Jan Moir digs a deeper hole

Griffin and Moir - nice headline juxtapositionA week after writing a column which led to a record number of complaints to the PCC and moved me to the keyboard, Jan Moir has today attempted to clarify her position.  She's succeeded but not how she would hope.  For the second week running she is a trending topic on Twitter.  Some feat.   Here we go again:

Last week, I wrote in this column about the death of Boyzone star Stephen Gately. 

To my horror, it has been widely condemned as 'homophobic' and 'hateful'. Obviously, a great deal of offence has been taken and I regret any affront caused. This was never my intention. 

To be the focus of such depth of feeling has been an interesting experience, but I do not complain. After all, I am not  -  unlike those close to Stephen Gately  -  mourning for the loss of a much-loved partner, son, family member and close friend. 

To them, I would like to say sorry if I have caused distress by the insensitive timing of the column, published so close to the funeral. 

Regret and an apology to Gately's family, but only for the insensitive timing.  Not for what she said!

The point of my article was to suggest that, in my honest opinion, Stephen Gately's death raised many unanswered questions. 

Questions which she felt fit to answer.

What had really gone on? 

After all, Stephen was a role model for the young and if drugs were somehow involved in his death, as news reports suggested, should that not be a matter of public interest? 

We were told that Stephen died of 'natural causes' even before toxicology results had been released. This struck me as bizarre, given the circumstances. 

Which qualified Moir to speculate further.

Absolutely none of this had anything to do with his sexuality. If he had been a heterosexual member of a boy band, I would have written exactly the same article.  

I see so Moir would have felt the death was an opportunity to make irrelevant comments on heterosexual marriage. Of course. 

Yet despite this, many have interpreted my words as a 'bigoted rant' and suggested that my motive was to insinuate that Stephen died 'because he was gay'..…..….

Anyone who knows me will vouch that I have never held such poisonous views.

I have never thought, or suggested, that what happened that night represented a so-called gay lifestyle; this is not how most gay people live.  

Perhaps she should read her original article again because last week she wasn't so sure:

Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael.Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately's last night raise troubling questions about what happened.

I'll come back to this but for now just ponder what she meant by "in many cases". 

What I meant by 'nothing natural' was that the natural duration of his life had been tragically shortened in a way that was shocking and out of the ordinary. Certainly, his death was unusual enough for a coroner to become involved. 

If a 33 year old dies is it unusual now for a coroner to become involved?

As for Stephen's civil partnership, I am on the record as supporting same-sex marriages.  

The point of my observation that there was a 'happy ever after myth' surrounding such unions was that they can be just as problematic as heterosexual marriages. 

Where did this 'myth' come from?  Who has claimed that all civil partnerships are fairytale everlasting romances?  The voices in her head perhaps? Why was this even an issue for Moir to raise if her point was about Gately's lifestyle, not his sexuality? 

Indeed, I would stress that there was nothing in my article that could not be applied to a heterosexual couple as well as to a homosexual one. 

Ok let's try it with the fictional death of a heterosexual singer - let's call him John Moire who had a sudden death: 

Heterosexual activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about opposite sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as homosexual civil partnerships. Not everyone, they say, is like Michael Hutchence. Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the death of Kurt Cobain, the husband of fellow musician Courtney Love, and now the dubious events of Moire's last night raise troubling questions about what happened.

Hutchence had a very different lifestyle to my fictional Moire, and Kurt Cobain died from suicide.   Therefore complete nonsense, with the only link between those named being their sexuality.  Just like the original.  Are you getting this yet Jan?  Doesn't look like it: 

This brings me back to the bile, the fury, the inflammatory hate mail and the repeated posting of my home address on the internet.  

To say it was a hysterical overreaction would be putting it mildly, though clearly much of it was an orchestrated campaign by pressure groups and those with agendas of their own.  

Yes, some people went too far and behaved in ways as unpalatable as Moir's article.  They were wrong.  

But who was behind the "orchestrated campaign"? Who are the pressure groups? Moir doesn't say.  It wouldn't be those pesky gay activists would it? 

As I said in my last post she doesn't understand how the internet works let alone Twitter.   

I don't have an agenda, nor am I part of a pressure group. I'm not gay, let alone a 'gay activist', whatever that is.

However, I accept that many people  -  on Twitter and elsewhere  -  were merely expressing their own personal and heartfelt opinions or grievances. 

This said, I can't help wondering: is there a compulsion today to see bigotry and social intolerance where none exists by people who are determined to be outraged?

Jan Moir is employed by the Daily Mail.   Orchestrated campaigns and outrage are part of the paper's DNA.  Pot, kettle, black. 

 Or was it a failure of communication on my part? 

I think Moir managed to get her views across really well. All too well.

