William Hague/Chris Myers: a short history of gay rights in Britain
Posted on Friday 3 September, 2010
Filed Under Civil Liberties, Conservative Party, Politics
LOOK away now if you have an unduly salacious imagination, but I confess to sharing a hotel bedroom with Newsnight economics editor Paul Mason. Yeah, I know, girls. Dishy, isn’t he?
This, you understand, was simply to save the National Union of Journalists a bob or two on conference expenses. It does not imply that we are anything other than red-blooded meat-eating full-on skirt-chasing 100% heterosexual coureurs des dames. Or I am, anyway. Can’t speak for Paul.
The saddest thing surrounding the kerfuffle over William Hague and his special advisor Christopher Myers is that most reasonable people get over any hang-ups about homosexuality by the time they are actively involved in the mating game, whichever team they bat for.
‘Poof’ was absolutely the worst insult that could be thrown at a boy in Wellingborough Grammar School in the mid-1970s, and honour would demand that you at least threatened to thump anybody who addressed you in such terms.
But after I got a bit older and had been to a couple of Tom Robinson Band gigs, and a mate came out of the closet, it all became a non-issue. Anyway, I reasoned, if some blokes were getting off with other blokes, the less competition the rest of us faced when hitting on Northampton’s outstanding array of sultry teenage temptresses.
I remember being slightly shocked when I moved to London and saw two men snogging at a party. Oooo-er. But I had come to the capital expressly to be a bohemian, and it would have been uncool in the extreme in leftwing circles to let on that I had even noticed.
For the political right, it was a different story. Among the many reasons many young people learned to hate Thatcherism was its wilful inculcation of discrimination against gays. From my point of view, that was only a minor concern in comparison to deliberately engineered recession, mass unemployment, the Falklands war, the miners’ strike and the poll tax.
But section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 – which provided that that a local authority ‘shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality’ or ‘promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship’ – seemed to sum up Thatcher’s home counties golf club bigotry on the matter, even if the law had little impact in practice.
One of the few tests that the New Labour administrations passed with flying colours was its agenda for gay equality. S.28 was repealed, the age of consent equalised and civil partnership introduced.
And guess what? The institution of marriage has not collapsed. Het couples still cohab. Why, last time I checked, women were busily dropping sprogs all over the shop. Meanwhile, gays get on with those notorious unspeakable practices that cannot be reported in a family newspaper (see pages four, five, six, seven and eight).
Today, the Conservatives are supposed to have their heads round social change, and be just as intensely relaxed about homosexuals as New Labour was about the super-rich.
Before the election, Cameron told Pink News: ‘I’d like to make one thing clear — we are totally committed to the fight for gay rights and there will be no going back on equality legislation if the Conservative party is elected.’
The ‘fight’ for gay rights, Dave? Steady on, old chap, that’s a bit Spartish, is it not? Next thing we know, you’ll be boasting to some feminist rag about your plans to smash patriarchy.
Churls raise such quibbles as his party’s support for bed and breakfast proprietors who are opposed to, er, permitting two men to share a bedroom. But let’s not nit-pick, right?
And now the Hague/Myers row. The foreign secretary could have chosen not to dignify internet tittle-tattle with a detailed rebuttal telling the world more than it needs to know about his efforts to have children with Ffion.
Many commentators point out the obvious danger of issuing a denial denial of ever having a relationship with a man, rather than opting for the standard non-denial denial tactic. Should even a single past liaison emerge, the man is toast.
Hague is roughly the same age as me – which is why he looks such a prat in wraparound shades, I guess – and will have been through much the same experiences of the situation facing gays as I have.
For my liking, the statement sounds rather too much like the seventies grammar school kid that Hague is too, threatening to hit a classmate who called him a bender. We are supposed to have moved on since that time, aren’t we?
<<Go back
Comments
39 Responses to “William Hague/Chris Myers: a short history of gay rights in Britain”
Leave a Reply
even if [Section 28] had little impact in practice.
Dave, this is just rubbish. Section 28 had a great deal of impact “in practice”, namely that schools and other institutions working with young people didn’t care about whether they might have been “promoting homosexuality” as “acceptable” or as a “pretend relationship” or not, they just stopped mentioning it. Sex education became a joke. Anything apart from the hetero man wife and 2.4 kids didn’t get mentioned – as did nothing apart from the missionary position (I remember a particuarly technical diagram from a GCSE biology lession. It could have been from a ballroom-dancing textbook.).
