This is the sorry tale of how US Customs officials decided to apply such a test – and as a result humiliated and embarrassed a Canadian woman who was on her way to run a marathon and visit friends.

The story, released today by Christin Milloy, who also alerted the world to Canada’s no-fly rule, is that of Jennifer McCreath, from Newfoundland.

Following GRS in January 2011, Ms McCreath applied for a new birth certificate from the Nova Scotia administration, secure in the knowledge that according to officials there, she should expect to wait no longer than 10 days for her new documentation.

Seven weeks later, and with no certificate in sight, Ms McCreath was forced to set off carrying only her current passport, which included a gender marker of “M”.

All went well, until Toronto Pearson international airport, where she had to go through customs before boarding her next airplane, to the United States.

A US Customs agent inspected her passport, where and directed Ms McCreath to ‘Secondary Screening’, where she was photographed and fingerprinted. A further 90 minutes elapsed before anyone else spoke to her: since other individuals were dealt with in the intervening minutes, there is some concern that this was done deliberately in order to ensure she would miss her plane.

There then followed a search of her bags and according to Ms McCreath: “They started asking me all sorts of bizarre personal questions about my sexuality.” They also asked a number of intrusive and personal questions about surgery they assumed she had had, as well as questioning her about her medication and the purpose of a highly intimate device – a dilator – that they discovered in her luggage.

This last line of questioning continued despite the fact that Ms McCreath was carrying with her a doctor’s note which, she explained, “describes (the medical device) as urgent for me to have on my person, and can’t afford to lose them in luggage and to please let me carry them on board”.

In the end, Ms McCreath was permitted to continue on her way, paying out an additional $80 for having to change flights. To add insult to injury, it subsequently transpired that had she chosen to do so, she could have obtained a temporary passport from the Canadian Passport Office in the two years prior to her surgery. However, despite several conversations and a visit to the offices of that body, she was at no time informed of this option.

Following so soon after attempts by Canada’s Ministry of Transport to justify similar discriminatory legislation in respect of flying over Canada, this is a stark reminder of what happens when bad rules are allowed to lie on the books.

Spokespersons for that Office told us last week that:

- The no-fly rules were not new: they had originally been implemented in 2007, and were re-issued last summer;

- They were designed with “security” in mind and would help transport officials in determining whether an individual resembled their photographic identity

- They were in line with International Civil Aviation Organisation rules, as well as similar rules enforced by every other government in the world

They declined, however, to answer questions as to how a subjective assessment of gender might help an individual match a face to a photograph: nor would they give any further information as to how this measure would assist with security.

Despite several requests to substantiate their claims in respect of ICAO rulings, they declined to provide any text to corroborate their claims: nor were they prepared to back up their claims that these rules were the same as rules implemented elsewhere in the world.

Spokespersons for both the UK Border Agency and UK Dept of Transport told us that they were not aware of any such regulation being implemented in the UK.

Most chillingly, when asked how it could be possible for an official to determine whether a passenger appears “to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents” – and whether there were any plans to carry out strip searches in this respect, they again declined to respond.

Ms McCreath understands that US officials are allowed to operate on Canadian soil so long as they abide by Canadian Human Rights legislation: if nothing else, the existence of Canada’s no-fly regulations seems likely to be used by US officials as justification for their action in this instance.

L’Homme du Jour, or Man of the Day, had its administrative access reinstated on Friday night after 4,600 fans were faced with being left without updates over the weekend.

The page currently holds between 50 and 70,000 images of the crème de la crème of male photographic subjects.

Some may have thought the image of Leo Silva posing almost au naturel, taken by Brazilian photographer Antonio Bezerra, had a certain je ne sais quoi.

But Facebook initially disagreed, saying it contravened the community standards rules in its Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, and delivered a coup de grâce, temporarily revoking L’Homme du Jour’s administrative rights on Friday.

Ray Clark, the page’s administrator, told PinkNews.co.uk at the time: “I think that the removal of this image is outrageous, we live in a modern society where people (and especially women) are allowed to wear even skimpier and even less than what is shown in this image. This image contains no nudity nor is it sexually suggestive.

“On numerous occasions we have advised Facebook that we are committed to adhering to their community standards and have asked them to clarify exactly what is and isn’t acceptable, but of course they remain mysteriously silent on the issue.”

The social networking site performed a volte-face on the decision hours later, reinstating the administrator rights at 9.30pm GMT.

Facebook’s approach to reports of community standards infringements is turning into a bête noire for some and a feeling of déjà vu would be forgiven after the US military’s gay support group OutServe was also briefly suspended and reinstated after a user reportedly claimed it was infringing its own rights last month.

At the time, blogger John Aravosis wrote that Facebook needed to establish better processes, saying: “This is starting to reek of an anti-gay action by the fake complainant, and we can’t have Facebook setting up a precedent where they pull down the pages of legitimate gay groups every time a homophobe makes up a lie.”

On the subject of who may have prompted L’Homme du Jour’s suspension, which at first looked set to become a cause célèbre, Clark told PinkNews.co.uk: “I think that what is really happening here is a planned and strategic attack on our page by conservative and/or religious groups who are against anything other than an overall.

“But this will only serve to encourage us to post more and more content of this type.”

Vive la résistance.

The March edition asks leaders of the three main political parties to meet with the parents of bullied children to hear their stories first-hand.

