On the homophobia of UKIP

The independent gay MEP Nikki Sinclaire, who was expelled from Ukip for refusing to sit with Northern League colleagues in the European parliament, told the Observer that Ukip was still \”without a doubt homophobic\”.


Yes Nikki
, we all worked very hard to get you elected. Which we managed.

How very, very, homophobic of us. From memory, something like half the phonebank team in London were gay. A press officer was the gay rights officer when at university. Our leading candidate in the NE is gay and we nearly got him elected too.

And, err, refusing to sit with the Northern League wasn\’t quite it, was it?

In fact, our portion of Teh Gayers in those who could possibly have got elected (ie, top 20 or so on the various lists) was rather higher than the portion of said Gayers in the total population. Some 10% as against the population number of around 3%.

Such, such, devastating evidence of homophobia I think you\’ll all agree.

And do note that Polish allegation: There\’s an anti-gay (and anti-semitic) bloke over in Poland. Who has some links with some Polish MEPs. Those Polish MEPs are in a grouping with UKIP. Thus UKIP must be anti-gay.

Can\’t quite see it myself. The Tories were in a grouping with Berlusconi\’s lot: I don\’t think that means that we can claim Cameron is in favour of paying underage Moroccans for sex really. The UK\’s Greens are in the alliance with the Pirate Party. I don\’t think we can therefore claim that Caroline Lucas is in favour of the torrenting of porn. The Labour Party\’s in with the German Socialists: that does indeed mean that Ed Miliband likes fat German socialists like the appalling Martin Schultz of course.

This is guilt by a very, very tenuous association.

25 thoughts on “On the homophobia of UKIP”

  1. She has shafted those who worked to get her elected so she has to come up with some “reason” as to why it is their fault and not hers.
    The same mechanism can be seen at work in the rationalisation of criminals who attempt to blame their victims for inciting the commission of the crime.

  2. Guardian smear campaign starting in earnest, then?

    If it manages to disseminate more facts than that “Treasure Islands” crap a few months ago, I’ll be seriously impressed.

  3. “In fact, our portion of Teh Gayers in those who could possibly have got elected (ie, top 20 or so on the various lists) was rather higher than the portion of said Gayers in the total population. Some 10% as against the population number of around 3%.”

    I have no idea who this Nikki bint is, but that’s a rubbish argument you’ve got there, Tim. The BNP manages to find or dupe enough self-hating Jews to have a proportion of Jewish candidates significantly higher than the rate in the population as a whole. That doesn’t stop them being rabidly anti-Semitic.

    For what it’s worth, I suspect that the only party without a fair proportion of homophobic members has no members at all. I’m not aware of a single UKIP policy that’s homophobic. But then, like most people, I’m not aware of any UKIP policies apart from the one about using a line of nukes in the Channel to cut the UK adrift, and then powering the wind turbines to blow us out into the Atlantic.

  4. Dave – seems a pretty rubbish comparison.

    Anyway, what does someone have to do to prove they aren’t “homophobic”?

    It used to be you were one of the good guys if you supported the decriminalisation of buggery and didn’t turn the telly off when Frankie Howerd came on.

    Nowadays, it’s not enough to be tolerant and have a live-and-let-live attitude, you can be accused of being a gay-hating bigot for not supporting gay weddings in your local church.

    What’s next? Will we be forced to watch Will and Grace marathons, then line up to be bummed by Peter Tatchell, to prove we aren’t homophobes?

  5. This is the Dave who told me to fuck off back to Spain and leave the British to sort out their own problems, despite me never having actually left Britain, thus certainly never having been to Spain, let alone living there.

    I think he takes strong medication or something. His connection to reality is at best tenuous.

  6. Dave,

    I have no idea who this Nikki bint is, but that’s a rubbish argument you’ve got there, Tim. The BNP manages …

    It is actually quite a good one – for reasons you yourself point out later. If the party has no homophobic policies, then any homophobia has to either (or both) be individual or cultural. In those cases, the working environment is likely to be such that there will not be openly gay senior managers appointed (even if they bugger off sharpish like Nikki), nor will the gay junior staff remain long.

    Now, homophobic policies but a gay-tolerant working culture? Well, look at how many gays are ministers in gay-rights denying churches …

  7. Tim

    And, err, refusing to sit with the Northern League wasn’t quite it, was it?

    Of course I don’t know what goes on inside UKIP. But according to the party’s statement, refusing to sit with the Northern League was it exactly. And the Northern League certainly does have some members whose views Nikki Sinclaire might reasonably find uncongenial.

    Generally, UKIP seems to suffer a lot of defections by senior members. Why is that?

    Steve:

    you can be accused of being a gay-hating bigot for not supporting gay weddings in your local church.

    No you can’t

    Will we be forced to watch Will and Grace marathons…

    No

    …then line up to be bummed by Peter Tatchell, to prove we aren’t homophobes?

    No, but if that’s your thing you could try asking him nicely

    On the other hand, rants like this do have a whiff of homophobia about them.

  8. PaulB
    “you can be accused of being a gay-hating bigot for not supporting gay weddings in your local church.

    No you can’t”

    It’s panto season so – Oh yes you can ! What about the bloke who was rash enough to say on Facebook that he thought Gay weddings in church was a step too far ?

  9. PaulB, massive fail on the church part, people are already being called mad homophobes for opposing forcing churches to marry gays in church regardless of the church’s doctrine on such.

    Certainly it has gone past the tolerance level, it is closing in on compulsory outright homophilia. Otherwise, you’re obviously so homophobic that you don’t deserve any rights yourself.

  10. C’mon UKIP, let’s have one of you just say: “I support gay marriage .”

    If you don’t, it doesn’t prove you’re homophobic, just that you’re like those Libdems who would (and did) say anything to get elected.

  11. I suspect the reasoning doesn’t go much beyond:

    1) UKIP are nasty ‘right-wingers’
    2) Right-wingers are nasty people.
    3) So are ‘homophobes’.
    4) Ergo, UKIP are ‘homophobes’.

  12. Rob – It’ll be something like that.

    We are surrounded by adult infants who can’t think in straight lines. The warm and fuzzies are more important to them than logic.

    As far as I can work it out Mr Cameron’s reasoning seems to be that:

    1) Gay marriage is “modern” – whatever that means
    2) “Modern” is good
    3) Ergo, he supports gay marriage
    4) Because of its funky modernness and therefore goodness that Dave has so cleverly detected, there’s no need for such trivialities as seeking a democratic mandate before legislating a radical change to the definition of marriage

    This is the sort of lazy thinking that would be ripped to shreds by spotty 13 year olds in the Eton debating society. How did he manage to get a first from Oxford?

    PPE must be one of those disreputable bullshit courses like Sociology or Women’s Studies.

  13. Thornavis: thank you. The High Court, Peter Tatchell, and I agree that what was done to Adrian Smith was badly wrong.

    Peter Tatchell writes:

    I wish Adrian supported gay marriages in churches, but he is not a nasty homophobe. It was always absurd to suggest that he was some kind of bigot. He’s not.

    So who, as you claim, is calling Mr Smith “a gay-hating bigot”?

  14. The young of UKIP are stridently libertarian, and in favour of gay marriage, with churches free to do what the hell they like.

    Odd party, a collision between a minibus of ASI interns and a golf club outing.

  15. PaulB

    I’m sure can all rest easy in our beds now that we know you agree with the High Court. As for who was calling him a bigot, I’d say it was his employers who decided to persecute him on the basis of an expression of opinion. The implication is quite clear. Who do you think Peter Tatchell was referring to, he seems to think someone was calling him a bigot doesn’t he ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *