I grew up in a traditional Jewish family in Crown Heights. I love my mother, my father and my family. I had always felt different and was the subject of relentless bullying by other boys for “seeming” gay. When I was 17 I confided to a friend that I was attracted to men and not sexually attracted to women at all. When it came out, I was thrown out of yeshiva (Jewish religious school). For the longest time I felt so alone because I truly believed that I was the only person battling this secret war. My older siblings were getting married and having kids, and all I ever wanted was to be a part of the beautiful world my parents had raised me in. My dream was to marry a woman and live the life my family hoped and dreamed for me. I would never have chosen to be gay; I could not imagine anyone growing up in the Orthodox world who would choose to be someone who doesn’t fit into the values and norms of everyone around them.

So do I think that I was “born gay”? I don’t know and I am not sure how important that is. What is important is that it certainly is not something that I chose or had anything to do with. And I felt immense pressure to somehow change who I was.

After much time and research I found a well-known organisation that “specialised” in reparative therapy. This organisation had endorsements from a wide range of rabbis and I was sure that it was the answer to all my problems. The organisation’s executive director told me that he believes everyone can change if they simply put in the hard work. I would have done anything to change, and this message was just the hope I was looking for. I spent two years attending every group meeting, weekend, and individual life coaching sessions they offered. My parents and I paid thousands of dollars. Every day, every session, I was working and waiting to feel a shift in my desires or experience authentic change. That moment never came. I didn’t change, I never developed any sexual desire for women, and never stopped being attracted to men. Instead, I only felt more and more helpless because I wasn’t changing. The organisation and its staff taught us that change only comes to those who truly want it and are willing to put in the work. So if I wasn’t changing, I was seen as someone who either really didn’t sincerely want it, or would not put in the necessary work. In other words, there was no one to blame but myself.

The worst part of my experience in reparative therapy came at the end. In a locked office, alone with my unlicensed ‘life coach’, who said he was an ‘ex-gay man’ I was told to undress, stand in front of the counsellor and do things too graphic to describe in this article. I was extremely uncomfortable, but he said that I must do this for the sake of changing and that if I didn’t remove my clothing I wouldn’t be doing the work it takes to achieve change. I would do anything to change, and so I did what he asked me to do. It was probably the most traumatising experience of my life.

I tried to tell people what happened, but the organisation said it wasn’t true and refused to fire the life coach. But I have spoken to other men who all underwent the same experience. And I can only imagine how many other young men who this has happened to who have not yet come forward. One of the most frustrating aspects was that because this coach is not licensed by any professional board, he is unaccountable to any licensing committee. Since I was over eighteen and agreed to this kind of therapy, I am told that I have no legal recourse. But I do have my voice! Yet, even after coming forward with what happened, nothing has changed. I often hear that this therapy has helped people, that it is wonderful, but I wonder, how helpful can an organisation be when it causes great suffering and pain to many who come to them for hope.

The recent Torah Declaration, signed by so many rabbis, only serves to perpetuate the notion that all homosexuals in the Orthodox community must change in reparative therapy. Unlike the helpful recent RCA statement on welcoming homosexuals or the “Statement of Principles” written and signed by over 200 responsible rabbis, the Torah Declaration does not demand that therapists must be board licensed. Unlike these other statements, it does not allow those for whom this kind of therapy is harmful or not working to seek other options. It kills me that this Torah Declaration will be used by parents to force their children into therapies that may be harmful to them. It frightens me that this Torah Declaration says that “change is mandated by the Torah,” when I know personally that change therapy has not worked and was so harmful for me. It hurts me to know that I am now being blamed by these rabbis and therapists for this failed therapy.

It confuses me that this Torah Declaration contains so many flawed arguments. Saying that God would never make a gay person unable to change is simplistic, inconsistent and flat-out wrong. If someone gets into an accident we would never say that we know he can be “cured” simply because his affliction is not genetic and he wasn’t born this way. We would never tell a deaf person (born deaf or not) that his ‘test’ is to find a way to hear again, so that he can be observe the positive commandment of hearing the shofar (horn) in the synagogue at new year? Yet the Torah Declaration uses all of these arguments to make gay people feel that their ‘test’ from God in life is to change their sexuality, simply because it may not be genetic and God would never make it unchangeable. This is the worst kind of rationalised homophobia.

I know first hand how this kind of societal bullying can lead to self-harm and suicide. I know of too many young men who have been pressured to stay in these kinds of therapies only to be tormented to point of taking their own lives. No one can bring these boys back. However, there are many Orthodox rabbis, religious therapists and organisations that remind us we are loved and that we belong. In the darkness of my days, a grass roots support community organisation in New York called JQY saved my life. JQY is a group of over five hundred young Jews who grew up in the religious community. Their goal is to combat shame, bullying and ostracising, while making families, religious schools and communities safe and welcoming to their gay members. They do not advocate for any change in religious law, but rather assert that one can believe that certain behaviours are technically prohibited and still be a happy, healthy and fulfilled person.

In JQY the right path for an individual is unique for each person. There are some members of JQY who are trying to change their orientation and many like me, who have tried for years and have discovered that it is not possible for them. We are all just trying to be the best that we can be. We learn from each other and are there for each other because we know how hard it is to be gay in a religious family. JQY is my logical family. We have support meetings, crisis resources, festival get togethers and sabbath meals where we know it is safe to be ourselves.

I now have a sense of pride about who I am. However, I understand the concept of “pride” as combating the years of self-shame and instead promoting a sense of personal self worth. Pride is not a celebration of any personal behaviour or desire. Nowhere in my story do I ever mention prohibited behaviours. I know that “being gay” does not express anything about personal intimate behaviour; it merely expresses an orientation. I adhere to the religious concepts of modesty, which demands that intimate behaviour stays private and discrete, and has no place in the public forum. In fact I do not know any gay person from a religious background who doesn’t believe the same way.

This is not an appeal to change religious law or anyone’s political views. This is not a push for gay marriage or any legitimising of gay marriage within the orthodox Jewish community. I am simply asking my community not to judge and not to pressure someone to participate in a program or therapy which causes harm. Just because someone is honest about being gay, does not mean that he engages in anything wrong. No one should feel silenced or asked to lie about who they are. Abuse and cruelty should never be tolerated or ignored. A little humility goes a long way. Sometimes the kindest and most thoughtful response when it comes to very difficult situations is, “I don’t know, but I’m here for you because you are part of my family and community.”

This comment has been adapted from an article first published in the Jewish Free Press by the author. Chaim blogs at http://gottagivemhope.blogspot.com/ and tweets at @chaim89

PinkNews.co.uk’s founder Benjamin Cohen recently recorded an It Gets Better Video to explain that it gets better to be Jewish and Gay and that gay cures don’t work.

Cohen, 29, discusses coming out to his Jewish family in the time of Section 28, when discussion about being gay was limited in schools. He also condemns reparative therapy for same sex attractions. His former school, JFS, was criticised last month for showing sixth form students a slide about gay cure treatments.

He says: “I first began the process of coming out when I was fifteen. For a few years, I wondered if the feelings I had would go away and maybe whether they were a test from God.

“When I look back at it now, I can’t believe how scared I was when I first started telling my family and friends. I knew that there were already openly gay people in my extended family and that my parents had a few gay friends. But I remembered a rather nasty comment my Dad said about gay people when I was younger, something I really focused on.

“In reality when I told my family, they were more surprised that my ex-boyfriend wasn’t Jewish than that he was a guy. They just wanted to me be happy and more recently, my Dad has become vocal advocates for LGBT rights in their professional and communal lives.

“Although, back when I came out were living in a totally different world, Section 28 meant homosexuality wasn’t really discussed in schools, there wasn’t an equal age of consent, no civil partnerships and no prospect of same sex marriage- something our prime minister wants to introduce.

“But I realise that despite the advances in equality, coming out is still difficult, especially if like me you come from a faith background. For some it’s not just about how your family reacts, it’s about how you fit into a community that you love.”

