Scottish politico John Charteris attempted – and failed – to stop a £31,500 public grant from benefiting a gay community center. Some may think that conservative values motivated Charteris’ move, but he says he objected to the center’s social specificity: “I don’t think we should be funding organizations which are exclusive – I like funding ones which are inclusive for everybody.” Intriguing argument. And one with which we’re almost tempted to agree. [BBC]
Valid?
Help make sure LGBTQ+ stories are being told...
We can't rely on mainstream media to tell our stories. That's why we don't lock Queerty articles behind a paywall. Will you support our mission with a contribution today?
Cancel anytime · Proudly LGBTQ+ owned and operated
CitizenGeek
Just as there are organisations that deal with women, and children, and black people, and Muslims etc., I think there needs to be funded organisations that deal with gay people, too.
Plus, I’m pretty sure that excuse is just thinly veiled homophobia on his part; politicians of a certain ilk will say anything to avoid helping out the gays 🙂
abracadaver
If Mr. Charteris has objected in the past to the funding of other “group specific” organizations, thereby showing that he isn’t just doing this to be discriminatory against LGBT persons, then I am not only in agreement with him but applaud his stance.
If, however, there is no evidence of him previously withholding his support for other “group specific” organizations, then I agree with CitizenGeek. Hopefully, if this is the case, some detail-oriented activist will expose his potential hypocrisy.
leomoore
It is essentially the same argument made by some politicians in the U.S. such as Kern in Kansas. Personally, I’m all for inclusiveness, but perhaps some sort of documentation could be provided showing these otherwise heterosexual lads had seriously considered performing fellatio or that some of the good, straight Scottish lasses were willing to graze the shrubbery.
oakling
Yeah – it seems valid until you realize that in artfully arguing for funding things that EVERYONE can use, he’s saying let’s not fund social services for low-income people, or LGBT centers, or… continue listing as you see fit. I work for an organization that provides drug and alcohol abuse counseling for teens 12-20, and has an LGBT group which puts on a huge Gay Prom each year that people come to from around the country – I can only imagine where THAT would fit into his little argument.