Unravelling Stonewall

// 14 October 2010

Tags:

Stonewall UK, “the lesbian, gay and bisexual charity”, has recently – and not for the first time – found itself the centre of perhaps unwanted attention following a number of controversial statements by its executive chief, Ben Summerskill. The tale over recent weeks has been long and tangled and this post is more of an attempt to unravel it than anything else.

First, Mr Summerskill was reported to have said at a fringe meeting at the Liberal Democrats’ party conference last month that he was opposed to the same sex marriage (SSM) equality policy – which would allow straight and gay couples to have the option of both marriage and civil partnerships – because it could cost up to £5 billion.

To which the Liberal Democrat MP Stephen Gilbert, who proposed the policy, argued that it should not be subject to a cost/benefit analysis and was later reported as saying that “It should not be for me as an MP to lobby Stonewall to support gay equality, it should be for Stonewall to lobby me”.

The exchange was believed by some of those attending to be an argument against SSM by Mr Summerskill although he said he was still consulting with Stonewall supporters about it. The policy was subsequently adopted at the Liberal Democrats’ party conference.

Then, a week later, Mr Summerskill caused another stir at another fringe event, this time at the Labour conference in Manchester, when he attempted to defend Stonewall’s apparent lack of any position on marriage equality. He stated that Stonewall would not be “jumped into” declaring a position on the issue and that there remained a “wide range of viewpoints” on the matter.

At the same meeting a member of LGBT Labour, Darren McCombe, raised the subject of the current legislation enacted in the Gender Recognition Act which requires transsexual women and men to end their marriages in order to obtain full Gender Recognition Certificates. Mr Summerskill acknowledged the “terrible unfairness” of this situation but said he had been in talks with ministers and officials about amendments to the GRA. This sudden and unexpected interest in trans issues by the GLB charity caused an interesting variety of responses from members of various trans communities.

Now it seems that a further controversy is about to erupt following the announcement of the nominees for their 2010 awards. In 2008 there was a groundswell of opposition to Stonewall’s nomination of a journalist known to many TS/TG women and men for her transphobic views, and which culminated in the largest recorded public protest in Britain by TS/TG women and men outside that year’s awards ceremony in London.

Could history be about to repeat itself? I begin to wonder if it might be a possibility, now that the nomination of Bill Leckie for the same Journalist Of The Year Award has been made public. In 2007 Mr Leckie was criticised by, of all people, Stonewall Scotland for his writing on trans issues, which was held up by that organisation as an example of extremely transphobic writing. The following year, 2008, he wrote that those trans people who are convicted of criminal offences should be denied the right to assert their own gender identities.

Stonewall’s deputy chief executive, Laura Doughty, has now attempted to justify the nomination, claiming that it’s for Mr Leckie’s “recent, pro-equality journalism”. It transpires that Mr Leckie wrote an article for The Sun in December 2009 about a sports star which “showed a passionate, powerful defence of LGBT equality in sport”. So apparently just one relevant article in an entire year is enough to qualify Mr Leckie for a nomination for the Journalist Of The Year Award. I can think of a few people who might be somewhat less than impressed by that news.

Be that as it may, it will be interesting, to say the least, to see how this latest controversy continues to develop over the next few weeks as we count down to this year’s Awards Ceremony on November 4th. And for anyone wishing to Demonstrate against Stonewall duplicity and transphobia, there’s a Facebook event page here.

A baying mob, two years ago.

The photo is from 1queer1’s Stonewall Protest photo set and used in compliance with the Creative Commons License for non-commercial use.

Comments From You

Andy Godfrey // Posted 15 October 2010 at 12:11 am

You might be interested in checking out the blog for the “Why the Silence, Stonewall” marriage equality campaign.

In particularly, in case you want to make your feelings known but can’t be there to demonstrate in person, you can see a list of publicly available contact details for Stonewall staff and trustees – plus everyone involved in the Stonewall Awards:

http://whythesilencestonewall.wordpress.com/contact-details-for-stonewall-trusteessenior-staff-and-stonewall-awards-judgesnominees/

Trans Media Watch // Posted 15 October 2010 at 11:07 am

Our official statement:-

Trans Media Watch, the organisation that campaigns for transgender people to be treated in the media with accuracy, dignity and respect, has condemned Stonewall’s decision to nominate Sun journalist Bill Leckie for its Journalist of the Year award.

Bill Leckie is known for his transphobic journalism and has singled out transgender people for ridicule on more than one occasion. Ironically, he has previously been criticised for this in a report by Stonewall Scotland.

Last year, Stonewall was heavily criticised by transgender organisations and equality campaigners for its nomination of Julie Bindel for the same award. Its supporters argued that it does not cover transgender issues but focuses exclusively on campaigning for the rights of gay, lesbian and bisexual people. Whilst Trans Media Watch understands, it still considers these nominations inappropriate for an organisation with an interest in equality. Would Stonewall be equally willing to nominate a gay-friendly journalist who had expressed racist views?

A recent symposium on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues in the media, ‘Reflecting Diversity’, celebrated the progress made in the treatment of issues around sexuality, yet noted that there has been very little progress on transgender issues. At a time when a number of major media organisations are working together with Trans Media Watch to improve this situation, Stonewall’s nomination of Mr Leckie is a decidedly retrograde step.

Trans Media Watch hopes that Stonewall will acknowledge its error and remove Mr Leckie from the list of nominees for this year’s award.

Helen G // Posted 15 October 2010 at 11:15 am

Thanks for that. And apologies for pedantry, but it wasn’t last year that we protested one of the nominees, it was in 2008. (The third paragraph of your statement refers)

Jen // Posted 15 October 2010 at 2:33 pm

Saw this at yours and I’m glad you cross-posted it here. I’m blogging about it in detail (in progress – I’m way busy!) but just wanted to say as a sort of a B, tangentially L, possibly other letters of the alphabet soup of sexuality and gender marginalisation, I find it pretty insulting that an organisation supposedly standing up for the rights of vulnerable people is instead pulling off this massively dodgy PR work in their names.

That’s all Stonewall really seem to do, give accolades to people who are traditionally bigotted as soon as they show they’re slightly less so on one particular topic (or they make an effort to be ‘inclusive’, which actually is incredibly dodgy). It’s kind of a theme with Stonewall.

To be honest – this is why civil rights should not be left to private concerns, charities, and the third sector (in fact, they’re not, it’s just that the difficult ground work is done at a generally more anonymous, less glamourous level covering a range of more mundane and technical subjects, the marriage/partnership question being a good example of that).

This is really another example (with Anji’s post on RTN) of an organisation we shouldn’t be thankful for or allow to organise in our ‘best interest’ purely in exchange for holding onto a few bourgeois privileges that everyone does not have access to.

But anyway, all of the comments so far are very serious and professional and I don’t want to go off on a big commie rant.

angercanbepower // Posted 16 October 2010 at 6:23 am

Grrr, I just don’t understand how Stonewall continue to get away with it.

P.S. I’m in that photo!

Have Your say

To comment, you must be registered with The F-Word. Not a member? Register. Already a member? Use the sign in button below

Sign in to the F-Word

Further Reading

Has The F-Word whet your appetite? Check out our Resources section, for listings of feminist blogs, campaigns, feminist networks in the UK, mailing lists, international and national websites and charities of interest.

Write for us!

Got something to say? Something to review? News to discuss? Well we want to hear from you! Click here for more info

  • The F-Word on Twitter
  • The F-Word on Facebook
  • Our XML Feeds