In my Inbox today... How SOME men amuse themselves Tesco Shopping!

In my Inbox today... proof of what can happen if a wife or girlfriend drags her husband or boyfriend along shopping!

This letter was actually (apparently) sent by Tesco's Head Office to a customer in Oxford :

Dear Mrs. Murray,

Whilst we would like to thank you for your valued custom and use of the Tesco Loyalty Card, the Manager of our store in Banbury is considering banning you and your family from shopping with us, unless your husband stops his antics.

Below is a list of his actions over the past few months all verified by our surveillance cameras:

1. June 15: Took 24 boxes of condoms and randomly put them in people's trolleys when they weren't looking.

2. July 2: Set all the alarm clocks in Housewares to go off at 5 minute intervals.

3. July 7: Made a trail of tomato juice on the floor leading to feminine products aisle.

4. July 19: Walked up to an employee and told her in an official tone, 'Code 3' in housewares... and watched what happened.

5. August 14: Moved a 'CAUTION - WET FLOOR' sign to a carpeted area.

6. September 15: Set up a tent in the outdoor clothing department and told shoppers he'd invite them in if they would bring sausages and a Calorgas stove.

7. September 23: When the Deputy Manager asked if she could help him, he began to cry and asked, 'Why can't you people just leave me alone?'

8.. October 4: Looked right into the security camera; used it as a mirror, picked his nose, and ate it.

9. October 10: While appearing to be choosing kitchen knives in the Housewares aisle asked an assistant if he knew where the antidepressants were.

10. November 3: Darted around the store suspiciously, loudly humming the Mission Impossible' theme.

11.November 6: In the kitchenware aisle, practised the 'Madonna look' using different size funnels.

12. November 18: Hid in a clothing rack and when people browsed, yelled' PICK ME!' 'PICK ME!'

13. November 21: When an announcement came over the loudspeaker, assumed the foetal position and screamed 'NO! NO! It's those voices again.'

And; last, but not least:

14. November 23: Went into a fitting room, shut the door, waited a while; then yelled, very loudly, 'There is no toilet paper in here.

Gibraltar's Gay age of consent and California ruling on gay marriage on Proposition 8

As you may have read in Gibraltar's local media, a Bill to equalise the age of consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals, by setting this at 16, the age that already applies for heterosexuals and lesbians, was heard in the Gibraltar Parliament recently.

Daniel Feetham, the Minister for Justice, took the unusual step of bringing a motion asking for leave to introduce a Private Members’ Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Offences Act.

There is overwhelming international legal and local constitutional pressure to implement equalisation although the issue is untested in the local courts.

The Equality Rights Group GGR welcomed the Bill:

"After nine years of GGR raising the public debate on sexual minorities in Gibraltar, we are pleased to see that Parliament has finally considered the question of age of consent inequality currently in force."

I was pleased to see the Bill has been passed to proceed to a formal reading of a Bill in Parliament.

As GGR Chairman Felix Alvarez recently said:

"Whilst Government has failed to introduce the debate as a public Bill on what, after all, is a public issue and instead, preferred to rely on one of its own members in a purely private capacity, it has, nonetheless passed the motion to proceed on the formal reading of a Bill to equalise the legislation. This, in effect, falls short of Government’s legal requirement to comply with what is unarguably an international law obligation and not, as they have argued, a mere question of ‘conscience'."

As Brian Reyes concluded when referring to a recent 'Child Porn' case, "Time for the legislators to get moving on this…swiftly, methinks", there's much to be done to bring legislation in these and other matters concerning human rights and anti-discrimination in Gibraltar, to international and European law standards!

Gay age of consent: Is 16 too young?

Back in March this year, Peter Caruana, Gibraltar's Chief Minister indicated that the Government was likely to be obliged to make the age of consent the same for heterosexuals and gays, although he expressed his own moral disagreement with this, saying that "young people have enough pressure on them at that stage of life". He did however concede that the 'leveling' is likely to happen. The 'great unspoken', as the Chronicle recently described this, is that it is expected that Peter Caruana, a devout Catholic who nonetheless backed the original decriminalisation of gay sex, may refrain from backing the substantive bill, which includes this issue of 'age of consent' when it goes before Parliament.

There's no question that this is a difficult moral issue and it's no surprise that emotions have been running high in Gibraltar over the issue of age of consent... and not just for gay males!

The Gibraltar Women’s Association have been arguing that the age of consent for sex should be 18 for men and women.

Back in January this year, responding to correspondence in the Gibraltar Chronicle the GWA were critical of the GGR lobbying of the Council of Europe. In a statement the GWA said they "wholeheartedly" agreed with a letter to the newspaper from Andrew Mifsud (10th January 2008 in the Gibraltar Chronicle).

