Stonewall and Bigot of the Year

Stonewall, the LGBT charity and campaign group, has been widely criticised for its "Bigot of the Year" prize that is included in its annual awards.  Last night the prize was awarded to Cardinal O'Brien, the head of the Scottish Catholic Church, following votes cast by 10,000 supporters of the charity. 

The Catholic Church has responded and accused the "the depth of the intolerance" of Stonewall and a willingness to demean people who do not share their views.  Corporate sponsors Barclays and Coutts have both said they will rethink their support following complaints from Christian campaigners about the singling out of individuals for the bigot category.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien

I've seen members of the gay community both supporting and criticising Stonewall this morning and for what it's worth, here are my own thoughts.

Worthy Recipients

The people who were nominated for the award are as follows:

• Lord Ken Magnnis: had the Ulster Unionist whip taken away from him after saying that homosexuality was "unnatural and deviant" and equated it to bestiality on BBC radio
• Archbishop Philip Tartaglia: Roman Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow, who said the late David Cairns MP may have died because he was gay
• Father Simon Lokodohe: former Roman Catholic priest and now Ugandan minister.  Suggested gay rights activists recruit children into homosexuality.  Supporter (but not initiator) of the "Kill the Gays Bill" which prohibits any form of sexual relations between persons of the same sex and introduces life imprisonment for offences, or the death penalty in some cases.
• Alan Craig: leader of the Christian People's Alliance and Member of Council of the Movement for Christian Democracy.  Coined the word "Gaystapo" by comparing compared gay equality advocates to Nazis
• Cardinal Keith O'Brien: head of Scottish Roman Catholic Church.  Described gay people as "captives of sexual aberrations", has been at the vanguard of attacks on marriage equality proposals which he describes as "madness" and has likened to slavery

Pick whichever of these fine "Christian" chaps you will: I'd say their views were all pretty abhorrent and they deserve to be condemned for them, especially by a charity that is devoted to furthering LGBT equality and the well-being of its community.  These are vile views. 

I can't say who the obvious winner is, personally, but I would just say in passing that Stonewall is a British charity, with a UK focus, so the fact that Father Lokodohe did not win is not that great of a surprise to me.  I also know that Cardinal O'Brien's powerful position has meant his words have far more influence than the others'.  He has taken to the Daily Telegraph to set out his opposition to marriage equality, required every Catholic church in Scotland to read out a letter opposing the plans and has called them a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right".

The Word Bigot

Much of the criticism of the award has come from people pointing out the narrow linguistic meaning of the word "bigot".  They perhaps have a point: the term relates specifically to those who are strongly partial to their own group and who are intolerant of those whose opinion differs. 

I therefore can see why Stonewall's calling O'Brien a bigot for not agreeing on marriage equality could attract this response.  Stonewall objects to his views on marriage equality, and is therefore intolerant itself.  It becomes a bit of a silly tit-for-tat if we reduce it to this argument and we are missing the point. 

My suggestion is to rename the award "Homophobe of the Year".  We are not then framing the issue as intolerance of other people's views, but simply "fear of, or contempt of, lesbians and gay men".  Seems much more fitting to me: O'Brien has shown contempt of lesbians and gay men and of their dignity and basic rights.

Should there be such an Award?

Yes.   I'm afraid that as long as people feel it is appropriate to say that my behaviour is unnatural/ deviant, that people die early because they are gay, that gay people should be killed, that I'm a captive of sexual aberration, or that if I wish to marry the man I love this is a grotesque subversion of a human right I reserve the right to call them out on it, to object to it, and even to mock them for it.

I therefore think Stonewall's approach is broadly correct and that undeserved deference is being given to O'Brien.  I am quite sure that is simply because he is a Cardinal, and many think he is therefore deserving of some special respect for his abhorrent views and actions.  If an LGBT campaign group does not draw attention to them, who is supposed to? 

It is also a typically British response to try to mask the debate in terms of "reasonableness".  Oh, it's not polite to call such a terribly respectable and important man a bigot!  Oh, if we do that we risk removing all meaning from the term.. etc.  There is no need to resort to the type of abuse he has employed, but the strength of his repeated utterances and attacks on the rights of LGBT people makes me understand why many feel his has forfeit his right to polite reasonableness.  Keith O'Brien is in my view a homophobe who attacks LGBT people, and deserves to be labelled as one.

There are justified narrow linguistic reasons to object to the "bigot" word, but leaving that aside, let's praise Ben Summerskill for having the courage not to stand down on this, even in the face of corporate pressure and threats to funding from the banks.  I'm with Owen Jones on this: