Tim Montgomerie normalises homophobia (again)

As has now been widely reported, the Conservative Party has, uncharacteristically, taken action on homophobia in their ranks by... erm, suspending a Scottish PPC who was contesting a seat that he had absolutely no chance of winning anyway (at the last election Labour won secured 43.9% of the vote, with the Tories trailing on 18.4%).  Compare and contrast the suspension of Philip Lardner with the cases of Chris Grayling and Julian Lewis, a Shadow Cabinet member and Shadow Minister respectively, who are still in jobs, and over whom David Cameron has taken no action.

Iain Dale has written a post saying 'good riddance' to Philip Lardner.  This is an open goal for him, giving him the chance to burnish his credentials as a champion of gay rights without actually having to stand up to his party - after all, the Scottish Tories had already suspended Lardner, so all Dale had to do was applaud their decision.  As I have noted here before, Dale's record on calling out Tory homophobia in cases where the party itself is unkeen to take action has been consistently poor.

Conservative Home's Tim Montgomerie, meanwhile, has come out as an apologist for Lardner's homophobia.  Before getting to his assessment of the situation, it's worth noting the comments from Lardner that led to his suspension:

"I will always support the rights of homosexuals to be treated within concepts of (common-sense) equality and respect, and defend their rights to choose to live the way they want in private, but I will not accept that their behaviour is 'normal' or encourage children to indulge in it. 

"The promotion of homosexuality by public bodies (as per 'clause 28′/section 2a in Scotland,) was correctly outlawed by Mrs Thatcher's government. Toleration and understanding is one thing, but state-promotion of homosexuality is quite another.

"Why should Christian churches be forced by the government to employ homosexuals as 'ministers' against all that the Bible teaches? They are being forced by the government to betray their mission – would the Equality and Human Rights Commission be fined for refusing a job to Nick Griffin?

"Christians (and most of the population) believe homosexuality to be somewhere between 'unfortunate' and simply 'wrong' and they should not be penalised for politely saying so – good manners count too, of course.

"The current 'law' is wrong and must be overturned in the interests of freedom as well as Christian values."

Let us leave aside the parts of his comments that have attracted the most attention - that homosexuality is not normal, and that it is "somewhere between 'unfortunate' and simply 'wrong'".  Note instead that Lardner defends Section 28, and advocates its reintroduction.  Note too that he peddles the falsehood that it is possible to teach or promote homosexuality.  And note finally that he stokes up fears about the effects of equality legislation, saying that it forces churches to hire gay clergy, when spiritual positions are exempt.  In a nutshell, Lardner attempts to fight gay equality by lying to people about what it entails.

And Montgomerie's response?  He does not object to any of Lardner's ideas about gay rights, but only to the manner of their presentation:

I see no evidence for hatefulness in Mr Lardner's remarks, even though I disagree with his choice of words. Although he's probably wrong to say "most of the population" share his views, they are shared by many conservative Christians and people of other faiths. His suspension by the Scottish Conservative Party seems a disproportionate response.

But this should not be a surprise, since it is not the first time Montgomerie has attempted to claim that clearly homophobic comments by a Tory are in fact nothing of the sort.  Back in August of last year, Tory MEP Roger Helmer claimed that homophobia does not exist, but is instead a 'thought crime', 'a propaganda device designed to denigrate and stigmatise those holding conventional opinions', and 'frightening evidence of the way in which political correctness is threatening our freedom'.  Montgomerie said, on that occasion, that Helmer's comments were 'perfectly reasonable'.