Return to: Home | Blogs | Cultural Capital

Stephen Gately deserves better than this

Jan Moir's homophobic rant is a disgrace

On the day the remaining members of Boyzone prepare to bring the body of their adored bandmate and "brother" Stephen Gately back to Dublin, the Daily Mail columnist Jan Moir has unleashed a poisonous piece of thinly veiled homophobia, entitled "Why there was nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's death".

In her column, which is little more than ill-informed conjecture, and in sickeningly insensitive bad taste, Moir refuses to accept Gately's mother's official statement that there is a history of heart problems in the family, preferring instead to insinuate that -- you know -- he's a gay man, so it must have been drugs, mustn't it?

Consider the way it has been largely reported, as if Gately had gently keeled over at the age of 90 in the grounds of the Bide-a-Wee rest home while hoeing the sweet pea patch.

The sugar coating on this fatality is so saccharine-thick that it obscures whatever bitter truth lies beneath. Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again.

Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one. Let us be absolutely clear about this. All that has been established so far is that Stephen Gately was not murdered.

And I think if we are going to be honest, we would have to admit that the circumstances surrounding his death are more than a little sleazy.

Oh really, would we? What, because a couple who have been in a committed and loving marriage for three years (and despite the legal jargon, it is marriage) decide to open up their sex life from time to time in their own home? That's far worse than cheating on your wife with prostitutes, isn't it? Or, say, being found asphyxiated in ladies' underwear with an orange in your gob.

What is most disgusting -- and utterly hateful -- however, is Moir's pronouncement on gay partnerships in general. She implies that there is something inherently immoral, dirty and wrong about same-sex relationships by dragging poor Matt Lucas and his late ex-husband into her vile logic:

Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael.

Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately's last night raise troubling questions about what happened.

For once again, under the carapace of glittering, hedonistic celebrity, the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see.

Two different and very sad deaths among hundreds of thousands of successful, happy, loving gay partnerships. But Moir's message is all too clear: gay relationships will never be "normal" -- and, by extension, if tragedy befalls a gay couple, then they only had it coming to them.

There is growing outrage at the Mail as Moir's column ripples across the internet. Some, including the Fabian Society's Sunder Katwala, have suggested that the article be reported to the Press Complaints Commission.

UPDATE: After Facebook users set up a group suggesting that people offended by the article should complain to companies that advertise with the Daily Mail, the paper appears to have taken down all corporate advertising from the page that hosts Moir's piece, and has changed its headline to the more anodyne "A strange, lonely and troubling death".

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

19 comments from readers

Rachel
16 October 2009 at 13:54

There's a facebook group with details of the advertisers whose brand ads are running next to the online and print content.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=151083562155

A good way of encouraging the mail to take this seriously is to let the advertisers know the damage being associated with such hateful content does to their brands.

They can then instruct their media buying departments and their PR departments to contact the Mail.

This may have a salutary effect. Pressurise the Mail where it hurts.

Nick Heath
16 October 2009 at 13:56

I am seething and totally disgusted with what she's been allowed to write in the Mail article. I've got too many thoughts coming out at once to be particularly eloquent just yet, but suffice to say I will be supporting any such movements to highlight the outrageous nature of journalism of this kind.

Barbara
16 October 2009 at 14:04

Well said. The ignorance and bigotry of Jan Moir's article appalled me.

Big D
16 October 2009 at 14:56

Quite right that this appalling excuse for journalism should be properly identified as the pointless, hateful, bigotted propaganda that it is, but let's not replace one prejudice with another and start drawing up a moral code that may or may not endorse dressing in women's underwear and using one kind of fruit for a gag but not another.

Tom
16 October 2009 at 15:06

I have complained to the PCC about the article in question. The thing that troubles me slightly is that even if there are a significant number of complaints (as I am sure there will be), as far as I can tell, the Daily Mail will not feel any repercussions. Does anyone else know any different?

Tim
16 October 2009 at 16:25

@Tom - according to the piece in The Guardian today, journos in the tabs don't expect more than a 'slap on the wrist'

Tom
16 October 2009 at 16:31

@Tim - That's a sad reflection on the PCC. It seems it is a toothless body. Rumours are circulating on Twitter that the number of complaints exceeds 6000 and that the PCC website went down temporarily under the weight of traffic. Let's hope that this kind of response will provoke unprecidented action from the PCC.

OffClowns
16 October 2009 at 16:35

'That's far worse than cheating on your wife with prostitutes, isn't it? Or, say, being found asphyxiated in ladies' underwear with an orange in your gob.'

Apt headline.

hendrix_lennon
16 October 2009 at 16:43

Moir states: "What happened before they parted is known only to the two men still alive. What happened afterwards is anyone's guess."

So she quite obviously doesn't know the particular circumstances regarding Gately's death - nobody does yet.

Why then has she formulated an opinion piece over a tragic circumstance that she freely admits to know nothing about?

Graham Perrin
17 October 2009 at 02:39

A heavily orchestrated Internet campaign by Daily Mail and General Trust and Brown Lloyd James: http://grahamperrin.posterous.com/baton

#dailymail #janmoir

Martin
17 October 2009 at 09:39

Homophobic? That old shrill cry again. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? His death IS a little strange after all and raises legitimate questions. One cannot also ignore the stark fact that the average life expectancy of homosexual men is way below that of heterosexual men.

SUEY
17 October 2009 at 13:43

on my god. i cannot beleive Martin's comments. you're as bad as Moir. his death is a little strange? why? because he's gay? you ignorant insensitive fool. people die suddenly all the time. i can vouch for that having lost someone under such circumstances. his sexuality has nothing to do with his death. to think so displays a shocking level of ignorance and stupidity.

Christian
17 October 2009 at 21:09

To me the major offense of the article was not that it was homophobic etc. I would even say I expect the Daily Mail to be constantly harping on about how homosexuality is an inferior "lifestyle" as this panders to it's socially conservative base. Nor do I want to censor people's opinions on such issues even though I vehemently oppose those beliefs.

It was the implication that his greaving partner and the Bulgarian man were somehow responsible for Gately's death because they may or may not have had sexual relations. The evidence for this was in the original title "Why there was nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's death" even though the coroner said otherwise, and that the supposedly "sleazy" lifestyle was somehow responsible without any evidence to back it up. I think there is a good case to say that casting such aspersions is clearly implying something extremely libelous upon someone who is already in a very vulnerable state. That is why the PCC should act and people are right to complain. The fact she used the death to make a cheap and irrational point about homosexuality before the man was even buried just casts light on Ms Moir's dubious morality.

Martin
17 October 2009 at 23:28

Someone dared cast aspersions on a gay person!!!

What a fuss over nothing.

MosesO
18 October 2009 at 09:49

Jan Moir's recent article, whilst homophobic in the extreme, was not uniquely hateful. This week, the Ugandan MP David Bahati recently launched an Anti-Homosexuality Bill - yes, it's actually called that - even though homosexuality is already illegal in the state. The bill:

1. Mandates the death penalty for HIV-positive people who engage in sex with people of the same gender;

2. Calls for Uganda to withdraw from all international treaties and conventions which support the rights of lesbians, gays and bisexuals;

3. Introduces extradition arrangements for Ugandan citizens who perform 'homosexual acts' abroad

4. Includes legal penalties for people who fail to report alleged homosexual acts or individuals and institutions that promote homosexuality or same-sex marriage to the authorities.

The tabling of the bill has been accompanied by threats against any Ugandan media organisation that allows LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) Ugandans to air their views or publish press statements.

Full details can be seen here: http://bit.ly/9FFF4. The article also speculates about the motives for the bill, and is an excellent read. Please do have a look, when you have a moment.

Christian
18 October 2009 at 16:53

@Martin

It's nothing to do with being gay as I stated clearly in my response to your point. If your partner died and someone wrongly accused you by implication of having something to do with the death even in the face of a coroner's report saying it was natural causes then the issue would be the same. Your own frothing prejudice seems to prevent you from grasping this simple point.

JamesLegge
18 October 2009 at 17:41

I don't remember a similar sub-plot emerging when Marc-Vivien Foe, a fit and healthy Man City and Cameroon international footballer, died of heart failure during a match at the Confederations Cup. So why now?

Caro Morrisey
20 October 2009 at 11:20

I would love to have seen even a tenth of the outcry over the Gately article directed at the social workers responsible for safeguarding baby P and the countless other poor dear children who have been left to live and die in utter horror. We should all be ashamed. And to the pompous, attention seeking celebrities - where do your priorities lie?

rai
21 October 2009 at 12:57

in responce to your, fuss over nothing comment, go find yourself a gay friend and get to know a smigin about there lives and get out of the mindless uncaring bubble you obviously live in. i would also surgest you put down the internet until you have learnt something worth listening to.

Post your comment

(Your email address will not be published)

Recent Posts

A rouger shade of Palin

20 November 2009 11:35

The responsibilities of the intellectual

18 November 2009 15:39

Native spirit

18 November 2009 11:30

The man who knew too much

17 November 2009 16:51

Jailhouse rock

17 November 2009 15:56

Would Socrates have got research funding?

16 November 2009 11:46

The impact of "impact"

16 November 2009 09:44

Past Entries

Follow this blog

Vote!

Will Baroness Ashton be an effective EU foreign minister?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker