UKIP banned from London Gay Pride
Under Soul
Posts: 2,989 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Although many other parties allowed to join.
Not a political decision apparently but practical due to health and safety due to alleged sit ins and protests against them.
http://prideinlondon.org/news/2015/06/statement-ukip-presence-pride-london/
I'm gay and not a UKIP voter but find this worrying due to free speech implications. Especially since it seems threatening behaviour against them has worked
Not a political decision apparently but practical due to health and safety due to alleged sit ins and protests against them.
http://prideinlondon.org/news/2015/06/statement-ukip-presence-pride-london/
I'm gay and not a UKIP voter but find this worrying due to free speech implications. Especially since it seems threatening behaviour against them has worked
0
Comments
What do you mean by "trying to move the party round"?
You do realise that UKIP has gay memebers and a gay MEP, don't you?
Please stop believing in the biased media regarding this party and actually do some research on UKIP itself.
The far left doesn't believe in democracy. That much is true.
...................even though they (UKIP) include LBGT members / supporters.
LBGT community has had to achieve a lot to overcome precisely that which a section now wishes to practice, intolerance.
The "tolerance" of the leftie loopers is a one-way street.
But which opinions are they intolerant of here?
That is how i see it as well, this could have built bridges and shown real tolerance,inclusion and unity but now it's a lost opportunity. The wrong decision has been made due to an organised campaign to boycott or cause trouble if they were allowed to attend.
Sad at at the reaction by some Ukippers on breitbart though, the usual hate came out like comparing paedophiles with gay people. One member even put a link up of a guy being beheaded in a muslim country and joked it's a muslim gay pride. They don't see this will only make people feel justified in banning them in the first place.
If you read the article, you'll see that is not the case. No hypocrisy involved.
I think you are missing the point. Some fluff about protection and safety is a smoke screen.
The event preaches tolerance and inclusion. Neither of these are being exhibited.
Seemingly the organisers are saying that to participate you have to be the right kind of gay.
That in NO WAY is acceptable but they would be idiots (and potentially liable) to ignore such things, let it go ahead without proper consideration and maybe consultation with people like the police and then there be real trouble occur.
Should UKIP have been allowed to attend...yes...but I would have hoped it would have been possible to negotiate with them a small delegation that another group would have agreed to parade alongside to act as a buffer to the lunatic fringe.
Though I'm not sure who would step up to agree to act a shield...gay cops or firemen maybe?
And those who dislike UKIP should think a bit...the more they sort out/sift out or more likely cause to walk out some of their homophobic element...the LESS of them there will be.
I do find it rather odd that organisers of the Gay Pride march want to ban some gay people from the march because they might be subject to threats and abuse because they support the third largest UUK party by votes at the last election.
The people who started gay pride in the 60s and 70s had to suffer prejudice and harassment and abuse every time they organised and held the event. Surely the point of the event is to stand up and show tolerance. Seems you are allowed to be gay and proud - but only if the organisers approve of the sort of gay person you are and your beliefs.
I disagree, their attitude stinks of hypocrisy.
If a bigoted bunch of knuckle draggers were hassling and being violent towards transgender people, do you think the answer would be to ban transgender people ( in the interests of security) from the march ?
Just as an issue of accuracy, no actual people have been banned. UKIP members, as far as I know, are entirely allowed to take part. The organisation itself is all that's not allowed a presence.