Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 19 members and 711 guests online.
|
Jan Moir - Real Consequences, or Much Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing?
Even since last week’s piece on HomoHate (I’ll be using that term a lot, because we’re way past “phobia” with most of this), I’ve been loathe to revisit Jan Moir and what she wrote about Stephen Gately. The woman seems to positively revel in all the ink and pixels that have been used to call her out as a rotten excuse of a human being. And the thought of doing anything that makes her the least little bit happy makes me a little ill. Still, the story has continued to develop, and AE reader Darrien has been kind enough to provide all the research, so I’m going to give it a go. With the airing of Question Time last night on BBC in the U.K., which I surmise to be somewhat similar to a Meet the Press program in America, it seems that everyone in the Commonwealth is outraged at Moir. As to why a respectable program like Question Time chose to focus an entire episode on a political party like the British National Party, I have no idea. David Duke is watching across the ocean and going “Damn, you guys are harsh.” Yet in a way, it worked out for the side of reason in this case. While I won’t get into the broader issues of British politics and the BNP (since anything beyond a two-party system makes my head spin) the issue of Moir and Gately seemed fairly clear cut across the political spectrum. From the left to the far, far right, they all felt Moir went too far, going as far as to described her as “odious.” That's one thing I love about Britain - they know how to make effective use of the English language. How did Moir react to her drubbing. Not like a normal person.
Does the fact that politicians of all stripes are aware of the outrage mean anything? Despite my initial confusion, the newspaper regulatory body, the Press Complains Commission (PCC), is more akin to America's Motion Picture Assocaition of America (MPAA), which rates movies in the U.S. It’s a self regulatory body, completely separate from government that seems to exist primarily to keep government from regulating the industry. So does the PCC need to respond to 25,000 complaints? Their own somewhat gray standards (again, like the MPAA) say it’s not quantity that is the deciding factor but whether the complaintants are somehow connected to the person maligned. If they're not, they won’t act. Fine, Gately’s record company has complained. They’ll have to act, right? The PCC doesn’t seem to be in any hurry. Here we are a week later, and after a week of Moir using her newly created Twitter account to mock folks offended by her original column, and the PCC's single act seems to be beefing up their web server to handle the volume. And what has Moir done in that week, beyond sniping at people mourning a loss?
Doesn't this prove she's just out to provoke at any cost? Well, she’s written an apology column. She’s not actually sorry for what she said. She’s terribly sorry for the timing. But it was news after all, with the funeral happening. And she’s does “regret any affront caused.” She wasn’t saying gays were immoral drug using sluts who bring men back to their home. She was saying Gately appeared to be. And we should just quit extrapolating. She says she’s on the record as supporting civil partnerships. I’m not sure what record that is, since she didn’t cite it. Perhaps an old dusty 78 in her basement? Here’s what she meant: The point of my observation that there was a 'happy ever after myth' surrounding such unions was that they can be just as problematic as heterosexual marriages. As for those upset by her column, and raising such a stink, she has this to say, “It lit a spark, then a flame and turned into a roaring ball of hate fire, blazing unchecked and unmediated across the internet. “
We’re the hateful ones, evidently, and she’s deeply hurt. The most amusing part to me about her “clarification column” (I refuse to call that an apology) is that she says she’s “received thousands of supportive emails” from “the silent majority." How’s that compare with the tens of thousands of people on the record that think you’re an asshat, Jan? Still, if you want to feel a little better about humanity, I do recommend going to The Guardian’s coverage of her apology and read the comments (which are actually refreshing, considering how hateful comments can get when it comes to similar stories in the U.S.) People aren’t fooled, Jan. and here’s hoping the PCC isn’t, either. Submitted by on Fri, 2009-10-23 12:11. |
 Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
Yep, this is how Jan reacted to being called "odious."
surely surely surely
"Exhibitionist" is the correct term.
She's just a slightly more educated version of the people who appear on Jerry Springer.
Granted, there are other, more colorful terms we can use; but I refuse to sully my mouth on her account.
Yes
LMAO, i love the tweet about...
LMAO, i love the tweet about hitler
Maybe she thinks Osama Bin Laden isn't so bad of a guy either.
Moir's utterly delighted with all this attention.
Someone should confiscate her sofa, lest a Bulgarian be found sleeping on it.