Sex until the repeal of clause 28: not fun, not honest, and certainly not gay. Schools were scared shitless of falling foul of the law. My vaguely righ-on yet elitist east London “comp” (in theory, but little more) told us to “read those two pages” in our mid-1980s GCSE religious studies (“contemporary moral issues”) books at home – it was made clear, that “no questions” would be taken in lesson time, should any of us pesky, stroppy teenagers use it as an excuse to get the school in trouple with the DfES. Instead we got to watch US propaganda videos distributed by “LIFE” on the “abortion holocaust”. Pupely for discussion purposes, of course.
What is sex education like now? I hope schools have got some new post-clause 28 textbooks…
Dunno DZ. I seem to recall sex was fun, even prior to the repeal of S.28 …
I meant “sex not being fun” as in “sex in sex education lessons”…not as in real life. Clause 28 wasn’t about outlawing sex, but about outlawing honest sex education. That was a bad thing, no?
I think DZ is right, it did make schools fearful, some of course not needing an excuse to ignore LGBT issues .
Re today and sex education. Well at a recent event someone from Abortion Rights said that anti abortion groups were going into schools with their message . Scary.
Unless teenage girls have changed since I was a teenage girl, when it comes to being pregnant, they will do what they have to do regardless of sex education lessons. The only issue is whether they have access to safe, legal, free abortions.
I still remain baffled as to why schools should provide sex lessons at all. Even in my school days during the prudish ’50s we managed to pick up the rudiments – no pun intended. Today the job is done, over-done, one might suggest, by the top shelf in the local newsagents and the top channels on Mum and Dad’s telly when they’re out at the pub. Perhaps it is that teachers find it easier to teach sex than reading and writing. It certainly appears that way when one considers the reported sexual habits of our feral youngsters more and more of whom are also unable to read ot write!
David Duff. We used to get the pollination lessons in the science class. Same thing kind of applies to humans. I recall an elderly female work colleague saying she was in her twenties when she found out how a woman got pregnant and she was pretty appalled at the idea. It led to another colleague saying it would say on her tombstone ‘returned unopened’. There is definitely a case for sex and health education. Some parents are just to embarrassed to talk about it.
“read ot write”
Or type, even.
David, don’t be so duff. ‘Sex education’ is far more than the mechanics of sexual congress.
How the issues of sex, sexual interaction, sexual morality, parenting, contraception, sexual identification, gender etc etc are dealt with with children (or adults come to that) is complicated. If we think schools have any utility, then they have to deal with sexual matters. How they should do so is a matter of opinion. We do not leave education in general to parents, similarly ‘sex education’ is part of general education.
You don’t have any children, do you, David?
Dave,I thihn ou have missed the point.
The question is not is Hague a “woofta” or not – but has he abused his office to appoint an unqualified “advisor to a position of “trust” and financial advantage at the expense of the public purse.
Christ, he makes Ron Davies look like a gentleman.
GW
GW, the position of SpAd is a political appointment at the whim of a minister, it just happens to be funded publically. This is no different from a PM’s ability to appoint Cabinet Ministers on political grounds rather than strict academic qualification.
I also wander what qualifications you seem to think are necessary for the position of SpAd, it is an entry level position which a dedicated party activist is easily qualified for.
Maybe it’s my age Dave, but I can’t agree with your post. To me it seems like the second time in the coalition’s short history that the gay community has rallied around a politician caught cheating by doing their version of “my country, right or wrong”.
Although the tabloids and some of bloggers may have overstepped the mark with homophobia, the problem both Laws and Haigue have is they look like they were cheating the system to help their alleged lovers. In fact it makes Prezza look rather innocent as then there was no extra state money involved.
What could be proof is that another minister, Crispin Blunt, comes out and their is no big press or blogging deal about it. (On the other hand maybe he figured out the perfect timing;-) It’s also true that we have openly gay politicians who are elected even though the voters know it. Politicians could even take the option that the prime minister of another commonwealth country takes of not making a public statement but not denying it either.
To sum up, yet again it’s not the sex it’s the money. Follow the money and you find the scandal. Maybe it’s time for the gay community and its hetero supporters to mature a bit. When politician is caught possibly doing something wrong, being gay should not be part of the prosecution or the defense of that person. I hope both Left Foot Forward and Iain Dale can both recognise this.
‘Lobby Ludd’ is spot on with this:
“How the issues of sex, sexual interaction, sexual morality, parenting, contraception, sexual identification, gender etc etc are dealt with with children (or adults come to that) is complicated.”
So what makes him think that some 25-year old, er, graduate from a teaching college is equipped to answer all those questions, assuming of course that there are any answers?
And not that it is in the slightest way pertinent but, yes,
SoD(*) is alive and well and doing alright, thank you for asking!
