Global and Thai Pride

I was doing a little planning (hahaha). Anyway it's good to know that I will be back in Thailand from an upcoming trip by the time of the 2008 PGF grand finale celebration but extensive googling leaves me a tiny bit confused over the bigger sister. Anyway, ALL the notes on this I could muster are quoted below. If any can clear things up???


Austin, TX (Austin Pride Festival)
June 14

B

Baltimore, MD (Baltimore Pride 2008)
June 21 - 22

Bangkok, Thailand (Bangkok Together 2008)
Nov 1 - Nov 9

Barcelona, Spain (Barcelona Pride 2008)
March 19 - 24

Bergen, Norway (Bergen Pride 200)
TBA

Bangkok, Thailand (Bangkok Together 2008)
Nov 1 - Nov 9
http://gaylife.about.com/od/gaypride/a/2008parade.htm

IGCS 2008 Bangkok, Thailand
25-28 October, 2008

Bangkok Pride Week **
When:
Nov 2008 (annual)
Where:
Bangkok
Bangkok's annual celebration of gay and lesbian identity has grown to encompass a broad range of activities including art, film, sport, the Pride in the Park party and a parade. Festival events take place at a variety of venues and veer from camp self-expression to cultural interests and relaxing social gatherings.
During the week, watch out for the presentation party for the Utopia Awards, which honours lesbian and gay pioneers in Southeast Asia. There are also several sporting events (volleyball, bike rides, badminton, bowling), drag acts and plenty of parties in the Silom Soi district.

The Pride in the Park Party in Lumpini Park and the final Sunday's parade finish off all the decadence and really shouldn't be missed, especially Dragoncastle's Sexy Swimsuit Contest.

A full schedule of events can be found on the festival website.
Related Information
Website:
Bangkok Pride Website
Visitor InformationTourist Offices
Event details can change.
Please check with the organisers that the event is happening before making travel arrangements.

Home Page | Contact Us | FAQs | Terms and Conditions | Disclaimer
┬й 2005 ISTC. All rights reserved.

[TrongpaiExpat]

I heard that the organisation in Bangkok has been taken over by some local gay NGOs. The rumour is that there is no Pride in Bangkok this year, but is planned for 2009, but no dates finalised yet.

Phuket Pride is also not happening this year, although there are some parties planned in the Paradise Complex, Patong.

Thr information quoted is not correct. There have been no Utopia Awards for a couple of years, and last year there was no parade, Lumpini Park events, or Dragoncastle Swm Suit contest.

Is the local gay NGO, the Rainbow Org?

www.bangkokrainbow.org/ (http://www.bangkokrainbow.org/)

The Telephone tonight is having the " Mr. Telephone contest" Funny, not on the usual promo venues and mags? I have a friend that is entering the contest and wants me to take some photos. I usually avoid these events but I guess I will have to drop by tonight.

June 26, Thurs, no idea what time, I think around 9?

I was on soi 4 last night and was surprised that for a week night it was busy. The high-light of the night was a very white bald farang cat walking down the soi with a single piece white dress that was just a few centimeters short of covering the dangling goods. Both sides of the soi gave the guy a round of applause for the ahhm, balls, to be seen in public like that.

Thr information quoted is not correct.

Obviously. Apparently the "Pride Festival" is now as defunct as the "Bangkok Pride Coalition". Nothing has been received from them for quite a while. The "rumor" seems to be just that, a rumour (like ALL tjose other rumors around BKK, hahaha). Apparently there was an email. I did not get this email I guess (I was told maybe I am lucky) but if it came from the Pride Festival website then I guess theyu missed me, I have been on their list b4.

The Telephone tonight is having the " Mr. Telephone contest" Funny, not on the usual promo venues and mags? I have a friend that is entering the contest and wants me to take some photos. I usually avoid these events but I guess I will have to drop by tonight.

June 26, Thurs, no idea what time, I think around 9?

I was on soi 4 last night and was surprised that for a week night it was busy. The high-light of the night was a very white bald farang cat walking down the soi with a single piece white dress that was just a few centimeters short of covering the dangling goods. Both sides of the soi gave the guy a round of applause for the ahhm, balls, to be seen in public like that.

Are you sure Mr Telephone is on on tonight? I just asked one of my friends who is a waiter there, he isnt aware of anything on tonight. I checked Telephone's website, nothing listed there for tonight. Unlike Telephone to be lacking in promoting one of their events!

I was also unfortunate enough to see that farang in that dress last night. Apparently he was there on a previous night in something even worse. Cant be good for people eating their dinner there!

I don't get it this gay pride thing. Why is being gay something to be proud of? It's my genes, I was born that way.

Why not a DNA Pride day? :idea:

[TrongpaiExpat]

Are you sure Mr Telephone is on on tonight? I just asked one of my friends who is a waiter there, he isnt aware of anything on tonight. I checked Telephone's website, nothing listed there for tonight. Unlike Telephone to be lacking in promoting one of their events!

I know, nothing on the web site. No signs no promos. It's on Page 18 of 'Variety' Vol. 7 June 2008 in the Calendar Guide: " Mr. Telephone Contest"

Who knows? My info was from one of the contestants.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I just called the Telephone Bar, the Mr. Telephone Contest is CANCELED.
NO SHOW Tonight.

I guess they did not tell the contestants. Some might be showing up in their swim suits for no reason.

I wonder how that guy got on the soi with his 'goods' bouncing up and down, the BIB don't take too well to such exposure. He at least shaved his legs. I might show up tonight just to see if he appears again. I'll see if I can get a picture but for a big man in high heals he walks quite fast.

i think if u look like that you have to be able to move fast

I don't get it this gay pride thing. Why is being gay something to be proud of? It's my genes, I was born that way.

Why not a DNA Pride day? :idea:

Yes you're right - it's in your genes and that you were born gay! And thanks to our gay brothers and sisters who fought for your rights to be counted and recognized as a normal, productive and equal member of society. Yet, still in some part of the world you can be killed for simply being gay - so the fight continues. If you believe that It's in your genes and that you were born that way - then by all means get out of the closet - show the world how proud you are of being a gay man. Or at least support those who are on the front line as their efforts will ultimately benefit us all.

