Homosexuality in Commonwealth Countries

[yorksrob]

I don't think anyone wants "self-flagillation" nor do I think it would help. But I also think it's very important for the UK and commonwealth to take a much stronger line against e.g. Ghana where living your life in peace if you're homosexual has recently become more difficult. The current system means that we give a tacit approval to this, bigotry and we fail to defend equality campaigners in Ghana.

I would agree with that, but once you've told a country that you disagree with their policy, where do you go then ? Boycott it ? And if so, shouldn't we take a similar line with other oppressive regimes ?

 

[Scotrail12]

What do you mean by boycotting a country?

 

[sor]

I never hear this analogy about Canada, New Zealand, or Australia. This is backdoor paternalism.

The Queen of Canada is a separate entity to the Queen of the United Kingdom even if it is the same person. It is no less disingenuous to suggest Canada, whose sovereign is the same as the UK's, is in any way responsible for British social policy.

And of course in the 80s we passed laws that explicitly severed the remaining links (and our parliament's ability to legislate) between the UK and those countries, even if in practice they had been governing themselves for decades prior.

Still, if it is meant to work both ways, I assume we'll be legalising cannabis as in Canada or adopting a PR electoral system as in New Zealand!

 

[Ediswan]

Is that not just a titular role these days? When was the last time that the Queen issued an edict against a Commonwealth country, with the implied threat of enforcement if not obeyed?

The only one I can think of is the dismissal of Gough Whitlam, via the Governor General. That went beyond a threat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, also known simply as the Dismissal, culminated on 11 November 1975 with the dismissal from office of the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), by Governor-General Sir John Kerr.

 

[duncanp]

The only one I can think of is the dismissal of Gough Whitlam, via the Governor General. That went beyond a threat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

The Queen played no part in the dismissal of Gough Whitlam.

Gough Whitlam was dismissed on the orders of the governor general of Australia at the time, Sir John Kerr. He did not consult The Queen beforehand, and nor did he inform her afterwards.

He was acting within the law at the time, although whether that action was the most appropriate action to deal with the issue is debateable

 

[XAM2175]

What I have however understood from them is that there's quite rightly a renewed focus on the role of the UK and its foreign policy today in regards to this sort of outdated and damaging law. I don't think anyone wants "self-flagillation" nor do I think it would help. But I also think it's very important for the UK and commonwealth to take a much stronger line against e.g. Ghana where living your life in peace if you're homosexual has recently become more difficult. The current system means that we give a tacit approval to this, bigotry and we fail to defend equality campaigners in Ghana.

Quite so. It shouldn't be controversial at all to say that British colonial administrations did, in many colonies, introduce laws forbidding and punishing homosexual activity and that in some of the colonies those laws were the first laws to be enacted on the topic. In some other colonies, they were more restrictive than the native rules that had preceded them.

I think it is also relatively settled to say that the enactment of these laws by British authorities might have helped to 'direct' social opinions against homosexuality, and that today's opinions might be descended from those earlier ones.

However, it is unquestionably up to those now-independent former colonies to set their laws on the matter today.

In my mind there is room to say that previous attitudes in Britain were did contribute to the enactment of those laws - just as they did to the enactment of laws against homosexual behaviour within the UK - but also to say that newer attitudes have lead to abolition of those laws in the UK and that it's not improper to respectfully advocate for those new values in countries with which we share close relations.

The only one I can think of is the dismissal of Gough Whitlam, via the Governor General. That went beyond a threat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

In that case though there was no involvement of any mechanism of the Commonwealth of Nations and Her Majesty did not become personally involved - the Governor-General acted on his own authority as the lawfully-empowered representative of the Queen of Australia.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Aug 2022 ==

He did not consult The Queen beforehand, and nor did he inform her afterwards.

