Setting things straight

I'll never forget my first Pride. Cut adrift from the rest of my group, who'd travelled from York to London in a rented coach that stank of Gaultier Le Male and lemon-flavoured Hooch, I found myself wandering around one of the capital's bewilderingly massive parks, with no idea of where to go or what to do. Bright eyed, but decidedly flaccid of tail, I was a nineteen year-old virgin surrounded by debauchery, leather and water-based lubricant - like Shirley Temple trying to find her way out of an abattoir.

In the years that followed, I soon learned what to expect from my annual pilgrimage to the biggest day in the gay calendar. I also realised that, for all its attempts to make a political statement about equal rights, it was really just an excuse for people to get off their tits and cop a feel in the bushes (the bears in these woods weren't remotely interested in picnics), as enterprising businesses milked the 'community' like a three-handed dairy farmer.

Much has changed since those early amyl-scented days. It was a big surprise in the summer of 1997, for example, to march past Downing Street with a rousing cheer, rather than the customary boos that used to announce our arrival at the home of the Prime Minister.

But as the laws have relaxed, and rights have gradually been granted to afford the LGBT community almost equal status, a small but vocal group of opponents have continued to raise objections. Perhaps put off by the sight of one too many pairs of exposed buttocks waving from a slow-moving float, these critics have managed to convince themselves that those troublesome gays have been granted too many rights, at the expense of regular heterosexuals.

Having fixated about having an unfamiliar lifestyle rammed (repeatedly) down their throats, their over-stretched gag reflex has resulted in the erroneous opinion that they are the new underdogs. Occasionally, one of them pipes up to say "What about Straight Pride?" And although such outbursts are usually met with little more than a derisory snort, in São Paulo, they may just be getting their wish.

Despite arguing that it was not an anti-gay gesture, Councilperson Carlos Apolinario explained that the proposal for 'Straight Pride Day' was his way of speaking out at the "excesses and privileges" enjoyed by Brazil's gay population, not least the LGBT parade that takes place in the city's Paulista Avenue. If it gets ratified by Gilberto Kassab, the city's mayor, Straight Pride will be held on the third Sunday of every December and added to the city's municipal calendar.

No doubt Richard Littlejohn is already packing his jorts for a week in sunny Brazil. But if the event is a big success, he could soon be lugging his 'Adam and Eve Not Adam and Steve' banner all the way from Marble Arch to Trafalgar Square.

The thing is, I'm not entirely sure what a Straight Pride event would entail. Since gay pride has always offered up a multicoloured celebration of all the kinks and permutations that define the lifestyle, it's hard to see how that might translate into an extravagant display of conformity and convention. After all, "We're here, we're not queer, and the wife's going shopping while we stand outside Curry's and watch the football scores" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

Pride traditionally offers up themed spaces for various subcategories - leather, sleaze, transgender etc - so presumably they'll need to work on a similar principle. Maybe they can turn the car park into a dogging area, with a specially cordoned off zone for seagulling enthusiasts sponsored by Autoglass. The main tent will need to be a monogamy space, full of couples staring fixedly at the floor to avoid getting into trouble for a spot of eye-wandering. And the kids can join in on all the fun, with specially printed T-shirts that read "Mummy and Daddy may hate each other, but they're staying together for me".

Someone will also need to think about booking some headline music acts too. And since we usually get stuck with a piss-poor line-up of clichés and stereotypes, that template will need to be followed in order to create an authentic Pride experience. If we're going to treated to Lisa Scott-Lee and whatever passes for the current line-up of Bucks Fizz, you can have a Genesis tribute act and someone who used to play bass in Status Quo. But don't worry, you'll be so pissed on over-priced, lukewarm beer, you won't be able to hear them anyway. 

No offence?

Cast your mind back to the end of last year. You may recall Ron Howard forced to defend his new movie The Dilemma, thanks to a line of dialogue that featured in the trailer. The offending scene saw Vince Vaughn (playing a boorish asshole for a change) describe electric cars as "gay".

The debate ran for weeks, as gay rights activists objected to the use of the word as a pejorative, whilst Howard, Vaughn and co argued that the line was acceptable within the context of the character and the story. In retrospect, the film's producers must have been thankful for the controversy, since little else about The Dilemma seemed to garner much interest.

The film itself may have been utterly forgettable, but it has left us with a legacy - namely, enhanced sensitivity about the 'G' word. When is it appropriate, who gets to use it, and what does it really mean?

This week, it was Oprah Winfrey's who found herself embroiled in a new debate on the topic. As she prepares to wrap up her long running talk show, she's invited cameras behind-the-scenes to film her in her hollowed-out volcano lair, to see how 'Oprah' is put together. Interestingly, it takes more than a couple of therapy sessions and a quick trip to Barnes & Noble to plan a season of empowering chatter.

