Global Homophobia

Image credits: Vince Mig

Online Features Columnist Sophie Mogridge talks LGBT issues. You can read Exeposé Screen’s review of Out There here.

On BBC’s Out There, Stephen Fry points to his laptop screen on which plays the harrowing footage of a mass hanging in Iran. “If anti-Semitism led to Auschwitz, then homophobia leads to this”, laments Fry. It’s one of the most chilling images to have ever crossed my television screen and highlights Fry’s very question: how can falling in love with another person ever be considered criminal?

In the age of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) logrolling it can be easy to forget that homosexuality is, in many countries, constitutionally illegal and that many men and women die worldwide as a direct consequence. Astonishingly, in Iran alone there have been over 100 cases of capital punishment because of homosexuality in the last century. For our “democratically” Westernised minds, such cruelty may seem abhorrent – we are living in the twenty-first century after all – but it must be recognised that homosexuality laws are not worldwide. Death, imprisonment, life sentences are commonplace; and tens of countries simply will not recognise a marriage even when conducted abroad.

Although it can hardly be considered a consolation, capital punishment is not the most popular legal response for homosexuality. Many men and women across the globe are subjected to “corrective rape”. In Out There, Fry meets a young Ugandan woman named Stosh who fell victim to such punishment. Absurdly, the monster that raped Stosh and stole her penetrative virginity did so because he hoped it would “cure her of her homosexuality”. Currently, there are plans emerging within the Ugandan government to criminalise homosexuality entirely as they believe it “inevitably” leads to all manner of malignant diseases; yet, in a painful twist of irony, Stosh’s rapist only succeeded in proving the exact opposite. As with many other same-sex partners, Stosh had never contracted sexually transmitted diseases from the benevolence of her homosexual relationships. Yet, her one “relationship” with a man not only made her pregnant, but infected her with HIV. Actions speak louder than words.

Image credits: Marco Raaphorst

On first impressions, we Britons are fortunate to be living under a constitution which provides us with the cusp of marriage equality. Yet there is perhaps a rather dark downside – laws criminalising homosexuality never existed in many countries before Britain imposed it upon them. On further research, out of the 84 remaining countries criminalising homosexuality, half are former British colonies. So should Britain have the weight of homophobia on its shoulders? Should our current government step in and right the wrongs of past governments? We are lucky to be living in a constitution with a much higher level of tolerance than places like Sri Lanka, Uganda and Iran, but things can still get better. Even in the UK today, homophobia is still a prevalent issue – even within Exeter itself.

Having spoken to many gay students in Exeter, it does not seem uncommon for them to have been stereotypically labelled with nasty, condescending terms – some being asked to move out of their student homes – and others being held at arm’s length, as if suffering from an incurable illness. But that is what is essential to understand, homosexuality is incurable because it is not a disease, an illness or a choice. It is a feeling, and feelings and beliefs simply cannot be stamped out – Hitler definitely proved this point.

Sexuality itself comes down to who you love, and to whom you are attracted – so why do people across the globe continue to condemn, criticise and attack homosexuality? In the midst of same-sex marriage lobbying, this quote went viral on the internet: ‘Claiming that someone else’s relationship is against your beliefs is like being angry at someone for eating a doughnut because you’re on a diet’. Whilst not saying the quote should be taken literally, but just because homosexuality is not your cup of tea (or indeed doughnut) it doesn’t mean you should become part of its condemnation.

Sophie Mogridge, Online Features Columnist

Review: Out There

Katherine Perrington watches in horror as Stephen Fry explores what it means to be homosexual across the globe.

Its easy for us, who are living in a largely tolerant society, to forget just how many human beings are out there spouting homophobic vitriol. Stephen Fry’s two part series is a powerful and revealing look at the treatment of gay people across the world, with interviews from some of the most prolific homophobes on the planet.

Stephen Fry with a victim of ‘corrective’ rape.
Image Credit: BBC

But first we start with a cosy scene of a couple, Andy and Steve, getting married (not quite Adam and Steve but close enough) with Stephen Fry sitting in the audience, shedding a tear of happiness at how far we have progressed since being gay was a crime in this country. 

However after starting on a positive note, Stephen meets Iranian asylum seeker Farshaad who is facing the death penalty if he is sent back to Iran. The Home Office do not believe he is gay and apparently require proof if he is to stay in the country. What exactly they expect him to do to provide proof is unclear and unhelpful. He asserts he would rather commit suicide than go back to a country that would humiliate and execute him. 

