Is it Homophobic to oppose Same Sex Marriage?

The first same sex marriages in England and Wales took place this week.  It gave an ideal opportunity not just to celebrate the love of the people getting married, but for those who disagree with marriage equality to have one last blast at airing their views about how wrong this all is.

Catholic Voices, for example, has been keen to get its members media time on the subject.  The group
was co-founded by Jack Valero, a member of Opus Dei.  CV purports to represent the views of ordinary British Catholics*.  It has put out various items on the issue, such as this blog post, which at first glance seems reasonable enough.  However, breaking it down, in it they say that by allowing same sex couples to wed, there has been an "evisceration" of marriage.  That word generally means "disembowelment": removing the internal organs of an animal.  According to them, when two men or two women enter together into a legal, civil marriage, these are not proper weddings, but instead are a "parody" of the real thing.

They predict that:

• all civil marriages will become insignificant and incoherent; 
• marriage will be weakened; 
• the state will be beset by groups wanting recognition of polyamorous and "other kinds" of sexual unions.  

Their claim is that society must rebuild itself.  You may agree or disagree with these quite serious claims about the effect of opening up of marriage to same-sex couples, but I'm interested in the question of whether being opposed to same-sex marriage is by definition homophobic.

Is it Homophobic? 

Well, I could answer this question in fewer than 140 characters by nicking Sean Jones QC's tweet below.  It's just brilliant and gets straight to the heart of it for me:

Catholic Voices take a quite apocalyptic stance about the effects of marriage equality, particularly when you strip away their attempts to be reasoned and reasonable.  Sean's tweet covers other less dramatic positions of people who simply don't "like" the idea of same sex marriage but haven't really formulated why.  I'll go on below to look at the matter in a bit more detail below, and explain why I agree with him.

The Word Homophobia

The first thing I'm going to do is to try to move away from the use of "homophobia".  It's an interesting word, first coined in 1969 to describe the "mixture of revulsion and apprehension".  It was also called homosexual panic.  I think back then that probably was the reaction of plenty of people (particularly straight men) when faced with people attracted to the same sex.  No doubt it is still the case for some now.

However, what most people naturally mean when they use the term is something akin to racism or sexism, which is directed at LGB people.  The word covers a whole range of negative feelings that range from antipathy or mild prejudice, through to actual violent contempt.  It can include phobia, but on most people's usage it doesn't actually by any means require fear.  I therefore understand why some get hung up on that aspect of the word, particularly when they try to give it its literal meaning.  I'm therefore going to use the term "anti-gay" in this post instead of homophobia here.

Just like any prejudice, anti-gay feeling and behaviour cover a huge spectrum of words and activities.   Someone who calls gays "poofs" in a tweet is clearly not in the same league as those who beat up, attack or kill gay men because of their hatred (19.3% of all hate crimes in the US were incidentally motivated by sexual orientation bias).   By having your position on same-sex marriage challenged as being anti-gay, it does not mean that the person doing so is suggesting that you're in the same category as someone who engages in violent assaults.  It's perfectly possible for you to know, and even like, some LGB people, whilst believing the law should rightly discriminate against them and to seek to deny them the rights that heterosexual people enjoy.   That really should be obvious.

Also, as with racism, you can of course feel that you're entirely not anti-gay, whilst behaving in such a way that others would agree falls into that category.  Those affected by your prejudice certainly don't have an absolute monopoly of determining what is and what is not anti-gay, but they are often in the best place to assess the effect of it because of their day to day life experiences.

The Symbolism of Marriage Equality

Let's be clear that in the UK the huge legal injustices facing same-sex couples were not the driving force in LGB people arguing for marriage equality.  Civil Partnerships had already meant that almost the same legal rights were available to civil partners as to those marrying.  In this the UK differs to many other countries around the world.

The matter of marriage equality was foremost one of equal treatment, dignity and principle.  Marriage is of course an entirely made up thing: a social construct that humans have created and defined.  It's a concept, not a tangible "thing".  It is however an important institution from which we collectively have agreed certain rights and responsibilities should flow.  This change in the law on marriage was about the State saying "your unions are equal".  It's about the State sending out a signal that "you are equal" after many, many years of state instituted discrimination and wrong treatment, and in the context of ongoing social prejudice. 

It was extremely important to many LGB people, myself included, to win this battle.  I'm enormously glad we did.  The symbolism was absolutely enormous.  We have already moved from a society where, growing up as a gay teen in the 80s, my only point of reference to homosexuality was parody characters on Are You Being Served, and hearing how homosexuals were dying of a "gay plague".  Instead we have an incredibly positive affirmation of same-sex unions by a Conservative prime-minister who himself had even voted against the repeal of Section 28.   This is enormous.

Again, Sean entirely gets it:

I cannot emphasise enough what it represents to have the option of marriage available to me personally, and to know the positive effect on the next generation of gay teenagers growing up in an environment where the State recognises their relationships and treats them as equal.  What an amazingly positive change and healthy development in our society.

