’s be honest, it would. In gesture politics if nothing else, having an openly GBLT person on the Supreme Court would be a powerful statement of acceptance and acceptability. It actually kind of boggles me to see people who are squeeing about another woman Supreme Court judge and another Jewish Supreme Court judge who are also saying it doesn’t matter if she is openly lesbian or not. Yes, it matters, it’s a strong message and a success if she were, the first ANYTHING matters (albeit, probably not nearly as much as it is generally treated). But that only applies if she is openly a lesbian – I don’t see any statement in having a closeted GBLT person in any position – in fact, there’s a damn good chance there already HAS been a closeted GBLT person in the Supreme Court. “You can take part in society so long as you hide” isn’t a revolutionary statement or a good statement. So, let’s be clear – yes it would matter if an OUT lesbian was a supreme court judge. A closeted Lesbian? Not so much. An outed Lesbian?  Definitely not.

That doesn’t mean that there’d be a super gay ally on the court – just as having a black judge on the court doesn’t mean there’s a super anti-racist ally on the court (names no names) or having openly gay party members means a political party isn’t homophobic (yeah Tories, I’m looking at you). No, for that you have to look at her policies – and while she’s hardly the most leftist of lefty judges that could have been chosen and there’s a few issues where I On gay rights indicators are to the positive, which is a good sign (though I’d stop short of dancing around and singing her praises). The bad side? She’s been involved in so much that she may have to recuse herself from all the current pending challenges – which means don’t expect any grand pro-gay justice from the Supremes any time soon.

AKA “Post with title I couldn’t decide on”

If you live in the UK, you have probably seen the media circus around the Jon Venables arrest. Circus is certainly the right word, there are no shortage of clowns that’s for sure.

Others have spoken about this case and largely said everything I wanted to say. Ann Somerville here and the link she provides to an excellent resume in the Telegraph

Their posts largely make most of what I have to say redundant – but being me that doesn’t stop me saying it anyway.

First of all, the media seriously needs to shut the hell up on this one. What the public is interested in is not the same as the public interest – and it certainly isn’t in the public interest to have every ex-con hounded by the press because people want to hear every salacious detail of their lives and crimes. That’s not public interest – that’s morbid public curiosity. This kind of ghoulish side show hurts the victims and the survivors, hounds anyone trying to rehabilitate and skews the news media to focus on stories that are shocking and horrifying over stories that are vital and important. Infotainment is usually reprehensible -infotainment that is feeding on the pain and suffering of others is sick and twisted.

They also need to stay away from Denise Bulger. Her loss and pain is catastrophic – dragging it up in front of her and for the whole nation to see years after the fact? That’s cruel. I’m sure your readers and viewers do want to see her pain paraded around again, but this is indecent. It’s obscene.

This woman has a right to hate and a right to be screaming for vengeance – but her anger, her desire for vengeance, should never be a part of our justice considerations or how we treat offenders. It boggles the mind that anyone would believe otherwise – hatred, anger and vengeance are not justice, no matter how natural those motivations are – not should they be show cased as relevant to the case – and certainly not relevant to a subsequent case years after the fact!

In fact, media leaping all over rime has to stop, it really does. Get a suitably sensationalist case happen and the media has dissected everything in the most amateurish, unjust and down right incompetent terms its possible to see. Half of all accused in these big crimes seem to have been tried, sentenced and pilloried before they even see the inside of a court room. And there’s no chance of being found not guilty – no matter what the actual legal proceedings decide. Criminals whose sentence is other have to live the rest of their lives in desperate hiding from journalists that circle like vultures. What possible use is their of this? What possible benefit to society is there in us having paparazzi circling Maxine Carr or Jon Venables? Of them constantly trying to expose them, constantly hunting them, trying to report their every move? Ironically the same papers will then turn around and bleat about the COST of keeping their identities secret! It wouldn’t cost so much if the justice system didn’t have to fight tooth and nail against the 4th estate to preserve this privacy!

You know what? I firmly believe that everyone – everyone – can change and can be redeemed, no matter how abhorrent their crimes, how depraved their actions or how repellent their history. I don’t think any human being reaches a point where there is no hope of them being more than what they are. I believe everyone has worth. I believe everyone has value. I believe there is something worth promoting, preserving and heightening in all people.