Radcliffe, who has been honoured for his work promoting suicide-prevention charity the Trevor Project, is among those discussing bullying in next month’s issue.

The actor, 22, says the prevalence of teen suicides is “not surprising when you consider how accessible a bullying victim is now. You used to be able to escape at the end of a day: now you can be hunted by mobile phone, Facebook, Twitter. It’s terrifying.”

The Harry Potter star says people should not define themselves only by sexuality: “Don’t define as straight or gay, define yourself as people and help another person if they’re in trouble.”

On equality in marriage, he says: “The ultimate reason gay marriage should be legalized everywhere is because, as a kid, you look to your mum and dad and they’re married; then you look at the gay couple who’ve been together for the same amount of time, but because they can’t get married their relationship doesn’t seem the same.

“Yes, gay marriage is about symbolically blessing a relationship, but the larger issue is about transmitting a fundamental message about equality. Gay people should have equality in law everywhere.”

Editor Matthew Todd told PinkNews.co.uk they had chosen Daniel Radcliffe to be on the cover of the issue “because he speaks directly to the masses and because he is a patron of the Trevor Project in New York and so genuinely passionate about helping to stop homophobic bullying.

“Anyone who thinks that its gotten significantly better in schools should read the stories in the new issue of families whose lives have been devastated by homophobic bullying. We know these kids are out there – we were all young and gay once – but their voices are never heard. Often in the past the parents have been too distraught to speak out or just not wanted to.”

The issue will also contain interviews with the parents of bullied children and one of the final interviews with the late anti-bullying campaigner Roger Crouch.

The father of schoolboy Dominic Crouch, who killed himself in May 2010, had become a prominent voice in the fight against homophobic bullying alongside his wife last year.

He was honoured with a Stonewall Hero of the Year Award in 2011 but would go on to hang himself only a few weeks later.

Todd says: “Like everyone else, we are devastated by his death but I think some good can come out of it if it helps all of us refocus our efforts so that in schools homophobic bullying becomes as unacceptable as racism is.

“The current situation is unacceptable. Schools are not doing enough. We’re calling on the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Ed Miliband to meet these parents we’ve interviewed and to do something about it.

“We specifically need to see LGBT equality issues taught to teachers during their training, something which is not currently mandatory. I’m hoping this issue can spur us on for a wider discussion about what else is needed.”

The March issue of Attitude is out on tablet from today and in stores from 8 February.

Organisers have called for supporters to bring a positive attitude to the event to show the government their passion for equality.

The Love Equally March is being promoted by the Scottish Youth Parliament, the Equality Network, LGBT Youth Scotland, Stonewall Scotland and NUS Scotland.

Grant Costello MSYP, SYP Chair said: “All the evidence shows the majority of Scots support marriage equality, and the historic response to the Government’s consultation on same sex marriage demonstrates they are prepared to speak out for equality.

“Scotland’s young people are determined that the consultation is not the end, but just the beginning of the journey to a better nation with equality at its heart. We need all those supporters of marriage equality to march with us, be our Valentines and Love Equally on February 14th!”

Nathan Sparling, NUS Scotland LGBT Officer, said: “This Valentine’s Day, students from across Scotland will be taking part in the Love Equally march to show our unwavering support for Equal Marriage in Scotland. We’ll be marching on the streets of Edinburgh celebrating love, and asking for the Scottish Government to give us another reason to celebrate by making same-sex marriage legal in Scotland.”

Tom French, Policy Coordinator for the Equality Network, said; “We know that the majority of Scots support full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, but we cannot afford to just sit back and assume our politicians will lift the ban on same-sex marriage.

“Our opponents are running a well-funded campaign to pressure the Scottish Government to ditch their proposals, so it is vital that everyone who supports equal marriage speaks out. We urge equal marriage supporters to turn out for the Love Equally march on Valentines day and make our voice heard.”

Marchers will assemble at 2:30pm in Bristo Square and walk to the Scottish Parliament, arriving at 3.45pm. A Facebook event page can be found here.

A range of supporters for marriage equality will address the rally outside the Scottish Parliament.

White has written 28 books including a trilogy of autobiographical novels and biographies of Marcel Proust and Jean Genet, for which he won the National Book Critics Circle Award.

His latest novel, Jack Holmes and his Friend, was published in 2011.

Speaking to Toby Ash, White explains the reasons behind choosing Alan Hollinghurst’s The Folding Star, Jean Genet’s Our Lady of the Flowers, Christohper Isherwood’s A Single Man, EM Forster’s Maurice and Andrew Holleran’s Dancer from the Dance.

Do you still feel as inspired as a writer today as you did, say, a couple of decades ago?

Well, a lot of people have said that Jack Holmes and His Friend is my best book, so I guess I’m still writing at the height of my powers. I teach writing, so I have to constantly think about writing problems.

Is the writing process for you pleasurable or angst-ridden?

It’s both angst-ridden and pleasurable. It is pleasurable to finish, I suppose. It’s always angst-ridden to write, with some stretches of pleasure. But it does seem to me that writing a novel is so precarious. It’s as though you’re carrying a bucket of water up a hill and you’re not quite sure you’re going to make it.

But you always seem to make it. Or are there times you haven’t?

I think I wrote three or four novels before one was published, so I certainly know what it’s like to write something and not have it be successful or accepted. Like every writer I’ve been criticised for some of my work. A couple of my novels are considered real failures.

