LGBT to protest against Wilberforce Academy
By Jonathan Tomlin
Oxford’s LGBTQ community have planned a protest against a Christian Concern conference, to be held at Exeter this month.
The protest, to be held on 25th March, comes after The Oxford Student reported that the Christian Concern group, which advocates “corrective therapy” for homosexuals, will meet at the college this vacation.
The conference, called “The Wilberforce Academy”, whose website boasts a large picture of the Radcliffe Camera on its home page, is an annual event run by the group.
Christian Concern’s CEO earlier claimed that “the Bible says clearly that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that all sex outside of marriage is wrong”.
The LGBTQ Campaign wrote to the Rector of Exeter College to inform her of the protest, saying: “As we know you are aware, the organisation Christian Concern promotes an actively homophobic, transphobic, racist and sexist agenda. It advocates scientifically unsound and moreover dangerous ‘therapy’ in order to ‘cure’ homosexuality amid numerous other disagreeable things.
“Such views cause social harm rather than social harmony, and we are concerned that, by appearing to support this conference, the University can be presented (by Christian Concern and others) as endorsing these views, and Christian Concern’s views can be legitimised by their connection with the University’s reputation as one of the most important centres of knowledge in the world.
“We believe that greeting the conference with a barrage of placards will make it clear, both to those attending and to anyone else watching, that Oxford does not welcome such hateful views, and will not stand for inequality.”
Edward Allnutt, a JCR LGBT rep at Exeter, said: “I see no reason that these people should not be able to rent college premises for a private conference if they do not use Exeter in their promotional material. I therefore hope that those protesting understand what they are protesting.
“If they are there to protest against Exeter because they think we are homophobic or that the governing body mishandled the issue, I believe they may number among those who have not followed this process ab ovo but have jumped blindly on the bandwagon of righteous moral crusade, a bandwagon that terminates at confrontation via media obfuscation and general ignorance.
“If they are simply there with a message of love to remind the public that Oxford is not a bigoted backwater full of cretins, whose only religion is intolerance, then that’s entirely laudable and I support it wholeheartedly.”
Benjamin Clayton, JCR President at Exeter, said: “The Exeter JCR is fully committed to equality for all. This is why the JCR Executive has fully supported College’s moves to improve the process of allocating commercial facilities in the future, and the JCR has strong representation on all working bodies.”
The Rector of Exeter College Frances Cairncross has stated: “Exeter College has a strong record in protecting the rights and dignity of its gay and lesbian members, and we continue to champion those values. My colleagues and I have discussed the conference at length with representatives of the MCR, the JCR, representatives of Exeter’s LGBTQ community and other students who have voiced views on the matter.
“As soon as it was raised as a potential issue, the Bursar wrote to the Wilberforce Academy to emphasise our position on equal rights, and sought and obtained reassurances that nothing in the meeting would be against our policies on basic rights and freedoms. The first meeting of Governing Body in Hilary Term also set up a working party to review the basis and terms on which the College agrees to the use of its premises by other bodies.
“We believe that Exeter College is a place where students and staff alike can be free from fear and prejudice, and we are proud of that.”
Last month Michael Amherst, an Oxford graduate, returned his Exeter College degree in opposition to the upcoming event.
MarkP
24/03/2012 at 11:33
It’s good to see a strong stance being taken against this disgraceful event. Frances Cairncross has been less than honest about the situation and her failure to cancel it for the sake of the University’s reputation, at whatever financial cost, or even apologise for the fiasco (which has had worldwide media coverage) demonstrates that there is more going on here than meets the eye. This is, in fact, the third such event at Exeter. These weird so-called Christians arrived with the present US-lovin’ Vice-Chancellor who has remained extremely quiet about the whole business. It will certainly be interesting to see if Oxford soon starts dabbling in sexual preference ‘science’ of the kind that Obama banished from the US. These right-wing fanatics just love all that and pay well for it.
June
24/03/2012 at 15:38
Edward Allnutt, JCR LGBT rep at Exeter, said: “I see no reason that these people should not be able to rent college premises for a private conference if they do not use Exeter in their promotional material.” Check this out Mr Allnutt: http://wilberforceacademy.org.uk/. That’s the Radcliffe Camera and All Souls. Is that OK for you? Bizarre.
Barry
25/03/2012 at 10:30
This is a hysterical smear job against a Christian organisation with mainstream views. Sexist? It’s run by a woman for starters. Racist? It works closely with black churches. The LGB letter sounds like a parody.