I might show up tonight just to see if he appears again. I'll see if I can get a picture but for a big man in high heals he walks quite fast.

If he catches sight of you on those high heels of his and with a camera, he will no doubt break from that quite fast walk into a quite fast run. :tongue:


George.

[TrongpaiExpat]

The man in the white dress was a no-show. Perhaps he's off to Pattaya?

If the Rainbow Org takes over Pride, you might as well wright off much farang venue involvement. They are the group that insisted that in 2004? that the stage event on silom was to held in only Thai. They are the group that showed up on a talk show after the 2001 Babylon raid and said that gay people only go to Babylon to exercise. They held an event once in Kanchanaburi and in the flyer said that only farangs with "good Thai values" were invited and suggested that you should be under 35 years of age.

The high-light of the night was a very white bald farang cat walking down the soi with a single piece white dress that was just a few centimeters short of covering the dangling goods. Both sides of the soi gave the guy a round of applause for the ahhm, balls, to be seen in public like that.

Wrong again!
I was sitting very close to him. He had a good sun tan and was wearing a pale pink dress with dark pink stillettos, pale pink ear rings and matching accessories with a metallic pink handbag.
He was with a woman (who looked like a dyke) and they shared a carafe of white wine.

I might show up tonight just to see if he appears again. I'll see if I can get a picture but for a big man in high heals he walks quite fast.

If he catches sight of you on those high heels of his and with a camera, he will no doubt break from that quite fast walk into a quite fast run. :tongue:


George.

No. He was posing for quite a few people who wanted to take photos of him with their friends.

[TrongpaiExpat]

The high-light of the night was a very white bald farang cat walking down the soi with a single piece white dress that was just a few centimeters short of covering the dangling goods. Both sides of the soi gave the guy a round of applause for the ahhm, balls, to be seen in public like that.

Wrong again!
I was sitting very close to him. He had a good sun tan and was wearing a pale pink dress with dark pink stillettos, pale pink ear rings and matching accessories with a metallic pink handbag.
He was with a woman (who looked like a dyke) and they shared a carafe of white wine.

Was that you in the pink dress? No, this guy never stopped he just cat walked on-by.

[thrillbill]

The high-light of the night was a very white bald farang cat walking down the soi with a single piece white dress that was just a few centimeters short of covering the dangling goods. Both sides of the soi gave the guy a round of applause for the ahhm, balls, to be seen in public like that.

Wrong again!
I was sitting very close to him. He had a good sun tan and was wearing a pale pink dress with dark pink stillettos, pale pink ear rings and matching accessories with a metallic pink handbag.
He was with a woman (who looked like a dyke) and they shared a carafe of white wine.
************************************************** *****************************************
Well, whatever "it" was, the cat walking must have been a nice change over the ugy Thai lady boy that struts back and forth on soi four. The poor thing has been doing this since I have moved to Thailand--4 years.

I don't get it this gay pride thing. Why is being gay something to be proud of? It's my genes, I was born that way.

Why not a DNA Pride day? :idea:

Yes you're right - it's in your genes and that you were born gay! And thanks to our gay brothers and sisters who fought for your rights to be counted and recognized as a normal, productive and equal member of society. ..... If you believe that It's in your genes and that you were born that way - then by all means get out of the closet - show the world how proud you are of being a gay man. Or at least support those who are on the front line as their efforts will ultimately benefit us all.

I am with Asiagayboy on this, 100%. If you are after "acceptance" then why make a point about how "different" you are? I am no more "proud" of it than I am proud, for example, of being white - it is simply the way I was born, nothing more and nothing less, nothing to be proud of and nothing to be ashamed of. I am "proud" of my own achievements, not of something I have no responsibility for.

As far as I am aware I have always been recognized as "a normal, productive and equal member of society", based entirely on my own merits - nothing to do with any "gay brothers and sisters who fought for (my) rights to be counted and recognized". I have never felt the need to "show the world how proud (I am) of being a gay man", neither have I felt the need to deny it when asked. Maybe I am fortunate that I have only ever been asked twice: both times by lady friends who wanted to sleep with me (one farang and one Thai), both since moving to Thailand, both aware that I had a live-in boyfriend and both happy to accept a laugh as sufficient answer (and both several years ago!). To me it is an unnecessary question, even a childish one - a bit like asking which school you went to, which I have only been asked once (twice if you count a PM here); if you need to know you should already know, if you do not know then you probably do not need to.

Maybe, again, I was fortunate in that the question simply never arose when I was working, at least to my knowledge, even though I was in a very male-dominated profession (even, some would say, a "macho" one). In hindsight I am sure it may have been raised by my superiors, as the continued and repeated absence of a female companion at social functions could not have gone unnoticed, but if so I was never given the slightest hint of it. "Normal, productive and equal" was, presumably, sufficient.

As I have a UK registered Civil Partnership it would be difficult for me to be much more "out of the closet", but I simply do not see the need or the point in showing this off to "the world". I am grateful to those who were responsible for making it possible for me to register a Civil Partnership (and making my partner entitled to a "widow's" pension in the event of my death!), but this was not the result of Gay Pride parades. To me these are more about being different than they are about being equal and the "efforts" of "those who are on the front line" at these events are more of an embarrassment than a benefit.



"...if someone seduced my daughter it would be damaging and horrifying but not fatal. She would recover, marry and have lots of children... On the other hand, if some elderly, or not so elderly, schoolmaster seduced one of my sons and taught him to be a homosexual, he would ruin him for life. That is the fundamental distinction." (Lord Longford, House of Lords, 1998)

It's London Gay Pride next Saturday (July 5) and, as usual, I'll go along with my camera. Years ago I'd enjoy the march but these days I feel more of a spectator than a participant. The causes are fewer now and things seem to have changed. There's far less political content than there used to be.