Cohen was a pupil at JFS, the school which came under fire last month for showing pupils a slide depicting the logo of a ‘gay cure’ group during a discussion on homosexuality.

He says: “Unfortunately some young people are still being told that homosexuality is a choice, a wrong choice, NOT something that you can’t help. In some religious institutions young people are being told about so called reparative therapy for same sex attraction. In other words, courses and treatments to turn you straight.

“I know people who’ve spent tens of thousands of pounds trying to unsuccessfully alter their sexuality and other people have harmed themselves after failing. On both sides of the Atlantic, medical associations condemn the practise.

“But, there is another way, I feel twice blessed that I was born into the Jewish and LGBT community and in part it’s because I’ve discovered that there are tens of thousands of people like me.

“In Britain we have Keshet UK, the national LGBT Jewish forum and groups including Gay Jews in London, JGLG, Engayje, the Gay and Lesbian Orthodox Network and Imaot v Avot – the group for LGBT parents. And in the wider faith community there’s the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, and Imaan the group for LGBT Muslims.

“The point is that there are people like you, lots of them and you’ll find by supporting each other, it gets better.”

Doreen Wachmann’s column today explores her “reservations” about the “desirability” of living an openly gay lifestyle.

At one point, Wachmann refers to a particular doctor’s experience treating “desire for sex with the dead” before mentioning the “Orthodox Jewish, Muslim and fundamentalist patients, who come to him because they know he will respect their religious beliefs and help them heal their homosexual tendencies if that is their choice.”

She continues: “The choice of whether someone wants to be cured of any condition should be the patient’s.

“Not that I’m saying that gay “cures” always work.

“I am sure they don’t, just as all cures do not work and just as most medication and medical procedures have potentially damaging side-effects. But patients are still encouraged to try them.”

The columnist goes on to ask why, when abortion and euthanasia “are being almost encouraged”, religious people do not have the “right to try to see whether their homosexuality can be cured”.

Rabbi Mark Solomon, Manchester Liberal Jewish Community said: “Doreen Wachmann’s article “Gays should be able to see if they can be ‘cured’” displays a shocking ignorance and malevolence towards gay Jews.

“Gay people have been systematically stigmatised, marginalised and persecuted for many centuries, and are still subject to imprisonment, violence and death in many parts of the world. In the West our hard-won freedom to express our loving sexual nature, as gay, lesbian or bi people, is still brand new, vulnerable and precious.

“The consensus of all respectable medical and psychological opinion not fettered by fundamentalist religious dogma is that same-sex attraction is utterly natural and deeply ingrained in the personality, not a disease or pathology of any kind.

“The language of “cure” simply does not apply, and any suggestion that it does reeks of bigotry.”

“To suggest that the popular consensus supporting gay rights is somehow fascist, in the third sentence of her article, is like saying that Jews who fight for their rights are victimising the anti-Semites. It is the classic persecutors’ technique of blaming the victim.

“Gay people who have been subjected to so-called “reparative therapy” overwhelmingly testify that it is humiliating, abusive and ultimately useless. Left-handed people were once forced to act right-handed – this might produce some temporary unnatural behaviour modification, but at the cost of the individual’s thriving and integrity.

“Of course no-one should be forced to come out, or declare themselves gay if they are really bisexual – these are deeply personal decisions that should be made freely, perhaps with the help of sympathetic and non-judgemental counselling. But that is worlds away from telling a person who is insecure about their sexual identity that there is something sick about them that could be cured.

“It is Jewish tradition that was infected, millennia ago, with the sickness of homophobia. It is the Doreen Wachmanns of this world who are in need of curing.”

Ronete Cohen, Jewish bisexual Advice Columnist, psychologist, and psychotherapist of the London based Rainbow Couch practice said: “Therapists don’t serve some hidden agenda. We take care of the person and help them find the best way to live a better life.

“No one is forced to come out of the closet. The biggest cause of distress for LGBT people is rejection by those around them. How does further rejection by trying to “cure” them – thereby suggesting an illness – help? Therapists are obliged not to knowingly damage or administer treatment that doesn’t work.

“Research shows that, contrary to claims by advocates of gay “cures”, treatment doesn’t change sexual orientation, but can potentially harm (there have been suicides in “Ex-Gay” programs). Those who claim to have become heterosexual will often later admit that they were never cured and were living a lie, including leaders and founders of the Ex-Gay movement. This “cure” is based on pseudo science and faulty reasoning. It harms. Ms Bachmann should get her facts right.”

Noam Fischer, a 32 year old Jewish gay health professional in the NHS London said: “I think Orhtodox Jews should realise that homosexuality is not an illness. Perhaps their particular view from within Judaism (though by no means largely shared by other Jews) doesn’t agree with homosexuality, but it is not an illness.

“There are female Rabbis and that is against their views, is there a cure for that?”

Rabbi Aryeh Ralbag, had been suspended from his position after he signed a document alleging homosexuality could be “modified and healed”.

Now, Dutch news agency ANP reports he has been reinstated after flying from New York to discuss his action with the NIHS (Nederlands-Israelietische HoofdSynagogue) in the Dutch capital.

The Amsterdam community had objected to Rabbi Ralbag using his title on signing up to the Torah Declaration.

In a statement, the NIHS had said: “Rabbi Ralbag’s signature may give the impression the Orthodox Jewish community of Amsterdam shares his view.

“This is absolutely untrue. Homosexuals are welcome at the Amsterdam Jewish community.”

Previously, the chief rabbi reportedly told a Dutch newspaper he felt it would be safer to stay away from the Netherlands, saying: “Why would I risk the life of my wife and me?”

At the time of his suspension, Rabbi Ralbag had said: “I do not believe that I have to apologize to anyone for my Torah-based beliefs; nevertheless, I sincerely regret and apologize to anyone pained by the inaccurate portrayal of my views.”

Discussing wider approaches to homosexuality in Judaism, Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet of London’s Mill Hill United Synagogue writes in PinkNews.co.uk today: “Chief Rabbi Ralbag should not be relieved of his position for taking a religious stance on a traditional biblical position. That’s plain ludicrous. However, his sensitivity, and by extension his ability to reach out to his wider constituency, in endorsing a controversial statement regarding homosexuals, must surely be called into question.”

The Declaration in question says the idea that God created “a human being who is unable to find happiness in a loving relationship unless he violates a biblical prohibition is neither plausible nor acceptable”.

It continues: “We must create an atmosphere where this teenager (or anyone) can speak freely to a parent, rabbi, or mentor and be treated with love and compassion. Authority figures can then guide same-sex strugglers towards a path of healing and overcoming their inclinations.

“The key point to remember is that these individuals are primarily innocent victims of childhood emotional wounds. They deserve our full love, support and encouragement in their striving towards healing.”

The Conference of European Rabbis reportedly issued a statement saying: “The Amsterdam kehilla is known the world over for its proud commitment to its traditions.

“We are pleased it has decided to address any issues relating to the articulation by its Chief Rabbi or other officially appointed Rabbinic figures of traditional, halachic positions, in a positive and consultative manner.”

ANP reported that uncertainty remains over having a US-based chief rabbi for the Amsterdam community.

Homosexuality has always been a hot potato in the Jewish community. Proponents argue that Judaism is homophobic while detractors insist they are just upholding the letter of the law.

The biblical injunction against homosexual activity is clear. People who want to conform to the Bible should not be condemned as homophobic anymore than critics of religion might be labelled theophobic. However, just because I maintain that homosexuality is wrong doesn’t mean I have to go beating the drum about it anymore than I might regularly preach against adultery. To be sure, there are times when public statements are deemed necessary, such as when same-sex marriages began to become legalised. Imagine the public outcry were bigamy to be declared legal. Similarly, when governments were voting with their feet to recognise same-sex marriages, it was only to be expected that moralists and religious leaders would speak out against. Still, even when it is considered necessary to protest, it remains imperative that basic sensitivity is maintained. A fundamental principle in Judaism, sadly lost on too many extremists today, is to condemn the action, never the person. Take for example the “Statement of Principles on the Place of Jews with a Homosexual Orientation in Our Community,” initially released in mid-2010. It was signed by dozens of leading Orthodox Rabbis across the Jewish world, making perfectly clear the traditional Jewish viewpoint on homosexuality, while also reassuring gay people that they are always welcome into Synagogues and communities.

