Archive: gay

What does this remind you of?

I wasn’t going to write about Simon Hughes. Although I’ve felt like saying a lot, I was just going to keep a lid on it. But I can’t keep the lid on any more. As with Mark Oaten, I’ve not been a particular fan of Simon Hughes’ in the past. But I respect him a lot more today than I did this time last week.

There is some pretty weird logic going on about this. Apparently Simon Hughes should be condemned — not because of his homosexual relationships, oh no!, but because of his lying. But if you want to know why he felt the need to lie about it, just look at The Sun story that broke it. It was filled with homophobic jibes about “Limp Dems” and “another one biting the pillow”. And if you think that’s just me having a sense of humour failure, do you really think any newspaper, even The Sun, would get away with calling, for instance, a black Tory a “Coonservative”?

The thing is, Simon Hughes did not reveal that he was gay. He did something far worse — he admitted to being bisexual. Because being bisexual opens you up to prejudice and attacks from both straight and gay people, it’s a pretty big step for Hughes to take. It also means that he was right when he said that he didn’t lie, although it could have been misleading, when he denied being gay.

People say, “oh, why couldn’t he have used the Cameron defence?” They forget that the Cameron defence happened in 2005 and drugs are cool things that Average Joe uses. Apparently the 1980s were quite a hostile time — even more hostile than it is right now — to be gay. I wasn’t around in 1983 so I can’t say, although I have no reason to doubt that. If in the early 1980s he was asked if he was gay and just batted away the question without denying it he would have been accused of being evasive, and people would probably have said he was gay anyway (not that denying it helped Hughes on that front anyway).

Given that you apparently have to be married with kids to be accepted as a top politician (similar rumours about Gordon Brown’s sexual orientation continue to hound him because he left it until he was a bit old to have kids), it should be no surprise that Hughes wanted to keep it under his hat.

Look at this from idiot Lowri Turner (via Martin Stabe):

…I don’t think gay men make good party leaders or Prime Ministers. This has nothing to do with what they do in bed but everything to do with their lives in general.

Before I am accused of prejudice, I should say that not only are some of my best friends gay, but probably most of them are. I work in the media, for goodness sake. [aaaaaarggfghghghgh] It is precisely because I know such a lot of gay men that I can say that I don’t think many of them are capable of representing the interests of the vast majority of people.

Their lifestyles are too divorced from the norm. They are not better or worse, but they are different.

Gay men face challenges of their own, but they do not face those associated with having children which is the way most of us live…

What a grade-A idiot. And it’s because of these sorts of views, which are clearly still common in today’s supposedly enlightened society, that Simon Hughes had to deny that he was a bisexual.

Another reason why Simon Hughes is apparently fair game is because of the Bermondsey by-election. You know, that one where dissident Labour members launched homophobic attacks against the Labour candidate. There was a Liberal leaflet that called the election “a straight choice” — although it doesn’t say anything like “Simon Hughes is the straight choice” as most people are trying to make out. “A straight choice” is a very common term to use on election leaflets — even Labour used it last year, so it’s a bit much to be criticising the Liberals for using it against Labour almost a quarter of a century ago.

I was watching BBC News 24′s weekly political roundup last night, and this very issue was discussed. All of the pannelists condemned the slogan. The irony seemed to be lost on all of the guests — the programme they were on was called Straight Talk. So they were on a homophobic television programme, were they? Actually, they probably were. Paraphrasing guest Ann Leslie: “Haha, did you see The Sun? They called him a Limp Dem! AHHahahaah!” None of the other pannelists or the presenter suggested that the homophobia might be a bit out of order. Must be the liberal Biased BBC again, huh?

As for the “I’ve been kissed by Peter Tatchell” badges, have a read on Wikipedia — gay homophobes, eh? Obviously it looks a tad ironic given this week’s news about Simon Hughes’ private life. But since Hughes didn’t actually have anything to do with the badges, I think he can be let off on that front.

News International, gays and Lib Dems.

CuriousHamster has a great post about political correctness, and how he (as a bit of a lefty, mind) feels that it is true to an extent that political correctness stifles political debate.

I tend to err away from criticising political correctness, simply because the phrase, “I think it’s political correctness gone mad,” is little more than a proxy for “I’m a foaming racist, me!” However, I agree with CuriousHamster’s post so much.

Certain truths have become untouchable. Certain groups have achieved victim status and their actions have, therefore, become beyond reproach. Fuck that. If someone is behaving like an arse then they’re behaving like an arse, no matter their religion or the colour of their skin. Political correctness does at times hinder our ability to recognise and confront that, in my opinion, and that isn’t healthy.

They were talking about political correctness on the radio the other day, and one of the guests defended political correctness by saing, “It’s just a form of politeness.” Bollocks to politeness, I can’t stand that shite. If I think something’s a piece of crap, I’ll just go right ahead and say it. I don’t even see how polticial correctness is even about politeness. I don’t even think it exists in the sense that The Daily Mail would have you believe — but that’s another post for another time.

Back to the original point, though, about CuriousHamster’s post. The example I think of is from a couple of years ago which I blogged about a very long time ago (back when I still used Blogger, so no link; if you’re desperate to find it, you’ll get there yourself).* Beenie Man was nominated for the Mobos and Peter Tatchell decided to protest against his nomination because of his lyrics which advocate executing homosexuals. I think when somebody incites the murder of anybody, that is pretty damn indefensible.

Not for some though. Apparently Beenie Man only dislikes homosexuals because of his culture. In other words, it’s okay if he wants gay people to be executed because he’s black. Well, fuck that. I don’t give two hoots about the colour of his skin, or the culture of where he comes from. What matters is what he says. It’s the culture in many white working class areas to be a racist thug, but does the fact that it’s their culture make it right? Of course not. Beenie Man is an adult with responsibilities, and he uses his status to advocate the killing of homosexuals. It’s simply not on.

* That post was also the first time a bunch of snidey anonymous message-boarders decided it was okay to talk about me and not my post. Apparently I didn’t have a clue what I was talking about because (paraphrased), “I bet he is neither black nor gay.” Hmm. Then another person found the picture of me and said, “You’re right, he’s not black. He’s just some scrawny ginger guy.” So there we are: my views were discounted because I was ginger (I’m don’t even think I’m ginger, but what do I know?). That’s just racism if you ask me…