At last! Some funny breast-fondling news in France's bitter gay marriage debate

Anyone who has been reading the French press lately or my entries on France's gay marriage debate knows that it has been acrimonious and physically violent on far too many occasions.

So it was good to see French TV presenter Audrey Pulvar and pro-marriage député Rosalyn Bachelot put on a show of pretend-lesbian love recently for virulently anti-homosexual right-winger Christine Boutin in the form of a video postcard. It begins with Boutin's usual blablabla and then there's Pulvar and Bachelot.

Pulvar: D'you wanna touch my breast a little?"
Bachelot: Okay, done.
Pulvar: I know there's not much to touch, but never mind.
Bachelot: No, it's fine, it's fine. I've known smaller ones.

Think of their stunt what thou wouldst, but the bald fact is that the news in France is so horribly depressing at the moment that right now I'll clutch as at a straw at any news story that makes me smile.
 Have a good Sunday evening.

Today's anti-gay marriage demo in Lyon shows that the movement is beginning to lose the battle

The anti-gay marriage lobby took to the streets of Lyon today for the second time in three months to demonstrate against government plans to legalise same-sex marriage, so I walked downtown to take a few photos.

It was a static demonstration, in front of City Hall, and the area directly in front of the building was full of the movement's characteristic blue, pink and white flags.

The atmosphere was rather 'bon enfant', and there were many families present. Here's one baby demonstrator, at the outer edge of the crowd. There were a number of other baby buggys too, most of which had babies in them, although a few others contained teddy bears or baby dolls.

Also on the sidelines were older people who obviously preferred the view from nearby steps to being caught in the crush below.

But these enterprising young ladies managed to get a good view as well as being close to the centre of the crowd. They are clinging to the railings of City Hall. Their first 'Bastille Moment'?

These people are signing an anti-gay marriage petition. As soon as I had taken this picture I was shouted at by a couple of very angry women who claimed that I was breaking anti-privacy laws. They demanded that I delete the photo, which I politely declined to do. After all, if people don't want other people to to take photos of people's bums people signing a petition in a public place then they should close off the table to public view, *harrumph snort*

Here's a photo of people using their constitutional right to stand in front of City Hall and make a lot of noise. The building's walls remained mute and unbending however, that which quite aptly and symbolically illustrates the government's refusal to bow to pressure from the street.

This view is dominated by the proudly imposing façade of Lyon's Opera House. Note the arches.

Behind the arches, and in the Opera's outer foyer, the teenagers who use this space daily as a place to work their Hip-Hop moves to the music of their ghetto blasters chose to totally ignore what was happening on the other side of the arches and carry on with business as usual. Top marks to them! These kids are a part of Opera life and the Opera's staff appreciate their respect for passers by as well as the efforts they make to keep the volume at a reasonable level. They are a credit to this city.

This demonstration was attended by 1800 people according to police figures in local press reports this evening, and the participants were certainly enthusiastic, but their efforts could not hide the fact that the event had a rather forlorn 'last ditch effort' feel about it. After all, the last anti-gay marriage demonstration here, on November 17 last year, attracted well over 20,000 marchers. (this is my photo-illustrated record of it for anyone interested.)

But the fire and high emotions of that day will not be seen again, because the gay-mariage law proposal is now being formally debated in parliament, and the general consensus is that the law is almost certain to be voted as it stands, without any major amendments. And that possibility took yet another step towards becoming reality this morning when parliament approved the law's first - and by far the most important, as it enshrines the right to gay marriage - article by a crushing majority of 249 votes to 97.

The anti-gay marriage lobby's cause is now all but lost, and I doubt I'll need to go to any more of their demonstrations. Their will is still strong despite the rapidly dwindling numbers of demonstators, but the facts are even stronger.

Still, not to worry, this being France there's bound to be another demonstration in Lyon soon, on another issue, and I'll be there to cover it and post the results here.

Have an excellent weekend everyone.

Gay marriage will be legalised and it's all over bar the shouting

Christiane Taubira, French Minister of Justice

After seven months of noisy for-or-against demonstrations, impassioned speeches, angry slanging matches and media stunts, the bitter debate on gay marriage entered its last phase yesterday with the opening of the official parliamentary debate, which will last for four weeks and culminate in a vote.

