1973: EURO GAYS WE MIGHT BE, BUT THE STRUGGLE MUST GO ON

As 1973 dawns it is time for the Homosexual Society to take stock of its position and to decide what action must be taken in the days that lie ahead. The record so far is reasonably satisfactory. It is not as bad as some of the critics and carpers make out: nor is it as good as some of our professing activists and demo-mongers profess.

For those who are fighting for our cause and for those who are only too well aware of the nature of the problems which confront us much of what follows may seem repetitive. But, as a great advertising man, Sir William Crawford, once said, the key to a successful campaign is domination, concentration and repetition. State the message loud and clear, use all the available resources in such a way that that message is got across and go on sending it out until people are forced to pay attention. It is better to say a few things firmly and often than a great many things in the form of a confused dissertation.

The first priority must be to penetrate the political barriers of hostility and inertia and to set on foot further reforms of law on homosexuality. The most important, and the most obvious because the present state of affairs is so patently ridiculous, is to bring the age of consent for men down to 16. To claim that women are so much more mature that a gap of five years is justifiable is plain stupid and not in accordance with the facts of Life. It is time for a bit of Men’s Lib for a change.

The Scots, who are always boasting that they are better educated as a nation than anyone else in Britain, should undertake some effective self-education and press for the existing law to be extended to their own country. In Northern Ireland a bit of sanity would be welcome for once. Now that Westminster is in control, or claims to be, the same conditions should be made to apply.

The social segregation of the Armed Forces and the Merchant Navy is undemocratic and demonstrably absurd as well as being somewhat laughable under all the known circumstances. There will be resistence from the top-brass who always resist change on principle. It should be pointed out to them that such an attitude is an admission of failure on their part to keep order in their own house. And that is a very poor advertisement for the powers of leadership of which they are so proud.

Relationships with the Police must be reviewed at top level otherwise the situation threatens to deteriorate and that is not in the interests of the Force who have quite enough problems on their plate without adding to them. The new Commissioner of Police is a great reformer: this is one reform he should tackle as a matter of urgency.

There must be an end to harrassment and effective action must be taken to stamp out the offensive and immoral practice of “queer-bashing” which is an abuse of civil liberties and worse than “mugging” which is causing much more public alarm. The rules concerning homosexual assembly must be abolished and that involves political as well as police action as also does the whole question of advertising as was made clear by the ‘IT’ case.

Socially, an advance must be planned on three fronts: the education of parents, teachers and children, the improvement of medical training and understanding; the recognition of the existence and position of homosexuals by men of religion.

The Ministry of Education must be approached with a view to discussing the establishment of enlightened sex education, including education about homosexuality, in schools. Until a directive comes from above, local education authorities and headmasters will be unwilling and afraid to act. There is plenty of evidence of that. Parent-teacher organisations must be persuaded to support this move so far as is possible.

Margaret Thatcher may not be everybody’s pin-up girl and the new Under-Secretary, Norman St John Stevas has not been made exactly welcome in every quarter. But they both like to lay claim to being progressive in their outlook. They should be confronted.

The Medical Profession should be challenged with regard to its failure to implement the recommendations of the Wolfenden Committee. At a meeting held at Guys Hospital in 1972, the Chairman, a distinguished physician, declared at the outset that he knew nothing about homosexuality. That was not any sort of a joke. The answer to him and to those like him is physician heal thyself. The campaign must be carried into the medical camp and there must be more meetings not only at hospitals but local doctors and psychiatrists should be invited to address meetings under the auspices of homosexual organisations.

The Churches must be clearly asked to state their attitude to homosexuality and homosexuals. This must be done not only at the level of parish priests and the like but also at the top. The veiws expressed by Dr Norman Pittenger in his book “Time For Consent” should be put to them and their reactions to them should be sought. Unlike Pilate we have time to wait for our answer – but not for ever. The meeting of Jewish homosexuals in London, despite the snide remarks which appeared in Gay News, was a courageous and heartening occasion. It is hoped that progress will continue to be made in that field.

Also on the credit side for 1972 have been the activities of CHE, SMG and GLF. It has been asserted in certain quarters, including in the correspondence columns of Gay News, that such organisations tend to promote a ghetto mentality and to increase, rather than decrease, the division between homosexuals and the rest of society. That is poppy-cock. To begin with, if society had behaved in a more intelligent and rational manner such activities would not have been made necessary. Such considerations apart, they provide important and essential grounds for homosexuals to meet one another and to exchange views. They are also of the greatest social and psychological value for those homosexuals who are lonely or depressed.

