Opinion

Originally published to Facebook.

 

I posted several times last night about Croatia’s Eurovision entry (which was ROBBED), and on each post someone different (LGBT and not) made sure to post that in 2005 Jacques Houdek gave an interview in which he made some unpleasant comments about gay people and same sex marriage and was subsequently named “Homophobe of the Year” by an online LGBT website.

I replied each time noting that if being against same sex marriage in 2005 was the most homophobic thing they could identify in Croatia, truly it must be a queer paradise. Gay men are being put in concentration camps in Chechnya and the UK’s got lesbians being beaten up on the streets of Brighton in 2017, and some dude calling gay marriage sick was the most homophobic thing that happened in Croatia in 2005? I have my suspicions around the legitimacy of this “award”.

But I woke up this morning and I still felt pretty troubled by the whole thing for a number of reasons:

1) I’m pretty uncomfortable around having my rights used as a litmus test for who is and is not socially acceptable for liberals. A comment here or there on LGBT issues, however long ago you made it or regardless of the context you made it in, can be enough for a huge swath of respectable society to just dismiss anything else you say or do off the bat, no further questions asked – something people generally just don’t do with regard to, say, support for military intervention in third countries (unless it’s Israel…), even though that is a much more immediate life-or-death issue. I’m not really ok with being someone else’s rule of thumb.

2) The transition of public support for LGBT rights from absurd deviancy to political no-brainer in the West has been so swift, so complete, that many people seem to have forgotten that in 2005, casual homophobia was so widespread and so obvious that ordinary people barely registered they were doing anything hurtful. It was in 2005 that I was homophobically bullied in school and when my mother complained, my pastoral care manager explained that they had said the things they said because they thought I was a lesbian – as if that explained everything and thus warranted no further action. The year before, 11 American states enacted by popular referendum constitution bans on same sex marriage. By 2012, 30 American states had such bans. In 2017, 65% of the US population now supports same sex marriage. In 2013, 400,000 people marched against same sex marriage in France. We are forgetting just how seismic this change has been and what our social context for treating LGBT people used to be like. Our press and literature is littered from that time period with things that many people said that they probably wouldn’t dream of now.

3) At some point, we have to accept that not everyone had good solid politics from birth. You are not Jeremy Corbyn. I am not Jeremy Corbyn. We learn to be better people over time. When I first left home in 2008, I said things about non-binary trans people that I would never say now and indeed would intervene with anyone who did. Times have changed and I have learned. But what if in 2008 I had said those things in a medium that recorded what I had said and made it instantly available to anyone looking me up for the rest of my life? Jacques Houdek published a retraction in 2011 and even he’s still being hounded over the original comments twelve years later, despite having said nothing objectionable since (at least, that anyone in English has noted) and despite participating in Eurovision in a leather double-breast, duetting with himself. At what point are we going to let people move on from the people they were?

I guess what I’m trying to say is that absent a database for each individual with everything they’ve ever said where they can give real-time updates on their current thinking on every conceivable issue, at some point we have to start being a bit more critical about the things we read about people on the internet and sustaining memetic clickbait that dogs people for their mistakes indefinitely.

Maybe we can enjoy someone׳s current work without being obliged to ostracise them for comments they made over a decade prior.

Maybe we can recognise that we weren’t all born into communities that nailed LGBT issues first time around.

Maybe we can actually celebrate diversity.

 

——-

Jacques Houdek’s statement in 2011 after being nominated for Homophobe of the Decade by Zagreb Pride (as mutilated by Google Translate):
“‘LOVE AND MUSIC ARE MY MOVIE’

“I am very sorry that the associations that promote LGBT people have been included in this election, the obvious purpose of which is to discredit me and the other nominees. It is not true that I am a homophobic, which can be confirmed by my friends, colleagues and acquaintances from business circles who are gay orientations. Likewise, any form of hatred does not correspond to my personality, so to call me ‘heyter’ or ‘greatest homophobic on Croatian estrade’, at least in the least incorrect because no such evidence exists for such accusations. Never one of the aforementioned associations ever asked me for an opinion, and if they want to ask, I can freely answer. I love music from love, love is my main driver in life and I really have nothing against love of any kind. Well, next week my new single comes out with a wonderful message, “I’m lucky to have you,” so I’ll be glad that all the people are willing to consecrate their loved ones. Love for All! ‘”

https://www.facebook.com/notes/jacques-houdek/službeno-očitovanje-jacquesa-houdeka-o-izboru-za-homofoba-desetljeća/10150203728332227/

 

Related Posts:

{ 0 comments }

Six Months After Brexit

December 21, 2016

in Opinion

Originally posted as a Facebook comment. Edited and updated for clarity.