Last week, the Jews Free School in London made headlines for teaching a class that homosexuality can be cured. According to a Jewish Chronicle report, as part of the school’s Jewish studies curriculum, pupils were shown a website from the American group JONAH – Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality, apparently introduced at the end of the textual study on homosexuality and the Orthodox viewpoint. Having met last night with Michael Glass, the Chair of Governors of JFS, he informs me that the school has issued a statement denying the reported sequence of events, and insisting it was something that formed part of a discussion, rather than an ideal that was being formally promoted.

Meanwhile, Holland’s Chief Rabbi, Aryeh Ralbag has been suspended for putting his signature to the JONAH mission statement that promotes the idea that homosexuality can be “mitigated and potentially eliminated.” This in turn has prompted a public outcry from the Conference of European Rabbis and others, arguing that to relieve a Chief Rabbi from his position for upholding an ancient biblical law, is deplorable, “verging on fascism.”

There is a difference between issuing a statement asserting the traditional Jewish view on homosexuality, and offering one’s own theory about “illness and cure.” The Bible condemns the act as an abomination, as it does eating bacon. Plain and simply put, it is forbidden. That’s where the scope of any Rabbi’s position should begin and end. If psychotherapists believe that sexual orientation can be altered, that is their remit. It’s not for Rabbis to go publically endorsing such a position, which is essentially saying, not only are you gay but you’re also mentally unstable. That’s crossing the line into condemning the person, not just the act.

Chief Rabbi Ralbag should not be relieved of his position for taking a religious stance on a traditional biblical position. That’s plain ludicrous. However, his sensitivity, and by extension his ability to reach out to his wider constituency, in endorsing a controversial statement regarding homosexuals, must surely be called into question.

Yitzchak Schochet is the Rabbi for Mill Hill United Synagogue and is responsible for family issues in the Chief Rabbi’s cabinet. He blogs at www.shul.co.uk/rabbi and can be followed on twitter @RabbiYYS

As with all “Comment” pieces, the views of Rabbi Schochet do not represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk

Bishop Holtam made the comments in an interview with the Times today ahead of the meeting of the General Synod next week, where civil partnerships in churches and equal marriage are to be discussed.

He said: “We are living in a different society. If there’s a gay couple in The Archers, if there’s that form of public recognition in popular soaps, we are dealing with something which has got common currency. All of us have friends, families, relatives, neighbours who are, or who know someone, in same-sex partnerships.”

He said he was “no longer convinced” marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Bishop Holtam, who is married with four children, was installed in Salisbury in October last year, after having been the vicar of St Martin in the Fields in central London.

He continued: “I think same-sex couples that I know who have formed a partnership have in many respects a relationship which is similar to a marriage and which I now think of as marriage.

“And of course now you can’t really say that a marriage is defined by the possibility of having children. Contraception created a barrier in that line of argument. Would you say that an infertile couple who were knowingly infertile when they got married, weren’t in a proper marriage? No you wouldn’t.”

Bishop Holtam acknowledged the importance the Church has given to marriage producing children, but said he saw perception changing, and argued that children could not be “the single defining criteria” of marriage.

Earlier this month, the Very Rev Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans, said he would consider suing the Church over its decisions not to promote him to bishop.

The 58-year-old, was forced to give up his appointment as Bishop of Reading in 2003 due to his relationship with another priest and was blocked from the post Bishop of Southwark in 2010, a position Bishop Holtam was also considered for. It is now held by The Rt Revd Christopher Chessun.

A memo leaked by Colin Slee, the late Dean of Southwark Cathedral made the claim that there were already several gay bishops who had “been less than candid about their domestic arrangements and who, in a conspiracy of silence, have been appointed to senior positions”.

It added: “This situation cannot endure. Exposure of the reality would be nuclear.”

The letter comes ahead of the General Synod meeting next week, at which the clergymen have requested acknowledgement of the “growing number of clergy” in London who feel that whether to conduct the ceremonies is “a matter for the conscience” for priests.

The London priests have asked the Synod to reject a blanket ban in favour of a more permissive stance.

As published in the Times today, the letter reads: “We, the undersigned, believe that on the issue of holding civil partnership ceremonies in Church of England churches incumbents / priests in charge should be accorded the same rights as they enjoy at present in the matter of officiating at the marriage of divorced couples in church.

“Namely, that this should be a matter for the individual conscience of the incumbent / priest in charge.”

The Church confirmed last year that no religious premises “may become ‘approved premises’ for the registration of civil partnerships without there having been a formal decision by the General Synod to that effect.”

Rev. Preb. Dr. Brian Leathard, one of the letter’s writers, told The Times: “Our motivation in sending this letter is pastoral. For those of us at the front line, there is no sense of hiding behind a blanket ban on holding civil partnership ceremonies in Church of England churches.

“More and more people are coming to us, and feel that we are turning them away without actually being able to hear their story. They have a genuine desire for the Church’s fullest ministry, for us to bless their loving relationships.”

The regulations which allow civil partnerships to take place in religious buildings came into force at the end of last year after last-minute political skirmishes at Westminster were overcome.

The Church of England’s own lawyers dismissed fears that churches would be obliged to conduct gay civil ceremonies if they wanted to hold weddings.

Of London’s 470 stipendiary, or paid, priests, 120 had signed the letter today.

In December, human rights campaigner and coordinator of the Equal Love campaign Peter Tatchell told PinkNews.co.uk: “I urge individual priests and their congregations to defy this harsh, intolerant ruling.

“They should go ahead with same-sex civil partnerships, if they want to. This autocratic decision should be defied. It doesn’t deserve respect or compliance.

“Many grassroots Anglicans reject this homophobic ruling by the church leadership. They support hosting same-sex civil partnerships in religious premises. The Church of England top brass is out of touch.”

The second-highest clergyman in the UK, Archbishop of York John Sentamu provoked criticism at the weekend for his views opposing gay marriage.

He said: “Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.

“I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are.”

A protest followed at his cathedral, York Minster, yesterday.

The Yorkshire Post reports that scores of demonstrators chanted on steps of the Gothic cathedral, denouncing the “hurtful and archaic” views expressed by Dr John Sentamu.

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph at the weekend, the second most senior cleric in the Church of England had compared the UK government introducing marriage equality with the actions of a dictatorship, prompting calls for a demonstration outside his cathedral.

In an open letter, Tim Ellis, President of the University of York Students’ Union, said the Archbishop’s views were “extremely disappointing”.

He wrote: “Whilst the Archbishop may say that it is not the place of the government to define what marriage is, I would argue that it is the state’s responsibility to ensure that all UK citizens can enjoy equal rights regardless of their sexual orientation.

“It is not the place of the church to use outdated and homophobic rhetoric to deny citizens of their right to marry.”

Last year, Prime Minister Cameron told the Conservative Party conference: “To anyone who has reservations, I say this: Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other.

“So I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.”

Dr Senatmu holds an opposing view and told the newspaper last week: “Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.

“I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are.”

He added: “We’ve seen dictators do it in different contexts and I don’t want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way.

“It’s almost like somebody telling you that the Church, whose job is to worship God [will be] an arm of the Armed Forces. They must take arms and fight. You’re completely changing tradition.”

Peter Tatchell called it an “inflammatory attack on the democratic will of the British people and on the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) men and women”.

Writing for PinkNews.co.uk, he said: “To insist that the law discriminate against gay couples and treat them as inferior, second class citizens strikes me as devoid of the love and compassion that is attributed to Jesus Christ in the gospels.”

Keshet UK’s Co-convenor Dave Shaw, who is a former pupil of the school in question, said the group welcomed the school’s internal review of how it deals with discussions on homosexuality, but was disappointed it had declined to meet with a group of school alumni who identify as LGBT.

In an article in the Jewish Chronicle last month, students said a sixth-form discussion on homosexuality at JFS which ended with a slide displaying the logo of ‘gay cure’ group JONAH implied it was something they could explore if they thought they might be gay.

The school’s headmaster Jonathan Miller said the material in lesson discussing homosexuality had been taught for years, and told PinkNews.co.uk it was “false” to suggest references to JONAH in that lesson were designed to promote the group.

The Jewish Chronicle said at the weekend it had never suggested the school “promoted” JONAH but questioned why the anti-gay group was ever mentioned.

To mark LGBT History Month, Keshet UK said today it would be delivering teacher’s packs for every teacher at the school to equip them in their handling of homosexuality.

Dave Shaw, Co-Convenor of Keshet UK and an ex-JFS pupil, said: “We are pleased to hear from the headteacher that the school is currently conducting a review of the school’s approach to the topic of homosexuality.

“We firmly believe that as a state-funded school, JFS, like all Jewish schools, must be able to demonstrate that it meets its statutory obligation to be proactive in preventing bullying on the basis of sexuality and create an environment where all students feel included.”

A representative of the school could not be reached for comment today.

Dr Sentamu, who born in Uganda and fled Idi Amin’s dictatorship, has condemned the government over its plans to legalise same-sex civil marriage; insinuating that the Prime Minister is behaving in a dictatorial manner.

It is, however, Dr Sentamu who seeks to dictate. He wants to impose his personal opposition to gay marriage on a society that overwhelmingly rejects his demand for homophobic discrimination.

The Archbishop is unelected and owes his post to patronage, whereas the government has been elected democratically by millions of voters. Moreover, a clear majority of the British people, including many Christians, support same-sex civil marriages. A Populus poll, published in The Times newspaper in June 2009, found that 61% of the public believe that: “Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships.” Only 33% disagreed.

Dr Sentamu rejects the enlightened, progressive public will, in favour of his preferred imposition of homophobic discrimination in law. He is, in essence, a religious authoritarian who opposes equality.

I am no theologian or expert in ecclesiastical matters, but from my understanding of scripture it is not a loving Christian value to demand discrimination against other human beings. To insist that the law discriminate against gay couples and treat them as inferior, second class citizens strikes me as devoid of the love and compassion that is attributed to Jesus Christ in the gospels.

The Archbishop’s insulting, disparaging attitude towards lesbian and gay couples is evidenced by the way he dismisses loving, committed, loyal same-sex civil partnerships as mere “friendships”.

He would never describe heterosexual couples in love, whether they were married or unmarried, as mere friends.

Right from the outset of the debate about marriage equality, Dr Sentamu seems to have got the wrong end of the stick. The government is proposing to legalise same-sex marriages in register offices only. This will not affect churches or other places of worship. The Archbishop has no valid grounds for objecting to civil registrations that will ensure marriage equality for all couples. It does not impact on his religious domain.

Dr Sentamu comes across as intolerant and out of touch. His stance colludes with homophobia. It brings shame and dishonour to the Church of England. Even many Anglicans are likely to be repulsed by his advocacy of anti-gay discrimination. They, and most non-religious people, will see his stance as further evidence of the bigotry that burns in hearts of many so-called Christian leaders.

The Archbishop’s justification that it is vital to demand the preservation of the tradition and history of exclusively heterosexual marriage is very similar to the arguments that were in the past used by the church to justify slavery, colonialism and the denial of votes to women. Appealing to past injustices to preserve current injustices cuts no ice with most people.

Archbishop Sentamu has long been accused of collusion with homophobia. When the Anti-Homosexuality “kill the gays” Bill was first introduced in the Ugandan parliament, Sentamu took ages to respond, despite the fact that he is from Uganda and was being urged to speak out against the proposed death penalty for repeat homosexual offenders. He did eventually condemn the death sentence provision, but not the Bill itself or its other draconian clauses.

A decade ago, Dr Sentamu was involved in the perceived cover up of the homophobic abuse and assaults on Damilola Taylor, which occurred shortly before the young boy was murdered in November 2000. These attacks, and the possibility of a homophobic motive, were not even mentioned in Sentamu’s 2002 report into the killing.

The Archbishop clearly has form.

Regardless of his hostility to marriage equality, the Equal Love campaign is confident that Britain will eventually overturn the twin legal bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships. We’ve already succeeded in helping persuade the government to commit to the legalisation of gay civil marriages before the next election in 2015; although David Cameron is sadly, and very oddly, insisting that the ban on heterosexual civil partnerships must remain.

To ensure that we overturn both discriminations, Equal Love currently has an appeal against the twin bans under consideration by the European Court of Human Rights (PDF).

We argue that banning same-sex couples from civil marriages and opposite-sex couples from civil partnerships is illegal discrimination, contrary to Articles 8, 12 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Owing to the backlog of cases, it may take another three years to get a judgement. But we are quietly confident that we can win equality for all, despite Archbishop Sentamu’s demand for continued discrimination.

* For more information about Peter Tatchell’s human rights campaigns and to make a donation: www.petertatchell.net.

This article first appeared on the Huffington Post UK.

The six-minute ‘tutorial’ entitled ‘Be Yourself’ has shocked the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community of the UAE when it was posted a little more than a week ago on YouTube.

The video depicts five young men as the starring characters: Rashid Al-Muaini, Majid Al-Muaini, Ali Al-Ghaithi, Jamel Al-Ghaithi and Mohammad Eissa. The scene is set in a typical suburban neighbourhood of one of the UAE cities (most likely Ajman), where the five meet.

Two are in a traditional Emirati dress of Kandura and Kiffayeh greeted by a visibly shy effeminate guy with long hair, wearing a t-shirt and jeans, who says ‘Hi guys’ in a high-pitched voice, proceeding to shake their hands in a camp manner and playing with his hair.

He is contrasted with two other guys dressed in western style who pass-by and greet in a ‘brotherly’ macho-like manner.

The effeminate guy acts all shy and blushes when he’s invited, with a ‘wink’ to come inside the villa next door.

Once in the villa’s living room, the effeminate man is told that he needs to change his personality. One of the traditional-dressed men asks: ‘will you change it or not?’ He replies ‘yes but now?’ And is told ‘leave it to us’.

They proceed to show the effeminate guy how to mimic masculine gestures. Later he is given a ‘make-over’ where his hands and face are almost violently scrubbed with scouring cloths, and then his nails and hair are cut.

After the make-over the still effeminate guy gets a slap when he is about leave for saying ‘bye guys’ in his high pitch voice, and given a tip: ‘Thicken your voice!’

In the concluding scene all five characters meet up again. The effeminate guy seems less distinguished by his looks. His friends seem happy and proud of what they did and finish by thanking Allah, who helped bring about the ‘change’.

While the title and video may look paradoxical even laughably ludicrous it nevertheless touches upon some profound issues relevant to LGBT people from the UAE. I discuss these with three LGBT rights activists from a group called “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transexual Rights UAE”.

Abdullah

Abdullah, 24 from Abu-Dhabi, founder of the group commented: “The video signifies the level of challenge, we, the UAE LGBT community, have ahead of us. We don’t merely have to change the views of the government but also society itself. It angers me no end, but it also saddens me, this video would have been devastating if my 16-year-old self had watched it.”

“As a sixteen year old, I can still hear echoes in my mind of mom yelling at me no to flail my hand too much when I speak, which only lead to me being robotic and stiff, feeling I must keep both hands down when I speak, something that took a long time to get over.

“My mom would also shout at me for using English terms like ‘guys’ in her presence because it emulated the westerners and was a direct ‘attack’ to the Arabic language and my [masculine] mannerisms.”

Abdullah speaks how his parents would force him to get a to “a crew cut” so his hair won’t look like a “a western propaganda” fag, something that deeply humiliated and angered him. He recounts how his parents refused to buy him Jeans and T shirts because it made him “act girly,” telling him instead he must wear the “traditional Emirati dress.”

The video “brought flashbacks to me how on endless hot Friday afternoons I was forced to observe how men interact, or how they drink coffee by my father, so that I should emulate to make him proud.”