The new 'making of' footage posted on Oprah's website shows the patron saint of discontented housewives struggling to determine whether she'd inadvertently caused offence with a recent interview she conducted with author Terry McMillan and her gay ex-husband Jonathan Plummer.

The focus of the interview was to determine how the couple had managed to salvage a cordial relationship following the revelation that Jonathan had been living a lie. During the exchange, Oprah suggested that Plummer "...seemed gayer now...", prompting the Harpo PR team to spring into damage limitation mode.

The events that played out in Oprah's throne room stir up a host of issues concerning her seemingly innocuous observation, especially since she declares herself 'a friend of the gays'. With her twitchy PR on speakerphone, Oprah grills some of her gay employees for their opinion on the subject, with the consensus being that her comment could be seen as insensitive or offensive by audiences.

One assistant, Carlos, begins by outing himself to his incredulous colleagues (presumably they don't have functioning eyes or ears) and proceeds to admit that he was offended by the suggestion that someone could "be more gay". His argument has some merit - if homosexuality is something you're born with, how could that be something to dial up or tone down?

The problem here, is that there's a risk in conflating gayness with homosexuality. The latter is clearly a pre-determined sexual orientation, whereas the former covers a mindset, an attitude and a lifestyle choice. Oprah's observation was clearly based on Plummer's behavioural displays and mannerisms, rather than the accumulation of new bedpost notches.

It's customary, when people come out of the closet, for them to explore their new identity, like assembling a new, post-makeover wardrobe. In most cases the 'gayness' is turned up to 11, as the newbie throws themselves head-first into an unfamiliar lifestyle. They meet new people, make new friends, and attempt to identify with the shared heritage from which they may previously have felt excluded.

Just look at Ricky Martin - it's less than a year since he finally fessed up to what the world had suspected for years. And yet already, he's happy labelling himself a 'gay activist', as though he led the drag queen riots at Stonewall in 1969.

All gays and lesbians encounter some kind of homophobia when they first emerge from the closet, often in the form of their own internalised fears. It's a learning process that everyone has to go through as they first accept their homosexuality, and then work out whereabouts on the colour-coded gay-alert chart they're most comfortable.

Oprah may be berating herself for letting her mask of tolerance slip for a moment, but I think she should be congratulated. Firstly, for having the sensitivity to question her own use of language, and secondly, for opening up a grown-up debate about the words we use and the meanings behind them.

Bashing the Beeb

The first of January is a time for fresh starts, new beginnings and changed behaviours. Most of us probably spent the best part of today nursing sore heads and swearing 'never again', some might even have come up with a resolution or two.

But not everyone is so keen on the concept of self-improvement; they're more than happy to keep doing the same things and pursuing the same predictably unhealthy activities. Take the Taxpayers' Alliance, for example. Despite the fact that it clearly gives them a communal ulcer just thinking about the BBC, they keep on conducting ridiculous studies into spending within the organisation, and churning out press releases for the right wing press to regurgitate verbatim.

Today's attack on the world's most respected public broadcaster, courtesy of the Telegraph, is a searing indictment of profligate spending and wanton recklessness. According to the esteemed broadsheet, BBC executives in Cardiff have been spending "more than £1,000 a day on taxis". In total, BBC Wales spent £595,551 on taxis over the last 18 months, a sum that the paper helpfully converts into "more than 2,800 annual licence fees".

To the organisation's critics, it's of little or no consequence that BBC Wales also managed to produce 1,500 hours of TV programmes, and another 14,000 hours of radio output in the same 18-month period. Not when accusations of 'Champagne socialism' can be thrown about.

The BBC is everyone's favourite media whipping boy - its directive to represent the opinions, perspectives and communities of all the audiences it serves, means that it's destined to be forever damned by anyone who occasionally finds a contrary viewpoint receiving airtime.

And even a comprehensive diversity, representation and inclusion policy isn't enough for some people. The gay community is currently up in arms about the corporation's recent coverage of Elton and David's newborn baby. They're unhappy with the fact that Stephen Green of Christian Voice was invited to take part in a discussion of the couple's December 25th miracle birth.

Green has something of a reputation for being anti-gay, having described gay rugby player Gareth Thomas as a "wicked role model for children" and compared H from Steps to a mass-murderer. To be fair, he did help to kill our fond recollections of Tragedy and Chain Reaction. 

So it will have come as no surprise to anyone that Green wasn't planning to send a gift-wrapped breast pump to the glowing new parents, telling the BBC “This isn’t just a designer baby for Sir Elton John, this is a designer accessory… Now it seems like money can buy him anything, and so he has entered into this peculiar arrangement… The baby is a product of it. A baby needs a mother and it seems an act of pure selfishness to deprive a baby of a mother.”

