Should right wing politicians be outed?

[lpm]

A prominent politician is about to be outed as gay. As he has wanted to succeed in an extreme right wing party, and with a background in the military during the discrimination era, it is understandable he's denied his sexuality throughout his life.

Although generally a moderate within the party, he has consistently voted for bigoted anti-LGBT policies (usual list of anti equal marriage, adoption laws etc) and his party has extreme homophobia and hateful rhetoric.

An added complication in this instance is it's widely accepted he's been blackmailed for his sexual activities, certainly to force him into line with the party leadership, and potentially by a foreign power and by criminals within government. Given his sexuality is fairly well known - probably to many voters who elected him - this compromising material must go well beyond sexual preference. Rumours are that he is an enthusiastic hirer of male prostitutes. Potentially he's been blackmailed for breaking laws or underage activities.

He is also a very senior politician with oversight of law enforcement agencies.

And he is currently in a close re-election race, which might be a factor in why he is being threatened now.

[Woodchopper]

People should decide when and if they come out. Hypocrisy isn’t a good reason to out someone. Who amongst us aren’t hypocrites at some time?

If the politician is accused of committing a crime then follow due process. Being gay doesn’t grant judicial immunity. An exception may be if the laws in question are unjust.

[noggins]

Its a purely pragmatic issue as to whether him being in position is a lesser evil than having some other f.cker in place.

I dont give a f.ck about his rights.

[Bewildered]

I don’t know what really matters just now, but I’d like to understand the hypothetical better, as it could depend on how extreme a threat they are, as to whether I think breaking the principal woodchoper outlined is worth it

What does “extreme right wing” mean here? The Republicans, or more like the BNP, National socialists or one of the newer racist groups?

Also “widely accepted” of being blackmailed sounds like a funny hypothetical, is that likely to be the case in relatively functioning democracy, if no charges of corruption have been made?

Or are we imaging a case where the country is quite corrupt anyway? It sounds like he is meant to be in power, since you say he has oversight of the government, so we are talking about a minister in a corrupt far right government that has siezed power and controls the media? Or a government that mostly respects democratic norms or something in between?

[Martin Y]

Outing anyone is not cool. Hypocrisy is not cool. People in power submitting to blackmail is definitely not cool.

If the guy now wants to stand on a platform of "Yes, I supported policies I don't believe in and yes, I got forced into doing stuff to keep my secrets but I don't do that now and, hey, I'm still quite good at this politics thing", then he can take his chances. The voter base he needs to persuade might not be amenable to that. Depends how sh.t the alternative is.

[lpm]

People should decide when and if they come out. Hypocrisy isn’t a good reason to out someone. Who amongst us aren’t hypocrites at some time?

If the politician is accused of committing a crime then follow due process. Being gay doesn’t grant judicial immunity. An exception may be if the laws in question are unjust.

For most of us, our hypocrisy is purely personal or local. Plenty of people will breach lockdown while calling for lockdown. But it makes a huge difference if that person is a senior government official or advisor. Surely hypocrisy of top politicians is a legitimate issue to bring into the open?

This is not happening in a nice Scandinavian country where LGBT+ rights are basically won, or even in the UK, but in a country where discrimination is still at a high level. In many parts of the country it is legal to fire people on discovering they're gay. At the last general election, the right wing party used LGBT issues as part of the culture war - usual stuff of celebrating people who refused to marry gay couples, bathroom laws for transpeople, refusal to bake cakes etc - and increased the levels of homophobia as a result. Christian extremists have very high influence generally and on the right wing party in particular, and openly preach against homosexuality - e.g. saying it caused Covid.

In such an environment, can a politician simultaneously exploit the benefit of homophobic hatred at the polling booths, while personally expecting secrecy for his own private life?

If he was outed, it would be quite likely that he would lose his seat at the next general election to the opposition party, and that seat might be the tipping point for the current opposition to win a majority.

[lpm]

What does “extreme right wing” mean here? The Republicans, or more like the BNP, National socialists or one of the newer racist groups?

Also “widely accepted” of being blackmailed sounds like a funny hypothetical, is that likely to be the case in relatively functioning democracy, if no charges of corruption have been made?

Or are we imaging a case where the country is quite corrupt anyway? It sounds like he is meant to be in power, since you say he has oversight of the government, so we are talking about a minister in a corrupt far right government that has siezed power and controls the media? Or a government that mostly respects democratic norms or something in between?

Extreme right in UK terms, e.g. current US Republican level of white supremacy and disregard for democratic norms. The country is fairly corrupt, with a muddle of free press and propaganda TV channels. This politician is a senior figure within the governing party, closely allied to the country's leader, and has responsibility for overseeing law enforcement. Potentially he has enough political power to obstruct justice, on behalf of himself or someone who's blackmailing him.

