Johann Hari: Gay rights is the one conspicuous success of a flawed man
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Tony Blair's decade in power is seared with disappointments – but there is one cool, consistent success story that ran through his time in power: the rapid advance of gay rights. If we had known in 1997 we would achieve full legal equality – even including de facto marriage – so fast and with so little fuss, we would have been startled.
When I interviewed Blair about gay rights last month to mark the 15th anniversary of Attitude magazine, I glimpsed his very best side – and the strange, gaping blind spots that did so much harm to his record, and the world.
Leaning forward, Blair offers a passionate defence of the equality of gay people. He talks about how, from his school days, he had friends who were terrified to come out and how the homophobia of the Conservatives represented "everything I wanted to change" about Britain.
He talks about how political correctness is used by "reactionary forces" as "a cover by people arguing against basic equality. Equality isn't political correctness, it's just justice." He says with a smile that delivering on it was one of his "proudest achievements".
And he transfers this success into an almost Messianic optimism about the future. As probably the most high-profile pro-gay religious person in the world, he says he is "optimistic" that all religions – including Islam – can go through "a process of Reformation" that will end with them accepting openly gay people. It is part of the "mission" of his Faith Foundation to move religion away from anti-gay literalism.
He doesn't hide his disagreement with the anti-gay bile of the leader of his own faith, the Pope. He says "there is a huge generational difference here" and that "if you went and asked the [ordinary Catholic] congregation, I think you'd find that their faith is not to be found in those types of entrenched attitudes." The fight for gay equality was a rare occasion when Blair took on the Right. I ask him if he wishes he had done it more, and he looks thoughtful. "It depends on the issue. But yes."
And yet, and yet... I soon crash into the blind spot that sent his premiership spinning to an early death. I ask him if he ever discussed his pro-gay views with George Bush. "No, I can't say I did. I mean, here's an interesting thing. I honestly haven't the faintest idea of how he voted on any of these things, but I'd be quite surprised if he personally were prejudiced." It's a bizarre answer. Of course he knows what George Bush did to oppose gay equality – he reads the newspapers. Why not just say that he disagrees? Why lie (and add the word "honestly" as you do it)? Why actually defend a man whose views on gay people are so obnoxious, and so opposite to his own?
Wrapped into this little interview was the paradox – and the tragedy – of Tony Blair. When he chose to fight on liberal issues, he was passionate, and brilliant. But he did it only a few times – and he willingly suspended these, his most impressive and admirable instincts, to embark on a bloody barn dance with the worst president in living memory. Why?
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Hopefully Labour gets its act in order and we don't have a majority Tory government in 14 months time.
If Blair were a stick of rock the outside would be chameleon and the inside me me me me me me me me me me me me me me.
Lets not forget his hateful record of war, death and lies. Blair w
Failed PM, failed Middle East Negotiator; now trying for EU President.
Perhpas the Vatican next !
A real chancer who has brought catstrophy wherever he has set foot.
Actually, no. He's institutionally infallible in some contexts but not others.
No matter, your argument about naturalism and homosexuality is logically flawed anyway. Its unstated premises are nonsense with respect to evolution and natural selection and your linking of secular societies and naturalism is not valid because you misunderstand what secularism means.
In short, you've fluffed just about everything you possibly could. Are you American and religious, by any chance?
To deal with your other point. I take "secular society" to mean a society divorced from religious influence and control (though this is, of course, ultimately impossible as a belief in naturalism also requires a mighty leap of faith - we all build our houses on our presuppositions). If there's a more technical definition, then, again, please explain.
As for my nationality, I'm English. But I won't play "My Dad is bigger than your Dad" lol, so this will be my final post here.
They are not crimes anymore. Duh! In the 16th century, old women who lived alone, kept cats and muttered to themselves were burned at the stake or drowned - we've moved on since then. Well, some of us have.
Still, well done for spotting how this man lies, & lies again & will continue to lie, which is why he should not be put in charge of anything, let alone EU foreign policy.
As a Catholic he's supposed to put up & shut up & obey the pope. He should go & say a "Hail Mary" for every Iraqi that has died as a result of his actions. With a day off once a week that should keep him out of circulation for at least 8 years.
What the Human Rights Act did was to bring the Convention, supposedly, into the interpretation of English Statute and Common Law. What it in fact does, is stop expensive cases for breaches of the Convention being taken against this country which ever increasingly ignores thh Human Rights of it's citizens, and the historic freedoms they were based upon. Every time someone which to go to the Euopean Court of Human Rights the first question is, "has this been considered in the national court," to which the answer is yes, though the legal system just gives it lip service.
Tony Blairs real legacy is dishonesty, in every public office, from top to bottom. It's jumped up servants of the public saying I'm not going to answer that, when asked difficult questions, or saying they wont comment on individual cases when the person involved has clearly waved the right to anonimity, and has even said they want answers. Surely the death in mysterious circumstances of another law abiding citizen in London would speak for how this dishonesty affects our freedom?
Finally we have the distruction of investigative journalism, and an all too chummy approach of the media with the people who would treat the common poor as animals for harvest.
As for this being big news, surely the Anti-Christ is supposed to oppose the Pope?
For all his faults, Blair did more than any British PM in history to improve the position of gay people, and it irritates me that so few people are willing to give him credit for this. In his 10 years Britain's position was transformed from being one of the worst in western Europe to one of the best. There seems to be this facile attitude that because he was wrong on some big things (Iraq, laissez fair economics) he has to be wrong about everything.
To be frank, it's no wonder that gay rights have been so slow in coming. Back in the 80s plenty of gay people were willing to vote Tory, depsite their abusing us when they took time off from laying the foundations for an unsustainable economy. If we then in turn abuse someone who was prepared (and yes partly for ulterior motives) to stand up for us, then we send out the message that we're not a constituency worth bothering about.
Yes, if we'd had the Lib Dems in we could have had gay rights and no Iraq, but credit where credit's due.
Of course Section 28 was vile and discriminatory, and did the Conservative Party no credit. But during the same period the Labour Party was fighting tooth and nail to prevent Peter Tatchell being selected as their candidate for Bermondsey (they disliked the colour of his hair, perhaps) and the Liberal candidate for the same seat, Simon Hughes, was describing himself (somewhat ironically, as we now know) as "the straight choice". I don't think any party can look back on that period with too much pride.
While obviously every party has its heros and villains, the fact remains that, on every single vote on gay equality issues over the past 25 years (from Clause 28, to the age of consent to Civil Partnerships and adoption):
- Most of the support for gay rights has come from the Lib Dems, and then Labour in that order
- Most of the opposition has come from Tory MPs and Lords
If you look at the general trends, it's pretty clear where most of the blame lies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2s2R5qK
I would say that the younger generations over here largely share his daughter's opinion
More than equal? Are you really that clueless? Please explain to me which "more than equal" rights we're demanding. The right not to be fired from or denied jobs? The right to not be beaten up or killed? The right not to be opportunistically exploited by religious fanatics of every stripe, christian, jewish, and muslim? The right to have our partnerships -- many of which have lasted longer and are more viable than many hetero marriages -- receive some legal recognition? I'm gay and I've lived long enough to experience some pretty ugly stuff, of which you in your smug ignorance have no understanding. Decades of struggle in western European and north American societies have won us a measure of justice and social acceptance. And now that's spread to other places, some of which have had even stronger anti-gay strictures, such as Latin America, where gay rights are advancing at a remarkable rate. Look into it, you old fool. Next up -- places where we've not only gained no legal rights but face daily threats to our very existence, as in Iraq.