Being Anti-Gay

It's not terribly hard to set out tests for whether someone is expressing an anti-gay position.  Here are a few examples:

• Do you believe that LGB people should have fewer or different civil rights to straight people?
• Do you believe that civil marriage between an LGB couple is a parody of "real marriage"?
• Do you believe that LGB relationships are only worthy of separate recognition by the State and LGB people should be satisfied with that?
• Do your views and words tend to upset, offend or hurt a sizeable proportion of LGB people?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, I'd say there's a good chance you're being intrinsically and inherently anti-gay.  It really is rather difficult for you to argue that is not case.  I think, with respect**, you'd have to be quite thick to not get this point.  If you were saying black people should have fewer civil rights, people would rightly say you're being racist.  Here, you're saying things that are anti-gay, and if you had your way the effects of this would be laws that discriminate against (i.e. treat differently) LGB people.  You're being anti-gay.

And if, remarkably, you still haven't got the point that you're being anti-gay by arguing I should not be allowed marriage equality, then consider this.  In 1967 the US Supreme Court overturned the Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which had prohibited inter-racial marriages.  Similar rules existed in other states.  Imagine if, instead, the court had permitted blacks to enter unions with whites, but it created a "separate but equal" institution called "inter-racial partnerships".  Would you argue that mixed race couples should be content with it because it gave all the same legal rights as "ordinary" couples AND this position is not racist?  I think people would label you as racist on this issue, with justification.  I see no difference with stating that LGB people should put up with the separate but (almost) equal institution of civil partnership is being anti-gay.

Please do think about this if you're stance is "I'm not anti-gay, but I don't think they should be allowed to get married."  Really think it through and realise what you're saying.

Baffling Denial

We've had plenty of examples in history of laws related to marriage that discriminate against any given group.  The 1701 Act of Settlement was anti-Catholic.  It said that anyone who became Roman Catholic or married a Roman Catholic was excluded from the succession.  The Nuremberg laws of 1935 were anti-Jewish and prohibited non-Jews from marrying Jews in Germany.  I've already mentioned the ban on whites marrying blacks in some US states.

In each of these cases people were, I believe, consciously aware that the policies discriminated against a particular group.  They felt it was right to do so and put forward justifications for this.  This country faced what it considered to be a serious threat from Roman Catholicism in the early 18th century.  Millions of Germans supported the discriminatory Nuremberg laws as necessary to protect the "German nation".  People who argued for segregation knew they were backing a racist policy.  They wrongly thought it was correct to do so in the interests of social harmony.

The extraordinary thing same sex marriage issue, though, is that many people are in utter denial that by seeking to keep marriage from LGB people that they are being at all anti-gay.  Catholic Voices do it in their article.  They say that they are offended by "jeers" that they are homophobic or bigoted for taking the stance they do.  Here's a Catholic Priest, Father James Bradley, who says we live in "dangerous times" because of this and this is "not the path of a civilized society".

Quite how he reaches this point I'm not sure.  He's entitled to his view that I should be discriminated against by the State and to put forward what he sees as his compelling faith based reasons for this.  People will agree or disagree with them.  But to deny that anyone who takes a position that is by definition anti-gay is being anti-gay makes no sense at all.  It is not dangerous to point this out, and it is not uncivilised to do so.  It is only uncivilised if it's accompanied by abuse, but that's not what I'm doing.  I'm simply stating something which should be quite evident if you use some logic.

The Roman Catholic faith teaches (Catechism 2357) that homosexual acts are "acts of grave depravity" and are "intrinsically disordered".  It says that they are "contrary to natural law".  They do not "proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity".  "Under no circumstances can they be approved".  It talks about same-sex attraction being a "trial" for homosexuals.  This is as inherently anti-gay as it gets.  With these teachings, it is a virulently anti-gay religion.  The Catechism then talks about treating these poor homosexuals with "respect" and not unjustifiably discriminating against them (justifiable discrimination is by definition okay according to the faith).

Why should I not point out that all of the attempts to deny me civil rights come from an inherently anti-gay set of religious views?  They are entitled to their beliefs and can argue them as much as they like, but I will not accept that whilst doing so they are not being anti-gay.

Just as a side-note, we have always to remember that there are many Christians who take a different viewpoint to the one above.  The Church in Wales last month issued a report by the standing doctrinal commission which stated the following:

Isn't that beautiful?  A very recent poll found a majority (53%) of Americans now support same-sex marriage, with support amongst white Catholics even higher, at 58%, and amongst Hispanic Catholics at 56%.  Perhaps Rome will catch up with the huge number of its own members who don't support its anti-gay position.  Don't believe that it doesn't or can't ever change its policies on fundamental issues either: that's demonstrable historic nonsense.  To give one example, the Catholic Church banned the charging of interest on loans during most of its existence.  It said the practice was "detestable to God and man, damned by the sacred canons and contrary to Christian charity".  The doctrine was enunciated by popes, expressed by three ecumenical councils, proclaimed by bishops, and taught unanimously by theologians.  People who lent for money were refused the sacraments and Christian burial.  Then, in the 19th century they changed the rules and, hey ho, allowed it. Such is the immutable Word of God.

