Opinion: On LGBT awareness, Toby Young continues to lose friends and alienate people

I don’t see that is possible for Toby Young to wriggle out of this one. The tone of contrition rings false and is not helped by the fact that he seeks to claim the status of oppressed victim - perhaps as a show of solidarity with the “plight” of LGBT people?

It is disingenuous to claim that his satire was directed at Henry Stewart and Fiona Millar as it certainly does not read that way. It reads as a malicious and ill advised attack on a school’s commitment to carrying out it’s statutory obligation to the Citizenship Curriculum, which LGBT awareness forms part of and the stench of intolerance of LGBT people hovers around it. Toby Young abused his influence in the media to launch an attack on what he sees as his enemies but in his failure to separate the personal from the politics, he picked up the wrong weapon – LGBT Awareness – to get back at people who question and oppose the wisdom of free schools. I don’t think it is a credible argument that the combined influence of Henry Stewart and Fiona Millar have hampered his efforts to defend himself – he abused in his influence in the media to write the Spectator article to being with, he writes vigorously and in the most provocative way in his Telegraph and other blogs and he is a regular fixture on television and radio. He has used all of these to loudly advocate the cause of free schools.

The article offended the pupils and teachers at the school and that sense of being ridiculed and bullied will be reinforced when they see his admission here, which virtually says he used them as a pawn in a war of words with two LSN founders. And he used the very serious business of tackling LGBT intolerance as a pawn too. Stoke Newington School borders the area of East London where the recent East End Gay Pride march was cancelled because of fears by infiltration of the far right and the violence that could have erupted in an area where homophobic stickers had been plastered around buildings.

He will be the Chair of Governors of West London Free School and like all schools they have a duty to promote equality and diversity. I do not see how ridiculing LGBT Awareness – and this flies very close to ridiculing LGBT people themselves – can be viewed as a responsible and reassuring response from a school leader towards LGBT staff and pupils at his school. After reading his remarks, I don’t think gay people would feel welcome at a school whose Chair of Governors has ridiculed celebration of their achievements and scorned efforts to eradicate homophobia.

I am not convinced about the wisdom of free schools - there are many flaws in the policy and in the way they are being implemented which is why I have questioned them on the very same internet news and schools sites where Toby has a very high and vocal visibility. The way to defend free schools is for Toby Young and the government to give transparent answers to the serious questions being raised about them – satirising maintained schools and alienating LGBT people is not the right response.

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Colin. To place this in context, the piece I was taking the piss out of appeared on the Local Schools Network and was written by Henry Stewart (happyHenry above), one of the site's co-founders. The LSN is at the forefront of the opposition to the Coalition's free schools policy and scarcely a day passes without it launching an attack on either the West London Free School or me personally. (I'm not using poetic license here.) Henry himself is far from powerless – he's a rich and successful businessman in addition to being the Chair of Governors of Stoke Newington School – and Fiona Millar, a co-founder of the LSN, isn't powerless either. Her partner is Alastair Campbell and she herself used to work at 10 Downing Street. Henry and the website he and Fiona run was the target of my satire. I did not intend the target to be the pupils and staff of SNS and I'm sorry if it came over that way.

Allan Beavis, who's also posted above, is an energetic critic of mine who stalks me around the web. He frequently claims that I'm anti-gay and that gay children and staff won't be welcome at the West London Free School which is both malicious and false. I sincerely hope that the smears and lies that he and others constantly disseminate about me and the WLFS won't put off LGBT children or teachers from applying to the school where, I can assure you, they'd be most welcome.

I think visiting SNS is probably a non-starter, but I will certainly make a point of visiting other schools to see how they celebrate LGBT Month next year.

I agree that it would be inaccurate to label you a homophobe; my not having done so was deliberate, and you can justifiably point to some of your other columns in your defence. The message I personally take from the two you've cited is ‘homosexuality doesn’t mean you have to be effeminate’, which is perhaps only half the story, but that’s certainly true and ultimately challenges a stereotype that does still sadly exist. The fact is I can see no reason to disbelieve you when you say you are not anti-gay.

