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.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Autumn Statement 2015: George Osborne abandons his target

How will George Osborne close the deficit after his U-Turns? Answer: he won't, of course. 

“Good governments U-Turn, and U-Turn frequently.” That’s Andrew Adonis’ maxim, and George Osborne borrowed heavily from him today, delivering two big U-Turns, on tax credits and on police funding. There will be no cuts to tax credits or to the police.

The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, in total, the government gave away £6.2 billion next year, more than half of which is the reverse to tax credits.

Osborne claims that he will still deliver his planned £12bn reduction in welfare. But, as I’ve written before, without cutting tax credits, it’s difficult to see how you can get £12bn out of the welfare bill. Here’s the OBR’s chart of welfare spending:

The government has already promised to protect child benefit and pension spending – in fact, it actually increased pensioner spending today. So all that’s left is tax credits. If the government is not going to cut them, where’s the £12bn come from?

A bit of clever accounting today got Osborne out of his hole. The Universal Credit, once it comes in in full, will replace tax credits anyway, allowing him to describe his U-Turn as a delay, not a full retreat. But the reality – as the Treasury has admitted privately for some time – is that the Universal Credit will never be wholly implemented. The pilot schemes – one of which, in Hammersmith, I have visited myself – are little more than Potemkin set-ups. Iain Duncan Smith’s Universal Credit will never be rolled out in full. The savings from switching from tax credits to Universal Credit will never materialise.

The £12bn is smaller, too, than it was this time last week. Instead of cutting £12bn from the welfare budget by 2017-8, the government will instead cut £12bn by the end of the parliament – a much smaller task.

That’s not to say that the cuts to departmental spending and welfare will be painless – far from it. Employment Support Allowance – what used to be called incapacity benefit and severe disablement benefit – will be cut down to the level of Jobseekers’ Allowance, while the government will erect further hurdles to claimants. Cuts to departmental spending will mean a further reduction in the numbers of public sector workers.  But it will be some way short of the reductions in welfare spending required to hit Osborne’s deficit reduction timetable.

So, where’s the money coming from? The answer is nowhere. What we'll instead get is five more years of the same: increasing household debt, austerity largely concentrated on the poorest, and yet more borrowing. As the last five years proved, the Conservatives don’t need to close the deficit to be re-elected. In fact, it may be that having the need to “finish the job” as a stick to beat Labour with actually helped the Tories in May. They have neither an economic imperative nor a political one to close the deficit. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.