It Bothers Them

Now, back to the curious point about those being anti-gay denying that they are in fact so.  If you point this out to them, wow does it bother them.  They want to have their communion wafer and eat it.  NO, they are motivated by God's word and love and nothing about their anti-gay stance is at all anti-gay.  They trot out the words that everyone is created in God's image and is worthy of human dignity.  It's "love the sinner, hate the sin, and go out and campaign loudly for the State to actively discriminate against the sinner in civil matters."  They get most upset when their anti-gay stance is called out as such.

A few of them are obviously and offensively homophobic.  The ostensibly reasonable Catholic Voices piece contained the slippery slope argument about "other sexual unions" being recognised.  These words are a bit nebulous and they don't spell out what is meant with that.  Given the piece has already considered straight, same-sex and polyamorous sexual unions, I can only assume it refers either to bestiality, paedophilia, or both.   Considering the union of two people of the same sex with screwing animals in the same context is a bit anti-gay isn't it, even it if wasn't overt?

This Catholic convert and former monk below, who calls gay men "LGBT perverts" and "poofs", is much more direct:

And YET, it bothers the donkey-loving former monk to be called anti-gay.  He's been off recently on a long rant with a doctor I follow about how he worked with gay men in the 1980s during the Aids crisis, preaching abstinence.  Because of this, and despite his anti-gay tweets, he maintains he isn't anti-gay.  This is, to me, very baffling psychology.

A Fifth of Britons wouldn't go to a Gay Wedding

Just to wrap up, it was widely reported (BBC, Guardian, Telegraph etc) that a recent poll showed 68% support for marriage equality, with a minority of just 26% who actually object to it.  That result must have hurt those opposed to same-sex marriage, with their claims that the majority of the population is opposed to it.  26% opposition is actually quite a remarkable figure.  There actually aren't many contentious political issues (HS2, fracking, EU etc) where just 26% of the population are opposed to something.  It shows surprising and heart-warming consensus given the public hasn't even had time to get used to the change yet.

Rather than emphasise this positive point, most of the press however highlighted a subsidiary finding in the poll that a "fifth of Britons (22%) would turn down an invitation to a gay wedding."  Father Bradly, above, said the findings of the survey reflected the reality that people remained "deeply uncomfortable" with being honest about their true feelings on the meaning of marriage.

I actually wouldn't be at all surprised if 20% of the British population would respond in a poll that they would not be comfortable attending a Muslim wedding.  People can be very uneasy and/or prejudiced towards groups, particularly when they have had no personal contact with members of it, and have soaked up negative stereotypes from the press and elsewhere.  If this were the case, a sensible approach might be to accept that prejudice of all sorts is deeply engrained in our society and to ask what can be done to justify it.  I certainly wouldn't argue that it means that Muslim people shouldn't be allowed to marry by the State, because people are personally "deeply uncomfortable" with going to one of their weddings and we need to pander to that prejudice.

Some Gay People Get Married. Get Over It.

The really GREAT thing is all this is over, or it should be.  Those seeking to be anti-gay about marriage have lost their argument, the vast majority of the population supports marriage equality, and this is the last opportunity for them to air their anti-gay views with anyone taking any kind of notice. 

I believe it's been a particularly disastrous week for the likes of Catholic Voices in getting their anti-gay viewpoint over and attempting to win hearts and minds.  Some attempts have led to enormous mirth online, and it's been really quite amusing watching it unfold, and see it bite them back on the arse.  The opponents of marriage equality appear, in my view, to be increasingly isolated, bitter, unreasonable, and often hysterical in their predictions. 

I hope this is my last blog post on the subject.

Love wins in the end.







* Christian Voices is in somewhat hot water at the moment when one of their Speakers, Paula Thompson, an architect, put out an anti-gay tweet regarding Mozilla that spoke of "normal people".  In response a person in the US agreed with her and added "All fags are mentally ill and need to be exterminated".  She retweeted this hate-filled statement to her 1100 followers with no indication that she objected to the contents of the tweet.  She further agreed with a tweet that said "Homosexuals do not want tolerance.  They want to dominate with their sick, deviant life style choice".  Finally a tweet came to light before she was a Catholic Voice in which she said she hoped the IRA would bomb an abortion clinic in Northern Ireland.  It was after that they recruited her as a speaker.

Catholic Voices apparently has the "blessing" of the Catholic bishops in the UK. They apparently "can be relied on to express authoritatively the Church's positions in ways that are succint [sic], compelling and reasonable."  Make your own mind up how those tweets fit with that.  Genocide and sectarian violence.  Paula has since resigned, which has conveniently led Catholic Voices to say it's nothing to do with them any more.  Neither she nor Catholic Voices have offered any form of apology to the anti-gay tweets.  The issue of whether this constitutes illegal hate speech is currently with the Police.


** not really

Colonialism and Homophobia

Today we discovered that the Supreme Court of India recriminalised gay sex ("sodomy") - a ruling which will have a potentially devastating effect on gay men in this country of 1.3 billion people. 

The Indian statute that prohibits "carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal" dates back to two years after the establishment of the Raj, namely 1860.  It is widely interpreted as referring to gay male sex.  My understanding is that lesbian sex continues to be ignored, as under Victorian British law - women are incapable of having "carnal intercourse" together.  The law has been criticised by Human Rights Watch to harass HIV activists, gay men and other LGBT groups.  It is in their view a "continuing threat to public health" as well as a violation of protections in India’s constitution for the rights to equality and to personal liberty.