The opening speech, in support of the bill, was made by Justice minister Christiane Taubira, and what a speech it was. Taubira's reputation as a turbulent free-thinker within the government may have had some Socialists fearing a tirade of non-party-line personal views before she stood up to begin her speech, but their fears were instantly allayed by what turned out to be an eloquent discourse of very high quality which she delivered without notes. It lasted 35 minutes and she fully deserved the standing ovation which followed her closing remarks. It was more than a hard act to follow and sure enough, the opposition's subsequent speeches sounded lame and hackneyed in comparison.

Nouvelobs political commentator Thierry de Cabarrys summed up her performance rather well by writing that she "...left the opposition, which was quick to heckle her at the start, with no way of challenging her arguments, which, one after the other, referred to the bill in historical and legal, but also republican, human and poetic terms."

The run up to this debate had led us to believe that it would be the four-week political equivalent of the Battle of Waterloo and a Custer's Last Stand for the opposition, who promised to throw everything into the fight. French parliamentary rules allow for amendments to a bill to be proposed by its opponents and debated, and the opposition had made it clear that they would adopt a filibustering tactic consisting of the submission of 5000 mostly spurious so-called amendments in an effort to try to drag the debate out at worst, or, better still, force the government to abandon their plans.

But two sets of circumstances seem to have taken the wind out of their sails. Firstly, there was a massive, almost surprising, show of solidarity by the Socialists, who were almost all present. This is a rare sight in Socialist circles, the party being notorious for its internal divisions and squabbling, so any hopes the opposition may have had of putting them off their stride were dashed from the start.

The second factor is that it became evident yesterday that the last few months of bitter in-fighting between various opposition factions, due mainly to the suicidal party leadership spat between Jean-François Copé and François Fillon, has left rank-and-file députés disoriented by the lack of a clear party line on Gay marriage. This explains the conspicuous absence of a good number of opposition députés in parliament yesterday, and the bedraggled ranks of those who did turn up must have been disappointed by their leaders' speeches, which were uncoordinated, unoriginal and lacking in substance.

It was almost as if they knew in advance that their cause was lost, and this sentiment was transposed into petulant ill-will by leading UMP figure Christian Jacob, who explained away the poor attendance of the opposition with the hissy-fit declaration that they saw no reason why they should listen to Taubira's speech, which was "arrogant" and "talentless".

The Socialists have already announced their intention to address all the filibustering amendments - although similar ones will be regrouped for debate, as allowed by the rules - and refuse the temptation to push the bill through by shortening the debate via the use of emergency parliamentary measures. This is a wise move for it will ensure that the opposition will not be able to claim that they are being treated unfairly, and this may well lead to even more frustration within their ranks.

Chritiane Taubira's speech has probably sounded the death-knell for opponents of gay marriage, whose arguments have consisted of stale and outdated ideas of what modern society and marriage should be. And that's the up side, as there has also been a torrent of abusive and flagrantly homophobic bile with more than a hint of Catholic Integrism to it.

The debate will inevitably see some high drama moments and spectacular gestures such as, maybe, a parliamentary walk out by the opposition in protest, but when all the huffing and puffing is over it would appear that the government has already won the day and all it has to do to get the law put through to the Senate for ratification is hold its nerve in the face of what is sure to be an onslaught of provocation by the opposition.

The fact is that the gay marriage law was an election promise which was and still is supported by a majority of French citizens. This alone ensures that the government has right on its side. Add to that a discredited anti campaign and a leaderless, directionless and dispirited opposition party, and it's hard not to believe that it's all over bar the shouting and that the gay marriage bill shall be duly voted into law.

‘Homophobia : the consequence of latent homosexuality?’

'The Father, the Son and the Holy Ggost'

That headline is in single quotes because it's the headline of an article on Nouvelobs today by French social psychology professor Laurent Bègue.

The article is written against a background of increasing pressure from the Catholic church (more on that here) and other opponents of the government’s plans to legalise gay marriage, and just a few days before nationwide anti-gay marriage demonstrations. 