Gay News, a product of 1972, is a courageous venture which deserves to succeed and prosper in 1973. It is a forum for opinions of all kinds by homosexuals and others and that is healthy. Because not enough space is provided by the main media of communication it fills the gap and it may well encourage its colleages in the Press world to pay more attention to the subject. Every homosexual should support a publication which speaks out fearlessly for the cause. This is no time for reticence or silence: those days are over.

On the political front CHE held fringe meetings at all the Party conferences in the autumn. In 1973 it holds its own conference at Morecambe. These public appearances are important because they help to make clear that we are not an element to be disregarded with impunity. There are over a million and a half, probably more, of us. Politically that is something which should not be forgotten. It is particularly something which the Liberal Party, which is aiming at a national revival, should note. All political candidates from now on should be sent the questionnaire which was prepared by CHE and sent out at Sutton and Cheame by-election. Gay News should be encouraged to publish the answers so that we may know who are our friends.

A fringe meeting was held at the Conference of the National Union of Students at Margate. It was a constructive and stimulating occasion. It seems likely that one outcome will be a closer association of all University Homosexual Groups and that is all to the good as it will increase their influence. After all the ultimate future is in the hands of youth and that means our future.

In 1973 it is important that all homosexual organisations should increase their activities and their membership and that they should work as closely as possible together. We all have the same object in view: the achievement of our rightful place in society. It is essential that more people should be willing to take part in these activities. In the past too much has had to be done by too few at too great a cost both mentally, physically and financially. The time has come for all homosexuals to stand up and be counted. The only thing to fear is fear itself. Our campaign is on the march. In 1973 we must aim to go farther and faster and there must be more of us.

1973: AGE OF CONSENT – A VITAL ISSUE

In your No 11 editorial, you commented that very little seemed to be happening on reform of the age of consent. While agreeing that nothing very tangible has been achieved as yet, I would like to take the opportunity of sketching CHE’s position, and level of activity on this vital issue.

CHE’s objective is simply to remove from the statute book discrimination between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. On the age of consent, this currently means a reduction of the age for consenting males from 21 to 16; the position for females also needs clarification to ensure their rights are as extensive, the current situation being somewhat confused (at least in my mind).

But of course by the time this topic receives serious parliamentary consideration we may be talking in the context of a lower heterosexual age of consent anyway. The Sexual Law Reform Society, sponsored by the Albany Trust and due to report shortly on the whole spectrum of sexual law reform, will probably recommend an overall reduction, with no distinction between straight and gay. One of its members, Dr. John Robinson (a CHE Vice President) has suggested a case could be made for a homosexual age of consent lower than the heterosexual one, since the former cannot give rise to unwanted pregnancies; a mischievous idea perhaps, but one that helps to redress the perspective.

Then there’s the question of tactics. Some might say that the objective should be no age of consent at all, and the tactic a compromise of 14, or whatever. There is much to be said for this view, but it seems to me to be an ideal so far from the realms of reality that to make it our declared objective would provoke derision and get us no nearer solving the dilemma of the under 21’s. The more difficult tactical question, which will become progressively more controversial as we get nearer to parliamentary reform, is the compromise of 18. I hope CHE will remain absolutely opposed to this line; the relevant criterion is the age of heterosexual consent, not the age of majority, etc. But I can see that 18 has more attraction to SMG, who are of course arguing from the position of there being no homosexual age of consent at all in Scotland.

So what is CHE doing about it? The issue is only one aspect, albeit an important one, of our overall parliamentary reform platform. Our objective in 1972 has been to overcome the profound lack of interest, compounded by political fear and emotional claptrap, which our first parliamentary ovetures encountered. To do this we must be seen to be more than a few isolated voices crying in the wilderness. We have recently:

(a) Held fringe meetings at each of the three political party conferences, including the Tory one, where we had the backing of the London YCs

(b) Canvassed MPs from their constituencies via local CHE groups.

(c) Solicited the support of prospective MPs at by-elections, both as to law reform and the activities of CHE groups in their constituencies.

(d) Explained our cause to tomorrow’s political leaders (Young Liberals etc) who are rather more open minded than today’s and enlisted their support.