The Indian Supreme Court

Before British colonisation there were differing, often far more ambivalent views towards homosexuality in India.  The obvious example of the Karma Sutra shows a very inclusive relationship towards all aspects of human sexuality.  This is a common theme in many countries around the world that became part of the Empire, specifically including Africa.  The outlawing of consensual same-sex male acts was an export of the British, along with their desire to Christianise indigenous populations.

I don't think the preceding paragraph is too controversial.  The question is then to what extent, if any, state sponsored homophobia today can be seen as a lasting legacy of British rule.  The Kaleidoscope Human Rights Foundation carried out a report in 2011 that identified some striking facts:

• There is "state sponsored" homophobia in 40% of nations worldwide
• Gay sex is illegal in 42 of the 53 Commonwealth nations (with India now included)
• Non-Commonwealth states where gay sex is illegal make up just 24.5% of the total
• So, as Kaleidoscope puts it "the Commonwealth has a big problem"

France legalised gay sex in 1791.  The Netherlands did so in 1811.  The experience of countries which were part of the French or Dutch empires is markedly different to those under British rule.  That is not to say that homophobia does not exist in those places - of course it does to some extent - or that it the British empire was the sole cause of it: consider, for example, Saudi Arabia.  But it is a fair, broad-brush generalisation to conclude that where the British were the imperial power, they brought with them legalised state sanctioned homophobia and this has clearly, by the numbers above, left a lasting legacy.

The brilliant historian and writer, Alex von Tunzelmann, put it extremely succinctly for me this morning - this is in her opinion an example of "internalised colonialism":

Earlier today Sunny Hundal picked up on a tweet of mine that quoted from the Guardian report of the Kaleidoscope report and commented that:

Note the "partly".  No one is saying that today's decision in 2013 is the exclusive fault of Britain today.  The judges were the ones who made their decision today - nobody else - and successive parliamentarians in India since 1947 who decided not to decriminalise gay sex are the ones who are responsible for the law still being on the books.  Sunny was, however, quite rightly pointing out that the British left behind a cultural legacy that continues.  The legacy of homophobia that was exported under the long period of Empire still shape attitudes and affects people.  I really don't see what is so contentious about that.

Louise Mensch apparently disagrees - along with various other right wingers who then joined in the fun.  I'm puzzled why this should evoke such a reaction - presumably it's somehow unpatriotic or offensive to suggest that Britain did some bad things and the effects of these linger on. 
Louise incidentally clearly missed the "partly" when she read Sunny's tweet. 

 

In response, I asked Louise whether she believed colonialism had left behind any positive enduring legacy anywhere.  Clearly it has: right wingers are normally ever so keen to point out the railways, education, infrastructure, church building and all that jolly stuff that Empire brought with it.   Yet Louise didn't answer.  I wonder why.  Perhaps it was because she knew she'd fall right into the trap of admitting that if it's possible and valid to praise previous governments for the legacy they've left behind, then one can also "blame" them.  It's two sides of the same coin.  Either Empire left some kind of mark that endures to a greater or lesser extent today, or it didn't.

It's fairly clear to me that decades, and sometimes hundreds of years, of Empire leaves a cultural legacy on a nation and on a people.  Some of this will be positive, some of it will be negative.  In the time since independence nations will make their own decisions and go their own way.  But to dismiss out of hand the finding that homosexuality is illegal in 42 of 53 Commonwealth states, and to fail to see any causation when it was Britain that introduced these laws is just a bit baffling to me.  

So to conclude, yes, Britain has moved on and I'm tremendously proud it has done so.  What it should be doing now is to speak positively to seek to influence its fellow member states in the Commonwealth to realise that what was considered acceptable in 1860 is not in 2013.  We - in part - created this mess.  I'd like to see us attempt to help clear it up, if that is at all possible.

 







 

Homophobia and the B&B case

It's been another excellent day for LGBT rights in the United Kingdom.

The "Christian" (I'll explain the inverted commas in a moment) guest house owners who refused to allow a gay couple to stay, in clear contravention of the law, have lost their case in the Supreme Court.  They were funded by the homophobic Christian Institute in their lengthy struggle to have the right to discriminate against the gay couple, in case you wondering.  They lost in the County Court, they lost (unanimously) in the Court of Appeal, and now they've lost (unanimously) in the Supreme Court. You'd hope they've got the quite clear message by now.

One of the most heartening aspects of this case were the words of Baroness Hale, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, and as such the most senior woman judge in the country.   She went way beyond simply rejecting the guest-house owners' spurious arguments, with this passage right at the end of her judgment:

"Sexual orientation is a core component of a person's identity which requires fulfilment through relationships with others of the same orientation... [Homosexuals] were long denied the possibility of fulfilling themselves through relationships with others.  This was an affront to their dignity as human beings which our law has now (some would say belatedly) recognised.  Homosexuals can enjoy the same freedom and the same relationships as any others.  But we should not underestimate the continuing legacy of those centuries of discrimination, persecution even, which is still going in many parts of the world."