Abdullah sadly recalls: “I was banned from hanging out with my sisters too much because my parents alleged they were turning me into a woman,” finally his father rejected and gave up on him, choosing one of Abdullah’s brothers to “make him proud.”

“No wonder I tend to be angry and passionate with LGBT rights and equalityin general,” he reflects, but that is objectively, he insists, much of the social reality in his country. In the UAE, men are required to act in a away that reflects the Bedouin tribe which we are descended from.”

In contrast, “many view homosexuality as a western invention and not a very good one”.

This Abdullah says is exemplified by the representation in the movie of the “effeminate guy” who is lured into the villa for a “straight makeover”, having his gayness being scrubbed away and the issue “fixed” with giving him “a ‘positive’ role model (having mentioned in the first part of the video how he has no brothers to properly emulate). They proceed to demonstrate to him how to properly sit and not to flail with his hands.”

Fatima

Fatima, a 31 year old secretary from Abu-Dhabi points out more issues with the representation of the ‘effeminate gay charchter’: “the director, having chosen this particular young man and his looks to play the deviant, gender-confused homosexual is openly insulting every gay man on earth.

“Well of course it’s typical to have young, macho-wannabe boys chasing a ball in the street, god forbid the director shoots the film in a library or a study room that could really harm the image of what a real Arabic man is supposed to be doing in his free time.

“Well of course it’s typical to have a femme-fetal gay man to represent the entire population of homosexual men in the region, assume that gay people are not being themselves, they just spend their lives pretending to be someone else for, I don’t know, attention? And yes, it is very typical to have a homosexual “cured” with a firm rub and a neat haircut, oh and if he shows signs of relapse, just slap him back to his senses.”

“The message of this video is ugly, hurtful and very dangerous.”

Fatima finally states “I hope whoever came up with this sick idea gets a visit from a gay cupid. Ha!”

Ali

Ali, 25 year old law student from Dubai was outraged by the video: “I found ‘Be yourself’ extremely offensive. When I read the title, I was thinking ‘Wow, finally some of these people have actually learnt something! Perhaps we can have a go at acceptance!’, only to discover a video filled with prejudice.”

“I was gutted at the confidence in the faces of the actors on the fact that they CAN treat homosexuality just like that.”

I want to address this “to all of those who think they can treat homosexuality by grooming, abusing and hurting:

“Are you proud to be homophobic people? Leading people into an illusion that being gay is all about flapping your hands and having a girly voice?”

The challenge ahead:

The UAE is a federation of seven emirates who each have different harsh laws regarding homosexuality, from up to 10 years in prison in Dubai to 14 in Abu-Dhabi, while Article 354 of the Federal Penal Code may even prescribe a death sentence for ‘consensual sodomy’. So punishment for homosexuality can include prison, fines, deportation, flogging and death.

Meanwhile psychologists and psychiatrists in the UAE regard ‘gender atypical behaviour’ as a psychological disturbance, while being gay as an illness that, in some cases, is to be ‘cured’ with hormonal ‘treatments’, despite global clinical guidance to the contrary.

Abdullah told us: ‘Homosexuality has always been a part of the Arabian world, it existed in poetry and writings that are found in Islam and even predate it. Not to mention it’s a natural part of humanity.’

But stereotyping of LGBT people and the idea that non-conforming sexuality is westernized or can be changed are rampant.

“We want to change that, so that another 16 year old or the impressionable LGBT youth, wouldn’t have to go through what others, including myself, before them did.”

“Perhaps the only good lesson of the video that the LGBT community could use to their advantage, is from the hadith quoted at the end,” he says. “We will challenge those beliefs and misconceptions one person at a time, and if we don’t change them we will reach to their hearts,” he optimistically concludes.

Christian psychotherapist Lesley Pilkington is appealing against her suspension by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy after she offered ‘reparative therapy’ to undercover journalist Patrick Strudwick.

Now Lord Carey; the former Bishop of Rochester, Rt Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali; and the Bishop of Lewes, Rt Rev. Wallace Benn, have written to the BACP in support of her saying the therapy “does not produce harm”.

In the letter, the clerics said: “We believe that people who seek, freely, to resolve unwanted same-sex attractions hold the moral right to receive professional assistance.

“Whether motivated by Christian conscience or other values, clients, not practitioners, have the prerogative to choose the yardstick by which to define themselves.”

They also told the BACP reparative therapy “does not produce harm despite the Royal College of Psychiatrists and others maintaining the contrary”.

“Competent practitioners, including those working with biblical Judeo-Christian values, should be free to assist those seeking help.”

The Royal College of Psychiatrists’ official position on the issue says: “There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Furthermore, so-called treatments of homosexuality create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination flourish.”

Last year, a professional trial at the BACP unanimously ruled that Lesley Pilkington had acted unprofessionally.

Mrs Pilkington, 61, had told gay journalist Patrick Strudwick she could help him overcome his homosexuality.

Such therapy is generally considered ineffective and in some cases harmful.

According to an article written by Mr Strudwick for the Guardian after the verdict last year, the BACP panel described Mrs Pilkington as “reckless”, “disrespectful”, “dogmatic” and “unprofessional”.

Speaking after her suspension in 2011, Mrs Pilkington said: “Reparative therapy is a valid therapy that many people want and it should not be damaged by irresponsible reporting.”

In 2010, Lord Carey intervened in the case of Gary McFarlane, a counsellor who refused to work with gay couples.

The former Archbishop had sent a witness statement to the Bristol court hearing Mr McFarlane’s case in which he claimed that judgments against Christians could lead to civil unrest and argued that such cases should be tried specially by judges with “proven sensitivity” to religious issues.

But Lord Justice Laws rebutted his argument, calling it “deeply unprincipled” and added: “I am sorry that he finds it possible to suggest a procedure that would, in my judgment, be deeply inimical to the public interest.”

The BACP has been unable to comment on Mrs Pilkington’s ongoing appeal.

‘Gay cure’ therapies have been making headlines recently.

Last week, the New York-based rabbi who heads Amsterdam’s Orthodox Ashkenazi community had said he feared for his life after he was suspended for signing a ‘gay cure’ declaration.

One of the signatories to the Torah declaration signed by Rabbi Aryeh Ralbag is Arthur Goldberg, a co-director of JONAH.

JONAH, Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (formerly Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality), was in the news this month after JFS, a Jewish school in London, showed students a slide displaying its logo during a discussion on homosexuality.

The school strongly denied promoting the ex-gay group as an option for possibly gay students to explore. 

Last year, Mr Cameron announced his support of the introduction of civil marriage for gay couples, telling the Conservative Party conference: “to anyone who has reservations, I say this: Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other.

“So I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.”

Today, Dr Senatmu, who is in Jamaica to celebrate the 50th anniversary of its independence from Britain told the newspaper: “Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.

“I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are.”

He appears to compare the prime minister to a dictator saying: “We’ve seen dictators do it in different contexts and I don’t want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way.

“It’s almost like somebody telling you that the Church, whose job is to worship God [will be] an arm of the Armed Forces. They must take arms and fight. You’re completely changing tradition.”

Mr Cameron has been criticised by other, more liberal religious leaders for not proposing ‘full’ gay marriage. The government is currently consulting on the introduction of ‘civil’ gay marriage, services that will not be held in religious institutions.

The government has already introduced civil partnerships that can be held in religious buildings, though these are still legally non-religious unions.

Liberal and Reform Judaism together with the Quaker and Unitarian churches have called on the government to allow gay marriages to be conducted by religious groups who wish to hold them.

Dr Sentamu warned that the government is likely to face widespread opposition to any change in the law in Parliament. “The rebellion is going to come not only from the bishops. You’re going to get it from across the benches and in the Commons.

“If you genuinely would like the registration of civil partnerships to happen in a more general way, most people will say they can see the drift. But if you begin to call those ‘marriage’, you’re trying to change the English language.”

“That does not mean you diminish, condemn, criticise, patronise any same-sex relationships because that is not what the debate is about.

“The Church has always stood out – Jesus actually was the odd man out. I’d rather stick with Jesus than be popular because it looks odd.”

