The Economist: Corporate Irresponsibilty

LGBT people should not wait for business to help them, argues @HumanDignityT. #LGBTbusiness https://t.co/jRGgF98IcT pic.twitter.com/aQoAtrw7YH

— The Economist (@EconBritain) February 18, 2016

There will never be a way to hold businesses to account for standing by and not using their financial muscle to the utmost to fight for LGBT rights. However, governments can be held to account for violating their obligations under international law. The UN and other such organisations give us a mechanism. Governments have rules they are bound to follow, and the criminalisation of homosexuality violates all of them...

Big business has a role to play and I am grateful when it chooses to use its influence. But it is just that: a choice, dependent on the whims of those at the top. We can see already that the energy and efforts behind this cause vary by company, as some business leaders choose to make this their area of interest and others do not. It is a hobby for some and, although that is welcome, a voluntary hobby is not akin to the obligation that weighs upon states. Furthermore, states must be considered the duty-bearer in this case because they are the reason that these criminalising laws continue to exist...

Jonathan Cooper, chief executive of the Human Dignity Trust, contributing to The Economist's online conference, LGBT Rights And Business.

Most of it is completely baffling.

They're doing this next.

Wooh etc.

The Economist: The Wages Of Sin

LABOUR markets are hotbeds of inequality. For every dollar a white American man in full-time work earns, the average white woman earns 78 cents and the average Latina only 56 cents. Marriage is a boon for male earnings; motherhood drags female earnings down. Likewise, gay men earn about 5% less than heterosexual ones in Britain and France, and 12-16% less in Canada and America, even after controlling for things like education, skills and experience. Yet one minority appears immune to this scourge: lesbians.

Marieka Klawitter of the University of Washington looked at 29 studies on wages and sexual orientation last year.* On average, they found a 9% earnings premium for lesbians over heterosexual women, compared with a penalty of 11% for gay men relative to straight men. This discrepancy has been borne out by research on America, Britain, Canada, Germany and the Netherlands. Even after adjusting for the fact that lesbians are on average more educated than straight women, and less likely to have children, the gap persists.

Research on this topic should be taken with a pinch of salt... 

The Economist.

I don't know about lesbians, but one thing is gay men are more likely to do 'female jobs' (the caring professions, hospitality, retail etc) which tend to be badly paid - and perhaps that's where much of the wage discrepancy comes from?

For more research on this see Joe Clark's Gay Money: The Truth About Lesbian And Gay Economics.

Panto: Gag Of The Year

“I need some buttocks on my face,” says one Ugly Sister.

“Botox, you mean?” says the other.

“I know what I said!”

From Cinderella at The New Wimbledon Theatre, as reported by Bagehot in the Economist Special Double Xmas Issue.

The fact that mums and dads across the nation will be dragging their kids along to see stuff like this is one of the few things that makes Fagburn proud to be British.

The Economist: The Gay Divide

What could help spread tolerance? If the past half-century is any guide, the prime movers will be gay people themselves. The more visible they are, the more normal they will seem. These days 75% of Americans say they have gay friends or colleagues, up from only 24% in 1985. But it is hard to be the first to come out in a country where that means prison or worse.

Some Westerners would like to use aid budgets as leverage. That may have helped in Uganda, but attaching conditions to aid usually fails, and cutting it off may hurt the poor more than it helps gay people. It would be better to offer financial support to local gay-rights groups, to be generous when those persecuted for their sexual orientation seek asylum, to shame Western conservatives who encourage bigotry abroad and to buttress tolerance at home.

The Economist.

I have a dream that one day gay men will be so tolerated, so accepted, British magazines will show their faces on the front cover...

'I'm not willing just to be tolerated. That wounds my love of love and of liberty' - Jean Cocteau, 1928.

The Economist: Where's Our Heads At?

Same-sex couples could marry in England and Wales from March 29th http://t.co/BTeXnvaxtl pic.twitter.com/kUREEXJxFQ
— The Economist (@TheEconomist) March 30, 2014

Fuck gay marriage, we'll be liberated when you show our faces.

For shame?

Putin: Skating On Thin Ice

The Economist on why someone waving a silly rainbow flag or not drinking Coke for a fortnight is the least of Putin's problems.

Great cover.

