The charges the publishers face are caused by their continuing publication of gay small ads. The case appears to be similar in many ways to the International Times case, which the three defendants lost.
NEW YORK/LONDON: Gays are coming in for some strange slaggings from the press. A rash of gay gunmen seems to be spreading almost as fast as Arab terrorists. In the first place, fresh evidence suggests that John Wojtowicz, the “gay” gunman in the Flatbush, New York, raid that started it all, who was not shot by the police, was a Mafia gunman anyway.
Originally John and Salvatore Naturale were said to have raided the Chase Manhattan Bank in Flatbush, Brooklyn, after being tipped off by someone they met in a gay bar that there was going to be $200,000 there.
In fact the $200,000 was taken from the bank almost four hours before John and Naturale raided the place, leaving about $29,000 in the vaults.
So the “gay” gunmen grabbed what cash there was and the staff when police cars screeched up, summoned by secret signals.
That was when the ordinary, everyday Brooklyn bank-raid became a curio for the world’s press. For, despite Salvatore Naturale’s denial that he was gay, the raid was dubbed “Gay Gunmen” by the world’s press because John demanded that his gay spouse Ernest Aron was released from mental hospital, as one condition of the raiders’ setting free the bank employees.
Ernest was brought along by the cops, looking a lot the worse from having just recovered from an overdose of sleeping tablets, and the hormones he’d been taking in preparation for the sex-change operation he’s promised himself.
The question remains: what was a gay Vietnam war veteran doing holding up a bank in Flatbush N.Y.?
Captain Nemo of I.T. suggests that the Mafia, who have had a running battle with the Chase Manhattan Bank used John to carry out its latest raid on the bank.
In fact, Nemo alleges that it was when Ernest found that the Mafia had sent John one of the guns used in the raid that he took the sleepers.
The Mafia boss said to be behind it all was Mike Umbers, the mob’s head of exploitation of gays. The senior Mafia men behind the raid should have got $75,000 to $100,000. The rest should have gone to the five bank-robbers, three of whom chickened out.
The “gay gunmen” raid leaves gays in New York wondering just how the whole caper relates to gay liberation and what they can do about the fact that virtually every New York gay bar is controlled by the Mafia.
Meanwhile London gays are angry at the Evening Stadard’s follow-up gay raid headline.
The Standard reported that four men snatched several thousand pounds from Barclays Bank, Knightsbridge Green.
The paper’s story mentioned that one of the bank-raiders wore pink gloves.
The headline was “Gay bandits raid bank” There was no mention made in the story of the raiders’ sexual preferences, only of their taste in gloves.
Much love and thanks to International Times – whoops, I.T., for allowing us to pinch their scoop.
LONDON: Kensington police sent out an inspector early the other day to make sure the newsagents on their patch weren’t selling anything naughty, so Gay News went under the counter at several newsagents, even though the paper is on no-one’s list of proscribed publications.
The National Newsagents’ Association has told its members to be cautious about displaying Oz Comix, Curious Male, In Depth and several other publications, but not IT, which currently has a phallic front cover, or GN.
All the same, after the visit from the Kensington police heavy whose job seems to go through newsagents’ magazine racks, some of the newspapers that are as yet unaffected by any back lash action have disappeared from police sight to be sold on request only.
The seller the police arrested was Leslie Twycross. Galsgow’s Provost is reading all three papers to see if there’s anything worth busting him any more on.
Earlier this year a Black Box seller was arrested for selling IT and another alternative paper. The provost could find nothing wrong with them.
You have made a notable contribution to the moral health of your countries. “International News” is ever so national.
Gazing out of my cottage the other day, I saw what I took to be a painted harlot approaching the cottage. But something was dangling from her, something suspiciously like a truncheon.
I removed myself with deftness via the opposite end of the cottage only to see another painted human. Also, his Inspector had not inspected him. His glossy hair was depressed in a positive circle, indicating years of helmet-wearing. No need to look at his feet. The painted harlot now leered bewitchingly from the cottage enticing me to return. “No,” I said in my innocence: “Flirt with the one inside there.”