(*) Son of Duff
David,
Teaching is more than just sitting in front of a class and lecturing. Open discusssion, round table talks, projects are all part of it. The value of sex education should not be underestimated imo, though how it is taught and what is taught is important and forever being evaluated.
“Teaching is more than just sitting in front of a class and lecturing.”
So they tell me and I believe it and it explains a lot!
@LesAbbey: There’s no scandal here, Hauge shared a room with a Tory activist on his campaign team, presumable saving Tory HQ money. Said activist was then given a political appointment as an advisor. There’s really no scandal apart from the one you are imagining.
This is completly different from the Laws Affair.
Give it time Simon!
Simon – This is completly different from the Laws Affair.
I think you say this more in hope than with logic. Why would a very rich politician need to share a room with a younger aide of whichever sex, especially when he knows there had been whispering about his sexuality before? This is where it’s hard to find a logical answer except for the one Hague is rejecting. In fact the online reaction from both the left and right in the gay community was similar to the Hague scandal with the Laws one. Somehow they are going to have grow up past this version of “my country, right or wrong”.
We now have two highly possible Tory scandals on the go at once. Coulson’s dishonesty over phone tapping and Hague’s misuse of public funds. Be interesting to see if Cameron throws either to the wolves. It’s interesting to see Iain Dale going to Coulson’s defense in much the same way as he has done for Hague. He explains that listening to the voice mail of someone else by guessing their pin number is not technically phone tapping. Thanks Iain, now let’s see where that leaves us with credit cards that don’t belong to us either?
Personally I think the Coulson story is much more significant, and Tory after Tory are lining up to defend him. Talk about corruption and lawlessness in the highest places. But the corruption is really in the defending of Coulson, just as the corruption in the Cricket scandal is the decision not to suspend the tour.
Dean. There are so many skeletons in the cupboard off politicians that they bound to close ranks. You bubble on me I will whisper against you. Les Abbey makes a fair point. Why was Hague sharing a room with the youngster. Was the youngster a self declared gay? Or was it just known in the circles he moved in.
“Was the youngster a self declared gay?” What is this, a Chris Morris-”newsreport” (before the “news” all went Chris Morris on us?)?
“There are so many skeletons in the cupboard off politicians that they bound to close ranks”
That is what I mean by where the real corruption lies. It is in the closing of ranks, the obstruction of justice. The putting vested interest against the truth. The corruption is not in the act of corruption but in the acceptance of it.
Interesting times. One wonders are the rumours about others in the cabinet also true. So what does this make of the junket that Hague, Myers and Osborne took to Afghanistan? Whatever you may think about the war there, surely a bit more decorum is called for when young British soldiers are fighting and dying in that god-forsaken place.
I remember the romours about him going back to the year he was at the Tory Conference, when he made that speech, looked like some posh rich kid. people thought he was a bit on the gay side then, perhaps it was the way he looked. Or not.
From what Dean says, I wonder if he thinks that teh sunnier countries of the world are ready for self-government. I mean, is it time we took up the White Man’s Burden once again, to ensure fair play and honest dealings in these countries? As for William Hague, I don’t really care what he does with his dick, but I feel sorry for his wife despretely trying to conceive and not being able to carry a baby to full term. I thought we had got past all those smutty jokes about pooftahs, anyway. Tell me your last post was a joke, Les Abbey, or was it one mushroom too many?
Maybe I’ve watched too many episodes of The Thick of It but the idea of one minister choosing to un-out himself just when the small part of the press that is not slavishly devoted to the government is trying to re-open the far more damaging Coulson case sounds just a little too convenient.
And if Hague is really considering giving up politics anyway to spend more time with his money then it would not at all surprise me if this non-scandal re-emerges with a ‘shock’ resignation at precisely the point that they need to divert further attention from Coulson.
I can’t be bothered checking it out myself but which bloggers have been spreading all the Hague/Myers bollocks? – I’ve certainly not seen it on any left blogs and if it is coming from the likes of Paul Staines and the other bloggertarian scum then we may indeed be looking at a fix.
Sewer,
A rather strange interpretation of my comments, but then again coming from a racist like you I guess your interpretation is meaningless.
Sue R as always I’m a bit lost with your comments and don’t really understand or know how to answer. As for Hague’s wife, I felt sorry for her with Hague dragging out the intimate details of her reproductive attempts.
Innuendos about the visit to Afghanistan? Saying it is the responsibility of the Cricket Board (for example) rather than the players themselves suggests that the players are not up to accepting the moral or political consequences of their action. Let Mummy sort it out.
