Ban on political parties taking part in Pride ‘a retrograde step', says minister
Culture minister Sir Chris Bryant said the decision by organisers in five cities was a backwards move as he suggested activists did not give sufficient credit to politicians for law changes in recent decades. He was met with agreement by Conservative shadow culture secretary Stuart Andrew.
Sir Chris said Pride is important so young people do not 'internalise hatred and scorn', and hit out at Reform-led councils which have removed Pride flags from display in recent months as he praised the importance of visibility.
Organisers of events in Birmingham, Brighton, London, Manchester and Oxford said they had suspended political party involvement in events in 'unequivocal solidarity' with the transgender movement. June is Pride month, with marches and events taking place over the summer.
Sir Chris was asked by Dawn Butler, Labour MP for Brent East, whether he regretted the bar by Pride organisers.
Ms Butler said: 'Does (he) feel sorry that they've now said that no political parties are allowed to march, because of how the LGBTQI+ community has been treated? I will still be marching, because I normally march with groups, but does he agree with me that this is a sad state of affairs?'
Sir Chris said: 'I think we should be absolutely proud of the fact that politics has changed the law in this country and political parties were absolutely essential to that.
'Of course I pay tribute to everybody in my political party who for many, many generations fought for equality. But it's true in the Conservative Party as well where people in many cases had to be even braver than they did in the Labour movement, and of course in many other political parties as well.
'So yes, I think it's an entirely retrograde step to ban people from political parties from taking part in Pride marches.'
Mr Andrew said: 'I do want to comment that I find it appalling and deeply disappointing that some Prides across the country have banned our political parties from this year's parades.
'LGBT Conservatives, LGBT Labour, the Lib Dems, not allowed to attend, and like (him), I would also remind the organisers that it was these groups and so many MPs in this House that brought about the changes that we enjoy today.
'And as Jo Cox said, there is more than unites us than divides us. Them causing this divide is a retrograde step.'
Former Green Party co-leader Sian Berry (Brighton Pavilion) said she could understand the decision, telling MPs: 'I fully support these decisions being made by the major Pride organisations telling us as political parties we are not welcome this year on their parades or marches.
'Is the minister not as sad as I am about the absolute state of political policy and discourse around trans rights which has directly led to this action?'
Sir Chris, who entered the Commons in 2001, said: 'When I was first elected as the member of Parliament here there was still many laws in this country that dramatically and drastically affected the rights of LGBTQ people in this country, and it's because of political parties that we changed the law in this country, and we shouldn't discard the democratic process, it is absolutely essential… to secure our rights.'
The fallout from the Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of sex hung over the debate, with the Liberal Democrat MP for North Cornwall, Ben Maguire, calling prominent gender-critical campaigner JK Rowling 'desperate for attention and relevance'.
He said: 'As well as politicians, public figures desperate for attention and relevance like JK Rowling and others have poisoned the public discourse with attacks on our trans community, all under the false dichotomy that you cannot be a true feminist and protect women's rights without attacking and abusing the trans community.
'A phoney culture war which has left trans people fearful just to be themselves.'
Sir Chris said: 'We reject any attempts to weaponise this ruling to roll back the hard-won dignity and inclusion of trans people. This is not, and must never become, a zero-sum debate.
'We can protect single-sex spaces based on clear lawful criteria whilst also protecting the fundamental rights and dignity of trans people who… are amongst the most marginalised and misunderstood in our society.'
Speaking from the despatch box, he said the Government would be bringing forward a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices within the next nine months.
'These so-called therapies are nothing less than abuse, they do not work, they cause deep-lasting harm and their continued existence is a stain on any society that claims to be inclusive,' he said.
MPs later called on shadow equalities minister Mims Davies to 'start challenging' her party's leader Kemi Badenoch on her stance towards LGBT+ people.
Tom Gordon, Lib Dem MP for Harrogate and Knaresborough, told the Commons that 'leaders of political parties with their words have power' and asked Ms Davies: 'Would she push for her party in particular just to make sure that when it comes to LGBT rights that we consider the humanity that we're talking about and don't whip up hate?'
The shadow minister replied that 'we are all leaders in our own ways' and added she was 'proud' the Conservatives 'set the ambitious and absolutely right goal of ending all the new HIV cases by 2030'.