These are beautiful words, coming as they do, from someone so very senior in the judiciary.  When I studied law (at the same Cambridge college as Baroness Hale, no less!) I remember sitting in a supervision in 1994 reading the words of the Law Lords in the recently handed down R v Brown case.  It followed a homophobic witch-hunt by the Police, and the overtones of the judgement were extremely unpleasant.  How times change, and so very rapidly.

The wonderful Baroness Hale of Richmond

The owners of the guest-house in this case have taken every opportunity to portray themselves as reasonable, simple Christian believers.  It is actually hard not to see them as are hard-nosed zealots, determined to take their alleged right to discriminate as far as they possibly can.  They have chosen to open a business and simply can't expect to get away in 2013 with the equivalent of hanging a "No Blacks, No Irish" sign on their door.  They do not even share the part of the building that was used as a commercial guesthouse with their private living quarters, nor is their any evidence they asked straight couples for proof of marriage: quite the contrary.

They will continue to portray themselves as a persecuted minority in the ilk of the early Christian martyrs.  There is a certain group, like them, who seem to revel in their status as long-suffering Joan of Arc types.  Being thrown to the lions in ancient Rome is nothing compared to what they suffer.  They were after all simply "following God's word" in discriminating against the gay couple.  After today's judgement they said they preferred to disobey the law of the land if it meant obeying "the law of God".  They forget that it's their interpretation of the law of God, and there are certain huge flaws in their argument as I've pointed out before with a quick look at Leviticus.

For any straight readers, imagine the personal offence and damage to your basic dignity at being told that cannot stay somewhere because of your relationship.  It happened to my friend Henrietta and her girlfriend in an expensive boutique hotel one Easter, before this legislation existed, which wasn't that long ago.  The aggressive hotel owner told her he "wouldn't have any of that going on under his roof" and literally threw their bags out of the reception.

Of course there are amusing elements to this case too.  I love the assumption that sharing a double bed means you're going to have sex (or will be tempted to).  It's positively Victorian: hands above the sheets, boys and girls!  How about the times I've shared a double-bed with sundry male and female friends, with my mother, and indeed with my dog, without feeling even the slightest need to shag my bed-fellow in the middle of the night.   Moreover, who needs a double-bed if you do actually fancy your bedroom mate?  Do these people have no imagination? :-)

Christian Homophobia

I still encounter homophobia on a regular basis on Twitter.  A common theme arises: by no means all Christians are homophobes, but almost all homophobes I come across seem to be Christians.

There's the zealot Catholic stalker of mine who talks not about gay people, but of people who "have SSA" (same-sex attraction) as if it were an affliction or a temporary disorder that can be "cured".  I didn't chose my sexual orientation, honey - you however chose your faith.. and your nasty, bigoted views.  Then there are the random men, often from America and Australia, who just hurl out violent homophobic abuse to strangers.  It's a very odd straight man who spends all his time thinking about gay sex and gay men.  You don't need to be Dr Freud to take a guess at what's going on here.

Who you trying to kid?!

As ever, the hollow vessels make the most noise, however, and it's important to remember that the bulk of Christians I interact with don't share this type of view point.  In fact several I know are embarrassed, at pains to disassociate themselves from these attitudes, and are genuinely some of the kindest people I know.  It's a constant task to remind yourself of them, but it would make me guilty of the same prejudice I deplore not to.  Aside from anything, they're a delight to talk to.

I therefore deliberately put the word "Christian" in inverted commas at the start of this blog post because my understanding is that the type of people who would shut people out, discriminate, judge and behave spitefully to others based on Jesus' teachings are about as far away from "salvation" as it gets.  It's just such a shame they have such enormously big gobs and make you forget about the good guys.

Going Forward

Gay men, in particular, were often accused in the past of being unable to forge lasting relationships and commitment.  Imagine the effects on their relationships if for a chunk of their life they were at risk of being arrested for having private, consensual sex in their own home.  Imagine what it would be like to live through Mrs Thatcher's government introducing the most spiteful piece of hate-legislation parliament has probably ever passed, with words in it like "pretend family relationships".  Imagine hearing as recently as 2012 from the most senior Catholic in Britain (who as it turned out sexually assaulted young male priests), and half the Tory party in Parliament, that your relationship was in no way worthy of being put on the same footing as heterosexual marriages.  Imagine not knowing for sure until 27 November 2013 whether you could go away for a break together and risk having a guest-house shut you and your partner out for being gay.

All of that has a massive knock-on effect.  Everyone wants their loving relationships affirmed and their love for one another honoured by friends, family and society at large.  When the law allows the discrimination it has done, it places an enormous strain on things.  The fact that so many LGBT people have worked through all this and led happy, fulfilling lives with contented relationships is a real testament to them.  As the legal and societal position continues to improve, so I believe will the lives and relationships of those in the LGBT community.  This a wonderful, wonderful thing.

So it's been another great day, just like the day Parliament finally passed the Same Sex Marriage Bill.  Thank you, Baroness Hale, and your learned colleagues.  You have no appreciation of the ripple effect your splendid words and sentiments may come to have. 

