But what struck me especially concerning this issue was the response of some towards Laws' desire over many years, as an immensely private individual, to keep his sexuality a secret. It seems while today's culture encourages and indeed demands people promote and celebrate their sexuality, nonetheless liberal elites and gay rights organisations will simply not tolerate gay people who seek to keep their sexuality private. The Guardian newspaper tonight reports:
Laws also came under pressure to resign from gay equality campaigners. Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, writing in today's Observer, says: "Pious political parties (that is, all of them) whisper privately that there are more gay MPs than the public imagines. But how can anyone 'represent' a community of interest if they're entirely unable ever to admit that they belong to it? Some of us hope for a Britain where one day Westminster is grownup enough to select and promote politicians from all sorts of backgrounds."Clearly, today's intolerant "tolerance" doesn't just extend to silencing anyone who even midly questions alternative lifestyles, but even anyone within those very communities who chooses not to actively promote, celebrate or wear their sexuality on their sleeve, regardless of whether or not they want to. It seems it's OK, indeed expected, to highlight gay talent, but woe betide a gay person who wishes to be known for their talent rather than their sexuality. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Glued to the news channels (it's either that or Eurovision), and it is striking how some of the commentators express the view that Laws' biggest error was not so much his expenses claims as his attempts to keep his sexuality private.