How do you react to criticism? Do you ignore it or do you take it on board?

Sometimes it serves as a useful corrective. One of the things I have been very criticised for, even in Jack Holmes and His Friend, is being too explicitly sexual. I don’t think I’ve toned that down at all, as it’s something that interests me. But I’m not surprised when critics attack me for it.

Are they critical because it is gay sex? Do you think they would be less critical if it was heterosexual?

I think that in America especially, and in England too, there are a lot of people who are puritanical. They love to tell you that sexual writing is either boring or ludicrous. I think those are two ways of registering shock.

Do you think you would be such a prolific writer – or even a writer at all – if you weren’t gay? I remember you once said that when you were young you wrote about gay themes as a form of therapy.

For sure, in my early writing I felt like I was drowning and that writing was the only way of putting my head above the water, but the water was constantly rising. I think I had so many mental problems when I was young and I was constantly in therapy. That was certainly true for my teenage years and my twenties. I think that after I was 30 things changed a lot and I began to take more pleasure in the craft of writing and see novels as almost problems to be solved – artistic problems rather than psychological ones.

You teach creative writing and have done so for many years. You once said you found teaching in the early years a very useful education for yourself as a novelist. Do you still find that today?

I used to teach literature courses and that was certainly useful to be able to examine how books were put together. Now I only teach creative writing seminars and workshops. It’s instructive in a different way. For one thing, it keeps me in touch with how young people feel and the things they are thinking about and the way they are talking. For another, I’m constantly thinking about the construction of stories and novels. Issues like suspense and tension, characterisation, dialogue, percentages of dialogue to description and so on. All those rather technical issues get discussed in class and I think they are ones that I’m always thinking about and that must be useful for a writer.

So you can never stop building your knowledge.

I think that’s true. Reading established writers and classics is another way. I always hate when writers – often quite famous writers – will say they don’t read fiction and they only read biographies. I think that’s betraying the craft. Even if it was true, I wish they wouldn’t say it. I think that the truth is that you learn a lot from reading other people’s novels, including bad ones.

For the purposes of this interview we are looking at your favourite works of gay fiction. But outside of this genre, what writers have influenced you?

I love Nabokov. I think Lolita is one of the great books of the 20th century. I love Proust a lot. I have written a biography of Proust. I read a lot of poetry too and wrote a biography of Rimbaud.

Do you find yourself slightly pigeonholed as a chronicler of the New York gay scene of the 1970s and 1980s? Are audiences and critics resistant when you write on subjects outside this?

Well, I have tried other things and they have been dismissed or ignored. I wrote a historical novel called Fanny, which was about Frances Wright, a Scottish woman who started a utopian colony in America. The story is narrated by Frances Trollope, the mother of the author, who was herself an interesting, best-selling writer. I thought that was an amusing double portrait, but people didn’t like it. I think they thought, “How dare he write about something outside of his turf”. I wrote another book that was entirely heterosexual called Caracole, and that was really despised.

Who was it despised by? Was it the mainstream media or by gay critics in particular?

I think the mainstream ones. The gay ones just tended to ignore it because they had got the message that it wasn’t of interest to them. Gay bookstores refused to handle it, which was ludicrous because if you had been handling this writer anyway for his other work you’d think you’d want to handle it all. But then you had straight people criticise it because they didn’t quite get it. I mean it was a hard book to get because it was a sort of fantasy book. People didn’t know quite how to categorise it and I think that books that fail are always ones that are between genres or not clearly one thing or another.

Book One
Our Lady of the Flowers

Your first book recommendation is Our Lady of the Flowers by Jean Genet, whose biography you wrote. Before we talk about this particular book, I wonder if you could tell us more about his early life.

Genet was put up for adoption by his mother. He became a child of public welfare. He was taken in by a family who lived in the heart of France, a rather backward area. His [foster] parents were paid a monthly stipend by the state to look after him. As long as his foster mother was alive he got along very well with everybody. But then when she died he kind of went crazy. He was accused of lots of little crimes, of stealing things. But basically he was just filching things, he wasn’t really stealing anything important – erasers and marbles and things like that.

He was very, very bright and he was probably the brightest student in the whole département. Because of his intelligence he wasn’t put out to work at age 13 as a farm worker, the way most foster children were. He was sent to a trade school to learn printing, which was considered a great honour. But he ran away from that school almost immediately and began a life of petty crime. He was arrested many times for things like stealing a signature of a French king at an autograph store or fabric from a department store or doctoring his train ticket so that it looked as if he was eligible for a longer train ride than he’d paid for.

France was very backward in a sense. It was really part of the 19th century until World War II. So just as boys in [Charles] Dickens are punished terribly for very minor crimes, in the same way Genet, who never committed any big crimes, was punished very severely. He even risked being given a life sentence, but his case was pleaded by [Jean] Cocteau who said that Genet was like Rimbaud and you don’t put Rimbaud in prison. And the judge, being French, was convinced by this argument and released him. Then he went into terrible decline because he had always written in prison with the threat of a life sentence over his head and now he was free as a bird and found it hard to write. He became extremely depressed. What he finally did was to change entirely and write for the theatre.

He did write most of Our Lady of the Flowers in prison and it was published first in 1943 during the occupation. It was published very privately in an edition of just 50 copies.

It’s extraordinary that it was published at all during the German occupation.