Dr Sentamu was imprisoned by real-life Ugandan dictator Idi Amin in 1974 because of his judicial independence while practising as a lawyer in the country before entering into the priesthood.

The human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said: “Dr Sentamu is a religious authoritarian who wants to impose his personal opposition to same-sex marriage on the rest of society. It is not a loving Christian value to demand legal discrimination against gay couples and to treat them as inferior, second class citizens with fewer rights than everyone else.

“The government is proposing to legalise same-sex marriages in register offices only. This will not affect churches. The Archbishop has no valid grounds for objecting to civil registrations that will ensure equal marriage rights for all couples. The vast majority of British people, including many Christians, support the right of same-sex couples to get married. Dr Sentamu is intolerant and out of touch.”

In 2009, Dr Sentamu did speak out against plans to introduce the death penalty for some gay sex acts in his native Uganda. He told the BBC: “People may have very clear, what I call traditional, views about homosexuality but we as a communion are committed to listening to the experiences of homosexual people.

“You can’t do that on one hand and then have language [in the bill] which in many ways seems to suggest homosexual people are not the children of God.

“They deserve the best we gave give in pastoral care and friendship. And I’m quite sure that the response the Church of Uganda will make in due course will have to take into account all of these realities.”

The chief rabbi reportedly told a Dutch newspaper he felt it would be safer to stay away from the Netherlands, saying: “Why would I risk the life of my wife and me?”

Aryeh Ralbag, had been suspended from his position after he signed a document alleging homosexuality could be “modified and healed”.

Ralbag defended putting his name to the Torah Declaration, a document written by 25 Jews who claim to have overcome same-sex attraction and now campaign that “change is possible”. Around 180 rabbis and other figures have signed the document.

The Orthodox rabbi, who is based in America but has been head of the Dutch city’s Jewish community for six years, stood by his endorsement of the “Declaration On The Torah Approach To Homosexuality”, saying it was “unheard of” for a chief rabbi to be suspended for expressing an official Orthodox view.

The Conference of European Rabbis, the continent’s primary Orthodox rabbinical alliance, issued a statement saying: “In Amsterdam, a community that is too concerned with what their secular peers believe, has penalised their Chief Rabbi for re stating the Torah’s opposition to same sex unions. As contemporary traditional Jews we have an obligation to uphold Torah values whilst living as responsible citizens.

“The Conference of European Rabbis is already in talks with the Community and will be sending a representative to meet the Amsterdam Community in an effort to work through the issue.”

The Jewish Chronicle reports comments made by the Conference to Ronnie Eisenmann, the community’s president, that: “The action of summarily suspending a rabbi from his duties for expressing halachah [the collective body of Jewish laws and customs] is a practice we wholeheartedly oppose, one which is unacceptable for an Orthodox Jewish community”.

One of the signatories to the Torah declaration is Arthur Goldberg, a co-director of JONAH.

JONAH recently made the headlines when JFS, a Jewish school in London, showed students a slide displaying its logo during a discussion on homosexuality.

The school strongly denied promoting JONAH, Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (formerly Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality), as an option for gay students to explore. 

Organisers, who have previously held the conference in Belfast, Northern Ireland, have insisted the title is not meant to cause offence.

The Core Issues Trust says it disagrees with the way leprosy sufferers were shunned in biblical times and compare that with how people with “conflicted in religious and sexual identity” are treated now.

But its beliefs and aims have been described today as “specious” and “deeply insulting”.

The conference, which will be held from 10am-8pm at the Emmanuel Centre in London’s Westminster, is set to “explore the role of evangelical and orthodox churches in supporting men and women with unwanted same sex attractions”.

The organisation, which says it is recognised as a charity by HMRC, issued a carefully-worded official statement on ‘change’ in 2010, saying: “All human sexuality is fallen and is in need of the sanctifying work of God to restore it to its intended wholeness and divine purpose.

“There is a growing body of research evidence indicating that sexual preference is neither immutable, innate nor chosen. As a consequence of our basic sinfulness we all have desires that we do not choose to have but we do have choices with respect to what we do about them.

“As a consequence our sexual identity can be reinforced or altered by either gender-affirming or gay-affirming lifestyles or therapies. CORE works with people who voluntarily seek to change from a “gay” lifestyle to a gender-affirming one. This is sometimes referred to as a “sexual re-orientation” process.”

‘Gay cure’ therapies are roundly rejected by professional bodies, but the group has denied offering “conflicted” people conversion therapy. They also say the conference is concerned with theology rather than psychotherapy and that they respect the rights of gays who do not “seek change”.

Organisers said in a statement ahead of the Belfast conference: “Core Issues Trust does not offer so-called ‘Reparative’ or ‘Conversion’ therapy but does offer support to individuals conflicted in religious and sexual identity, within a specific ethical framework.”

That framework advises therapists to seek “clarification of tailored pathways appropriate for future identity integration, consistent with personal values. This clarification may lead to a quest for celibacy, integration (to the LGB community) or to change.”

It also reminds therapists to tell clients that “reorientation” therapy could be psychologically damaging and that there is no evidence it works.

The group’s official statement on ‘change’ also says: “Merely abstaining from homosexual activity, although admirable, cannot be regarded as healing. Heterosexual preference is the goal of gender-affirming therapy and this may lead to marriage. However there will always be those who choose to remain celibate and single. Such singleness should be valued and respected.”

The British Psychoanalytic Council recently adopted a position statement saying it is “opposed to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and does not accept that a homosexual orientation is evidence of disturbance of the mind or in development.”

Commenting on the event, the British Humanist Association Head of Public Affairs Naomi Phillips said: “The Core Issues Trust state they wish to work with those who ‘seek to change from a “gay” lifestyle to a gender-affirming one’, however the suggestion that homosexuality is a problem in need of a ‘cure’ is deeply insulting to lesbian, gay and bisexual people, profoundly objectionable, and wrong.

“Specious claims that someone’s sexual orientation can be changed through religion or therapy lack any credible basis, and conversion therapy can prove extremely harmful, especially where vulnerable individuals are being targeted. These kinds of biblically-inspired attempts to change sexual orientation have been repeatedly denounced by the UK Council for Psychotherapy, the British Medical Association, and the Royal College of Psychiatrists.”

Dr Paul Miller, the infamous psychiatrist who was the subject of an exposé in 2010 that led to him being reported to the General Medical Council, is on the conference’s Council of Reference.

He has recently been put under a supervision order by the GMC, who confirmed to PinkNews.co.uk last week that he was under investigation.

A statement by the Trust ahead of its Belfast conference says it “recognises the fundamental human rights of the LGBT community to live in partnerships that are happy, fulfilled and respected. It acknowledges that Christians have different understandings of the teachings on the bible around human sexuality.

“It reserves the right to offer alternative orthodox views to those who choose to prioritise a religious identity over a sexual identity, or when these identities collide.”

But it also requests the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the British Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy, and the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy recognise the “dangers” of a conflicted person “prematurely foreclosing” on a gay identity.

It “requests more thorough discussion about how to deal with competing religious and cultural values, and for these groups to recognise the poor quality of currently available scientific data and the lack of adequate evidence around both proving or disproving sexual orientation change efforts.”

UK Council for Psychotherapy chair, Professor Andrew Samuels said: “This isn’t about respecting religious belief or freedom of speech. Those are just smokescreens. This is really about homophobia – fear and hatred of sexual minorities – often fuelled by highly controversial readings of scripture.

“Every responsible organisation in the field of psychotherapy, counselling and mental health has expressed extreme concern at the practice of therapy intended to change sexual orientation.

“Such attempts are profoundly unethical, don’t work, and exploit the undeniable difficulties people from sexual minorities experience in our society. It is vital that people don’t get fooled by expressions of love and support for gays and lesbians emanating from the Core Issues Trust.”

Talks at the conference have titles including: ‘All of us Get Healed Together or Nobody Gets Healed: Marriage, Chaos, Love Disorders, Sexual Inversions and Gender Confusions’, ‘Fallen church leaders and members’ and ‘Naming the sin, lifting the shame’.

