And another thing…

THE LATEST furore over homophobia is one I really don’t want to get frawn into. However…

Following my last post about a Tory smear against the Labour Party, "Jimmy" left the following comment:

Whilst sadly acknowledging that there will be homophobes in both the Labour and Conservative Parties, it would be interesting to hear his view’s on Lord Waddington’s (and Baroness O’Cathain’s) opposition to clause 61 of the Coroners and Justice Bill:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90518-0005.htm

Will David Cameron now prove that he means what he says, and openly criticise his colleagues in the Lords for their outdated and (I would argue) offensive views?

Jimmy is no doubt referring to the debate in the Commons on 24 March on the so-called "Freedom of speech" clause which was inserted into the Justice and Immigration Bill last year in the Lords by David Waddington. It was accepted by the government at the time due to lack of parliamentary time. But they used the opportunity of the Coroners and Justice Bill to attempt to remove it from statute. 

Essentially, Waddington’s amendment provided legal cover to those who merely criticise homosexuality and advocate desisting from it, making sure that such did not constitute the offence of incitement to hatred of homosexuals. Personally, I don’t see the point of telling a gay man he shouldn’t be doing what comes naturally, but I know some evangelicals who obsess unhealthily about this sort of thing and I don’t see the point in charging them with a criminal offence.

The point is, neither does the government. In replying to the debate in March, the minister, Bridget Prentice, said:

We need to protect groups that are the target of threatening behaviour intended to stir up hatred. We must also ensure that those who have concerns about some types of sexual behaviour are free to express their arguments and concerns in a reasonable way. They do not need to fear that they will be caught by the criminal law.

The government did not regard the Waddington amendment as homophobic, but merely as unnecessary to achieving the goal which both sides wanted: a freedom to criticise without fear of prosecution.

I supported the amendment, and joined Labour rebels and most of the Parliamentary Conservative Party in the lobby. The full account is here.

Jimmy and others will no doubt call me a homophobe, despite a strong record of supporting gay rights in the Commons and despite the fact that my aim, and the aim of other supporters of the Freedom of Speech clause, was identical to the government’s.

But feel free to call me a homophobe. It’s not true, and of course I will be offended. But hey, it’s your right to offend and my right to be offended. At the end of the day, it’s only words.

MANY a cup of darjeeling would have been spat across the breakfast table at the homes of “Outraged of Tunbridge Wells” this morning when news of the performance of “Romeo and Julian” was reported in (where else?) the Telegraph.

Not a member of Stonewall

Philip Davies, a Conservative MP (who else?) raised the issue at Business Questions and was reportedly indignant at the prospect of these limp-wristed blighters seeking to convert innocent children to their perverted way of life, etc, etc…

“Romeo and Julian” is a new version of the Shakespeare play which is being performed in a handful of schools as part of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Awareness Week (admit it, Stewart — you’ve already got the teeshirt, haven’t you?). Inevitably, Philip Davies described this as “political correctness”, thereby damning it in the eyes of many.

Now, as you will know, I’m no fan of political correctness when it’s taken to its silly extremes. But this is hardly an example of that. There’s no doubt a lot of homophobic bullying goes on in schools and elsewhere and it’s only right that children are made aware of why it happens and how to stop it. If “Othello” were re-written explicitly as an anti-racist tract, would Mr Davies also describe it as “politically correct”?

I’ve no doubt that large numbers of people will respond to Davies’s dog whistle as he intended. But to many others — particularly those who have gay or lesbian children — this initiative will be welcomed.