NZ section of IST (the SWO)

Graham graham at
Wed May 31 03:02:38 MDT 2000

"Paul Flewers" <hatchet.job at asked rhetorically:
> Is it homophobic to point to the exploitative relationships that occur =
> in male prostitution? An exploitative relationship is unacceptable =
> whether it is straight or gay. Or is it OK to overlook unacceptable =
> behaviour if the perpetator happens to a member of an oppressed group?
Unfortunately the 80s campaign against Proctor 'worked' for sections of the
British left not because he was in an exploitative personal relationship but
largely because he was homosexual. His reactionary politics gave this a more
populist feel. Singer Elton John got the same treatment at around the same
time and Section 28 came onto the statute books. The Proctor affair happened
slightly before May Day 1987, which had some left wingers on may day marches
'Harvey Proctor is a spanker
Harvey Proctor is a wanker'
'Harvey Proctor, perverse swine
We hate Tory hypocrites'

I can't help thinking that the consequences of this were reactionary.

> Think of what that could lead to -- it would be wrong to criticise what =
> the Iranian or Afghan regimes do to women, gays, leftists, etc, because =
> the USA criticises those regimes -- it would be wrong to condemn =
> barbaric practices like female circumcision because the places where =
> it's done are oppressed nations -- the list is endless.=20

Nothing should be above criticism.  Yet there is a case for 'bending the
stick' and showing tactical nous about when to pick a fight over these
issues: Operation Desert Slaughter wasn't the right time to go around
attacking the Saddam regime from inside an imperialist power, and so on.

Back to the original point: decriminalising paedophilia is to be opposed, as
it's an exploitative relationship and children are not adults. Yet people
who wrongly argue for these legal changes are not paedophiles unless proven
to be.

Graham B

More information about the Marxism mailing list