Six months on from Brexit, the debate is still raging over what we should do now. As the government continues to fight a court case to force it to pass Parliamentary legislation to invoke Article 50, many people who voted Remain have been accusing people who voted Leave of undermining democracy. And I’m sure some are.

But not me. I am completely fine with any deal being scrutinised and voted on by Parliament. I have, however, also come to the conclusion that there’s no benefit in holding a second referendum on the terms of the deal. There’s no question of major constitutional importance over which there is bipartisan support on both sides that need to be put to the people, and there’s nothing to be gained from either result – a No vote would simply cause us to crash out of the EU with no deal at all, because there’ll be no renegotiation at that point, and a Yes vote would be marred by ‘burn it all down’ populists taking advantage of the fact that it’s somewhat evident from the ensuing public conversation that a significant chunk of the electorate don’t know what the single market is, and I don’t think it adds to our democratic deposit to ask people to cast votes on something a lot of them aren’t aware exist. At least everyone knows that the European Union is there. Negotiating the actual terms of a deal is something best left to our elected representatives, I think.

I said way back in June on my blog that I considered it inconceivable that the Powers That Be in the UK would allow us to leave the single market, or hard Brexit. I wasn’t expecting Theresa May to say that that was her starting point, which has given everyone pause for thought, but the backlash has been pretty much exactly as I predicted in that blogpost – the SNP has predicated a second independence referendum on hard Brexit, the Welsh and Northern Irish and Gibraltar have made it clear the chaos that would ensue if that were a possibility, the banks and business sector are having quiet words with relevant people in their pockets and those people are listening.

So I don’t know if Theresa May is seriously contemplating leaving the single market (as she’s kept as her Chancellor a man who obviously wants us to stay and is taking on all comers in Cabinet meetings) or if this is a negotiating tactic, but I think it rather clear that forces are gathering that are completely beyond her control. There is a majority in the House who support single market membership and if the Supreme Court case rules, as it should, that Parliament has a right to be involved in negotiations, then all this talk of hard Brexit is over – we can try and negotiate a bespoke deal and if we run out of time, we maintain our current membership of the EEA (which is in the interests of both us and all the European industries which trade with us). Done. Simple. What Theresa May will do is unpredictable but the situation we’s gotten herself into has enough MPs on both sides to be able to trigger a leadership election in her party.

Now, as I love democracy so much, let’s talk democracy in the EU and the ‘imaginary’ idea of a political union. The Walloon Parliament voted against CETA in November on the basis of their concern about the ISDS provisions contained with in it. That’s an issue on which *hundreds of millions* of Europeans have been campaigning, including as part of TTIP. Was the reaction of the European Union’s elites to say, ‘we seem to have underestimated the strength of opposition amongst the peoples of the EU to this deal, perhaps we should amend some of its terms?’ Was it heck. They worked out how to force the Walloon Parliament to agree wholesale.

In the meantime, multiple EU members are now increasingly holding popular referenda as a means of trying to get an overbearing EU off their back and defending their national interests. Greece obviously voted against the terms of their bailout last year, the Dutch have just voted against the EU-Ukraine agreement (though I believe this was constitutionally required). Last month, Hungary held a referendum, its first, in which its population voted *96%*-4% against accepting their quote of Syrian refugees.