I've never really taken much notice of the "Pride" part of the name as it used to be about being visible and getting a message across. These days it's just an excuse for a party and some fun and I don't mind that either.

As far as I am aware I have always been recognized as "a normal, productive and equal member of society", based entirely on my own merits - nothing to do with any "gay brothers and sisters who fought for (my) rights to be counted and recognized". I have never felt the need to "show the world how proud (I am) of being a gay man", neither have I felt the need to deny it when asked.

Well GF, I couldn't describe myself or the way I feel about certain issues any more accurately, than your words above have done. So, that being the case, I wont.


George

It was a picture I did not take. I was up early after a night of madness in every bar, lines down the strett, fleeing WEHO both to GET OUT early of what was going to be a traffic MESS before noon AND move my rental car out of it's 8:00 am - 4:30 pm permit-parking only (plus numerous other restrictions) zone for a jog on the beach and early lunch on my way to LAX. It would have been a picture of a LA county sheriff car parked on the corner of a street (in a no parking zone) already blocked off by barricades and a tent city in the background with attractions and vendors setting up and pride banners dangling from all of the city fixtures. Los Angeles was already ready for the big day, just a couple weeks ago. Oh well, why would I bother to dig the camera out of the trunk to make a point? Do I even care?

Gone Fishing, I was going to write a reply to the earlier poster, but I see you already did it for me. Thanks and a big kiss! :queen:

Well GF, I couldn't describe myself or the way I feel about certain issues any more accurately, than your words above have done. So, that being the case, I wont.

Wow


Gone Fishing, ...... . Thanks and a big kiss!

Wow, wow

I don't get it this gay pride thing. Why is being gay something to be proud of? It's my genes, I was born that way.

Why not a DNA Pride day? :idea:

Yes you're right - it's in your genes and that you were born gay! And thanks to our gay brothers and sisters who fought for your rights to be counted and recognized as a normal, productive and equal member of society. ..... If you believe that It's in your genes and that you were born that way - then by all means get out of the closet - show the world how proud you are of being a gay man. Or at least support those who are on the front line as their efforts will ultimately benefit us all.

I am with Asiagayboy on this, 100%. If you are after "acceptance" then why make a point about how "different" you are? I am no more "proud" of it than I am proud, for example, of being white - it is simply the way I was born, nothing more and nothing less, nothing to be proud of and nothing to be ashamed of. I am "proud" of my own achievements, not of something I have no responsibility for.

As far as I am aware I have always been recognized as "a normal, productive and equal member of society", based entirely on my own merits - nothing to do with any "gay brothers and sisters who fought for (my) rights to be counted and recognized". I have never felt the need to "show the world how proud (I am) of being a gay man", neither have I felt the need to deny it when asked. Maybe I am fortunate that I have only ever been asked twice: both times by lady friends who wanted to sleep with me (one farang and one Thai), both since moving to Thailand, both aware that I had a live-in boyfriend and both happy to accept a laugh as sufficient answer (and both several years ago!). To me it is an unnecessary question, even a childish one - a bit like asking which school you went to, which I have only been asked once (twice if you count a PM here); if you need to know you should already know, if you do not know then you probably do not need to.

Maybe, again, I was fortunate in that the question simply never arose when I was working, at least to my knowledge, even though I was in a very male-dominated profession (even, some would say, a "macho" one). In hindsight I am sure it may have been raised by my superiors, as the continued and repeated absence of a female companion at social functions could not have gone unnoticed, but if so I was never given the slightest hint of it. "Normal, productive and equal" was, presumably, sufficient.

As I have a UK registered Civil Partnership it would be difficult for me to be much more "out of the closet", but I simply do not see the need or the point in showing this off to "the world". I am grateful to those who were responsible for making it possible for me to register a Civil Partnership (and making my partner entitled to a "widow's" pension in the event of my death!), but this was not the result of Gay Pride parades. To me these are more about being different than they are about being equal and the "efforts" of "those who are on the front line" at these events are more of an embarrassment than a benefit.



"...if someone seduced my daughter it would be damaging and horrifying but not fatal. She would recover, marry and have lots of children... On the other hand, if some elderly, or not so elderly, schoolmaster seduced one of my sons and taught him to be a homosexual, he would ruin him for life. That is the fundamental distinction." (Lord Longford, House of Lords, 1998)

like IT or NOT - it's the gay activists who keep pushing the envelope a little bit further and further... some of their tactics you MAY or MAY NOT approve of... Remember the ACT UP and Queer Nation groups back in the 80's, - both very radical and in-your-face and also very effective - but sometimes that's what it takes to get people attention. Gay pride is more about just saying I'm gay and NOT ashame of it.... so even if you disagree with Gay Pride - at least know that it's these kind of functions that let people know that we're here and we're NOT going away.

In the 1980's in the UK there was an unequal age of consent (16 as opposed to 21) there was a ban on "Gays" in the military, there were crimes that only Gay people could commit and Same Sex Civil Partnerships were unthinkable and there was piece of blatant homophobic legislation called Clause 28.

I marched on all those causes both in Gay Pride Marches and in the case of Clause 28 in separate marches.

Those battles are largely won in UK at least from the legal point of view. But the term "Gay" is a broad one and I feel little in common with many who march in Gay Pride. But just because I don't feel "proud" to be gay or want to dress in drag or "camp it up" I'm not going to deny others the right to do so and claim the tolerance and acceptance that I asked when I marched.

In the 1980's in the UK there was an unequal age of consent (16 as opposed to 21) there was a ban on "Gays" in the military, there were crimes that only Gay people could commit and Same Sex Civil Partnerships were unthinkable and there was piece of blatant homophobic legislation called Clause 28.

I marched on all those causes both in Gay Pride Marches and in the case of Clause 28 in separate marches.

Those battles are largely won in UK at least from the legal point of view. But the term "Gay" is a broad one and I feel little in common with many who march in Gay Pride. But just because I don't feel "proud" to be gay or want to dress in drag or "camp it up" I'm not going to deny others the right to do so and claim the tolerance and acceptance that I asked when I marched.