The conference isn’t even about homosexuality, nor do Christian Concern attempt to ‘cure gays’ – they just once defended the right of one woman to offer the service to clients who want to receive her therapy. It’s a question of personal autonomy and freedom.
What’s concerning is the casual totalitarianism of the hysterical PC crowd, who have tried to get this event banned, throwing away centuries of religious freedom and freedom of speech to suit their casual prejudices.
I guess only people with the sexual ethics of Stonewall should be allowed to meet in Oxford then? What sad days we live in. First they came for the Christians …
Political Correctness has its roots in Marxism – be careful what you wish for.
Ed A
25/03/2012 at 22:34
June — Yes, there’s nothing we can really do about them using a stock image of Oxford city centre, is there? It’s not of Exeter. The point is that they musn’t explicitly associate themselves intellectually or politically with the university or the college. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like these people or anything they stand for, I just don’t believe we could have refused them the premises at this stage.
Barry — would you consider reading through some of this, http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns before telling us how nice these people are? Saying they’re not racist because they work with black churches is rather akin to Jan Moir saying she’s not homophoic because she has gay friends.
In fact, one of the least covered aspects of this story is the fact that these people are also quite hateful towards Islam (again, see website). Their rhetoric intends to spread fear of anyone who is not Christian and does not share their views. They use that very image of being persecuted to gain sympathy; they’re not even bullies, they’re just snotty, blind, bigoted cowards.
But they are paying customers and their conference is private. That cannot be understated. We never gave them a platform, only the hospitality we would afford to any other client.
Badmington
26/03/2012 at 10:01
I was at the protest yesterday (25th March) and can honestly say it was one of the saddest days of my life. For the most part, the delegates of the conference were not all the vicious neo-fascists that I expected. They were, for the most part, impressionable young people whose delusions about LGBTs and Islam and much else were so obviously second hand. They clearly had no true understanding of the half-truths and semi-arguments they tried to peddle and deployed rhetorical devices (such as, Barry, mentioning paedophilia whenever one of us talked about homosexuality) without any understanding that these were the pernicious rhetorical devices of extreme right-wing lobbyists. They just uttered their twisted maxims, parrot-fashion, in a way that was always so frustratingly circular. So sad. Many of them were clearly gay at heart.
Andrea Minichiello Williams, CEO of Christian Concern and various other extreme anti-LGBT, anti-Islam, and anti-just-about-everything-else lobby groups, was something else entirely, totally in charge of the enigmatic hold she had on these young people and their parents’ Coutts accounts. Strangely, her undoubted charisma emanates from her tackiness and, gosh, is that woman tacky (think Joan Collins crossed with a Chihuahua, everything just about held together with Polyfilla). She has clearly got money and no taste, the worst combination. There is certainly some interesting psychology going on between her ‘Mommie Dearest’-style demeanour and the young closet gays who run around her adoringly like puppies.
Williams and her cohorts generally met clarity of argument with glazed eyes and a quick appeal to paedophilia, the favourite subject of these people. I tried to explain to one of the organisers that same-sex sexual activity was common in the natural world. The argument I got back was “Well, even many gays such as Peter Tatchell don’t believe that.” I don’t know what Mr Tatchell’s beliefs on the matter are but I do know that there is a vibrant academic literature on the subject which proves the matter beyond a shadow of a doubt. I wish I had taken Bruce Bagemihl’s ‘Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity’ (Profile Books, 1999) or Joan Roughgarden’s ‘Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People’ (University of California Press, 2004) or Sommer and Vasey’s edited volume ‘Homosexual Behavior in Animals: An Evolutionary Perspective’ (Cambridge University Press, 2006) to show them what academically-derived literature on the topic looked like. I tried to express my knowledge of the subject but it didn’t make any difference. Williams’s problem (money but no taste) is Christian Concern’s problem. These people want Oxford kudos and branding; they don’t care a bean for our commitment to academic rigour. This is why it is wrong having Williams and her cohorts here. In the absence of anyone stating authoritatively that this slide into weirdness is going to stop, their problem is rapidly becoming Oxford’s problem. Yes, their fees (£150,000 for 5 days a year) are ostensibly very charismatic and will certainly buy us a lot of Polyfilla. But then that hasn’t stopped Williams looking so cheap and nasty; I’m not sure it will do much for our scholarship.
Dr Christopher Shell
26/03/2012 at 10:40
There are three contexts where it would be biased not to mention paedophilia in this connection:
(1) where the topic is sexual orientations – are orientations a neutral or inborn thing?