Does this make me hopelessly naive? Maybe – but then I’m a criminal lawyer. I have defended the worst kind of scum imaginable. People who have killed, who have raped, who have messed with kids, people who have made me feel unclean just sharing a room with them. I do not have rose-tinted glasses when it comes to examining my fellow man.

I do not agree with the death penalty. I do not agree with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. I do not agree with a prison system that leaves people more broken when they leave than when they come in. I do not believe in hanging criminal records around people’s necks like some kind of leper sign. I do not agree with any kind of sentence that does not include a capacity for redemption. I think it is an indictment of society that we are willing to give up on someone – anyone.

But even if you don’t see eye to eye with me on this – and many people don’t, certainly – in the case of Jon Venables there’s something that has to be added.

He was 10 years old.

10. A child. It was a travesty that he was tried as an adult. And it is beyond disgusting that we treated children as criminals. It is a national shame that we took 2 children’s vital formative years in such a cruel fashion in the name of hate and outrage and anger. It is a national shame that sacrificed children on the altar of vengeance. It is repellent that their sentences were increased because of a public peittion of vengeance obsessed people organised by the Sun. It is disgusting that media, rage and vengeance saw 2 children’s prison sentences extended. That was not justice – it wasn’t even a pretence of justice and thank gods that the House of Lords overturned that particular political pandering to public thirst for vengeance.

And it is not only bewildering, but it is horrific, to condemn a child as irredeemable. It is an act of unfathomable spite to believe a child of 10 cannot grow up to be more than he is. To believe a child of 10 is damaged beyond repair, is evil beyond salvation is inconceivable.

As a 10 year old child, Jon Venables did something evil and unspeakable. He is not that 10 year old boy any more – but we never seem willing to believe he can ever be more than that – an evil child murderer. And if we don’t believe he can ever be more than that then what chance does he ever have to BE more than that?

It’s not rhetoric, it’s not laws and it’s not policies.

It’s people. And I think that’s one of the things that’s so easy for the haters and the bigots and the antis to forget.

They fight against our rights. They fight for politics, for prejudice, for bigotry, for hate. They fight for their “right” to oppress. They fight to feel smug and self-righteous

They don’t see the pain,. they don’t see the people – they don’t care about the damage they do. It’s a paper exercise for them, a theory, an abstract – something without cost and without effect.

In Hawaii, legislators run scared of granting equality because of election concerns. Politics are more important than people.

Prosecutors in Mexico city plan to fight against the new gay marriage law. They wish to protect the family – but care nothing about the families they will tear apart.

In New Mexico Legislators play pass the parcel with domestic partnership law, in the hope the delay will kill it

We fight for people. We fight for real people who are being hurt, who are being destroyed, who have to jump through so many more hoops, struggle over so many more hurdles to just live decent, normal lives.

Denis Englehard, a policeman, died in a tragic accident while on duty. And he is recorded as single with no children. He was gay. Kelly Gossip was his partner of 15 years. A partner the law wouldn’t acknowledge – a partner society still rejects. A boyfriend – boyfriend because “husband” is reserved for the special straight folk – that will not receive the survival benefits from Cpl Englehard’s pension, who will not receive the support from organisations that support the bereaved family members of fallen police officers. Neither Gossip nor his son, Cpl Englehard’s stepson have been recognised at Englehard’s funeral.

This was a family. They were married in all but law – and only then because of the bigotry written on the books. This is a family they have fought against, love they have dismissed and people – real people – they are hurting.

This is why we have to keep fighting. Because it can succeed, these lives can be preserved – as was seen in the case of  AT&T now granting family and medical leave to gay employees a reversal prompted by the outrage over forcing one of their gay employees to use his holiday time to visit his partner in hospital after he suffered a severe stroke.

Because our children are still being mentally destroued and driven to suicide. Because trans people are still driven out of or denied work. Our kids are still targetted and bullied and our very identity is used as an insult.
We can win these fights – and they desperately have to be fought and fought now. Because families shouldn’t have to go through this just because they are gay. No, we cannot be patient. No, we cannot shut up. These rights are being denied now, these people are suffering now. These families are being attacked and harmed, now. We can’t afford to be silent.

