Councillor Kenneth Gunn, who is also a party constituency convener, sparked outrage during a live interview on BBC Radio Scotland last month.Good God. The SNP's line is also less than reassuring:
He said: "We've got so-called gays, who are really very sad people, and we have non-believers and heathens running the country."
An SNP spokeswoman said: "Mr Gunn's religious beliefs are a personal matter. The comments do not reflect a party position, nor was he speaking in a political capacity"If he was only expanding those "religious beliefs views in private, no matter how abhorent, then that would be a fair enough line. However, that's not the case, this was a live interview on the BBC and the only reason a bigot like Gunn got any kind of airspace to expand their rubbish is that they are an elected member of a political party which forms the governing adminstration in Scotland. That party needs to take a much stronger line on this one.
Update I:
Harry's Place has some more shocking stuff on this.
Update II
From The Herald:
A LEADING SNP councillor has been reported to party bosses by one of his own MSPs after making anti-gay comments on the BBC.
Kenneth Gunn - who is also a Nationalist constituency party chairman - described homosexuals as "very sad people" and said non-believers were "damned to hell".
The outburst prompted a senior SNP MSP, Joe Fitzpatrick, to urge his party to "take action" against his colleague.
Linda Jackson, who lives with her partner, Barbara Harrison, in the Borders, has also lodged a complaint about Gunn with the local council.
Jeff Duncan, who rose to prominence for his role in the Save the Regiments campaign, last week e-mailed a complaint to the party's MPs and MSPs, including First Minister Alex Salmond.
He wrote: "Why is it when an SNP councillor makes a very offensive statement on Asians/Blacks he is dealt with by the party leadership promptly and decisively - and why is it when it is an equally offensive attack on gays and lesbians the party defends him/her citing religious freedom? I am dismayed that so far the SNP leadership allowed this to go unchallenged."
Update III
An excellent post on the matter from Arthur MacNumpty.
4 comments:
"That party needs to take a much stronger line on this one"
Why? Are politicians not entitled to oppose homosexuality? Should he have lied in his response to the question?
If your party sets out this kind of policy on bigotry...
"“There can be no place for prejudice and discrimination if we are to ensure Scotland’s future success as a welcoming, modern nation.” That’s what Stewart Maxwell, the Scottish National Party’s Communities Minister said in 2007,"
...then someone like Gunn (and Saeed, check my update link)should have been told he is in the wrong party. Or at least you would have thought so.
Gunn's attitude, however distasteful, is in fact his personal opinion; he did not claim to be speaking on behalf of anyone but himself. Though Scotland is not the U.S., and therefore the First Amendment is not applicable, I believe it's spirit is appropriate to this situation. I don't agree with his mindset but I do support the free expression of it. We must keep in mind that a large segment of society, in the U.S. and abroad, still regards gay men and women as second-class citizens - or worse. Gunn is a reminder of that, and maybe his comments will motivate others to redouble their efforts to alter such perspectives. That such change is needed is the salient point of my recently released biographical novel, Broken Saint. It is based on my forty-year friendship with a gay man, and chronicles his internal and external struggles as he battles for acceptance (of himself and by others). More information on the book is available at www.eloquentbooks.com/BrokenSaint.html.
Mark Zamen, author
Thanks for the comment Mark.
My answer would be that the only reason we've got to hear Gunn's personal opinion is that he is the member of Scotland's governing party. That party has constantly stressed itself to be pushing the ideas of the civic version of society, one minus discrimination and prejudice. So when one of their councillors uses his position as member of that party to express publicly his opinion, then that party has a duty to, at the very least, ask him why someone of his views (which apparently run contrary to their own policy and philosophy) remains within their party.
Post a Comment