LEFT VERSUS RIGHT

Spain’s campaigning judge, Baltasar Garzón, has provoked fury amongst those on the right of the nation’s politics as well as the remaining supporters of the Franco regime. His decision to investigate the crimes committed during the dictator’s era has opened up not just one but several cans of worms as those opposing the judge have sought to have him brought before the courts.

On Saturday it was the turn of his supporters to take to the streets. In Madrid thousands marched from the Puerta de Alcalá to the Puerta del Sol. Another four thousand were reported to have gathered in the plaza de Sant Jaume in Barcelona.

In Sevilla the demonstration was attended by the mother and sisters of the judge – the family come from Jaén in Andalucía. Others gathered in various towns and cities including Málaga, Córdoba, Zaragoza, Murcia, Cáceres, Valladolid, León, Palma de Mallorca, Las Palmas, Santander, Valencia and Gijón.

It was also an international protest. Leading newspapers around the world such as the Financial Times and New York Times have questioned how a judge can face trial for essentially doing his job. So it is no surprise that the Spanish Embassy in Lisbon was the scene of a protest as were the French cities of Paris, Pau, Montpellier and Burdeos with people in Brussels, Buenos Aires and Dublin scheduled to show their support.

It is not only in the case on the crimes of the Franco regime that Garzón has gathered enemies but also in the Gürtel corruption scandal that embroils the opposition Partido Popular. To counter this demonstrators carried banners calling for “democracy” and “justice” in support of the judge as well as demanding more judges like him – plus a hearing of all the evidence in the Gürtel trial.

It is significant that in opposition dozens of people gathered at a Falange Española de las JONS demonstration held at the same time in Madrid – where amongst other claims against Garzón he was accused of being a “mason” who should be sent to prison.

The day after the demonstrations the main political parties in Spain entered the arena. The secretary general of the centre right Partido Popular, María Dolores de Cospedal, accused people who are very close to the socialist government of putting democracy at risk. The PP has again called for the resignation of the Secretary of State for territorial co-operation, Gaspar Zarrías, for supporting one of the previous meetings honouring the judge.

In response the minister of public works and vice secretary general of PSOE, José Blanco, accused the PP of giving “oxygen” to the Falange. Blanco added that whilst the PP defended the independence of the judiciary when it came to the Gürtel case “it persecutes the judges and accuses the police of falsifying evidence” in an effort to escape justice itself.

So now the Garzón case that already had worrying implications for justice and democracy has widened pitting left against right. You don’t have to have a very long memory to know that this is turf Spain had trod before with disastrous consequences.

GRIM BATTLE OVER GAY SEX

Gibraltar is in all sorts of trouble over human rights. It is under attack for its treatment of the Moroccans who work on the Rock, the provision of government housing only for heterosexual couples and the age of consent for Gay sex.

Recently Gibraltar’s Minister of Justice brought a private member’s bill to parliament that would have made the age of consent for homosexual sex, which is currently 18 years, the same as for heterosexual sex at 16.

The bill was defeated with the Chief Minister, Peter Caruana, along with several governing GSD MPs voting against their own minister’s bill. It was brought as a private member’s bill rather than a government one as Caruana had signalled he could not support it on religious grounds. Obviously he couldn’t vote against his own government’s measure.

Now the Gibraltar Government in a statement has said: “It has been said by some that this difference in the age of consent constitutes unlawful sexual discrimination contrary to the European Convention of Human Rights and the Gibraltar Constitution. Both the European Convention of Human Rights and the Gibraltar Constitution bind and oblige the Government, regardless of its views or policy on a particular matter. Given the contrary views that are expressed on this question, and the importance of ensuring that Gibraltar is not seen to be in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights, a situation that would reflect badly on Gibraltar, the Government will itself seek a Declaratory Ruling from the Supreme Court as to whether the present position under our laws is or is not in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights and/or the Gibraltar Constitution.”

It continues: “If having different ages of consent turns out to be unlawful, the Gibraltar Government intends to consult the people of Gibraltar in a referendum as to the various options available for the elimination of differences in the ages of consent, in accordance with the possibility signalled by the Chief Minister in his New Year Address in 2008 to consult in referendum on such matters. The Government expects to initiate the Court proceedings during the next few weeks.”

Now this has not gone done well with the GSLP/Liberal Opposition. Liberal leader, Dr Joseph Garcia said: “The news that the Government is to seek a declaratory ruling from the Supreme Court on the equalisation of the age of consent is a reflection of the seriousness of the split that exists between Government Ministers on this issue.”

On the recent farce in Parliament Garcia observed: “The view of the Minister, who is a lawyer, was that the equalisation of the age of consent in Gibraltar was a legal obligation. The Chief Minister, who is a QC, maintained that it was not necessarily a legal obligation. Mr Montiel, the Minister for Employment, said that he trusted Daniel Feetham’s interpretation of the law and he therefore voted against Caruana.”

He added: “The decision to spend public money in seeking a ruling from the Supreme Court to settle the legal argument between Caruana and Feetham will raise eyebrows in many circles, particularly among those who think that such funds could be better spent elsewhere.”