(e) Submitted evidence to a House of Lords Select Committee considering the bill outlawing discrimination on the grounds of sex, arguing that the scope should be widened to include sexual preference.

The first breakthrough will be the creation of a committed parliamentary lobby; we now have a number of members of both Houses whom we hope will form the nucleus of such a lobby. But we are convinced that further reform requires much more than a self-appointed pressure group; the impetus must come from a massive civil rights movement, active in all constituencies. The expansion of CHE as a national organisation based on local groups thus has a political purpose as well as the not to be denigrated social one. And the need for close contact and co-operation with other gay groups is clear. After all we are not working for a reduction in the age of consent for CHE members only!

We’re Doing Something

EDINBURGH: People working for homosexual law reform in Scotland were astonished to read GN11’s Editorial which — while making very pertinent points on Age of Consent and the heavy task ahead for those who will be promoting sexual law reform in the UK — failed to take account of progress in Scotland in 1972.

The main work has been carried out by the Scottish Minorities Group (Law Reform subcommittee), and by some office-bearers of the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties, to which SMG is affiliated. The whole work was greatly assisted by a donation from an SMG member of £100. Without this vital cash, SMG would not have been able to get beyond the “talking shop” stage.

The moves began in May 1971 when I (the SMG Chairman) successfully guided through an SMG Motion to the SCCL Annual General Meeting, calling on SCCL to take a firm stand on remaining social and legal discrimination against homosexuals in Scotland. This motion was on similar lines to that adopted by the National Union of Students (Scottish Region) in March 1971. A much expanded version is before the NUS Margate Conference, November 1972, proposed by the University of Reading.

In December 1971, the SMG Annual General Meeting adopted Councillor Ian Christie’s motion which instructed the Executive Committee (a) to consult with the SCCL upon the introduction of parliamentary legislation to repeal the 1885 Act as far as it applies to Scotland in order to legalise homosexual acts between consenting adults, and (b) to conduct an energetic campaign to enrol public opinion in Scotland in favour of such law reform.

We got off to a brisk start in January when the SMG pamphlet “The Case For Homosexual Law Reform in Scotland” was circulated to all 71 MPs who represented a Scottish constituency, and to a fair cross-section of Members of the House of Lords who had spoken out in favour of law reform in the 1960’s. The pamphlet was accompanied by a covering letter signed by Peter Wellington, the then Chairman of SCCL. The response was disappointing. Those MPs who even bothered to reply said they’d oppose Law Reform, or said that they were “sympathetic” but didn’t think it was an urgent issue. Liverpool CHE got much the same response when they wrote to all MPs in their area in May 1972. Disappointed as we were, we followed up the letters with an insistent lobbying campaign in the Edinburgh Area. The results of our conversations were quite encouraging (for the first time MPs were face-to-face with homosexuals, and it wasn’t so easy to be evasive), and we gradually realised that our best chances of success lay in the introduction of a Bill in the House of Lords.

Meanwhile (June 1972) we had completed our analysis of the (English) 1967 Act. A summary of this appeared in GN3 (July 1972). The analysis procedure was carried out over a series of committee meetings. We sought the views of SMG members through SMG NEWS, and wrote to several people with a knowledge of Scots law. We also began to write to the major religious and social institutions calling on them to inform SMG of their attitudes towards homosexual law reform, and to support the SMG campaign. So far, the Society of Friends in Scotland (Quakers) has expressed clear support for the SMG proposals.

This was the grimmest period of our work. The task was difficult and often distasteful. The existing law is couched in highly pejorative and emotive terms. Reluctantly we realised that we couldn’t hope to “clean up” all the phrases. The idea of a sexual “offence” is retained in our final proposals, as is the distinction between “sodomy” (buggery in England and Wales) and other types of sexual “offences”. Our legalisation proposals are fixed at 18 absolutely, with strong defence safeguards for 16 and 17-year-olds. No less than 5 Acts (3 exclusively relating to Scotland) are repealed in part or amended, and this explains why we felt it necessary to promote a “Scotland only” Bill — we really doubt whether an English Act could successfully take into account the fundamentally different aspects of Scots law. We have sent a copy of the Bill to Gay News. The Bill will be formally published on 2nd December 1972, and copies can be obtained from Mike Coulson, 9 Moray Place, Edinburgh, 3 at a cost of 30p each, post free.

