Casual homophobia is not acceptable

LeytonMan Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:59:06 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Friends of disgraced Waltham Forest Labour Councillor, Miranda Grell, were quite vocal at Labour's Bournemouth Conference, telling anybody who would listen how unjust it was that Cllr Grell will have to stand down after being convicted of slandering her Lib Dem opponent at the last council election by telling electors on the doorstep that he was a paedophile.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2007/09/24/walthamforest_councillor_video_feature.shtml



Ms Grell was convicted under the representation of the people act of telling voters that her Libdem opponent was a paedophile with a 14 year old boyfriend.  She won the previously safe Lib Dem seat by a whisker.

Her friends, however, completely missed the point.  Irrespective of whether she was guilty, the things that she admitted in court were the sort of casual homophobia more at home in the Tory party.

Casual racism, casual sexism and casual homophobia have no place within our Labour Party, and those who continue to indulge in these electoral practices have no right to be considered as Labour candidates.

We would not accept a seat won with a Smethwick style campaign, and we should be no less critical of a Labour candidate that wins a seat after running an anti-gay, homophobic campaign.  Indeed, such candidates should be drummed out of the party.



tags: , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Casual homophobia is not acceptable | 44 comments (44 topical)

Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#1)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:42:52 PM GMT

Indeed, it's hard to believe that anyone is standing up for her.


There's no place for bigotry in the Labour party.


Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#2)

by Ohdear on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 09:36:48 AM GMT

She has been convicted of this crime. Although she may appeal, decent Labour Party members have been quiet about this for too long. It is now time we apologise publicly for one of our candidates behaving like this and expel her from the party. What is most galling about the apologists, many of whom claim to believe in equality, is that they do not really care whether she did it or not. On her own evidence, she admits telling a voter that the LD candidate (who she knew not to be open about being gay) had a 19 year old Thai boyfriend (actually 39). Labour Party member do not do this sort of thing. It is against everything we stand for. It is enough for the Party to expel her, even if a later appeal overturns the paedophilia accusation charge.


Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#3)

by Sensible Comrade on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 01:14:39 PM GMT

Have you seen what she's been writing on her website? Apparently...

"Following Friday’s verdict at Waltham Forest Magistrate’s Court to find me guilty of two offences against the Representation of the People’s Act 1983, I have been humbled to receive so many phone calls, text messages, visits, letters and emails showing my family and I support."


But this takes the biscuit...

"A campaign is being set up to raise funds for the legal appeal and also to raise awareness of our fight for justice."

Who exactly is she expecting to help pay for her legal costs? She has admitted making an issue of her opponent's sexuality - as far as I'm concerned she's got herself into this mess. Labour's priority should be funding the campaigning costs of decent candidates who don't engage in that sort of dirty politics.


Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#4)

by treborc on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:51:43 AM GMT

Love it no place within the labour party, except of course if your talking about the disabled, who are work shy lazy benefits grabbing. Our Tony Blair.

Seems we have one law for one group and another for the disabled.

Labour is the Tory party in actions and beleifs


Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#5)

by TonyHannon on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:02:34 PM GMT

Am I alone in thinking that post made no sense whatsoever? She admitted what amounts to the lowest form of campaigning and a bigotry which runs completely contrary to the equality which is the central tenet of the Party's platform. Sling her out. I almost admire the bare cheek of her 'campaign' for justice. Justice, Miss Grell (as I'm sure you're reading this), is you never representing this party again.


[ Parent ]

Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#6)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 03:18:24 PM GMT

In English please, treborc.


[ Parent ]

Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#7)

by AlanJi on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:36:00 AM GMT

I’ve met Miranda Grell at several events over the past three or four years.
 

After her Master’s Degree in Industrial Relations, her employers in a few years have included the
  • Trades Union Congress
  • Commission of the European Communities, and
  • Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service
This would be an impressive history for someone twice her age.
 

It doesn’t sound like someone who would commit the offences she has just been convicted of. The <address>gallery of Waltham Forest Magistrates Court</address> was full of people nearly as shocked as she was by the verdict. She will be getting a great deal of support in the period leading to her Appeal being heard.


Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#8)

by laurencemarshall on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 11:54:44 AM GMT

But that wasn't the point of the article. The point was the casual homophobia she ADMITTED TO in open court in order to win an election.