Very well put Khun Jon - Although I don't have any affinity to leather queens, or drag queens, or whatever group some of us may be embarrassed to be affiliated with, and my time of marching is now behind me - These aforementioned groups do have the right to be counted and to be free to live the lifestyle that makes them happy. Those of us who are old enough to remember Stone Wall (I'm dating myself) and the way things were for gays back in that time period - would really appreciate much of the freedom we now have as gay men and women.

I agree wholeheartedly with the last two posts. Interestingly, in this morning's newspapers I came across the description of gays so far back in the closet they are in Narnia. For years some of my dinner party circuit have railed against my partner and I for taking part in "Pride". I now understand they are Narnians; from "Another Country".

In the 1980's in the UK there was an unequal age of consent (16 as opposed to 21) there was a ban on "Gays" in the military, there were crimes that only Gay people could commit and Same Sex Civil Partnerships were unthinkable and there was piece of blatant homophobic legislation called Clause 28.

I marched on all those causes both in Gay Pride Marches and in the case of Clause 28 in separate marches.

Those battles are largely won in UK at least from the legal point of view.

If that is the reason that you " marched on all those causes both in Gay Pride Marches and in the case of Clause 28 in separate marches" you were misinformed.

Male homosexual behaviour, made illegal in England by the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, was decriminalised in England and Wales under The Sexual Offences Act in 1967 - well before any Gay Pride marches or gay protests, although Northern Ireland did not follow suit until 1981 and Scotland until 2000 (Thailand did so in 1956, well before the first Gay Pride in Bangkok!). Female homosexual behaviour has never been a criminal offence in the UK (a bill in 1921 to make it one failed).

You and others seem to infer that "those battles" were won, at least in part, due to The Gay Pride Marches and similar events and demonstrations. Not so, except for Clause 28 (Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988) which had little direct effect - it was only ever used once when the Christian Institute took Glasgow City Council to court for funding an AIDS support charity which the Institute alleged promoted homosexuality and they lost their case. If you read the Section, rather than some edited highlights, it is not homophobic per se, having nothing to do with discrimination against gays, but was only designed to stop UK local councils from spending taxpayers' money promoting homosexuality, nothing more.

What is often overlooked with Clause 28 is that had it not been for the activities of groups such as the Gay Liberation Front actively promoting homosexuality among relatively young children in schools the Section would never have been introduced at all. As the Conservative MP Jill Knight, who introduced the bill, said later:

"I was then Chairman of the Child and Family Protection Group. I was contacted by parents who strongly objected to their children at school being encouraged into homosexuality and being taught that a normal family with mummy and daddy was outdated. To add insult to their injury, they were infuriated that it was their money, paid over as council tax, which was being used for this. This all happened after pressure from the Gay Liberation Front. At that time I took the trouble to refer to their manifesto, which clearly stated: 'We fight for something more than reform. We must aim for the abolition of the family'."

"That was the motivation for what was going on, and was precisely what Section 28 stopped. ... Parents certainly came to me and told me what was going on. They gave me some of the books with which little children as young as five and six were being taught. There was The Playbook for Kids about Sex in which brightly coloured pictures of little stick men showed all about homosexuality and how it was done. That book was for children as young as five. I should be surprised if anybody supports that. Another book called The Milkman's on his Way explicitly described homosexual intercourse and, indeed, glorified it, encouraging youngsters to believe that it was better than any other sexual way of life."

Had the Gay Liberation Front not been "very radical and in-your-face and also very effective" Section 28 would never have been considered necessary. Laws on the age of consent for gays and similar legislation were changed as a direct result of the UK coming into line with EU legislation, as was the ban on gays in the military, not even remotely as a result of Gay Pride and similar events; the latter's probable reversal in the US military is more likely to be to close a loophole in avoiding operational service by some of the National Guard (you can't call me up for Iraq/Afghanistan, etc, as I'm gay so not allowed to serve), or to obtain a discharge for the same reason than for any other motive.

The problem for me is that groups such as Act Up, Queer Nation, Outrage, the Gay Liberation Front, etc, have nothing to do with being "a normal, productive and equal member of society" and "tolerance and acceptance", but are about being different to the rest of society and demanding that society not only accepts them but also makes allowances for them as members of a particular group which they have generally done nothing to earn as individuals. Having seen positive discrimination in action I have found it to be a disaster on every level: those passed over unfairly because of it are discriminated against as those less capable take their place; those selected from the minority concerned who would have made it anyway are often wrongly assumed to have only made it because of positive discrimination rather than on their own merits; those selected solely because of it usually prove to be below standard, so making it appear that all those from that particular minority are below standard. A disaster for all in the short and long term.

I have nothing against "leather queens, or drag queens, or whatever group some of us may be embarrassed to be affiliated with" and I do not dispute that they "have the right to be counted and to be free to live the lifestyle that makes them happy" as long as "what makes them happy" does not affect the rest of us (particularly me). It is not that I am "embarrassed to be affiliated with them" but it is because I have nothing in common with them whatsoever other than an accident of birth for which I am not responsible. These groups and events have no more right to be entitled to or expect support from gays than the Ku Klux Clan does from those who are white, the Black Power movement does from blacks or Al Qaeda does from Muslims, although they use the same argument.

If that is the reason that you " marched on all those causes both in Gay Pride Marches and in the case of Clause 28 in separate marches" you were misinformed.

I disagree with your perception of events totally and I know from teachers working in schools at the time just what an evil effect Clause 28 had. I was also involved at the time with "Frontliners" an AIDS Charity and know just how wrong your interpretation of events are. I wasn't misinformed by anyone as I was involved and know full well the effect my actions were having.

I marched then and I'd march again today and not stay silent and hope others did something.

[quote="Gone Fishing":214r36v4]If that is the reason that you " marched on all those causes both in Gay Pride Marches and in the case of Clause 28 in separate marches" you were misinformed.