Certainly, something terrible went wrong as my column ricocheted through cyberspace, unread by many who complained, yet somehow generally and gleefully accepted into folklore as a homophobic rant. 

This is spectacular! What evidence does she present to support this claim?  Every comment I saw was clearly written in response to having read the article.

It lit a spark, then a flame and turned into a roaring ball of hate fire, blazing unchecked and unmediated across the internet. 

A roaring ball of hate fire containing expressions of personal and heartfelt grievances?

Yet as the torrent of abuse continued, most of it anonymous, I also had thousands of supportive emails from readers and well-wishers, many of whom described themselves as 'the silent majority'. The outcry was not as one-sided as many imagine. 

The "silent majority".  Always an argument winner.

Their view, and mine, was that it was perfectly reasonable of me to comment upon the manner of Stephen Gately's death, even if there are those who think that his celebrity and sexuality make him untouchable. 

It was precisely because she attributed his death to his celebrity and sexuality, while doubting the family's statement on the eve of a funeral, offering her own medical analysis based on speculation but no evidence that brought this about.

Can it really be that we are becoming a society where no one can dare to question the circumstances or behaviour of a person who happens to be gay without being labelled a homophobe? If so, that is deeply troubling. 

So, she's not sorry at all and doesn't understand what all the fuss is about, or is pretending not to.

Finally, I would just like to say that whatever did or did not happen in Majorca, a talented young man died before his time. This, of course, is a matter of regret and sadness for us all.

Last week  Moir described Gately last week as "someone who could barely carry a tune in a Louis Vuitton trunk.  He was the Posh Spice of Boyzone, a popular but largely decorous addition"  Now he was a "talented young man." 

This is not about free speech. After all, much of the "hysterical reaction" has its origin in the more liberal minded Twitterati.   She is entitled to her views, however odious I and others may find them.  I'm not a PC saint either and use language for light hearted abuse based on sexuality from time to time, which I accept may be offensive to some, including headlines on blog posts.  

The difference is that if I'm called out on it and I can see that I've caused offence I will apologise, and question my own behaviour.  

Moir has been called out on this.  The linking of Gately to McGee, the mention of George Michael,  the extrapolation to civil partnerships, and the reference to "gay activists" is at the heart of the furore.  If, as Moir insists, her comments were about hedonistic lifestyles (not that this had anything to do with Gately's death) none of these comments would have been there.  Today's article only reinforces this.

Update on Thursday, February 18, 2010 at 4:44PM by Craig Scrogie

Last night the Press Complaints Commission rejected a complaint about Moir's article.  Some have supported their decision, albeit with muddled free speech logic.  Most however, like me, fail to see how an article littered with inaccuracy, insensitivity and discrimination should not fall foul of the PCC guidelines.  This brilliant piece on Tabloid Watch represents my views entirely.  

Twitter mauls Daily Mail's 'unnatural' Jan Moir

Stephen Gately, May 2009 photo: mangakamaidenphotographyTwitter has gone into a frenzy this morning over a Daily Mail column by Jan Moir on the death of Boyzone singer Stephen Gately.

Sometimes a sub-editor's headline can distort the tone of a piece.  Not this time.  Headline and article are as vile as each other:

WHY THERE WAS NOTHING NATURAL ABOUT STEPHEN GATELY'S DEATH

Through the recent travails and sad ends of Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger and many others, fans know to expect the unexpected of their heroes - particularly if those idols live a life that is shadowed by dark appetites or fractured by private vice. 

There are dozens of household names out there with secret and not-so-secret troubles, or damaging habits both past and present.

Robbie, Amy, Kate, Whitney, Britney; we all know who they are. And we are not being ghoulish to anticipate, or to be mentally braced for, their bad end: a long night, a mysterious stranger, an odd set of circumstances that herald a sudden death.

Ghoulish definition– a person morbidly interested in death or disaster.  So what is predicting and “anticipating” someone's death then Jan?

A founder member of Ireland's first boy band, he was the group's co-lead singer, even though he could barely carry a tune in a Louis Vuitton trunk.  He was the Posh Spice of Boyzone, a popular but largely decorous addition.

At best this is an ill-timed insult as insensitive as it is unnecessary.  He wasn't my cup of tea but someone described by Andrew Lloyd Webber as  “enormously talented” can probably hold a note.  

Something is terribly wrong with the way this incident has been shaped and spun into nothing more than an unfortunate mishap on a holiday weekend, like a broken teacup in the rented cottage.

It has been reported as a tragic death.  Which it is.

The sugar coating on this fatality is so saccharine-thick that it obscures whatever bitter truth lies beneath. Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again.

Yes they do.

Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one. Let us be absolutely clear about this. All that has been established so far is that Stephen Gately was not murdered.

Gately suffered a pulmonary oedema, an accumulation of fluid on the lungs. 