The Art of Self-Loathing

Can a Jew make anti-Semitic remarks?  Can a gay man be a homophobe?  The idea seems oxymoronic or laughable.  Sadly, however, I've seen them both in action of late on Twitter.   The next question is whether the person is somehow excused from making the comment, just because he or she belongs to the group?  Is it a "get out Jail free" card to mock Jews for having "big noses" because you are Jewish; or to characterise other gay men as "uppity, in-your-face, camp-as-tits-faggots who'll rape you as soon as look at you" because you are gay?
 
Jewish anti-Semitism

Jewish anti-Semitism goes back a long way.  In the 12th century Benjamin of Tuleda records in his "Travels of Benjamin" animosity towards Jews from the Greeks of Constantinople.  Wealthy Jewish merchants explained this to Benjamin by blaming poor, "filthy" Jewish tanners for the problem.  It's a classic example of victims ignoring the actual roots of hatred directed at them, and instead focusing their dislike and anger on poorer elements of their own community.  Rather than challenge the endemic Christian anti-Semitism, the merchants accept the prejudices, differentiate between themselves and other Jews, and indulge in their own Jewish anti-Semitism.   

This can neatly be summarised some 700 years later by the Austrian Jewish writer Max Nordau.  He wrote in 1896 "It is the greatest triumph of anti-Semitism that is has brought the Jews to view themselves with anti-Semitic eyes."

The concept gained widespread modern recognition after the publication in 1930 of the book Der Jüdische Selbsthass ("Jewish Self-hatred") by German Jew Theodor Lessing.   He explained in his book the phenomenon of intellectual Jews who regarded Judaism as a source of evil in the world, and who incited physical anti-Semitism against other Jews.

Another example of the phenomenon struck me reading the diaries of Professor Victor Klemperer.  Klemperer, from Dresden, wrote the only complete set of diaries of a German Jew during the Third Reich.  In an entry of 10 January 1939, Klemperer brings up and actually implicity accepts the Nazi concept of the "Jewish Question".  He rejects it explicitly with reference to atheist, assimilated Jews such as himself, but acknowledges there is an issue with the Yiddish speaking "Ostjuden" or Jews who have immigrated from Eastern Europe.  That he should accept this anti-Semitic Nazi concept on any level, having suffered at their hands, just months before the beginning of WW2, is extraordinary.

One of the leading experts on this phenomenon is Kenneth Levin, clinical instructor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.  I understand the basic idea is that the victimised accept on some level the attacks of, and develop empathy with, their abusers.  This may be a manifestation of chronic low self-esteem: you are in effect accepting that you deserve to be attacked.

"Bigotry and Big Noses"

To me, there is absolutely no question that Jews can mock, dislike, or even actively hate and wish harm on other Jews as a category.  Taking a step back, this is no more exceptional than suggesting human beings can hate other human beings.  Just because you belong to any group does not mean you like, defend or feel empathy towards the other members of it.

Some would disagree and get really quite agitated about this logic.  Look at these recent outbursts from Milo Yiannopoulos (aka @Nero, the founder of the troubled technology/gossip magazine The Kernel):

It's a bit "loopy" to suggest a Jew can be anti-Semitic

Again the excuse "I'm Jewish" so can't be anti-Semitic

It's "mental" to say a Jew can be anti-Semitic 

I assume Milo has not heard of Benjamin of Tuleda, Nordau, Klemperer or Levin.  There's no crime in that, of course.

Also, in his favour, it should be explained that Milo isn't the happiest little soul at the moment.  The background to these tweets is that he is reacting very aggressively to a piece written about him and posted by Max Dunbar which Milo claims is libelous.  The post sets out offensive, threatening emails allegedly sent by Milo to a writer at the Kernel who wasn't paid.  It mentions his non-payment of bills to other writers at the magazine, which is a recurring theme the Guardian has picked up on.  A lot of journalists and photographers are extremely unhappy about the Kernel's apparent repeated refusal to pay its contributors.  An award of over £16,000 was made just yesterday by a tribunal, for example, to the journalist Jason Hesse against Sentinel Media Limited t/a Kernel Magazine.  If unpaid, enforcement action could include a winding up petition against Sentinel and depending on his actions, personal liability on behalf of its sole director, Milo.

Despite all this, what seems to have upset Milo the most in the post is the comment "He doesn’t like lesbians, very much it seems.  Then we might take his view on Jews."  There follows a link to this thread of tweets:

Jews' characteristics include "bigotry and big noses".  Is this an offensive, stereotypical and (extremely unoriginal) anti-Semitic comment?  In my opinion it is.  Milo states his faith as Roman Catholic elsewhere, but during this exchange he has repeatedly said that he is a Jew.  This is presumably by virtue of birth.  As we have seen, he claims this prima facie entirely anti-Semitic tweet cannot be so, simply because the author is Jewish.  Plenty would disagree.

Like any other form of prejudice, Jewish anti-Semitism can be subtle and one-off (I'm sure Professor Klemperer would not have categorised himself as anti-Semitic), or it can be overt and repeated.  One anti-Semitic comment obviously does not however make someone an anti-Semite.  Despite Milo's repeat attempts to characterise it as otherwise, the post on Max Dunbar's did not actually say that, and simply pulled him up on this one mocking anti-Jewish comment.