I disagree with your perception of events totally .... I was also involved at the time with "Frontliners" an AIDS Charity and know just how wrong your interpretation of events are. I wasn't misinformed by anyone as I was involved and know full well the effect my actions were having.[/quote:214r36v4]

It is not a "perception" or an "interpretation" - facts, such as the dates when your "battles" were won, which EU directives resulted directly in changes in legislation and what Section 28 actually said (rather than the hysteria fanned by the Gay Liberation Front and their supporters), are not open to "perception" or "interpretation".

I am not knocking your personal motivation or what you believe was "the effect (your) actions were having", but what, specifically, do you think these marches achieved?

Section 28 was introduced directly as a result of actions by the Gay Liberation Front and it only had any effect not because of what it said but because of what they claimed it said and confusion they deliberately fueled.

The age of consent for gays was lowered to 18 in 1991, and to 16 in 2000, solely due to a decision by the European Commission on Human Rights that it was a breach of Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Sutherland v. United Kingdom, 1997)

Homosexual acts were decriminalised in 1967.

Military regulations banning gays serving were revoked following an EU directive on employment equality made in 2000.

The Adoption and Children Act of 2002 dropping the previous condition that the couple be married so allowing a same-sex couple to apply stressed that adoption was not a "gay rights" issue but was about giving as many children as possible a stable family environment instead of keeping them in care.

Civil Partnership is undoubtedly progress for gays, but it appears to have been of considerably less importance for the "Gay Rights" marchers than other legislation - understandably, since there were only 18,000 Civil Partnerships registered in 2006 compared to over 275,000 marriages and this figure dropped to under 9,000 last year (including my own)- so it is debatable if the marches had any noticeable effect there.

If the effect of your actions was not any of the above, just what was it that you and your fellow marchers achieved?



"I ask those who have, as it were, been in bondage and for whom the prison doors are now open to show their thanks by comporting themselves quietly and with dignity. This is no occasion for jubilation; certainly not for celebration. Any form of ostentatious behaviour; now or in the future any form of public flaunting, would be utterly distasteful and would, I believe, make the sponsors of the Bill regret that they have done what they have done. Homosexuals must continue to remember that while there may be nothing bad in being a homosexual, there is certainly nothing good. Lest the opponents of the Bill think that a new freedom, a new privileged class, has been created, let me remind them that no amount of legislation will prevent homosexuals from being the subject of dislike and derision, or at best of pity. We shall always, I fear, resent the odd man out. That is their burden for all time, and they must shoulder it like men - for men they are" (Lord Arran, sponsor of the bill to de-criminalize homosexual acts passed in 1967)

Section 28 was introduced directly as a result of actions by the Gay Liberation Front and it only had any effect not because of what it said but because of what they claimed it said and confusion they deliberately fueled."

As I don't agree with your premise I'm not going to agree with your interpretation.

Your logic appears to be that Clause 28 was caused by Gay protesters and then repealed in spite of them as you claim protests have no effect, you can't have it both ways.

It took a Government to pass Clause 28 and for that to happen was a scandal.

It then took another Government to scrap it and they wouldn't have if no one had campaigned for it.


just what was it that you and your fellow marchers achieved?

Nothing according to you but as I said I don't share your partial interpretation (yes that word again because it is your interpretation) of events. I'm glad I don't as I don't find your doctrine of inactivity very persuasive. Someone somewhere had to stand up and make a protest or NOTHING would have changed. I don't care where the protest first came from be it Europe or the UK as long as someone made it.

Just sitting quietly waiting for things to change for the better strikes me as naive in the extreme.

Khun Jon - don't waste your time debating with Gone Fishing :alien: :alien: He's been GONE FISHING all these years :drunken: :drunken:

Khun Jon - don't waste your time debating with Gone Fishing :alien: :alien: He's been GONE FISHING all these years :drunken: :drunken:

Perhaps others in this thread should go fishing as well than, as GF seems to be the only one that is dealing in facts. I fail to see how anyone can refute what he has stated and say that it is just his interpretation of things. As I have said above, his statements are not interpretations in any way shape or form, but 100 per cent accurate facts. Some may not like this, but facts are facts.

It's quite normal on here for some members, that when they are unable to refute things that are said by another poster, they resort to hurling insults at them instead. Apart from the fact that this shows them up to be members that are lacking in manners and common courtesy, it also show them up to be lacking in intelligence also.


George.

[Brad the Impala]

I think that you guys who don't see the point of parades, and quote "facts" to prove the point that they never changed anything positively, are missing the point.

The point is to raise profile, raise awareness in a society that may prefer to turn it's head away. Now you may feel that you no longer need to do that, as acceptance has now moved on in your society. However it doesn't mean that this isn't a stage that most countries need to go through.

I went on the Gay Parade in Budapest last year. In a city with an active gay scene, the turnout was disappointing at first, but understandable later. We had to be escorted the entire route by riot police to be protected from the physical and verbal abuse that many citizens of the city wanted to heap on us. We were even firebombed! A numbers of the marchers were injured.

To those who say it was our fault for provoking the bullies and the fascists, all we were doing was bringing the hatred into the open, where it could be seen and condemned by the silent majority for what it was. That is progress.

The appeasers may feel that that parade didn't change anything in itself, and they may be right. But I think it is part of the process of changing attitudes, and changing laws is only a part of that process.

My friends from Thailand paraded also in Budapest, they couldn't believe the homphobia. They had never encountered it before.

[Brad the Impala]

[quote="Gone Fishing"]
If that is the reason that you " marched on all those causes both in Gay Pride Marches and in the case of Clause 28 in separate marches" you were misinformed.

