Burka Bans

Should women be prohibited from wearing burkas (the full outer body garment), the niqab (face veil), or both whilst out in public?  It seems that around 2/3 of the British population thinks they should be banned - which presumably means they support the state issuing a fine, criminal record and even possibly imprisonment for any women doing so.  Likewise, reading a recent BBC article on the subject I was struck by the fact that all the top comments (there were dozens) supported a ban.

This is an interesting debate because it doesn't necessarily run down party lines.  I've seen people of all political persuasion on either side of the fence, and a lot of thinking, liberal-minded people who instinctively think it has something to be said for it, even if they can't bring themselves to support an outright ban.  Feminists likewise fall into either camp.  I think there's a lot of slightly muddled or incomplete thinking, and I hope this piece might help distill some of the issues if you're unsure where you stand.

Who would it affect?

Let's first be clear that the number of full burka wearers in this country is tiny.  Belgium, which banned them in 2010 apparently has 30 inhabitants who used to wear them regularly out of its Muslim population of 500,000.   France, which also has a ban since 2011, has estimated the number of wearers variously to be between 367 and 2000 out of 4,700,000.  The British Muslim population is half that, so it's a reasonable assumption we are talking about a maximum of several hundred women in our country (if we exclude temporary visitors, for example, tourists from Saudi Arabia). 

That's several hundred people in a country of 60 million.  In other words it is perhaps 0.001% of the total British population.  This is therefore a very high profile debate about something that would affect a very few people directly.  That's important to bear in mind later.  For this ban to be on the agenda at all would imply that there is a key public interest and a serious wrong to be corrected here.

Arguments Against the Burka

From what I can see the arguments against the Burka tend to fall into the following categories:

• It represents the Islamification of our country. This is a foreign influence and must be stopped
• It represents the subjugation of women by men
• It is not a free choice by women to dress like this, but often happens because of compulsion
• It prevents integration
• It is a medieval form of dress
• It is permissible in some situations, but it must be prohibited in others (e.g. in schools and courts, for practical reasons)
• I can't explain why, but I just don't like them

Some of these are easily dealt with, with a bit of thought.

Medieval Dress

Yes, the Burka is medieval.  So is a monk's habit.  A judge's wig and gown are centuries old.  Ties, as worn in work places across the country, are a foreign fashion (Croatian) dating back to the 1500s.  Ultra-orthodox Jews wear 17th century Polish dress.  I've yet to read any serious arguments suggesting the State should outlaw any of these garments.

I also do not see that there is any public interest in banning anything per se because it is old or old-fashioned.  In fact, my cottage is medieval.  It is listed, as are all buildings built before 1700 in England/Wales.  The law in this case dictates that there is a public interest in keeping it precisely because it is old. It would be a criminal offence to knock it down.

The fact that burkas are medieval is not an argument to warrant a ban, and I hope it can be dismissed quite easily.

Islamification of Britain

This is a core philosophical point, which if you believe, little I can say will persuade you otherwise.  It is a xenophobic, intolerant position which denies the fact that this country has been made up of waves of immigration for thousands of years.  It requires an artificially homogenous Anglo-Saxon society which has never existed and will not exist. 

It is a tradition shared by those who hated the arrival of French Hugenots in the 16th century, the Dutch in the 17th century, and the Irish Catholics in the 19th century.  It's the philosophy of The Mail, which spoke at the turn of the 20th century of the wave of dirty, strangely dressed Jews with their foreign ways and incomprehensible Yiddish tongue, and in the 1930s of the outrage of stateless German Jews "pouring in from every port of this country".  

The Good Old Daily Mail, 1938

It's a viewpoint that will lead its holder to dislike and unhappiness every time s/he sees a mosque, or anyone who is identifiably Muslim out on the street.  It is a philosophy that I genuinely pity.  No one can be a kind, happy person who shares it. 

All this said, there are plenty of people who do believe it.  The Mail sells well in Britain, as does the Telegraph with Allison Pearson's references here to opening a British door and out flapping a "flock of crows" when talking about Muslim girls.  If you need a reminder, they're people like you are, Allison, not animals.

On a practical level, even if you do wish for this racially and religiously pure British utopia, it's hard to see how banning several hundred women from dressing as they wish will somehow hold back the alleged tide of the Islamification of the country.  The only way to do that would be to ban the practice of the religion of 1 in 5 people around the world, or to engage in population "purification" involving the mass expulsion (or worse) of several million people. 