Iron Crosses and Hitler Biographies

The Iron Cross dates back to 1813.  It is a Prussian medal first awarded by King Frederick William III during the Napoleonic Wars.  It was reintroduced during three wars of German aggression: the Franco-Prussian war, the First World War and finally by a Reich decree on 1 September 1939.  This was the very day that Nazi forces invaded Poland, that the subjugation of the people of Eastern Europe began, and the foundation stones for the genocide of the Jewish people were laid.

Iron Cross Decree: 1 September 1939

The Iron Cross is the very embodiment of German militarism, and for many people they think of it as one of the core symbols of the Nazi period.  Hitler himself was awarded the Iron Cross, Classes 1 and 2. 

Therefore the Iron Cross is perhaps not the type of thing you'd expect to see most young Jews embracing and wearing.  Nonetheless, above is an interesting shot of 22 year old Milo Wagner (as Yiannopoulos was then calling himself) wearing one during the summer of 2006.  It's from a publicly available Flickr account (see postscript) in a set called "Me".  Is it actually Milo?  Well yes of course it is.  Here's a head shot this time, with the same shirt and the earphones. 

Anyone would think he'd be ashamed to be identified with this symbol of German and Nazi Third Reich militarism and that's why he cropped his head from the photo.  Now, if we scroll back past four pictures of Milo posing in some public toilets (entitled "Railway Toilets I, II, III, IV") on the same photo stream, we come to this picture of some Hitler biographies:

The Kershaw biographies are standard reads for students of the Third Reich.  I'm glad Milo is looking through them: they are an excellent study into what an evil philosophy Nazism was.  He may even have educated himself on the Reich decree of 1 September 1939 and what the Iron Cross represents. 

Given there are just 30 pictures in this photo stream, mainly of Milo's face, I'm genuinely not sure what exactly he is trying to say by assembling the images of the Iron Cross and the Hitler biographies together.  Oh, and are those actually Milo's hands?  Well judging by the ring it certainly looks like a match.  The photo below is taken from the same photo stream by Milo Wagner entitled "Me":

Same type of ring, same finger, similar hands.

UPDATE:  This image has just come to light that was reposted by Milo (top left) in 2009.  

If this were Twitter, one could defensively claim that "RTs aren't endorsements".  Whether one's employers, for example, would see it like that is a different matter of course.

However, the image is not from Twitter.  It is from a now defunct service called "Popjam".  There when you "RT"d something, it had an explicit point: that you thought people would find it funny.  It wasn't like Twitter where people will RT vicious things said to them in order to shame someone, for instance.  On Popjam, it was all about the LOLs. That's the key point. "See this image, laugh like I'm doing." Not "see this image, be revolted by it" or "see this image, consider its truth."  You actually scored points for getting LOLs on Popjam.

If you'd like an explanation of Popjam ("Ever get bored of endlessly surfing around the net, looking for LOLs") just click here.  The short little piece is by none other than Milo Yiannopoulos.  It was written before the Telegraph parted company with him, following the posting of the image.

If you look at the bottom of the image there is a LOL button.  At the top you can see it was reposted by Milo.  Milo claims that he flagged it as inappropriate.  He says that it is "misrepresenting" he actions to suggest otherwise.

How odd, then, that this search (scroll down to "In yo' face!" which is the name of the post) shows that he in fact did no such thing.  It was in fact LOLd by him (twice).  Perhaps his memory doesn't serve him well.  That would be strange, given that the image caused such difficulties for him and his journalistic career.

Again, if it's necessary to state the obvious, making jokes about Hitler killing Jews doesn't make you anti-Semitic, or suggest you agree with any aspect of Hitler's policies.  It's a "joke" - but it does mean you have a sense of humour that most people would find distinctly unpleasant.  It's doubly curious from someone who is a young Jew and would, I'm sure, attract the disdain of many in the Jewish community.

Homosexuality is Wrong

I've known plenty of gays who suffer from low self-esteem.  It can manifest itself in destructive behaviour, addiction and sometimes an active dislike of other gay men.  You hear jokes where gay men call each other "poofs", "queers" and use the third person feminine to mock someone ("What's she up to tonight?" when referring to another gay man etc).

Another group of gays belong to the "straight acting" category, who dislike anyone who acts "camply" and is too effeminate for the way they think people should behave.  Their homophobia towards such people is as strong and vicious as anything I have ever heard from a straight person.

The reason I set out the material on anti-Semitic Jews at the beginning of this post is two-fold.  It counters the argument that a Jew cannot ever be guilty of making anti-Semitic comments.  Of course they can.  But it also is interesting to draw parallels with other forms of dislike of a group you belong to, because the psychology is so similar.

Using Levin's analysis, homophobia by gay people must be the very same pattern of acceptance and internalising of prejudice from abusers.  The abused then apply this to themselves and to members of their own group.   To alter Nordau's quote, is it perhaps the greatest triumph of homophobia that it has brought gays to view themselves with homophobic eyes?


Milo is gay.  Let's look at some of his thoughts on the subject taken from his public blog:

"The thought that I might influence my child towards a lifestyle choice guaranteed to bring them pain and unhappiness – however remote that chance may be – is horrifying to me."

