Homosexuals
'Sir: I apologise for intruding on your columns two weeks running. But Mr D. Watkins rightly challenges my statement that" nowadays a politician would not, be forced out of public life because of a heterosexual irregularity ". I wrote this before the unfortunate' call-girl ' affair broke. I am bound to admit I was wrong and I have been surprised by the outburst that it has caused. Admittedly this has been stimulated by the animation of the media on the subject. It has also been entangled, as was the Profumo case, with the issue of security.
All this goes to show that the standards of public morality are largely dictated by public opinion which is strongly influenced, for better or for worse, by the instruments of public communication: Until that public opinion changes, or is changed, those in positions of authority, such as politicians, must pay the price if they offend against it and are found out. Personally, although I might stand to gain by it, I would deplore any fundamental change on that score because I believe that men in public life must subordinate their private inclinations to the public interest — and not only sexual inclinations.
I have read Mr Watkins' other letters with some astonishment mixed with incredulity because they appear to me to be the product of a confused mentality and I am sorry if I have added to the confusion. No homosexual will deny that heterosexuals have their trials and tribulations but they are not judged or punished by society because they are heterosexuals per se. This is not true in the case of homosexuals. That is the situation which we seek to end.
In conclusion, and I promise that it is a conclusion, I cannot refrain from observing with some amusement that Mr Watkins lives in a house called ' Gaycroft ' — now there's glory for you. Ian Harvey 43A Lonsdale Road, London, W11
Previous page