A voice, high and lacking resonance, surprised me as it whispered in my ear: “Take care, they’re cops, ducks. It’s the newest police game. You don’t have to do anything. Just be in there and two cops will swear your life away.”
“You know them?” I asked. “You can’t know all of them” the high-pitched whisper replied. “But what if I want to piss?” I asked.
“Makes no difference, ducks,” he answered with manly confidence: “You can’t have an honest piss anywhere. It’s government policy, police policy, House of Lords policy. That’s why so many people have made the atavistic plunge back over time and are pissing in the streets. I mean, like, it’s a bit stiff, twenty-five pounds a squirt. Even women don’t pay a penny now. So it’s full drag, burst your bleedin’ bladder, or piss in the street. But they do say the rear offside wheel of something is legal. Why, there’s a police car standing unattended over there.”
My kind friend went on the path of duty.
Your lordships will be delighted to know that the tiled palaces will continue to remain sterile and constantly, frequently, frequented only by those overstretched coppers – now painted.
Do take care how you pass this round, even in the Lords Cottage. A bit of ermine may well conceal a copper. Other devices are misleading. One is actually a truncheon.
Rule Britannia, Love and kisses,
To Their Noble Lordships
- Morris of Borth-y-Gest
- Simon of Gladale
The Attorney General in The House of Commons
“Prosecutors must carry out their duty. It is their duty to enforce the law,” Sir Peter Rawlinson, the Attorney General, spelled it out. “Prosecutors do not make the law. Very many people are very alive to any failure by the prosecution to enforce the law.
“But accordingly, if people produce advertisements by males or by females advertising their wares, calling for partners, reciting the terms upon which they will associate, describing their particular tastes or giving ways of communicating one with another, these at present are offences against the criminal law.”
Gay News wonders how this relates to lonely hearts ads in magazines like Time Out, and still more to the computer dating firms – what about the ads on the tube trains?
Referring to the International Times case in 1969, Sir Peter said “…the then Attorney General had to consider advertisements by males, the kind of advertisement that contained wording such as ‘Dolly Boy Seeks Sugar Daddy’ and so on. The then Attorney General”…had discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions and a prosecution was launched because it was held, and the courts affirmed, that publication of these male advertisements was on all fours with the Shaw case, which involved advertisements for female prostitutes.”
This was the celebrated Ladies’ Directory case in 1960, when a man called Shaw published a guide, with addresses and telephone numbers, in which Soho prostitutes bought space. He was convicted and Lord Simonds, giving judgement, said: “In the sphere of criminal law there remains in the Courts of Law a residual power to enforce the supreme and fundemental purpose of the law, to conserve not only the safety and order but also the moral welfare of the state, and it is our duty to guard it against attacks which might be all the more insidious because they are novel and unprepared for.”
Lord Reid, however dissented “There are wide differences of opinion as to how far the law ought to punish immoral acts which are not done in the face of the public. Parliament is the proper, and the only proper, place to settle that. Where Parliament fears to tread, it is not for the Courts to rush in…”
The noble Lord Reid has received a lot of support for this statement (see ‘Half A Loaf’ story in Gay News No.3), but Lord Simonds asked another question which forecast the I.T. case: “Would it not be an offence if, even without obscenity, such practices were publicly advocated and encouraged by pamphlet and advertisement.”
Some people, including the police and, apparently, the DPP’s department, seem to support Lord Simonds, as recent victimisation shows.
These statements were quoted by Mr William Hamling, MP (Woolwich West) who raised the matter in the House. Mr Hamling is a brave and trusted watchdog for the freedom of the press and the arts, and a witty attacker upon those who whitehouse (verb.act.).
Mr.Hamling went on to refer to the Attorney General’s reply to a Bernard Levin article in the Times, on the question of the assurances given in Parliament when the Sexual Offences bill was being discussed. “The Attorney General’s statement refers to assurances given in 1964, that publishers would not be prevented from pleading the defence of public good when charged with publishing an obscene article. The assurances given did not apply where the essence of the offence was incitement to commit homosexual acts rather than the publication of an obscene article
“… I should like to direct his (the A.G.) attention to the debate in another place when Baroness Wootton (proposing a Lord’s amendment to the Sexual Offences Bill) moved a new clause specifically on this matter of conspiracy. The new clause read: ‘Conspiracy. It shall not be an offence to conspire or attempt to commit a homosexual act which by virtue of this Act (the 1967 Act) not in itself an offence.’
“The noble Lady went on specifically to refer to the Ladies Directory case and said:
‘We are still a little disturbed by the possible consequences of the Ladies Directory case, and the words used in that case … (she quoted Lord Simonds, as above)… (he) is there referring to conspiracy in a rather wider sense than my amendment, which refers only to the conspiracy to perform the act as distinct from advertising or flaunting it.”
Lord Stoneham, replying to Baroness Wootton, gave some assurances, but Mr Hamling, and others, have doubts as to what these actually meant, and the point is crucial to our freedom. Mr Hamling: “This prosecution (I.T.) and this whole question of what assurances were given raise some very great difficulties about an Act which permits things to take place which some people may consider to be immoral or offensive in the deepest sense, and yet the law says that these acts arc legal and are permitted. The question arises as to how far reference to these acts may be regarded as a public affront. There are grave difficulties about this – about homosexuals meeting, about arrangements that homosexuals may make in order to meet, particularly bearing in mind other sexual acts between heterosexuals which may follow meetings which can be advertised and which nobody seems to worry much about.”
Well set out out, Mr Hamling! Sir Peter, concluding his reply, set out the opposing view equally clearly; “(The I.T.case) was a proper case under the criminal law, as I explained in the Shaw case … the jury convicted, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the House of Lords upheld the conviction by four to one. There was in that case exactly what existed in the Shaw case, a public affront, namely the publication of advertisements by the persons seeking particular sexual services – in the Shaw case involving women and in the International Times case involving men.
”… I repeat, finally, that this being the law, it is the duty of the DPP, the police authorities and the Attorney General of the day to enforce the law as it is interpreted by the judges. It is their duty to see that that is done, and they must not be dissuaded from that because it may be the opinion of certain persons that the law ought to be changed.”
Not so much changed, as disregarded perhaps. I make no apology tor setting out the debate at such length – if we are to act constructively, we must be informed fully of the attitudes of the opposition.
It still seems, as Raymond Fletcher said on an earlier occasion, that the judges are trying to make the laws, whatever Sir Peter Rawlinson says about the omniscience of Parliament. We must note too, the equation of homosexual activities with prostitution (remember the Dangerous Doctor Rubens?), and the assumptions being made that all homosexual contact ads are for prostitution, while heterosexuals are not subjected to any such blanket condemnation.
As you will see on page three, Gay News went to the House of Commons to discuss the House of Lords’ decision in the International Times case with MPs and other interested people. Immediately the formal meeting ended, the seated rows broke up into absorbed small groups talking over all the aspects of the subject. These informal discussions went on until closing time in the St. Stephens Tavern, and Gay News talked to everyone. “This”, said the MP who organised the meeting, “is the real value of all these gas-works get-togethers.”
He is right — there was a thousand times more real communication in these informal talks than in the whole ‘get-the-attention-of-the-chairman-if-you-can-game’ we all sat through first. The important question is – why waste time playing these games? Apart from speech-making addicts, professional chairmen, and people who ease their liberal consciences by attending meetings and sitting silent, who really thinks that anything worthwhile is achieved by the submitting-your-question-in-proper-form game, or that old fun-trip, going-through-the-proper-channels?
Gay News tries to play only the minimum number of these games, those essential to getting the paper out – with the bank, for example, and the GPO. (Have you played what-to-do-if-your-telephone-is-being-tapped? Can anyone tell us the rules?) We deal as efficiently as possibly with these conventional business procedures, because the paper must be printed, paid for and distributed, but we waste no time on ‘correct’ business procedures, and even less on ‘correct’ business people, who seem to think it essential that a letter should sit on their desks for weeks before being attended to. Gay News belongs to everyone who reads it and works for it – and we make the decisions.
The point is that we think as individuals, and work as a group, without outside control. This gives us a ready answer to a recent Evening Standard editorial, referring to the printers’ strike (issue July 28): “What is the matter with the newspaper industry? Why was it not only the first but the only industry to shutdown for five days at a time of grave national crisis? Why do so many people who work in this industry – the highest paid in the country – seem to care so little about their work and their role in society that they are ready to withdraw their labour with such apparent indifference to the effects of their actions? … The loss of goodwill to the papers was vast, as advertisers and readers alike were driven to another means of communication.” We know what our work is; we chose it. And our role in society, whatever it is, is not that of a small cog in a large profit-making machine. And that last sentence quoted answers the Standard’s own question: what is wrong with the industry is that the advertisers come first, the money men – before the readers, and way ahead of those who actually do the work, including in most instances the journalists as well as the print workers.
As a fortnightly paper, we were not affected by the strike – (it was nice to see a paper rack in a straight newsagents displaying Gay News prominently, in the space usually occupied by The Times!). We may even have reached a few unsuspecting non-gay people: “Gay News No. 3? I’ll take double this time, love,” said a friendly newsman in High Street Ken. “Sold out the last one – well, people had to read something!” Sales of issue three are already up on the previous two – how long before we can increase our print order? We need more subscribers, more outlets, more workers, and more money, but we’re here, and we’re busy communicating. Every time you buy a copy, every letter and article you send us is part of the individual communication pattern we are building. Everyone we talk to about the gay world, every story we research, is another step towards breaking the barriers which keep gay people in hiding and the rest of the world in ignorance of the truth about homosexuals. It is on this level, with individuals telling it like it is, that progress is being made towards liberation (in the true sense of the word, not just as a slogan).
We know, too, that we must live with the imperfect present situation – one day, we won’t need to find each other through personal ads, but as things are now, this kind of contact is the only way for many gays. This is why we carry small ads, and we shall continue to do so. Another handicap we must fight is the different fears we all have of one kind or another. Some gays cannot tell their families; many fear police harassment, or victimisation at work; the activities of gay libbers who have ‘come out’ scare a lot of people, while those who are ‘out’ face daily hostility from the ignorant and cruel (who are often frightened and unsure of themselves). What we must learn and learn to rely on as a community, is that we have weapons with which to defend ourselves; there are ways of educating ourselves and those who misunderstand us; and, with a lot of help from our friends, the obstacles in our path can be overcome. The success or failure of Gay News depends on the individuals involved in the paper, and we all know it – how about extending this belief in individual responsibility and group co-operation to a few more of the situations we as homosexuals have to face? No one is ever going to find an easy solution to the problems of conditioning and ignorance which we face, and no doctors, or sociologists, or MPs, will ever solve the problems for us. We are the people who know the truth and, difficult though it is, we must make the attempt to communicate it.
Obviously, you can’t do things you are not into, and every individual must decide on his or her own action – but we must work out where we are at, together, and act accordingly if we are to remove the labels put on us by others, and win the freedom to which we are entitled. Perhaps our aim is similar to one stated by Jung: “to bring about a state in which v everyone) begins to experiment with his own nature – a state of fluidity, change and growth, in which there is no longer anything eternally fixed and hopelessly petrified”.
Offered at the House of Commons
Speaking of anomalies and loopholes in legislation at a meeting called to consider the implications of the recent House of Lords’ decision in the International Times case, Bernard Levin said: “The only thing worth doing is to pass a small simple act… to improve the situation for some people… not to talk of ideal and perfect societies. Half a loaf is better than none”. Will Hamlyn, MP set up the meeting to discuss how parliamentary means could be used to improve the situation, but a GLF member commented: “All Mr. Levin is really offering us is a small nibble”.
Many of those present seemed to feel that traditional democratic processes could achieve very little, particularly, as Raymond Fletcher pointed out: “…it now seems to be the judges who make the law, not Parliament”. “I voted, as I thought, in the interests of a minority when I supported the 1967 act,” said Joan Lestor, MP, “and now I find that, under that act, such things as contact through advertisements can be made illegal.” The heart of the matter is section 8 of the 1967 Act, under which the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is not required if the charge is incitement – incitement, in the case of contact ads, to commit acts which are not in themselves illegal if both parties are over 21. Leo Abse, MP, said at the time that he “was not happy” on this point: “Police use of incitement charges may well be open to criticism”. They were certainly criticised at the meeting, as was police activity in other areas, including harassment and spying in connection with cottaging, and selective prosecution under the obscenity laws.
The conspiracy laws were also criticised for their many loopholes – there have been contradictory decisions, some seeming to indicate that if a jury can be convinced by the prosecution that something is ‘immoral’, or a ‘conspiracy to corrupt public morals’, other relevant cases and precedents can be ignored. Bernard Levin said that it was a problem of singling out some actions and excluding them from the conspiracy laws, and that legislation should be attempted which would prevent such decisions as that in the IT case, and also define ‘conspiracy’ much more closely.
Does the present state of the law mean, for instance that a social worker who runs a group, or a counsellor who puts a homosexual client in touch with a gay organisation, is ‘inciting’ people to commit immoral acts? “Phew”, said Michael Butler of the Samaritans, when asked to comment later, “that would make the job of counselling gay people almost impossible. A psychiatrist told me that he could interview and analyse his patients, but if they had no social contacts with their own kind, his job was totally lop-sided and inadequate. The Samaritans’ general policy is that if someone wants social contacts and the counsellor feels it would be useful, the branch should have addresses of groups to which the client can be referred, and he would be given them.”
Other points raised during the meeting itself included the problem of judges who are “out of touch”, particularly with young people, and the general need for “public education”, considered in the long term, to produce a climate of opinion in which legislative improvements could be introduced by sympathetic members of parliament. The need for more control over police activity was stressed, particularly by Bernard Greaves, who quoted evidence of malpractices by Cambridge police, and by the editor of ‘Janus’, who was concerned about police victimisation of some publishers, while others were untouched
Some speakers were unsure that parliamentary action could really achieve anything of value, and felt that “the gay world is moving towards a violent stand, like that now happening in N. Ireland”, and that there was an increasing tendency for homosexuals to come together and not to rely on others to speak for them. “Gay people should live their lives openly, and that will help to change society at the grassroots”.
While some people present apparently endorsed this view, it was felt by others that in trying to improve the present situation, less ideal methods were essential, such as contact ads. and Denis Lemon of Gay News confirmed the paper’s intention to continue running ads. Antony Gray of NFHO said that in his view, advertisements were a comparatively ‘trivial’ issue, and that he felt that increased activity in parliament could really lead to improvements – By the law of averages, he calculated, there must be 30 gay MPs, so “Where are they?” Will Hamlyn, closing the meeting, felt that this might be an under-estimate, but that legislative improvements would, at best, be slow to come, and that there was a lot more to be achieved by individuals coming together and taking action at all levels.
Perhaps one comment on the meeting is “Never mind your half-a-loaf, Mr. Levin – we are going to make our own bread”.
Law or Sexuality. Which Corrupts?
Do you believe that the 1967 Act solved everything? That it gave you the same rights as anyone else. Well, take very careful note of the words of one of their high and mighty lordships (Lord Reid) in deciding that IT was breaking the law in publishing gay personal ads. According to him, and therefore the law, there is “a material difference between merely exempting certain conduct from criminal penalties and making it lawful in the full sense.” In plain English, it’s legal, but then again, it isn’t. To the corrupt minds of their lordships, of the police, and of everyone else in a position of power over you life and mine, our homosexuality is a “vice”, a “perversion”, an “abnormality”.
It cannot be said too often that homosexuality, like any other sexuality, is about life, about people, about love, and not just about sexual practices. That human beings cannot be classified into “normal” and “abnormal”, they are simply different from one another. There is no such thing as “sexual normality”, but if “normality” means the sexual preference of the majority of the population, then it would not be heterosexuality, homosexuality or even bisexuality, but sexuality without a fixed direction. The unpleasant, impersonal things of gay life, like the cottages and sauna baths, the overpriced clubs and pubs are a result of the fear and shame specifically created by the law, because the law forbids us to meet freely as everyone else can, to advertise freely as everyone else can. To live openly and freely is our right, but the law denies this, depressing us into a less than full existence, treats us as less than human. If the way we live is depraved and corrupt (and I most strongly contend that it is not), then it is the law which is responsible for that and not our sexuality.
Which is more reprehensible – two people making love (or having sex together), or a whole organisation of people dedicated to isolating. punishing and discriminating against ordinary human beings became they make love? Which is depraved? Which is corrupt? Which harms others? Do we seek to keep any group of individuals down, to deny them less than their full rights as fellow human beings, to damage and control them because of their sexual preferences?
Look at the letters reprinted here – they are from organisations of gays working for our rights. Then consider what the law has said. It doesn’t take much to work out who cares about people, and who is depraved and corrupt
THE TIMES 19th June, 1972
HOMOSEXUALS AND THE LAW
From Mr Antony Grey and others
Sir, the undersigned are chairmen of organizations with a combined membership of over 5,000, representing the welfare of homosexual men and women throughout Britain. We have read with the gravest concern The Times’s report (June 15) of the House of Lords judgment in the case of Knullar (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd v Director of Public Prosecutions.
The effect of this would seem to be that homosexuals are prohibited from making contact with one another for non-criminal purposes through the public press – a freedom which is not denied, so far as we are aware to any other group of Her Majesty’s subjects. We deplore the House’s apparent judicial belief that homosexuals “corrupt” one another, and we are impelled to seek urgent Parliamentary action to clarify, and if necessary amend. Lord Reid’s dictum in relation to the Sexual Offences Act 1967 that there is “a material difference between merely exempting certain conduct from criminal penalties and making it lawful in the full sense”.
It was the clear wish of Parliament as expressed in that Act – supported, according to opinion polls, by two-thirds of the population – to relieve adult homosexuals of a criminal stigma which had brought much suffering to individuals and wastage to the community. Are we now to understand that this objective has been circumvented by the courts?
This seems a ludicrous and unintended outcome of reform. It is also lamentable that such old fashioned and ignorant views about the nature of homosexuality apparently still persist in high judicial quarters (eg Lord Hailsham’s quaint notion, expressed on television this week, that it is simply a “vice”). We think it is time for those who lay down the law to do some elementary psychological homework.
Chairman, National Federation of Homophile Organizations,
General Secretary, NFHO,
IAN C. DUNCAN,
Chairman, Scottish Minorities Group.
Chairman, New Group, Manchester.
Chairman, Campaign for Homosexual Equality,
SHARON M. MURRAY, North Eastern Women’s Group,
65 Shoot-up Hill, NW2
The Scotsman, 21st June, 1972
214 Clyde Street. Glasgow,
June 16, 1972.
Sir, – The decision by the House of Lords on Wednesday, 14th June, that the publishers of “It” had been rightly convicted on a charge of conspiring to corrupt public morals by inserting “gay” advertisements in the magazine, cannot be allowed to pass by without comment.
That conspiracy to corrupt public morals was a crime known to the law of England, was decided by the House of Lords in the “Ladies Directory Cae” in 1962. This decision adversely affected the defences provided by Section 2(4) of the Obscene Publications Act, 1959 where the essence of the offence was “tendency to deprave and corrupt” The Solicitor-General assured the House of Commons on 3rd June 1964 that “a conspiracy to corrupt public morals would not be charged so as to circumvent the statutory defence in Section 4,” but no effective action was ever taken by Parliament to draw the legal professions notice to this directive.
In the “It” case, it is important to remember that the prosecution made no point whatsoever that males under 21 would likely to reply to the advertisements.
The appellants argued that because homosexual acts between mades in private were now lawful by the provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (both parties being over 21), it could not therefore be the law that other persons were guilty of an offence if they merely put in touch two males who would, perhaps, indulge in perfectly lawful activity. This argument was dismissed by their Lordships, who, in a very narrow reading of the 1967 Act, said that if people chose to corrupt themselves in that way it was their affair and the law would not interfere, but no licence was given to others to encourage the practice.
The effect of this deliverance must be gloomy news indeed for all those who hoped for more understanding towards the many problems which millions of homosexual men and women have to face. How are like-minded men and women to meet in a lawful manner? No other minority group in Britain is today discriminated against in such a total way. The decision must adversely affect the gradual improvements being won by such organisations as the Scottish Minorities Group who over the past two or three years have been talking with the caring professions and encouraging new thinking towards counselling homosexuals. What now happens when a doctor, a clergyman, a social worker or a lawyer introduces two isolated men with the express aim of bringing about a happy and creative union? We are told that the law is being broken. It is a fallacy that homosexuals usually wish to meet for the purposes of having sexual intercourse. A principal aim of the SMG is to organise social occasions where homosexuals can meet, and thus banish the foul atmosphere of the public bath and the public lavatory.
And in doing just this, SMG has been highly successful. ls this useful activity now to be viewed with opprobrium?
Neither the 1959 Obscene Publications Act, nor the 1967 Sexual Offences Act apply to Scotland. However, we are assured that “in practice the law in enforced in Scotland in much the same way as it is in England” (Civil Liberty – The NCCL Guide, p. 293). The effect of the House of Lords’ decision is to throw
into doubt all the good work achieved by people who have no connection with obscene publications, but whose first desire is to create a caring and happy society. Fresh legislation is now imperative in the light of this recent development. – I am etc.
IAN C. DUNN, Chairman,
Scottish Minorities Group.
From The Evening Standard, 26th June, 1972.
NOW – A GAY PRIDE DEMO
Sir: Milton Shulman’s article ‘Dockers and Homosexuals’ accurately portrays the effects of the recent Appeals decision. Any ordinary person who has been involved in a trial cannot fail to be astounded at how out of touch with present reality most judges seem to be.
What the I.T. decision does is to put many persons, including myself, in peril of arrest, trial and umprisonment. On July 1, there will be a GayPride Demo in Trafalgar Square. The purpose of this clearly is to advocate homosexual practice for homosexuals and to protest against the continued oppression of homosexuals in our society, the 1967 Act notwithstanding. I, and other gay people will continue to defy this absurd law. To be arrested for advocating legal activity is something only a judge would appear not to find ludicrous. Let Parliament speedily remedy the situation or vote money to house a rapidly expanding prison population.
Warren Hague (address supplied)
The Guardian, 19th June, 1972
HOMOSEXUALS IN ISOLATION
The law acknowledges the right of homosexuals to make love. By rejecting IT’s appeal, the House of Lords continues to support the law’s illogical refusal to allow homosexuals to meet. There an no circumstances under which they can meet. Not in the streets, which is importuning; not in properly conducted social clubs because none is allowed to exist.
Such repression encourages recourse to a few dubious pubs and furtive drinking clubs that cater for homosexuals; it encourages desperate efforts to make contact in public with the consequent risk of police prosecution. It encourages the growth of increasingly militant homosexual organisation. It throws and is throwing, an increasingly large burden on the Samaritans and other social service groups – the only people that the isolated homosexual knows he can turn to.
To use the Ladies Directory case (a list, I understand, of prostitutes) as a precedent for dealing with ordinary homosexual people is appalling enough. But their Lordships decision represents a major piece of discrimination against a section of the community that i,. numerically, larger than our coloured population. The House of Lords was dealing with one underground newspaper; their decision affects the very real needs of isolated people all over the country.
Flat F. 23 Great James Street
THE EVENING STANDARD
20th June, 1972.
With regard to your news story (June 14) Lords in Clash on Gay Advert, I and the members of the Gay News, would like to point out that we will be carrying personal advertisements for gays of all sexes. We consider it the right of homosexuals to advertise in this way if they so wish, and can see no earthly reason why gays should not be able to do the same as heterosexuals. Hopefully, one day it will not be necessary for any people, no matter what their sexual preference, to advertise in this way. Until gays an free from the isolation imposed on them by society and people in general are released from the misguided taboos that surround sex and sexuality. Gay News will carry personal ads, no matter what the penalty.
Gay News is a national fortnightly paper for gay men and women and will he available this week. – DENNIS LEMON, Gay News, 19 London Street, W.2.