10 out of 13 UK MPs Who Had the Chance Declined to Stand Up for LGBT Rights in Russia

On June 21st in Strausburg at a meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly to the Council of Europe, Written Declaration 481 was issued. This declaration expressed the ‘grave concern’ of those who signed over the ‘manifest failure of the Russian Federation to carry out its obligation to respect the European Convention on Human Rights’. This was with respect to its violent and repeated suppression of peaceful LGBT demonstrators in Moscow.

The Council of Europe website does not make it entirely clear which MPs were present at the meeting and which were not. There is a register of those who were present and those who sent their apologies listed on the website, but some who sent their apologies went on to speak at the meeting.

Those who were definitely present- and therefore had the chance to sign- are Paul Flynn (Labour); John Prescott (Labour); Lord John E. Tomlinson (Labour); Lord Donald Anderson (Labour); Joe Benton (Labour); Brian Binley (Conservative); Lord Tim Boswell (Conservative); Christopher Chope (Conservative); James Clappison (Conservative); Michael Connarty (Labour); Roger Gale (Conservative); Oliver Heald (Conservative); and Sir Alan Meale (Labour).

I commend and thank Paul Flynn, John Prescott, and Lord Tomlinson for signing the declaration. They have done the right thing.

For the rest of those listed above though- as well as any other UK MPs who were present and have been missed from the above list- I question their reasons for not signing. The declaration merely expressed concern at the situation and called on ‘the rapporteurs on Russia in the Monitoring Committee to give due consideration to these concerns in their next report’.

Are these other UK MPs not concerned by Russia’s human rights abuses?

One thing that is certain is that none of them can plead ignorance. Every UK MP who sits on the Parliamentary Assembly has been contacted regarding this issue in advance of the meeting. This has been done by multiple individuals through an email campaign set up by the Facebook group “UK Say NO to Russian LGBT Human Rights Abuse”.
Despite this only three out of at least 13 UK MPs who were present in Strausberg for this session of the Parliamentary Assembly signed the declaration.

So why did they remain silent? Using the website ‘Public Whip’- which allows UK MPs to be held to account over their voting record-it is clear that most MPs who were present at the meeting and failed to sign the declaration have a history of homophobic voting:

The figures show the percentage of occasions on which the MPs voted in favour of key LGBT equality legislation in the UK. These percentages are then categorised to say whether an MP is “Strongly For”; “Moderately For”; “Ambiguous”; “Moderately Against” or “Strongly Against” equality for the LGBT community.

If the two MPs on the list who have in the past voted “moderately for” LGBT equality are ignored (they may have declined to sign the declaration for other reasons) it is clear that based on their past voting record, the remaining 8 MPs who did not sign the declaration are on average strongly against LGBT equality.

This is compared to the scores of those who signed the declaration: Lord John Prescott 82.2%; Paul Flynn 85.5% and Lord John Tomlinson 96.9%- all “strongly for” LGBT equality based on their voting record.

The majority of the British Public support equal rights for LGBT citizens. MPs who did not sign the declaration are out of touch with their electorate. They must speak out through the Council of Europe against the homophobic Russian authorities or else risk alienating the British public on this issue.

With regard to the written declaration itself, this is a positive first step in holding the Russian Federation to account. Russia must now promptly respond to the concerns of peers within the Council of Europe over its undermining of the organisation and its Courts. If it does not then further action must be called for by members of the Parliamentary Assembly. Russia must legalise Moscow Pride for good or face further consequences notwithstanding suspension of its vote on the Council of Europe.

Russia must also accept that the October 2010 European Court ruling on Moscow Pride (referred to in Written Declaration 481) sets a precedent for the requirement to legalise Pride events in other parts of Russia. This must be further called for within the Council of Europe following the violence and arrests of protesters in St. Petersburg today at the banned Slavic Pride event.

The full text of Written Declaration 481 can be read here: http://assembly.coe.int/Mainf.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc11/EDOC12648.htm#P39_1192

A Tribute to an Accidental Activist: Matt Perkins

Warranting a separate blog post is a personal journey I witnessed whilst I was in Moscow that has truly inspired me. I’d like to share it in the hopes that it will illustrate the human potential for transformation and inspire others too.

Matt Perkins is my partner. We are two very different people, and one of these differences has been our attitudes towards global issues and activism. When we first met, Matt was skeptical about activism and didn’t really understand why people did it. He also questioned what difference the actions of one person could make. It should also be noted that is very stubborn and does not change his mind lightly! This was why I was so surprised and a little skeptical myself when he told me back in September that he wanted to come to Moscow pride with me.

At first, his attitude was that the pride event would take less than a day, and that the rest of the time there we could dedicate entirely to sightseeing together. He didn’t understand how much planning and coordination would be involved with the event, nor how dangerous it could be. But he began to read about it online. He was shocked and interested. He read more and more and began to get very worried by the event itself, and our discussions over the the weeks running up to our departure became weighted much more towards the Pride than they had been. He wanted to be there to protect me and make sure I didn’t put myself in any danger.

