Two useful links in this context:
Josh Lowe: “What is the Piers Gaveston Society?” Prospect: 21.09.2015: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/david-cameron-lord-ashcroft-biography-what-is-the-piers-gaveston-society
Stephen Bush: “Will Lord Ashcroft’s scandalous biography harm David Cameron?” New Statesman: 21.09.2015: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/09/will-lord-ashcrofts-scandalous-biography-harm-david-cameron-0
Cameron is alleged to be a former member of the Piers Gaveston Society. This 28-year-old drinking society is composed of twelve former public schoolboys at Oxford University. Its main interaction with the wider student body is its exclusive yearly ball, which allows revellers in fancy dress or fetish attire to climb aboard a coach to a secret location outside the city and engage in louche behaviour, said to often include indulgence in illegal substances. Named in honour of a male lover of King Edward II (1284-1327), the club seems highly camp—its motto is Fane non memini ne audisse unum alterum ita dilixisse, or “Truly, none remember hearing of a man enjoying another so much.’
Other former members of the group include writer and son of the Duchess of Cornwall Tom Parker Bowles and Private Eye editor Ian Hislop, who profits considerably from publishing tales of excess and scandal among the rich and mindless. There is no suggestion that either man or any other former member participated in any of the acts of which Cameron is accused. Gaystarnews wryly added that two European Union jurisdictions prohibit marriage equality, yet zoophilia is perfectly legal within their borders- Roumania and Finland. According to New Statesman journalist Stephen Bush (21.09.2015), apparently Cameron’s deed is not zoophilia, because under British law, that would have involved penetration of a porcine anus or vagina.
This is a brief summary of an article I've just posted on my Gaynz.Com blog, assembled from the Ministry of Immigration's website: http://www.gaynz.com/blogs/redqueen/?p=9935
n the interests of clarity and public transparency, I have decided to provide a brief description of current New Zealand refugee policy.
Refugee policy is contained within the Immigration Act 2009, and administered by the New Zealand Ministry of Immigration. The Immigration Act 2009 contains clauses giving legislative effect to New Zealand accession to international human rights treaties such as the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951, Convention Against Torture and Other Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishnment, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and many other such international human rights and civil liberties instruments.
When assessing refugee claims, the Immigration and Protection Tribunal will refer to Country of Origin Information resources for background context and circumstances related to the grounding of specific claims. For example, Syria’s COI section on the Ministry website includes information from the US CIA and State Department, International Crisis Group, Minority Rights Group, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. This is a detailed and robust set of sources and shows praiseworthy diligence in its preparation and design.
The most recent data shows almost gender parity and particular age cohort concentrations between 18-60 and 5-12, indicating family unification and resettlement. Most refugees settle in Auckland, Wellington, Waikato, Manawatu and Nelson.
As to nations of origin, these tend to consist of areas of international organised crime, lawlessness, failed states and tyrannical regimes, as well as countries caught in the ordeal of civil war. It will probably come as no surprise to learn that Myanmar, Columbia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sri Lanka appear prominently on the list of countries of origin. Proximity appears to play a role in this, given the number of refugees from Columbia and its murderous international drug cartels or Myanmar and its repressive domestic regime, who might find transit to New Zealand more accessible than other countries. So does New Zealand’s involvement in last decade’s Afghan War.
Are there any aspects of the Immigration Act 2009 that we should be concerned about? Certainly, archival evidence suggests that the Immigration and Protection Tribunal is a transparent and accountable government agency engaged in best practice refugee and asylum assessment. However, some issues are of concern- such as the use of classified information in this context, although again, the Immigration Act 2009 specifically forbids the abuse of classified information for use in deportation, refugee or asylum decisions. Refugees may also be denied entry to New Zealand for other reasons- favourable regime change in countries of origin, as well as deliberate fraud and forgery, criminal activity or terrorism may be legitimate grounds. It does strike me as possible that there may be some legitimate deception involved in escaping specific repressive regimes if they have deplorable records insofar as police brutality, security agency repression and government corruption go.
How does all this affect LGBT rights?
Descriptive differences. What we call bogans, they call chavs as they manifest many of the same characteristics.
Er, except Britain doesn't have bogans, it has chavs. Some of whom are gay, apparently, but then Britain is a very stratified society.
Hmmm. Dunno if that characterisation of Hall's approach to subcultures is correct. Hall allowed for them to have a fair degree of social agency and creative independence. Anyhow, I'm from working-class origins, albeit ChCh (Riccarton, to be precise). I've known gay bogans who like metal, wear their hair long, smoke weed and regard same-sex marriage as a non issue 'cause it gets in the way of their having lots of sex. There are even bogan drag queens in Oz.
Here, this might help. In Canada, the Bountiful case upheld Section 293 of the Canadian Criminal Code, which bans polygamy. However, its presiding Justice, Robert Bauman, distinguished polygamy from polyamory, which he didn't regard as illegal. Here's a link.
eference re Section 293 of the Canadian Criminal Code: 2011 British Columbia Supreme Court 1588 CanLii: http://canlii.ca/en/bc/bcsc/ doc/2011/2011bcsc1588/ 2011bcsc1588.html
Moz, I do intend to eventually gladly campaign for polyamorous spousal rights for bisexuals, although I suspect given what happened in the case of monogamous gay marriage equality and same-sex parenting, it'll take about ten to fifteen years to develop a sufficient head of steam with affirmative articles in pediatrics and developmental psychology journals. As I would if parthenogenesis ever becomes feasible, and I'm in favour of an infant intersex "remedial" surgery ban similar to the one that Malta recently enacted.
Unfortunately, the United Kingdom and almost all the jurisdictions within Australia directly include gender identity within antidiscrimination legislation, as do most Canadian provinces. Canada does not do so at the federal level, nor does New Zealand. And the Key administration refuses to do so.
And insofar as viability goes, one crucial point could be the development of alveoli within the lungs, which doesn't take place until past the twentieth week of pregnancy. According to NZ stats, that's long after most New Zealand women have abortions. In the case of severe and lethal fetal anomalies, that essential physiological development might not be there, or there may be other factors such as the absence or lethal impairment of specific bodily organs such as the brain, heart, liver, kidneys et al in utero.
Certainly yes, but a very large subset. Much of the remainder, at least in New Zealand seems to consist of conservative evangelical/fundamentalist Protestants. And there are some undeniable denominational tensions between the two factions, which adversely affects the viability of the NZ anti-abortion movement.