There is nothing new in the idea expressed in the headline of course, as the theory has existed in academic and research terms since the Eighties (see Wikipedia for more details). Nor is there anything new in the article itself, apart from some research information I didn't know about, but still, it got me thinking. I had a nagging feeling that I knew something which would help me decide for myself whether or not the theory is true. Then it came to me. Of course!

You don't have to be a psychologist or any other kind of ologist to see just how true that theory is when you think about it. Here we have a church, Catholic as it happens, which is virulently homophobic. To each his own. And we know that there are many more homosexuals in the Catholic church than there are in civil society, and that picture is compounded even more by the fact that the church doesn't even support heterosexual relationships within its organisation, never mind homosexuals. Yet here they are at the forefront of the fight to stop gay marriage and offer no specific rights to homosexuals in terms of union. Well well well....

But wait a minute, I thought, this line of thought has much more serious implications than that of homosexuality, which is after all accepted by most reasonable people who support the right of people to live their lives how they wish as long as they do no harm to others.

The deeper and more serious implication of the issue is that it is also well-known that the Catholic church has an inordinately high percentage of pedophiles within its ranks than is the case for the rest of society. And that many thousands of them have been exposed over the last few years. And that the church refuses even today to introduce satisfactory measures which would allow them to identify pedophile clergy and turn them over to the police.

Why did I bring up pedophilia? Am I creating an artificial and pernicious link between homosexuality and pedophelia? No, I am not, BUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS. Someone from the Catholic church makes that link almost every day in their criticisms of gay marriage. Several prominent clergymen and many lesser-known clergy have strongly and publicly insinuated during their campaign that homosexuality may lead to pedophilia. That is very revealing indeed.

No sane person would link homosexuality to pedophilia, and there is no evidence - research indicates the opposite in fact - to show that an abnormally high number of those pedophile priests who have been tried and convicted are also homosexual.

No, there is no link, but, as is the case for homosexuality, the fact that the Catholic church makes such outrageous conflating statements on pedophilia shows just how guilty some of its members must feel about it.

Ugh. What a detestable organisation the Catholic church is.

Bardot threatens to leave France for Russia? Good news and good riddance!

Brigitte Bardot

Wow! Kitty's got claws! Those who follow French news have been lapping up the long-running vaudeville farce of Gérard Depardieu's self-imposed exile to Belgium in order to avoid paying the high tax rates in vigour in France.

They have followed the for-or-against-Depardieu bitchy catfights between other actors of his calibre. By 'his calibre' I mean never talented in the first place, jealous of other actors' success, narcissistic, ludicrously ego-filled and always on the lookout for a quick buck or media hit. They have watched, spellbound, as Depardieu dramatically - as an actor would - announced his application for Russian citizenship as if he were pompously holding up a skull and gravely delivering the line 'to be or not to be...". They have learned all about Depardieu's shady business dealings with countries like Cuba, Columbia and corruption-ridden ex-Soviet satellite states and others. And they woke up yesterday to learn that Putin had finally decided to grant him a Russian passport (why is another matter). This story perfectly sums up why the term 'abject spectacle' was invented. 'Nuff said.

But Depardieu is not the only rich fan of Russia in France, so, ladies and gentlemen, please give a warm welcome to French sex starle citizen Brigitte Bardot!

Bardot threatened the French government today that she may soon be following in Depardieu's footsteps by asking to become a Russian citizen. She even said she may go and live there. The reason for that threat can be summed up by this photo, which I took here in Lyon three years ago.

Baby and Nepal

Yup, two elephants. I have seen these two elephants dozens of times in their compound in Lyon's zoo, which is situated in Lyon and France's biggest urban park, the Parc de la Tête d'Or. I go to there not to see the animals but because it's a peaceful place which allows bicycle riders like myself to ride around its wide footpaths and alleyways.

Bardot, like many of the people of Lyon, is quite rightly outraged at Lyon City Hall's decision to have them put down because they are dubiously alleged to have contracted a dangerous animal virus which is also dangerous for humans. She has been at the forefront of efforts to protect animals in France and the world, and her efforts are to be applauded. My position on this issue can be summed up by the angry email I sent two weeks ago to the Mayor in which I said that although I am not a major fan of zoos and as such am not defending the zoo per se, these animals should be reprieved pending further testing as a gesture of ethical fairness and compassion.The elephants' defenders, of which Bardot is by far the best-known, say that the authorities should carry out further tests to be sure of their diagnosis, and I agree with them. City Hall has refused to do so so far however, so as things stand Baby and Nepal are sitting on death row, gloomily awaiting their last meal of grass, leaves twigs and fruit and the stomach-churning visit by a (presumably Buddhist) priest.

But although I admire Bardot's stance on animals it has to be weighed against her stance on human beings. What does she think of people? This is what she thinks of immigrants and homosexuals, although she vehemently denies being either racist or homophobic.

In a book entitled 'Letter to my Lost France' she wrote "my country, France, my homeland, my land is again invaded by an overpopulation of foreigners, especially Muslims." That remark resulted in a 30,000-franc fine, handed down by a French court. She had already been fined for similar offences. Undeterred, she went on to say that Muslim immigration was a "subterranean, dangerous and uncontrolled infiltration...", and other remarks of that nature have led her to be found guilty of inciting racial hatred on several occasions over the years.

Her other target is gays. She compared her gay acquaintances to homosexuals who "jiggle their bottoms, put their little fingers in the air and with their little castrato voices moan about what those ghastly heteros put them through" and said that some contemporary homosexuals behave like "fairground freaks."

In other words, the fact that she votes in elections for the extreme rightwing xenophobic Front National party should come as no more of a surprise than watching the boat sink at the end of  the film 'Titanic'.

Back to the animals she loves, she once had a neighbour's donkey castrated because of its "sexual harassment" of her own donkey, and although that went against the grain she more than made up for that error by saying that a dog which had hideously disfigured a 4-year-old child should be spared from euthanasia and kept alive in good conditions for the rest of its life because it would be hypocritical to execute an animal in a country which had banned the death penalty for human beings.

That is the real Brigitte Bardot.

So if those two elephants are put down without further testing and she carries out her threat to move to Russia my reaction shall be twofold.

I shall be sad that the animals were put down.

And I shall be more than pleased to see the back of her.

Hollande invents the law of the land which you only obey if you feel like it

A recent photo of French president François Hollande

A stupefied France is today debating what will surely go down as one of the most bizarre and baffling presidential U-turns in this country's history.

François Hollande's election campaign included the promise, supported by a large majority of French citizens, that he would legalise same-sex marriage, and indeed he kept his word. Or at least he seemed to have done so until yesterday. The law had been drafted and was waiting for what would have been a formality of an approval vote.

However, last weekend witnessed large demonstrations in many French cities and towns (see this photoblog) by anti-gay marriage associations, one of which turned violent, and many people were surprised by the high turnout. So, it would seem, was Hollande, and he finally emerged from his silence on the issue yesterday evening during a speech at a meeting of French mayors in Paris to make this confusing and astonishing, statement, which was clearly designed to appease the many mayors around the country who have said that they would not apply a gay-marriage law;

"(If the law is voted) I recognise the freedom of conscience of mayors who would refuse to celebrate marriages between people of the same sex.... The possibility of delegations (i.e; of mayoral delegation of powers and duties) exists, and they can be enlarged.... There are moments in the life of a nation, and it is the role of the president, where we have to make choices and reflect the evolutions in society. It appears problematic and then the time comes that (the choices) are accepted by all, even those who are against a law proposal. The law of the land applies to all but it mast also respect freedom of conscience"

In other words, he quite simply offered mayors the possibility of refusing to marry homosexual couples if they felt like it, despite the fact that the law would guarantee that homosexuals would have the right to marry. Or in even simpler terms than that, he is buying mayors off by allowing them to break his own law, thus going back on his earlier declarations which insisted that no mayor would be allowed to refuse to marry gay couples.

Dumbfounded pro-gay marriage associations and politicians all over the country could hardly believe their ears. An Inter-LGBT spokesman said that he "couldn't undestand how anyone can justify a law which is not applied in the same way all over French territory." "We are stupefied", commented Elisabeth Ronzier from SOS Homophobie, adding that the president had "backed down."