The Germans were very puritanical and would have certainly persecuted not only the author but also the publisher if they had known about it. But it was printed privately and sold under the counter to rich homosexuals. But Genet wanted a larger audience and he removed quite a few of the pornographic passages from the original edition in order to make it more accessible to the general public.

Can you tell us more about the book itself?

It’s beautifully written. It’s a sumptuous, poetic style, which is true of several of the books on my list. But he certainly was one of the greatest stylists of all time. He earned the attention of some of the leading thinkers of the day. [Jean-Paul] Sartre wrote a whole book about him and so did [Jacques] Derrida. Many other important writers like Cocteau wrote about him and admired him.

He invented in this book the drag queen for all literature who’s called Divine. She – the book calls her “she” even though she’s a man – is a prostitute and has many lovers. The most important is a pimp called Darling Daintyfoot. He brings home one night a very beautiful boy who’s called Our Lady of the Flowers, who is a murderer and who’s about to be executed. The book has several converging timeframes. For instance, Genet is always reminding us that he himself is in prison awaiting sentence. That’s one thread of the book. And then there’s another timeline, which is about the sentencing and execution of Our Lady of the Flowers. So those are different timelines that converge. But there are many characters in the book and there are a lot of sex scenes. It’s a world of the ghetto really. He places his ghetto in Montmartre. If you read it in French there’s an awful lot of thieves’ slang that’s used in the dialogue. The dialogue is very raw but the narration is very elegant and elevated. So there’s a kind of contrast between the two. The dialogue is constantly reminding you that these are criminals and part of the underclass, whereas the narration is always reminding you that you should think of this as something like a tragedy by Rossini.

This book was really a lifesaver for Genet, transporting him from the underclass to the heart of literary Paris.

It’s probably what saved his life. Because he was such a good writer Cocteau discovered him and intervened on his behalf and got him freed from a life sentence. Even the president of France exonerated him. It did change his life entirely. He was somebody who had no talent, only genius. He couldn’t do anything. He didn’t have any skills. He only knew how to write the best prose of the century.

Book Two
A Single Man

Christopher Isherwood’s A Single Man is a book I know you are very fond of. You once described it as “the founding text of modern gay literature”. Why do you think this book is so important?

Well I think it’s the opposite of Our Lady of the Flowers in one sense as it’s not metaphorical. The style is extremely chaste and simple. The action of the book takes place in a single day. The reason it’s innovative is that with George – who’s the main character in the book – there’s no ideology given about how he came to be gay or what his childhood was like. Nor is he confined to the ghetto but he’s a respected teacher. He’s an Englishman living in Los Angeles, as Isherwood was himself, and he has lots of straight friends. One of them is a woman called Charley whom he sees during the course of the book. Another straight friend is a student called Kenny whom he sees at the end of the book.

The main story is George trying to survive because his lover Jim has just died in a car accident. In fact, Isherwood’s lover Don Bachardy hadn’t died but gone to England to study at the Slade School of Fine Art.

Yes, I was going to ask you whether the book was Isherwood imagining life without Bachardy?

Exactly. The death in the book really stands for this long departure of Don Bachardy. They were reunited later but there was definitely a difficult moment for Isherwood personally. And so he writes with great feeling about the loss of a lover.

A loss he cannot reconcile himself to.

In a way it’s tragic, but in another way it’s rather peaceful in the way it’s described. The thing you have to remember about Isherwood is that he was a Hindu. He believed in Vedanta and he was a practising Hindu convert. And so, really he believed that the self was not a single thing like a stone in the middle of a peach but something more like an onion, which peeled back endlessly until it disappears. So, the beginning and end of the book show him first rising out of sleep and composing himself as a self and the end shows all those elements dissipating into death. I think this is a Hindu book without the Hinduism. You can really only understand it if you understand Vedanta. But it’s never explicitly brought into the book.

Did you see the film?

Yes, I did. I thought it was too much like a perfume ad. It was too beautiful; the people were shown to be too rich. And there was the introduction – which I thought was ludicrous – of a beautiful male prostitute. That was an episode that didn’t make sense at all. I did think that Julianne Moore who played Charley was really great in this. Also, it was a very good performance by Colin Firth.

(Scroll to the next page by clicking the number below)

April James, 19, is accused of attacking the girl in October after people in her party hurled homophobic abuse at the young couple, the Bexhill Observer reports.

The prosecution said they were unable to prove Ms James made homophobic comments herself, but said she was in the group that did.

Mark Kateley, prosecuting at Hastings Crown Court, said: “When the victim and her partner objected to the comments made, she was then assaulted by a group of females during which she was punched, had her hair pulled and at one point had her head banged against the door and ended up on the floor being kicked a number of times on the floor.

“The defendant admits making a kick to the head or shoulder.”

The attack reportedly ensued after the girls, both 16, kissed and the victim drank from a bottle of alcohol which was being shared on the train.

Her victim statement said: “This incident made me feel ashamed of who I am and made me scared of going out and getting on a train.

“It made me scared of being with my girlfriend.

“It has taken me a long time to be confident with my sexuality and this has knocked me back down.”

The defendant claimed the train was too busy for her to have assaulted the girl in the carriage, but accepts kicking her on the platform at Bexhill.

A further hearing is scheduled to take place in April at Hastings Magistrates Court due to disputed facts. 