The USA is holding hearings about a law that will protect GBLT people from discrimination in employment (ENDA)

I am deeply thankful that the UK has laws (albeit not necessarily very effective and certainly not very clear) that protect me against discrimination because of my sexuality. I cannot be fired, evicted or otherwise denied access to goods, services or the necessity of life. The fear that the very underpinnings of your life, the very necessities for surviving and thriving, can be denied you because of bigotry is a very real and very terrifying one.

Laws are not perfect - not by any stretch. A bigoted employer can and will work to make life intolerable for you anyway and the law is often an imperfect shield to such hate. But they are a shield. They can and do protect you when we need SOME protection, even if the shield feels flimsy at times. And it is an important message - a message which, as I say time and time again, is vital. Government and the powers that be MUST send a message that discriminating against GBLT people, harming us, othering us or treating us as less is WRONG. That is a vital message in today’s society where it is all too common that the opposite is broadcast at extreme volume and with deadly clarity.

So, yes, America having these hearings is an extremely good thing.

But I have to have a brief boggle at the witnesses for the hearing.

7 witnesses. 6 of which are straight. 1 of which is gay.

A hearing about how discrimination affects GBLT people and how it needs to be fixed/how it can be fixed and you only have 1 gay man - no lesbians, no bisexuals and no transpeople? But 6 heterosexuals?

At least hearings are being held, and that’s a good thing and I have high hopes for it. But it could be better, oh yes.

I don’t know how talented he is, I haven’t seen much of his work and I’m not much of a judge.

And it doesn’t matter.

Really. Talent - in any field - should not justify heinous crimes. Not now. Not ever. We cannot work on a system that says “but he’s really good at X! We should totally let him get away with rape!” The fact I’ve even felt the need to type that makes me feel vaguely queasy.

Yes, it was a long time ago - because he was a fugitive. Rape and paedophilia are not crimes that we should dismiss so quickly. This is not a case of a crime being overlooked. The idea that you can escape from prosecution if you take a long enough holiday is a dubious one

And there are no words to describe how utterly repellent ANY implications of consent in this case are. She was 13. There is no consent. There is no POSSIBILITY of consent. I don’t care if she broke into his home, stripped naked, lay on his bed to a Barry White record and threw aphrodisiacs at him (and I sincerely doubt anything remotely close to that happened). She. Was. Thirteen. She was a child. Under no circumstances can consent take place. Under no circumstances can he have had sex with that girl without it being rape. END OF. Enough with this repellent blame the victim shit - it’s past tiresome and way past sickening.

And can we also have more slapping of the “he made a mistake.” crap I’ve seen in some news reports. How, in the name of all that is holy, do you MISTAKENLY rape someone? Seriously, I’m not even going to try and fit that in my brain, I really aren’t. You cannot mistakenly rape a child. Using the word ‘mistake’ just tries to diminish what he has done - and, in turn - diminishes the victim as well.

For those who believe there may have been a miscarriage of justice - well I do not know beyond the fact he confessed (not, admittedly reliable evidence) however you can console yourself that he is a man of wealth and privilege and it is very rare that the wheels of justice crush innocent, rich men. In fact, if you have a passion against legal injustices (and you most certainly should) I advise your turn your eyes to the fate of poor minorities - there you will find the most widespread and the most severe abuses and sheer absence of justice. Justice is rarely blind, and she can hear the clink of money from quite a distance.


(To add on all of this: I do not particularly blame the French for NOT extraditing him. Largely because I think it’s a very good idea for European nations to avoid any kind of assumption of extradition with the US. Britain has fallen into that trap and some of our people have paid for it. Unfortunately the American Justice system and understanding of rights are... different from what we expect and demand. However, extradition policy is a different matter from dropping crimes altogether)


And to add again: While all this is the case, I also have no time or patience with the people salivating over the idea he will be thrown in prison to be anally raped/assaulted/murdered by all the denizens within. The fact that the prison system - any prison system - allows such vile abuses is something to be ASHAMED of. To the very core. The value of a society can be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable people - and there are precious few more vulnerable than convicts. Rape, assault and murder are unconscionable acts - regardless of WHO the victim is. It is disgusting and repellent to wish any of these on anyone - and a mark of national shame on any nation that allows such to happen within their prison system indifference or acceptance.