No, I don’t. Thank f***. But I do live in Western Europe, where white Christian homophobes beat me so badly that I very nearly died and now live with a permanent disability. Don’t patronise me.
It seems impossible to talk about homophobia without some dickhead crying “YEAH BUT THE MUSLIMS THROW THE GAYS OFF THE ROOFS!”. Why can’t we condemn both the homophobic remarks made by a Labour MP and Islamic extremism, independent of each other? I have no doubt that getting thrown off a multi-storey car park in front of a baying mob is worse than getting called a fudgepacker on an internet forum, but that doesn’t make the latter right.
I don’t see what people want to accomplish with this weird relativising. Are we supposed to not give a f*** about anything anymore because jihadi militants murder homosexuals (and women and children and straight men) in territories they control?
No, posting an anti-gay slur on an internet forum isn’t very important or outrageous in the big scheme of things, but so what? Wearing a woolly cardigan isn’t very important or outrageous in the big scheme of things, yet here we are debating it over thirty pages. Next time you (rightly) point out the cruelty of cashmere production I’ll tell you yeah well, they only get cut and kicked but at least they don’t get Halal slaughtered. As if that made it better.
I'm sorry to hear you were the victim of religiously motivated homophobic hate crime.
I do not accept I was 'patronising' you.
Criticising Islamic homophobia does NOT imply that I'm unaware of Christian homophobia or haven't been the victim of it myself. Context is important. There is a huge difference between ignorant individuals spouting rubbish on internet forums (where they can be challenged & debunked or even 'condemned') & an organised religious caliphate operating under Sharia Law. There is also a huge difference between cruel & irreverent humour about sexuality online and attempts to punish those sexualities physically whether through hate crime such as you have endured or via Sharia Law. Not all Muslims are extremists. There are gay Muslims. There are liberal interpretations of the Koran. It's this very complexity that requires us to make 'relative' judgements about matters. It's also why some of us choose to debunk Morrissey's endless 'fatwa' claiming 'Meat Is Murder' whilst eating cheese and wearing cashmere. He has set himself up as a public paragon of virtue only to have his alabaster crashed to the ground by his own 'fans' on this site.
If we demand a 'witch-hunt' every time a public figure is shown to have had politically incorrect views in their past, we are surely making it harder for change to occur? It's instructive to review the case of Mehdi Hasan who is 'out' about his past homophobia, but refuses to allow it to be the defining issue of his public persona. I do not think demonising people who have already 'recanted' helps others afflicted by homophobic views to change. It also appears entirely hypocritical to me that a political and media culture which ignores the grossest homophobia in certain areas of rap and hip-hop due to 'cultural sensitivity' then thinks it can police the views of others. That 'double standard' isn't going to work.
What are we to do about characters in historic film and television? Demand they be removed from scripts?
I personally don't give a damn about people's private prejudices. It's irrelevant to me whether a politician's Christian beliefs lead him to have 'issues' about LGBTQI rights.. What matters to me is how they vote on crucial issues. The UK House of Commons is teeming with MPs who opposed marriage equality, supported Section 28 and other such historical endorsements of homophobia. I don't see anyone trying to have them punished. Harriet Harman has a seriously confused historic public record with regard to the issue of paedophilia. The irony of her condemning Clive Lewis today is rich, to put it mildly.
Jared has chosen to 'own' comments he made under the alias/avatar/screen-name of 'Cosmic Dancer' and confirm them as a historically accurate representation of his views. That's his choice. He had other options. He could have politely but firmly insisted that his historic online persona wasn't/isn't an accurate reflection of his current 'real world' political views. Not all 'online trolling' is an accurate mirror of real-life attitudes. There is a rich historical record of serious artists acting as 'agent provocateur' & 'devil's advocate' in their published works. To insist that such strategies are not allowed to ordinary citizens online is fatuous. That doesn't mean comments made whilst in that role shouldn't be criticised, challenged and debunked but it does open up an online debate area where painful and difficult issues can be discussed. Assuming a faithful correlation between online comments and deeply held beliefs doesn't seem to be particularly logical
It's going to be interesting if 'real world' internet social media vigilantes go further with this stuff. What's next? Demanding that public figures confirm their porn choices are an accurate reflection of their views on gender equality? Can you see a slight problem there? Given that most porn is 'fantasy', no sane person would regard porn choices as indicative of moral failing unless it involved children, animals or non-consensual abuse of adults. If I find out a public figure has a penchant for violent S&M sex, that doesn't mean I automatically think they believe anybody has given them permission to be randomly subjected to capricious sexual violence. If I find out a public figure has a history as an incorrigible internet troll I'm hardly likely to take that as an accurate record of their deepest convictions. If you do, more fool you.
What is more disturbing is reports of his alleged recent verbal abuse outburst in a night-club shortly before becoming an MP. If that is substantiated then I think there are questions arising as to his suitability to be an MP. But his comment history on this site, which he has already recanted in shame, hardly seems a reason to put him on the stake and burn him. That appears to me to be just another example of mob hysteria. If Jared said these things on record in Parliament then I'd be very angry. But he didn't. He doesn't defend those comments but he has, rather foolishly, embraced them as an accurate historical record of his 'real world' views rather than just his contribution to an evolving online debate about these issues.
Things are improving in many ways. On this site, homophobic trolling used to be a sport, now folk are much more guarded as they know their views are unacceptable to wider society. The next frontier is 'grossophobia' as the reaction to Jared on Twitter shows. Everybody isn't suddenly going to become 'woke' about the rights of obese people to dignity and respect, they will still make 'fat jokes' but in time things will change in other cutting edge debates. Freedom is never static. It either expands or contracts. That's why this site is a fascinating experiment.
best wishes
BB
As a Muslim, I struggle with the idea of homosexuality – but I oppose homophobia
I've made homophobic remarks in the past, writes Mehdi Hasan, but now I’ve grown up — and reconciled my Islamic beliefs with my attitude to gay rights.
https://www.newstatesman.com/mehdi-...ruggle-idea-homosexuality-i-oppose-homophobia