Gay men harassed by police
The politics of cruising
Very few people are ever likely to know the truth about why former Welsh Secretary Ron Davies was on Clapham Common one cold October evening. Behind the press innuendo however lay the suggestion that the full story was too embarrassing to be made public. This was despite the fact that Davies is not accused of committing any crime - if anything he is a victim.
No one should be under pressure to resign from their job because they have had or have sought gay sex. While we did not support Ron Davies' candidacy for Welsh Secretary this is irrelevant to our stance on this question.
Below Mark Findlay looks at the politics of cruising:
What is cruising
Even today probably the majority of gay men are unable to be open about their sexuality. They remain within the closet and resort to secret means to meet each other.
Cruising is one of the terms used to describe this activity when meetings happen in places such as parks. Other common meeting places include public toilets - this is known as "cottaging" ( a public toilet is a "cottage"). Sometimes men meet and go elsewhere for sex; but frequently it happens there and then in the bushes.
"Cruising" and other attempts at anonymous sex used to be unknown amongst lesbians. This is hardly suprising given women's economic and social position in society and the fact that women are conditioned to have a less active sexuality than men. It is interesting to note that in recent years the growth of a more developed lesbian commercial network has led to some changes at this level - although still mainly within the confines of known lesbian venues.
Why do gay men cruise?
Well - in many parts of the country there is little else. "Legal" gay meeting places like pubs and clubs are concentrated in big cities and some seaside resorts. In countless small towns and the countryside there is nothing except roadside lay-bys (another common location for meetings to take place) and "cottages".
Gay pubs and clubs are also expensive - drink prices are higher than in most "straight" bars, closing them off to many on the dole or low paid jobs. Such venues are also closed to anyone "illegally" young - under 18. In any case, even today gay bars that do exist outside big cities are prone to being raided.
However, this doesn't explain the popularity of places like Hampstead Heath - and - let's face it - Clapham Common, even though London is full of legal gay venues. Part of the reason is the prevalence of homophobia and harassment that makes it difficult for people to be open about their sexuality - to "come out".
Many apparently "family" men are in fact gay or bisexual. They may resort to the anonymity of cruising to avoid exposure and the loss of family life and contact with their children that would result. Exposure may mean the sack and/or concentrated homophobia from work colleagues and erstwhile friends; particularly in small towns where "everyone knows everyone else".
But let's face it many gay men do it precisely for the immediacy, thrill and excitement of it. In one sense gay men are acting out stereotypes of male sexuality - in a situation of greater equality than is the case when heterosexual men act in a similar way in relation to women.
What does the law say?
All forms of cruising are thoroughly illegal. Sex in public places is prosecuted as "Gross Indecency" under the Sexual Offences act of 1956, which was definitely not repealed by the 1967 Sexual Offences Act which is generally assumed to have decriminalised homosexuality. In fact the Act only made sex between men lawful in some very specific situations.
The 1956 act provides that it is unlawful "for a man persistently to solicit or importune another man in a public place for immoral purposes ". In addition there are many more laws - and local bylaws - that make it illegal to cruise or cottage.
"Acceptable" and "Unacceptable" activity
What does this say about the attitudes of society to gay men?
We are "OK" if we have steady lovers (as I do) - but a non-monogamous gay man is still regarded with suspicion. It is much easier to come out if one has a regular partner. This makes me an "acceptable", "good", "well behaved" gay man. Men not in this situation are regarded as "dangerous", or "predatory" if they go out and search for partners in public.
The difference in attitude to `promiscuity' amongst gay and heterosexual men is very stark. For `straight' men, whether or not they are already in a relationship, multiple sexual encounters are seen as a sign of manliness, as something to be proud of. For gay men the reverse is the case.
There are interesting parallels to the way women's' behaviour is judged - they may well be regarded as "nymphomaniac" if they go out and seek male partners.
Gay men and lesbians are to be kept away from children. Even those in steady relationships are not thought suitable as adopters or foster parents - and even lesbians are likely to loose custody of their children if their sexuality is known. The old legend of homosexuality equalling pederasty dies hard and the fact that most sexual abuse of children is committed by heterosexual men within the family is ignored.
What is the response of the police?
Police raids on cruising areas are frequent. This may involve entrapment, where plain clothes "pretty" police pose as gay men waiting for sex (this is particularly the case around public toilets). It may involve the use of police cars charging around trapping men in their headlamps, use of dogs, etc.
Police policy has changed somewhat, however. A "gay police" society has been formed, there are "community liaison officers", there is increasing recognition of "queer bashing, and in a number of major cities gay groups have regular liaison meetings with the police.
Despite this double standards continue. Arrests and harassment of men found in public areas continues, especially in smaller towns and cities. Queer-bashers who harass, maim and murder gay men in cruising areas are rarely prosecuted.
The attitude of the government towards gay sex "crimes" appears not to have changed either. In the recent "Bolton Seven" case which saw seven men arrested for consensual sex the prosecutions were sanctioned by Jack Straw
Why it shouldn't be illegal
We are against all discrimination against gay men. The hounding of gay men who meet each other in public is a gross breach of their human rights. We are opposed to the criminalisation of any consensual acts - of "crimes without victims".
A complete ending of any legal justification for harassment of gay men is required. We are in favour of active anti-discrimination legislation and equality of childcare rights for lesbians and gay men.
Even in countries where more legal progress have been made such as the Netherlands, lesbians and gay men do not have the same rights to recognition of relationships and child care.
The heterosexual family is still a cornerstone of capitalist society, especially in Britain, as Jack Straw's recent pronouncements bear witness.
The threat to this from lesbian and gay sexuality is real as can be borne out by the hysterical reaction of the press. Gay and lesbian liberation therefore has a revolutionary content. A socialist society would abolish all discriminatory laws and substitute social rules based upon consent. We are committed to fighting for a view of lesbian and gay sexuality as completely good and normal.
The role of the Blair government
A good start was made, with promises to equalise the age of consent and abolish Section 28 in the manifesto. But we have now seen the following:
Failure to face down the Lords over the age of consent (although there is a promise of a "free vote" in the recent Queen's Speech [no that Queen …])
Legislation banning relationships between workers and young people in schools, social work etc considered together with debates on the age of consent. While we accept there is a real issue here, the linking of the two issues tends to strengthen the gay sex equals paedophilia argument of the reactionaries.
Abolition of Section 28 put on the back burner,
No mention of repealing the 1956 act or the "privacy" clauses of the 1967 Act
Jack Straw's and Tony Blair's recent statements favouring marriage in bringing up children
These alone should point out that the Blair government is to say the least not as "friendly" as some in the gay community think.
What we call for
We argue for:
Equalisation of the age of consent as a step to moving to consent as the only criterion governing whether a sexual act is legal
All discriminatory laws, and clauses in other laws to be repealed, notably the "Gross indecency", "importuning", "soliciting" provisions in the 1956 acts, and the "in private" provision of the 1967 act.
Removing all by-laws that can or are used to control use of parks etc by gay men.
Repeal of other legislation used to harass lesbians and gay men such as "breach of the peace" provisions
Repeal of Section 28
Repeal of all legislation that discriminates over childcare
Full anti-discrimination provisions; constitutional rights.
Full recognition of all relationships, with the right to register and de-register any relationship with no waiting periods etc.
No specific favouring of "marriage" for inheritance and childcare purposes. The removal of the right of priests and other religious figures to register marriage.
Specifically outlawing homophobic acts