Male homosexual behaviour, made illegal in England by the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, was decriminalised in England and Wales under The Sexual Offences Act in 1967 - well before any Gay Pride marches or gay protests, although Northern Ireland did not follow suit until 1981 and Scotland until 2000 (Thailand did so in 1956, well before the first Gay Pride in Bangkok!). Female homosexual behaviour has never been a criminal offence in the UK (a bill in 1921 to make it one failed).
[quote="Gone Fishing"]

Nevertheless the Gay Liberation Front was formed in 1970, in the UK, and issued it's manifesto, and held the first ever public gay protest in Britain. This was it's manifesto, see how far we have come since then:

WE HAVE... DRAWN UP THE FOLLOWING LIST
OF IMMEDIATE DEMANDS
that all discrimination against gay people, male and female, by the law, by employers, and by society at large should end.

that all people who feel attracted to a member of their own sex be taught that such feelings are perfectly valid.

that sex education in schools stop being exclusively heterosexual.

that psychiatrists stop treating homosexuality as though it were a problem or sickness, thereby giving gay people senseless guilt complexes.

that gay people be legally free to contact other gay people through newspaper ads, on the streets, and by any other means they may want, as are heterosexuals, and that police harassment should cease right now.

that employers should no longer be allowed to discriminate against anyone on account of their sexual preferences.

that the age of consent for gay males be reduced to the same as for straights.

that gay people be free to hold hands and kiss in public, as are heterosexuals. [b]

Khun Jon - don't waste your time debating with Gone Fishing :alien: :alien: He's been GONE FISHING all these years :drunken: :drunken:

Perhaps others in this thread should go fishing as well than, as GF seems to be the only one that is dealing in facts. I fail to see how anyone can refute what he has stated and say that it is just his interpretation of things. As I have said above, his statements are not interpretations in any way shape or form, but 100 per cent accurate facts. Some may not like this, but facts are facts.

It's quite normal on here for some members, that when they are unable to refute things that are said by another poster, they resort to hurling insults at them instead. Apart from the fact that this shows them up to be members that are lacking in manners and common courtesy, it also show them up to be lacking in intelligence also.


George.

BTW speaking of No manners, no common courtesy, and lacking in intelligence.... hmm do you need a mirror Your Royal Highness???? :idea: :idea:

Brad the Impala,

You have at least done some homework and taken the trouble to read the GLF manifesto - far more, probably, than others appear to have done either now or before they "marched" .

You say "this was its manifesto, etc". It was not. It was a list of immediate demands to be met "before we can create the new society of the future", before " тАж we, together with other oppressed groups, can start to form a new order, and a liberated lifestyle, from the alternatives which we offer". Their manifesto was concerned, primarily, with "abolishing the family"- an aim repeated throughout the manifesto:

"The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family. consisting of the man in charge, a slave as his wife, and their children on whom they force themselves as the ideal models. The very form of the family works against homosexualityтАж.Gay liberation does not just mean reforms. It means a revolutionary change in our whole societyтАж.It is because of the patriarchal family that reforms are not enough тАж.. That is why any reforms we might painfully exact from our rulers would only be fragile and vulnerable; that is why we, along with the women's movement, must fight for something more than reform. We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured thereтАжA man would not work at the assembly line if he had no wife and family to support.. Yet although this struggle will be hard, and our victories not easily won, we are not in fact being idealistic to aim at abolishing the family and the cultural distinctions between men and womenтАж we believe that the suffocating small family unit is by no means the best atmosphere for bringing up children... The end of the sexist culture and of the family will benefit all women, and gay people."

Was that actually what you, and others, were (and presumably are) in favour of, or were some of you possibly "misinformed"?

The GLF would certainly have not approved of the UK's Civil Partnerships, as they made their opposition to "gay couples" and monogamy and their preference for "gay communes and collectives" very clear:

" We do not deny that it is as possible for gay couples as for some straight couples to live happily and constructively together. We question however as an ideal, the finding and settling down eternally with one 'right' partnerтАж.the security and narrowness of the life built for two, with the secret guilt of fancying someone else while remaining in thrall to the idea that true love lasts a lifetime-as though there were a ration of relationships, and to want more than one were greedyтАж Our gay communes and collectives must not be mere convenient living arrangements or worse, just extensions of the gay ghettoтАж. It won't be easy, because this society is hostile to communal livingтАж.. we have to change our attitudes to our personal property, to our lovers, to our day-to day priorities in work and leisure, even to our need for privacy."

Were those marching really advocating also giving up personal property and privacy, as well as supporting the GLF's "new order" economic views and their support for, amongst others, the Black Panther Party? I don't know - neither, I would hazard a guess, do many of them.

I have never said that parades have "never changed anything positively" or that "protests have no effect". What I am saying is that they did not have the effect Kun Jon claimed, nor are many of those taking part fully aware of what the parades or protests they are taking part in actually support.


Kun Jon,

You appear to have misread my "logic" concerning Section 28. Yes, I am saying that it was "caused by Gay protesters" - after all that was the reason given by Jill Knight, the MP who introduced the Bill, as I quoted, who is in a far better position than you or I to know, and that is what is clearly reflected in Hansard. No, I have never said that it was "repealed in spite of them" (gay protesters); I actually never said anything about why it was repealed at all. The protests in that particular case may have had some effect, however the main reason for its repeal was summed up by Michael Howard, then leader of the Conservative Party:

тАЭ(Section 28) was brought in to deal with what was seen to be a specific problem at the time. The problem was the kind of literature that was being used in some schools and distributed to very young children that was seen to promote homosexuality. .... I thought, rightly or wrongly, that there was a problem in those days. That problem simply doesnтАЩt exist now. ItтАЩs not a problem, so the law shouldnтАЩt be hanging around on the statute book.тАЭ

Section 28 had been part of the Local Government Act 1986 and due to changes in the organization of Local Government and sex education in schools becoming regulated by the Secretary of State for Education following the Education Act 1996 and the Learning and Skills Act 2000 it was redundant.

If you "don't agree with (my) premise" about why the Section was introduced and you do not believe Michael Howard and Jill Knight, maybe you would explain what you think caused its introduction and back up your "interpretation".