(2) where the topic is the identity of paedophiles/pederasts and whether certain groups figure more or less among them;
(3) where the topic is abuse suffered when young and its later behavioural effect, statistically and proportionally.
Of course, we do not base our behaviour on copying animals. Secondly, when we do, we would always need to ask the question ‘which animals in particular’ since otherwise the animals would be charry-picked to suit our preferred conclusions. But the third point is: what is meant by same-sex behaviour? Friendship and hanging out with your mates is same-sex behaviour, and no-one can deny it. We are all highly in favour of ‘same-sex behaviour’, just wish to point out that sodomy (pretty rare but not unknown among a small minority of animals, which most people stress at the expense of the large majority) is medically dangerous and gives no sign (a sign might be, for example, lubrication, lack of sphincter, screening of harmful microbes, lack of diseases as a result) of being biologically natural, let alone unharmful.
Tom
26/03/2012 at 11:20
Dr (that always makes me laugh!) Shell! We thought of you yesterday at the protest!!! The subject being discussed was the anathema for references in pseudo-intellectual books about homosexuality. Someone thought it would be biased if your name was not mentioned in such a context.
Dr Christopher Shell
26/03/2012 at 13:53
I expect those who gave a thumbs down can produce some arguments in their defence – so let’s be having you.
Tom, your 3rd sentence is not clear. I am not sure that ‘for’ after ‘anathema’ is gramattically correct. (1) Name and shame the pseudo-intellectual books; (2) Give evidence for your claim that they are ps-intellectual; (3) Name instead some alternative academically-accredited writings that could be read with more profit. I always like to keep my bibliographies as full as possible.
Dr Christopher Shell
26/03/2012 at 13:54
Typo- grammatically
Tom
26/03/2012 at 16:25
You want me to provide references when you don’t do it yourself? Justify that (with references!) and (then) I’ll provide all the details you request. You can do it Mr Shell . . . Charles W. Socarides . . . Joseph Nicolosi . . . all the other NARTH vaders. Go on, you know you want to . . .
Ed A
26/03/2012 at 16:38
Okay Dr Shell let’s be ‘having you’. You mention elsewhere ( http://www.equalanddiverse.co.uk/oxford-university-to-host-anti-gay-conference/ ) that Christian Concern base their ‘statistics’ on factors such as ‘male homosexual life-expectancy, comparative rates of STIs, concurrent and transient relationships, promiscuity, drug use, depression and suicide’.
Let’s begin with drug use, as it’s a good way in to some of the key issues here. First, yes it’s true. In America, gays are more likely (190% more) to take drugs (lesbians up to 400% more), as Dr. Michael P. Marshal discovered in a meta-analysis of 18 independent studies between ’94 and ’06 (1), . And to what does he attribute this? The horrible burden of falling in love with the opposite sex? No. ‘Homophobia, discrimination and victimization are largely what are responsible for these substance use disparities in young gay people’.
So… perhaps it is in fact intolerance from people like you causing this destructive behaviour? Worth considering, eh?
There is also evidence (2) that intolerance within the family causes mental health problems, depression, and a higher suicide rate among young gays. One of the most interesting observations in the above-noted article is that families think they are protecting their children by suppressing their homosexuality while they are in fact harming them. In much the same way as I’m sure CC’s Christian Concerns are meant to be very ‘Christian’ but are in fact misguided.
You point to STIs in the gay community. Now, unless you’re going to tell us AIDS is God’s punishment for the Sodomites, I don’t see what relevance this has. Straight people get infected too. In Africa where condoms are not used, even more so. And who is at the smallest risk of infection? Those pure-breed Kinsey 6.0 lesbians.
What about this relationship constancy thing? Whether long-term relationships are a good thing or not is not a question I intend to address now, but I will point out that in studies where gay couples and straight couples are compared behaviourally, no differences are found in their relationship dynamics (3). I mean, c’mon, we’ve only been legal for 40 years or so, and stigmatised for most of it. Can you blame us for wanting to have some fun? You lot have been at it from the word Go(d).
And finally, to deal with your current bigotry, please tell me how sodomy is ‘medically dangerous’. All you have done is to say that the body is not designed for it. Well mate, the body isn’t designed to wear clothes or play football or fly light aircraft. We’re still gonna do it.
Oh and please stop calling gay sex ‘sodomy’. I promise I’ll stop calling you lot breeders.