However, I disagree with your contention that you received negative comments in response to your Spectator article purely because people want to label you as homophobic. True, some commenters levelled that accusation at you (the 99 per cent claim can probably be safely put down to poetic license), but I think at least as many – if not more – were from parents, teachers and students at Stoke Newington who felt hurt and misrepresented by your caricature.

I say ‘caricature’ because I agree with you that one should be able to joke about LGBT History Month; there should be no sacred cows. Even LGBT History Month’s own founder would agree it isn’t perfect (http://sosogay.org/2011/lgbt-history-month-ssg-interviews-sue-sanders/). Satire is vitally important in a healthy and free society. But your piece wasn’t speaking truth to power: this is not the tyranny of an overbearing State; it’s a programme started by a handful of people at one comprehensive in East London. Yes, we should always expect those whose egos have been skewered to cry out, but who were you skewering in the Spectator? Children and teachers who, by their testimony in your comments thread and in the course of conversations I’ve had with them myself (http://sosogay.org/2011/lgbt-history-month-so-so-gay-interviews-elly-barnes/) have demonstrated that, far from being a browbeating imposition, it is a popular and unforced celebration of diversity. Satire is a good thing, but it only works when aimed at the right target.

You rightly point out that the underlying message of LGBT History Month should be embedded in the curriculum, and I think it would be wonderful to see that happen in the West London Free School. But Stoke Newington does that as well (and not just in History): this absolutely isn’t about sacrificing education at the altar of Cultural Revolution, as you imply.

I can only speak for myself, but I suspect most people involved with LGBT History Month would agree that in an ideal world there would be no need for it. In the meantime (or the real world), I believe the idea behind Stoke Newington’s programme is fundamentally good. You’ve made it clear that you disagree, as is your right, but I think in the case of Stoke Newington the execution is even more difficult to argue against than the concept. The programme demonstrably works: it is popular at all levels of the school, has done enormous good in tackling early but insidious prejudices, and has broadened and improved pupils’ educations.

This isn’t about a knee-jerk reaction against you from the Left (I don’t think I’ve ever considered myself part of a ‘the’) or anyone else: I think your attempt at satire was misdirected and misfired, and I repeat my hope that you will visit and speak to Stoke Newington School about its LGBT History Month programme, because I’m not convinced its aims are all that antithetical to what you yourself would like to see achieved.

Excuses are really too little too late.Why on earth would someone choose LGBT Awareness as a weapon to defend himself against critics of the free school policy? Especially if that person is himself the Chair of Governors of his free school? Why humiliate LGBT people in this way and pass it off as satirical? Why then blog about it on a Telegraph blog, where he can be certain of the type of right wing homophobia that this type of ridicule can generate? Ought he not be more careful, given his responsibilities leading a school?

Stoke Newington School and the people who were outraged about the prejudice he couches in satirical terms actually care very much about social inclusion and equality, which is something his school has made clear they probably won't do. How does his scorn look to LGBT teachers and pupils? It will be offputting. They won't want to apply to the school even if they claim to be "inclusive" because it is clear the Chair doesn't really tolerate that sort of thing. And how will other minorities feel now that he is made it clear he is ready to pour scorn on LBGT people?

"Plight of LGBT people"? How condescending. Many of "them" lead very fulfilling and productive lives.

Using the very positive example of celebrating the achievements of LGBT people and twisting it into a negative exercise of shouting down people who support maintained schools is surely a deliberate attempt to present LGBT people in a poor way? It might not be full on extremist homophobia but there is something unpleasant lurking there.

I don’t see that is possible for Toby Young to wriggle out of this one. The tone of contrition rings false and is not helped by the fact that he seeks to claim the status of oppressed victim - perhaps as a show of solidarity with the “plight” of LGBT people?