Hates never apologize
Her 'apology' is on par with Congresswoman Fox's apology after claiming that Matthew Shepard's death wasn't a hate crime. People who spew this hate never apologize for what they say, at best they say 'opps sorry for the timing of my statement.'
Everyone is right to call her out on her HomoHate, and cheers to the companies that have pulled advertisng from her column.
Thanks for giving the link
hi jay
I agree that on the night he
Did you have Gately's place bugged?
Jay, since you seem to know exactly what happened the night Stephen Gately died, could you tell the rest of us?
I don't know what went on that night and I suspect you don't either, so outside of your foetid imaginings, why are you using the word 'sleazy'?. You should also be aware that a civil partnership is a religion-free zone, so you can't approach it from your own morality.
Also, I do think Moir was attacking civil partnerships - it's impossible not to take that construction from what she wrote in the original article. As for her explanation of what she was trying to say, it was patent arse-covering by someone who's getting rattled at the amount ridicule and antagonism she has stirred up.
Like you, I have no idea if Moir is a homophobe. But she's written homophobic things and should be called to account. I understand that you're a natural Daily Mail reader, Jay, but even you must see that she has stepped far beyond the boundaries of common decency.
Oh yeah, it cost a couple of
Why do you say that?
Who wrote her initial column.
Could it be. . . .SATAN???
As for her "apology" what in hell was that?
thoughts vs statements
I don't know if she is a homophobe in her heart. (I suspect she probably doesn't care enough to be one.) But her implication that Gately's death had something to do with being in a gay civil partnership sounds like a homophobic statement to me.
I know that in her clarification column, she tries to say that's not what she meant. But it's the only logical conclusion one can draw from reading her original column.
Well in my opinion, reading
People read it exactly as she intended.
I'm sorry, but anyone who professes to believe the "explanation" of what she "really" meant to say is lying or incredibly gullible. There's simply no other way to intrepret what she said. Is there really a "myth" that homosexual civil unions are perfect, and destined guaranteed a "happily ever after"? Has anyone ever made that claim? Please. Oh, and this...
Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael. Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately's last night raise troubling questions about what happened...
couldn't be more clear. It "may" be true that not every gay man is like George Michael. And gay activists argue that their relationships are equal to straight ones, yet Kevin McGee, Matt Lucas, and Gately raise troubling questions...
Please oh please tell me where you get "gay relationships can be just as troubled as straight ones" out of that. You can't. It's not there, but rather the exact opposite.
Like I said, it was poorly
Not "poorly written"
Well, someone's poorly
She's paid hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to write words. She's been earning her living as a writer of words for decades. When she's written a column, her words go to her section editor who reads what she's written and will make suggestions. It then goes on to the sub-editors who will go through the copy for typos and house style and question her on accuracy (obviously that didn't happen here), cut it to size and then pass it on to page make-up. After that, the editor of the paper will probably read it. Her editor, Paul Dacre is the most experienced editor in Fleet Street.
This wasn't 'poor writing'. She didn't knock it out in half an hour and send it directly to be printed. She knew every word she wrote and judged the weight, style and technique of every poison-filled paragraph. It's extraordinary that you're trying to defend her. Simply extraordinary. She deliberately wrote what she wrote in the original article and it went through several processes of editing before it was published. She has no defence of 'poor writing'.
As for whether she deserves the opprobrium being heaped on her, well yes. Of course she does. You're making an entirely inaccurate connection between her and the Mormons and queer-bashers. She indulged in a sleazy bit of hackery on a much-loved singer because he was gay. Despite what she's said, she's never gone after a straight celebrity like that. And she did it in the Mail - which specialises in hyperbolic outrage. And now she knows what outrage really is.
You'll be familiar with the phrase 'those who live by the sword, die by the sword', I assume?
What i don't understand
You're not missing anything,
Rock, meet hard place
So her defense against the accusation of hateful, hurtful misanthropy is that she's actually so incopetent a writer that she can't get her thoughts clearly and accurately on the page by deadline.
I'm not sure that's the best way to keep your job.
Jan Moir reminds me of my passive agressive Mormon Sister
its amazing
My Mormon sister claimed ignorance
My Mormon sister said some pretty cruel things to me last year, and so I didn't speak to her after that. Earlier this summer she emailed to ask why I was giving her the cold shoulder and I reminded her what happened. She responded by saying she didn't *remember* saying such things to me!