And I think if we are going to be honest, we would have to admit that the circumstances surrounding his death are more than a little sleazy. 

After a night of clubbing, Cowles and Gately took a young Bulgarian man back to their apartment. It is not disrespectful to assume that a game of canasta with 25-year-old Georgi Dochev was not what was on the cards. 

Cowles and Dochev went to the bedroom together while Stephen remained alone in the living room.

What happened before they parted is known only to the two men still alive. What happened afterwards is anyone's guess.

What happened afterwards is being investigated by the Majorcan Police, who may stand a better chance of establishing the facts than a bigoted, pre-judging hack. 

A post-mortem revealed Stephen died from acute pulmonary oedema, a build-up of fluid on his lungs.

Oh right, so you know that then.  Sorry Jan I thought you were only aware that he wasn't murdered.

Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships.

And now we really get to your 'point' don't we.

Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael. 

I see, so heterosexual relationships are never hedonistic, promiscuous, or tarnished by infidelity.  And  your point is of relevance to Stephen Gately's death how exactly?

Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately's last night raise troubling questions about what happened.

McGee committed suicide.  Gately died suddenly.  No connection whatsoever.  Troubling questions abound. 

It is important that the truth comes out about the exact circumstances of his strange and lonely death.

Apart from Gately's widow, friends and family it is not important for any of us to know any more about it at all.

As a gay rights champion, I am sure he would want to set an example to any impressionable young men who may want to emulate what they might see as his glamorous routine. 

For once again, under the carapace of glittering, hedonistic celebrity, the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see.

(Interesting use of grammar in that first sentence unless Jan Moir is a rather confused gay rights champion)

To sum up your points here Jan I now understand that if Stephen Gately wasn't gay, a celebrity or a singer he would still be alive. Happy civil partnerships are a 'myth' because of one person's suicide and another's tragic sudden death.  By comparison, heterosexual marriages are 'happy ever after' stories.  If a man dies it is “important” to report in detail any link, however tenuous or irrelevant, that infers that their death is connected to their lifestyle, sexual conduct and fame.  Don't forget to belittle any artistic talent they have too.  But only if they are homosexual.

The most despicable piece of journalism I've read in a long time.

Update on Friday, October 16, 2009 at 6:00PM by Craig Scrogie

In the face of mounting criticism Jan Moir has released a statement.  An excerpt:

Some people, particularly in the gay community, have been upset by my article about the sad death of Boyzone member Stephen Gately. This was never my intention...

The point of my column – which I wonder how many of the people complaining have fully read – was to suggest that, in my honest opinion, his death raises many unanswered questions. That was all. Yes, anyone can die at anytime of anything. However, it seems unlikely to me that what took place in the hours immediately preceding Gately’s death – out all evening at a nightclub, taking illegal substances, bringing a stranger back to the flat, getting intimate with that stranger – did not have a bearing on his death. At the very least, it could have exacerbated an underlying medical condition.

In writing that ‘it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships’ I was suggesting that civil partnerships – the introduction of which I am on the record in supporting – have proved just to be as problematic as marriages. In what is clearly a heavily orchestrated internet campaign I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones.

You can't defend an article by claiming that its critics haven't read it!  

A rather high opinion of herself if she think's anyone would be bothered to initiate an "orchestrated internet campaign" against her.  She shows no understanding of social media.  My Twitter stream may be disproportionately woolly in liberalism but almost everyone there has made a comment about it today - musicians, comedians, writers and commentators. They've all heard about and then read the article, then felt an urge to comment on it, none better than Charlie Brooker in The Guardian.  Yes, Twitter may act like mob rule on days like today but orchestrated it is not.    

If the Mail is comfortable that there were no homophobic undertones why has it changed the article's headline to "A strange, lonely and troubling death" (which is still insensitive and inaccurate). Why have advertisers asked the Mail to withdraw their ads from the page?

I won't dissect the statement any more but to clarify to Jan Moir (who thinks this is relevant) I am not gay, I have read the article and other than sadness at learning of his death have never cared a jot about Stephen Gately.  

Moir's article has not just upset "the gay community".  It has offended decency.

Copying another blog slagging The Sun

From today's Sun:

Wow, MARIAH CAREY seems to have put on some serious timber judging by these pictures.

I feel for the three dancers straining to lift the diva's junk-laden trunk.

Mariah was warbling away for American TV's Today Show live from New York's Rockefeller Plaza.

Looking at the combined muscle the blokes had to use to hoist her off the ground, it might be better for Mariah to stick to floor routines from now on.

She's getting too heavy to Carey.

Mariah Carey is an unlikely person for me to defend so I won't.  The Sun's article however can't be.  This is the UK's biggest selling newspaper. Heaven help us.  Insulting, vile, and (arithmetically) inaccurate.