Is That Person Really a Bigot?

Why we should be cautious with our use of the word "bigot".

Opposing gay marriage doesn't usually equal hating gay people.

The inspiration to write this post came from the Pink News piece of 27 May entitled, "Tory blogger Tim Montgomerie: 'I support gay marriage but most traditionalists are not homophobes.' " The Pink News article seems to be based on Tim Montgomerie's piece on Conservative Home: "The Ten Creators of Ukip."

It seems to me that there is a problem of language where the word "bigot" is concerned. At the moment, the word is applied to a very wide range of people. I often see the word being used in LGBT media comments pages as an unchallenged description of everyone who does not support same-sex marriage, with or without the prefix "hateful".

At one end of the spectrum, there is the real hateful homophobe, who would like homosexuality to be a criminal offence and LGBT people to be ridiculed, victimised and excluded. Some such people (particularly in fundamentalist Islamic states) think we should be executed.

At the other end of the spectrum is the person who harbours no hatred or dislike towards LGBT people, is outraged by homophobic discrimination when he or she perceives it, and supports an equal age of consent, job protection from discrimination, and a whole raft of equality measures, but because of a specific (usually religious) belief about the word "marriage" needing to be restricted to heterosexual relationships, finds himself or herself unable to support equal marriage.

The word "bigot" is a pretty blunt instrument to apply to both these people. To put them into the same category surely trivialises the evil of the former, by implying he or she is no worse than simply being in the same category as the latter.

We are all human. Let's listen to one another.

Where bigotry is concerned, I think it is best to look at evidence for what is going on in people's hearts. If they are wilfully ignorant and wedded to their hatred and disdain of LGBT people, then they are bigots. If they are generally good people who show good will towards LGBT people, but have a misguided belief here and there, then they are just misguided, and hopefully we can gently persuade them of their error, or agree to disagree given that we are otherwise very much on the same page.

I write this as someone who strongly supports equal marriage, and who has spent a lot of time arguing and campaigning for it.

What concerns me is black-and-white, entrenched thinking, from whatever side of the debate. Where LGBT people are concerned, most of us have experienced a great deal of suffering as a result of discrimination and prejudice. It can be very easy for that suffering and a response of anger to be triggered. Extreme language should in my view be reserved for those who really deserve it: otherwise the power of the language we have to describe evil people and evil deeds becomes diluted by too wide an application.

One thing I have learned in the course of my life is the importance of trying not to write people off, to damn them into a permanent and perpetual ossification of badness because of a view they hold that I do not like and do not agree with. In the case of some individuals, it is quite a challenge to live according to that maxim. In the case of others, it has become less of a challenge. 

There is a place for forgiveness and generosity in disagreement.

No-one forms their views in some kind of vacuum: life experiences and one's inherited disposition have a great influence on what we come to believe. We all harbour mistaken views at some points in our lives that may cause hurt to others when expressed or acted upon. I suppose that making room for such errors, in the hope that today's adversary may be tomorrow's ally, falls within the domain of what we mean by forgiveness. If we can only show very little forgiveness to others, we will only find very little forgiveness for ourselves, and that is a formula for suffering all round. 

Maybe the parable of The Good Samaritan is a good metaphor for how the person with whom we disagree may be the very person who would offer a helping hand during a time of crisis and adversity. That must surely be worth something.

© Gary Powell, 2014

UKIP's MEP David Coburn

What Scotland's new Ukip MEP thinks of the LGBT rights movement. 

“Equal rights lobby are not interested in equitable solutions,” Mr David Coburn told me via Twitter on 31 May last year, before calling me a "bigot" and saying I have "got it in" for people of faith because I supported the legalisation of equal marriage.

But Mr Coburn isn't any old Ukip reactionary. He is himself openly gay, and wrote to attack equal marriage in a Pink News piece of 2012. 

So here we are: campaigners for LGBT equality are degraded to the "equal rights lobby" in Mr Coburn's mind. But not only that. Apparently we are "not interested in equitable solutions."

This is the mentality of Scotland's new Ukip MEP. A gay man who, with glib generalisations worthy of Melanie Phillips, denigrates the movement that has provided him with the freedom and equality he is able to enjoy as a gay man today.

The link to the Twitter thread where Mr Coburn makes his comments is here. (I have a screenshot, in case this comment should ever disappear.)

I had posted on Twitter as I'd wanted to know how Ukip could claim they were protecting the rights of people of faith by opposing the introduction of equal marriage. After all, no-one was going to force churches etc. to marry LGBT couples; and if the European Court of Human Rights were going to impose SSM on churches, mosques, etc., it would surely already have done so in those EU states where SSM had already existed for some time. Furthermore, if the ECHR were likely to use equalities legislation to do this, I was wondering why Ukip was not warning of the risk women priests would be imposed on all churches, too.

Here are Mr Coburn's noteworthy comments from my Twitter exchange with him, which you will see in the thread linked to above:

Coburn: “Equal rights lobby are not interested in equitable solutions”

Coburn: “Equal rights political expression cant be trnaslated [sic] into religion”

Powell: "'Equal rights lobby are not interested in equitable solutions.' Disgraceful you dismiss civil rights movement like this"

Coburn: “If you take rights from one group and hand them to another that is not equitable -it is also not tolerant”

Powell: “Campaigners for LGBT rights have achieved much to be proud of, in the face of reactionaries & opportunistic colluders.”

Coburn: “Yes and Gay marriage is a step too far”

Powell: “The only "right" of religionists that equal marriage is denying is their

perceived right to discriminate.UKIP is a sell-out”

Coburn: “You have obviously got it in for People of Faith - so you must be the bigot”

Coburn: “If you truly believed in equal rights you'd make sure they are for all - inc people of Faith”

Powell (in response to Coburn saying SSM was "a step too far": “It wasn't in Canada or Netherlands or the many states/ countries that have introduced it & it

isn't for our elected MPs.”

Coburn: “ok getting bored-you're ranting and raving now”

Powell: “When "People of Faith" try to undermine civil rights & impose religion on others, yes I will oppose them. UKIP opportunists”

I will leave it to the reader to decide whether I was "ranting and raving", or whether Mr Coburn found he was out of his depth with his flimsy Ukip platitudes, just as I will leave it to the reader to decide who, if either of us, was the bigot in this exchange.

In my own Pink News piece of 5 May 2014, I explained how Ukip had stitched up the UK LGBT community on equal marriage in order to poach socially conservative voters from the Conservative Party. Clearly a very important strategy for Ukip, and Mr Coburn now receives his reward for his loyal defence of this thoroughly cynical policy with its thoroughly indefensible justification.

© Gary Powell, 2014