Rugby council
Sir: By mentioning Rugby council's ban on the employment of homosexuals (Portrait of the week, 6 October), you have placed on record a decision that is both monstrous and ludicrous.
Like the left-handed, homosexuals are ordinary people who happen to differ in one respect from other people. The coun- cillors declare the ban to be Rugby's answer to the permissive tsociety — their concern for morality does not extend to the employment of people known to have sexual relations with persons of the oppo- site sex to whom they are not Married. Pointing to the fact that homosexuals may be blackmailed the councillors ban those homosexuals whose frankness about their sexuality exempts them from blackmail. The councillors say they do not want men turning up for work in dresses — the risk seems a small one and in any event transvestism is not confined to homosex- uals. The councillors explicitly recognise that homosexuals may be the best appli- cants but seem not to have realised that by not appointing the best applicants they will be wasting Rugby's money (some of which comes from homosexual ratepayers and taxpayers) and putting themselves — Con- servatives and ratepayers — in the same camp as the Socialist councillors elsewhere who waste public money. The decision would be hilarious if it were not so bad. Peter Campbell
Chairman, Conservative Group for Homosexual Equality, BM/CGHE, London WC1
Previous page