I love her, but I don't like her.
I've got family like that.
Mine never changed. After 40 years most of them are now dead, and they died just like that.
The good part was hearing them called "evil self-absorbed old women" at their mourning-free funerals.
I almost think we have the same sister
I don't think there should
I don't think there should be any "real consquences '". And I don't think she should be fired or anything. Democracy and freedom of speech go both ways, sometimes it seems unfortunate, but that's how it is. She wrote nasty piece with lots of prejudiced opinions at a really bad time. But she didn't break any laws. At least as far as I know. The reaction is that other people use their right for freedom of speech and tell her what they think about the column.
I mean - the pope is spewing homophobic nonsense nonstop - and nobody tries to fire him for it. I think.
Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
If I could fire the Pope I would.
"She wrote nasty piece with lots of prejudiced opinions at a really bad time. But she didn't break any laws. At least as far as I know."
It was a Hate Crime.
"The reaction is that other people use their right for freedom of speech and tell her what they think about the column."
Not as good as sacking her from her job, confiscating all her assets, turning her home into an LBGT youth shelter, and tossing her into the street.
Is it really? A hate crime,
Is it really? A hate crime, I mean? Of course she made assumptions, but it's not like she asked people to stone sinners, or nonsense like that. It was her interpretation of the situation, an interpretation I don't agree with obviously, but should she be fired or officially reprimanded for it? She didn't use any cuss words, she didn't sound as if she tried to agitate people.
I am always afraid that the more we forbid certain opinions, the more seductive those opinions will become and the more obstinate will those bone-headed people become, who hold those opinions in the first place.
Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Actually...
It might be a hate crime. She's being investigated by the police at the moment to see if her original article constituted an incitement ot hatred. I doubt they'll find grounds for prosecution, but it's nice to know she'll face the police interviews and possibly the expense of hiring a lawyer.
On your point about freedom of speech and democracy, freedom of spech does not mean freedom from consequences. And democracy means the majority generally carries the day.
I doubt that Moir has a silent majority behind her because anyone who has to tell you they're part of the silent majority is clearly not being silent - and if they're willing to lie about one thing, why should we believe them on the second?
Hate Crime?
'A horrible place'
Well forgive the entire UK for taking equality seriously. Please, oh mighty one, forgive us. Clearly we're not worthy.
Get off your high horse.
I'm not going to get into 'my country is better than your country' or start citing things that would make America 'a horrible place indeed'. It's a pointless exercise that's best left to morons.
But for the record, this is happening in Britain, not America - and we approach things differently. Oh, and when hate crimes legislation was passed years ago, not one MP said: 'We can't do this because this is anti-American'. Believe it or not, in all the debates that took place, in all those hours spent on discussing ways to make life better for gays and lesbians, no-one thought that increasing equality was anti-American. You might have a different view.
While she'll face a police investigation, I very much doubt she'll be prosecuted. If this somehow irritates wingnuts, then it says a great deal more about the quality of political discourse in your country than it does mine. It's your country, your wingnuts, your problem. Instead of insulting other countries, don't you think you ought to be doing something to improve your own?
Increasing equality is a laudable goal
Yeah, but it's your country, not mine
As I have stated a couple of times now, she's not being charged with a hate crime, she's being investigated by the police. And, as I've said before a couple of times, I doubt she'll be charged.
However, inciting hatred is a crime here. We fought damn hard to get sexuality at the same level as race when it comes to being protected under the law - and I'm incredibly proud of the people who campaigned for it and achieved it.
The UK is a very small country geographically and incredibly densely populated. Although a certain level of respect being accorded to everyone used to be the norm, times have changed. Sadly, people need legal safeguards to maintain civility. You don't see the importance of civility in your society, and that's fair enough because it's your country. So you get Fox News and all the shock jocks. Your choice.
I'm in a different country and my values are different, and I thoroughly object to you saying something as idiotic that the equality legislation in my country is 'anti-American'. Frankly, it's none of your damn business.
And no, it's not about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
Oh, and don't kid yourself about your own freedom of speech. You only have to look at what is or isn't allowed on your mainstream TV to see that you're also decades behind most of Europe on some aspects of free speech. You're just picking the bits of free speech you like and then feeling smug about it. If you really believe in freedom of speech, you should have that in all aspects of your life. You don't have it, so please don't say your country is superior to mine.