So, if one zooms out of one’s parochial view of British politics to a wider European overview, the system cannot stand as it is for much longer, of which the British EU referendum is only the most dramatic manifestation so far. While from an anti-EU perspective I can shake my little fist and shout hurrah when the elected representatives of 3.5 million people scuttle international trade deals seven years in the making, from a governance perspective it’s an impossible situation. As the EU encroaches further and further on people’s lives in a real financial and regulatory way, it’s starting to meet resistance. And that’s not fear-mongering or dark mutterings, that’s actually what is happening and I do not necessarily consider that to be a good thing, whether its popular resistance against accepting refugee quotas or the Laval judgement against trade unionism – the EU cannot sustain itself as a supernational body that is largely free of any democratic accountability and oversight while simultaneously taking decisions that have more of a real world effect than just deciding how many prongs my plugs should have. They either have to retreat to a much less expansionist trading bloc that pays a lot more attention to the wants and needs of its constituent members, or they’ll have to federate. I would have been happy with a trading bloc, but that’s not the way things are going, and there is no indication that they are going to go any differently in the future. There was no slate for me to vote for in 2009 or 2014 in the European elections from a party that stood for a trading bloc without further political powers or reversing the work done so far, and if there was no slate to provide opposition to that concept than the federalists do not have to justify themselves and democratic process suffers.

As a final point, people from America or Canada or other countries that disapprove of Brexit and think that we’re stupid for voting to leave – oh, right, yeah, they’re the other side of the world and know jack about European politics or constitutional settlements. I don’t judge the state of Brazil’s affairs by what France think of them, I won’t judge Europe and Brexit by what Canadians think. When I sit down with Europeans and they find out I voted Leave and ask why, and I talk about democracy and national sovereignty and Juncker and the EU constitution, even when they disagree with me they admit it’s a rational argument.

A Brexit survey by CNN in December found that nearly everyone who voted Leave did so even though they believed it would hurt them financially and if another referendum were held they would vote Leave again. Maybe we weren’t all suckered into believing sketchy claims about the NHS.

Related Posts:

{ 0 comments }

We need some new lefty post-facts.

December 21, 2016

Originally posted to Facebook, 13th November 2016. ‘Make America Great Again’ could just have easily referred to a platform built on free college education, equality before the law, universal healthcare, or TARP, or Barack Obama’s action to save the American auto industry. The handwringing on the part of liberals about whether the left did this […]

0 comments Read the full article →

Guy Verhofstadt MEP Addresses European Parliament on Brexit (28th June, 2016).

December 21, 2016

It is often argued by people who wish to remain part of the European Union that the fears expressed by people who wish to leave because they fear a federalised United States of Europe are just fear-mongering and there is no substance to it. What few federalists exist, they argue, they have little voice and […]

0 comments Read the full article →

Specific Things I Don’t Like About The European Union

June 27, 2016

Originally posted to Facebook, 26th June, 2016. Edited for clarity. I was asked: “What are examples of things that the EU have control over that you don’t like? When you say, “we get considerable sovereignty back over stuff that I think is important”, do you have examples of things ? Like, I don’t think I […]

1 comment Read the full article →

Lexit: The Case for the European Economic Area

June 26, 2016

Posted to Facebook on the 26th June, 2016 as two separate responses to a comment on this post. Edited for clarity. What Is the European Economic Area? Here’s exactly how the EEA works: http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement/eea-basic-features Essentially, we retain access to the common market, and in return we have to provide the Four Freedoms, “the free movement […]

1 comment Read the full article →

Lexit: A response to this weekend.

June 26, 2016

Posted to Facebook 25th June, 2016. Edited for clarity. So, it’s been a couple of days since we decided to leave the European Union. Many people have had extreme feels on the result, but I think the shock is wearing off. So some thoughts on what people have been saying: 1. Democracy doesn’t start or […]

1 comment Read the full article →

Lexit: The Morning After

June 26, 2016

Posted to Facebook 24th June 2016. Some edits for clarity. Today was always going to be a day of recriminations and backlash for millions of people, whatever the outcome. Maybe you just weren’t expecting you would be one of them. But I was one of the most prominent people advocating a Leave vote that many […]

0 comments Read the full article →

The EU Referendum: Do you REALLY want to vote with [person I hate]?

June 22, 2016

I had a much, much longer blogpost that was going to rebut the main arguments of both the Leave and Remain campaigns and make my own case for why we should vote Leave on grounds of democracy, but technical problems got in the way and it was never finished to the standard that would have […]

0 comments Read the full article →

Some thought on that British Muslim social attitudes survey.

April 12, 2016

I started reading through the ICM Unlimited survey for Channel 4 on British Muslim social attitudes just to nose around and then suddenly I’d gone through 600 pages of data tables and it seemed a shame to not post it here. The context is that this poll is being made into a TV programme with […]

0 comments Read the full article →