The opposition says the court’s ruling will have no bearing on its policy on the issue. “We remain fully committed to the principle of implementation of legislation that does not discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. Therefore our policy is that the age of consent in Gibraltar should be the same for all citizens irrespective of their sexual orientation.”

Final word to Dr Garcia: “The only point on which there is room for debate and discussion, as we have already made clear, is at what age such equalisation should take place and that is why the community-wide consultation process that we called for is required. It beggars belief that Mr Caruana, who criticised our call for wider consultation on this specific issue, should now be prepared to call a referendum to settle the matter depending on the ruling of the Court.”

I will return to this subject tomorrow picking up on one of the points made by Dr Garcia.

NO GAY JUSTICE AS MINISTER HUMILIATED

Last week Gibraltar’s Parliament voted on a private member’s bill introduced by the Minister of Justice, Daniel Feetham, on lowering the age of consent for homosexuals. A motion was recently passed by the House allowing the bill to be debated but when the actual vote was taken it was defeated by eight votes to four leaving Feetham humiliated.

Amongst those voting against the bill was the Chief Minister Peter Caruana and two of his ministers plus the opposition. Five members were missing from parliament either on holiday or government business in Guernsey.

The opposition is in favour of lowering the age of consent to 16 years for homosexuals to come in line with that for heterosexuals. However the GSLP and Liberals oppose the bill because they say it is both a poor one and is a private members bill. They argue that if a new law is required as the government states on constitutional grounds then it should be a government initiative and not a private members bill.

This is where politics comes in to play. The Chief Minister Peter Caruana has made it clear that he cannot support the move on religious grounds hence he extended a free vote in a private members bill. If the issue was brought to the house as a government measure then Caruana would be placed in the impossible position of voting against his own administration’s bill.

Gay and wider human rights supporter Peter Tatchell was quick to demand that the Foreign Office should intervene to established an equal age of consent of 16. He stated: “The Government of Gibraltar is required by the European Court of Human Rights to equalise the age of consent for same-sex relationships. The equalisation legislation should have therefore been sponsored by the government and not introduced as a private member’s bill.

“I am very surprised and disappointed that this was a private member’s bill and not a government bill. The government gives the impression that it is trying to evade its responsibility to uphold equality and human rights. “As a British Overseas Territory, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has ultimate responsibility for ensuring Gibraltar’s compliance with human rights law.

“I urge the Foreign Secretary to read the riot act to Gibraltar’s Chief Minister, Peter Caruana. Gibraltar cannot be allowed to evade its human rights obligations.

“The opposition’s vote against the bill gives a bad impression and contradicts its previous support for gay equality. They say it was principled stand against a flawed bill, which had failed to remove offensive legal references to disabled people as ‘imbeciles’, ‘idiots’ and ‘defectives.’ They protest that they were not given adequate parliamentary time to make the necessary amendments.

“The Government of Gibraltar seems intent on scuppering gay equality, with its ham-fisted tactics.

“Why was the legislation suddenly rushed through parliament, when a number of MPs were overseas and when there was insufficient time for a considered debate and amendments?” asked Tatchell?

Indeed apart from the age of consent Gibraltar is also at odds with EU over housing for Gays and its treatment of its Moroccan community.

NOT GAY RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS

The Spanish Queen, the Reina Sofía, has got herself in to hot water with remarks she made to the journalist Pilar Urbano who has written her biography “La Reina muy de cerca”. The book has been timed to coincide with the Queen’s 70 th birthday and what are described as private conversations have apparently found their way in to print.

The main comments that have cause outrage, predictable, concern Gay Rights. According to the Spanish daily, El País, the Queen said:

"Puedo comprender, aceptar y respetar que haya personas con otra tendencia sexual, pero ¿que se sientan orgullosos por ser gays? ¿Que se suban a una carroza y salgan en manifestaciones?"


"Si esas personas quieren vivir juntas, vestirse de novios y casarse, pueden estar en su derecho, o no, según las leyes de su país: pero que a eso no le llamen matrimonio, porque no lo es. Hay muchos nombres posibles: contrato social, contrato de unión."

The Reina Sofía said quite clearly that she understands, accepts and respects people who are Gay. She also accepted that Gays should be able to enter in to stable legal relationships. The fact that she does not feel those relationships should be called marriages is very much in line with her Catholic beliefs. Indeed many of the 1.13 billion Catholics in the world would agree with her.


I know of another consort to a monarch, also curiously from a Greek upbringing, who would probably consider her acceptance of Gays to be an anathema.

Having been employed in the media for most of my working life I have always worked alongside women and Gays - on an equal basis. I have never discriminated against either group and have no time for those who believe one or both groups are inferior to men.


I have no time for Gay rights or any other such movement either.

I believe we are all equal and that we should be treated on an equal basis regardless of our sex, race, colour, age, wealth, religion, politics or sexual orientation. That is the equality I believe in and the equality I have always spoken out for.


I have no time for people who would put down women or Gays. I equally have no time for women or Gays who would put themselves above all others.

I have no time for people or groups that confuse equality with superiority.

The day we stop pandering to those who are only interested in themselves can not come too soon.


Nor can the day come soon enough when we accept true human rights for all – and mean it!