So what if she worked for these groups and has a masters degree? She's still guilty of making homophobic comments.


[ Parent ]

Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#9)

by davidfloyd on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 01:53:15 PM GMT

"We would not accept a seat won with a Smethwick style campaign, and we should be no less critical of a Labour candidate that wins a seat after running an anti-gay, homophobic campaign."

There's pretty big difference between making an indiscreet comment and running an anti-gay, homophobic campaign.

If every elected representative who's ever made a comment of a similar nature to the one that Miranda Grell has admitted to making was forced out of office, we'd be pretty short of elected representatives.

The allegations that she is appealing against are a different matter entirely but she is appealing against the verdict and it might be wise to reserve judgement until that process is concluded.

 

 


Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#10)

by Sensible Comrade on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 04:48:28 PM GMT

I dont consider myself naive, and I've helped in election campaigns across the country, and I've never come across a Labour represenative or potential representative who has been prepared to make an issue of their opponents sexuality in a desparate attempt to win votes.

Of course I'm sure it happens. That doesn't make it any more legitimate. To in any way suggest that this is just the normal way of going about things and she was unlucky to be caught out is an insult to all the decent Labour candidates who run honourable campaigns and don't pander to homophobic/racist/sexist prejudices.


[ Parent ]

Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#11)

by SimonHH on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 06:53:29 PM GMT

OK, let's be clear about what Miranda Grell admitted in court: that she let someone know on the doorstep that Smith was gay. It is perfectly possible to let slip someone's sexuality without being the least bit homophobic. Imagine if you were canvassing and somebody said, say, 'do you know the Tory candidate?' and you replied 'no, but I know his boyfriend.' Possibly tactless. Needn't be homophobic. Might just mean that you (rightly) don't think that being gay is a big deal. What *is* homophobic is the underlying assumption that being gay is something best kept in the closet. It would be nice to see a talented Labour councillor who unseated a right-wing Lib. Dem. hack being given a bit more of the benefit of the doubt on a supposedly pro-Labour site.


[ Parent ]

Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#12)

by lastword on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 06:05:33 PM GMT

Hold on, wasn't Grell convicted of calling her opponent a paedophille? No one appears to be debating that.  If that's what she said she should be strung up and left to hang in a cold, open space but I just don't believe she said that.  I think this post is all mixed up.  From what I've read of the case Grell did not admit to "making some (homophobic) comments" about her opponent, what said she was that when she was asked a question she responded with more information than she have about the partner she'd seen and honesty thought to be the age he was and from the country he was.  If she had lied about this rather than being honest about the one occasion she was unwise to get drawn into what was probably a trap question would she have been convicted?  There's nothing wrong with being gay - it's 2007 and it's nothing to hide.  I agree she should have just responded "I'm not going to comment" or "Yes, he's gay" but we all make mistakes.  Who out of those criticising her is perfect?  It's also sad that people are so keen to mix up paedophillia with the issue of being gay.  Paedophilles like little children of both sexes.  It is an illness and nothing to do with sexuality.  I await the verdict of her appeal with interest.


[ Parent ]

Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#14)

by treborc on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 09:00:12 AM GMT

I am sorry she made a major error god help if she was to be given office knowing she cannot keep her mouth shut.


[ Parent ]

Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#28)

by SimonHH on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 12:52:57 AM GMT

There is no indication that she has admitted saying anything other than 'yes, he's gay', so I'm not entirely sure what your point is.


[ Parent ]

Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#13)

by treborc on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 08:58:23 AM GMT

Tony Blair states most disabled people are work shy lazy, we must do everything to ensure they are put back to work, the media goes to town, the BBC picks up three cases of fraud, I am attacked in the street for being in a wheelchair.


Ms Grell was an idiot I know a few more.


Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#15)

by TonyHannon on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 04:13:51 PM GMT

treborc,

Earlier, I made light of your not making sense, clearly - I didn't know you have the disability you referred to in another post or the absolute horror you must have endured up to now. I apologise for being flippant.

I wouldn't dare to lecture you on where you direct the inevitable hurt and anger and blame that you understandably have; but I do think it's misplaced in this instance. 

Tony Blair could never have made such an ill-informed, stupid remark and nothing he ever said can be sensibly interpreted as such.