And here's America's most right-wing gay commentator James "Rainbow Suspenders" Kirchick writing for Britain's biggest right-wing magazine, The Spectator, about you-know-what. Zzz...

Update: Fans of reasoned, informed political debate, not hysterical right-wing posturing, may enjoy Gevorg Mirzayan; Sochi 2014 Boycott Would Have Been Counterproductive - who points out how no political leader is 'snubbing' the games, and besides there's a whole raft of serious differences and tensions between Russia and the West right now.
There's little things like Syria and Ukraine and that.

It's not all about The Gays, you know, The Gays!

The Economist: Country of The Year

The Economist has decided, for the first time, to nominate a country of the year, but how to choose it...

The accomplishments that most deserve commendation, we think, are path-breaking reforms that do not merely improve a single nation but, if emulated, might benefit the world. Gay marriage is one such border-crossing policy, which has increased the global sum of human happiness at no financial cost. Several countries have implemented it in 2013—including Uruguay, which also, uniquely, passed a law to legalise and regulate the production, sale and consumption of cannabis. This is a change so obviously sensible, squeezing out the crooks and allowing the authorities to concentrate on graver crimes, that no other country has made it. If others followed suit, and other narcotics were included, the damage such drugs wreak on the world would be drastically reduced.

Better yet, the man at the top, President José Mujica, is admirably self-effacing.* With unusual frankness for a politician, he referred to the new law as an experiment. He lives in a humble cottage, drives himself to work in a Volkswagen Beetle and flies economy class. Modest yet bold, liberal and fun-loving, Uruguay is our country of the year. ¡Felicitaciones!

The Economist.

* Saturday's Guardian profile of President Jose Mujica.

The Economist: Exports And Imports

There's an interesting overview in The Economist about how American evangelical Christians are exporting, funding and fermenting homophobia in Africa, the Caribbean, and Eastern Europe, and - ironically - particularly in Africa "campaigners adopt the language of anti-colonialism, portraying gay rights, and even homosexuality itself, as Western impositions; [even though their] opponents counter that the criminalisation of gay sex is itself largely a legacy of empire."
Further; "Anti-discrimination laws and other liberalising reforms are evidence of a worldwide secular conspiracy, against which Africa, or eastern Europe, or the Caribbean must fortify themselves. Occasional rebukes by the American government about persecution of gays abroad only prove the conspiracy’s power."
In fine, criticism that comes from those in the West - even signing some silly e-petition - can prove counter-productive and harmful.
Christ, this world is fucked.

The Economist: This Is What You Look Like

Oh.... dear.
Rather silly piece in The Economist about The Gays.
Bunk full of dubious statistics about "the gay vote" and unattributed quotes meant to represent what you - The Gays - think etc.
So some gay men vote Tory - wow!
So do a lot of straight people - get over it!
The Economist, like the FT, has always been pro-gay marriage, but this is just drivel.

Noam Chomsky on the business press, and why it's usually a more reliable guide to what's going on in the world. 

"Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis, two economists, in their work on the American educational system some years back... pointed out that the educational system is divided into fragments. The part that's directed toward working people and the general population is indeed designed to impose obedience. But the education for elites can't quite do that. It has to allow creativity and independence. Otherwise they won't be able to do their job of making money. 
"You find the same thing in the press. That's why I read the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times and Business Week. They just have to tell the truth. That's a contradiction in the mainstream press, too. Take, say, the New York Times or the Washington Post. They have dual functions and they're contradictory. One function is to subdue the great beast. But another function is to let their audience, which is an elite audience, gain a tolerably realistic picture of what's going on in the world. Otherwise, they won't be able to satisfy their own needs. 
"That's a contradiction that runs right through the educational system as well. It's totally independent of another factor, namely just professional integrity, which a lot of people have: honesty, no matter what the external constraints are. That leads to various complexities. If you really look at the details of how the newspapers work, you find these contradictions and problems playing themselves out in complicated ways..." 

Ed Balls: My Funny Uncle

Ed Balls has made an Out4Marriage video - saying he wishes his late gay uncle had been allowed to marry his partner.
Credit where credit's due these videos are getting a lot of positive coverage in the straight press - even in the gay marriage-bashing Daily Telegraph.
The politicos, that is, let's not go overboard, here.
Elsewhere Nick Herbert, out Tory minister for paperclips police reform, has told the Standard he believes marriage equality is still a priority for the government.
“It has been suggested that this issue is not a priority. Of course, dealing with the economy and the deficit and restoring growth is the overriding mission and priority of this government. But since when was equality not a priority?
“Ensuring that people are treated equally without fear of discrimination should always be a priority. That’s why I think this proposal matters.
“I think the Conservative Party has changed dramatically over the course of the last few years. We now have more ‘out’ gay Members of Parliament [12] than the rest of the parties put together...
"I will forever be grateful to the MPs who had the courage to introduce civil partnerships.
“But I am getting rather fed up with people metaphorically jabbing a finger into my chest and saying I should put up with a civil partnership.
“How would they like it if I jabbed a finger into their chests and said they should put up with a civil partnership instead of their marriage? In my view it’s not acceptable to say to a group in society, ‘You should put up with something that is a second order institution to something that everybody else is entitled to, because we say so’. I think this is about nothing more or less than a fundamental issue of equality.”
And remember, MPs never-ever break their promises, or say one thing then do another.

PS And here's The Economist - a right-wing magazine that supports gay marriage - on David Cameron's problems bringing it in. 

'The issue of gay marriage has not only crystallised concerns about Mr Cameron’s firmness as a leader. It has also revived criticism of his broad strategy. Critics wonder whether he ever really understood why the Tories were so unpopular. Ordinary voters in swing seats such as Bolton West and Birmingham Edgbaston did not object to the party’s cultural views—or its indifference to greenery, its authoritarianism, or many of the other things Mr Cameron sought to change. Rather, they doubted the Tories were on the side of working people when it came to bread-and-butter issues such as living standards and public services. In Tory focus groups, members of the public are asked to draw an image they associate with the party. The most common picture is of a rich family posing in front of a big house. Gay marriage will be one of Mr Cameron’s nobler reforms. It will not solve his party’s image problem.'

Eurovision: Boo!

Oh noes! Azerbaijan isn't very nice and they are hosting the Eurovision!!!
Things are so bad Sir Peter Tatchell has put out a press release.
Let's read some more about this hell-hole.
The Times takes a look at Baku's subterranean gay life in The Power Of Disco-Ball Diplomacy..
Lucy Bannerman visits a gay club, and meets Elkhan Baghirov, an activist who thinks the Aliyev regime has been rather good for The Gays;
“Back when the opposition party was in power [after independence in 1991] it was not safe to walk the streets. Even in the past five, seven years, Baku was bad.
“I have spoken to many people this week who say they are so surprised. They were scared about coming here. I am pleased that they can now come to Baku and see with their own eyes. If you go out on the boulevard, you see a lot of happy Azeri faces.”
So NER.
Elkhan likes the Turkish entry; "Sexy man, super song."
The Telegraph's take on it is A tale of tyranny behind the kitsch of Eurovision in Azerbaijan, which, in true Telegraph-style, completes the Herculean task of writing about "the annual festival of tackiness" without actually mentioning The Gays.
Well done.
Meanwhile The Economist wonders what the Politically Apolitical European Broadcasting Union can do to protest the repressive regime.
It's funny I don't recall many journalists drawing attention to Israel's piss poor human rights record when they hosted Eurovision last, do you?
Still, it's not like Israel uses Eurovision for propaganda value to try and present themselves as a nice, normal "European" country, is it?
I've also heard some terrible things about the host country of this year's London Olympics.
Apparently they keep bombing, invading and occupying other countries.
And loads of homes were demolished to make way for the stadium!
Imagine.
Anyone for a boycott?
Oh, and since you're wondering I'd quite like Jedward to win Eurovision, obvs.
Top lads.

PS I see someone has started an internet petition complaining about human rights in Azerbaijan. I bet President Aliyev is shitting himself. 

Gay Marriage: Bothered?

