Pat Stack Archive | ETOL Main Page
From Socialist Review, No. 174, April 1994.
Copyright © Socialist Review.
Copied with thanks from the Socialist Review Archive.
Marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
Quite why 18 is the magic moment when all becomes clear is somewhat bewildering
There is no greater vision of the hero than that of the man or woman who stands out against the crowd, refusing to bend to the prejudices and rage of those surrounding them and sticking to his or her principles, usually at great personal cost.
Down the years Hollywood has been full of such characters. Alan Ladd in Shane, Gary Cooper in High Noon, Henry Fonda in Twelve Angry Men, Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mocking Bird are all famous examples.
Such heroes are not restricted to fiction. Who can doubt the amazing courage of the great revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg shouting out against the First World War whilst all but a very few of her party collapsed in the face of patriotic fervour? What of Leon Trotsky, the lone voice standing against Stalin in a struggle that cost him everything, including ultimately his life?
Sadly such heroes come few and far between in the grubby world of current British politics, but I am delighted to announce a new name to add to the roll of honour.
Step forward please and take a bow ... David Blunkett.
‘I think it is unfortunate ... that in politics in 1994, the important thing is agreeing with the majority, even when not convinced, rather than thinking for oneself, even if this is unpopular.
‘As someone who has fought against inequality and prejudice and is deeply opposed to discrimination, I greatly resent the view ... that if I have sincerely held views which differ, I am beyond the pale.’
Who could disagree with these sentiments of his which appeared in Tribune recently? Who could fail to admire their heroic and courageous tone? Disagreeing with the majority, standing against discrimination and prejudice – eat your heart out Gregory Peck.
Hold on a minute though. What exactly was this great act, of courage that was so unpopular and out of line with popular thinking as to put this great man beyond the pale?
Well, he voted against lowering the age of consent for gay sex to 16! Hang on though, did this not put him in line with the majority of parliament? Did this not conform to the wishes of the popular media? Did this not sit him happily in the camp of every discriminating prejudiced bigot in the land?
It really is amazing beyond belief that Blunkett should first of all choose to side with the Tory majority, and then paint himself as some sort of Sir Galahad for doing so.
Although he has gone through various tortuous explanations for his vote, I am not at all convinced it was as a result of anything but the very type of prejudice that he proclaims himself to be fighting against.
What deepens my suspicions is a memory of the man when he appeared on Question Time shortly after the death of Freddie Mercury. His remarks that night could have come out of the mouth of any right wing Tory.
Yet Blunkett tries to dress up his disgraceful vote in the most respectable of terms. First he joins in the bizarre argument about people not being sure of their sexual orientation between the ages of 16 and 18.
Quite why 18 is the magic moment when all becomes clear is somewhat bewildering. There you are on your 18th birthday getting your first legal pint, casting your first vote, and suddenly seeing as clear as day that whatever confusions you had are now settled.
Oh what a relief. Last night you went to bed not sure whether you fancied the boy next door or his sister, or for that matter both of them, but now suddenly this morning it’s all as clear as a bell.
What strikes me about all this confusion is why should it be restricted to gays? I mean what of straights? Perhaps in those two bewildering years they are having all this good clean wholesome heterosexual sex, when without realising it all they want to do is have sex with somebody of their own gender.
Why should potential gays be put in such heterosexual jeopardy? It could ruin their whole lives.
Because of course the bottom line for those that voted for 18 rather than 16 as the age of consent is that gay sex is abnormal and perverted.
Blunkett is even more concerned about the spread of bisexuality (I know what he means, its all so messy and confusing, make your minds up for god’s sake, let’s get a bit of symmetry here) and paints himself as a champion of women’s liberation protecting them from the spread of HIV.
Quite what making gay sex for youngsters illegal has to do with any of this is beyond me. Indeed allowing a stigma to remain attached to gay sex is likely to mean less frankness, less honesty, and therefore more danger.
One final point: in his article Blunkett whinges about being bludgeoned, being cast beyond the pale, suffering intolerance and so on. This seems to me to be all rather laughable for a man who has voted to put young gays beyond the pale, and who has sided with some of the most intolerant elements within society.
As for bludgeoning, I suggest to David Blunkett that angry letters, the odd picket of his surgery, or the occasional angry words cast in his direction, are as nothing compared to the little bludgeon he voted for – to imprison people of a certain age who consentingly indulge in a certain kind of sex. Now that is what I call enlightened.
As the old song says, ‘no more heroes any more’.
Pat Stack Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 10 March 2017