He has, like everyone in public life, talked about people claiming benefit when they have no right to it. Clearly, that doesn't include you. It's a depraved tiny minority of people who are taking resources from those who need it very much.

If morons attacked you - I can't imagine they were acting on the advice of the Prime Minister but perhaps their stupidity was stoked by an alarmist media report.

If you have a problem with alarmist media reports and those who cut benefits to those who need them - I'm with you!! (and I expect so are most people on this site). I humbly suggest the Labour Party is not the party at which anger should be directed as, although not brilliant, it's our best choice.

Also, if it's a problem with street thuggery, equality laws for the disabled or a party for supporting and staffing the NHS which, no doubt you have relied on - Labour is clearly the best choice.

Not perfect and far from ideal - but treborc, in my view, our best hope for getting things right.


[ Parent ]

Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#16)

by jkitleft on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 01:56:24 PM GMT

It is not acceptable. An unfortunate consequence, or fortunate, whichever way you want to look at it strategically, of Triangulation, was that it forced some on the right after 1997, into promoting gay marriage, and lowering the age of consent, into mouthing off against getting rid of Clause 28. I'm not sure what the point of my argument was, but I think perhaps it points out that policies which mouth off against gays, is genuine homophobia. This was just disgraceful campaigning, I'm not sure she was being homophobic, but to show we're even more serious about gay rights, we should legalise gay marriage, but  not the gay hatrid bill, which is just political posturing.


Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#17)

by AlanJi on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 09:51:02 PM GMT

"Justice for Leyton Ward" is now up and running....


Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#18)

by Redflag85 on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:11:22 PM GMT

"Hold on, wasn't Grell convicted of calling her opponent a paedophille?"

Calling a councillor a paedophile is not a specific offence; the offence of which she was convicted is actually about making up negative details about councillor's private lives. The prosecution (Lib Dems) alleged what you have written above, but what she admitted was simply speculating that he had a thai boyfriend. She denies at any point saying that he was 14, and there is much evidence to support that.

In any event, the conviction was on the basis of what she admitted...

...which is itself a rather strange judgement. If the jusdge believed that saying that another councillor had a thai boyfriend was a negative smear... well, you have to be a bit prejudiced yourself to come away with that conclusion.

Saying that someone is gay (what she did) is only a smear in the minds of the homophobe. There is little objective weight to the notion that it is.

Hence her appeal. Her solicitors are rumoured to be flabbergasted at the decision.

I would suggest that the posters above read up on their facts before making allegations against people.

Best,
Tom Miller


Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#19)

by laurencemarshall on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 08:02:05 PM GMT

Why did she bring up the sexuality of the Lib Dem candidate at all? It's filthy tactics, whatever the verdict of her appeal. It may be in the mind of the homophobe, but she obviously thought it would make a difference, otherwise why would she bring it up? By your rationale, it would be in her mind too.

Oh, nice of you to declare an interest, since you are one of the few bloggers linked to on her appeal site.


[ Parent ]

Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#20)

by lastword on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:53:46 PM GMT

Lawrence, everything I've read about what was said in the trial says Grell didn't "bring up" her opponent's sexuality.  One resident - and only one resident on one occasion - ASKED HER a question (probably a trap question), which she was naive enough to respond to.  The fact that you think being gay is something to hide says more about your attitude towards homosexuality than it does Grell's.


[ Parent ]

Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#21)

by laurencemarshall on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:07:03 AM GMT

Ah, the obligatory straw man, with a hint of tu quoque. Very clever, you must be so proud of yourself.

Firstly, Grell admitted that she discussed Barry Smith's sexuality IN OPEN COURT.


Secondly, whether she brought it up is here nor there. In fact it's actually worse, since if she was the one who brought it up, she's just a homophobe. If she was naive enough to answer a question on it then she's a stupid homophobe!


Thirdly, the witness in question said that she brought it up, and, as people seem to be forgetting, she was found guilty!


Fourthly, being gay is not something I think that people should hide, but it's up to the individual. Surely the form would be not to discuss someone's private life? It was none of Grell's business what sexuallity Barry Smith was. And judging by the ease at which Mr Smith went from being gay to being a paedophile, and the subsequent persecution he received, it's not that far of a stretch to say, in this case, that it may have been wise for Mr Smith to openly state he was gay.
Also, we still live in a homophobic society. If I was gay and running for office, I would certainly think twice about announcing it. Hell, even our young elected councillors are homophobes, the example, of course, being Ms Grell.