It is disingenuous to claim that his satire was directed at Henry Stewart and Fiona Millar as it certainly does not read that way. It reads as a malicious and ill advised attack on a school’s commitment to carrying out it’s statutory obligation to the Citizenship Curriculum, which LGBT awareness forms part of and the stench of intolerance of LGBT people hovers around it. Toby Young abused his influence in the media to launch an attack on what he sees as his enemies but in his failure to separate the personal from the politics, he picked up the wrong weapon – LGBT Awareness – to get back at people who question and oppose the wisdom of free schools. I don’t think it is a credible argument that the combined influence of Henry Stewart and Fiona Millar have hampered his efforts to defend himself – he abused in his influence in the media to write the Spectator article to being with, he writes vigorously and in the most provocative way in his Telegraph and other blogs and he is a regular fixture on television and radio. He has used all of these to loudly advocate the cause of free schools.

The article offended the pupils and teachers at the school and that sense of being ridiculed and bullied will be reinforced when they see his admission here, which virtually says he used them as a pawn in a war of words with two LSN founders. And he used the very serious business of tackling LGBT intolerance as a pawn too. Stoke Newington School borders the area of East London where the recent East End Gay Pride march was cancelled because of fears by infiltration of the far right and the violence that could have erupted in an area where homophobic stickers had been plastered around buildings.

He will be the Chair of Governors of West London Free School and like all schools they have a duty to promote equality and diversity. I do not see how ridiculing LGBT Awareness – and this flies very close to ridiculing LGBT people themselves – can be viewed as a responsible and reassuring response from a school leader towards LGBT staff and pupils at his school. After reading his remarks, I don’t think gay people would feel welcome at a school whose Chair of Governors has ridiculed celebration of their achievements and scorned efforts to eradicate homophobia.

I am not convinced about the wisdom of free schools - there are many flaws in the policy and in the way they are being implemented which is why I have questioned them on the very same internet news and schools sites where Toby has a very high and vocal visibility. The way to defend free schools is for Toby Young and the government to give transparent answers to the serious questions being raised about them – satirising maintained schools and alienating LGBT people is not the right response.

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Colin. To place this in context, the piece I was taking the piss out of appeared on the Local Schools Network and was written by Henry Stewart (happyHenry above), one of the site's co-founders. The LSN is at the forefront of the opposition to the Coalition's free schools policy and scarcely a day passes without it launching an attack on either the West London Free School or me personally. (I'm not using poetic license here.) Henry himself is far from powerless – he's a rich and successful businessman in addition to being the Chair of Governors of Stoke Newington School – and Fiona Millar, a co-founder of the LSN, isn't powerless either. Her partner is Alastair Campbell and she herself used to work at 10 Downing Street. Henry and the website he and Fiona run was the target of my satire. I did not intend the target to be the pupils and staff of SNS and I'm sorry if it came over that way.

Allan Beavis, who's also posted above, is an energetic critic of mine who stalks me around the web. He frequently claims that I'm anti-gay and that gay children and staff won't be welcome at the West London Free School which is both malicious and false. I sincerely hope that the smears and lies that he and others constantly disseminate about me and the WLFS won't put off LGBT children or teachers from applying to the school where, I can assure you, they'd be most welcome.

I think visiting SNS is probably a non-starter, but I will certainly make a point of visiting other schools to see how they celebrate LGBT Month next year.

I agree that it would be inaccurate to label you a homophobe; my not having done so was deliberate, and you can justifiably point to some of your other columns in your defence. The message I personally take from the two you've cited is ‘homosexuality doesn’t mean you have to be effeminate’, which is perhaps only half the story, but that’s certainly true and ultimately challenges a stereotype that does still sadly exist. The fact is I can see no reason to disbelieve you when you say you are not anti-gay.

However, I disagree with your contention that you received negative comments in response to your Spectator article purely because people want to label you as homophobic. True, some commenters levelled that accusation at you (the 99 per cent claim can probably be safely put down to poetic license), but I think at least as many – if not more – were from parents, teachers and students at Stoke Newington who felt hurt and misrepresented by your caricature.