PinkNews.co.uk is currently advising its readers to complain about his inclusion in the coverage of the Elton story, and for the fact that the BBC neglected to mention some of Green's more extreme views. Whilst their intentions are noble, and their outrage understandable, it's important to remember that the BBC takes its responsibility for objective coverage seriously, even if that means giving airtime to objectional viewpoints. 

There's nothing homophobic about enabling alternative voices to participate in the debate. And demanding that they be silenced or excluded is to reject the very principles on which the BBC was founded. As long as gay marriages, adoptions and surrogacy are discussion points in the media, there will be pro and con arguments demanding to be heard. 

If we use our energies to decry every perceived slight or lapse of judgement, our argument is weakened when something genuinely outrageous occurs. Nobody wants to be the boy who cried homophobic wolf. 

You gotta have fai-fai-fai-fai-faith

An unusual alliance seems to have formed between the BBC and the Daily Mail this week, as the former has inadvertently added fuel to the latter’s ongoing fire again the Islamification of Britain. A new Panorama documentary due to screen tonight aims to expose how thousands of Muslim children are being educated in the fundamentals of Sharia law in ‘weekend schools’ across Britain.

All told there are around 40 of these schools, which are currently teaching the Saudi national curriculum. And since they’re part-time, weekend-only institutions, they fall outside of Ofsted’s remit. This means that the kids are free to learn about the sins of sodomy, the severing of thieves’ hands as punishment for theft, and the dangers posed by the Zionist plot to take over the world. Well, I suppose it’s more interesting than studying cross-sections of tundra soil anyway.

Unfortunately, as one might expect, the Mail’s coverage tends to fixate on the ‘otherness’ of the teachings, making clear their distaste for the indoctrination of children into profoundly non-British protocols. In fact, the real danger posed by schools like these, is highlighted in a throw-away quote at the end of the article.

Taken from a report by Conservative think tank ‘Policy Exchange’, the statement reads “The Government’s policy of opening up the education system to new academies and free schools programmes could be exploited unless urgent measures are taken to counter extremist influence.” Notice that this relates to all faith schools, and not just the ones that happen to observe Ramadan.

And given the Mail’s disdain for the Saudi curriculum, let’s take another look at the shocking subject matter being shared with impressionable Muslim youths. The notion of a Zionist plot to take over the world is both offensive and ridiculous. But not so far removed than the Mail’s own preaching about the Islamification of the west. It’s also hard to see how many of the Mail’s “hanging’s too good for ‘em” readers will be particularly upset by the idea of amputating a thief’s work-tools. They’re probably sharpening their electric carving knives even as I write this.

So what about the nasty homophobia that’s being taught in these schools? Or the fact that six year olds are being taught that those who refuse to convert to Islam will burn in “hellfire”? Forgive me if I point out that these are some of the same viewpoints regularly articulated whenever a Christian militant argues that their religious freedoms are being quashed by the PC brigade or the gay agenda.

Furthermore, it’s particularly galling to see Education Secretary Michael Gove wading into the debate to deplore the teaching of homophobia in our schools, when his own political party has such a woeful track record on the subject.

The real issue here is the dangerous precedent set by any ‘faith school’ with an agenda, irrespective of which God it happens to tell children to fear. The Mail may have a problem with Muslim women wanting to pull a veil over their face, but it’s even worse to willingly pull the wool over our eyes.

On the buses

If you've never seen Channel 4's Coach Trip you're missing a treat. Like a weird cross between Come Dine With Me and Airport, the show fills a bus with mismatched miscreants and shuffles them around Europe, accompanied by the campest holiday professional since Jeremy Spake hung up his ball-gag.

At the end of each ruthlessly stage-managed excursion, the bitterly resentful holiday-makers vote for the couple who got up their nose the most. Once a couple has received the most votes twice in a row, they're left at the side of the road with their Matalan luggage and sunburnt shoulders as the bus heads over the horizon.

The couples tend to be cast according to easy stereotypes - shrieking gays, shag-happy lads, father-son combos, "we're crazy, we are" older couples, and constantly tutting middle-Englanders. It's an unpleasant soup that makes three years chained to a radiator in Beirut seem like a more preferable holiday option.

You'd think that most contestants would be glad to get off the coach, but two recent participants are finding the aftermath even more intolerable than a sightseeing trip around the south of France just inches from a chemical toilet.

Nathan Evans and the hilariously named Romane Hole have been mischaracterised as gay following their appearance on the show. The two men thought it would be funny to hold hands when they first got onto the coach, and were surprised to find that they were subsequently depicted as a couple.

Evans told the Bristol news "We had no idea how gay we were going to look by holding hands. Then all the way through the series [it] seem to have been edited to make us look as if we are a homosexual couple, rather than a pair of straight friends."