Fifthly, by your tired and podding defence of Ms Grell, we can certainly see your attitude towards homosexuality.


Finally, the name is Laurence, not Lawrence. Get it right sunshine. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#22)

by lastword on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 09:31:23 AM GMT

"If I was gay and running for office, I would certainly think twice about announcing it".

I rest my case.

Grell's gay running mate in that ward in the local elections, had absolutely no problem with people knowing he was gay.

As for her speaking "in open court"  - it makes her seem honest to me, she obviously feels she has nothing to hide.  At least she's big enough to admit her mistakes.  Are you?  That doesn't mean she did what she's been convicted of though and I don't think she did.

Like others on this thread, I too really hope she wins her appeal.  


[ Parent ]

Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#23)

by laurencemarshall on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 10:41:05 PM GMT

Sunshine, I actually said "Also, we still live in a homophobic society. If I was gay and running for office, I would certainly think twice about announcing it."

So you rest your case on a straw man arguement? You must be very bright to use the same fallacy twice in a row! We can play the spot the fallacy game, that is if you know any other.

So what if Grell's running mate is gay? I'm guessing that Grell didn't go on about that, only Mr White's sexuality was discussed.

I'm glad she was honest in open court that she discussed a candidates sexuality. Bully for her. However, seeing how this was a pretty good defence for the crime she was convicted of, it was hardly done in the spirit of admitting her mistakes.

Actually, I've been trying to stick to the subject at hand, that of her casual homophobia, not whether she was guilty of effectively driving a gay man out of town with allegations of paedophillia.


[ Parent ]

Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#24)

by lastword on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:31:57 PM GMT

That's the point.  There was no casual homophobia in her campaign and she didn't drive anyone "out of town".  Of this many of us are convinced.


[ Parent ]

Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#42)

by laurencemarshall on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 01:22:22 AM GMT

Still convinced?


[ Parent ]

Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#25)

by Redflag85 on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 06:24:42 PM GMT

"Firstly, Grell admitted that she discussed Barry Smith's sexuality IN OPEN COURT.

Secondly, whether she brought it up is here nor there. In fact it's actually worse, since if she was the one who brought it up, she's just a homophobe. If she was naive enough to answer a question on it then she's a stupid homophobe!"
 
So if someone asks you a casual question about another councillor, you shouldn't answer it if the councillor happens to be gay? I don't see why anserwing a question about a gay councillor is any different to saying the same thing about a straight one.
 
I don't see how LastWord reffering to your argument about Ms Grell 'bringing up' talk about the councillor being gay ( filthy 'tactics' have to of course be planned out rather than incidental, or they wouldn't be tactical at all, let alone filthy) is in any way a 'strawman' as you seem to imply; perhaps I am mistaken as to what you refer to? 
 
"Firstly, Grell admitted that she discussed Barry Smith's sexuality IN OPEN COURT."
 
I thought that we had all agreed this?
 
"Secondly, whether she brought it up is here nor there. In fact it's actually worse, since if she was the one who brought it up, she's just a homophobe. If she was naive enough to answer a question on it then she's a stupid homophobe!"
 
This sentence is idiocy. If it doesn't matter, then what's all this about 'filthy tactics' , and why is it homophobis simply to answer a question as to whether or not a man has a boyfriend?
 
The only filthy tactics around here are people popping up from Leyton who have the temerity to go onto LabourHome (I wonder how they know wbout it unless they are a party member) and make a load of false allegations (which did not form the basis of the conviction, as I explained above) about a councillor... who is appealing her case anyway!
 
"Thirdly, the witness in question said that she brought it up, and, as people seem to be forgetting, she was found guilty!"
 
What witness in question? YOur point was based on the fact that she was convicted, not the evidence given by one witness.
 
I doubt that she was convicted on this testimony, and even if she was, this alone. If you are willing to believe one LibDem witness's testimony (which, by the way, does not match the facts to which Ms Grell admitted) in a matter demanding prrof beyond reasonable doubt, it says a lot more about your lack of standards on which you base your beliefs than it does about the weakness of anyone else's arguments.
 