(1) http://www.addictionjournal.org/viewpressrelease.asp?pr=74
(2) http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2008/12/29/rejection-of-gay-teens-linked-to-later-troubles
(3) http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/fam/17/3/419/
R
26/03/2012 at 19:02
They’re pretty Islamophobic too – http://www.christianstogether.net/Media/Player.aspx?media_id=60230&file_id= – seems quite worried about mosques being built in the UK…
Darth Rainbow
26/03/2012 at 21:50
The wanker-factor is strong with this one.
Tom B
27/03/2012 at 04:47
Thank you, Ed A, for a brilliant defence of the right to love and of the right to be funny. Dr Christopher Shell – please tell me that’s an internet PhD? Did you buy it from a pop-up? From which university are you accredited?
Regardless of your answer to these questions, please spend the following years writing a text to convince and not comments to provoke.
Tom
27/03/2012 at 10:27
Mr Shell?
Adam Eve
27/03/2012 at 10:32
I think the sight of a real academic footnote (yes, well done Ed A!) has given the antique closet case a coronary.
Alice
27/03/2012 at 11:16
Why do people think that anal sex is just a gay male thing? I can’t get enough of it. [Btw, Alice is not my real name but I confirm that I am a heterosexual lady...er...well, female].
Dr Christopher Shell
27/03/2012 at 12:48
In order:
Tom, you should have been at Exeter on St Pat’s. I was handing out a leaflet with enough references to satisfy even you. I thought I had already put a few of them on the internet in various threads of this discussion (mainly on the pederasty link) together with an open invitation to name any subtopic so that we could deal with its relevant bibliography.
EdA – your points in turn:
Since Christians are currently much less popular with opinion-formers, media etc than are gay people, it follows from your logic that we should all be on drugs and depressed. In fact all surveys, including one referenced this very day on Anglican Mainstream, show we are happier and as for drugs there are millions of Christian groups where they are simply non-existent. The hopeless worldview of secularism would die for a result a tenth as good as that.
Your coolest result is that lesbians who do not and cannot indulge in anything like sex have fewest STIs. Triple champagnes all round.
Of course straight people get infected too, *but not in such great numbers*. And an overwhelming proportion of marrieds (outside Africa) do not, so why are you advocating a social change *away* from the vast majority growing up to get married? Since when have 19-20% of heterosexuals had one single condition of this type, as applies to homosexuals and HIV? – see the 2011 study of Rosenberg et al., Center for Disease Control (BMC Public Health 11: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-11-189.pdf). STIs did double in the 1990s alone in the UK, and it was precisely the harmful prevailing worldview that caused that.
You must be very selective in the promiscuity studies you cite. The following list is less than half those known to me: Bell & Weinberg ‘Homosexualities’ (1978) – crazily large figures reflecting pre-AIDS San Francisco, but not so different from any of the following; A Kaslow et al., American Journal of Epidemiology 1987 (69-83% gay men reported 50+ sexual partners); J Lever, Advocate 1994 (57% gay men had 30+ lifetime partners, 35% 100+; 60% 5+ in preceding year); P van den Ven et al., Journal of Sex Research 1997 (as many gay men in Australia had had 1000+ partners as had had 1-10: 15% each time; nearly 50% had had 100+); CH Mercer et al., International Journal of STDs and AIDS, 2009 (in UK, 1999-2001, bisexual men have 3.5x as many partners as heterosexual; homosexual 5x more). The American Center for Disease Control 2011 study which I mention elsewhere in this comment concluded that of those gay men who had a primary sex partner, 68% had around 2 others per year.
Darth: You confirm my suspicion that for most correspondents the key question is ‘am I cool, am I in with my peer-group, and what is my image like?’ – rather than anything to do with evidence or research. Google ‘law of ten percent’. There is an American prof (Noelle Neumann, from memory??) who is a specialist on public opinion & researched the way that most people want to jump on the bandwagon of whichever way public opinion *seems* to be heading, even if it isn’t actually. That is why the whole tory front-bench has miraculously (all independently!) done a u-turn on gay issues within exactly the same very short time period. Because so many people have no convictions, just a desperate need not to be perceived as unpopular or uncool. Whereas anyone with honesty doesn’t in the least mind being unpopular or uncool. Keep the insults coming! They are evidence of not having passed beyond rhetoric to genuine argument.
Tom B: some Fen Poly, I think (in Oxford jargon).
Oh No...
27/03/2012 at 14:24
Its true. This really is the same guy who was lurking outside Exeter with a cardboard sign, wearing a dinner jacket.
