Bernard Levin

[scottycelt]

Oh dear, scotty, do you really think that homosexual people are as thin skinned as you? Believe me, they are well accustomed to the jokes of bigots, and sadly they sometimes join in if they are still burdoned with the guilt that they have been trained to feel since childhood. Now, there's a thing ! Trained in guilt ? Now I wonder which organisation does that ?

I wasn't aware that all 'homosexual people' were the same whether they were covered in either thick or thin skin, Ferret ?

My own skin certainly lived on the cutting, bleeding-edge this morning, that's for sure ...

[Serial_Apologist]

So did Hitler, so what?

Welcome at last, Rumbaba

Your succint to-the-pointness has been much missed!

[vinteuil]

Do you seriously expect us to believe that you, Ams and Floss would be roaring in the aisles with laughter after reading a poem mocking and sneering at homosexuals?

....

... but, scottycelt, I doubt that they wd feel the need to invoke the force of the Law to censor and forbid.

Why, scottycelt, do you think your God is so fragile that He needs your - or Madame Whitehouse's - "protection" ?

[scottycelt]

... but, scottycelt, I doubt that they wd feel the need to invoke the force of the Law to censor and forbid.

Why, scottycelt, do you think your God is so fragile that He needs your - or Madame Whitehouse's - "protection" ?

Crikey ... now see what you've started, Mandryka ... there's only Floss of the usual thick-skinned variety missing here, now ...

[Mandryka]

Crikey ... now see what you've started, Mandryka ... there's only Floss of the usual thick-skinned variety missing here, now ...

Actually, I have noticed that some of the Amis de Dorothee on this forum are notably thin-skinned when matters turn to the subject of their own sexuality.....I try to be empathetic here, because Ferret_ and Amateur_51 are perfectly amiable guys most of the time and it may be that they're a bit sensitive about these discussions because they both grew up at a time when one couldn't be open about such things. :) However, I think they should relax a bit, as the important battles have been won and the idea of some non-poet going to gaol for writing a naughty poem about Jesus Christ is as ridiculous now as it was in 1978 (even back then, there was no way it was ever actually going to happen, was there? ).

And, by way of getting back on topic:

Bernard Levin (lest we forget, the subject of this thread) was a notable defender of free speech. He would have defended Denis Lemon's right to be a terrible poet without going to prison, and he would have defended the right of Mary Whitehouse et al to verbally condemn the sentiments expressed in Mr. Lemon's appalling 'poem'. He would have taken exactly the same position if someone had decided to express homophobic sentiments in a piece of literature. So, let's follow BL's lead, shall we? Then all shall be well. :)

[amateur51]

No, I have to confess I haven't read the poem, amateur, just like I've never read, say, Mein Kampf ... one really musn''t try and tackle too much in the short span we've been allotted, eh?

Btw, did you ever meet and talk to Mary Whitehouse ... ? ...

So where did you get the idea about homosexuals (your word) 'mocking and sneering', eh scotty? Nowhere! You were guessing/hoping/believing without evidence in your fevered way it was true. That really is pretty low, scotty.

I never met her but I did ring her once and she wasn't in

[amateur51]

Actually, I have noticed that some of the Amis de Dorothee on this forum are notably thin-skinned when matters turn to the subject of their own sexuality.....I try to be empathetic here, because Ferret_ and Amateur_51 are perfectly amiable guys most of the time and it may be that they're a bit sensitive about these discussions because they both grew up at a time when one couldn't be open about such things. :) However, I think they should relax a bit, as the important battles have been won and the idea of some non-poet going to gaol for writing a naughty poem about Jesus Christ is as ridiculous now as it was in 1978 (even back then, there was no way it was ever actually going to happen, was there? ).

I'm 'a bit sensitive' about your vicarious need to dig up and misrepresent bits of history that I was involved in when you were still mewling and puking in the nurse's arms, Mandryka, that's all

The important battles that were won were won by people like Edgar Wright, Lord Arran, Leo Abse, Humphry Berkeley, Jacqui Forster, Anthony Blond, Monty Python (who contributed to the Gay News Defence Fund, incidentally - you didn't find that in the Every Boy's Book of the 1970s did you Mandy?) and many many others, far too many of whom died far too young of AIDS-related illnesses in the 1980-90s. I remember them because I knew a lot of them, some of them were my lovers and I feel their loss to this day. So please don't tell me to get over it in your faux social worker way.

The poet was never going to go to jail, Mandy - it was Lemon & Gay News that were prosecuted which gives you an idea about Whitehouse's motives. She wasn't out to imprison the poet, the author of the 'blasphemy': she wanted to put Gay News of out of business. It was an act of pure anti-gay censorship, and a wicked act at that.