There is some debate on this exact point. The release of the Palace Letters in 2020 indicates that Kerr had corresponded with Prince Charles and the Queen's Private Secretary, Sir Martin Charteris, on his authority to exercise the Reserve Powers in the name of Sovereign, and had explicitly discussed the possibility of dismissing Whitlam as early as June 1975. There is also considerable evidence that by early October the Queen herself was aware that Kerr was planning to dismiss Whitlam - but it is accepted that neither she nor Prince Charles nor Sir Martin gave any encouragement to Kerr to actually do so.

Of course it is not hugely material to the topic at hand in any case.

 

[Strathclyder]

Yes, we were responsible for the actions of the Commonwealth in that time.

No, we are not responsible for the failure of these countries to evolve to modern day thinking.

Quite simple.

Quite so. It shouldn't be controversial at all to say that British colonial administrations did, in many colonies, introduce laws forbidding and punishing homosexual activity and that in some of the colonies those laws were the first laws to be enacted on the topic. In some other colonies, they were more restrictive than the native rules that had preceded them.

I think it is also relatively settled to say that the enactment of these laws by British authorities might have helped to 'direct' social opinions against homosexuality, and that today's opinions might be descended from those earlier ones.

However, it is unquestionably up to those now-independent former colonies to set their laws on the matter today.

In my mind there is room to say that previous attitudes in Britain were did contribute to the enactment of those laws - just as they did to the enactment of laws against homosexual behaviour within the UK - but also to say that newer attitudes have lead to abolition of those laws in the UK and that it's not improper to respectfully advocate for those new values in countries with which we share close relations.

This is generally where I land on this issue. Yes, we were responsible for such laws being put in place back in that period of the Commonwealth, but are not responsible for them still being in place now, decades after those countries became independent, self-governing entities. To assert otherwise is just a tad on the nonsensical side.

With that said, I do agree with @Starmill with respect to us officially taking a stronger stance against countries with such laws in place in the present day, regardless of any colonial links that existed beforehand and regardless of any ties we now share. Not to the extent of 'self-flagillation', but more than the tacit permission granted by the present arrangement. Officially supporting & defending equality campaigners in Ghana etc. would be a good place to start in this respect.

What do you mean by boycotting a country?

Not visiting as a tourist, thus depriving the economy of your money on that front, I imagine is the general gist of such actions.

 

[Scotrail12]

Not visiting as a tourist, thus depriving the economy of money on that front, I imagine is the general gist of such actions.

Well, that's exactly how I do it. Was on a ship that visited Turkey 3 weeks ago and stayed onboard because of their attitude to homosexuality and they are by no means the worst. I would absolutely never be a tourist in any country which makes homosexuality illegal.

 

[Falcon1200]

Yes, we were responsible for such laws being put in place back in that period of the Commonwealth, but are not responsible for them still being in place now, decades after those countries became independent, self-governing entities. To assert otherwise is just a tad on the nonsensical side.

Indeed, and there are of course countries with outdated laws and attitudes regarding homosexuality which were never part of the British Empire.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Those shared values and principles work in both directions, and I would expect people in Canada or any other Commonwealth country to be just as critical of things that the UK does as they would be of any other Commonwealth nation.

That sounds reasonable. But you do realise though that, if you take the view that Commonwealth countries should be able to attempt to influence each other's social policies, then that would seem to imply that countries like - say - Ghana and Pakistan should presumably have just as much right to seek to bring the UK round to their way of thinking on issues like homosexuality - or in the case of Pakistan, blasphemy - as we do to try to bring them round to our way of thinking.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Aug 2022 ==

Quite so. It shouldn't be controversial at all to say that British colonial administrations did, in many colonies, introduce laws forbidding and punishing homosexual activity and that in some of the colonies those laws were the first laws to be enacted on the topic. In some other colonies, they were more restrictive than the native rules that had preceded them.

Yes, obviously those are well established facts whose truth is not controversial. The issue at hand is more, whether that fact was sufficiently related to the story being reported to justify its inclusion.