Next, Stephen travels to Uganda, where, in a radio debate, he encounters Pastor Solomon Male, a homophobic preacher. I was shocked at his ridiculous assumptions about gay people and his obsession with the idea of anal sex and its sinful nature, to which Stephen beautifully counters with, “Why are you so obsessed with anuses? It’s about love!” Its almost funny until you remember this hateful rhetoric is aimed at making life a misery for gay people in Uganda.

Stephen also speaks to the minister of ethics and integrity, Simon Lokodo, (possibly one of the most inappropriate titles ever) who near enough accuses Stephen of planning to spread gay propaganda through his country, rendering intelligent discussion impossible.

Still in Uganda, Stephen hears a heartbreaking testimony from a woman named Stosh who at the age of fourteen was subjected to “corrective rape” which left her both pregnant and HIV positive. This was a very distressing scene and as someone who never cries I can honestly say I was brought to tears by the cruelty she suffered at the hands of evil and ignorant people.

Episode 2, wherein Fry travels to India, is available on iPlayer
Image Credit: BBC

The programme does however, end on a positive note with a charming interview with gay actor Neil Patrick Harris, about his optimism that people are becoming more accepting of the gay community. However, we clearly still have a long way to go as next weeks episode will explore the alarming new laws in Russia and why life for gay people there is about to become even harder than it was before.

How did Out There make you feel? Let us know on Facebook, Twitter or by commenting below.

Football finally ready to fight homophobia

Justin Fashanu, the only ever openly gay English footballer, who died in 1998. Photo credits: Wikimedia Commons

Last weekend, professional footballers from all 134 pro clubs in the UK were invited to wear rainbow laces in their boots to show support for the ‘Right Behind Gay Footballers’ campaign.

The campaign came from Stonewall, the lesbian, gay and bisexual charity, who have teamed up with bookmakers Paddy Power in order to promote the drive. Currently, there are no openly gay players in English or Scottish football. Maybe there are none, however it seems unlikely.

Stonewall have helped by applying maths to the situation. There are approximately 5,000 professional players in England and Scotland. Assuming a likelihood that six percent of any random sample would be homosexual, the chance of there not being one gay person are minuscule.

You have a better chance of being killed by a mountain lion; a better chance of a meteor hitting your house; a better chance of shuffling a deck of cards and having them be in the perfect order of suit and number.

One in four fans feel football is anti-gay, compared to one  in 10 fans who think football is racist. It is down to the hard work of many campaigns in football that have helped suppress racism, but why has one act of hate been treated with greater significance than the other? There should be no room for any act of hatred, abuse or discrimination in the game.

Regrettably, homophobia has a long history within football. Justin Fashanu is the only ever openly gay footballer in this country – coming out in 1990, eight years before his suicide. The abuse he received was horrendous. From fans, colleagues, his manager Brian Clough and even his brother, publicly disowned him. This wasn’t the reason he committed suicide, but it could be accountable for his personal demise.

More recently, Robbie Rogers, ex-Leeds and USA midfielder, came out in February of this year. However he quickly quit the game, saying that: “Remaining in football after publicly declaring your homosexuality was impossible.”

Rogers has publicly said it is the fans attitudes which stop gay players from coming out. Sadly, it isn’t hard to see why Rogers felt this way.

Sol Campbell and Graeme Le Saux received homophobic abuse for years – despite both being openly heterosexual. It seems people in the past have just tried to think of something offensive to say and, disgustingly, we live in a society where the word ‘gay’ is a multipurpose sobriquet used, mainly, as an adjective insinuating something is bad. It’s incredibly sad to see people don’t see anti-gay words as an issue.

Rio Ferdinand was being interviewed by Chris Moyles on the radio back in 2006 and ended up calling him a f****t. After England’s exit from the World Cup in 2006, The Sun referred to Christiano Ronaldo as a ‘nancy boy’. Why is this deemed appropriate?

This is no different to using racial slurs towards ethnic minorities; they are words used to degrade another human being for matters that are out of their own hands. One can’t help being gay as much as they can help being white.

In 2002, Luiz Felipe Scolari said that if he found out one of his players was gay, he would throw them out the team. That type of vile rancour should have created uproar. This shows how far we have to go to create an environment where players can feel comfortable enough to come out.

Is football ready for a player to come out? The most depressing thing is, the answer is probably not. I do not intend to be rude or ignorant by saying that; I understand that hiding your sexuality, who you truly are can be a real burden, hurtful and emotionally tiring.

However, there are a few reasons why it may be best on a personal level. With the modern day media burrowing into each player’s private lives, it could be a distraction. We’ve seen it happen before in the past with numerous other players, offthe-field problems can have real consequences on someone’s form.

Football careers are short and delicate – could a player take the risk? They might be okay in this country, but what if they want to go abroad? Due to the differences in culture, some people may be more hostile. Now the rewards for a player could be huge.

Openly gay athletes over the world are respected for more than just athletic achievement, (I’m thinking Martina Navratilova, Gareth Thomas) and a player can become a real role model. Athletes are thrust into the public eye and it is thought they owe it to society to be good role models.

But is that fair? After all, it isn’t a footballer’s job to be a social pioneer – should they be judged on anything more than their talent?

Stonewall wrote a report four years ago highlighting huge issues within the game. Yet, it wasn’t until February of this year when the FA decided to issue a toolkit to all 92 pro clubs in England to help fight against homophobia in the game. Even sadder than this is that, a month later, only 29 of those 92 clubs were actively engaged in the campaign.

Your sexuality is a very personal thing – no-one should be able to dictate to someone when and how they choose to reveal their sexuality. The issue is football all around the world hasn’t created an atmosphere where players have felt safe enough to come out.

The rainbow laces won’t end homophobia, but it can be the start of something huge in the sport. After all, you have to make ripples before you can make waves.

Jordan Edgington

Homosexuality and the Scouts

Fireside with Boy Scouts of America Image credit: Georgia National Guard

Amy Young investigates the attitudes towards gay people in the Scout Movement both in the United States and here in the United Kingdom.

On the 23^rd May, the Boy Scouts of America voted in favour of allowing openly gay Scouts during their annual meeting in Texas, which has resulted in public outrage for many different reasons. Some are against the allowance of openly homosexual members of the BSA, and others are upset because they did not even discuss removing the ban on openly gay Scout leaders. But it was not as if the new policy won by a landslide vote. In fact, 61% of the 1,400 voting members approved the policy, which leaves quite a large percentage of the Boy Scouts of America National Council against the change. Some who have voiced their outrage at this new policy are members of Southern Baptist Churches.

Boy Scout troops in America are sponsored by third party groups, the majority of whom are churches. People such as Richard Land, the President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, suggest that no “Southern Baptist pastor […] would continue to allow his church to sponsor a Boy Scout troop under these new rules”. If they do lose their sponsorship, then Boy Scout groups in certain areas may have serious financial issues in the future. However, one of the most vocal campaigns against the acceptance of openly gay Scouts was organised by the website ‘onmyhonor.net’, and its leader John Stemberger.

An Eagle Scout and former Scoutmaster, John Stemberger encouraged the general public to protest against the allowance of openly gay Scouts. He argues that those who voted for this change are a “militant lobby” and “bullies” apparently located in the US capital, Washington D.C. and Hollywood. The aim of this protest was, according to ‘onmyhonor.net’, to “keep sex and politics out of Scouting”, but in organising a protest in the first place, they have failed. Groups of Scouts publically rallied against openly homosexual Scouts, and if this is not politicising children then I do not know what is.

What were his motivations for this? On his website, Stemberger details ten reasons why the Boy Scouts of America National Committee should have voted against open homosexuality for Scouts. Though all of these reasons do not justify such a harsh reaction, one of the reasons is particularly disturbing. He argues that openly gay Scouts would increase boy-on-boy sexual contact, resulting in public scandal and many cases of sexual, physical and psychological abuse. These bigoted, stereotypical ideas are absolutely ridiculous, not to mention incredibly insensitive, although it seems that these ideas are not, worryingly, restricted just to the United States of America.

On the UK Scouts Association website, there are many documents detailing their policies on homosexuality, which are actually far more positive than those in the American version of the organisation. Like the BSA’s new policy, the UK Scouts also accept openly gay Scouts, but in their Scout leader document they also state “It’s OK to be an adult in Scouting and gay!” However, in this document, the UK Scouts Association seemed to need to dispel the “presumed link between homosexuality and paedophilia”. I find this statement very disturbing, and so the question must be asked: what is the reason that the Boy Scouts of America will not even discuss voting on the allowance of openly gay Scout leaders? And why are the UK’s more tolerant Scouts’ policies not universal within the organisation?

Surprisingly, I do partially agree with one of Stemberger’s points, that “The proposed BSA resolution is logically incoherent and morally and ethically inconsistent”. The difference is that he believes the new ruling must be reversed in order to make the Scouts “morally and ethically” consistent. But this cannot happen. Allowing openly homosexual Scouts but not openly homosexual adult Scout leaders is hypocritical; it is ridiculous to tell a child that they are accepted no matter what their sexuality, and then exclude them once they turn eighteen. How confusing will it be for some young Scouts in the future, when they will be rejected by and isolated from an organisation who once welcomed them with partially open arms?

The National Commissioner of the BSA, Tico Perez, argued that they are still not allowing openly gay Scout leaders, because this restriction has “served [them] well for the last hundred years”. But they are refusing, or are otherwise incapable of seeing, an alternative. Perez also argues that the sexuality of Scouts is different from that of Scout leaders because “the leadership role is a different role”. What is this teaching young boys? That you cannot be a positive and effective role model for children if you are openly gay? What sort of leaders will the BSA be creating? Scout leaders teach boys valuable life skills through fun activities. But it is the ability to lead well, and not a person’s sexuality, that creates a good leader.

The future of the Boy Scouts of America may be a tumultuous one. With the threat of a loss of support and finances, Stemberger has also threatened to begin the creation of a new Scouts-like organisation when his group meet in Louisville, Kentucky next month, which sticks to his rigid conception of what is morally acceptable. The policy of allowing openly gay Scouts only becomes effective from the 1^st January 2014, as it has to be implemented in 116,000 units across America. We will only truly begin to know the effects of this policy next year.

Amy Young

Will tennis see an openly gay male player by 2014?

Openly gay ex-tennis star Martina Navratilova. Photo credits: drgullo.com

With the 2013 French Open underway, most tennis pundits have eagerly made their predictions as to who will take home the trophies; with others bewailing Andy Murray’s announcement of his withdrawal days before the event. Yet this article explores an issue related to tennis which is somewhat different: will the sport see an openly gay player by next year?

Homosexuality and sport have had a troubled and controversial history. In recent times, however, it has become obvious that gay and lesbian players do compete in professional sport, and this should prove to be no obstacle in them attaining success. Jason Collins, the NBA star, came out recently, which has surely proved to be inspirational for many struggling to know whether or not to be open about their sexuality that enjoy this particular sport.

Pundits have wondered for a long time, however, whether a gay player in the US from one of the biggest four professional sports (baseball, football, hockey or basketball) would come out. Although in the US it is not one of the biggest sports, to that might be added tennis.

Tennis has certainly experienced multiple lesbians on the women’s circuit, with 18-time singles Grand Slam champion (regarded by many as the greatest female player of all time) Martina Navratilova being an obvious example, and other high ranked lesbian players including Lisa Raymond and Rennae Stubbs. But there have been no notable male tennis players who have come out as gay or bisexual.

If one wants to look at this stereotypically, then the simple answer might be because sport is traditionally associated with masculinity. But this is a gross stereotype, implying that those who are not heterosexual are effeminate and do not wish to play sports, and cannot be said to be true, particularly nowadays. It is perfectly possible that there are gay male tennis players who play professionally, but some reason or another do not wish to disclose their sexualities.

Since there is increasing sexual liberation and equality in the Western World, it is possible that, if an openly gay player does emerge by 2014, he will come from somewhere in the west, perhaps the USA or a European country. However, an openly gay player has not come out in recent years, despite increasing tolerance within sport, so does it really seem likely that tennis will have one in just a year’s time?

On the face of it, no. Many of the top male players have stunningly attractive wives and girlfriends – just look at the women with whom Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray and Grigor Dimitrov (with the women’s no. 2 player Maria Sharapova) are involved.

No top male player has brought along a boyfriend. It seems apparent that, if there are gay players (and there surely must be at least one or two), they are keeping their sexuality quiet.

From a different perspective, it might be a blessing if an openly gay male tennis player – particularly if they were highly ranked – did come out next year, for this would provide a welcome role model for many, particularly teenagers, who love and play sports and yet struggle with their sexuality within a stereotyped arena. Of course, a tennis role model should be many things besides – like Nadal, hardworking, intense, passionate, and gracious in defeat.

It seems unlikely, then, that an openly gay male tennis player will emerge next year. While it would certainly be beneficial for the sport if one did, it’s not good to raise one’s hopes.

Conor Byrne