14 views

A Britain We All Call Home > Published by Will Straw, February 4th 2010 at 4:18 pm

Cameron’s amnesia on gay adoption

Johann Hari’s interview with David Cameron exposed the Conservative leader misremembering his own votes against gay rights. But LGBT Labour have outlined that it is not the first time that he has forgotten which way he voted.

David-Cameron In the Independent, Hari writes:

“I start to go over his record beyond Section 28 – and slap into a brick wall. In 2002 he voted against allowing gay couples to adopt. Yet when I ask him why, he flatly denies it. He says: “No… we were three-line-whipped on that vote and I abstained on it.” I point him to Hansard, which records his vote against gay marriage in cold, black ink. He says “my memory” is that he abstained, and that he now thinks “the ideal adoption is finding a mum and a dad, but there will be occasions when gay couples make very good adoptive parents. So I support gay adoption.”

But LGBT Labour point out a similar exchange with Sky’s Adam Boulton in November 2005:

David Cameron: I abstained on a three line whip which was …

Adam Boulton: You voted against it twice.

David Cameron: I abstained on the three line whip, Adam. I haven’t been through Hansard.

(Sky News, 24/11/05)

Cameron also used the interview to say:

“I’m not allied with parties that have views on homophobia or racism that I think are unacceptable.”

As this blog outlined last month, Cameron’s Polish partners are planning a clampdown on gay websites, with one leading MP claiming they would “monitor homosexual websites because we are dealing with the promotion of the so called ‘positive paedophilia’.” Hari details other developments:

“A few days before we met, the MPs of this “not homophobic” Law and Justice Party demanded a crackdown on what they called “positive paedophilia by some homosexual circles.” Their senior MP, Stanislaw Pieta, said: “I’m not saying every gay is a paedophile, but in Britain 43 per cent of paedophiles are gay and they only make up 1 per cent of the population.” Their leader, Lech Kaczynski, says “the human race would disappear if homosexuality was freely promoted.” There are hundreds of such statements from the party, all on video.”

The Pink Paper picks up on Cameron’s view that no new gay rights are needed. The Liberal Democrats recently set out a series of proposals to enhance gay rights.

Mr. Sensible

Cameron likes to make it look like he’s changed, but he hasn’t.
http://www.ubervu.com/conversations/www.leftfootforward.org/2010/02/camerons-amnesia-on-gay-adoption/ uberVU – social comments

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by bencooper86: RT @leftfootfwd: David Cameron’s repeated amnesia on gay adoption http://bit.ly/9NfQmp (h/t @LGBTLabour)…
http://www.sohopolitico.com Soho Politico

Did he in fact say that no new rights are needed? Both the Independent and Pink News have said this, but the closest they come to corroborating that claim is pointing out that Cameron said that ‘culture’ is now more important than legal change. Clearly that’s far from being the case, but nor is it the same as saying that no new rights at all are needed. And in fact Cameron does seem to have spoken encouragingly about at least two new rights: of gay people at risk of violent homophobia to asylum, and of gay people to give blood. These are rights that Labour have not supported thus far. There is much that Cameron ought to be strongly criticised on with regards gay issues, and he continues not to propose many needed changes (e.g. he is worryingly woolly and evasive on homophobic bullying, on the basis of the Hari interview). But if we ignore the needed policy changes on which he has been giving encouraging signs, that is not good for gay people. Labour has let us down, so far, on asylum and the blood ban, and the fact that Cameron seems sympathetic to granting these new rights should be recognised.
http://twitter.com/mydavidcameron/status/8641719619 MyDavidCameron

RT @leftfootfwd: David Cameron's repeated amnesia on gay adoption http://bit.ly/9NfQmp
http://twitter.com/chizzleface/status/8641785065 Ste

RT: @mydavidcameron: RT @leftfootfwd: David Cameron's repeated amnesia on gay adoption http://bit.ly/9NfQmp
http://twitter.com/chrisplol/status/8642209180 Chris Paul

RT @mydavidcameron: RT @leftfootfwd: David Cameron's repeated amnesia on gay adoption http://bit.ly/9NfQmp
http://twitter.com/cliffjamester/status/8642279607 Cliff James

RT @mydavidcameron: RT @leftfootfwd: David Cameron's repeated amnesia on gay adoption http://bit.ly/9NfQmp
http://twitter.com/stoptheright/status/8643339344 StopTheRight

RT @pickledpolitics Caught lying about his record RT @leftfootfwd: David Cameron's repeated amnesia on gay adoption http://bit.ly/9NfQmp
http://twitter.com/chizzleface/status/8643792221 Ste

http://tinyurl.com/ylc36ux Who on Earth would want to vote for a person who can't stop telline porkies?
http://twitter.com/thereminwar/status/8644435458 Andrew Nix

RT @mydavidcameron: RT @leftfootfwd: David Cameron's repeated amnesia on gay adoption http://bit.ly/9NfQmp
http://twitter.com/mistywabbit/status/8654056528 Rachael Mc

RT @mydavidcameron RT @leftfootfwd: David Cameron's repeated amnesia on gay adoption http://bit.ly/9NfQmp
http://twitter.com/1robobozo/status/8655259118 Steph

RT @leftfootfwd: David Cameron's repeated amnesia on gay adoption http://bit.ly/9NfQmp (h/t @LGBTLabour)
rob

I wander how happy gay people are that labour seem to think they own this issue? Is it possible that the tory party could have changed? Maybee it could be seen at one of the labour parties achivments that gay rights is now a center of the road issue that all parties see as important?
http://twitter.com/dreamer_mike/status/8674926307 Mike Underwood

RT @mydavidcameron: RT @leftfootfwd: David Cameron's repeated amnesia on gay adoption http://bit.ly/9NfQmp
David

Soho, the blood ban isn’t a matter of law, it’s a policy by the NHS. And he proposed no new laws to deal with homophobic violence.
alllowercase

Hmmm….I get a little bit worried when people start talking about “the right to give blood”.

I’m not entirely sure that the National Blood Service has got the science right, and it certainly sounds a bit off to ban an entire group of people from giving blood if they’re willing to, unless it is backed up by firm scientific evidence.

So, yes, lets argue with them on the science and the facts, but lets not pretend that there’s a right to give blood.