Rachel Taylor, Labour MP for North Warwickshire and Bedworth, said the Tories' 'words will sound hollow up and down this country unless they start challenging their leader to do what is right for LGBT people up and down this country', to which Ms Davies replied: 'I think this goes for all parties.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Want to protest Israel's slaughter? Careful, you might be arrested
Not content with supporting Israeli terror in the Holy Land, the UK Government now apparently supports the de facto declaration of war against Iran by Israel and the US (which unlike Israel, does not appear to have the right of self defence). So far 'only' hundreds of civilians have been killed but the value of their lives is clearly as worthless to this government as the tens of thousands who have been murdered in Palestine. Don't be too hasty in protesting about it though; you might just be held to account as a terrorist. Chris Ewing, Cairneyhill. • Wow! This really is one of those defining moments in history. The UK Labour Government is proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation while it continues to fund Israel's ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Palestinians, and stays more or less silent on Donald Trump's attack on Iran. My door is open: come and arrest me now for continuing to support the Palestinians. The authorities will be busy. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of like-minded people in the UK, and particularly in Scotland. This UK Government has gone so far right it should be called Tory-Labour, or remembering a former occupant of No 10, Tony-Blair- Labour. Don't forget the lies over Iraq. The Labour Party used to stand for democracy, which I understood included the right to protest. Not any more. Keir Starmer's autocratic stamp is all over this. He's in good company with his good friends Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump. I accept Iran has one too, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but it looks like the US has plans to deal with him. Andy Stenton, Glasgow. Read more letters Britain is an abject puppet Has there ever been a time when the calibre of UK politicians has been so abysmally low or steeped in such craven hypocrisy? This thought is prompted after listening to a lengthy interview involving David Lammy, the British Foreign Secretary. This holder of "one of the great offices of state" was chronically incapable of answering even the most basic questions arising from the latest US adventure in the Middle East. Asked whether he thought the American bombing of Iran was legal and in accordance with international law he could not or would not answer. It is difficult to envisage that this individual would be regarded as other than a laughing stock in the world's capitals, including Washington and Tel Aviv. No matter; anyone who cares to think objectively about the question will readily see the true situation: Britain as an abject puppet of US foreign policy, a Labour Government gutless and afraid to stand up for what is right. The only puzzling feature of the situation is whether Israel is a lackey of America or whether America is a lackey of Israel. The response of His Majesty's Government to what is unfolding in the Middle East represents yet another disgraceful episode in this country's history. Brian Harvey, Hamilton. Where the war started What sort of people would have an Israel Annihilation Clock, which counts down the days till Israel is wiped off the map? The Iranian regime does, or at least it did until the Israeli Defense Force bombed it this week. The war between Iran and Israel started with the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Otto Inglis, Crossgates, Fife. SNP should stay out of it Why are John Swinney and indeed Humza Yousaf pontificating about the situation in Iran? Foreign affairs are wholly retained by Westminster and, as per the Scotland Act, are explicitly outwith the jurisdiction of Holyrood. Mr Yousaf is yesterday's man, and few care what he thinks, but Mr Swinney, like it or not, heads up a devolved administration. The taxpayer employs MPs at Westminster to address international affairs while we pay Mr Swinney and Mr Yousaf to focus on such crucially important areas as the NHS, education, housing and roads. But perhaps this is simply too dreary for them? SNP politicians seemingly imagine that speaking out on international conflicts bigs them up in our eyes, yet the opposite is very much the case. It draws attention to their dismal performance in managing a vitally important raft of public services that the people of Scotland rely on each and every day. Martin Redfern, Melrose. This is a sad day Listening to Donald Trump after the bombing raid on Iran reminded me of an incident during my service about 50 years ago. I was on duty in the ops room of 2ATAF (Allied Tactical Air Force) during an exercise. Part of my duties was to collect the info on bombing raids. While waiting for the latest info I was asked by a Belgian general for the results of the raids. I answered that the aircraft had not reached their targets. He came back shortly afterwards with the same question. When I gave him the same answer he became furious and said if he was a Group Captain in the RAF I would give him the results. I had been on shift for 12 hours and I replied that if he was Jesus Christ I could not give him the answer. He reported me and I got a bit of a telling-off. Donald