Sorry but 'homophobia' isn't a weasel word...

****

I don't do political correctness, we make too much of language and we beat up on people for the mildest of infractions. But.

There's always a but...

Roger Helmer, UKIP's candidate in the forthcoming Newark by-election and an MEP for the East Midlands thinks 'homophobia' is a weasel word. And maybe it's a lazy construction, an invented word. Perhaps we could think up some better construction to describe hating gay folk because they're gay.

But it's the word - however recently invented - that we've got. So when some poor teenager gets beaten up at school because they think he's 'gay'?

That's homophobia.

And when some lads shout 'pervert' at Mary and her girlfriend as they go about their everyday business?

That's homophobia.

Or there's the weird people who think being gay can be cured. As if we should want a cure?

That's homophobia.

I don't think that gay people want special privileges or advantage - just to get on with living their lives without the likes of Roger Helmer making out that they're 'odd'. And saying they can't have the things we have because they're 'odd'.

Homophobia isn't a weasel word, it describes how some people - the ones Roger Helmer is an apologist for - want to treat gay folk as weirdos and perverts.

It's one of the many reasons why - for all my Euroscepticism - I could never support UKIP.

....

Thoughts on prejudice, Christianity and the law

There was a time when casual racism was commonplace and (literally) unremarkable. We have thankfully left that behind – today racism is seldom ‘casual’ since no-one can argue seriously that they were unaware of what their words or actions signify. Of course, this does not mean that racism does not persist merely that we do not excuse even minor infractions. Some would argue that we have – in some instances – gone too far, at least in our responses to the use of racial terms and racial abuse. But, in the round, we are a better society for having made the changes – legal and behavioural – in our response to racism.

For sexuality, however, we have not travelled the same distance – while putting up a sign saying “no gays” is illegal, there remains a tendency to excuse actions or words that constitute ‘casual homophobia’. Most commonly this excuse comes in the form of ‘respecting religious faith’. Now, it is incontrovertible that mainstream Christian and Muslim belief views homosexuality as a sin (as is also the case for adultery, sex before marriage and masturbation). But this does not mean that Christians and Muslims should be exempted from anti-discrimination laws. So the woman managing a B&B who turns away a gay couple has no defence of being a Christian.

More interesting is how we respond as a society to this situation. Do we throw the full might and majesty of the law at the boarding house owner? Close her down? Or do we act proportionately – and if so, what exactly does that mean. It would be wrong to ignore the strictures of the law since that would undermine the effectiveness of that law. Would some sort of official “quiet word” be more effective? What I do think is that you cannot pass laws and expect that the following morning people will have changed what they think. And at the root of all this is prejudice – in this case a prejudice sustained by large, powerful religious organisations.

While there remains a liberal dilemma in all this – where do the rights lie in this matter – we have settled the issue of racial prejudice by saying that prejudice harms and therefore you have no right to be prejudiced (which isn’t the same as saying you cannot be prejudiced – the law can’t change that only you can). In the case of homosexuality, we have allowed ourselves to be constrained by a verse in Leviticus. Despite prejudice harming, we are prepared to excuse it in the interest of ‘respecting faith communities’. And the saddest thing in all this is that Christians (at least of the sort I was brought up to be) are taught to love the sinner – and that we are all sinners and that god loves us despite this. How can that be squared with turning a gay couple away from your B&B because you’re a Christian?

.....

Football needs to show show leadership on gay players & homophobia

****

It was with a certain degree of gobsmacked incredulity that I listened to Gordon Taylor, Chief Executive of the footballers trade union, speaking about gay footballers – or rather trying to brush away the fact that there aren’t any openly gay footballers at the top level. Indeed were Taylor’s response to questions on the subject given in response to, let’s say, racism in top level sport we would face a huge outcry. Frankly, I’m amazed that we still tolerate the FA, Premier League and the PFA behaving like the three wise monkeys on this subject.

Here’s a bit of what Taylor said:

"It's not a straightforward issue and it would be unfair to ask an individual player to back a campaign like this in case they got targeted by football crowds,"

In his interview Taylor also cited the problems in the Church – as if they are in any way either relevant or comparable!

Sorry, Gordon, it is a straightforward issue – in any other business such discrimination would not be tolerated. I do not believe that there are no gay players in the premier league. I’m sure that the football authorities know there are gay players. I’m sure the players know. The media know for sure.

Anti-gay sentiment and abuse should be dealt with in exactly the same way and racist abuse. Through sanctions on clubs, exclusion of fans and the application of the law. There was a time when many clubs were reluctant to hire black players – that has changed. Should we not be looking to drive the same change for gay players too?

...

Humpty Dumpty and the word police

****

“…There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.”

It may seem a little trite to start a discussion about the serious issue of language by quoting from a children’s book – even one as famous as “Alice Through the Looking Glass” – but it seems to me that Humpty Dumpty’s point is important to this discussion.

I’ve always been with Humpty on the matter of words – at least in so far as we manage to get our meaning across. But it does concern me that an order of lexical understanding has grown up from a belief that words inevitably carry a cultural loading. That there must be a list - and ever expanding list - of words that we cannot use, words that might offend some protected group or other.

The proper use of words is compromised. People write badly by using the plural to denote the singular or through the soul-destroying use of passive language. All so as to avoid the possibility that we use a masculine singular to refer to someone who could be of either gender. As if this really matters in the order of things – in the desire to see women’s equality.

But all this is just annoying, limiting and slightly dispiriting rather than something to die in the ditch over. What should really concern us is the manner in which language has become a tool by which the powerful destroy the weak – unguarded comments be they about women, a polemical comparison of someone’s speech to that of a past fascist regime or innocently alluding to black people by reference to their skin colour.

The recent example of Greg Stone, Lib Dem candidate in Newcastle East, is a case in point. Under a pseudonym, Mr Stone posted some choice comments on the Guido Fawkes blog – perhaps ill-advised but not a hanging offence surely? However, to hear Nick Brown the Labour MP for the constituency, you’d have thought Mr Stone had been caught in bed with a goat, murdered his mum and run off to Morocco with a stack of charitable funds.

Or the endless resort of many MPs, campaigners and media hacks to accusations of racism, sexism or some other kind of dread discrimination. One slightly bufferish comment and the word police are down on you like a ton (or do we have to say tonne these days) of bricks. No-one’s actually been offended. No-one’s been prevented from doing anything. But the word police – motivated more often by power and spite than any semblance of genuine concern – are there and are not interested in what the accused has done beyond the instant condemnation for using the “wrong words”.

The existence of this word police presents a gift to the bully. Good men and women are destroyed by powerful men like Nick Brown because it suits them and their search for power. Local standards boards for Councillors do not raise standards but provide instead a platform for the bully. Allegations of discrimination are automatically introduced into employment disputes because the lawyers know they are treated differently and are more likely to secure a settlement. And the media loves a good: “Councillor in racist abuse” story – even when it’s nothing of the sort.

My words mean precisely what I want them to mean, nothing more, nothing less. If you think they are racist, sexist, ageist or homophobic, that's your problem because I'm not any of those things.

...