https://www.councilestatemedia.uk/p/we-should-be-uniting-against-genocide
Division only serves the warmongers
May 03, 2024

Sometimes a topic comes along that I would rather not write about because I know it’s going to be draining but also necessary. Today is one of those days. At a time when the world desperately needs the anti-war movement to be united, it is fracturing again. Well, in the UK it is, anyway.

It all started when Novara Media interviewed George Galloway, questioned his views on LGBT issues, and posted his answer on Twitter. Galloway described homosexuality and being transgender as “not normal” in the clip. Cue inevitable fury from both his supporters and his detractors.

One side was disgusted that a Roman Catholic man would express homophobic and transphobic views. The other side were suspecting Novara of being a cut out for the intelligence services for unnecessarily driving a wedge between us.

Council Estate Media is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Here is where I will get run over by both sides: I think they were both partly right and partly wrong! (Isn’t that always the case when we fight?)

Anyways, I apologise in advance for my attempt at nuance and fully expect to be cancelled by all of you. It was nice knowing you all.

First of all, for what it’s worth, I’m very much pro-LGBT.

I remember being a bit homophobic during my teenage years and having a debate at school over the age of consent for gay sex. I distinctly remember a kid on the other side of the debate coming out with a line that instantly struck a chord with me: “Live and let live”.

I knew in that moment I’d lost the debate. I knew that no matter what argument I put forward, I would sound like an unreasonable idiot so I fell silent. Ever since, whenever even a kernel of bigotry has entered my thoughts, I’ve remembered those words “live and let live” and beat that kernel out of me.

In short, I do not like homophobia and I found Galloway’s words to be homophobic, however, I also think context needs to be applied.

Note that Galloway did not say being gay or trans is wrong, he said “not normal” - now that in itself can be offensive, but it’s not quite the same. Some are arguing that by saying “not normal”, Galloway simply meant these things are “less common”. However, if he’d described a skin colour or a religion as “not normal”, I think people would have been rightly offended.

It’s important to point out Galloway went on to say he wants his children to grow up in a world where LGBT people are “treated with respect and affection”. Therefore, we can accuse him of bigotry but not of hatred - the two are not quite the same.

Do I think Galloway’s words were perfect? No. Do I wish he’d said he’d rather not focus on this when there is a genocide to focus on? Absolutely. Do I think his answer was as monstrous as some are making out? No.

I disagree with Galloway’s words and think they were unhelpful but not hateful. As someone who has gay friends and family members, and spent time hanging out in gay bars when I was younger, I don’t like to see bigoted views towards the LGBT community, even if those views stem from religion. Indeed, this is one issue I would rather religious people just let go. My attitude is if you have a sincerely held belief in God, let God be the judge. It’s not your place to judge anyone. I’m pretty sure I’m correct in saying this is the position of the current Pope. Apologies, if I’ve missed something, but I remember him saying words to that effect a few years back.

I dislike homophobia, but I also believe in “live and let live” and if someone’s sincerely held religious belief is that homosexuality is “not normal”, I’m not interested in policing that opinion, unless it becomes an issue for my friends and family, for example, if religious people are trying to introduce discriminatory legislation.

For what it’s worth, I certainly don’t see Novara as being a cut out for the intelligence services (Paul Mason is gonna be so mad if they are!). I think they belong to a socially liberal part of the political spectrum (where I’d place myself), and they felt they were doing their job as journalists by asking tough questions.

Personally, I feel Novara’s line of questioning was unnecessary. It reminded me of when Zionists bring up homophobia as an excuse to undermine the Palestinian cause. I’ve lost count of the number of times social media users have asked Owen Jones why he would support Muslims who would “throw him off a roof top”. The implication being that we shouldn’t support the human rights of those with religious views we disagree with.

Obviously, Novara didn’t go that far, but there was still the implication that by having the wrong religious view, Galloway can’t be a legitimate political actor. It felt like Novara had exploited Galloway’s Roman Catholic views for social media clicks. I like the people at Novara, but I think that sometimes they get it wrong and this is one of those times.

My issue here is that I’ve just spent an article discussing a Roman Catholic’s views on sexuality when I should be discussing the genocide in Gaza. Therefore, this is the last I’m going to say on the matter.

One phrase we hear a lot in politics is “the lesser of two evils” and if ever there was a time to accept the lesser of two evils argument, it’s during a genocide. George Galloway is infinitely preferable to any Labour or Tory candidate who would continue to arm Israel. If genocide is not a red line for you, but Galloway’s religious views are, you might want to ask yourself why you don’t feel stronger about those people in Gaza.

The last thing we should be doing right now is fighting each other. Put yourself in the position of a Palestinian who is starving and terrified. Someone who was appreciating the efforts of both Novara and Galloway to raise awareness of their plight. Those people, if they still have internet access, will surely be looking on incredulously. They’ll be saying “they’re really fighting over Galloway’s religious views when we’re being bombed?”

Political movements are not supposed to be movements composed of people in perfect alignment. They’re coalitions of those who are smart enough to recognise they can only change things by working together.

When we fight, the only people who are happy are the warmongers. Everyone else loses. I’ve heard homophobic comments from people who were involved in the civil rights movement. Imagine if they’d let their movement fall apart over that.

Our overwhelming priority should be to stop this genocide and once that is accomplished, we can have a conversation about those other issues which are also important. Until then, focus your energy on where the people of Gaza need it to be focused. We can only be divided if we allow ourselves to be divided.