The publicly unidentified man, 30, fell from his balcony on deck 11 of luxury liner Allure of the Seas, the world’s largest cruise liner.

Royal Caribbean International said that the incident, witnessed by a fellow passenger and CCTV footage, showed the man intentionally going overboard.

In a statement, the cruise line said the man had not responded to attempts to contact him in his room: “When the guest did not respond to the pages and was not found on board, the captain alerted the local authorities of the situation.

“A review of the ship’s closed-circuit camera footage observed the 30-year-old British male guest going over the balcony railing in his stateroom on deck 11.

“The location of the ship at the time the guest went overboard was marked on the ship’s Global Positioning System (GPS) and the US and Mexican coastguard were alerted.

“Our care team is providing support to the guest’s family and our thoughts and prayers are with them.”

A Foreign Office spokeswoman said: “We are aware that a British national has been reported missing in Mexico.

“His family have been informed and we are providing consular assistance.”

The man reportedly fell at 12.10pm GMT, or 7.10am local time, on Friday of last week.

The ship had been chartered by Atlantis Events.

In November of last year, an American man was jailed for selling drugs on the Allure of the Seas from what the sentencing judge termed an “apothecary” in his cabin.

Steven Krumholz, 51, from California, was found with more than 142 ecstasy pills, methamphetamine, a small amount of ketamine, and about $51,000 (£31,000) in cash.

He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 21 months in prison for dealing drugs to fellow passengers on the gay cruise.

The book is one of 849 listed in Amazon’s Christian fundamentalist section.

The e-book‘s synopsis says: “LGBT Going To Hell is a small fundamentalist Christian book that seeks to tell the LGBT community that it is in sin and lives a lifestyle that is against God’s Holy Word the Bible.

“This is not a book to win friends but to call sinners to repentance.”

One American reviewer wrote: “There is no doubt that books like this are part of the reason why so many young LGBT people in USA commit suicide.”

Another wrote: “I have no idea if it is meant to be a serious work, or a satirical look at stereotypical christian attitudes, but either way, its mostly useless.”

The e-book, which costs 77p, begins by commenting on the world’s progress in medicine, science and technology, but condemns its fall into an “evil pit of violence, green, sexual immorality and paganism”.

PinkNews.co.uk has approached Amazon for comment.

At the end of last year, Amazon pulled a calendar by ‘Christian cartoonist’ Joe King.

I’m Not Gay, I’m Just a Sissy: 12 Months of Sexual Confusion, included jokes about AIDS and effeminacy in gay men.

While some questioned whether the cartoons were genuine satire not designed to cause offence, King took to his own Facebook page to rant about the gays who complained adding that it was not the first time he had been banned.

He said: “Hoo-we! Hell hath no fury like a he/she scorned…”

He added that AIDS was an “elective disease” which would stop “the day guys quit sticking it to each other. And for the tragedy of women and children infected… THAT stops the day their gay husbands and fathers stop cheating on them. Anyone need MORE education, science or funding to understand THAT?”

In 2009, Amazon apologised after a cataloguing glitch meant many important gay works were mislabeled as ‘adult’ products.

Tim Montgomerie has previously been noted for his activities combining religion and politics, having founded the Conservative Christian Fellowship in 1990.

Talking to the Independent this weekend, he said many in the CCF were “upset, very perplexed” and felt “real disappointment” at his move to back equal marriage.

On his blog today, Montgomerie wrote: “It is because I value marriage so much that I have come to believe it should be extended to gay people and not kept exclusive.”

He continues: “Marriage is, for want of a better word, conservatising. I don’t mean in a party political sense. I mean it is one of the key social institutions that conservatives admire. It is about drawing people together.

“Not just the couple but also their extended family and other friends and loved ones. It is a deeply important social act that draws others to the care of the couple and draws the couple to the care of others, not least ageing parents.”

He writes: “I hope, over time, we will get to a policy where we can combine gay rights with religious liberty. On occasions – such as with Catholic adoption agencies – religious liberty has been compromised in unacceptable ways.

“The Government has promised that any gay marriage bill will protect the rights of religious groups to hold firm to their view that marriage must remain between a man and a woman. I may no longer share other Christians’ opposition to this social reform but we should live in a society where the state guards freedom of religion and association.”

Ben Summerskill, Chief Executive of Stonewall, welcomed Montgomerie’s announcement, saying: “We’re delighted that, having heard the arguments, one of Britain’s most influential evangelical Christians is now able fully to support marriage for gay people without compromising his faith in any way.

“Many people of faith are considerably more progressive than the religious leaders, such as Dr Sentamu, who often speak intemperately in their name.”

In his interview with the Independent, Montgomerie said the Archbishop of York, who compared a government move to introduce equal marriage with the actions of a dictatorship, was a “very good man”, but questioned the language he had used.

MediaGuardian put Montgomerie in 90th place on their 2010 list of the most powerful people in the media.

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?”

Nicholas Whitaker, 34, said the “brief hug from behind” was only intended as a platonic greeting, the Yorkshire Post reports.

He told Leeds County Court: “Certainly not my intention to touch her breasts. I would have no reason to touch her breasts, no wish to touch her breasts.”

The gay church assistant denied the charges, which relate to a meeting last July at Wakefield Cathedral, the tallest church in Yorkshire. Whitaker said he may have touched the woman’s breasts, but it would have been unintentional.