You cheerfully accept standards of behaviour and levels of censorship that I'd regard as barbaric. However, I understand that I live in a different country and am in no position to insult yours.
If you don't have the civility to recognise that, then that - along with your inequality and wingnuts - is your problem, not mine.
Read again
And no, it's not about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
I covered that. Twice. I never once should she shouldn't have consequences. I said they shouldn't come from the government. Again, I said this twice already. It's not about equality. Whose equality is being threatened with the column, whose rights are being taken away?
And I think "civility" is meaningless, if it's required under penalty of law. I don't watch Fox News because I choose not to, not because the government forbids it from airing.
It's also a little weird that you feel people can't express an opinion about your country's laws ("none of my business!") , though you feel more than free to do the opposite.
That's up to you
You just don't like the consequences that she faces in another country. Fair enough, but it's not your call to make beause you don't live here. In this country there could be consequences that involve the law. The fact that you don't like it is neither here nor there.
And as I said, I don't think she'll be prosecuted, so stop being such a drama queen. Had her column incited sexual orientation hatred, then yes, she would be. But as she was merely bigoted in what she said, she can probably say it with impunity.
My country doesn't prevent Fox News from being aired, it just doesn't allow it to call itself a news channel, because it's clearly not. And if you don't think your government - local or national - doesn't legislate on civility, you're kidding yourself. From spitting on the sidewalks to driving with alcohol that's not in a paper bag, you have welter of civility laws that don't exist in my country.
You just seem to see the word 'freedom' and stop there. You accept the definitions that have been given to you on a plate and don't bother thinking for yourself. And because of that, you're high-handed enough to insult other countries without bothering to analyse the situation. You have a political ideology, but you don't have the wherewithal to back it up.
I don't think the police
I don't think the police should get involved. It's really tricky in my opinion.
I live in Germany, a country that has extremely strict rules concerning all things faschist. Several symbols are forbidden, several books, several groups and political parties - and I get it. It's understandable. The history of Germany makes these rules very plausible.
But in the end, I don't think that's the solution to the problem. You can't solve a problem by forbidding people to talk about stuff, to utter their biggoted opinions.That's not the way to convince people of your opinion, that's not the way to make people understand.
Example: take a teenaged boy, who starts uttering homophobic nonsense, because that's what just en vogue in his peer group at school. And his liberal father hears him say stuff. If the father then says: "Don't say that. That's discriminating and wrong. I don't want to hear you say stuff like that." - the boy hasn't understood a thing, hasn't learnt a lesson and probably continues doing it because the dad doesn't want him to do it. But if the dad sits down with the kid and asks about the kid's reasons, and where the kid heard the stuff and if the kid really knows what he is saying and who he is insulting - then there might be actually a chance that the boy learns something, maybe not right away, because parents = uncool, but for the future.
The same way I feel about freedom of speech in a country. Just making certain questions and topics taboo is not going to make anyone understand, it's probably going to scare people into radical opinions.
I don't know how smart the author of the article is, but it reads like a naive prejudiced piece by some little conservative housewife. It's nonsense, and it's homophobic, but it doesn't feel malicious or evil in my opinion. And other people in the UK, in the World will perhaps interpret it also like that. Having her hunted down by some press control board and the police, asking for her to be fired - that could polarise certain parts of the population.
Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Good grief
That Twitter account is clearly false, and a satirical one at that. The background of Liberace should have been, oh, a huge giveaway. Please do some critical thinking - nothing involving that twitter account stands up to being authentically hers (the new creation, the background, the tongue-in-cheek tweets). It's called parody accounts, and a lot of it happens on the internet. Good grief.
I hoped for an insightful article about this issue, but instead I see one where it seems like the piece is so intent on demonising an idiot that they'll ignore the fact that they're basically citing a fake Twitter account for their information from her end of the problem. Not to standard, fellas.
The account is real
No, it's a fake
OK
I know this isn't strictly relevant to the conversation, but I'm slinging this in to show how the Jan Moir thing has impacted on British public life.
Friday Night with Jonathan Ross is like the British equivalent of Leno and Letterman rolled into one. His stooges/backing band is a quartet of four gay men (and they really are gay because I know one of them personally) called Four Poofs and a Piano.
Australian comedian Tim Minchin was a guest and he sang the following song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIm8WgwkTeI
It's very, very, very funny and I recommend it to everyone.
