Outrage!, which is the gay human rights group in which I am involved, has long had Michael Portillo on its list of prominent anti-homosexuals who are themselves gay. Sadly, this country's draconian libel laws prevented us from naming him, as there was no one prepared to go public with what they knew about his secret gay life. Now he has outed himself.

Further to his self-outing in The Times on the 9th September 1999, I must denounce Michael Portillo as a hypocrite and homophobe. Despite his own gay relationships, he has consistently opposed gay human rights and has never shown any sympathy or support for the gay community. Mr Portillo is no friend of queer people. He voted for Section 28, against an equal age of consent and, as Defence Secretary, he enforced the ban on lesbians and gays in the armed forces.

We are planning to intervene in the selection of the Conservative candidate for Kensington, and in the Kensington by-election, to highlight Michael Portillo's hypocrisy, homophobia and failure to tell the full truth about his homosexuality. Our plan is to embarrass Michael Portillo and the leadership of the Conservative Party. Details of what we plan remain secret, but I can promise fireworks and dynamite.

As his former lover Nigel Hart has revealed, Mr Portillo's account of his past gay relationships is not the whole story. He has presented a dishonest version of his homosexual experiences. He asserts that his gayness was a passing dalliance, when he was a "young person", during his student days at Cambridge. But he was having gay sex with Nigel Hart until he was 27, long after he had left university. And, contrary to his stated claims, it was a very "full relationship". Mr Portillo's public version of events is evidently false.

His homosexuality should not be used to bar his selection as a Tory candidate for Kensington. It is his hypocrisy, homophobia and economy with the truth that renders him unfit and unworthy to hold public office. How can the people of Kensington trust a candidate who has given a misleading account of his life?

The issues we shall be highlighting in the Kensington selection and by-election are homophobia, hypocrisy, trust and integrity. On all four issues, Mr. Portillo is not a fit and proper candidate.

Michael Portillo is a hypocrite and homophobe. Despite his own gay relationships, he has consistently opposed gay human rights and has never shown any sympathy or support for the gay community.

On the 15th December 1987, Mr Portillo voted against amendments that would have allowed local authorities:

1. To discourage anti-gay discrimination and protect the civil rights of homosexuals;
2. To provide counselling, advice and support to vulnerable, isolated lesbian and gay pupils;
3. To permit schools to teach awareness of different sexual orientations.

Although taking a hard-line stand on law and order, Mr Portillo broke the law by having gay sex with Nigel Hart at the age of 19, at a time when the homosexual age of consent was 21. He showed no respect for the law in his youth, but he now supports an age of consent law that criminalises 16 and 17 year old gay men. This is further evidence of his hypocrisy and double-standards.

Since coming out, he has not recanted his past support for discrimination against homosexuals. This shows that his claimed conversion to sexual tolerance and to the caring, liberal wing of conservatism is a fraud. His continued unwillingness to express any empathy for the lesbian and gay community shows that he remains a cold-hearten, compassionless homophobe.

Mr Portillo not only voted for Section 28. He also voted against three amendments to protect and support vulnerable young lesbians and gays, effectively endorsing the isolation and victimisation of homosexual teenagers.

On the night Parliament voted against an equal age of consent in 1994, when news of the defeat on equality came through, 5,000 lesbians and gays massed outside the House of Commons spontaneously broke into a chant of 'Portillo is a faggot', furious that he voted against equalisation at 16.

That is nothing compared with what we will intentionally do in Kensington.

I also doubt Mr Portillo's political sense. Had he confessed himself more fully in the Times interview, he would have silenced all criticism - excepting only Mr Tatchell's. No one of importance in the Conservative Party would have dared say a word against him. He would have sailed through the Kensington and Chelsea selection, and probably also through the by-election. What he did instead was to make a semi-confession that was immediately revealed as an untruth.

Of course, there are people who say that he deserves the support of our Movement even so. He remains the only credible alternative to William Hague as Leader of the Conservative Party; and we are encouraged to forget about matters of personal honesty and political common sense in giving him our unqualified support. There are times when the public danger requires an individual's abilities to be recognised and his personal failings overlooked. I am minded of the corruption and even treason of the first Duke of Marlborough.

But Mr Portillo is a man of no identifiable abilities whatever. He is simply another member of the Quisling Right - likely to say one thing if it will gather in the votes, and then to do the exact opposite once elected to office. This is a man who when in Parliament voted for the Single European Act and the Treaty of Maastricht. As Minister of Defence, he sent British servicemen to fight in wars directed by foreign powers and contrary to the obvious interests of this country.

To sabotage Mr Portillo's return to politics will do this country no harm, and might do it some good. For these reasons, I wish Mr Tatchell all the best.

(Peter Tatchell has an interest in Michael Portillo so great that it may result in his reading this number of Free Life in a police cell.)