"I’d describe myself as 90-95% gay. I would never have chosen to be this way. No one would choose it. You’d have to be mad. "

"No one would choose to have a gay child rather than a straight one. It would be like wishing that they were born disabled – not just because homosexuality is aberrant, but because that child will suffer unnecessarily. Again, you’d have to be mad. Or evil. "

"Is being homosexual “wrong”? Something somewhere inside of me says Yes."

"The feelings of alienation and rejection [growing up gay] engenders are responsible for the sorts of repugnant tribal posturing you see on the streets of Soho on a Friday night, as bitterly unhappy queers engage in degrading and repulsive behaviour, simply because they want to feel a part of something after a lifetime of marginalisation."

"All these preening poofs in public life do is make life more difficult for regular young gay people by reinforcing the stereotypes about gay behaviour: reminding a struggling child’s myopic dad that queers are uppity, in-your-face, camp-as-tits faggots who’ll rape you as soon as look at you."

"I don’t hate myself and I don’t hate my sexuality. (Granted, I have a complicated relationship with the latter.) Nor do I hate other gay men. (Where would fat girls be without them?)"

Milo posing: "Railway Toilets III"

Are the above comments homophobic?  If a straight person called me a "bitterly unhappy queer", a "preening poof" or "a camp as tits faggot" I'd say this was the very definition of homophobic abuse and hate language.  This poisonous bile actually makes me feel a bit sick.   Milo's post led me to write my own blog post a while back on why I would actually, genuinely choose to be gay.

Dislike of lesbians is another expression of gay homophobia and prejudice: this might not be strictly speaking because of self-hatred, but it is certainly a noticeable and unpleasant characteristic of more than a few gay men.  Here's a selection of tweets that show our friend Milo spewing out repeated homophobia directed at lesbians:

The one that pretty much seems to sum up Milo's views is the typically articulate one below.  It is a response to a series of portraits of trans* men.  There is actually nothing to suggest they are lesbian, so Milo gets a tick for transphobia too whilst we are at it:

A Media-Hungry Influencer

Does it matter that anyone who is apparently so deeply unhappy with his own life should use their self-proclaimed "semi public position" to put this stuff on homosexuality into the public arena? 

I rather think it does.  Milo controls an online magazine.   He is a angry opponent of marriage equality and is not shy of getting himself quoted to show that some gay people are opposed to the move.  In a similar vein, he also somehow managed to convince Channel 4 News that because he was opposed to the LGBT friendly Catholic Soho Masses this represented a split in gay Catholic opinion.

When a prominent evangelical pastor declares his support for same-sex relationships this is inherently more newsworthy and of interest than a gay campaigner saying he supports them.  Similarly when a gay man goes out into the media and attacks the attempts of his community to achieve equal treatment, it is seized upon as representing something much more than the self-loathing tendencies of one individual. 

Like it or not (I do not), Milo is an influencer and not just on Twitter.  For how much longer he remains so is anyone's question, of course, given his publication's financial troubles and his general standing amongst the journalist community.  There are times when you can't help but feel a lot of pity for him - and then you read his comments about "fat girls", "preening poofs" or Jews being "bigoted and having big noses" and you change your mind.

Get Out of Jail Card

What is clear is that just because you're a member of any given group or groups, you are not immune from indulging in bigotry towards those groups.  However, do you warrant a "Get out of Jail Card" if you choose to express these prejudices?

In my opinion you do not.  Anti-semitism, homophobia, sexism and racism are all accepted by most people (and by the law) as being objectionable and wrong.  Milo's excuse for his anti-lesbian comments is that he is gay.  Does that make them any less nasty or unpleasant for a lesbian reader of the comments?  No: in fact you could say that it makes the culpability worse.  He apparently has experienced pain and unhappiness as a result of being gay, yet he's happy repeatedly to turn his hatred on other gay people in a public forum.

Is it okay for a Jew to make an anti-Semitic "joke" or to wear an Iron Cross?  I think most Jews would say it isn't - and in the case of the Iron Cross, in fact it's even more offensive and disrespectful for a member of the people who suffered so horrendously to wear this symbol of German militarism.  Of course ultimately it's entirely up to him: people will make their own judgements and he can live with that.  I'd just advise him heavily not to try pulling this prank on one of his regular jaunts to Berlin.  His defence that he's a Jew "so this is okay" might not be too readily accepted.  In my experience, 19th and 20th century right wing military symbols aren't terribly in vogue at the moment in modern day Germany.

A Wider Phenomenon

I feel sorry for Milo.  It can't be pleasant carrying all this round with you.  He is just an easily referenced example for a much wider phenomenon though.  It's important to get that there's nothing self-contradictory at all about a Jew mocking other Jews, or for a gay to be deeply homophobic.  The question is whether we dismiss it, or reflect on it, and point it out to those engaging in it.









POSTSCRIPT

I gave Milo the opportunity of confirming or denying whether the photo stream (including the image of him wearing the Iron Cross and with the Hitler biographies) was his.  He neither expressly confirmed nor denied it, but within an hour the Flickr account had been deleted, having been inactive for over six years.

The name Milo Wagner with the word [deleted] behind the account still appears on comments he previously left on Flickr, however.  Here's one left on a photo posted by David Haywood Smith.  He happens to be Milo's business associate at the Kernel.

One screenshot of the (now) deleted Milo Wagner account