"Mr Mifsud may be ‘bewildered’ but we are absolutely ‘flabbergasted’.

The Gibraltar Women’s Association is not a minority group as is the GGR and Mr Alvarez has no right to fight for rights which the majority of women in Gibraltar (including lesbians) have not asked for or want.

If a heterosexual couple consent to buggery it is their own decision and nobody needs to know!"

The GWA added that the fact that this is illegal "protects women who do not consent to anal sex"! Hmmm... Well, I'm no lawyer, but I would have thought, surely that issue is adequately covered in rape and sexual abuse laws in Gibraltar... and bears very little on the question of age of consent for gays?

Referring to Mr Alvarez the GWA further stated that "in any case, it is already legal between consenting males over the age of 18 so we fail to see what his problem is and why he feels the need to involve the Council of Europe in this matter".

I would respectfully suggest to the ladies of the GWA, that Mr Alvarez's 'problem' is probably not far removed from the same concerns on Mr Feetham's mind. In a recent interview with Paco Oliva, Daniel Feetham, Gibraltar's Minister for Justice, was asked, "why couldn’t you have raised the age of consent to 18"?

This question for me is the critical question in this entire debate.

I believe that when people who support the principle of equalisation come to consider the consequences they will rapidly come to the conclusion that it would be very much harder to obtain a social consensus to increase the age of consent to 18. For a start it would also take Gibraltar in the opposite direction of travel to the rest of Europe in respect of these matters. Strongly Catholic countries have equal ages of consent below 16. That includes Spain at 13, Italy at 14, France at 15 and Portugal at 16. Of the Council of Europe members only Turkey, the Ukraine and with some exceptions Malta have ages of consent set at 18.

But consider the practical and legal difficulties. The age of consent for heterosexual and lesbians has been 16 since at least 1888 when an Ordinance was passed to protect “women and girls” and the legal age at which people can get married in Gibraltar has been 16 for decades. Lets be clear about it, the main motivating factor behind an increase of the age of consent to 18 would be in order to avoid lowering the age of consent for homosexual intercourse. Is that right? Consider, for example, the position of a 17-year old in a steady relationship who now found that his or her ability to have heterosexual intercourse had been curtailed in order to prevent the lowering of the age of homosexual intercourse.

It would also be necessary to raise the age at which people can get legally married. Consider also the bizarre situation that would arise if a 16 or 17 year old married girl were faced with the situation that the age of consent is raised to 18 or the case of young married couple (possibly a serviceman married to a 17 year old girl) coming to Gibraltar from Great Britain where the age of consent is 16. What should we do? Require them to refrain from having sexual intercourse whilst in Gibraltar, or would there be a two-tier system of a different sort whereby they would be exempt from prosecution whilst locals would be liable to prosecution for having sexual intercourse! Do we carve out exceptions for people who are married? What about those who are not married whose relationships are being interfered with retrospectively?

In all these cases people could complain that, under Article 8 of the Convention, their private life had been interfered with, and that raising the age of consent was neither proportionate nor necessary for the protection of their health or morals."

It is quite clear, despite the somewhat over alarmist worries expressed, with good intent I'm sure, by the GWA, that the equalisation of age of consent is the right thing to do.... and the sooner Mr Feetham's motion is passed to law, the better.

Age of Consent - Facebook Group

A Facebook Group has been set up in the hope of obtaining the views of young people in Gibraltar. This is what it asks:

The Women's Association of Gibraltar is asking for the age of sexual consent to be increased from 16 to 18. This means anyone under 18 who has sex will come under the criminal law.

Do you agree? Will this criminalise a lot of young people? Will it lead to increasing shame and a greater generational gap between children and parents?

The Gibraltar Chronicle has carried a lot of criticism of people who want the age of consent between gays and straights equalised. The only voice that is missing is that of the young people themselves. So - should young Gibraltarians make their thoughts heard in the media?

You can visit the Facebook Group here: Age of Consent - Gibraltar

Proposition 8 - Restrictions On Same Sex Marriage

From one Chronicle to another... tonight, the San Francisco Chronicle is reporting the state Supreme Court ruling today, that California voters legally outlawed same-sex marriage when they approved the Proposition 8 amendment in November, but the constitutional amendment did not dissolve the union of 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who wed before the measure took effect.

The 6-1 decision was issued by the same court that declared a year ago that a state law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman violated the right to choose one's spouse and discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.

Prop. 8 undid that ruling. The author of last year's 4-3 decision, Chief Justice Ronald George, said today that the voters were within their rights to approve a constitutional amendment redefining marriage to include only male-female couples.

I'm sad to hear this. I agree with Ellen DeGeneres the twelve-time Emmy Award-winning American stand-up comedienne, television hostess and Hollywood actress, who has strongly campaigned against the Proposition 8 amendment ever since it was proposed. She was "saddened" by the passing of the original ban on same-sex marriage in California.

The talk show host, who is married to Hollywood actress Portia Rossi, recently said that by electing Obama America has taken a giant step forward toward equality but with the Proposition 8 amendment "took a giant step" backwards. She recently quoted Keith Olbermann on msnbc.com, who she thought was "very eloquent and brilliant when he said:

"To me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it."

Ellen added:

"What he said is all that needs to be said. It really is just about following your heart and people paying attention to what the right thing is!

This (the movement) needs for people to not be ignorant. It needs for people to open their minds and understand that it (same sex marriage) is a fundamental right: people need to be allowed to love who they want to love and marry who they want to marry. I don't know what it's going to take, but I have faith that people will realize that this is wrong."

Today's ruling... is a sad indictment on that hope.. and of love and people's humanity. It's about the right to love who you want and to marry whoever you happen to love!

At least, the the ruling does not affect the 18,000 who did manage to get married, before this amendment came into effect!

In concluding this blog post... just for the record... (and in no way apologetically) I will add that I am not gay! I'm just a simple male heterosexual who cares for and loves his fellow man... male, female, gay, lesbian or whatever they happen to choose as their sexual preference!

In my Inbox today... sound advice for men in relationships with women

Nine words (or phrases) women use... that men should not be confused by!






(1) Fine: This is the word women use to end an argument when they are right and you need to shut up!

(2) Five Minutes: If she is getting dressed, this means a half an hour. Five minutes is only five minutes if you have just been given five more minutes to watch the game before helping around the house!

(3) Nothing: This is the calm before the storm. 'Nothing'... actually means something... and you should be on your toes. Arguments that begin with nothing usually end in 'fine'!

(4) Go Ahead: This is a dare, not a permission. My advice... Don't Do It!

(5) Loud Sigh: This is actually a word, but is a non-verbal statement often misunderstood by men. A loud sigh means she thinks you are an idiot and wonders why she is wasting her time standing here and arguing with you about nothing.. (Refer back to # 3 for the meaning of nothing).

(6) That's Okay: This is one of the most dangerous statements a woman can make to a man. 'That's okay' means she wants to think long and hard before deciding how and when you will pay dearly for your mistake.

(7) Thanks: A woman is thanking you. Do not question or faint. Just say "you're welcome". (I want to add in a clause here - This is true, unless she says 'Thanks a lot' - that is PURE evil sarcasm and she is not thanking you at all. DO NOT say 'you're welcome' as that will only bring on a 'whatever' - see below).

(8) Whatever: Is a woman's way of saying... F--- YOU!!

(9) Don't worry about it, I'll do it!: Another dangerous statement... meaning this is something that a woman has told a man to do several times, but is now having to do herself. Very dangerous. This will later result in a man asking 'What's wrong?' (For the woman's response... refer to # 3).

Now... click on 'SHARE' below... and send this to the every man you know... to warn them about arguments they can avoid if they remember these simple words and phrases that women use... and their terminology!

You can also send this to all the women you know (but are not in a relationship with) to give them a good laugh, because they know it's ALL true!!!

Gibraltar Appeal court ruling on homosexual couples is shameful

I am totally bemused by a Gibraltar Court of Appeal ruling yesterday, that the Gibraltar Government was legally entitled to protect the ‘traditional family’ by favouring heterosexual married couples in the allocation of state-owned housing!

Two local lesbians failed in a legal bid to convince Gibraltar’s highest court that Government housing policy discriminates against homosexual couples.

The case dates back over three years and stems from a decision by the Housing Allocation Committee to refuse the couple joint tenancy of a Government flat, even though the women were in long-term, monogamous and loving relationship.

Under Gibraltar law, only parents, spouses and children can be included in a Government tenancy agreement.

Lawyers said that left the two women at a disadvantage because, unlike heterosexuals, they could not marry and had no way of meeting the criteria for joint tenancy of a Government-owned flat.

Last December the Supreme Court rejected claims that the Government's refusal to offer the couple joint tenancy housing amounted to a breach of the couple’s fundamental Constitutional and human rights.

Acting Chief Justice Anthony Dudley also dismissed a separate argument that a same-sex couple should be afforded equality under common law to a married couple of the opposite sex.

The couple appealed the decision but yesterday the Court of Appeal agreed, by a majority of two to one, with Mr Justice Dudley's earlier ruling in December last year.