I’m curious, “Dr” (please could you address Tom B’s comment regarding this title?) – you seem to absolutely despise homosexuality, and yet you spend a vast amount of your time both in public and online talking about it. And you did come across as a little bit camp in our little chat outside the College…are you sure you’re not just a teeny little bit tempted to come over to the dark side?
For all this talk about anal sex being immoral and unnatural, you clearly spend most of your waking hours thinking about it
Ed A
27/03/2012 at 14:36
Okay Dr Shell, to quote the average white band, let’s go round again.
1. Lesbians can have sex. Where on earth do you think I have said they can’t? What do you think they do? Get off swapping cardigans? All I said is that they are a low risk group if they indulge only in gynephiliac relationships.
2. These studies you cite are, I grant, mostly accurate. But please, 1978 is, in our eventful history, pretty long ago. And the fact that gay men are promiscuous and a high risk group doesn’t mean they should not have sex, it means they should be properly educated and supported. What business is it of yours how many people I sleep with? At the end of the day, it does not threaten you or your family. Unless one of them turns out to be gay, in which case you will either have to make a serious philosophical about-turn to avoid damaging a real, not an internet, person.
3. You can scattergun statistics all day, but you don’t seem to be drawing any conclusions from them. We know gays are a high risk group. I’m lucky not to have an STD. If I’m careful, I never will have. I have the same responsibility for my sexual health as any straight man.
4. Christians are not victimised like gays, blacks, muslims or any other minority group. How dare you. Has anyone ever passed you on the street and yelled ‘F***ing Christian’ because of how you choose to dress? Has anyone ever been physically violent with you because of whom you choose to love? Did you have to go trembling before your parents to announce your Christianity, and if you did, could they have kicked you out of home for it? These things and worse have happened to people I know because of their sexuality and how dare you undermine that because you think a minor change to marriage laws means you’re victimised.
Time.
Dr Christopher Shell
27/03/2012 at 16:31
Hi Oh No
I certainly will spend considerable time addressing widespread illogicalities of all kinds. That is time well spent.
I already addressed the Fen Poly point.
Not camp, just happy. In the words of Basil Fawwlty – ‘Ah yes, happy – I remember that.’
Hi again Ed
1 I totally agree with you that they are low-risk if they are solely gynephiliac since that is true by definition!! No sex, no STDs. (My previous point.)
2 Having pronounced the 5 studies from on high as ‘mostly accurate’, remember that only 20% of those cited date from 1978 (actually the study was from 1970 but published 1978). How about the other 80%? – and as I mentioned there are numberous others I can list on request.
3 The statistics are surely their own conclusion?
Gays are a high-risk group in the same way that smokers are – because their activity is significantly more than average unhealthy.
4 There is a lot of truth in what you say. Being victimised does not mean your activity is right or helpful. All I meant was that informed public opinion these days seems a lot more pro-gay than pro-Christian. Where the two worldviews come up against each other in court cases, the pro-gay worldview now routinely wins.
Dr Christopher Shell
27/03/2012 at 16:32
Typo – Fawlty
Dr Christopher Shell
28/03/2012 at 12:39
Not to mention ‘numerous’ for ‘numberous’
meow
28/03/2012 at 19:30
I’m starting to think differently about Dr/Mr Shell. He did look sweet in his dinner jacket with his little sign. I think we should adopt him and give him the university affiliation he so desperately craves. Are there any vacancies for college cats?
Dr Christopher Shell
29/03/2012 at 12:54
This thread is a conoisseur’s dream. Just observe the avoidance of questions, evidence, and everything that is supposed to characterise Oxford students. I hope they are not going to hand me a walkover.
Dr Christopher Shell
29/03/2012 at 12:54
typo – connoisseur
Corpuscle
30/03/2012 at 22:06
Hang on a minute, I remember talking to this guy with the sign, assuming this is the same Christopher Shell. He was wearing a tuxedo of sorts, carrying some leaflets and a hand-written cardboard sign. He told me was a post-grad at Cambridge. How can a post-grad at Cambridge already have the title of “Dr”?
Dr Christopher Shell
31/03/2012 at 10:53
It is I, but the sentence ‘he told me he was a post-grad at Cambridge’ is factually inaccurate. I collected my doctorate from there over 10 years ago.
Corpuscle
31/03/2012 at 15:12
My bad
Grammar Police
04/04/2012 at 14:06
For someone with a PhD from Cambridge your spelling is incredibly poor, Dr Shell
Dr Christopher Shell
12/05/2012 at 12:05
I thought I had self-corrected my typing errors, which I would not be in a position to do if my spelling were actually poor.
Readers, please note: anything to divert from the subject in hand.