In other news, here’s further evidence that Iain Dale condemns homophobia very selectively indeed:
http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2008/08/iain_dales_refu.asp

* Perhaps you think I left myself open to your challenge because I assented to the view that Dale should have disowned Helmer ‘no matter how many other things, no matter how important those things are, that they can agree upon’. But I assented to that view on the basis of the real facts about Helmer, not the imaginary ones in which he is a leading race-relations activist, or essential ally on some other important cause. Dale certainly didn’t refer to any such cause: he did not say ‘Alas, Helmer is anti-gay, and how I wish that we did not have to have anything to do with him. But he is also so vital to cause x that we must keep him close.’

By denying that regulation of sexual conduct IS an innately religious matter. While he seems to accept that marriage IS partly an innately religious matter (historically, of course, marriage was regulated under canon law, not statute).

I don’t see why agreeing with the religious on one issue means he is allowing them to determine his view on all issues.

But since they undoubtedly share these repellent attitudes with fundamental Islam, we should be even-handed in our condemnation of both organisations.

Strangely, as left-wingers, we never are.

I don’t believe I even claimed it, let alone maintained it.

I wasn’t trying to imply that you had. If there is room for confusion, read the offending sentence as ‘One could not seriously maintain…’ then.

Nevertheless Dale should “denounce” and “distance” Helmer, and shouldn’t associate with him no matter how many other things, no matter how important those things are, that they can agree upon?

Quite so. To maintain otherwise is like claiming that it is OK to associate oneself with Hitler as long as one has in mind his vegetarianism but not his anti-Semitism. Or, to take a recent example, that it is OK to lionise Enoch Powell so long as one does not have in mind his views on immigration. As in those examples, Dale tried to rehabilitate the reputation of a bigot. My position is that when this is done it undermines the efforts of others to overcome bigotry.

You are being deliberately obtuse if you cannot see the homophobia in pretending that the prejudice, violence and abuse meted out to LGBTs isn’t really happening.

I don’t know – I think some people are genuinely obtuse.

You cannot seriously maintain that either are simply being sticklers for academic precision.

I don’t believe I even claimed it, let alone maintained it. To be clear, it seems to me that the people who see meaning of a word only in its roots (as opposed to what most people think the word means) are a bit thick.

My statement did not include even an implicit suggestion that Dale, or anybody else, ought to be punished or prevented from saying what is unacceptable, so if your intent is to suggest that I am guilty of some kind of liberal fascism, don’t bother.

Nevertheless Dale should “denounce” and “distance” Helmer, and shouldn’t associate with him no matter how many other things, no matter how important those things are, that they can agree upon?

It certainly was homophobic. You are being deliberately obtuse if you cannot see the homophobia in pretending that the prejudice, violence and abuse meted out to LGBTs isn’t really happening. By implication, Helmer suggests that those who complain about homophobia are fantasists, or liars, or hypersensitive. I have personally experienced something that Helmer claims doesn’t exist. How do you want me to take what he says, if not as an offensive slur on my honesty, and an attempt to ridicule and trivialise my experiences? It is analogous to the slurs that Holocaust denial implies about the honesty and the experiences of the Jewish community.

Helmer appears to be one of those clever-clever people who claims the meaning of a word can only be found from its root(s)

Again, the parallel with Holocaust denial is instructive here. Holocaust deniers hide behind (what they claim are) ambiguities in the archeological evidence. Similarly, Helmer hides behind semantics. You cannot seriously maintain that either are simply being sticklers for academic precision.

It wouldn’t have been “acceptable” for Dale or anyone else to say that?

I don’t fancy living in your or Helmer’s world.

Oh please. My statement did not include even an implicit suggestion that Dale, or anybody else, ought to be punished or prevented from saying what is unacceptable, so if your intent is to suggest that I am guilty of some kind of liberal fascism, don’t bother.

Helmer appears to be one of those clever-clever people who claims the meaning of a word can only be found from its root(s) – and he either denies the evidence of his own eyes (and evidence from his colleagues, such as Dale) or has genuinely never heard of ‘negative behaviour from discrimination to violence against homosexuals for being homosexual’, which I find highly unlikely.

If Helmer had said anti-semitism doesn’t exist it would not have been acceptable for Dale, or anyone else, to say, ‘Well OK, he is anti-Jewish, but there is still more uniting us than dividing us’.

It wouldn’t have been “acceptable” for Dale or anyone else to say that?

I don’t fancy living in your or Helmer’s world.

Try as I might I cannot see the problem with Dale’s stance on Helmer. Dale said Helmer was wrong and he said why Helmer was wrong – but that there were lots of things they agreed on and that’s why they are in the same party. Seems unreasonable to think this trivialises what Helmer said.

Then you are having a failure of imagination. If Helmer had said anti-semitism doesn’t exist it would not have been acceptable for Dale, or anyone else, to say, ‘Well OK, he is anti-Jewish, but there is still more uniting us than dividing us’. In that context expressing the view that Helmer was still part of the Tory family would have been rightly seen as trivialising bigotry: when someone is found to be an anti-semite it is time to denounce and distance, not hug the offender closer. Well, what Helmer in fact said was just as obnoxious. But what Iain’s intervention achieved was to suggest that one can indugle in homophobia and yet not be seen as beyond the pale, or outside the mainstream of the party. He did indeed trivialise Helmer’s comments.

@ Iain Dale, 35:

I didn’t cosy up to Kaminski. i interviewed him. And I asked him some tough questions. Unlike you I was satisfied with his answers.

