Debate: Should 1800’s gay people receive pardons?
Today The Guardian newspaper in the UK printed an Open Letter on the subject of pardoning 49,000 gay men who were labelled as good as criminals when anti-gay laws were in the UK in the late 1800’s. This is an open response to the letter adding clarity and careful consideration of the debate.
The debate/campaign is about men who were criminalised for being gay in an old age century of the 1800’s and beyond. Alan Turing, an infamous codebreaker who help end World War II, received a Royal Pardon last year. Now calls for another 48,000 are asked to be pardoned. Approximately 15,000 are currently in the UK today.
The letter includes signatures from leading campaigner Benedict Cumberbatch, who played Alan Turing in a recent biopic. Also signing are leading gay frontman of intellect Stephen Fry and others including gay lads mag writers.
So should the homosexuals wrongly labelled as criminals receive a pardon in today’s lifted laws? Cumberbatch, asked the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to acknowledged it, who passed it off as a “government matter.”
The 49,000 should not receive a royal pardon. Here’s why.
The campaign, which was done secretly, around the houses and did not include anyone other than carefully, selected members of what they call the ‘gay community’ failed to recognise the actual gay community. With our strong links to all sources in many communities, including the LGBT, they do not feel represented in this attempt at glory by ‘London’s gay elite’ business sector. None have influence, intellect or expert opinion. Even gay lads mag editors have been included at the forefront which denounces the campaign. The mag’s, which show sexy snaps of men in underwear to leer at on almost every page and plagiarise content from us on our sources also, the inclusion is neglectful of the cause at hand.
Where are the real voices of the gay community, human rights activists over than ‘that obvious bloke always asked’ (who is credible but blindly sought out for the sake of it) and women? Finally, as Mr. Cumberbatch very clearly knows, where is the Fifth estate? Online newspapers do not count as fifth estate. It is the influential bloggers and he knows it. Failure for inclusion of these which lead a way for new age journalism and public voices has been somewhat of a failure for Cumberbatch. Even magazine editor’s followed us on Twitter to steal and leave. Hiring television cast off’s as bland columnists who make no change to gay lifestyle and plagiarism from online blogs by ed’s and writers is a disservice to gay men, women, trans people and its very ‘community’ which decides who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’ instead of its open arms rhetoric of welcoming all. Which then see’s attacking reports in the writing due to a bitter lack of understanding how to take criticism and become nasty instead. A great denunciation for homosexuals which puts the perception of gays backward as bad than pushes them forward for good which the majority are.
The campaign was not even advertised properly and did not seek out the proper voices to make a difference. Barely no-one of worth knew it was being implemented, no-one outside of London’s ‘community’ and barely anyone mentioned it to go and sign. Naïve and pointless. This does no justice to the victims. It was pitiful outsourcing to assume business people are a ‘community’ for gays and lesbians when all it does is serve a capitalist function with a stain on professionalism. This ‘gay community’ is one thing only. A space in which the cute, twinks and physically well chiseled bodies and looks are the selected few. Any undesirables they are not attracted to can be abused and cast out by ‘bitchy queens’ and take on a level of bullying tactics. This doesn’t put forward a dignified light to such a campaign.
Some of the leading gay voices of influence, who are also not gay, have been as forgotten as the victims of the campaign.
For David Cameron the buck now passes. His decision is crucial and determines his future. Alienate his Conservative, Tory Party who despise homosexuals, or cave into pressure to get a vote that won’t support you at all and remove you from your job. Agreeing to it is a lose-lose situation for the already failing country leader. It is also not up to politicians to ‘play god’ with sensitive material to people’s lifestyles. These matters should not be implemented willy-nilly and take time to consider. Anyway, what good is pardoning them now? Will it make a real difference? Now is not a time for celebritism and self-lobbying interests of gay businessmen trying to be ‘influential’ as a gay icon.
Until there are more voices to the campaign that have real talking points, intellect and persuasive common sense, this decision should not be agreed. Until there are more credible people on this ‘list’ than glossy sexy pictures of men dressed up as journalism to create a bigger self-profile in the world of the gays, this should be quietly subsided. There is ‘not enough polarity to consider the case from a wider community of voices.’