 "Fourthly, being gay is not something I think that people should hide, but it's up to the individual. Surely the form would be not to discuss someone's private life?"
 
Probably. But is it the law? Let's wait for the appeal. Besides, I don't think that the councillor was hiding his sexuality, or it would be unlikely that Miss Grell would actually know anything about it. It's not like councillors routinely snoop on each others private lives. Well, most of them.   ;o)
 
"It was none of Grell's business what sexuallity Barry Smith was."
 
Indeed, but you'll see a lot of gossips about everywhere that aren't put through this. More to the point, the issue wasn't whether or not it was any of her business. THis is a moral matter, not a legal one.
 
"And judging by the ease at which Mr Smith went from being gay to being a paedophile, and the subsequent persecution he received, it's not that far of a stretch to say, in this case, that it may have been wise for Mr Smith to openly state he was gay."
 
Allegedly went from being gay to being a paedophile. Ms Grell denies, rather predictably for someone who has spent years fighting homophobia with various different organisations, that she ever said that his boyfriend was under age.
 
"Fifthly, by your tired and podding defence of Ms Grell, we can certainly see your attitude towards homosexuality."
 
Precisely. my attitude is that
a)being gay is not a shameful thing which should be taboo, and
b)That it is NOT the same as paedophilia, so mentioning someone's homosexuality is totally different to alleging that they are into children.
 
Pity about the court, eh?
 
"Finally, the name is Laurence, not Lawrence. Get it right sunshine. "
 
Possibly the least important factual inexactitude of this whole discussion, Laurence. My apologies.


Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#26)

by laurencemarshall on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 08:36:11 PM GMT

<!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } -->

“So if someone asks you a casual question about another councillor, you shouldn't answer it if the councillor happens to be gay? I don't see why anserwing a question about a gay councillor is any different to saying the same thing about a straight one.”

No, not if the discussion involves talking about his boyfriend in a gossipy way.

“I don't see how LastWord reffering to your argument about Ms Grell 'bringing up' talk about the councillor being gay ( filthy 'tactics' have to of course be planned out rather than incidental, or they wouldn't be tactical at all, let alone filthy) is in any way a 'strawman' as you seem to imply; perhaps I am mistaken as to what you refer to?” 

Yep, you're mistaken. I was refering to the statement "The fact that you think being gay is something to hide says more about your attitude towards homosexuality than it does Grell's." A clear example of taking the man and not the ball. Effectively implying I was a homophobe!

“I thought that we had all agreed this?”

I wasn't actually talking to you here, sorry if you're confused, I was talking to Lastword. I brought this up to prevent the inevaitable slide away from the point of the thread which was casual homophobia.

 “This sentence is idiocy. If it doesn't matter, then what's all this about 'filthy tactics' , and why is it homophobis simply to answer a question as to whether or not a man has a boyfriend?”

Why not just say nothing about it, as opposed to engaging in a gossipy conversation? She should have stayed quiet if she had any sense (and that's assuming she's innocent as opposed to what she was convicted of).

“The only filthy tactics around here are people popping up from Leyton who have the temerity to go onto LabourHome (I wonder how they know wbout it unless they are a party member) and make a load of false allegations (which did not form the basis of the conviction, as I explained above) about a councillor... who is appealing her case anyway!”

I know she is appealing her case, the issue here is about casual homophobia.

“What witness in question? YOur point was based on the fact that she was convicted, not the evidence given by one witness.”

I was trying to illustrate to Lastword that the witness and everyone else had agreed that Grell had discussed Whites homosexuality. My point wasn't based on the fact she was convicted, read properly.

“I doubt that she was convicted on this testimony, and even if she was, this alone. If you are willing to believe one LibDem witness's testimony (which, by the way, does not match the facts to which Ms Grell admitted) in a matter demanding prrof beyond reasonable doubt, it says a lot more about your lack of standards on which you base your beliefs than it does about the weakness of anyone else's arguments.”

I never said she was. I was merely trying to establish that Mr White's sexuality was discussed, which was what Lastword was casting some doubt on. Read properly.

“Probably. But is it the law? Let's wait for the appeal. Besides, I don't think that the councillor was hiding his sexuality, or it would be unlikely that Miss Grell would actually know anything about it. It's not like councillors routinely snoop on each others private lives. Well, most of them.   ;o)”

It's here nor there whether it's the law or not. I trying to stick with the theme of the thread which is casual homophobia.