Well, you failed to ask him questions about, for instance, the Law and Justice Party’s banning of gay pride marches, on grounds that they are ‘obscene’. You repeatedly expressed agreement with him, and, indeed, on one occasion were so keen to do so that you spoke over him, making the argument that a child should be raised by a man and a woman before he even got a chance to:

ID: Ok, what about gay adoption?
MK: I am against gay adoption.
ID: Why?
MK: Because it’s a sensitive issue, and a child is something that…
ID: But let’s look at this – I agree with you by the way, I think ideally a child should be raised by a man and a woman…

Kaminski was not challenged on gay adoption – he was given an easy ride, and this pat on the back: ‘there are lots of people in this country who aren’t homophobic who don’t believe in gay adoption’. In addition, your summary of the interview at the head of your blog post misleadingly suggests that he would vote for civil partnerships in Poland, when he merely says he would ‘consider’ it, after having more than once resisted endorsing civil unions, on grounds that Poland is at a ‘different stage’. Your verdict is ‘I came out absolutely convinced that Kaminski doesn’t have a homophlobic or anti Semitic bone in his body.’ Sorry, but it is a soft interview, and a glowing report card, at least on this topic.

I fully admit that in the past the Tory Party has indeed had a checkered history on gay rights. But due to the efforts of many people – and I have played a small part myself – that is now very different. What would be nice if that you could take your blinkers off and just for once, acknowledge that. We’re not all the way there yet, but we’re light years away from where we were even 7 years ago. Why can’t you just celebrate that?

I applaud those advances – who wouldn’t? But unfortunately there are also respects in which the party is going backwards – specifically in terms of the company it keeps in Europe. The Tories are now standing shoulder-to-shoulder with parties that prohibit gay pride marches, and ban discussion of homosexuality, in Poland and Lithuania. That is a new, depressing development. So no, I am not ready to pop any champagne corks just yet.

I do acknowledge the progress the Conservatives have made on diversity issues. I don’t really understand why, since you do condemn all aspects of homophobia, you would find it difficult to express solidarity with those in Lithuania challenging this homophobic law. It would be good if the Conservatives could actively press the importance of these issues on your European allies, surely?

—
On a separate issue, I must admit I am surprised to hear that you are (and remain) satisfied with the answers Kaminski gave you. It took me some time to work out whether or not I felt the challenges to Kaminski stood up. After the interview with the Jewish Chronicle at the same time as yours, and in the most recent reporting in The Observer, it is clear beyond doubt that Kaminski, this summer, gave a false account in a series of press interviews of his conduct over the 2001 Jewadbne apology in Poland.

His answers to you over Jewadbne also strike me as having been misleading, given what has now entered the public domain. His claims to have been actively involved in challenging anti-semitism are unsubstantiated.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/11/michal-kaminski-europe-conservatives

You do talk some utter shit Dale.

It is all an act to con the average voter that the brownshirts have changed their spots. They have not. They are anti abortion, anti science, and anti gay. In effect, they have become the American Republican party. And apologists like you are either liars or deeply stupid.

Does it not slightly concern you, even just a teeny bit, that many in your party would be delighted to put you on top of a bonfire?

How about you get things rolling by celebrating the role of the Left in promoting gay rights in Britain, perhaps starting with Labour-run borough councils in the 80s? Why can’t you just celebrate that?

Expressing regret for the Conservative Party’s (successful) use of gay-baiting against the left during that period might indicate good faith on your part. Cameron got round to apologising for the Thatcher government’s support of Apartheid after all. Keep going…

I fully admit that in the past the Tory Party has indeed had a checkered history on gay rights. But due to the efforts of many people – and I have played a small part myself – that is now very different. What would be nice if that you could take your blinkers off and just for once, acknowledge that. We’re not all the way there yet, but we’re light years away from where we were even 7 years ago. Why can’t you just celebrate that?

Christ – imagine what the stag night must have been like!

I imagine the 20-30 Labour MPs who regularly vote against their party on civil liberties issues likewise believe there is more that unites them with their colleagues than divides them. If one of them was to make that point, would he be trivialising civil liberties issues?

Besides, as you well know, the criticisms levelled against you do not just say that you have been silent in the face of homophobia. What is worse is that you have gone out of your way to cosy up to and legitimise people with homophobic records. It is one thing to stay silent when your fellow Tories, like Helmer, make harmful, homophobic statements. But you actively tried to deflect the flak that Helmer was attracting, by putting out the view that what he said was not so big of a deal that you did not still consider yourself ‘united’ with him. Similar remarks apply to the Kaminski interview. Stay silent if you must. But the least you can do is stop making it harder for the rest of us by actively propping up homophobia.

”You should also know that some people have reactionary views about race. Do you think it is not worth berating them either?”

I really don’t think a couple of my catholic aunties will ever really see gay marriage as being just the same as hetrosexual marriage. They’re quite old fashioned. What would be the point? Is that the same as race? The government doesn’t think so.

The most liberal and leftist opinion isn’t always the best and only one worth having.
Isn’t multi-culturalism meant to be about accepting people’s differences?
And some people are traditionalist about ideas of family and sexuality.

I’m not really that keen on some of the views of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani of Iraq, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to denounce Shia Islam.
(See the Q & A section for some interesting opinions).
http://www.sistani.org/local.php?modules=nav&nid=5

Not wanting to bore the paint from the walls but I was learning about ‘dynamic procurement’ last week in that negotiations can take place right up until the deal is signed (and after, in certain broad categories) which doesn’t require lever arch file tender submissions, allows for changes in circumstances (recession) and facilitates a bespoke service to deliver what the customer wants and (the biggy for local government) significantly avoids litigation. There could be a sort of ‘dynamic civil partnership’ system.