[individualmember]

My first reaction to the thread title was: is there a politician who masquerades as a moderate but is secretly a right winger?

In which case yes, people should know if they’ve elected a fascist or a free market fundamentalist or whatever other variety of right wing they are.

Gay... meh, who cares.

[Bird on a Fire]

I want to know the gossip. And how come lpm always seems to have an inside track to these things.

On topic - I think when somebody is damaging other people's lives it's fair to take a somewhat utilitarian approach to stopping them. And if a politician reinforces homophobia to further his own career and then has his comeuppance due to that same homophobia amongst his supporters, he's merely hoist by his own petard. Live by the axe. Etcetera.

Generally, outing people is totally out of order. But it pales in comparison to perpetuating societal homophobia so in the case in question it's a proportional retaliation.

[Fishnut]

I hate the hypocrisy of remaining closeted for personal power and I do think there's a difference between everyday hypocrisy and having the ability to legislate that hypocrisy, but I'm honestly more concerned about the blackmail potential that's been mentioned.

[dyqik]

I want to know the gossip. And how come lpm always seems to have an inside track to these things.

I know it as well, it was fairly widely discussed on Twitter yesterday, with several threads, and has been on and off for several years. Anyone who follows $country's edgier left wing/LGBT activists or media columnists on Twitter will probably know who this is about. As will people paying attention to the previous incarnation of this forum's discussion of $country's politics.

[lpm]

The so-called risk of blackmail was the excuse used to fire gay men for decades. The Soviets were recruiting half the civil service that way according to the fear mongering of the time.

Fredrick Forsyth has an obsession with it, always including it in his books. The wretched buggers couldn't keep their flies buttoned up and always betrayed their country. The KGB had like amazing gaydar and the best honeytraps.

But at the same time, it is a genuine risk. Epstein appeared to exploit wealthy investors by trapping them with underage massages; Putin and his puppets would always be interested in a politician they could pressure.

[Fishnut]

The so-called risk of blackmail was the excuse used to fire gay men for decades. The Soviets were recruiting half the civil service that way according to the fear mongering of the time.

Fredrick Forsyth has an obsession with it, always including it in his books. The wretched buggers couldn't keep their flies buttoned up and always betrayed their country. The KGB had like amazing gaydar and the best honeytraps.

But at the same time, it is a genuine risk. Epstein appeared to exploit wealthy investors by trapping them with underage massages; Putin and his puppets would always be interested in a politician they could pressure.

I was thinking back to the cold war when I was writing. It's important to note that being homosexual doesn't makes you blackmail material, it's having a secret that you are ashamed about and would do anything not to have made public. I seem to remember hearing that people being considered for intelligence agency roles are asked about all the shady stuff they've done, not as a way of deciding whether or not to hire them, but so that it can't be used as blackmail against them.

[bjn]

My first reaction to the thread title was: is there a politician who masquerades as a moderate but is secretly a right winger?

In which case yes, people should know if they’ve elected a fascist or a free market fundamentalist or whatever other variety of right wing they are.

Gay... meh, who cares.

I had the same misunderstanding.

As for the gay thing. If they are in power and are gay while actively engaged in anti LGBT activities, f.ck em. Out the bastard. It’s not some minor hypocrisy, it’s a massive thing.

[Opti]

My first reaction to the thread title was: is there a politician who masquerades as a moderate but is secretly a right winger?

In which case yes, people should know if they’ve elected a fascist or a free market fundamentalist or whatever other variety of right wing they are.

Gay... meh, who cares.

I had the same misunderstanding.

As for the gay thing. If they are in power and are gay while actively engaged in anti LGBT activities, f.ck em. Out the bastard. It’s not some minor hypocrisy, it’s a massive thing.

This.

[Woodchopper]

People should decide when and if they come out. Hypocrisy isn’t a good reason to out someone. Who amongst us aren’t hypocrites at some time?

If the politician is accused of committing a crime then follow due process. Being gay doesn’t grant judicial immunity. An exception may be if the laws in question are unjust.

For most of us, our hypocrisy is purely personal or local. Plenty of people will breach lockdown while calling for lockdown. But it makes a huge difference if that person is a senior government official or advisor. Surely hypocrisy of top politicians is a legitimate issue to bring into the open?

I don't think there is an equivalence between measures designed to control a pandemic and a person's sexuality.

This is not happening in a nice Scandinavian country where LGBT+ rights are basically won, or even in the UK, but in a country where discrimination is still at a high level. In many parts of the country it is legal to fire people on discovering they're gay. At the last general election, the right wing party used LGBT issues as part of the culture war - usual stuff of celebrating people who refused to marry gay couples, bathroom laws for transpeople, refusal to bake cakes etc - and increased the levels of homophobia as a result. Christian extremists have very high influence generally and on the right wing party in particular, and openly preach against homosexuality - e.g. saying it caused Covid.

Like dyqik I assumed that you refer to the rumours circulating on Twitter about a US politician.

In such an environment, can a politician simultaneously exploit the benefit of homophobic hatred at the polling booths, while personally expecting secrecy for his own private life?

If he was outed, it would be quite likely that he would lose his seat at the next general election to the opposition party, and that seat might be the tipping point for the current opposition to win a majority.

But at what price?

Whoever does the outing is deciding that the politician is not entitled to express their sexuality in the lawful manner of their choosing.

Also, if someone does the outing in order to gain political advantage then they are encouraging homophobes in the party to view being gay as something shameful that should cost a politician their position. Better to maintain that someone's sexuality should never be something that should disqualify a politician from office.

(As mentioned, if the politician is accused of having broken the law then follow due process).

[jimbob]

People should decide when and if they come out. Hypocrisy isn’t a good reason to out someone. Who amongst us aren’t hypocrites at some time?

If the politician is accused of committing a crime then follow due process. Being gay doesn’t grant judicial immunity. An exception may be if the laws in question are unjust.

For most of us, our hypocrisy is purely personal or local. Plenty of people will breach lockdown while calling for lockdown. But it makes a huge difference if that person is a senior government official or advisor. Surely hypocrisy of top politicians is a legitimate issue to bring into the open?

I don't think there is an equivalence between measures designed to control a pandemic and a person's sexuality.

This is not happening in a nice Scandinavian country where LGBT+ rights are basically won, or even in the UK, but in a country where discrimination is still at a high level. In many parts of the country it is legal to fire people on discovering they're gay. At the last general election, the right wing party used LGBT issues as part of the culture war - usual stuff of celebrating people who refused to marry gay couples, bathroom laws for transpeople, refusal to bake cakes etc - and increased the levels of homophobia as a result. Christian extremists have very high influence generally and on the right wing party in particular, and openly preach against homosexuality - e.g. saying it caused Covid.

Like dyqik I assumed that you refer to the rumours circulating on Twitter about a US politician.

In such an environment, can a politician simultaneously exploit the benefit of homophobic hatred at the polling booths, while personally expecting secrecy for his own private life?

If he was outed, it would be quite likely that he would lose his seat at the next general election to the opposition party, and that seat might be the tipping point for the current opposition to win a majority.

But at what price?

Whoever does the outing is deciding that the politician is not entitled to express their sexuality in the lawful manner of their choosing.

Also, if someone does the outing in order to gain political advantage then they are encouraging homophobes in the party to view being gay as something shameful that should cost a politician their position. Better to maintain that someone's sexuality should never be something that should disqualify a politician from office.

(As mentioned, if the politician is accused of having broken the law then follow due process).

If someone's using bigotry for political gain, whilst simultaneously being a member of a group they're attacking, then I don't feel sad about them being found out - especially if that's likely to replace them with someone better.

It probably undermines rather than supports the bigotry they're publicly espousing.

[Squeak]

The mental torture my lgbtiq friends have experienced growing up in homophobic cultures has to do some pretty weird things to people's brains. And, within the hard right culture, outing him(?) won't undermine the homophobia (years of sniggering at evangelicals getting caught with young men hasn't managed that) but it will undermine ideals of allowing people to identify their sexuality as they see fit.

Have at him for his policies and corruption but, unless his sexuality is integral to the provable corruption, so you can't report on one without the other, gay shaming him doesn't seem appropriate to me.

(And yes, prurient me would quite like to know, because I'm as much of a gossip as everyone else. I just don't think I should satisfy that particular itch.) :/

[Martin Y]

... Have at him for his policies and corruption but, unless his sexuality is integral to the provable corruption, so you can't report on one without the other, gay shaming him doesn't seem appropriate to me.

(And yes, prurient me would quite like to know, because I'm as much of a gossip as everyone else. I just don't think I should satisfy that particular itch.) :/

I agree except for one point: I find myself entirely uncurious about whoever this might be.

[EACLucifer]

The mental torture my lgbtiq friends have experienced growing up in homophobic cultures has to do some pretty weird things to people's brains. And, within the hard right culture, outing him(?) won't undermine the homophobia (years of sniggering at evangelicals getting caught with young men hasn't managed that) but it will undermine ideals of allowing people to identify their sexuality as they see fit.

Have at him for his policies and corruption but, unless his sexuality is integral to the provable corruption, so you can't report on one without the other, gay shaming him doesn't seem appropriate to me.

(And yes, prurient me would quite like to know, because I'm as much of a gossip as everyone else. I just don't think I should satisfy that particular itch.) :/

Came to this thread to post something similar. Haggard getting caught with rent boys did nothing for gay acceptance among fundamentalists, even if it did give me an excuse to play Iron Maiden's holy smoke on college radio at the time.