Whitaker said the embrace lasted for around two seconds. The woman he is alleged to have assaulted said it was between thirty seconds and a minute.

The unnamed woman had previously told the court: “He put his arms underneath my arms and just grabbed hold of my bust and groped and felt and squeezed. It was awful.

“He just stopped doing it and went off … I just felt sick, really sick.

“I just went straight to the toilet and stood there in disbelief. I gathered my thoughts, I just couldn’t believe what had happened.”

The verger said he had never “made a secret” of being gay.

The case continues.

In a memo discovered by Lee Bennett in firm archives in 2010, a partner at Bivonas LLP had written that he should be sacked and that he would “take our cases to his batty boy mate”.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed with the original ruling that the content of the memo was “a professional slur of the utmost gravity”.

The law firm had claimed the note, written in 2008, was a “personal aide-memoire”, not intended to be kept or showed to anyone.

It lost its argument on appeal that the Employment Tribunal was wrong to say that the insult was a detriment.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal found no evidence that any straight men had been insulted in the same way as Mr Bennett for being gay.

The firm could not provide justification for treating Mr Bennett differently to other employees.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission funded Mr Bennett’s defence against the law firm’s appeal.

John Wadham, Group Director Legal, Equality and Human Rights Commission said: “Homophobia will not be tolerated in the workplace or anywhere else. We funded Mr Bennett’s defence and this win has set a precedent for discrimination law.”

Bivonas said it had “the appropriate measures in the light of the Tribunal’s observations”.

Barnsley FC’s goalie David Preece suggested Amal Fashanu was the wrong choice to investigate the matter. This viewpoint, in an otherwise thoughtful article, is somewhat unkind: it’s arguably the very fact that so few footballers are willing to candidly speak out on homophobia that it has been left to a 23-year media studies graduate and model to ask some hard questions.

Amal deserves credit for being the first to call to account her own father, John Fashanu, whose chilling, public rejection of his vastly more talented brother, compounded the devastation that Justin must have felt.

The programme was most notable for challenging the perception of football being an impenetrable bastion of homophobia. Max Clifford’s intransigent doom-mongering about how coming out would ruin a footballer’s career challenged, by footage of Sweden’s openly gay player Anton Hysén enjoying changing-room banter with team-mates and support from the stands. Perhaps the greatest coup of all was the willingness of a premiership player, QPR captain Joey Barton, to speak out and ridicule ‘archaic’ attitudes of managers who are preventing players from being open.

There is in fact more reason for hope in the offence taken by Preece at what he regards as the demonisation of footballers. “I couldn’t think of a more welcoming place to reveal your sexual preferences than inside a footballer’s dressing room’

However, the overall picture is far from one of acceptance. Homophobic chanting is a weekly endurance for Brighton’s fans; and a string of homophobic callers, one asking for separate changing rooms, left Nicky Campbell and guests of his BBC Radio 5 phone-in dumbfounded last Thursday. Statistics show that 29 percent of the UK population thinks same-sex relations are sometimes or always wrong, and an Observer poll in 2008 stated that nearly one in four thinks homosexuality should be recriminalised. Football, being the nation’s favourite sport is simply a barometer of the bigotry that is rife and unchallenged in society.

The disappointment with the programme was that no managers or high-ranking FA officials were interviewed. A significant amount of direction and resources will be needed to change the culture and attitudes within football, through club hierarchies and at grass roots, Sunday league level too.

Currently, the FA and the government are patting themselves on the back for putting together an LGBT charter, full of good intentions about banishing homophobia and transphobia from the game. But the precise details of how this campaign will make life better for LGBT players and supporters are anything but clear.

However, instead of pressing the FA on this matter, the media and some in the gay community obsess themselves with the moronic question: when will we see an out gay player? I suspect this is driven as much by the tabloid press going to ever more desperate measures to titillate readers and buck declining sales figures, and some activists seeking another trophy in the role model cabinet.

Why should a footballer come out to the whole nation? Most of us are out to friends and work-colleagues, but that’s all. True, the media is no longer full of homophobic columnists like the Star’s Brian Hitchen and the Sun’s Gary Bushell, whose innuendo-laden diatribes reinforced the very worst prejudices. But even if the coming out were reported in glowing terms, the very experience of being in the media spotlight can be ruinous for concentration and performance. And as the Leveson inquiry has revealed, the extremes that reporters go to, to sniff out an exclusive could make life intolerable.

Here are a number of questions, which clubs – with the exception of Manchester City – have been loathe to answer but must be put under pressure to do so:

How are clubs promoting a welcoming, accepting environment for gay or bi players? What standards are in place with respect to language and conduct, and are these contractually binding? Do these obligations extend to managers and training staff, especially with respect to language used? How is the club monitoring and addressing prejudice? What procedures and disciplinary measures are in place for dealing with homophobic abuse or bullying? What support is available to LGBT staff and players facing abuse or in need of someone to talk to?

The Rugby Football League has made tremendous efforts to make the game fully inclusive. All major clubs have diversity officers, and LGBT working groups that are providing support to a number of players.

Another point, often missed, is that the game already has numerous openly gay teams. The oldest, London’s Stonewall FC in the Middlesex County League, and Village Manchester, have been challenging stereotypes, for 21 and 15 years respectively, by battling it out on the pitch every weekend. As Village Manchester manager Antony Lockley explained to Nicky Campbell, many of his players came from far afield because they saw no way of being accepted in their local club, because outside the big cities, as the prejudice is rife.

By playing regularly with mainly straight teams, these clubs have obliterated the insidious notion of gay people being predators. At least three people on the Radio 5 show called to say how uncomfortable they would feel in the showers or changing rooms in the presence of a gay person. This argument was quashed in the armed forces long ago, but it’s important that people are encouraged to ask themselves how they know this to be true, and that beliefs based on no evidence are suspected, not respected.

Even though it is good to see action taken, the FA is failing to communicate why and how homophobia is damaging when it occurs. And this makes me worry about the effectiveness of its campaigns. Its failure was most apparent when Lee Steele was sacked by Oxford City for his tweets about ‘padlocking his arse’ when near gay rugby player Gareth Thomas. Many fans were outraged, claiming it was an overreaction.

In cases like this, instead of issuing meaningless platitudes about standing firm against homophobia, the FA should have explained how damaging Steele’s remarks were to his own club. For like many league clubs, Oxford City is made up of over ten reserve and youth teams. It is highly probably that up to ten or so team members – perhaps vulnerable teenagers – would have felt isolated and outcast by such remarks. Such remarks are divisive, sow seeds of mistrust and ruinous for team spirit, and it is shameful that nobody thought to point this out.

And a final point about homophobia in the stands, especially for useful idiots like Arsenal fan Matt Lucas: if visitors to Brighton cannot see the cruelty of ridiculing the town for its accepting, tolerant atmosphere with chants of ‘We can see you holding hands’, perhaps club sponsors eventually will?

Even major sporting brands seek to promote values of diversity and inclusiveness nowadays, and distance themselves from old-fashioned ‘macho’ positioning. Brand-owners do not want to see their products being endorsed by narrow-minded homophobic and racist thugs on TV or, more likely, on YouTube.

If nothing else, perhaps the prospect of football’s reputation being dragged through the mire, might make the FA see the value, rather than just the cost, of promoting a diverse and inclusive game? 

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 Sports Charter was launched in June 2011 at 10 Downing Street when Chief Executive Richard Scudamore signed on behalf of the Premier League.

All 20 Premier League clubs have now signed the Charter individually, the League said today.

Richard Scudamore, Chief Executive of the Premier League said: “We are pleased to reaffirm our commitment with each of our clubs signing the Charter.

“The Premier League and our member clubs believe that everyone should be able to participate in, watch and enjoy sport – whoever they are and whatever their background.

“When the Sports Charter to tackle homophobia and transphobia in sport was launched in June 2011 the Premier League signed it and we are pleased to re-affirm our commitment to it today with each of our clubs signing it individually.”

Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone added: “Nearly 3,000 individuals and clubs have already signed up and I’m delighted that Premier League clubs have taken a stand by signing the Charter too.

“It sends a really strong signal when clubs in the best league in the world say enough is enough.”

The Charter is made up of four points:

- We believe that everyone should be able to participate in, watch and enjoy sport – whoever they are and whatever their background.
- We believe that sport is about fairness and equality, respect and dignity. Sport teaches individuals how to strive and succeed, how to cope with success and disappointment, and brings people together with a common goal.
- We are committed to making these values a reality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. We will work together, and individually, to rid sport of homophobia and transphobia.
- We will make football a welcome place for everyone – for those participating in the sport, those attending matches and for those working or volunteering in it. We will work with all these groups to ensure they have a voice, and to challenge unacceptable behaviour.

Chris Basiurski, Chair of the Gay Football Supporters’ Network said: “We are delighted that the Premier League Clubs have decided to sign the Government’s charter but we are conscious that is just the first step.

“We are keen to ensure that the clubs are not just making an empty gesture but are truly committed to the cause of tackling homophobia and we are calling on them to commit as much time and resources to this cause as they have previously demonstrated in the largely successful fight against racism.

“With the recent BBC3 documentary highlighting that the issue of homophobia is prevalent in the game today, creating a safe and tolerant atmosphere in football for LGBT people has never been more important and we hope to see some real progress from the Clubs in the wake of their signing the Charter.”

Their appeal argues that Britain’s twin legal bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships amount to illegal discrimination, contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. The bans violate Articles 8, 12 and 14 – respectively the right to privacy and family life, the right to marry and the right to non-discrimination.

The 31-page application, drafted by Robert Wintemute, Professor of Human Rights Law at King’s College London, presents a compelling case. Since there are no significant differences in the rights and responsibilities involved in civil marriages and civil partnerships, there can be no justification for the segregation of gay and straight couples into two mutually exclusive legal systems. It is discrimination based on sexual orientation. For this reason, we are hopeful that when the ECHR eventually delivers a judgement, probably in 2014, it will be in favour of equality.

Soon after the ECHR appeal was filed, the government announced its intention to consult on the issue of same-sex marriage. Mere coincidence? Perhaps. But the government was surely mindful that it will be required to explain to the ECHR its rationale for excluding gay couples from civil marriages and heterosexual couples from civil partnerships. It can now report to the ECHR that it is consulting. This consultation is, however, flawed. It is limited to same-sex marriage.

David Cameron mistakenly calculated that we’ll be satisfied with marriage equality. We won’t. So long as heterosexual couples remain banned from civil partnerships, which is the Prime Minister’s apparent intention, the Equal Love campaign will continue. We believe in straight equality just as passionately as we care about equal rights for lesbians and gay men.

