Why Jan Moir brings out the Mill in me
by Max Wind-Cowie
It is appropriate that, in a week that saw Jan Moir roundly condemned for her bizarre coroner-defying reappraisal of the life and death of Stephen Gately, the House of Lords should be debating new rules on what counts as ‘hate speech’ when it comes to a person’s sexual orientation. Now, in the case of Ms Moir, we must accept her forthright denial of homophobia – it would be ungenerous not to – but the responses that her column provoked help to illustrate how unnecessary any further legal protection is.
The Government is attempting to remove the right to ‘discuss and criticise’ sexual behaviour – an exemption that means that a person, whilst prevented from calling for injury or harm to gay men for example, is entitled to disagree with the morality of homosexuality in general. It is, in effect, a civilising piece of law which (in a typically British sort of way) allows one to say hateful things so long as one says them calmly and refrains from calling for some sort of ‘purge’. It passed into law as an amendment, supported by backbenchers from all parties but opposed by the Government, which is now trying to get rid of it entirely.
I’m sure that this is being done for exemplary reasons. As a gay man it is heart-warming to know that my Government would seek to protect me from the undeniable hurt caused by overt criticism of my lifestyle. But, as the backlash against Jan Moir’s comments has shown (the PCC has received 21,000 complaints which, apparently, is a record), the truth is that we can stand up for ourselves. What’s more, the outrage of writers and commentators such as Charlie Brooker points to a populace that recognises hate speech when it sees it.
In an era when gay people are strong and vocal enough to face down contempt we risk undermining hard won freedoms by becoming precious about our lives. The truth is that, in my experience, we are not persistently oppressed or victimised – if we continue to act as if we are, and require the associated protections, then we end up looking like bullies who refuse to let the huddled ranks of our frightened critics speak. Let them, and then we can celebrate the fact that the British public have turned their back on public homophobia for good.
Will Davies
Andrew - what about the beyond-bizarre suggestion that getting married is potentially fatal..?
"Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships.... the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately's last night raise troubling questions about what happened."
Andrew Preston
Beyond bizarre...
Not too sure what you're referring to ..., the frothy style or the content. The Mail isn't the Times Educational Supplement, and in context the comment you mention seems fair enough to me. Are gay civil partnerships beyond comment, or criticism? I don't think so.
I didn't disagree with the ultimate point of Wind-Cowies post, just the laboured and thought-policing method by which he seemed to get there.
As I said, in my opinion, Jan Moir was absolutely spot-on to question just how natural Steven Gately's death was. What is the point of having any kind of press if no one asks any questions?
Andrew Preston
As I understand, the coroner stated that Steven Gately died of natural causes. The central theme, for me, of the Jan Moir article was that there is very little natural about an apparently healthy 33 year old lying dead on a couch.
I read the initial reports, about half an hour after the story broke on the internet. The comments by police about 'choking on vomit'. And then Gately's former bandmates arrive on the scene, and shortly afterwards, everyone, local officials included, is singing from the same hymn book of natural causes.
In the gay context, she did seem to reach for the stereotypes.
Overall, however, I felt it was a reasonably sound piece of opinion. Hardly bizarre.