When Matt and I arrived in Moscow, one of the most amazing things for me was to see the changes that were happening in him. He was there getting involved in the discussions that I thought he wouldn’t be interested in, advocating his points of view. In the end he couldn’t take part in the event itself because he took the difficult decision that his recovering broken leg made him a liability out in the field. He instead stayed at the safe house with Andy Harley and provided support in helping to contact foreign embassies when international activists were arrested. He was also very supportive of me both before and after the pride, putting aside his own feelings about what would be safest for me and letting me do what I had to do in going out to participate in the Pride. It was extremely hard for him to let me go out there alone even though it terrified him. He had wanted to be there with me to protect me all along, but he had put the greater needs of the Pride event above that. That was something I had never expected he would be willing to do.

And it was the three days prior to the 28th that had led him to be able to let me do that so willingly. I could see on his face just before we headed out into the line of fire that he was in awe of what people were putting themselves up against that day. He has gained a new found respect for activists of all types. The battles that went on inside his mind over those five days and the way he overcame the mental challenges he faced, are what inspired me the most. He did things that were not at all natural for him personally to do. I can only imagine what it must have been like for him as he fully admitted to me afterwards that he had found himself out of his depth. Still, he did not run away or deviate from what he knew was right even when that was not the easiest course of action he could have taken.

I just want to wish him congratulations and to thank him. He has said how much he wants to do more to advocate change in the world and I’m really looking forward to seeing what he does next and to supporting him in that in whatever way I can.

Moscow Pride 2011: My personal account

Moscow Pride 2011: my first pride outside of the UK. I had been looking forward to this trip since august 2010 when I first contacted Peter Tatchell to find out how to get involved, and now it’s over I want to share my experience.

In the days running up to pride, there was a lot of debate and discussion about the safety of the event, whether it should go ahead, and if so, how it should be executed. Neo-nazi groups in Moscow had sworn to take vengeance upon LGBT Muscovites and anyone else taking part in the Pride event, and they seemed set to turn out in great numbers to stop the event going ahead. We couldn’t rely on the police to protect us because in previous years they have been allowed to execute physical violence against the protesters before intervening. The other international participants and I agreed amongst ourselves that whatever the decision, it must be made locally without prompting from us. We would support them in whatever choice they made.

It was decided that a direct protest would be staged both outside Red Square at 1pm, and in front of the City Hall at 1:30pm. There was no way to get from one to the other because anyone taking part in the first protest would certainly be arrested, so we each had to choose which site we would go to.

The night before Pride at 10pm Peter called a last minute safety and strategy meeting over outstanding safety issues. These regarded how to get to the sites without being picked off by police or groups of roving neo-nazis, and also how to get in front of the media and still make sure that the police had to arrest us before the neo-nazis reached us. There were no Russians present at this meeting and we couldn’t contact Nicolai Alekseev because he was resting from an extremely busy few days, and was also in hiding in a safehouse. This left us to speculate as to what exactly the Russians had wanted based on pieces of information we had all heard at various points during the preceding days. This went on past midnight.

On the morning of the 28th, we all gathered in one of the two apartments we were using. We had received new intelligence that morning on the locations of police officers and neo-nazi groups that made the safe routes we had planned out the night before impossible. There was some intense debate over whether we should stay and plan out a different route, or whether we should go straight there by whatever route we could. I feel the disagreement was fueled by the fact that some participants had existing injuries (such as Peter and Louis-Georges Tin) which made being attacked by the neo-nazis a bigger risk for them than for others, who felt able to take bigger risks.

Whilst this was happening, we received a call from a member of the press who said that some Russians had already been arrested in Red Square. We had not been informed when other Russians would be leaving for the protest and when Anna Komarova heard this, he of course launched straight into action. Some followed him while others, including myself, stayed behind to try to come up with a safer plan. I can only commend those who left straight away on their decision to do so.

There were four of us left who were planning to take to the street: Maik Diekmannshemke, Norbert Blech, Peter and myself. We rapidly decided that we would head straight to City Hall as the time to reach Red Square in good time had passed. We took a covert route and approached from the north, leaving Peter alone in a garden on the corner of Tverskaya for safety whilst the other three of us checked out the situation at City Hall.

The wide crossing directly opposite City Hall had been fenced off and was filled with about a 60/40 mix of press and neo-nazis. Either side was lined by police officers and Omoh (riot police). The situation did not look safe for anybody to participate, especially not Peter Tatchell with his past injuries. As we stood there and watched, however, two Russian activists appeared out of the crowds and were arrested, one after the other. They were roughly handled and suffered some hits from the neo-nazis. Maik and Norbert had been to check for Peter and were unable to find him, so if I was going to pull out the banner from the waist of my trousers and go down with the rest of them, it was now or never.