Although we have had one definite response from a Member of the House of Lords, who has agreed “as a last resort” to introduce our Bill, we are still in the process of sounding out other Members’ views. Our lobbying campaign continues (up-to-date details from our Annual Report for 1972, issued 1st December), and the Crown Agent has congratulated us on the draughtsmanship of the proposed Bill. His main criterion is whether or not reform proposals are enforceable, and our proposals are “thoroughly enforceable”.

We have come under much pressure — even attack — from many homosexuals, some “figureheads”, for pushing ahead with Scottish proposals. When people haven’t been questioning us on the need for law reform (why bother, we’re okay thanks, brigade) others have criticised us for being too timid. Most people seemed to forget that the Law Reform Committee was (and is) working within the terms of the SCCL and SMG Annual Meeting instructions. Within these terms, we maintain, we have made good and solid progress towards Homosexual Law Reform for Scotland.

Ian Dunn

ED: The editorial in GN11 was written deliberately with the hope that we would receive such a response as above. To date we have received no replies from Campaign for Homosexual Equality or Gay Liberation Front.

We do though, consider it a great pity that SMG have settled for eighteen as being the consenting age for male homosexuals, for as we said in our editorial – ‘The age (of consent) should and must be sixteen, as it is with girls – for to settle for anything else would be an admission on our part that homosexuality is something different and strange.’

Editorial

One of the main criticisms we receive of our editorials is that they are usually about the same subject from issue to issue. Whilst we try to avoid being boring, we cannot help but be repetitious. This is because so many of the points continually mentioned are concerned with the livelihood and the expansion of the paper. If we keep on appealing, it’s because we really have to. So next time you realise you are reading something which is more or less the same as words which appeared in a previous issue, please remember that the help we are asking for is really needed and situation mentioned hasn’t improved overnight.

Just for a change though, we would like to include a few other things in this issue’s editorial, that are not directly associated with the internal running or survival or Gay News.

Age Of Consent

Firstly, you may have read that people of eighteen (who can also vote, marry without parental consent, drink alcohol, die for their country, etc) will soon be called to do jury duty. Not all of you may agree with this, but it’s going to happen. We think at GN that it is an important advancement. But what this new social development brings to our minds is the fact that people on reaching the magic age of eighteen can do everything an ‘adult’ can, except in one area. Male homosexuals still cannot choose who they make love to until they are twenty one. And that’s ridiculous. If someone is considered adult enough to condemn or release a defendant accused of a crime – which can range from murder to traffic offences – then surely they must be capable of exploring their own sexuality in whatever direction it takes them.

Surely it is time that this primitive situation was changed once and for all. And we don’t mean just settling for the age of consent being lowered to eighteen. The age should and must be sixteen, as it is with girls – for to settle for anything else would be an admission on our part that homosexuality is something different and strange. No aware homosexual can possibly think that. As we have said before in GN, not to be oneself, whether through self-denial or legal pressures, is what’s queer.

Who’s Doing Anything

Last week we tried to find out who, whether individuals or organisations, was trying to start the moves to alter the existing legislation with regard to the present age of consent. Apart from a few vague answers, we drew a blank. A very discouraging and saddening discovery. We believe that the longer this area of gay oppression remains, then the harder it will become to gain any reform. So if anyone, anywhere, is doing something about gaining the necessary changes, let us know. We will give you all the support and encouragement we can, and you are welcome to use the pages of GN to attract support and interest for your campaign. We realise that such a task is not easy. One has to get the support of many influential and sympathetic people, both in and out of Parliament. A bill has to be prepared, publicity obtained throughout the various mass medias and so on. But this is such an important matter that the amount of work involved will eventually be justified by the success of changing blind, oppressive, ignorant laws. Of course, it will be the generations that follow us who will feel the benefits of any changes, but does this mean that we should not be responsible for contributing to the advancement of society?

Mugging

In most papers recently, the word ‘mugging’ has been appearing more and more frequently. Mugging is a particularly disturbing crime and its apparent rise in notoriety is cause for concern. Even the Duke of Edinburgh has described it as a ‘disease’. But the national press seems to be under the impression that this is a new phenomenon in the world of violent crime. It most certainly isn’t. Gays have been subject to mugging – or queer bashing as it is called when directed against homosexuals (both male and female) – for quite some time. As we all know, gays have been favourite victims for those wishing to use fear and brutality as their means of gaining material rewards. At times this has resulted in death or the sustaining of lifelong injuries. Also, as is more often the case, gays – because of the treatment, lack of sympathy, and half-hearted inquiries they expect from the police – have not reported robberies and violence committed against them, and subsequently we are unaware of exactly how many of these frightening crimes have gone unnoticed and unrecorded.

The exploitation of people through fear is a disgusting, obscene occurrence, and those responsible should feel the full weight of the law for such acts. Human scum such as the Kray brothers and the South London ‘Richardson Gang’ have fortunately been removed from society for some time to come. These other merchants of fear also deserve the same treatment and sentences.

So we see it as a pity when other papers pick up on mugging as if it were something new and tend to turn it into a trendy crime. They ignore or forget that some citizens for many years have been experiencing similar barbaric acts – but called by a different name – and because of social attitudes, the victims have not sought the protection or help of the law.

Gay News will be approaching Scotland Yard on their present attitudes towards homosexual victims of mugging. We hope we will receive the answers that those who live in a supposedly enlightened society will want to hear. We will also examine the attitudes of individual members of the police force and those of local police stations. In due course the results of our enquiries will appear in GN’s pages.

We hopefully expect to hear from you on these subjects. They are important to all of us and your opinions and suggestions are invaluable to both us and the people who read them, whether they are gay or heterosexual, male or female.

Christmas Edition

Please don’t forget that we need your help in getting a really good Christmas issue together. If it is to be a success, we must have your ideas, articles, suggestions, etc. Let’s make it an edition that will be well worth having around over the Christmas holidays. We can do it together.

Personal Ads

Your personal ads keep on flowing in. We seem to print a few more with each new issue. And that’s fine with us. We’re sorry that we sometimes have to slightly amend a few of your ads, but we don’t want to invite legal proceedings against us more than we have to. The Gay News collective isn’t comprised of martyrs, just people who think contact ads are a service that is wanted by some of you. And if you take advantage of this service, good for you and the best of luck and love.

Loneliness and isolation are terrible things to endure, and if we can help remove them from people’s lives, we will. Remember too, your morality is your affair, not ours, not the Director of Public Prosecution’s, nor even The House of Lords’.

Christmas can be a very lonely period, so if you think an appropriate ad in GN may be of use in making sure that you or other gays are not alone in the season of ‘peace and goodwill’ why not send one in. We. suggest our late November issue is the most suitable to use for this purpose, as it gives people time to reply before the Christmas postal rush is on. For that issue please make sure you have your ads to us no later than 21st November. And we on our part will send off replies to your box numbers as speedily as possible.

By the way, Gay News is bought by more people than any other gay publication in this country. As a result your ads are read more than those appearing elsewhere. Don’t forget that we are the only gay publication to come out fortnightly, and a conservative estimate of our readership, as opposed to those who actually buy it, is at least thirty thousand. (This assessment is based on accepted advertising circulation figures.) No wonder some of you receive so many replies to the ads you place.

Gays Kept Away From Shoppers

BRIGHTON: The town’s Gay Liberation Front went on the march recently when it held the first Brighton Gay Day — which campaigned specifically for the lowering of the age of gay consent to 16 and equality for homosexuals in society.

It was a start, even if only about 30 gays did come out with their banners for the rerouted march along the seafront and into a shopping precinct.

The marchers handed out leaflets to the public, but the official change-of-mind about letting the gays march through the crowded shopping centre of Brighton and leaving them only the mainly deserted sea shore to parade along, made certain that not too many people would be there to get the message Brighton GLF was trying to hand out.

The official reason for re-routing the march was that the gays’ banners might cause a breach of the peace. Brighton GLF was told of this change-of-heart just a day before the Gay Day was due to take place.

The only incident around the march was abuse thrown at the gays by members of the public. The police moved them on quietly.