[Bewildered]

What does “extreme right wing” mean here? The Republicans, or more like the BNP, National socialists or one of the newer racist groups?

Also “widely accepted” of being blackmailed sounds like a funny hypothetical, is that likely to be the case in relatively functioning democracy, if no charges of corruption have been made?

Or are we imaging a case where the country is quite corrupt anyway? It sounds like he is meant to be in power, since you say he has oversight of the government, so we are talking about a minister in a corrupt far right government that has siezed power and controls the media? Or a government that mostly respects democratic norms or something in between?

Extreme right in UK terms, e.g. current US Republican level of white supremacy and disregard for democratic norms. The country is fairly corrupt, with a muddle of free press and propaganda TV channels. This politician is a senior figure within the governing party, closely allied to the country's leader, and has responsibility for overseeing law enforcement. Potentially he has enough political power to obstruct justice, on behalf of himself or someone who's blackmailing him.

Given that and now having seen what this relates to, I think no shouldn’t be outed. I don’t think “ widely accepted he's been blackmailed” reflects the actual situation, but if that was the case revealing that they are being blackmailed would be correct. If it was impossible to do that without also revealing the secret they are being blackmailed for, so be it, but imo that’s quite different to just outing them.

[Allo V Psycho]

I think I'd like to distinguish first between 'social hypocrisy' and 'cruel hypocrisy'. The former is the expression of views which are different to one's secret personal practice: a person might speak disparagingly in public about adultery, while having an affair. I think this is a minor moral fault. Cruel hypocrisy, on the other hand, to me means taking action to harm others who carry out that secret personal practice.

I once went to a talk by a very clever moral philosopher, who described a scenario, and invited the audience to make a judgement (internally: no public voting took place). The audience, largely composed of liberal academics, were probably fairly consistent in their views. He then added another piece of information, which certainly, for me, reversed my conclusion. Then he added a further piece; and then yet another piece: and each time my value judgement flipped. From talking to my colleagues afterwards, that was the common experience.

The point he was making is that "It depends". Many local factors might apply: it is hard to make a general conclusion in the absence of the details.

So in this particular case, the flip points might be: is the politician an adulterer? Entirely a matter of personal decision as to whether to be out or not. Is s/he a social hypocrite? Then it is still a much greater moral fault to out them than for them to be a social hypocrite. But are they a cruel hypocrite? By promoting legislation that adulterers be punished? Then it may be less of a moral fault to make this public, especially if it leads to an alleviation of their cruelty.

Related: were their actions illegal? Then it may be less of a moral fault to out them than to remain silent. But was the law just? While there is strong presumption that laws should be followed, this is not an absolute moral imperative. But how severe/proportionate is the punishment for adultery? And so on.

So, although I'm not a gossipy person, I think I would need to know more of the details before coming to a conclusion.

Their politics outside of this issue, I don't think are relevant.

[dyqik]

I think I'd like to distinguish first between 'social hypocrisy' and 'cruel hypocrisy'. The former is the expression of views which are different to one's secret personal practice: a person might speak disparagingly in public about adultery, while having an affair. I think this is a minor moral fault. Cruel hypocrisy, on the other hand, to me means taking action to harm others who carry out that secret personal practice.

We are very firmly in the latter scenario. The person in question has, among many other anti-LGBT actions that their party explicitly supports, voted to repeal/prevent gay marriage rights from taking effect. The person in question has also regularly and consistently joined party line votes to approve the appointment of officials that advocate policies and legal interpretations that directly target gay people.

[Sciolus]

There is an argument (and I'm being abstract here, having no knowledge of this particular case) that politicians should enact the policies that their constituencies support, even if they don't support them themselves. An obvious example would be a remainer MP voting for Brexit after the referendum. This is partly why we have whips and cabinet collective responsibility. I don't fully endorse this argument, but it does mean hypocrisy may need to be qualified a bit, when a member of a party argues for that party's key popular policies.

[Bird on a Fire]

Ok I know who it is now.

It sounds like they don't keep it a secret from people in their personal lives, but have tried to suppress the information from being public. Normally I would be charitable in my assumptions as to why somebody should do this, but given that this person has spent their career attacking gay people it seems to be more of a political decision to enable them to harm people. Definite cruel hypocrisy.

The use of NDAs to prevent people from talking about their experiences with him is also a bit suspect, especially as these often turn out not to be legally enforceable but are instead a way for privileged people to bamboozle sex workers into silence.

Using the nickname redacted does seem to have at least slightly homophobic overtones, IMHO, implying that homosexuality is feminine. I know the nickname originated with the male escorts breaking the story, but it's different in their mouths than coming from heterosexual commentators.