A unique blog post title for this blog. And one which will almost certainly never be reproduced.

Pretty much the only two good laws that have been passed by Labour in the last decade are in the news today.

First of all, the news that 24-hour drinking will stay. 24-hour drinking is just a good thing. All the complaints about it are exactly the same that existed beforehand. 24-hour drinking has just meant fewer fights in city centres due to different places closing at different times, and less of a need to drink lots of alcohol quickly in order to get drunk before time is called. It is just a good thing.

Secondly, the creation of legally recognised civil partnerships for gay couples, allowing Tory frontbencher Alan Duncan to be betrothed. Congratulations to him and his partner! Hopefully he won't be the last Conservative MP [or MP of any party] to take advantage of this opportunity to have their relationship legally recognised.

So Labour have passed two good laws. What a legacy for more than a decade of government!

Ok, that's not quite true. Shlomo Benizri, of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish Shas party, actually said:

Erm... so if earthquakes are the fault of the gays, what happened to the whole tectonic plates thing? Or did Shlomo Benizri just skip basic geography, and headed straight to the bigoted religious nut class?

And if his conclusion is indeed true, why are those countries who offer gay marriage/civil partnerships not experiencing earthquakes to a far greater extent than Israel who is merely recognising them? Or is that just too much like logic?

In other news, Iain Dale promises to avoid shaking his genitals in future. Something I think we can all be thankful for.

If you tell a joke about gay people, you could sent to prison for seven years under measures in the Criminal Justice Bill currently passing through Parliament. The Bill, intended to stamp out homophobic behaviour, has been criticised by the comedian Rowan Atkinson, who points out that it has

Indeed it does, especially when the penalty is so high.

When it comes down to it, you can't "stamp out" homophobia. It's not something that can be forced out of people. It is best just to ridicule the idiots who feel that way for their narrow-mindedness and get on with our lives.

Also, being a homophobe is not illegal, and nor should it be. The expression of this and an incitement to hatred of gays is and should be - but that does not need this new law. Nor should any group - whether they be able to be defined by age, gender, race, religion, sexuality or anything else - should be "protected" like this. All it would result in is an ostracisation of that group since any remark that could possibly be interpreted in an "illegal" way could lead to excessive punishment, such as seven years in prison. It would cause an apartheid rather than prevent discrimination.

This sort of law are utterly unnecessary and, really, prevent full and complete social inclusion of any "minority" group rather than facilitate it.

Source: The Telegraph

So say gay rights group Stonewall, after JK Rowling opens Professor Dumbledore's closet and outs him as gay.

You do just have the wonder whether Stonewall actually thought that sentence through. After all, the Harry Potter books in which Dumbledore features is fiction. That means it is not real. I just get the feeling that they pulled out a stock press release and just added the profession in, and then neglected to read it through.

In the same article, Peter Tatchell is quoted as saying
It is a children's book, and one in which sexuality is hardly fully explored. The nearest any of the characters get to sex is a few kisses. I hardly think that the sort of "explicit" addressing of Dumbledore's sexuality that Tatchell wanted would have added anything to the series or, indeed, been particularly appropriate. To do this would have added an entirely unnecessary dimension to the books.

I can't see that it really makes any difference that Rowling has outed Dumbledore as gay. It doesn't change the story at all, or make the slightest bit of difference to the context. So why all the fuss?

via John Moorcraft
Source: BBC