Bernard Levin (lest we forget, the subject of this thread) was a notable defender of free speech. He would have defended Denis Lemon's right to be a terrible poet without going to prison, and he would have defended the right of Mary Whitehouse et al to verbally condemn the sentiments expressed in Mr. Lemon's appalling 'poem'.

Again Mandy you're making a prize tit of yourself Denis Lemon was not the poet - he was the editor who published the poem. The poem was by James Kirkup. Tell us from the basis of your current knowledge Mandy (no googling now) why Kirkup's poem was 'terrible'? You can't because like scotty you haven't read it. So you're like Muggeridge & Mervyn Stockwood who laid into The Life of Brian without having seen it. Poor research, Mandy.

Finally, you appear ignorant of the extent of the involvement of Bernard Levin in this unhappy saga. Bernard Levin appeared for Gay News' defence in the Whitehouse prosection. You didn't know that, did you Mandy?

Is it any wonder that I get 'a bit sensitive' about the guff that you have written

[Nick Armstrong]

As compelling and powerful as anything I've read in this Forum during its first year, amateur It's taught me a lot coz as you know I was nobbut a nipper at the time!

[Ferretfancy]

amateur51,
I was going to try a composed reply to Mandryka's comments, but you have covered most of the bases, although it's nice to know that I'm an amiable sort most of the time!
I'm sure you'll agree that there are points that do need to be emphasised when we are told that the battles have been won. The first is that much much more needs to be done to stop homophobic bullying in schools.The lives of many young people are being made a misery by this, and even sadder is the fact that the victims are not even necessarily gay. In fact they may not really understand the term, since this sort of bullying often starts before any true sexual awareness has developed gay or straight.

The second issue is less obvious. I've been very lucky as an out gay man for a long time, and certainly free from the guilt that some would have me suffer. But is that because I'm respectable and safe. What if I was extremely camp and a born show off? ( Hostage to fortune there ! ) Would I still be respected ? Even today, I think not.
It's still a fact that gays are thought to be quite OK, with civil partnerships and so on, but the unspoken rule is still " Conform to our heterosexual blueprint and we'll tolerate you. " I think that will take a little longer to put right.

Did you ever know John Chesterman, by any chance ? He was a keen member of the anti-Whitehouse campaigns.

[Mandryka]

Yes, mistake acknowledged - it was indeed Kirkup who wrote the poem: I temporarily mislaid this fact, because Lemon's name was the one that hit the news, while Kirkup was never 'in the frame'.

I did read the poem and I stand by my words: it's poor poetry, but I can't comment on any value it may have as pornography.

Not surprised to hear that Levin helped defend Gay News, but I think my point holds: he was opposed to authoritarian censorship of either left or right.

I can hardly think that Whitehouse's objective was to 'close down' Gay News, though that may well have been a by-product of a successful prosecution. Even someone as unworldly as MW must have realised the massive free publicity her action would give to an 'underground' journal (in fact, I'd never heard of G.N. until the trial).

[scottycelt]

So where did you get the idea about homosexuals (your word) 'mocking and sneering', eh scotty? Nowhere! You were guessing/hoping/believing without evidence in your fevered way it was true. That really is pretty low, scotty.

I never met her but I did ring her once and she wasn't in

Wise lady ...

The wretched poem, with homosexual connotations regarding the naked body of Christ, was deeply offensive to many Christians. Many others may not give a jot about those feelings, but that does not mean there are are not certain standards that must be upheld in any reasonably civilised society. Unless he was as thick as the proverbial two short planks, the poet (whoever he was) must have known in advance the offence this would cause and so, glaringly obviously, did Gay News.

There must be a limit to 'free-speech', in other words some widely-recognised boundaries. If someone wrote a poem in a Christian magazine connecting homosexuality and say, pedophilia, all hell would be let loose because of the offence it would cause to the apparently thick-skinned among us. Certainly, it would be deeply offensive to the overwhelming majority of homosexuals who would no doubt be rightly appalled at such a poem. I do also wonder if Gay News would have been as keen to print such a poem, in the loftily-declared interests of 'freedom of expression'?

Btw, amateur, I was not previously aware that I was the first to introduce the word 'homosexuals' to the English language, but, on this occasion at least, I bow to your apparently much more widely-read and therefore infinitely greater depth of knowledge!

[amateur51]

Yes, mistake acknowledged - it was indeed Kirkup who wrote the poem: I temporarily mislaid this fact, because Lemon's name was the one that hit the news, while Kirkup was never 'in the frame'.

I did read the poem and I stand by my words: it's poor poetry, but I can't comment on any value it may have as pornography.

Not surprised to hear that Levin helped defend Gay News, but I think my point holds: he was opposed to authoritarian censorship of either left or right.

I can hardly think that Whitehouse's objective was to 'close down' Gay News, though that may well have been a by-product of a successful prosecution. Even someone as unworldly as MW must have realised the massive free publicity her action would give to an 'underground' journal (in fact, I'd never heard of G.N. until the trial).

Usual ill-informed guffola viz 'I can hardly think that Whitehouse's objective was to 'close down' Gay News'

Chuck it, Smith!

[amateur51]

Wise lady ...

The wretched poem, with homosexual connotations regarding the naked body of Christ, was deeply offensive to many Christians. Many others may not give a jot about those feelings, but that does not mean there are are not certain standards that must be upheld in any reasonably civilised society. Unless he was as thick as the proverbial two short planks, the poet (whoever he was) must have known in advance the offence this would cause and so, glaringly obviously, did Gay News.

There must be a limit to 'free-speech', in other words some widely-recognised boundaries. If someone wrote a poem in a Christian magazine connecting homosexuality and say, pedophilia, all hell would be let loose because of the offence it would cause to the apparently thick-skinned among us. Certainly, it would be deeply offensive to the overwhelming majority of homosexuals who would no doubt be rightly appalled at such a poem. I do also wonder if Gay News would have been as keen to print such a poem, in the loftily-declared interests of 'freedom of expression'?

Btw, amateur, I was not previously aware that I was the first to introduce the word 'homosexuals' to the English language, but, on this occasion at least, I bow to your apparently much more widely-read and therefore infinitely greater depth of knowledge!

Usual heterosexist stuff - nowhere in the Holy Bible is Christ's sexuality mentioned. No girlfriend, no boyfriend . The poem is about a gay centurion's fantasies about Christ, that's all. It does not seek to diminish Christ, nor does it and to many gay Christians who are offended on a daily basis to this day by the heterosexist posturing of the established church, it may have read differently to how you read it scotty.

If you want to tell me that it isn't Kirkup's finest hour, then I'd agree with you.

[amateur51]

amateur51,
I was going to try a composed reply to Mandryka's comments, but you have covered most of the bases, although it's nice to know that I'm an amiable sort most of the time!
I'm sure you'll agree that there are points that do need to be emphasised when we are told that the battles have been won. The first is that much much more needs to be done to stop homophobic bullying in schools.The lives of many young people are being made a misery by this, and even sadder is the fact that the victims are not even necessarily gay. In fact they may not really understand the term, since this sort of bullying often starts before any true sexual awareness has developed gay or straight.

The second issue is less obvious. I've been very lucky as an out gay man for a long time, and certainly free from the guilt that some would have me suffer. But is that because I'm respectable and safe. What if I was extremely camp and a born show off? ( Hostage to fortune there ! ) Would I still be respected ? Even today, I think not.
It's still a fact that gays are thought to be quite OK, with civil partnerships and so on, but the unspoken rule is still " Conform to our heterosexual blueprint and we'll tolerate you. " I think that will take a little longer to put right.

Did you ever know John Chesterman, by any chance ? He was a keen member of the anti-Whitehouse campaigns.

Very important points you make there Ferret. The almost daily accounts of gay teenage suicide bear witness to what you say. It's good that someone like Ben Cohen has taken up campaigning around this and other bullying issues - that is certainly a change in attitudes and very much a change for the better.

I didn't know John Chesterman but certainly knew Mike Rhodes, Julian Howes, et al. Happy days!

http://www.playle.com/KDL/10701.jpg

[Mandryka]

Very important points you make there Ferret. The almost daily accounts of gay teenage suicide bear witness to what you say. It's good that someone like Ben Cohen has taken up campaigning around this and other bullying issues - that is certainly a change in attitudes and very much a change for the better.

I didn't know John Chesterman but certainly knew Mike Rhodes, Julian Howes, et al. Happy days!

http://www.playle.com/KDL/10701.jpg

Y'know, sometimes I get the feeling you're positively nostalgic for the days when homophobia was a fact of life, when your 'tribe' was routinely used for comic effect in tv sitcoms, when you weren't allowed to join the armed forces and had to congregate in specially designated 'clubs' in order to express yourselves.

I suppose there was a feeling of solidarity to be had in being 'up against it', but wouldn't you agree that things are so much better now? You can actually doing ALL of the things listed in the above paragraph and if two blokes want to walk hand in hand through town, canoodling on the way, there is nothing to stop them so doing.

Sorry, but the scorecard reads:

Homosexual Activists: 1

Traditionalist conservatives: 0

Soon, Peter Tatchell will have to move on to other things, because the big battles have been won. OK, there will always be a degree of homophobia, just as there will always be a degree of racism, because that is the dark side of human nature, which no amount of campaigning or psychological conditioning can alter - minorities, be they sexual, racial, or relgiious, will always have conflict with the majority and that is an issue we can't do much about.

But my point is: you won! So, you can afford to relax.