 

[najaB]

That sounds reasonable. But you do realise though that, if you take the view that Commonwealth countries should be able to attempt to influence each other's social policies, then that would seem to imply that countries like - say - Ghana and Pakistan should presumably have just as much right to seek to bring the UK round to their way of thinking on issues like homosexuality - or in the case of Pakistan, blasphemy - as we do to try to bring them round to our way of thinking.

Yes. They have the right to try to bring us to their way of thinking.

 

[Davester50]

However, every bulletin, certainly on the BBC seems to choose to emphasise that the original legislation criminalising homosexuality in these countries was laid on their statute books during the colonial period.

I found it more noticeable the Colonial-Era mention in the BBC Breaking pop-up than the actual news itself.
Quite racist to Singaporeans, I thought.

 

[yorksrob]

What do you mean by boycotting a country?

Similar to the boycott of SA in the 1980's.

 

[duncanp]

Yes. They have the right to try to bring us to their way of thinking.

True, but if a country like Ghana or Uganda said to us that we should make homosexuality illegal again, we would tell them to **** off and mind their own business.

By the same token, it is none of our business whether homosexuality is illegal in Ghana or Uganda, even if we might disagree with their laws on this topic.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

True, but if a country like Ghana or Uganda said to us that we should make homosexuality illegal again, we would tell them to **** off and mind their own business.

By the same token, it is none of our business whether homosexuality is illegal in Ghana or Uganda, even if we might disagree with their laws on this topic.

That's a really tricky issue. In general, I would say that another country's internal domestic policies are usually none of our business. However if those policies involve oppressing or persecuting some group, and that group has no internal means to make its voice heard (for example, because the country is not a democracy), then basic humanity does make it our business to try to help persecuted people.

By analogy, what goes on behind the curtains of every other house in your street is none of your business. But if it turns out that what's going on in one of the houses is that the children are regularly being abused or something, then it does very much become our business (maybe not personally, but in the sense of, the Government's business to put right).

The tricky balance there then becomes, where do you draw the line in terms of not wanting to interfere with other cultures or present an air of superiority, while at the same time helping people who are persecuted.

 

[Starmill]

I would agree with that, but once you've told a country that you disagree with their policy, where do you go then ? Boycott it ? And if so, shouldn't we take a similar line with other oppressive regimes ?

Certainly I agree there's some wider soul-searching we should be doing as a nation on what our priorities really are when it comes to rights and freedoms vs economic interests.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Aug 2022 ==

True, but if a country like Ghana or Uganda said to us that we should make homosexuality illegal again, we would tell them to **** off and mind their own business.

By the same token, it is none of our business whether homosexuality is illegal in Ghana or Uganda, even if we might disagree with their laws on this topic.

I think that nobody is suggesting that the UK should attempt to take direct rule over Ghana, Uganda, or any other territory or country; the point being made is that, under the current approach to the Commonwealth, the UK lends a tacit approval to laws which, among other things, criminalise homosexuality. As a result there can be a 'chilling effect' on the political movement within these countries to remove the bigotry from statues and norms. This also does not particularly enhance our reputation abroad with other countries who do operate on far closer social and value systems to our own but aren't part of the commonwealth with e.g. Switzerland, the United States or even Japan and South Korea.

There is no sense of shame or self-loathing in voicing our clear opposition to laws from a hundred years ago or more, even if they happened to have been implemented by the British then. In my view it is only patriotic to put clear separating lines between nonsense from the distant past and modern Britain abroad. We should not shy from doing so.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

Slightly off topic, I heard that Rainbow armbands may be worn by some players at the football world cup later this year?

 

[GS250]

Slightly off topic, I heard that Rainbow armbands may be worn by some players at the football world cup later this year?

Isn't the proposed rainbow going to be against all forms of discrimination?

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

Isn't the proposed rainbow going to be against all forms of discrimination?

Not sure, you may be correct.