The event leaflet states: “The organisers welcome to this event all those who might disagree with the opinions expressed by presenters, or those held by Core Issues Trust who seek to attend for the purpose of engaging with the speakers.”

PinkNews.co.uk is awaiting a response from the Core Issues Trust to objections raised about the conference.

In honour of his 60th birthday, I would like to share with you what I believe are two of Peter’s finest moments, in his own words: his hijacking of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Easter Sermon in 1998 and his first attempt at a citizen’s arrest of Robert Mugabe. I was not able to include these in my original piece, but both are brilliant accounts of real-life human rights activism.

Peter on his Easter protest, 12 April 1998:

“George Carey was notoriously homophobic,” Peter tells me. “Not only did he disparage gay people in relationships, he actively campaigned against equality, encouraging MPs and members of the House of Lords to vote against equality. For eight years we’d tried to have a dialogue with him and he refused to meet us.”

“So, we decided that if he wouldn’t come and meet us we’d go and meet him. And where better than on Easter Sunday in his own cathedral when the whole thing would be televised?”

“We went down to Canterbury in a two-car convoy dressed in our Sunday best. We went into the cathedral early and sat separately from one another just a bit back from the pulpit in a side aisle so we weren’t in full view. Our placards were folded up and stuffed in our jackets. We’d decided we wouldn’t interrupt any of the sacred parts of the service and instead we waited for the sermon, when Carey usually expressed his views on topical issues.”

“When he began his sermon one of our members, who was designated the lead, got up out of his pew and walked calmly towards the front. He noticed two churchwardens by the pulpit and had the foresight to see that they might be a problem so he did a distraction exercise. He feigned having an asthma attack and staggered off to the far side of the cathedral. The churchwardens rushed over to help him, which meant the rest of us could walk calmly but quickly into the pulpit.”

“When we got there Carey was in full flow. As I stood next to him he looked rather shocked, but then he just stood back and gave me the pulpit. So, I delivered a short alternative sermon, which didn’t attack or insult him or the Christian religion. I merely criticized his support for homophobic discrimination in a very calm and reasoned manner.”

Peter was arrested and eventually fined GBP 18.60 for breaking the 1860 Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act: proof that Magistrates aren’t entirely devoid of humour.

“It’s my only conviction,” says Peter. Not bad, when you consider he’s been arrested over 300 times. “The positive outcome was that from that moment onwards, George Carey hardly ever again spoke out publicly against gay equality. He also finally met with the Lesbian and Gay and Christian Movement for the first time.”

Peter on his attempt at a citizen’s arrest of Robert Mugabe in 1999:

“Human rights defenders in Zimbabwe approached me in the early 1990s with a request that I help expose the abuses happening under Mugabe’s regime. I hit on the idea of using the power of citizen’s arrest to try and bring Mugabe to justice. The UN Convention Against Torture was the strongest legal basis for seeking to arrest Mugabe and put him on trial. The Convention had been incorporated into British law. Under it, any public official who commits, authorises, acquiesces or condones an act of torture can be put on trial. So the legal basis for his arrest was very strong.”

“In October 1999 I got a late-night anonymous phone call advising me that Mugabe was staying at the St James’ Court hotel in London. I gambled on the fact that it was a serious tip-off and the next day contacted Amnesty International to gather the required evidence against him.”

“Three of us from Outrage turned up outside the hotel on a freezing Saturday morning together with a freelance journalist, photographer and cameraman. We tried to look inconspicuous by reading newspapers and not standing as a group, but after two hours the concierge noticed us. Then a little while later from the side entrance, five or six African-looking guys appeared, pointing in our direction.”

“I had an idea. I walked across the street to talk to them: “Hi guys, I’m from the News of The World. This is my team. Listen, we know Elton John is staying in this hotel with his new boyfriend. We’ve got to get photos for tomorrow’s paper. Can you tell me what room he’s in?” They looked at me as if I was bonkers. I said: “Look, I’ll give you fifty quid. No? I’ll give you seventy-five quid.” Then I turned to one of them and added: “I know you. You’re definitely Elton’s security team, I remember you from the Wembley concert two months ago. You were there, remember?””

“I kept this up for quite a while and in the end they were all laughing and walked off. Sure enough, ten minutes later, out came Mugabe in his limousine. I scratched the top of my head to signal he was in the car and my Outrage colleagues down the road ran out in front of the car to stop him. It screeched to a halt about six inches from their legs! I ran from behind and opened the car door. Amazingly, it was unlocked. I reached in and put my right hand on Mugabe’s arm and held up my left hand to show I didn’t have a weapon.”

“I told him: “President Mugabe, you are under arrest on charges of torture, torture is a crime under international law. I am now summoning the police.” You should have seen the look on his face. His eyes popped. His jaw dropped. He’s quite dark-skinned, but a visible ashen colour came across his face. I think he thought he was going to be killed. I thought to myself: ‘Well now you know how your victim’s feel, only we’re not going to kill you or take you to a torture chamber, we’re going to take you a court of law and put you on trial.’”

Five Muslim men stood trial at Derby Crown Court on the charges, which carry a maximum sentence of seven years in prison and an unlimited fine.

They are the first convictions under the newly-created laws.

Ihjaz Ali, Kabir Ahmed and Razwan Javed had distributed a leaflet entitled ‘The Death Penalty?’ outside their mosque ahead of a gay Pride parade.

It contained an image of a mannequin hanging from a noose and quoted Muslim texts.

The Public Order Act 1986 was amended by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to create the offence of intentionally stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation, and these was the first-ever trial under the offence.

In order to convict, the jury had to be convinced the leaflets were not just insulting or abusive, but were “threatening”, and were distributed with the intention of stirring up hatred.

Umer Javed, 38 and Mehboob Hassain, 45 were acquitted by the jury.

Sue Hemming, head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division said: “A court has heard for the first time from witnesses how they felt, as gay men, when they read a leaflet calling for the death penalty for homosexuals.

“The leaflet which led to this prosecution showed a manikin hanging from a noose and said gay people were destined to go to hell. The jury was told by one witness that he felt he was being targeted and he feared he would ‘be burned’.

“Everyone has a right to be protected by the law and we regard homophobic crimes, along with all hate crimes, as particularly serious because they undermine people’s right to feel safe.

“While people are entitled to hold extreme opinions which others may find unpleasant and obnoxious, they are not entitled to distribute those opinions in a threatening manner intending to stir up hatred against gay people.

“This case was not about curtailing people’s religious views or preventing them from educating others about those views; it was that any such views should be expressed in a lawful manner and not incite others to hatred.”

Ahmed, 28, had claimed the wording and images in the leaflets, handed out in Normanton ahead of a gay Pride march, were not threatening.

He had told the court: “We are living in a society and if we don’t stop it, something like a tsunami will happen here, something on that scale.”

He added: “We are trying to stand and voice on these issues. I am part of this country – I was born here.

“You can think of it as a little vigilante thing.”

Ahmed had told the court he saw it as his “duty as a Muslim to spread what God says about homosexuality. The references on the leaflets are historical facts and quote from the Koran.”

Gay men appeared in Derby Crown Court to tell of their experience receiving the leaflets, which questioned whether gays should be executed.

One believed he was the victim of a hate campaign, and said: “They made me feel terrorised in my own home. Sometimes I wondered whether I would be getting a burning rag through the letterbox or if I would be attacked in the street.”

Ben Summerskill, Stonewall Chief Executive, said: “We’re satisfied to see these extremists convicted for distributing offensive and inflammatory leaflets that suggested gay people should be burnt or stoned to death.

“This case vindicates Stonewall’s long fight to secure specific legal protection for gay people against incitement to hatred. Witnesses told the court they felt threatened and deeply fearful in their own homes.

“People from all communities will feel safer knowing that the law now makes it harder to stir up hatred and violence against gay people.”

Ali, Ahmed and Javed will be sentenced on 10 February 2012.