“Indeed, but you'll see a lot of gossips about everywhere that aren't put through this. More to the point, the issue wasn't whether or not it was any of her business. THis is a moral matter, not a legal one.”

Other gossips aren't Labour candidates running for office. I expect a bit more from them. Yes, it is a moral matter, which is what I have been talking about in this thread, if you had bothered to read my posts (and incidentally what the thread is actually about).

"Allegedly went from being gay to being a paedophile. Ms Grell denies, rather predictably for someone who has spent years fighting homophobia with various different organisations, that she ever said that his boyfriend was under age."

Whoops typo there, it should have said “And judging by the ease at which Mr Smith went from being gay to being a paedophile, and the subsequent persecution he received, it's not that far of a stretch to say, in this case, that it may not have been wise for Mr Smith to openly state he was gay."

Mr White was called a paedophile in the street, indeed I've never actually said this was Grell's fault. My point was that it happened, and that it appears that the old accusation of gays being paedophiles has reared its ugly head.

“Precisely. my attitude is that

a)being gay is not a shameful thing which should be taboo, and

b)That it is NOT the same as paedophilia, so mentioning someone's homosexuality is totally different to alleging that they are into children.”

That sentence was to Lastword, not to you. Are you actually Lastword?

 

"Possibly the least important factual inexactitude of this whole discussion, Laurence. My apologies."

Er, again, that wasn't addressed to you. It was to Lastword. Not everything is about you you know.


[ Parent ]

Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#27)

by lastword on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 11:51:51 PM GMT

Dear oh dear.  I am not Red Flag, I am Lastword and I still disagree with every word you've written about Councillor Grell!


[ Parent ]

Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#29)

by Redflag85 on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 05:58:44 PM GMT

Whoops. confusion all round. Not quite sure where all of this is at the moment. Gah. Mind numbing. I apologise for my apparent misinterpretations.

"Why not just say nothing about it, as opposed to engaging in a gossipy conversation?"

I think that this is probably the only point of any validity in my view to come out of this; that's absolutely right. But by the same token, especially when properly entrapped, putting yourself in the situation, I'm sure you'd recognise that it's difficult to maintain the presence of mind to think about the situation with such clarity.

Moreover, simple gossip is not a serious matter. There is a big difference between gossiping about a man's boyfriend and

a) homophobia
b) a campaign of hate.

All of which leads us to the conclusion that

a) It is not unreasonable to appeal this, and it is probable that legal and factual miscalculations have been made
b) There are homophobic people in our community who conflate homosexuality with Paedophilia among all other manner of things; they must be fought
c) Ms Grell should have had more discretion, but her position is understandable even so (particularly if malice can be attributed to some of the witnesses - we will see at the appeal). Further, whether what she said is or isn't illegal depends entirely on two things: whether a judge (and indeed the alleged victim) equates homosexuality and paedophilia, and whether or not, as a matter of fact, Ms Grell called him a paedophile by asserting that his boyfriend was under the legal age of consent; which she maintains that she did not, though some witnesses (who are well known local Lib Dem supporters, may I add) maintain that she did. The mechanism for evaluating their evidence is potentially faulty and should be tested in appeal. It is therefore logically prudent not to speculate.


[ Parent ]

Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#30)

by Redflag85 on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 06:02:10 PM GMT

In essence, returning to the point about casual homophobia, though these remarks were about as casual as it gets, whether or not they were also homophobic is key to whether or not this constitutes casual homophobia.

So. Why is mentioning the fact that someone happens to fancies men and has relationships with them homophobic? It simply isn't.

Surely it is much more homophobic in any instance to equate a non accusatorial remark about a person's sexuality to allegations of paedophilia?


[ Parent ]

Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#32)

by lastword on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:24:57 AM GMT

What is exactly is wrong with being half Jewish!?!?!!  I too think there should be an internal investigation, not only into Grell and what she did or didn't do, but also an investigation into the identities of Labour party members  posting on this website who don't appear to be allowing a due legal process (Miranda Grell's appeal) to take its course


[ Parent ]

Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#34)

by laurencemarshall on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:54:39 PM GMT

How is anybody stopping a due legal process? With all due respect, you really are a pillock. Oh, and an anonomous pillock at that.


[ Parent ]

Imagine if this woman had said something racist (#31)

by davidt on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 09:45:19 AM GMT

Imagine that there had been a whispering campaign against a Councillor, suggesting that he was a half-jew or a "quadroon".

Would people here seriously be saying "Well, she was only stating a fact".

It is quite right that she has been suspended from the Party, pending an investigation. There should also be an investigation into whether there is any organised campaign within Labour to support her, now that she has been convicted.


Waltham Forest Labour Funds Appeal (#33)

by davidt on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 02:06:26 PM GMT

This story makes me sick with shame for my party.

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1810672.mostviewed.waltham_forestlabour_backs_shame d_councillor.php

THE Labour Party has decided to fund shamed councillor Miranda Grell's appeal against a ruling that she smeared an election rival.

Grell won a Leyton ward seat for Labour, overturning a large majority held by Liberal Democrat Barry Smith.

But Grell, who was seen as a rising star in the Labour Party, has since been found guilty of claiming Barry Smith was a paedophile while canvassing for votes in last year's local elections.

The judgement means that she is disqualified from being a councillor for three years and has been suspended from her job as aide to the Deputy Mayor of London Nicky Gavron.

She is appealing the decision and a campaign, called Justice for Leyton Ward, was set up to raise the £30,000 Grell estimates she needs to fight and win her appeal.

But the national Labour Party has now agreed to pay for her legal costs until the appeal is over.
...

She is expected to allege that the police investigation was flawed and that a racist plot was partly the reason why allegations were made against her.


Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#35)

by davidfloyd on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 07:01:59 PM GMT

"This story makes me sick with shame for my party."

Well, maybe the people who made the decision to fund the appeal did so on the basis of evidence that will come out at the appeal and it's possible that you might feel less sick after you've heard it.

 


Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#36)

by janestheone on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:56:52 AM GMT

and if Miranda wins her appeal will some of you posting on here post public withdrawals and apologies?


Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#40)

by laurencemarshall on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 02:56:01 AM GMT

Looks like there's no need for an apology!


[ Parent ]

Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#37)

by Group51 on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 10:41:59 PM GMT

Forgive me, but did she or did she not say that this guy was a paedophile?

Or did she say that his boyfriend was much younger than him (19) and make light of this like a cradle-snatcher?

Or did she just confirm that he was gay?  Did she OUT him?

What is she meant to have actually said?  Is the court transcipt online?


Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#38)

by Group51 on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 10:49:02 PM GMT

"Nicholas Russell, another Labour candidate who stood in Leyton, told the court he overheard Ms Grell telling two young men that Mr Smith was gay and was offended when she made "homophobic kissing noises" towards Mr Wright when he received a call from his boyfriend."

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/walthamforestnews/walthamforestnews/display.var.1684471.0.waltham_f orest_sex_slur_allegations_were_made_in_revenge_claims_councillor.php

What is a homophobic kissing noise?


Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#39)

by SW on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 10:56:16 AM GMT

As some predicted, there were new developments at the appeal. But it turned out to be more prosecution witnesses who had heard her! The appeal was rejected yesterday meaning that she is is now a former councillor. Party processes are about to start. This was bad stuff. Those who treated it lightly or who thought that there was not much wrong with what she did, or that we should always stick by a Labour colleague should be ashamed of themselves.


Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#41)

by Group51 on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 11:32:38 PM GMT

So, she admitted doing a nudge-nudge wink wink thing about the councillor's partner's age.  She can F*ck right off then.


Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#43)

by laurencemarshall on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 02:12:37 PM GMT

Do any of her defenders have anything more to say? I discussed with her defenders ad infinitum, and they were droning on about how the court case was dodgy blah blah blah.

Since she's been declared guilty on appeal, I'm inviting those defenders to admit they were wrong and that they were blinded by excessive partisan vitriol.

C'mon, stop hiding. 


Re: Casual homophobia is not acceptable (#44)

by lastword on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:21:05 PM GMT

Directly after the appeal, her barrister told anyone who was listen that she'd been "stitched up" and the whole thing was "murky".


[ Parent ]

Casual homophobia is not acceptable | 44 comments (44 topical)