'Downing Street accepted that last week’s events had disappointed some MPs, but insisted there would be “no big change” in the way Mr Cameron does business. “We’ve got the right policies and we’re going to get on with delivering them,” said a source.
'However, Mr Cameron was directly confronted at a “robust” private meeting with members of the 1922 Committee of backbenchers, who told him he must make changes if the party is to have any hope of winning a full majority at the next election.
'Several members of 1922’s executive – elected by their fellow MPs - told Mr Cameron he must overhaul his Downing Street operation. Others told him to think again on controversial policies like gay marriage.
'Robert Halfon MP, a member of the 1922 executive, said he was concerned that the Government is struggling for support among the low-income workers whose votes decide the result in many marginal seats...'

The Daily Telegraph.
This is clearly a view the serial gay marriage-bashing Telegraph shares. 
Over the last few days it's been a recurring riff for both them and The Daily Mail.
Once one might have expected the rest of the right-wing press to bleat along in agreement.
But The Times has published as many as pro-gay marriage articles recently, as the Telegraph has anti.
When the Financial Times joined the debate it was to mock the specious arguments of the anti-gay lobby.
And The Economist's lead columnist Bagehot blogged this afternoon on "why the Tory right is wrong about gay marriage";

'I struggle to see the link between gay weddings and the government's recent, genuine offences against competence: a poorly-presented budget, and advice on preparing for a petrol strike that failed to take into account the detail that British motorists, when panicked, have the rational capacity of hens.
'But there you go. For a certain sort of MP, Mr Cameron's enthusiastic support for gay marriage clearly remains a talismanic blunder, that exposes his failings as an out-of-touch elitist surrounded by amoral metropolitans...'

Bagehot wonders who's really out of touch with the modern world, illustrating his argument with the following anecdote;

'Jane Ellison, the impressive, Bradford born and raised MP for the south London seat of Battersea, tells a story about the moments just after Mr Cameron's 2011 conference speech [when he said he supported gay marriage], as delegates and members of the audience streamed for the exits. Ms Ellison was just behind a smartly-dressed older couple of party members, when they were accosted by a campaigner proffering fire-and-brimstone leaflets against gay marriage. "Thank you," said one of them, as she declined the pamphlet: "But we're just not very bothered."'

President Obama: Shot By Both Sides

"It takes a special genius in politics to be assailed by both sides of an argument and receive no credit at all for standing in the middle. That is the position into which Barack Obama appears needlessly to have manoeuvred himself on gay rights. Social conservatives complain that he has done too little to “defend marriage” (by which they mean preventing gays from marrying), and that his plan to allow gays to serve openly in the military will spook America’s warriors. Gay activists complain that he has so far been too timid on both fronts. And, as luck would have it, Virginia Phillips, a federal judge in California, made a ruling this week that has tossed the question of gay rights back into the public eye at the most uncomfortable possible moment for the White House: three weeks before November’s mid-term elections..."

The Economist comes out against Obama's timidity on gay rights, An Own Goal On Gay Rights.
The picture shows an anti-Obama poster that has appeared over a freeway in Colorado for the US mid-term elections.
The one on the far right is meant to symbolise how he is overfond of The Gays - alongside terrorists, gangsters and Mexican immigrants.
One lousy poster, that's got endless free publicity - including as per usual on here.

Gay Marriage: Believe It Or Not

Apropos of nothing beyond the fact I found this interesting and haven't seen it anywhere else, here is a chart from The Economist showing Americans' views on gay marriage broken down by religious belief (Judeo-Christian only, oddly) or the lack of it.
"For the first time since the Pew Research Centre began conducting polls on the subject in 1995, fewer than half of Americans (48%) are opposed to gay marriage, while 42% are in favour..."
Further breakdowns by age, gender, geography, race, education, and political affiliation here.

The Economist: On Gay Marriage

'Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.'

"Those two lines, from Judge Vaughn Walker's decision to overturn Proposition 8 in California, are as fine a summary of Perry v Schwarzenegger as you'll find. In arguing for gay marriage back in 2004 we asked, "Why should one set of loving, consenting adults be denied a right that other such adults have and which, if exercised, will do no damage to anyone else?" In the end, proponents of Proposition 8 could not answer that question, nor could they support their flimsy claims that gay marriage does damage to children and the institution of marriage," argues The Economist this week.

Surprised?
You shouldn't be - The Economist first came out for gay marriage back in 1996, arguably the first mainstream UK-based publication to do so.
And following liberalism to its logical, non-hypocritical conclusion, The Economist has also repeatedly argued for the legalisation of drugs.