DC comics faces boycott over Superman writer who linked gay men and paedophilia

Adventures of Superman writer Orson Scott Card's history of homophobia sparks protest.

DC Comics has hired Orson Scott Card, author of Ender's Game, to write the first two issues of its new digital-first comic Adventures of Superman, prompting a boycott of the company.

Card, a devout Mormon, is strongly homophobic. In the early 1990s, he called for laws banning gay sex to stay in place, and in 2004, in an essay titled "Homosexual 'Marriage' and Civilization", wrote:

The dark secret of homosexual society—the one that dares not speak its name—is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.

Card put those beliefs into practice in his 2008 novella Hamlet's Father, which features the eponymous King Hamlet as a paedophile and in which Publisher's Weekly claims:

The focus is primarily on linking homosexuality with the life-destroying horrors of pedophilia, a focus most fans of possibly bisexual Shakespeare are unlikely to appreciate.

(Card denies that Hamlet's Father contains any gay characters)

All of which might render Card unsuitable to write a character who is normally portrayed as the paragon of good in his world. As a result, some are calling for a boycott of Card's book, and others for a boycott of all DC's output. All Out, a transnational campaign for sexual equality, is organising a petition against DC comics, writing that:

We need to let DC Comics know they can't support Orson Scott Card or his work to keep LGBT people as second-class citizens.

For a company which is happy to court LGBT audiences when it can, trumpeting its introduction of Batwoman as the first lesbian superhero to have her own solo title and reintroducing Alan Scott, the first Green Lantern, as a gay man just last year, DC's choice to hire Card is rather hypocritical. The company is attempting to have its cake and eat it too, and fans are right to take issue with that.

Superman actor Christopher Reeve's costume from Superman III. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.