Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 12:32:54 +1000 (EST)
From: Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan-AT-qut.edu.au>
Subject: Re: M-I: Rattles for closets



>
>This indicates that the state of opinion in the gay community is a higher
>instance than any principles involved. Opportunism?
>
>Perhaps we should sharpen the issue by comparing it with say a Communist
>sympathiser (or Jew or Jewish sympathizer) in a high position in the Nazi
>hierarchy. ... OK. By being in this position, this person is obliged to
>witness and participate in and give orders for attacks on Communists and/or
>Jews.


Hugh 

thanks for your interest.  I will try and answer your questions as best I can. 




>Questions:
>
>1) Why is this person in this position?
>

There are two people mentioned in my post.  One the interim President of the
Queensland Aids council.  He is a public servant and by all accounts a
regular guy.  But like most gay activists he is very afraid of what will
happen if the current Minister For Health, Mike Horan, becomes Premier of
the State.  

Horan as I have said is a full on homophobe and would be very likely to
undertake punitive action against gay people.

You have to understand, Hugh, that the gay community in Queensland has a
long history of being persecuted.  We were only legalized in 1990 by the
then Labor government.  Also reaction, hatred, racism are in the air now and
the centre of the tide of filth seems to be Queensland.  So there is a great
deal of fear about.


Now the other person, I mentioned  - the closeted gay politician - is a key
player  in all this.  But he is a member of the reactionary government and
like all those in the closet is extremely vulnerable.  His sexuality has
become a matter for public speculation.  The local Murdoch paper, The
Courier Mail, investigated him and at one stage seemed to be threatening to
out him.

How do gays become members of reactionary homophobic parties?  This is a
complex one.  Many gays are conservative.  They do not generalize from their
own oppression to that of others.  Also identities are fractured things.
Because one loves men or enjoys having sex with men, does not mean that one
will acquire the identity of being "gay", especially not the radical post-
Stonewall 'coming out' version of that.

The absolute truth is that if this politician came out, his political party
would disown him.  I really cannot say much more without outing him myself.





>2) What obligations are imposed on members of the party/community when it
>comes to speaking out?
>
>If someone not an "official" voice of the group should speak out, would
>this lead to "disciplinary" action, regardless of the reasons?
>
>This sounds like harsher penalties being imposed on the whistle-blower than
>on the person doing real damage on behalf of the oppressive apparatus.


I presume you are speaking about "outing" here.  Well the grounds rules seem
to be that someone will only be outed if he/she takes part in an anti-gay
action.  Peter Tatchell outed the bishops because they voted against
lowering the age of consent.  Here in Australia the priest John Murray was
outed when he wrote in a Murdoch paper attacking the Sydney Gay Mardi Gras.
He was outed by two men whith whom he had sex when they were in their early
teens.

Now if this politician votes to change the anti-discrimination to allow sex
clinics to discriminate against lesbians, then there would seem to be a case
for outing him.  But as I have said the community is very fearful. And I
repeat they have reason to be.

This is a very difficult case, Hugh.  I favor outing.  But outing is very
nasty, and opinion is sharply divided about it among gays. What ever the
case it cannot be done by an individual. I am also very reluctant to
substitute myself for the gay community.  My personal opinion of the  gay
community and the activists that lead it is that politically they are in
many ways quite conservative. But they have been beaten down.

I recall here something Adam Rose said about students get the flu if the
workers get a cold. Well gays get full blown pneumonia.  I am convinced that
as the  working class are still on the long retreat, marginalized oppressed
groups are very unlikely to lead any fight back. 


3) What sanctions are available to discipline the oppressor beside "outing"?
>
>Social ostracism? What social links does such a person have with the party
>or the community anyway? Would this person give a damn?
>

Well a general radical upsurge would unseat the bastard.  He is a Tory and
for me that over rides everything.  I have no feeling of  identity with
fascist/conservative/reactionary gays.  I absolutely hate Tories and that is
always the bottom line for me.  I could not give a damn if he is personally
very nice, which he is supposed to be.  Nor do I care that apparently his
boyfriend is very pretty.

So maybe you can see why I do not play much of a role in gay community politics!

Now this person does have a few faint links to the gay community but only by
virtue of his sexual practice.  By this I mean that a few people in the gay
community are saying "I had sex with X".

What will happen now?  Well some gay activists are pinning their hopes on
persuading the Premier Rob Borbidge to intervene.  The very thought of
talking to Borbidge makes me sick, but I wish that tactic well of  course.

Hugh, I hope that answer your queries...

regards

Gary



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---