In an article in the Jewish Chronicle, students allege that a sixth-form discussion on homosexuality at JFS ended with a slide displaying the logo of a ‘gay cure’ group and implicitly portrayed it as something they should explore if they thought they might be gay.

JONAH – Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (formerly Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality) – teaches that homosexuality can be “mitigated and potentially eliminated”.

But the headteacher of the school denies the group was being promoted to students.

Jonathan Miller told PinkNews.co.uk today the Jewish Studies lessons were designed to provoke debate in the older members of an “extraordinarily diverse” student body.

He said the material in the one lesson discussing homosexuality had been taught for years, and that it was “false” to suggest references to JONAH in that lesson were designed to promote the group.

In an article which says the school taught pupils “how to ‘cure gays’”, one student told the Jewish Chronicle: “We discussed whether someone chooses to be gay or not. Then there was the concluding voice of “the Jewish view”, where we looked at Orthodox Judaism, which condemns homosexuality.

“At the end, we were asked what we thought about religious Jews who might hate themselves because their religion condemns being gay. The last slide on the PowerPoint was a picture and a link to the JONAH website, after we were discussing what gay Orthodox Jews can do, if they hate themselves.

“I was appalled; it felt like it was saying, ‘If you are having doubts, check this out’.”

JFS, formerly the Jews’ Free School, is affiliated with the United Synagogue, an Orthodox organisation. While the school is funded by the state, parents pay separately for the religious elements of their child’s education.

The teacher also presented to pupils the Orthodox position on homosexuality, where gay acts are condemned.

A second pupil told the paper: “If I were gay or worrying about my sexuality, sitting through that lesson, I would have been so upset. They could have advertised other organisations, which are not there to convert but to support whatever decision people want to make. I know most people were offended by it.”

Dave Shaw of Jewish LGBT group Keshet UK said: “Keshet UK is highly concerned at allegations that students at JFS were not made aware of the social and support groups that exist for Jewish LGBT people in the UK. Our fear is that if awareness to these entities is restricted, young people could see reparative therapy as the only option, thereby highly increasing the risk of assimilation and causing them long term damage.”

Headteacher Jonathan Miller told PinkNews.co.uk: “We teach that Judaism would utterly condemn homophobia and discrimination. It is false that we promote JONAH as an organisation, or their views. We hope that students be given food for thought and opportunity for lively discussion in order to help them form their own views”.

He denies students were taught particular views were right or wrong in the lesson, which was designed to promote discussion, and said the school employs a student welfare officer to provide counselling on the campus.

He said a review would be undertaken as a result of students’ reactions and the reference to the group in the lesson material would be reconsidered.

Rabbi Aaron Goldstein, Co-Chair of the Rabbinic Conference of Liberal Judaism said: “Regardless of the intentions of the lesson plan, the presentation of such information was unsupportable. Attempts to justify its inclusion seem to demonstrate an inability to grasp the issues the school is seeking to address.”

“The duty of care for its pupils must be primary and providing this information is potentially damaging to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students as well as drawing attention uncritically to a viewpoint that has no place in modern society.”

“Liberal Judaism has freely available on its website a pamphlet, ‘Lesbian and Gay Jews and Same-Sex relationships,’ that provides a progressive Jewish understanding of the importance all Jews hold in our community, regardless of sexual orientation.

“We are proud to have pioneered Same-Sex Commitment Ceremonies in the UK, for which we have published liturgies, and to be involved in lobbying for full LGBT equality in Civil Law.”

But organisers of ‘The Lepers Among Us’ insist they did not mean to cause offence.

They claim to disagree with the way leprosy sufferers were shunned in biblical times and compare that with how people with “conflicted in religious and sexual identity” are treated now.

On Friday and Saturday of this week, the conference is set to “explore the role of evangelical and orthodox churches in supporting men and women with unwanted same sex attractions”.

Protests were held last year at the conference, hosted by the Belvoir Church in Belfast who said last year they were not ideologically attached to the group.

The event says it is concerned with theology rather than psychotherapy and the group respects the rights of gays who do not “seek change”.

Organisers said in a statement: “Core Issues Trust does not offer so-called ‘Reparative’ or ‘Conversion’ therapy but does offer support to individuals conflicted in religious and sexual identity, within a specific ethical framework.”

That framework advises therapists to seek “clarification of tailored pathways appropriate for future identity integration, consistent with personal values. This clarification may lead to a quest for celibacy, integration (to the LGB community) or to change.”

It also reminds therapists to tell clients that “reorientation” therapy could be psychologically damaging and that there is no evidence it works.

Dr Paul Miller, the infamous psychiatrist who was the subject of an exposé in 2010 that led to him being reported to the General Medical Council, is on the conference’s Council of Reference.

He has recently been put under a supervision order by the GMC, who confirmed to PinkNews.co.uk this week that he is under investigation.

A statement by the Trust last week says it “recognises the fundamental human rights of the LGBT community to live in partnerships that are happy, fulfilled and respected. It acknowledges that Christians have different understandings of the teachings on the bible around human sexuality.

“It reserves the right to offer alternative orthodox views to those who choose to prioritise a religious identity over a sexual identity, or when these identities collide.”

But it also requests the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the British Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy, and the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy recognise the “dangers” of a conflicted person “prematurely foreclosing” on a gay identity.

It “requests more thorough discussion about how to deal with competing religious and cultural values, and for these groups to recognise the poor quality of currently available scientific data and the lack of adequate evidence around both proving or disproving sexual orientation change efforts.”

Talks at the conference have titles including: ‘All of us Get Healed Together or Nobody Gets Healed: Marriage, Chaos, Love Disorders, Sexual Inversions and Gender Confusions’, ‘Fallen church leaders and members’ and ‘Naming the sin, lifting the shame’.

John Doherty, Director of the Rainbow Project told the Belfast Telegraph: “We are very upset that these types of conferences are continuing.

“We will be protesting between 9.30am and 11am next Friday and Saturday to run alongside the opening of the conference.

“We have a number of issues with the event. Firstly, the name which refers to lepers. Regardless of the organisers’ intention, we consider it to be homophobic to the LGB community. And, secondly, we consider the practice of reparative therapy to use methods that are possibly dangerous.”

In the seven days of the trial which have elapsed, the defendants have admitted creating and distributing the leaflets, but deny they were “threatening” and say they had no intention to stir up hatred.

Last week, gay men appeared in Derby Crown Court to tell of their experience receiving the leaflets, which questioned whether gays should be executed.

One believed he was the victim of a hate campaign, and said: “They made me feel terrorised in my own home. Sometimes I wondered whether I would be getting a burning rag through the letterbox or if I would be attacked in the street.”

A leaflet which the men handed out outside their mosque had the image of a mannequin hanging from a noose and the words ‘Death Penalty?’.

Another called ‘Turn or Burn’ showed a person in a burning lake. A third was entitled ‘GAY – God Abhors You’.

Ihjaz Ali, 42, Mehboob Hassain, 45, and Umer Javed, 38, appeared at Derby Crown Court for the first time last January.

Razwan Javed, 30, and Kabir Ahmed, 28, had been charged in December 2010.

Ahmed, 28, said that the wording of the leaflets, handed out in Normanton ahead of a gay Pride march, were not threatening.

This is Derbyshire reported that he said to have had no problem with a gay classmate at school and that he said: “A teacher at Derby College was also gay. He was one of my favourite teachers.”

Earlier he had told the court: “We are living in a society and if we don’t stop it, something like a tsunami will happen here, something on that scale.”

He added: “We are trying to stand and voice on these issues. I am part of this country – I was born here.

“You can think of it as a little vigilante thing.”

He had said it was his “duty as a Muslim to spread what God says about homosexuality. The references on the leaflets are historical facts and quote from the Koran.”

In closing, the Derby Telegraph reports prosecuting barrister Bobbie Cheema calling the men’s actions a “blatant attempt to try and stir up hatred against the homosexual community”.

At Derby Crown Court, the defendants face up to seven years in prison and an unlimited fine if convicted of the new offences.

The Public Order Act 1986 was amended by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to create the offence of intentionally stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation, and these are the first-ever trials under the offence.