However, the Gibraltar Chronicle report said "the judgment yesterday fell short of an unequivocal victory for the Gibraltar Government" with "one clear voice of dissent".

The Appeal was heard by three senior UK judges, Sir William Aldous, Sir Paul Kennedy and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith, the President of the Court of Appeal.

The 'clear voice of dissent' was that of Sir William Aldous, who was clearly far more 'learned' than his colleagues. Sir William agreed with the couple and even went as far as describing the Government policy as "illegal"!

In a 33-page Judgment, Sir Paul Kennedy said that "... the preference which (the Government policy) gave to married couples was a positive preference of a kind which the law regards as acceptable in circumstances such as these, and which did not require further justification."

He was backed in that view by Sir Murray Stuart-Smith, the President of the Court of Appeal, who said that marriage was widely accepted in legal precedent as an institution that conferred particular status.

"There is no analogy between married couples and couples who remain unmarried, whether by choice in the case of heterosexual couples or because they are unable to marry in the case of homosexual partners.

The protection of the ‘traditional family’ is in principle a legitimate aim of domestic legislation."

Well, maybe so... and I would not disagree with these basic principles. I think protecting the 'traditional family' is a good basic principle for any country's domestic legislation... but so is protecting against homophobia and Governments (or anyone) discriminating against people on the grounds of sexual orientation! Which is why both the UK and the European Union laws disallow discrimination of this kind on those grounds!

I'm no lawyer... but it seems to me that this ruling flies in the face of both!

Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects against discrimination based on a number of criteria including sex. The ECHR has also been incorporated into the laws of the United Kingdom by the Human Rights Act 1998

So how can two UK judges sitting on a Court of Appeal in Gibraltar rule in favour of the Government in this instance??

Frankly, I find this judgment very disappointing and I simply cannot understand it!

The Gibraltar Chronicle report concludes that "for now at least, the decision brings to a close a case that could have set a landmark precedent for gay rights in Gibraltar"... but I for one very much hope that this issue is not allowed to rest here.

Following the Gibraltar Appeal Court ruling, Gibraltar's Equality Rights Group GGR criticised the Gibraltar Government for "wasteful use of taxpayers' money in pursuing court actions which, in the end, it will have to go back on".

Equality Rights Group Chairman, Felix Alvarez said "the vast majority of Europeans today consider the kind of treatment being meted out by the Housing Allocations Committee to same-sex couples as unfair and unacceptable".... and I am one of those Europeans!

In his statement, the Equality Rights Group Chairman said:

"While government spends many thousands of pounds in preventing a gay couple from being able to occupy one flat jointly instead of being allocated two separate housing units as a couple of long-standing, they know as well as we do, that the EU will be introducing binding law which will make discrimination in housing illegal on the grounds of sexual orientation.

In other words, government will have no choice in the matter in a few years’ time.

The Caruana government continues to pour big money into the defence of a position it is doomed to lose.

What kind of reasoning is this when not so long ago we were being told by the Minister for Justice that the access of ordinary citizens to Legal Aid had to be re-defined and curtailed in order to save money?

Something somewhere just does not fit in what appears, more and more, to be a government policy led by prejudice and homophobia.

The rulings of the Courts must be respected at all times. However, judgments are subject to further appeal. GGR will continue to support this and any other same-sex individual or couple with a just cause in discrimination to take their complaint as far as the law permits.

In this case, we look forward to the Court of Appeal’s recent ruling being overturned either by the Privy Council in the UK, or by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. We are confident this will turn out to be so. And even if it isn’t, in a few years’ time we will still live to see government obliged to change its policy by law, whether the present administration likes it or not. The only shame is that government should still insist on wasting citizens’ money.”

Protecting 'traditional family values'?

Whilst I might share Felix's concern over the Government's wasting of tax payers' money to a degree, I am far more concerned with the more shameful aspect of all this, which is a Government relentless in its obstructive policy, discriminating against two human beings on the grounds of their sexual orientation! Shameful!

If the Gibraltar Government is genuinely interested in protecting 'traditional family values' (whatever those may be), they might do better by looking into protecting against and restraining the amount of domestic violence, physical, sexual, psychological and / or financial violence that prevails in Gibraltar... a society that continually turn a blind eye and brushes under the carpet, far more concerning issues within the Sanctity of Marriage... which brings 'traditonal family values' far more into question, than a same sex couple wanting to share their lives under a joint roof ever will!

Express your view - Vote in our Poll:

Is the Gibraltar Government Housing Policy discriminating unfairly on the grounds of sexual orientation?

	Yes
	No
	Don't know
	Don't care
pollcode.com free polls