I told my team that I still wanted to participate despite the dangers all around, and they did not think it was a good idea. They made the point that we had been lucky all day that nobody had been seriously injured, and that enough people had already been arrested to make our case to the European courts. To put another person at risk in light of all this, they said, would be foolish and would not add anything extra to the Russians’ cause. After hearing this, I felt that it would be selfish for me to participate: that the only reason for me to pull out my banner was to get a cool photo and an interesting story to tell my friends. We decided to head back to base camp and do what we could to assist everyone there. The media and the crowds were being moved on by the police by now anyway and we were able to blend in with them as we moved away. We all returned to the house safely without being tailed.

Reflecting back on what had happened immediately after the event, I felt angry that I had let myself be talked out of participating in the Pride. Moscow pride received very little British media attention and looking at it with hindsight, my arrest would have provided much needed publicity to increase the pressure on the Moscow authorities. But that is where the benefits would have ended. I would have been an extra potential person to sustain a serious injury and if that had happened, the day could have been turned into a tragedy. As it turned out though, the event was extremely successful. Even though protesters were arrested immediately and didn’t have any time to display their message to Russia and the world, nobody received more than minor injuries and everybody who was arrested was released within a matter of hours. Shockingly, this even included the Russians who had been taken into custody, who are normally treated much more harshly than international arrestees. This day was a step forward in the history of LGBT Russia and an important staging block for further action.

As for myself, I have learned and gained so much from attending Moscow Pride 2011. Following a thoroughly inspiring pep talk from Dan Choi after he was released from prison, I found that I must always listen to what I am saying to myself deep down in my gut, even when those around me are telling me no. I am an activist, and I am equal to all other activists no matter how experienced or inexperienced. I gained a brilliant set of new friends with a shared interest in the global LGBT movement and have proven to myself that I really can do anything I set my sights on. I can make a real difference. Anybody can do something like we did in Moscow on May 28th. Most people just feel so disillusioned and dis-empowered that they think they can’t, and in some cases have forgotten that it’s important to take an interest and speak out to make a change.

I will return to Moscow next year and I will continue to fight alongside the Russians for basic rights that most LGBT citizens in the UK take for granted, but in the meantime there are other battles that I have been empowered to fight in my own country. Watch this space.

Alan Titchmarsh: Stop encouraging use of unsustainable peat

Alan Titchmarsh is a hypocrite. He claims he supports wildlife, yet he continues to practice and condone the use of peat based composts for certain aspects of gardening, despite other top gardeners being peat free for ten years or more. He has made a u-turn on his former anti-peat stance. I join the growing numbers calling for him to set an example to other gardeners, both professionals and hobbyists, by stopping his irresponsibility and hypocrisy now.

The extraction of peat from peat bogs destroys threatened peatland wildlife and contributes significantly to climate change by releasing stored greenhouse gases, and destroying an important carbon sink. As has been widely reported in the media, a recent survey of 27 top gardeners, conducted by the RSPB, revealed that more than half of them are still using peat or peat based products in their gardens.

Perhaps the most influential of these is Alan Titchmarsh. He claims that for some things, such as potting up seedlings and cuttings, there is currently no real alternative. He says that he will not give up peat until a ‘perfect substitute’ is discovered. This is despite the fact that in 2000 he reportedly claimed to have been ‘peat-free’ for the previous 5 years. He was also involved in an anti-peat campaign just three years ago.

In his column in the latest issue of Gardeners’ World magazine, Mr Titchmarsh explains the advantage of peat over its peat free alternatives as if to justify his use of it. He seeks further justification from the fact that he ‘mostly’ gardens organically, conserves water, and supports wildlife in his garden.

Whatever else Mr Titchmarsh may do to lessen his impacts on the environment, this cannot justify supporting such an unsustainable practice as commercial peat extraction. It is pure hypocrisy to support a practice so destructive to wildlife considering that one of his justifications for doing so is that he supports wildlife in his garden. Furthermore, the peat alternatives which he says cannot satisfy his needs appear to be perfectly adequate for other highly regarded gardeners: Emma Cooper, David Hamilton, Ryan Lewis, Val Bourne, and Stephanie Donaldson to name a few.

Mr Titchmarsh should not feel like he has been singled out for no reason amongst the host of gardeners who have also publicly shared his views on peat. He is arguably the most famous, influential, and trusted gardener on British Television, and a household name. His opinions and actions are respected and mirrored by gardeners up and down the country (my own dad sees him as a bit of a hero!) A visit to the forums of http://www.alantitchmarsh.com shows the potential impact of his actions. Commenting on the forum topic ‘Alan and the use of peat’ Rosemary, a forum member for two years, commented the following:

“You know, my husband bought a bag of nothing but peat, and we spread it all over the garden last weekend. At the time I felt guilty, but now I don’t….. cheers Alan!”

Mr Titchmarsh is privileged to be so well liked, respected, and influential to British Gardeners. He can provide a strong voice to encourage individuals to stop using peat, and to encourage garden suppliers to reduce barriers to these individuals doing so. He has a moral, environmental, and social responsibility to use his influence to positive ends and go back to his good old ‘anti-peat days’ of three years ago.