SIR, —The Spectator in its issue of October 23rd indulged in
the prevailing habit of showing' inverted sympathy for the wrong- doer rather than for the people who have been wronged. Although one would have expected this from the Observer (a paper which in all other respects I enjoy), it is surprising to hear Mr. John Gordon's cam- paign against homosexuality described as " disagreeably hysterical " and " moral tub- thumping." After reading these views it was almost refreshing to read in a newspaper recently that Mr. Justice Lynskey has other views on the subject. He is reported as saying at Devon Assizes:
" There is so ,much of this filth appar- ently—in Cornwall particularly. People must be taught that this sort of conduct cannot be tolerated. It is not only bad for the individuals, but it is bad for the nation."
On balance I prefer the views of Mr. John Gordon and Mr. Justice Lynskey to those expressed in the Spectator.
1 am not qualified to express a view as to whether honiosexuals are sick men or criminals, but in either case they should be detained in hospital or prison for the pro tection of other people. If smallpox patients and housebreakers have to be detained, then homosexuals, who are far more dangerous to the community, should be segregated in the ' same way.
The humanitarian movement of the nine- teenth century did immense good in reform- ing our penal system, but surely the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction when it is thought necessary to defend homo- sexuals without expressing any concern for the people they corrupt. Homosexualism is a symptom of decadency.
W. G. ROADKNIGHT
2, Woodland Way, Kingsgate, Broadstairs, Kent
[The Spectator did not defend homosexuals, except against the suggestion that they should be less justly, treated than other sexual offenders. It did express concern for any people they may corrupt. It said they " merit no more sympathy than other nuisances and corrupters, but they merit no less."—Editor, Spectator.]
Previous page