Any "evil effect Clause 28 had" was not the result of what was in the clause but was the result of people such as those "teachers working in schools at the time" not understanding or even reading the Section and believing the misrepresentation of it made by GLF, rather than statements made by the National Union of Teachers ("While Section 28 applies to local authorities and not to schools, many teachers believe, albeit wrongly, that it imposes constraints in respect of the advice and counselling they give to pupils. Professional judgement is therefore influenced by the perceived prospect of prosecution") or the Department for Education and Science ("Section 28 does not affect the activities of school governors, nor of teachers... It will not prevent the objective discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, nor the counselling of pupils concerned about their sexuality.) Very clearly somebody was misinformed.

I have no "doctrine of inactivity" nor have I advocated "just sitting quietly waiting for things to change for the better". What I do advocate is finding out fully about what you are supporting or attacking before you do so rather than following a cause just because you appear to have something in common with it. Sadly that would seem to be an all too common failing recently, not only here but elsewhere.

Khun Jon - don't waste your time debating with Gone Fishing :alien: :alien: He's been GONE FISHING all these years :drunken: :drunken:

Perhaps others in this thread should go fishing as well than, as GF seems to be the only one that is dealing in facts. I fail to see how anyone can refute what he has stated and say that it is just his interpretation of things. As I have said above, his statements are not interpretations in any way shape or form, but 100 per cent accurate facts. Some may not like this, but facts are facts.

It's quite normal on here for some members, that when they are unable to refute things that are said by another poster, they resort to hurling insults at them instead. Apart from the fact that this shows them up to be members that are lacking in manners and common courtesy, it also show them up to be lacking in intelligence also.


George.

BTW speaking of No manners, no common courtesy, and lacking in intelligence.... hmm do you need a mirror Your Royal Highness???? :idea: :idea:

Thanks for proving what I said to be true by your above statement khorthodkrub. With regard to my intelligence, unlike you no doubt, I don't have to worry about any one celled organisms out-scoring me in IQ tests. Choc Dee khorthodkrub, I look forward to reading one of your posts some day when you have something of relevance to say in it. However, I wont hold my breath waiting. http://www.davidbowie.com/users/ramoana/whistling.gif

[Brad the Impala]

Jill Knight's claim that Section 28 was justified by proselytizing homosexuals, particularly the GLF, was disingenuous.

The lady had an agenda, and as a far right politician, member of the Monday Club, and Chairman of an organisation dedicated to promoting "traditional" family values, she was anti immigrant, anti abortion, anti pornography and anti homosexuals. She appointed herself as guardian of the British nation's morals.

Although she claimed that тАЬThere is evidence in shocking abundance that children, as young as five, are being encouraged into homosexuality and lesbianism in our schools on the rates and against the wishes of parentsтАЭ, she never produced evidence to substantiate this.

Interviewed on BBC Radio's "Today" programme, along with Neil Fletcher, leader of the Inner London Education Authority, Dame Jill was asked by Brian Redhead what evidence she had seen that "schools are actually promoting homosexuality". She claimed to have seen "a great deal of evidence about this. . .and it really was deeply shocking."

In particular she cited the book, "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin". Neil Fletcher pointed out that this appeared in an exhaustive booklist for teachers, but had never been used in any classroom. He challenged Dame Jill to provide evidence that it had. "Of course, of course, there's lots of evidence", she replied. But pressed by Mr Redhead to name a school which had distributed the book to children, she claimed that she had not had time to get her files before the programme, and could therefore not oblige -"but my word, we've got it all right", she said. Labour MPs, including Clive Soley and Chris Smith, refused to let the matter of this mythical evidence drop. Dame Jill sent out a circular, saying: 'I did not, on the radio or anywhere else, offer to name the schools where the promotion of homosexuality was going on, just local authorities".

Clive Soley has sent her a copy of the transcript of the BBC interview, but Dame Jill will not withdraw her allegation.
In a letter to Dame Jill on February 11, Clive Soley charged that "this was not a casual mistake on your part, but a deliberate and dishonest action, which had the effect of whipping up hatred and hysteria against homosexuals. This makes it a very evil act."




www.gaybirminghamremembered.org.uk/memories/Jill+Knight's+lies (http://www.gaybirminghamremembered.org.uk/memories/Jill+Knight's+lies)

Khun Jon - don't waste your time debating with Gone Fishing :alien: :alien: He's been GONE FISHING all these years :drunken: :drunken:

Perhaps others in this thread should go fishing as well than, as GF seems to be the only one that is dealing in facts. I fail to see how anyone can refute what he has stated and say that it is just his interpretation of things. As I have said above, his statements are not interpretations in any way shape or form, but 100 per cent accurate facts. Some may not like this, but facts are facts.

It's quite normal on here for some members, that when they are unable to refute things that are said by another poster, they resort to hurling insults at them instead. Apart from the fact that this shows them up to be members that are lacking in manners and common courtesy, it also show them up to be lacking in intelligence also.


George.


BTW speaking of No manners, no common courtesy, and lacking in intelligence.... hmm do you need a mirror Your Royal Highness???? :idea: :idea:

Thanks for proving what I said to be true by your above statement khorthodkrub. With regard to my intelligence, unlike you no doubt, I don't have to worry about any one celled organisms out-scoring me in IQ tests. Choc Dee khorthodkrub, I look forward to reading one of your posts some day when you have something of relevance to say in it. However, I wont hold my breath waiting. http://www.davidbowie.com/users/ramoana/whistling.gif


Honestly George you're right - I don't have any intelligence answer to GF's post - I am not british therefore I no nothing about gay movement in England. You always have something to say - you got words coming out of both of your mouths - Choke on this George!!!!!! :drunken:

Perhaps others in this thread should go fishing as well than, as GF seems to be the only one that is dealing in facts.That must be why he's been on my {Ignore} list these past few months

Although she claimed that тАЬThere is evidence in shocking abundance that children, as young as five, are being encouraged into homosexuality and lesbianism in our schools on the rates and against the wishes of parentsтАЭ, she never produced evidence to substantiate this.

Actually, she did. Your own reference even cites one: "A letter from the London Borough of Haringay (sic!)'s Lesbian and Gay Unit to all head teachers in the borough urging them to promote positive images of homosexuality to their pupils, is often cited as the final straw."


