The Foreign Office and LGBT human rights: fake concern from shameless Labour

By Paul Canning

Labour really is shameless in hoping we'll all forget the gaping, gigantic, ginormous gaps in its LGBT record isn't it?

On asylum it's taken months before one solitary leader has acknowledged their appalling record - something completely and deliberately ignored during the election campaign in favour of a 'forget that, look over here' approach of 'keep pointing at the domestic legislative record' and 'yell loudly whenever some odd right-wing Tory 'misspeaks''.

On LGBT rights overseas, as I've documented, under Labour it was all about EU members with the occasional stretch to Africa and never about the world's biggest LGBT rights catastropy - Iraq. During the election the leading contender for the leadership David Miliband even told someone to shut up about Iraq during an LGBT event. The international record for Labour is actually thin, weak and late but you wouldn't know it from them banging on about it. What Hillary Clinton has done in less than two years puts their 13 to shame. Or rather it should.

Now LGBT Labour is joining in with Amnesty International amongst others blasting William Hague's Foreign Office on the new government's record internationally on human rights in general and LGBT specifically. The reason? Because of the generalised cost-cutting effort, they're looking at stopping publishing the annual human rights report as a glossy brochure and instead just publishing it online.

That's it. That's the big 'sell out'.

LGBT Labour Co-Chair Katie Hanson rails via Pink Paper:

It is unconscionable for the Con-Dems to even think about scrapping the Human Rights Report which is a vital tool for speaking up for human rights and LGBT equality the world over.

The previous Government was steadfast in its support for LGBT rights abroad by condemning human rights abuses affecting LGBT citizens and using its embassies to promote our own positive record in solidarity with those fighting for the rights we now take for granted.

Rubbish.

Tell that to the LGBT Muscovites sold out by both Miliband when he was Foreign Secretary and now Hague. Tell that to the asylum seekers told by the Labour government that Jamaica and Uganda are 'safe' countries so 'f+++ off home'. But most of all tell that to the LGBT Iraqis murdered by the hundreds. The annual report they're rushing to defend claimed, under Miliband, that Iraqi "official figures do not show a significant overall increase in violence against, or systematic abuse of, the homosexual community by fundamentalists or militia groups".

Miliband consistently refused to offer any criticism of Iraq's government, even when evidence mounted of their direct involvement in the killing of LGBT.

Where was LGBT Labour when Miliband was selling out foreign LGBT? In hiding. Nowhere to be found. "Steadfast in its support"? You're kidding me, right?

There's little reason to think the Coalition will be any better, though LGBTory are loudly calling for support for international LGBT rights, but come on! Have some humility! Labour are just shameless.

The retired diplomat Oliver Miles has it correct when he writes in The Guardian that the question of whether the annual survey does any good is much more important than whether it's printed on glossy paper.

He points out that the countries section covers 22 selected "countries of concern" in 90 pages. Inevitably, he says, the choice reflects (doh!) some political compromises and countries like Congo or Tajikistan (both very nasty places for LGBT by the way) are omitted; "what is perhaps more surprising is that neither is even mentioned in the index". He goes on to examine past attempts to rank and prioritise resources and engagement using human rights as one factor by the Foreign Office from his long years of experience. All end up being abandoned - most notably and recently Robin Cook's 'ethical foreign policy'.

"Can anybody show that the reports have actually contributed to anybody's human rights?", Miles asks.

Perhaps Katie Hanson can point out some documented usefulness for this report's LGBT content? The obvious connection from this website's point of view to any potential usefulness is, assuming it actually had some decent breadth of coverage on LGBT rights, that then feeding into the country reports used by UK Border Agents to help decide asylum case. And there is none, there's no relationship.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Foreign Office under fire over cuts to human rights monitoring (guardian.co.uk)