Vincent Fleury, a regional leader for centrist party the Modem declared that freedom of conscience for mayors means that they may resign if they do not wish to apply the laws of the Republic, but that they may not remain in office and exempt themselves from them. Another centrist, Chantal Jouanno, reminded the president that he had opened up "an extremely dangerous breach" in the rule of law and "that freedom of conscience exists for voting in parliament is only right but it cannot be used to refuse to obey the law."

A baffled Noël Mamère of the EELV party denounced "a retreat, a submission and fudging.... By giving in to the most ultra (i.e. right-wing) mayors he has shown an inexplicable weakness." Mamère is also a mayor and he explained that Hollande's speech means that mayors would be able to delegate their duty whilst simultaneously imposing strict limits on what the person who is mandated to apply the law may do. He said that it would now be possible to refuse to delegate and even to delegate that only traditional marriages could be celebrated on their territory.

Others emphasised the danger that mayors would be able to extend the freedom of conscience clause to refuse to marry blacks, Arabs or anyone else they didn't like and, by extension, even refuse other rights.

In a more light-hearted vein, France's Twitterati is busy posting irreverent tweets asking if it's now okay to rob a bank or kill their noisy neighbour as long as they use freedom of conscience as a defence.

Meanwhile, anti-gay marriage supporters are celebrating what they clearly see as a major victory over the government saying that their pressure was beginning to pay off and that it is now time for Hollande to abandon the idea of legalising homosexual marriage.

With this astounding announcement François Hollande and his government have made it obvious to all - as if it were not already obvious - that they are there to be U-turned by anone who wishes to make them do so.

Hollande has now watered down, U-turned on or put off almost every major election promise he made, including on issues such as Europe, the right of foreign nationals to vote, the 'cumul des mandats' which permits multi-office holding by politicians, the national debt, legalised euthanasia, tax breaks for the rich and many more.

But his decision on freedom of conscience is the most cowardly retreat of all.

Faced with a weekend of demonstrations by a motley and ugly band of fascists, racists, church organisations (this is supposed to be France, a secular country) and Catholic integrists, François Hollande has proved to be a weak-willed and spineless president whose term in office so far has almost entirely consisted of appeasing his opponents.

As things stand Hollande is France's modern-day peactime equivalent of Neville Chamberlain, and if he doesn't soon find the guts to govern the country correctly that epithet shall surely prove to be his political epitaph..

Photoblog: the anti-gay marriage demo in Lyon

Anti-gay marriage demonstrations were held in several major French cities today, including Lyon. Police sources estimate that about 118,000 protestors took to the streets nationwide, including 22,000 in Lyon.

Lyon's demo march was scheduled to begin at 3pm and as the marchers converged on their initial meeting point numerous police units positioned themselves at a discreet distance. The second photo is of anti-riot police and the third is a group of guys who are not to be messed with. They are the BAC, the Anti Criminality Brigade, and they are not known for handing out sweets to children. They don't like having their picture taken either, and some of them turn away...

Shortly before the demo set off however, a small group of about 150 pro-gay marriage counter-demonstrators suddenly appeared out of side streets and gathered together 30 yards from the main demo. The riot police move nearer.

As they did so a group of uninvited extreme-right wing demonstrators appeared as if from nowhere and the mood suddenly turned ugly, with both sides spoiling for a fight. Official demo organisers could be seen imploring them to go away.

Both sets of demonstrators were quickly and forcefully escorted and dispersed under riot police control in different directions and the march organisers set off the procession. Not everyone had to walk though.

Their destination was the square in front of the City Hall. Here they are as the head of the cortege arrives and the square begins to fill with people. The police ordered the march to continue on out of the square to prevent immobile bottlenecks of impatient demonstators building up behind them.

The demonstrators finally returned to where they had set off from as darkness fell.

Dancers on a sound-system truck blast out disco music and hold up a large doll to represent a baby.

Their bon enfant mood would prove to be short-lived however. A young woman looks confused as police units suddenly rush past her and continue on down the street.

The demo had been interrupted by a series of loud bangs and bright flares on top of a nearby Tourist Office building. Riot squad vans raced around. The extreme-right demonstrators were back.