In our estimation, there is a sizeable minority of heterosexual couples who would prefer a civil partnership. They dislike the patriarchal history and language of marriage; viewing civil partnerships as a more modern, egalitarian alternative. In the Netherlands, where civil partnerships are open to both gay and heterosexual couples, two-thirds of civil partners are straight men and women. We could expect a similar take-up by heterosexual couples in Britain, if civil partnerships were open to everyone.

Cameron also miscalculated by ruling out any legalisation of religious same-sex marriages, even by faith organisations, such as the Quakers and Unitarians, who want to conduct them. This is an attack on religious freedom, as well as perpetrating homophobic discrimination. Moreover, given that the government has recently authorised religious same-sex civil partnerships, a continued blanket ban on religious same-sex marriages looks inconsistent and petty.

For all these reasons, the Equal Love campaign is building momentum. The right of gay couples to marry is backed by David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Boris Johnson and a growing number of Tory MPs, including Chloe Smith, Mike Weatherley and Margot James.

In 2010, the Green Party national conference was the first to vote to end the twin bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships. It was followed by the Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru conferences. Oddly, the Labour conference has declined to vote on the issue; although the GMB, Unison and all 13 Labour MEPs want the twin bans overturned.

The SNP government in Scotland is leading the way, with its public consultation period already concluded; while David Cameron inexplicably postponed the start of his consultation from last summer to next month.

Some people argue: what’s there to consult about? Homophobic discrimination is wrong and should therefore be abolished pronto. Would the government have a long drawn out consultation about repealing racist laws? I doubt it. It would immediately abolish them on the grounds that they were incompatible with a democratic society. Why should homophobic bans be treated any differently?

The public is on our side. A Populus poll in 2009 found that 61% of the public believe: “Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships.” Only 33% disagreed. It’s likely that there is similar support for heterosexual civil partnerships.

What’s the government waiting for? The time for equality is now.

This article first appeared in the Guardian. 

In her column in the Daily Express, she questions the lack of availability of therapy for “gays who do not want to be gay”.

Widdecombe wrote about the case of Lesley Pilkington, who was found guilty of malpractice by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy last year.

She argues that if a gay person wants to change their sexuality, professional help should be available to them, despite a lack of scientific evidence for it working.

She wrote: “When I was training as a Samaritan in the Eighties the first principle was never to dismiss another’s priorities.

“If a man rang in and said he was gay we should never say, “Oh, that doesn’t matter, it’s OK to be gay,” if he took the opposite view.”

The former minister is the second high-profile voice this week to back ‘reparative therapy’ in the face of general medical opinion against it.

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, is backing Lesley Pilkington’s appeal.

He wrote to the BACP, which is hearing the appeal, with other bishops to say that such ‘gay cure’ attempts do not “produce harm despite the Royal College of Psychiatrists and others maintaining the contrary”.

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.”

Widdecombe says the “homosexual lobby” has directed particular attention to Pilkington’s religion.

The retired minister herself famously converted to Catholicism, leaving the Church of England in favour of a denomination which, she said, “doesn’t care if something is unpopular”.

Drawing a comparison with the case of the Muslim men found guilty of distributing material intended to stir up anti-gay hatred, she queries why Christians, who make up 72% of the British population, are “targeted by gay activists” more frequently than Muslims, who make up 3%.

Widdecombe did not support ParliOut, the first LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) network for the Parliamentary staff, MPs and Lords in 2010.

She said: “No I do not. MPs are supposed to be there to help other people not to go whingeing on their own behalf. I cannot understand the modern day emphasis and fascination and obsession with people’s private lives.

She added: “We have had gay MPs since we’ve had MPs…we’ve had gay everythings. It is not an issue and what we are doing now is encouraging your profession to go into everybody’s private lives.”

Widdecombe’s comments add to an ongoing public debate about ‘gay cure’ practices.

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.

Returning its verdict in Glasgow today, the jury rejected Roy’s argument that he was suffering from an undiagnosed personality disorder.

Roy had admitted causing the death of the gay schoolboy, who was found with 20 stab wounds and his throat cut in woodland over a year ago, but denied full responsibility for his actions.

Now 19, Roy said he had no memory of the attack itself.

A picture of the complicated relationship between Roy and Frew emerged during the trial.

The teenagers had been schoolmates at East Kilbride in South Lanarkshire.

Psychiatrist Dr Rajan Darjee told the court Roy had admitted having a sexual encounter with the murdered teen in January 2010.

The court previously heard Roy’s claim that he saw Frew as a threat to his new relationship, describing him as a “sex pest.”

The court had heard that Roy and Jack Frew met in woods on 6 May 2010 at the murdered teenager’s request.

Roy was said to have been concerned Frew, then 16, would tell his boyfriend about their sexual encounters and brought a knife to the meeting.

He told a psychiatrist Frew had exposed himself, but thereafter his memory failed.

Roy’s boyfriend Christopher Hannah, 20, a student at Glasgow Caledonian University, was the first person to arrive at the scene after being called by Roy.

The jury less than two hours to reach its verdict.

The BBC reported Jack Frew’s father saying Roy should “rot in hell”.

Roy will be sentenced on 1 March. Though he faces a mandatory life sentence, the minimum term he must spend in custody is yet to be determined.