I say ‘caricature’ because I agree with you that one should be able to joke about LGBT History Month; there should be no sacred cows. Even LGBT History Month’s own founder would agree it isn’t perfect (http://sosogay.org/2011/lgbt-history-month-ssg-interviews-sue-sanders/). Satire is vitally important in a healthy and free society. But your piece wasn’t speaking truth to power: this is not the tyranny of an overbearing State; it’s a programme started by a handful of people at one comprehensive in East London. Yes, we should always expect those whose egos have been skewered to cry out, but who were you skewering in the Spectator? Children and teachers who, by their testimony in your comments thread and in the course of conversations I’ve had with them myself (http://sosogay.org/2011/lgbt-history-month-so-so-gay-interviews-elly-barnes/) have demonstrated that, far from being a browbeating imposition, it is a popular and unforced celebration of diversity. Satire is a good thing, but it only works when aimed at the right target.

You rightly point out that the underlying message of LGBT History Month should be embedded in the curriculum, and I think it would be wonderful to see that happen in the West London Free School. But Stoke Newington does that as well (and not just in History): this absolutely isn’t about sacrificing education at the altar of Cultural Revolution, as you imply.

I can only speak for myself, but I suspect most people involved with LGBT History Month would agree that in an ideal world there would be no need for it. In the meantime (or the real world), I believe the idea behind Stoke Newington’s programme is fundamentally good. You’ve made it clear that you disagree, as is your right, but I think in the case of Stoke Newington the execution is even more difficult to argue against than the concept. The programme demonstrably works: it is popular at all levels of the school, has done enormous good in tackling early but insidious prejudices, and has broadened and improved pupils’ educations.

This isn’t about a knee-jerk reaction against you from the Left (I don’t think I’ve ever considered myself part of a ‘the’) or anyone else: I think your attempt at satire was misdirected and misfired, and I repeat my hope that you will visit and speak to Stoke Newington School about its LGBT History Month programme, because I’m not convinced its aims are all that antithetical to what you yourself would like to see achieved.

Excuses are really too little too late.Why on earth would someone choose LGBT Awareness as a weapon to defend himself against critics of the free school policy? Especially if that person is himself the Chair of Governors of his free school? Why humiliate LGBT people in this way and pass it off as satirical? Why then blog about it on a Telegraph blog, where he can be certain of the type of right wing homophobia that this type of ridicule can generate? Ought he not be more careful, given his responsibilities leading a school?

Stoke Newington School and the people who were outraged about the prejudice he couches in satirical terms actually care very much about social inclusion and equality, which is something his school has made clear they probably won't do. How does his scorn look to LGBT teachers and pupils? It will be offputting. They won't want to apply to the school even if they claim to be "inclusive" because it is clear the Chair doesn't really tolerate that sort of thing. And how will other minorities feel now that he is made it clear he is ready to pour scorn on LBGT people?

"Plight of LGBT people"? How condescending. Many of "them" lead very fulfilling and productive lives.

Using the very positive example of celebrating the achievements of LGBT people and twisting it into a negative exercise of shouting down people who support maintained schools is surely a deliberate attempt to present LGBT people in a poor way? It might not be full on extremist homophobia but there is something unpleasant lurking there.

The one thing surely no-one would dare accuse you of is joking.

Thank you for not calling me a "homophobe" which 99% of the critics of my squib in the Spectator have done. I am not and have never been anti-gay and believe straight men have benefitted from gay liberation as well as gay men, as I hope this piece makes clear:

http://www.bravotv.com/top-chef/blogs/toby-young/isnt-it-bromantic

My quarrel with Stoke Newington School is over whether children should be taken out of lessons to create posters and placards to celebrate LGBT Month when the message could just as easily be embedded in the curriculum. To give you an example of what I mean, children could be taught about the contribution Orde Wingate made to the Second World War, something I noted in the following piece:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100030645/gay-dutch-soldiers-responsible-for-srebrenica-massacre-balls-one-of-the-finest-british-commanders-of-the-second-world-war-was-as-queer-as-a-three-speed-walking-stick/

I know prejudice and discrimination are still very serious issues for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people, but I think you ought to be able to joke about LGBT Month without being branded anti-gay. The reason the left leapt on this piece is not because they care about the plight of LGBT people, but because they saw it as a convenient stick to beat me with.