Well, there’s plenty of Conservative precedent for hypocrisy/double standards on homosexuality, isn’t there – how many (closeted) gay Tories voted for good old “Section 28″ back in…er..1988, wasn’t it? (Or was it voted on in ’87, enacted in ’88? I forget)

I totally agree with Soho Politico. One thing though. Aren’t we giving Ian Dale too much importance? He’s going to love this- you know that, don’t you?.

“Iain Dale helps limit the damage done by stories that challenge the Conservatives record on LGBT issues.”

So is this about standing up for the rights of the LGBT community or about trying to damage the Tories? The problem is that some may believe the former is being used for partisan purposes to achieve the latter. That I suspect is what causes such stories to be taken less seriously.

So lemmie get this straight – Iain Dale isn’t “gay” enough for you?

He hardly makes any secret of being gay or having a civil partner.

What happened to “free to be whatever you are”?

I blogged on Jan Moir “Pink Taxi & a Fag for Jan Moir”
BRAYS DUCKHOUSE BLOG: http://tinyurl.com/pknlxn

I think Iain has the right to feel bitter about his Open and also the right to change his mind as often as he wants. Tomorrow is another day, rather than have a go at Iain how do we collectively get rid of cyclops? The country faces at least 15 years of penury, and few people have come up with a solution,,,

Have you so quickly forgotten the iron law of LC – that Guido and Dale MUST BE IGNORED ?

@ Claude, no. 3: I do not take a stand on how much influence Dale actually has. I only claim that, to the extent that he has influence, he is using it in a lamentable way.

@ Richard, no. 5: if some say that then they are being silly. If one is committed to LGBT rights then one will naturally take issue with those who say and do things that are damaging to that cause. I am partisan for LGBT rights. Dale is partisan for the Tories, and, as my post argues, that has led him to take up positions that are at loggerheads with LGBT rights.

@ cjcjc: Honestly, I wondered how long it would take for you to turn up with that old chestnut. Clearly, whether or not it has ever been LC policy to ignore Dale, it isn’t mine: I say he should be challenged.

Why are you lot so obsessed with me? It’s a continuing mystery to me.

So now you want me to condemn every single homophobic comment or action made by anyone, anywhere. Believe it or not, I am not obsessed by a single issue. Next you’ll be accusing me of being homophobic myself. Actually, Alex Hilton already tried that one two years ago.

Grow up.

One has to have foreign allies, thanks to the Euro Parliament. They will not always meet one’s own standards. Iain Dale would have to be a bloody idiot to join in a concerted attack on his own party’s allies. Perhaps you should, in the spirit of fairness and improving everyone’s awful European allies, highlight the deficiencies of the PES and EPP.

@ Iain Dale, no. 9:

Why are you lot so obsessed with me? It’s a continuing mystery to me.

Does voicing criticism about someone’s bad record on gay issues count as obsession now? Does this mean you are obsessed with Peter McKay?

So now you want me to condemn every single homophobic comment or action made by anyone, anywhere.

That depends on whether or not you are the same Iain Dale who once said the following: “I condemn ALL hompohobic [sic] attacks. The word ALL is important here.”

Believe it or not, I am not obsessed by a single issue.

This is absolutely astonishing as a defence. Do you also think that, if someone were called out for expressing solidarity with a denier of anti-semitism, it would be an acceptable excuse for them to say, ‘Oh well, believe it or not I never said that I was obsessive about Jewish issues.’

It is revealing that you think that people who are actually concerned by the idea of LGBT equality are just single issue obsessives. TBH I find it all too easy to believe that you are not interested in this issue to any degree, let alone obsessed. But it is not just the lack of interest that is galling: it is your having gone out of your way to court, support and legitimise people who express sentiments that are harmful to the cause of LGBT equality. In not only failing to distance yourself from homophobia but going out your way to associate yourself with people who spout anti-gay sentiments, you are actively working against those who are interested in this issue.

I suggest, next time a gay news outlet asks for a quote or an interview with ‘out gay Tory blogger Iain Dale’, that instead of talking to them you say, ‘Sorry, but I am not obsessed with a single issue.’

Next you’ll be accusing me of being homophobic myself. Actually, Alex Hilton already tried that one two years ago.

Grow up.

It speaks volumes that you think you get a pass on all this just because you are yourself gay.

So now you want me to condemn every single homophobic comment or action made by anyone, anywhere.

That depends on whether or not you are the same Iain Dale who once said the following: “I condemn ALL hompohobic [sic] attacks. The word ALL is important here.”

In fairness, I think that the “I condemn ALL homophobic attacks” is a blanket statement, rather than a pledge to condemn – like some kind of modern-day Wowbagger – each attack individually…in person…in alphabetical order…

If he is doing it selectively – and you think it’s worth your time and webspace – it’d be better to challenge him on that.

Would someone like to explain why my comment was deleted?

Do I really have to? The comments you attributed to another commenter were not his – it was someone maliciously trying to be him. This was pointed out on the site too, but you conveniently seemed to have missed that. But anyway, continue with your whataboutery….

‘The comments you attributed to another commenter were not his – it was someone maliciously trying to be him.….’

Actually, I didn’t attribute them to him, whoever posted them on this site did and by hosting them so did you.

As to ‘whataboutary’, isn’t that precisely what this article is?

How else are we to take: ‘But whilst Dale is happy to condemn a newspaper that has a history of targeting him personally, he singularly refuses to criticise anti-gay prejudice closer to home. Indeed, he has not merely failed to speak up against homophobia among Conservatives and their allies.’

and by hosting them so did you.

I deleted them. So please stop trying to imply something which isn’t true. This smear by association is getting annoying.

As to ‘whataboutary’, isn’t that precisely what this article is?

It’s pointing out someone’s stances on an issue. I suppose if we’d published something attacking Labour’s record on LGBT rights you wouldn’t have this problem. Can you never actually make a constructive comment?

@ BenSix:

If he is doing it selectively – and you think it’s worth your time and webspace – it’d be better to challenge him on that.

Bizarre. I just spent an entire post doing just that.

@Shatterface:

As to ‘whataboutary’, isn’t that precisely what this article is?

Pointing out that someone has a checkered history on an issue is whataboutery now? Seriously?

I dispute the fact that marriage is a state licensed function. The church is significantly older than the state and simply because it is, to some extent, now regulated by the state diminishes its religious conotations not one jot. You just can’t rewrite history like that.

Sterling work, Soho.

Nice to see reasoning and consistency being put to excellent effect on Dale in the comments, too. I see he hasn’t returned after you demolished he weak excuses.

Cheers @Paul Sagar

@ 18:

I dispute the fact that marriage is a state licensed function. The church is significantly older than the state and simply because it is, to some extent, now regulated by the state diminishes its religious conotations not one jot. You just can’t rewrite history like that.

As to which is older: which church and which state do you have in mind?

And even if you are right about which is older, we ‘rewrite history like that’ (i.e. decline to accede to religious views about how some aspect of life ought to be legally regulated) all the time.

If we did not, the contemporary law of marriage and divorce would be unrecognisable. So would the law on domestic violence and child abuse. And the law on slavery. And on capital and corporal punishment. And so on and so forth.

To repeat: religion has neither the first nor last word on marriage – or, indeed, on these other questions. After all, mixed-race marriage was also once resisted on religious grounds…

Dear Mr/Mrs Soho Politico

I definately think religion has the first word on marriage. I can’t think of any major religion where it isn’t practiced and venerated. I guess it comes down to the individuals’ perception of what marriage is. There has been a significant cultural shift in Blighty from perhaps the 60′s in that marriage isn’t permanent and more recently that it isn’t exclusive. All well & good in law – no problems at all (for it isn’t any of my business). However, marriage is, was & shall be sanctioned by God (again, don’t give a toss which God that is) so for those that hold religion as sacred, for whatever reasons – it has nothing to do with secular or common law but a covenant between two people in the company of God in His house.

I am in no particular dispute with your general tract but I do find it a bit casual to eliminate religion from marriage. This isn’t a criticism of the progress that marriage or civil ceremonies have achieved and I would certainly not wish to repeal anything or even to get involved in what people identify as marriage but I just wanted to make the point that to eliminate the spiuritual in such an event is pissing on couples.

Maybe the LGBT equality movement is asking for too much of people.
Dale says he supports civil partnerships, but can live without it being called marriage if people have a problem with that. I think that’s fair enough.
To get really animated and not be happy untill everyone accepts all of the LGBT equality agenda is perhaps just setting in place a war of attrition with the right that gets boring quite quickly. I know some people that have reactionary views in with regards to gay marriage and gay adoption, but don’t think it’s worth berating them about it.

I have no time for Dale or any of his ilk. I think that this kind of post is kind of counter-productive though. I mean, he’s a blogger. This kind of inter-blog, inter-site sniping contributes to the insular feel of the blogosphere and I think it is kind of worthless. Just ignore the idiot.

@ 21:

I just wanted to make the point that to eliminate the spiuritual in such an event is pissing on couples.

I didn’t do that, however. I explicitly acknowledged that, for some couples, marriage is also a sacrament. Nonetheless, that affects not one iota what the law of marriage should look like. Religious adherents are welcome to regard their vows as having spiritual significance. But their views should not be allowed to influence who is allowed to make those vows in the first place.

@ 22:

I know some people that have reactionary views in with regards to gay marriage and gay adoption, but don’t think it’s worth berating them about it.

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

Mr/Mrs/Miss (sorry, missed that one out before!)

No, not at all – completely agree. But the church, sinagogue, mosque, temple, shrine etc ad infinitum certainly do have the legitimate right to exclude those that it identifies as inappropriate for its blessing and the state shouldn’t intervene in that at all. Read in the Metro that a couple got married in a strip bar over the weekend – yowzers!

“No, not at all – completely agree. But the church, sinagogue, mosque, temple, shrine etc ad infinitum certainly do have the legitimate right to exclude those that it identifies as inappropriate for its blessing and the state shouldn’t intervene in that at all.”

I agree with that – the first thing I can remember you saying that I agree with! Speaking as a member of the Church I don’t want to exclude all gay people from our blessing. However, there are many heterosexual unions (and many homosexual unions, too) whom I’d want to exclude from our blessing. I bet there are heterosexual marriages you wouldn’t approve of too, and yet the Church allows them to be called marriages in law.

The only way you can be consistent is to take marriage out of the legal system altogether. Not to ban it, but for it not to be recognised by law. Civil partnerships should be the legal form of union. That way everyone is consistent before the law, and religious people can still decide who is allowed to get married or not. (For the record, my position on who should be allowed to get married is that they should have to be a member of the church in whose presence they are getting married, or get the blessing of the church membership first if not.)

Mr/Mrs/Miss (sorry, missed that one out before!)

Not that gender ambiguity is by any stretch a bad thing, but it’s Mr

@tim f – that’s quite a sensible idea for a lot of stuff really. Enact a sort of lowest common denominator stage and then just make it possible to have added bits & bobs on to their own specification. A sort of law making like cars – if you want the alloys or the sat nav then no problem.

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.

@ 24

”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

I do indeed condemn ALL homophobic attacks, as I have previously stated. What I do not do is get drawn into having to condemn every individual instance, which is what SohoPolitico and others constantly try to get me to do. Just because I don’t pronounce on something doesn’t mean I don’t have a view.

Iain, your second comment is as disingenuous as your first. You are more than happy to pronounce on how far the Conservative Party has come on gay issues (for instance, you recently told the gay press that, on your estimates there are only five or so Tories who would vote to repeal civil partnerships, if given the chance). So you earn the charge of acting in bad faith when you are not also prepared to acknowledge that the Tory record on this issue is at best checkered.

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 been deleting my posts again eh, Sunny?

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.

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?

‘Read in the Metro that a couple got married in a strip bar over the weekend – yowzers!’

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

SohoPolitico. it’s a good job you’re not a historian as you are very good at rewriting history. 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. As for Helmer, I refer you to UKLiberty at 33.

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?

“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?”

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…

Dale “We’re not all the way there yet, but we’re light years away from where we were even 7 years ago.”

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?

Iain@35

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

@ ukliberty, 33:

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 see this Europe thing as an Achilles heel for the Tories but considering the fact that we’re the only party in Europe that isn’t whoring itself on the alter of mediocrity; I guess it’s to be expected. Personally, I couldn’t give a monkeys what some geezer from anywhere proscribes for their own region thinks – I only care about Blighty and our incremental defeat. Labour can side with mad, bad and loony as much as it likes to sell me & mine down the river – for me, if LGBT peeps get screwed but I can get out, well – that’s the price to pay. Has anyone seen my referendum – sure I saw it a bit ago, seem to have misplaced it!!

Soho Politico @ 39, it seems to me that what Helmer said was not homophobic but stupid – you seem to have a broader view.

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.

@ 41:

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.

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?

@ 44:

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.

So if someone does a lot of work to combat racism, but is believed to be homophobic, other people against racism should denounce, distance, and refuse to work with him?

There’s surely no doubt that homophobia is written on the heart of the right wing of the Conservative party. Along with a considerable strain of sexism, and a still recurring whiff of anti semitism.

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.

“For how can he now coherently argue against those who say that the legal regulation of sexual conduct is generally an innately religious matter, and therefore that homosexuality ought to be banned outright?”

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.

@45: Since it strongly appears you are trolling now, I don’t think I ought to even be answering, but still: this will have to be my final word in this exchange. You asked for, and I gave you my view on how Helmer ought to have been treated. You now give me a bizarre hypothetical case that represents a dilemma for people who are concerned with bigotry (do we support an individual who is an anti-racism hero, but homophobic?) The case is too abstract for me to have a view about it. Nor does anything I said previously imply that I need to take a view on it – I never spoke to the case where we have to choose between combating homophobia and other kinds of prejudice. So your challenge is lame. And irrelevant too, for of course Helmer is not a race-relations hero, nor indeed indispensable on any worthwhile cause.* So do not try to maintain that Dale made a deal with the devil because Helmer was too important an ally to lose. Dale’s show of unity was gratuitous. After all, Helmer lost the Tory whip once before, on a different matter, so it must have been held then that the world would keep turning without him.

* 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.’

How delicious to see a comment by Iain Dale (#35) of all people accusing others of ‘rewriting history’.

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