Sewer Rat. I do not understand why you feel sorry for his wife. She must know her husband and what he does with his dick. She is a rich intelligent woman in her own right. It is not the first time a woman has stood by her man. In steps Dolly Parton.
Friends don’t necessarily share rooms just to save money, but simply because they’re friends. It doesn’t have to follow that they’re sleeping in the same bed, however even if they are, that doesn’t automatically connote sex. And for what reason should this result in disqualification from membership of the human race?
There’s not one scrap of hard evidence proving Hague was in fragrante delicto with Myers, other than a bit of wishful thinking on the part of some hitherto obscure bloggist that got turned into a scandal overnight. As for “not having a girlfriend”, unless he was walking around with a boyfriend, that means absolutely nothing. It’s not always that easy to find a compatible partner at the best of times for people of either sexual orientation.
At various times in my life I have shared a room, and just as often a bed with a straight friend because we were friends. There was no sex, but there was a lot of in depth conversation and loads of laughs. Period. I may well be openly gay but my friend was just as openly straight, to such an extent that unlike some in the press, he has had not a scintilla of difficulty distinguishing friendship from sex.
The problem here is not with the perfectly natural practice of friends being entirely comfortable in each other’s company anywhere, anytime. The real issue is with the fact that some in the press have inflamed such a prurient obsession with it.
Whether it be friendship or romance, an emotional relationship is not something that should require a public defence by its participants.
Derek Williams. Hague was a Maggie supporter and therefore part of the clause 28. If he was shafting the youngster then we have hypocrisy and double standards. Remember the good old Tory Victorian values. Remember young William standing up at the Tory conference to an ovation. They cannot escape history. Remember how the Tory press attacked Labour Mps for their sexual indiscretions. Prescott, Blunkett etc. And they were shagging women.
I have been thinking about the differences between the two breaking possible scandals the coalition has right now, Hague and Coulson.
Let’s look at the worst possible outcomes for the two main players involved.
First Hague. What if it was proved that not only was young Myers his lover but he had promoted the lad in government service way beyond the position he should have? I guess Hague would have to resign.
Second Coulson. What if enough NoW journalists testify that Coulson not only knew about phone hacking but had actually ordered it? Then I guess he would have to go to prison like his two underlings who have already served their time for snooping on the Royals. What do they say? If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime, seems apt here.
I guess Coulson has more to worry about than Hague.
Les,
Which is pretty much my point – having someone as core to the Cameron project as Coulson jailed would be vastly more discreditable than any minor sexual/patronage scandal (after all they’ve already weathered one of these with scarcely any difficulty).
And if as is ‘rumoured’(i.e. deliberately leaked by either himself, his friends or his enemies) Hague is not the happiest of bunnies at the FO anyway – after all he has been suddenly demoted from joint #2 with Osborne in the Tory hierarchy to #4 or even #5 in the coalition and can hardly look forward with equanimity to the inevitable squalid little compromises on EU matters that he will eventually be forced into defending.
After all he doesn’t even need a full scandal to justify his resignation: the mere continuance (so easily secured) of the vicious rumours he and his former room-mate have gone to such trouble to quash will give him ample reasons to flounce out of office and go back to collecting company directorships and his surprisingly remunerative sideline as an after-dinner speaker.
And wouldn’t it be convenient if this did happen at the very point that the Tory media need something else to distract attention from Coulson?
Anyway we shall see….
This way of thinking is a bit conspiratorial, no?
I also suspect coincidental rather than conspiratorial. The good thing from where I am sitting is this Tory administration is going to be as sleazy as the last one. My bets on Osborne for the next scandal. Now how do you hack these phones again?
DZ is right about Clause 28 – but I know what Dave meant, too. It was used less horrifically in practice than we warned would be the case in the campaign against it.
But that was because there *was* a campaign against it – one which transformed the LGBT (or just L&G as we called it then) movement in terms of its visibility, the size of demos etc (Pride marches became immensely bigger after the Clause 28 marches. Immensely). The campaign made it much harder for the Tories to use Clause 28 as brutally as they had intended.
The fact is, anyone who’s in the know is well aware that Hague’s a bum-bandit, but his chums in the mainstream media are playing it down. There’s also talk of trouble in the marriage due to his ‘strange’ ways. Any religious person might consider the possibility that Ffion’s two miscarriages were God’s punishment for little Willy’s bumlust. Either way, she is a victim of his deceit and has wasted the best part of her adult life with someone who has used her as a shield to hide his shirt-lifting ways.
A real nasty piece of work.
…unlike ‘the informer’ – who i am sure is (judging by his use of language) a fine upstanding pillar of his community. amen.