Interviewed on BBC Radio's "Today" programme, along with Neil Fletcher, leader of the Inner London Education Authority, ... In particular she cited the book, "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin". Neil Fletcher pointed out that this appeared in an exhaustive booklist for teachers, but had never been used in any classroom.He challenged Dame Jill to provide evidence that it had.

Strangely the ILEA never challenged the Daily Mail about it when they published it in 1983, nor, as far as I am aware, did any one ever challenge her claim that "... there was The Playbook for Kids about Sex in which brightly coloured pictures of little stick men showed all about homosexuality and how it was done. That book was for children as young as five. I should be surprised if anybody supports that. Another book called The Milkman's on his Way explicitly described homosexual intercourse and, indeed, glorified it, encouraging youngsters to believe that it was better than any other sexual way of life."

I am not defending Jill Knight at all - she and her politics are largely irrelevant. My point on Section 28 is that it was deliberately misinterpreted by the GLF so that, in spite of clarification by both the National Union of Teachers and the Department for Education & Science (given above), it was still understood to be preventing discussion of homosexuality in schools, which it was not, and also having an adverse affect on the treatment, prevention and discussion of AIDS (as Kun Jon points out) even though this was specifically addressed in the Section: "Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of treating or preventing the spread of disease.". Even though it was demonstrably totally untrue, and refuted by the NUT and the DforEd&S, this misinterpretation was the ideal means for the GLF to attack the "establishment", which they made the most of. To me, particularly noting the effect this had on groups trying to prevent the spread of AIDS and to raise AIDS awareness, that is not only hypocritical in the extreme but truly "evil"

In your pursuit of Jill Knight you have overlooked my question addressed to you, Kun Jon and anyone else who took part in Gay Pride Marches organized by the GLF and their affiliates concerning their active or tacit support for the GLF Manifesto:
Was that actually what you, and others, were (and presumably are) in favour of, or were some of you possibly "misinformed"? тАжWere those marching really advocating also giving up personal property and privacy, as well as supporting the GLF's "new order" economic views and their support for, amongst others, the Black Panther Party?


In order to clarify what Section 28 and the GLF Manifesto actually said I have posted these in full, unedited, in the Global Forum.

[Brad the Impala]

I suspect that this may be becoming a little boring for some, however...........

The point that you made, that I object to, was your implication that the policies of the GLF directly led to, and justified, the introduction of Section 28, quoting Jill Knight's own justifications.

Firstly it was not only only the policies of GLF, who were largely a spent force by this time, but also the policies of a number of elected councils, to reverse the negative perception of homosexuality prevailing in schools at the time.

It is also not the common view, supported by the subsequent repeal of Section 28, that this was a just or appropriate piece of leglisation. In light of current thinking, it was surely inappropriate to prevent homosexuals being considered as valid as individuals, in their lifestyle or sexuality, as heterosexuals, which was the effect on the education system of this pernicious law.

I suspect that this may be becoming a little boring for some, however.........

I am sure it is, and it now has little to do with Gay Thailand, which is why I posted the GLF manifesto and Section 28 there rather than here.

I am not saying you are wrong, Brad, and I certainly do not condemn your motivation then or now. It does not appear that many actually took the time to read either before reacting to them, either then or here, otherwise they may not have reacted as they did. I was seldom in the UK at the time of the GLF and Section 28, so I cannot comment from personal experience and can only go by reports, the items themselves and others' views; I do think, for example though, that had AIDS charities done so at the time they may not have found them to be as "evil" as they believed.

This thread has gone way off topic for gay Thailand so apologies for another off topic contribution but I did mention this earlier on.

Gay Pride London today:

Some politics:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c156/Jons_photos/Gay_08_01.jpg

A sight unthinkable when I first marched:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c156/Jons_photos/Gay_08_02.jpg

Some eye candy:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c156/Jons_photos/Gay_08_03.jpg

Supply your own caption...

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c156/Jons_photos/Gay_08_04.jpg

I was proud to march with all of them and the Amnesty International guys and celebrate positive achievement.

Gay Pride London today:

1 some politics:

2 A sight unthinkable when I first marched:

3 Some eye candy:

4 Supply your own caption...



1 We all agree on something!

2 HA

3 I hope he comes here

4 Two Sawatdee posters (maybe 1?)

Off topic? The original poster put this in the Global forum (duhh, see the title ;-) ). I guess the mean ol' JINX is a bit finger happy these days. As to the constant hijacking of threads by those of ilk, pity he doesn't seem to have found the "SPLIT TOPIC" button javascript:emoticon(':wink:').

Oh well. You lose some.

[lonelywombat]

I think that you guys who don't see the point of parades, and quote "facts" to prove the point that they never changed anything positively, are missing the point.

The point is to raise profile, raise awareness in a society that may prefer to turn it's head away. Now you may feel that you no longer need to do that, as acceptance has now moved on in your society. However it doesn't mean that this isn't a stage that most countries need to go through.

I went on the Gay Parade in Budapest last year. In a city with an active gay scene, the turnout was disappointing at first, but understandable later. We had to be escorted the entire route by riot police to be protected from the physical and verbal abuse that many citizens of the city wanted to heap on us. We were even firebombed! A numbers of the marchers were injured.

To those who say it was our fault for provoking the bullies and the fascists, all we were doing was bringing the hatred into the open, where it could be seen and condemned by the silent majority for what it was. That is progress.

The appeasers may feel that that parade didn't change anything in itself, and they may be right. But I think it is part of the process of changing attitudes, and changing laws is only a part of that process.

My friends from Thailand paraded also in Budapest, they couldn't believe the homphobia. They had never encountered it before.

I posted a report on todays parade in Budapest in world forum. Things no different this year

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

OUTRAGEOUS !!!

Mrs O'Booze and I had been shopping at Harrods-how did our photo end up amongst this salacious lot ? I thought it was a Salvation Army parade !
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee135/lunchtimeobooze/phppwFD0iAM.jpg