The homosexual stigma

Ian Harvey

"It is a disgusting lead for the town to set and I believe that there are limits below which we should not fall." This profound statement was made last year by an alderman of Weymouth. One might think that he was referring to a proposal to confer the freedom of the town on the train robbers or to turn the mayor's parlour into a brothel. In fact his attack was directed against the proposal to allow the Campaign for Homosexual Equality to hold its first annual conference in Weymouth. As a result the request was rejected and the event took place in Morecambe and was highly successful. Contrary to expectations in some. quarters there were no sexual orgies and public morality remained intact. This year's conference will be held in Malvern and no such anachronistic objection has been raised. Times have changed; but they have not yet changed enough.

The criminal stigma unjustly imposed by Parliament in an insane moment at the end of the last century has been removed. But the social stigma still remains: there is ostracism in the community and victimisation at work. This amounts to a denial of human rights to at least a million and a half people whose only single difference from the rest of society is that they love others of the same sex. This, in the opinion of the majority, is an affront to normality. What is or what is not normal is, in any case, open to serious dispute. Normality in one country or in one century, or even decade, differs and has differed throughout history. What governs the accepted normality is predominantly the public opinion of the majority, which is notoriously volatile in certain areas.

At the forthcoming Malvern conference of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality, which is a national organisation with headquarters in Manchester, proposals for an activist campaign for the future will be discussed. It is in the interests of all concerned that they should be examined with great care before they are put into effect. Activism can take many forms ranging from revolution and violent demonstrations on the one hand to sensible debate and negotiation on the other. A minority group which has suffered oppression and imprisonment in the past and which still has wrongs to right is liable to be influenced by extremist elements in its ranks and from outside them. Such elements are often more concerned with using minorities as tools for wider ends than with the direct interests of those minorities. In this they are ably assisted by such aldermanic utterances as that already quoted.

The homosexual society, as represented by the Campaign for Homosexual Equality, will do well to avoid extremist influences in making its plans for activism. Much has been achieved since the publication of the Wolfenden Report in 1957 and the passing of the Sexual Offences Act in 1967. An extremist campaign nurturing ideas for the total overthrow of existing codes of sexual morality would undoubtedly fail and would lead to a backlash which would result in increased homosexual segregation and not in the integration which must be the ultimate aim of all those who are working for this cause. It is the changing of public opinion which must be the major role of the activist in this operation. This can be achieved most effectively through the machinery of education and the instruments of communication. For this purpose the co-operation of intelligent heterosexuals in every sphere will be needed. To alienate them from the start with irrational extremist tactics would not only be stupid but also self-defeating.

What has to be proved without peradventure is the basic normality of the homosexual society, taking note of the current interpretation of normality and gaining acceptance of the one basic difference which exists, and must always exist, between it and the heterosexual community. This is in itself a major task when faced with the ignorance, prejudice and fear which exist in so many quarters. An AmPrican writer has referred in another context to homosexuality as the "neurosis which does not know when to shut up." Insofar as there is a neurotic strain in the homosexual makd-up this is certainly the time

to shut up. The exercise which has to be carried out is not one for the psychiatrists or the medical profession nor even for professional do-gooders. It is a social campaign to be conducted in a level-headed fashion in order to present the realities, as opposed to the illusions, about homosexuality.

The charge will undoubtedly be made that the considerable organisation of the homosexual society which has taken place over the past ten years in order to improve the conditions of its members has been a mistake and has tended to create a ghetto mentality and to inflame social hostility on both sides of the fence. It is the existence of that fence that has made that organisation necessary. If it is to be broken down it must be undermined from both sides simultaneously.

Dr Ruitenbeek, a psychoanalyst in New York, writing about the position of homosexuals in Holland, has observed, "One of the most interesting aspects of the position of the Dutch homosexual in his acceptance by a predominantly heterosexual society and, even more important, the desire of that society to accept him and incorporate him, so to say, in the fabric of contemporary society." That is a consummation devoutly to be desired in Britain.

The fact that the younger generation understands the nature of homosexuality far better than its predecessors sheds a ray of light upon the scene. But they are not yet in control of society although the future is in their hands. For that reason it is desirable that their elders and self-styled betters should pay some attention to their views. The National Union of Students has shown itself particularly cooperative. At the same time they themselves have tended in other directions to adopt positions which alienate society despite the justice of their cause. That is a lesson for the homosexual activists to learn.

In order to change public Opinion it is axiomatic that the support of those who influence that opinion should be enlisted. The political leaders of all three main parties when questioned at the recent general election all gave it as their opinion that atti tudes towards homosexuality were

a matter for the individual conscience. What they really meant

was that it was a matter that was not electorally wise to pursue. This was cowardly and an abrogation of their responsibility not only as leaders but also as the representatives of a community comprising a large number of homosexuals. But the number of heterosexual votes largely out numbers the homosexual. The fact remains that there are still aspects of the present law which require reform. Foremost amongst these is the reduction of the age of consent for homosexual males from twenty-one to sixteen, and the ending of the exclusion from the Act of Scotland and Northern Ireland, the armed forces and the merchant navy.

Other leaders of public opinion have their part to play: the education authorities and

teachers, the medical profession, the men of religion, industrialists

and trade union leaders, and those

who control and guide the communications industry. Nobody Will deny that they each have difficul

ties of their own in tackling the problem. Teachers have to face the reaction of parents who are ignorant and afraid. Doctors who are still not agreed on the aetiolog of homosexuality have to dismiss

the old conception that they are dealing with a sickness or a disease. Church leaders have to reject the teaching that homo.sexuality is a sin. In 'industry victimisation of homosexuals must

cease. In the communications field the readership and audience figures play their part but the temptation to emphasise the abnormal aspect of homosexual behaviour amongst the few must be resisted and a

balanced attention paid to the normality of the many even though it is not news of such enthralling interest. _

It is right that the homosexual minority should take this initiative although it is a sad commentarY on the heterosexual majority that this should be necessary. For their part the homosexual minority should forget the past, difficult as that may be for some of them, and look to the future. Their efforts

must be constructive and not destructive: their conduct co-opera

tive and not hostile. They do not, and should not, seek to dominate society. All they ask, and they

have the right to ask, is that they should be fully accepted as individuals: for them rejection is intolerable and tolerance is an unacceptable compromise.

It is the heterosexual majority who have the power to change the existing climate of opinion and it

is their duty to do so not only in the interests of the homosexuals

but of themselves as well. The exclusion of people who have a useful, and often valuable, part to

play in the life of the community is on a par with the persecution of the Jews by the Nazis and the treatment by the Communists of those who do not agree with therm It has no place in a free and democratic society.

When making their recommendations concerning the treatment

of homosexuals the Wolfenden Committee stated that one argument which governed their

decision was "the importance which society and the law ought to give to individual freedom of choice and action in terms of private morality." That argument remains valid although insufficient attention has been paid to it. In the activist campaign which the homosexuals now propose to launch they should receive the support of the leaders of societY, For them to oppose it would be to condone reaction and oppression and to maintain a divisive situation which is every bit as undesirable as class-war.

Ian Harvey was formerly Conservative MP for Harrow East.