Banning the burka is just going for a soft, symbolic target because these extreme measures are not possible.  It is a milder gesture, but it is at its core a spiteful, hateful move, if the motivation is to make the country look "less Muslim".  Again I would hope that it can be dismissed as a valid justification that people will generally go along with, when it's thought through.

Protecting Women

This is the one that can cause problems for those who would abhor the xenophobic motivation of the last category.  It's one that I shared for a while, and felt genuinely torn.   Let's go through it in steps.

This argument says that the burka is a way of dressing determined by men that dehumanises its female wearers.  It is hugely paternalistic because it assumes that the woman has to be protected from sexual advances and may only be shown to "her" menfolk behind closed doors.  It prevents the woman from integrating and leading a full life.

There's one huge problem here, if this is your standpoint from a feminist perspective.  You are at risk of seeing the wearers as weak, voiceless creatures, not as women with their own brains who are capable of making their own mind up on this and expressing it.  There are actual people behind these veils, who are capable of critical thought.  It's a little bizarre that people forget that and it's desperately dehumanising to suggest otherwise.

Has anyone stopped to ask the wearers what they think?  Actually quite a lot of journalists have, and I've seen and read several interviews with very eloquent, intelligent veil wearers who express themselves clearly on their varied reasons for dressing this way.  Many wearers talk about feeling liberated because they are no longer looked at sexually and as commodities. 

This short interview, with a French woman, Kenza, is well worth a read if you have the time.  She stresses that this is her personal choice, it is not something she would force on her daughters, and it is a matter of political principle and individual liberty for her that she should be able to dress how she wishes. 

Here's another viewpoint:

Are you surprised these women who choose to wear a full veil can actually speak clearly and lucidly? If so, stop and ask yourself why.  Fatima and Kenza are people, not crows, in case we need reminding.

Amoola is even more powerful and her view presents a real problem for the anti-burka feminist argument.  It's difficult to see how feminists can insist that women be protected from the institution of the burka, without trampling on the rights of the autonomous women involved to make up their own mind.   They are saying they know better what is good for the woman than she does.  It's pure oppression, which ordinarily would rightly be decried.  She is not a "delicate little creature" as she points out.

She has also hit the nail on the head on another point.  The debate is being conducted without involving the women who actually wear them.  I can this stop this blog post here with that line.  The only people who get to decide about burkas are the ones who chose to wear them or not. 

Undue Influence

Ahh, you might say: but is this really a free choice? We are all shaped by our upbringing (including religious upbringing), our experiences and our education.  To that extent we can philosophise that no one truly has free will.  I wear the clothes I do because of all sorts of influences from society and pressures to look good, conform, be fashionable, be taken seriously, or whatever.  To that extent we are all slaves to the particular part of the world we inhabit. 

When you've read what the above women have to say it's hard to see how they could be accused of not having a very similar level of free choice to that you or I have.  They are clearly determined individuals capable of making their own decisions.  If this is stopping their integration, that's their choice.  Not everyone has to become a clone of everyone else in a society.  Humans are incredibly varied creatures and this is a great strength of a vibrant, pluralistic nation.

Burka wearer in "I can actually read" shocker

There will, of course, presumably be some Muslim women who are forced to wear burkas against their will.  Assuming this is the case, the question is then how removing the burka will suddenly protect or liberate them.  If they are living in a household where they are actively forced to wear a particular type of clothing, will they genuinely they be any less oppressed when they get home, by the State outlawing the wearing of this garment outside?  Will the sudden freedom for their faces to be seen by strangers outside change their abusive, controlling domestic environment?  Of course it will not. 

And again, think about the numbers we are considering here.  We are talking about an unknown proportion of the tiny 0.001% of the British population who wears a full face veil.  Domestic abuse is a serious and widespread issue in this country: it is quite easy to wander up the garden path on this one thinking that by banning the wearing of burkas something positive can be done in this area.  Actually only a miniscule proportion of women might be helped by this quite drastic measure (as I've said there's a huge emphasis on might there).  As such, it's difficult to see the undue influence argument being in any way a compelling reason to ban burkas either.

Partial Bans

The argument here is not for a full-out ban, but just to compel women to remove their veil in certain circumstances, such as in court or whilst teaching. 

Taking courts first, the view is that a judge or jury cannot make a proper assessment if they can't see the full range of facial movements during testimony.  On that basis, blind jurors should instantly be excluded.  They are not in this country, as David Blunkett's example of jury service shows.  It is in fact more than a little offensive to the blind to suggest they are not capable of serving in this way.  The argument presupposes that jury members are watching every facial movement of a witness in some kind of sixth sense or intuitive way to divine the truth, rather than the dull tedium of going through all the evidence, written and spoken to make an assessment. 

All this said, the recent ruling by Judge Peter Murphy reached a practical, common-sense compromise.  A veil wearing defendant was allowed to enter a plea in court whilst wearing her burka, having previously been identified by a female officer, who swore it was the same person on oath.  When she stands trial, she will do so behind a screen, but will have to remove her veil in front of the judge and jury.  This is an outcome that should satisfy those who fear the tiny number of Burka women in this country will be able to flee justice, whilst at least succeeding in part to accommodate her religious wishes.

In the teaching situation, again the argument is advanced that a teacher's face has to be seen by their pupils and/or a teacher has to be able to see the face of the student.  I'm not quite sure what the overriding reason is for this, but if we use the blind analogy again it suggests that blind children cannot learn properly and blind teachers should be banned.  I'm not terribly convinced by that instinctively.

People who support partial bans often give the justification that it's required to remove crash helmets or balaclavas in places such as banks.  This is an accepted principle and no one objects to it.  Therefore the same rule should apply in courts and schools: it's no different.  The issue with this is that there is in fact a massive difference: these head coverings are required to be removed to prevent serious crime and the identification of assailants.  To compare a Muslim teacher who wears a burka to a man holding a sawn-off shotgun to rob a bank is just a little bit off, and is unsustainable as an argument.  If it were proven that people disguised in burkas were holding up banks, then this would be different, but the comparison certainly doesn't carry across to a classroom.

"I just don't like them"

Then we come to those who can think through all of the above arguments intellectually and see that there is no real reason to ban burkas in public except perhaps in two very limited possible circumstances (courts when giving evidence, and in banks if a load of burka robbers suddenly crop up).  Nonetheless they just don't like the things.  They can't express exactly why.

I think lots of people share this view, if they're honest.   I also think that what is at the core of this is a very human, very basic dislike of difference.  We are often primitive creatures.  We are drawn to our tribe, to our cave, to our people.  Unless you have grown up in the Middle East, seeing people dressed so demonstratively differently might be challenging.  It's a fairly recent phenomenon too (there's an interesting point about women choosing to wear them to show they're proud to be Muslim post 911, in the face of all the prejudice that is aimed at them).  We are therefore being confronted with something we are not at all used to. 

It's what made people stare at those East European Jews arriving in Britain that the Mail so hated.  Now you've probably been through areas like Golder's Green loads of times and don't look twice at someone in Hasidic garb.  All I can say is that just because you might feel this emotional reaction and unfamiliarity, although it might be a natural reaction, try to get over it.  Think through the actual intellectual arguments and see if that changes your perspective. 

You might even think that a ban is not a good idea, but you just wish people wouldn't choose to dress like this.  They still will though, no matter how much you wish the contrary, and they have every right to.  You're also actually very capable of rising above what is actually just a prejudice like any other.  These women do not in any way threaten your way of life, any more than do all sorts of other people in society who do things differently to you. 

Banning Things

Lastly we come to the issue that when a society bans something it should really have compelling reasons to do so.  This is particularly the case when it involves something so intimate and personal as the decision by an individual to wear what they wish.  It's not enough for people to "just not like" seeing people going about their lives dressed like this.  We need to identify a real wrong that it is of public interest to correct.  Otherwise we should, I believe, do well to fall back on the motto "live and let live".

Here we come back to the tiny number of women who choose to wear these clothes.  There are probably somewhere between 500 and 800 women in the whole of the UK who wear burkas with full face veils, who are concentrated in certain parts of a few urban centres.  Their burkas do not carry images or words on them that could be considered offensive on them; quite the contrary, they are by definition modest.  This is not by any stretch of the imagination a matter of pressing public importance.  There is no obvious wrong to be corrected by instigating a public ban. 

What the debate masks is a lot of faulty understanding, prejudice and dislike.  The only good thing I could conclude with is that this whole discussion may be useful in terms of holding a mirror up and challenging these things in ourselves.

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