Personal issues and politics should be kept well apart

OPINION: Kathryn Holmquist argues that Brendan Howlin has erred by putting personal sexuality on the agenda

OPINION: Kathryn Holmquist argues that Brendan Howlin has erred by putting personal sexuality on the agenda

Brendan Howlin has finally "come out". After years of rumours, he has announced that he is "not gay". Well, well, well.

At this moment, many of you are reading this and saying to yourselves: "Do we look like we care?" Personal sexuality is not an issue that has ever taken the main stage in Irish politics - apart from the rumours that circulate regularly. Let politicians live or die based on their policies and political savvy - that's the public's view. At least it has been until now.

However, there are people who care very much, in quite a personal way. They are the one in 10 Irish Times readers - and the one in 10 voters - who are decidedly "gay". If I were Mr Howlin, they're the ones I would worry about.

READ MORE

How are they supposed to feel now that they've been told that being "not gay" is seen by Mr Howlin, if not by Labour Party handlers, as a strength in political and moral leadership?

Mr Howlin's big mistake is that he's misread the public - and especially Labour voters - to a phenomenal degree.

First of all, there's no rumour that the dogs in the street don't know. The voters have already decided whether they think rumours about Mr Howlin's sexuality are important or not.

It hasn't been important so far, despite rumour-mill activity. Secondly, younger voters - the very people you'd think Labour should be courting - are experiencing a major social trend where gender boundaries are blurring and sexuality is a moveable feast. To say you are "not gay" to these sophisticated younger voters is like admitting you're a dinosaur.

But the real problem is the way men practice politics. Coincidentally, Prof Andrew Samuels addresses the prevalent "homophobia" in politics in an article on Tony Blair and George W. Bush in today's Weekend supplement.

The argument put forward by Prof Samuels is that the male heterosexual way of thinking dominates politics, yet that this belief system is only one way of thinking. It's not "normal"; it's just heterosexual male.

Some heterosexual men in politics are able to shame other men to do their bidding merely by alleging homosexuality, overtly, covertly or even unconsciously, Prof Samuels argues.

To be a powerful politician, you have to belong to the male heterosexual club. Mr Howlin obviously believed that his membership was under threat. He must have seen his Achilles heel as the rumours about his sexuality.

This is sad - more than sad. It shows weakness of character and a betrayal of the one in 10 citizens who are trying to get on with their lives despite the pervasive homophobia in our culture.

It's also a grave error, because it has moved the goalposts in public commentary. The civilised position has been to ignore sexual behaviour - unless it is criminal, obviously. Hiding perversion threatens the safety of others, we have learnt to our cost. But normal sexual behaviour, of which homosexuality is a part, is a personal issue outside politics. Mr Howlin has, in two words ("not gay"), put personal sexuality on the agenda. That's his biggest mistake of all.