Does Britain really want to project an anti-gay message on the world stage?
Does Britain actually want to project an anti-gay message on the world stage?
LGBT rights are under severe threat in large parts of the world. In parts of Africa and the Middle East they are practically non-existent, with gay and lesbian people facing execution or life imprisonment in states like Uganda.
A resurgent Russia under Vladimir Putin is also attempting to halt what it sees as the spread of American and Western “non-traditional values”. In a speech last December, Putin said that traditional family values were a bulwark against “so-called tolerance – genderless and infertile”.
As is so often the case with the promotion of ‘traditional values’, what is really desired is a wholesale roll-back of LGBT rights.
And yet it hasn’t always been easy for gay and lesbian people living in the UK either, with many of the battles won in the recent past still being fought by the Trans community.
Pride in the distance we’ve travelled on LGBT rights should, though, be a facet of the image Britain wishes to project to the outside world.
This why the prospect of Philip Hammond as foreign secretary is a concern.
Hammond was one of just four Cabinet ministers to vote against gay marriage last year and has previously been accused of likening gay marriage to incest. Last year Pink News reported that Hammond “told students in Surrey that allowing gay couples to marry would be like sanctioning ‘incest’ … When the students asked why, the MP believed the government should retain a ban on same-sex marriages, he responded by likening the current ban on equal marriage to ‘incest’, where it is illegal for two siblings to enter into wedlock.”
Hammond voted against the equalisation of the age of consent, the repeal of Section 28 and against allowing same-sex couples to adopt children.
He doesn’t appear to have had a significant change of heart, either. At the end of last year Hammond was still maintaining that the Gay Marriage Bill was “damaging” for the Conservative Party and that he was “shocked” by the legislation.
This isn’t the sort of image Britain wants to project to the world at the best of times. When you have a resurgent global anti-LGBT movement grouped around a powerful ally in Russia it’s a serious cause for concern.
We’ve heard a lot from the government recently about the promotion of ‘British values’. One of these values is, presumably, the right LGBT people now have to live the life they want to live – regardless of ‘traditional’ opinion.
But for values to have any meaning they must be universally applicable. If you believe a white Englishman should have a particular right then you cannot deny the same right to a Black African.
The government has made significant progress in the area of LGBT rights for British citizens, yet it thinks it appropriate to appoint a man who has always been hostile toward them as its de facto spokesperson aborad. This at a time when LGBT rights are severely threatened in a significant proportion of the globe.
It may indeed be time for a fresh face at the foreign office, but forgive me if I’m not over the moon about the ascendance of Philip Hammond.
Follow James Bloodworth on Twitter
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
23 Responses to “Do we really need a foreign secretary with an anti-gay rights record?”
Henry Page
It was your list not mine but some you mention mention are choices (prostitution, drugs) whereas being gay is NOT a choice. As for assisted suicide, nice point and maybe should be included. Much of what you say is habit/addiction/choice but sexuality is innate. More logic (again) please.
John
I’m sorry, but I don’t see your point. Are you objecting to the article because it highlights one issue rather than another, or are you complaining that the cabinet is being stocked with only one ‘minority’? (to whit women; not a minority yet treated as one)
John
We need to work on these issues, I quite agree; there are many issues of varying lethality and severity the world over, from the Americans wilfull ignorance of it’s homeless and unemployment record through to global warming, abuse of power (by both the rich and the influential) to multiple threats of death against a myriad of minorities (and some majorities) the world over.
However the distressing thing about THIS article isn’t that we are not working on a problem as this might be a step backwards. It is unlikely, for instance, that a right-wing anti-LGBT minister is going to be that converned about the rights of trans people, so it’s fair to assume no action on that front.
On top of which, these are the issues he’s vocal on. I wouldn’t be surprised to find he’s not exactly bestirred by womens rights or equality (though for that last one I’d be surprised if he was given he’s a Conservative).
DebsnSoots
It’s fairly straightforward from where I’m standing. People who do not embrace equality – for everyone – are not fit to be in government because our representatives have a duty to make sure that all of us are free to live a life free from persecution. It seems that several members of this new cabinet do not measure up in this respect…
brad
Single issue rights can conflict. Rights of ethnic minorities may not reconcile with equal rights for gays. Muslims campaigning against Islamophobia are not going to use anti-gay thertircto frunsich comparable examples of minority prejudice.
In addition, a cabinet filled with minorities may be as right-wing as one filled with white guys.
Would a a conservative African Brit in the Cabinet favouring corporal punishment in schools represent progress?
Progress is in policies not in persons.