Since the shows aired, Evans and Hole (stop it) have suffered all manner of homophobic abuse, ranging from verbal attacks to thrown bottles. The flipside is that the boys have also won a few fans in the gay community - Hole maintains "We have also become sort of gay icons. I’ve been inundated by homosexual men who have contacted me via Facebook, to ask for casual sex and to make other indecent proposals."

The boys may argue that they have "nothing against gay people" but their actions and comments suggest otherwise. The fact that they are now experiencing the sharp end of homophobia has a poetic justice to it.

In the 1982 big-screen adaptation of The Twilight Zone, tragic actor Vic Morrow (who was killed in an on-set accident during filming) played a racist businessman who found himself trapped in a time warp where he had to relive the experiences of Jews and blacks. Maybe the twist in that story's tale wasn't so far-fetched after all...

Janet over-bites back

Sometimes, the reaction to an event is as fascinating as the event itself. Take the Daily Mail's response to its own self-perpetuated controversy for instance.

Today, in Middle England's tabloid of choice, Janet Street-Porter wrote an eloquent response to Jan Moir's grubby little one-woman attack on journalistic standards. Although best known for accent as broad as the Thames estuary and a set of teeth that could be used for cutting decorative pastry cases, the Sarf London legend has talent and integrity to spare - so quite why she chooses to write for the Mail remains a mystery.

Nonetheless, her article is a sharp riposte to Jan's ignorance, pointing out that true equality means accepting that Civil Partnerships are as diverse and varied as straight relationships. Janet also makes reference to the fact that another gay man died last week. However, unlike Stephen Gately who died of natural causes, Ian Baynham's death was indeed a consequence of his sexuality.

He was beaten and kicked to death by a group of homophobic teenagers in Trafalgar Square. As Janet points out, "the number of attacks against gay men and women in London has risen nearly 20 per cent, and in a recent survey 90 per cent of the gay men and women questioned said they had experienced homophobic insults and abuse." Sadly, Street-Porter stops short of asking where those abusers go to have their attitudes validated.

Despite commissioning this article, the Mail can't quite resist putting its own editorial spin on the whole story. Showing the kind of revisionist approach usually applied by Holocaust deniers, an article appeared in today's issue under the headline "Stephen Gately debate dominates the internet".

By calling it a 'debate' rather than an 'outcry' (their usual preferred terminology for this kind of scandal) they make it sound as though Stephen is the one being discussed, rather than Moir's sour-faced savagery. Throughout the article, carefully chosen phrases like "worldwide debate", "thousands have been moved to comment" and "an extraordinary online response" cunningly mask the true significance of the story.

Of course, Jan's disingenuous defense is also tactically replayed, particularly the opening which reads "Some people, particularly in the gay community...", suggesting that only gay people would ever be disgusted by blatant homophobia. But the final straw in this hopelessly inaccurate article is the tagged-on final line, which reads "The Press Complaints Commission has received more than 1,000 complaints..."

Would it be churlish to point out that the 1,000 complaints were lodged in the first 24 hours, and since then, the PCC has logged 21,000 complaints - an all-time record? I guess if you want fact-checking, truth or reliability, the Weekly World News is your best bet.

The Gaily Mail Part Two

Following on from my previous post, I wanted to touch upon another article in the Daily Mail this week.

It seems that the great enemy of Middle England, the PC police, has its knives out for people who want to indulge in a little harmless harrassment or bullying. That's right, the bleeding hearts don't want you screaming hateful invective across the street or harrassing someone out of their job.

Obviously this upsets the Daily Mail, presumably because half of its content would be reclassified as illegal. So they did what any defensive and misleading publication would do under the circumstances - they commissioned a Gay to write an article speaking out against the legislation. In an act of surreal self-denial worthy of Jews for Jesus, Christopher Biggins has penned a thought-provoking piece in defense of homophobia. And he must be mad because he treats homophobia with the contempt it deserves, by placing it in air-quotes.

In a diatribe peppered with phrases like 'regime' and 'brave dissidents' (shit, now I'm doing it...) he spectacularly misses the point again and again. He uses misleading examples of gay-influenced humour and even manages to invoke the credit crunch as reasons not to stifle our most talented comedic icons. Jim Davidson must be firing up Windows 95 as we speak.

Now, if one was to challenge the Mail on this hopeless piece of word-fartery, they'd no doubt scream (in a really shrill voice) that this is the voice of the gay majority. Except it's not really. Biggins lived 80% of his life in the closet, denying his true self and misleading the public about his life. But embiggened by the advances that other people made (not to mention the sacrifices that went with them), he felt he could safely come out of the closet in his silver years and act like he'd been here all along.

Well I'm sorry Christopher, but people who arrive late for dinner don't get to choose the menu for everyone else.