Make it Legal

19720901-14Hullo there. Nice to meet you. A few questions – okay?
Sure: go ahead.
You are over 21?
Oh yes; want to see my teeth?
No, your birth certificate. Thanks. Yes, that seems all right. Now, then. You do consent?
Oh yes — indeed.
Fine. And we are in private here aren’t we? I mean, you’re not with a mate who’s going to turn up and watch?
Dear me no: I’m on my own.
Good. Well, now. You’re not from Scotland, are you?
Never been there.
Nor from Ulster?
Certainly not!
Anything to prove it? Driving licence, insurance card, or such like?
Here you are.
Ah — thanks. We’re making progress. Now: you’re not in the army, I take it?
Oh, no.
Navy?
Sorry I can’t oblige.
Air force?
Neither.
Merchant Navy, possibly?
No, no.
Not fuzz, I hope …
No!!
I see. Now what have I forgotten?
To ask me if we’ve met through a published ad.
Well, we haven’t, have we? It was our pal who phoned me about you, wasn’t it?
Sure it was.
Fine. Well, I think it’s all nice and legal, then – at least, I hope so.
Me too. Shall we get some gear off?
Let’s!

No Freedom to Love

“There is a sense in which all law is nothing more nor less than a gigantic confidence trick. Law is not enforceable at all if a sufficient number of people disregard it, and this is true of all laws.” Quinton Hogg

01-197205XX 8Laws which interfere with the individual’s sexuality and sexual expression will only continue to exist so long as we allow it- the will not be changed FOR us. Gay News intends to campaign for changes, since these matters are not, nor should they be, a realm in which legal controls belong. We welcome the stand taken by the Quakers in calling for the age of consent to be lowered to 14, but take the view that the law has no place in anyone’s sex life, and therefore the best sex laws are no sex laws at all: that would make us all equal, and leave no room for the suppression of any minority.

If you are a gay man, you cannot legally have sex before your 21st birthday, but if you’re a gay woman, or a heterosexual you can do so as soon as you are 16. The law is intended to prevent adolescent boys from being seduced by older men. They are apparently trusted not to succumb to a woman of any age against their own will, or if they do, it’s only a private misdemenour, not a criminal offence. It presumes that he couldn’t say no. But they can be prosecuted for seducing one another. Confused yet?

…Obscenity laws exist to repress normal sexual desires which are somehow, in law, equated with depravity. N.C.C.L. Guide to Civil Liberty

The law reflects the traditional male attitude to gay men – on the surface, we are despised, within, we are feared. Because within themselves they see us – their own heavily controlled love and desire for their own sex – and they fear.

The 1967 Act does not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland – the law remains as it was in both these areas.

Sexual Offences Act 1956: section 32: “It is an offence for a man persistently to solicit or importune in a public place for immoral purposes.”

When the act was passed, this section

And remember… “Law is not enforceable at all if a sufficient number of people disregard it, and this is true of all laws.”

MEANT a man pimping for a woman. The law is almost never used in that sense, but to stop you picking up a guy you fancy whenever and wherever you may see him. It is never used to stop a man picking up a woman, even if he is offering her money for her services. She is in the wrong then.

Maximum penalties for some acts committed by older men with minors were increased by the 1967 Act.

Policemen can close down our pubs and clubs, and raid our parties more or less at will, if we are not behaving like heterosexuals. Because they have a duty to “preserve the peace”. Or if the backhander from the owner isn’t enough.

Publication of advertisements for the encouraging of homosexual practises is at present an offence, depending on the outcome of the It appeal currently being heard by the House of Lords.

It doesn’t matter if you are all over 21 and consenting, if there are more than two of you, it’s illegal.

In short, you can’t pick up anyone except in a pub or club or party, but the police can still raid these at will. You can’t take a man under 21 to bed, and if you’re under 21, you just can’t, that’s all. You can’t place lonely-heart ads.

BUT… Gay News WILL carry small ads for as long as you wish to use them. It must surely be an individuals human right to choose the way he or she wishes to make contact.

BUT… Gay News feels that far too little is being done to campaign for the age of consent to be lowered to the logical level, 16, giving us parity with everybody else. It should only be a matter of time before the whole question of legally enforceable age of consent for anyone comes under review.

Since the Sexual Offences Act 1967 very little positive action has been taken to remove this obsolete law from the statute books. We hear that S.M.G. is still squabbling about what particular age limit to campaign for; it’s a nice discussion point in C.H.E. and as Warren Haig says in OZ 42, “If Gay Lib had a concern for all homosexuals it would actively campaign for this… but it doesn’t.”

If you are being persecuted in any way for being yourself, we are here to try to do something about it. Tell us and let’s try together.

Gay News WILL campaign for this reduction. But, more important still, we’d like to make our columns available to anyone involved in campaigning against this particular black mark on the statute book.