The extreme-right demonstrators finally descended from the roof and were just being congratulated by their followers when the riot police arrived and kettled them. I asked one of the police squad what they intended to do with them and he answered "these guys are going to remain kettled here until they get cold and hungry and we'll most likely let them go at about 11pm."

(This blog is a factual account of what I saw but anyone wishing to read my views on this issue may do so here.)

Charlie Hebdo cartoon enrages French Catholics and so much the better

Happy Family snapshot

Oh dear, the Catholic Church and its followers are NOT happy bunnies today, and it's all the fault of that nasty horrid little Charlie Hebdo who has been picking on them again.

The impudent French satirical mag has been a bad boy yet again by placing a truculent cartoon on the front page of its latest issue. It depicts 'The Father' with 'The Son' euhhh, 'behind' it, and "The Holy Ghost" sticking out of bringing up the rear. The caption reads "Cardinal Vingt-Trois has Three Fathers." It has been condemned by church leaders and followers alike and France's Catholic Twitterati has been working overtime with anger.

But why has Charlie Hebdo published the cartoon? Because leading French Catholics such as bishops and cardinals have been waging a viciously homophobic campaign against the government's plans to legalise same-sex marriage, that's why.

Cardinal Vingt-Trois ('vingt-trois means 23 in English) has been at the helm of the campaign, which has seen various church leaders assimilate homosexuality and same-sex marriage to incest, pedophilia, polygamy and other crimes. Not only are they infamous and deliberately inflammatory comparisons to make, they are dangerously wrong.

Cardinal 23 has said that same-sex marriage would represent "the marriage of a few imposed upon all." He is wrong. Nobody is imposing anything on anyone, the idea is to give people the freedom to live how they wish.

Cardinal 23 says that the church respects "the sexual reality of human existence." He, and the church, are wrong. The reality of human sexuality is that homosexuality has always existed and is thus a part of human reality.

Cardinal 23 says that "to impose within marriage and the family a vision of man without recognising sexual difference would be a deceptive sham which would shake the foundations of our society and impose discrimination between children." He is wrong. Again, society does recognise the existence of sexual difference and that's precisely why same-sex marriage is being envisaged. But - and ironically - he is right about children because given his views he evidently has no difficulty in discriminating between children and adults who are not what he thinks they should be. For him and others of his ilk some are good/saved and others are bad/lost.

Cardinal 23 bemoans the absence of a national debate on the matter. Wrong again. This issue has been debated by governments, the press and the people for at least 40 years and the result is that the majority of French citizens now support same-sex marriage, which has been a long-standing demand articulated by large sections of the public.

Cardinal 23 is not only anti-homosexual and same-sex marriage, he is anti-abortion, artificial insemination, stem cell research and more and calls them pagan, sectarian and atheist practices.

His list of accusations and condemnation is long and many other church leaders support him.

There is nothing wrong with the Cardinal expressing his point of view of course, that's his right. On the other hand he and his henchmen have sparked off an ugly public debate and the Catholic Church is de facto trying to influence a secular government. There's nothing wrong with that either. After all, all is fair in love and war.

What is wrong however is to expect the rest of society to refrain from riposting. The church has deliberately picked a fight with society and it is beginning to realise that society is fighting back, hence Charlie Hebdo's cartoon. There's nothing blasphemous about it, at least not in a free country. It insults religion? So what? He and his crew have spent centuries insulting the preferences of real human beings, not just a belief.

Besides, given the well-documented history of widespread pedophelia within the Catholic Church it should not be throwing stones from it's glass house and it has no lessons to give anyone.

The fact is that the Catholic Church is getting a well-deserved dose of its own medecine. Besides, Charlie Hebdo's cartoon is a very mild, almost placebo, criticism of the church compared to the church's own putrid and degenerate slander and slurs which, may I repeat, assimilate homosexuality and same-sex marriage to incest, pedophilia and polygamy.


The Catholic Church should be grateful that Charlie Hebdo has not printed a cartoon of a priest being fellated by a choirboy. That has happened before, and the church may now consider itself warned that if its despicable stigmatisation of people's sexual preferences continues it may well find itself being reminded yet again of its age-old rank hypocrisy and double standards in the matter.