Trump did the same thing. You have to be patient until you get the feedback. It may be quite a time before we know how successful the raid was. Whatever the outcome it is a sad day that we are being dragged into another conflict. Jim McAdam, Maidens. Some help Blair will be Yet more shock and awe with the news that Sir Tony Blair's think tank is to help Labour with its campaign for next May's Scottish Parliament elections; sounds to me like another dodgy dossier is on its way ("Tony Blair team 'helping' Scottish Labour with Holyrood election bid", The Herald, June 23). Subjects Sir Tony excels at include "How to make millions" and "How to follow a US President into an immoral, illegal war, never have to face justice for it, and after unleashing misery and destruction on countless numbers of innocent people, be awarded a knighthood". Shocking and awful indeed. Ruth Marr, Stirling. Tony Blair (Image: PA) We are a nation of bullies I'm over 70 years old and, believe it or not, grew up in a diverse British society. I attended primary school with children from Italian, Polish, Irish, Canadian and even German parentage. I can also remember the first Asian pupil we had in the early 1960s. We thought nothing of it. All of these fellow pupils were integrated and accepted yet at home they tended to honour their parents' language, religion and culture. This is the way of immigrants across the world, none more so than us Scots. I can remember going to Wembley to play the Auld Enemy about 10 years after the war. My pal's dad took us and we met up with his English ex-Army pal and they enjoyed what we used to call banter. We were unionists yet all the Scots had Saltires and Lion Rampants, not a Union Flag for us that day. I read Mark Smith's article on the nonsense spouted by a headteacher about the flag of our country, the Union Flag ("Are you 'upset'? The dangers of flags in schools", The Herald, June 21). Like most of the drivel spoken by many today I found it deeply offensive, so what does that make me? It makes me, according to the current mob bullying me relentlessly about my beliefs, some kind of bigot or right-wing zealot. What a load of cheeky, disrespectful, ignorant tosh. We've created a nation of intellectual bullies, lacking in humour or any sense of reality who are unable to separate personal responsibility and choice from the horrendous self-entitlement they pollute us with. I genuinely fear for us all if this goes on much longer. John Gilligan, Ayr.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Regime change in Iran? Be careful what you wish for
Getty Images History tells us that we will all pay the price for a rush to war, especially Iranian civilians Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Ten years ago, in a very different world, the SNP was adapting to life as Westminster's third party and the resulting new responsibilities. The EU Referendum Bill was still rattling its way through Parliament, with the mayhem it unleashed yet to come. As the SNP's first member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, I was working with colleagues as then Prime Minister David Cameron mulled the expansion of air strikes against Daesh. The so-called Islamic State had unleashed a wave of horrifying violence across the region that they were publicising through social media channels. The Committee had investigated the implications of any such military action taking evidence from a range of actors and experts in the UK and region. The proposed action was one of extending UK airstrikes from Iraq, where the RAF was already in action against Daesh, across the border into Syria. That would have meant the UK joining other states, as well as countless armed groups, in becoming a participant, however limited, in the ongoing conflicts across Syria. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Comparatively this was a modest proposal. Daesh was not a state actor, the UK was already involved in military action against them and there was unanimity around wanting to see an end to Daesh's murderous reign. However, there was reluctance across Parliament to sanction intervention. Even in 2015, the implications of the toppling of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, hung heavy over MPs, mindful of the consequences of the Iraq war, pursued by a Labour Prime Minister, that had led to regional destabilisation, an undermining of the international rules-based system and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in the subsequent civil war. There were also the more recent consequences of 'regime change' in Libya where a Conservative Prime Minister had sanctioned action that led to the fall of Colonel Qaddafi's administration. Many of the mistakes that had been made on the run up to Iraq were repeated in the Franco-British led actions in Libya. The consequences of those mistakes were again felt most keenly by the innocent civilians. Given that recent history our Committee was asked to come up with a set of criteria for the House to consider ahead of the vote. Our report, written by the very talented team of clerks who assisted us, was published in November 2015. It bears re- reading today especially the short, one page section 'Enabling the House to reach a decision' that effectively provides a 'check list' for war. When teaching first years at the University of St Andrews I used to ask them to read the report, and if not the whole thing, then that one-page provided a good cheat sheet of what policy makers should look for when considering whether to sanction military intervention. It is as useful a read today as it was then. Some of the questions around international law, the role of ground troops, agreement of regional actors and the overall strategic goals meant that the Committee could not, initially, agree military action. Today as Trump considers action, and the UK is coming under pressure, I feel that the questions we posed then are relevant today and again have not been answered. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Don't get me wrong, the Iranian regime is deeply unpleasant, threatening its neighbours, murdering opponents and oppressing its citizens. The same was true for the regimes in Tripoli and Baghdad. Furthermore a nuclear armed Iran would be dangerous for the region and the rest of the world. Iran has absolutely no problem in visiting death and destruction on its citizens and neighbours including providing an arsenal for Russia and the drones that target families in their homes in Ukraine. An Iran that respects international law has huge potential as I saw for myself in 2015 when the Committee visited. Sitting around the table in the British Embassy where Churchill had celebrated his 65 th birthday with Stalin and Roosevelt during the Tehran Conference in 1943, the British chargé d'affairs and other senior diplomats updated us on the progress with the JCPOA diplomatic negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear capabilities. They were clearly making some progress until Trump brought them to an end. We were also briefed, and could see for ourselves, the economic potential of the country where ordinary Iranians were keen to rejoin the international mainstream. Iran is a complex and deeply diverse country of well over 90 million a critical part of the world. Any war and upheaval in the country would have massive implications for us all. It could also further destabilise the Middle East convulsed by the humanitarian catastrophe caused by Israeli actions in Gaza and the years of war in Syria. Over the next few days Donald Trump is considering joining Israel's military action against Iran. For now, Keir Starmer is calling for a diplomatic solution, joining President Macron, who mindful of past failures such as in Libya, warned 'the biggest mistake today would be to try to do a regime change in Iran through military means because that would lead to chaos'. The High Representative for Foreign Affairs, and no friend of Iran, Kaja Kallas also remarked that Iran must not be allowed nuclear weapons but that 'lasting security is built through diplomacy, not military action'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad However, pressure could well be brought to bear on the British by the White House. The lessons of Iraq and Libya hung heavy over MPs ten years ago. As the situation in the Middle East evolves rapidly, those lessons seem as pertinent today as they did then. Like then, we shouldn't recommend war and regime change without answering the questions we posed a decade ago. History tells us that we will all pay the price for a rush to war, especially Iranian civilians.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Iran nuclear facilities bombed: Why West's leaders must be as committed to international law as Eisenhower
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The theocratic dictatorship that rules Iran is an evil, criminal regime. It has been responsible for acts of terrorism and murder in countries across the world and also oppresses and kills its own people on a truly horrific scale. Writing in The Scotsman today, former Conservative MEP Struan Stevenson rightly calls for the West to support efforts by the Iranian opposition to overthrow the regime. As a long-time campaigner for true democracy in Iran, he is putting his life on the line. In 2018, he attended an opposition rally in Paris. An Iranian diplomat, Assadollah Assadi, was later convicted of being part of a plot to bomb the meeting. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In 2023, a former Spanish MEP, Alejo Vidal Quadras – like Stevenson, a supporter of the Iranian opposition – was shot in an apparent assassination attempt. Thankfully, he survived and was able to accuse the Iranian government of trying to kill him. Dwight D Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied forces in Europe during the Second World War and later US President, understood the value of international law (Picture: Fox Photos) | Getty Images Might is not right The thought of such a violent regime possessing a nuclear weapon should, therefore, terrify us all, not just the citizens of Israel. So Donald Trump's decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities may well have been the right one. However, there is currently a debate about whether it was a legal one – under both US and international law – and this is a serious matter, not something to be casually dismissed. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad International law and the associated institutions have long helped to keep the peace in much the same way as domestic laws do. Crimes are still committed but the potential sanctions have a deterring effect. If our planet is turned into a lawless place where 'might is right', Vladimir Putin and other dictators will be delighted by the tacit green light for whatever acts of military aggression they think they can get away with.