Thanks for the link
Very funny. I wish more Americans were comfortable with and could appreciate that type of humor.
Tim Minchin seems familiar - I think I've seen him on Graham Norton's show on BBC America, which also airs Friday Nights with Jonathan Ross.
That was funny...
See, that was really quite funny. And I always hate the fact that sometimes here on AE staff end up looking like we can't take the gays being the butt of a joke, because we can. That was a classically beautiful example of "laughing with" not "laughing at." No malicious intent at all, which makes the difference.
And you're doing Jonathan Ross a disservice by comparing him to Leno/Letterman - he's always been funnier than either.
Also, I'm generally a sucker for anything with Jamie Cullum.
Oh Jamie Cullum love...
Cullum is desperately, magnificently, fantastically gay friendly. Sadly, he's straight. But at the beginning of his career he was interviewed by a gay mag here and the reporter thanked him for his time and remarked that he was going off to review a gay porno movie. Callum didn't miss a beat and asked if he could come along, too, so that he could know what the readership of his interview would also enjoy and he could use it for the next time he was interviewed by the gay press. My description doesn't do him justice, but it was wonderfully funny reading.
He's short, talented and going out with an intelligent supermodel and I still crush on him tremendously. Lovely guy. Funny guy who's cute, intelligent and has no problems with his sexuality. <sigh>
That I hadn't read...
I hadn't read thatabout Jamie, though I'd hoped he was gay friendly. Had no idea to that extent!
I own everything he's ever released, albums, live EPs, "Influenced by" and concert DVDs. I've got "The Pursuit" (U.K. Collector's Set) ordered from Amazon already.
He's funny, adorable, ridiculously talented, and is comfortable enough with himself to watch gay smut and to walk next to his supermodel fiance when she's wearing heels, and he's at 5'4" in boots.
*swoon*
Thanks!
Tim Minchin & Jamie Cullum
Now you guys have got me watching videos of both of these guys.
They did an impromptu duet of "Hit The Road Jack" on that same episode of Jonathan Ross that's rather amazing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGF6vev93OE
And agreed about Tim's "Five Poofs and Two Pianos" song - simply hilarious.
I'd like to add
- Jan's article on the BBC's obsession with Graham Norton and John Barrowman
- "'It's the show where we take your stuff and make it the star of the
show,' explains Norton, upon whose slight shoulders the entire, live
hour-long extravaganza rests."
- "Why is the corporation obsessed with these men and their sexual leanings?"
- Jan's article on Princess Michael of Kent wardrobe choice for her son's wedding.
-
What in the name of fully amphibious air cushions is that a-coming down the aisle?
- Jan's article on Britain's being unable to take a joke based in racial stereotypes (argue all you want I'm proving her point by bringing it up, but that's an strawman designed to make argument impossible, and not worth addressing)
- "Yet we don't live in a sane society any
more. We slither about in a stew of perceived
injustices and hurts, where many groups,
quick to take offence, will seize any opportunity
to make political capital out of their carefully
nurtured sense of grievance."
So maybe she's homophobic, sexist, prudish, and racist. Or maybe none of those things. Perhaps she just likes to provoke. Regardless, I stand by my belief, based on the evidence of her writing over time, not a single sample, that she's vile.Disgusting!!
I had a quick glance at the article on Princess Michael but couldn't get through it all. What a horrible, wretched woman! An entire article devoted to saying women should hold in their cleavage? Puh-lease! and that picture of what Princess Michael was wearing wasn't awful at all!I agree that women should dress apporopriately for certain occasions. But let's face it, some girls have big boobs, and what are they supposed to do? And does she actually believe someone could upstage a bride on her wedding day? People come to celebrate the happy couple; if someone wears something scandalous who gives a f**k. That article was dripping with snark and mockery, it actually made me want to gag because it was so over the top.
What this woman wrote about Steven Gately was sick, and she should face the consequences for that, even if that involves a police investigation. I assume the police know what they are doing and will make appropriate decisions. It's times like these I'm thankful that Canada is (in some ways) more similar to Britain than the US.
Even if she's not a homophobe, sexist, prudish, racist ass she's still at least an ass.
You too can be saved by the blog! www.savedbytheblog14.blogspot.com
I may be straight, but I'm not narrow.
Of course shes homophobic, sexist, prudish, and racist.