Not quite so liberated afterall

It's now almost 4 months since I left Lambeth Council by popular demand and I discover belatedly that I'm the subject of a short piece in the 'Radical Bulletin' section of Liberator (head nod to Donnacaidh McCarthy) the self proclaimed guardians of British liberal conscience.

The June edition of that august journal contains a comment on the South London Press's sexpose of my personal ad on Gaydar, a popular gay dating site. For those who don't know it the SLP is a local tabloid newspaper with a reputation for - how can I put it - 'sensationalist' reporting.

The SLP published the article just before this years local elections in Lambeth where I was standing for re-election to the Council. The article accused me of posing naked for explicit photos 'too shocking to publish in a family newspaper'. Using carefully chosen words it implied that the pictures were of me performing some kind of sexual act. While I have never denied posting the ad I've been silent about its central allegation of a sexually explicit photo.

Given that the Liberator has chosen to perpetuate this accusation I think it’s now time to set the record straight.

Like 250,000 other gay men in the UK I have a profile on Gaydar. However, there are no sexually explicit photos on my ad and there never have been. What there was though, in common with very many other ads on the site, was a full body shot with my private parts obscured by my hand.

Was this a reckless thing for an elected councillor running for re-election to post on the net? Certainly. Was it naive to think that it shouldn't be an election issue? Probably. Was it wrong? Definitely not!

Liberator seem to take a different view however. Their article was disappointing, its not just that they took at face value the comments of a tabloid newspaper owned by a Labour peer, its not just that they failed to ask me whether or not the accusations were true, its not even the fairly obvious pleasure they take in seeing the downfall of a fellow liberal who has taken an opposing political line to them in internal party debate. What is so disappointing is the whole tone of the piece - which is just so.....illiberal.

You see Liberator seem to argue that there should be a different set of behaviour for those who seek office from those who a elect them - in their words "when one voluntarily enters public life there are some constraints". Apparently if you are in public life it is only acceptable to live a modern gay lifestyle if you are secretive and embarrassed about it - a sort of 'don't ask, don't tell' policy for politicians. Well I'm afraid I am comfortable and happy with who I am. I refuse to accept that what is perfectly acceptable in everyday life should be treated as something shameful & shady in public life. I don't believe that it is wrong in 2006 for a man, gay or straight, to look for dates over the internet. Indeed, to be fair, no-one has really suggested that it is wrong - just that I was wrong to be so open & public about it. Well, I came out when I was 16 and I'm not about to start sliding back into the closet now. If the price of being open about who I am is to lose office then that is I'm afraid a price well worth paying.

I doubt I'll ever run for office again - having been a political activist all my adult life now that I've tasted freedom I must confess that I rather like it. However, this isn't just about what happened to me - it's about what kind of politicians we want as a society. How often have we heard the complaint that politicians are aloof and separate, that one of the causes of political disaffection is that they lead lives completely divorced from the experiences of the electorate. Now we are told that it is only those people who conform to an imagined ideal of behaviour who are fit to hold office. Surely we can't have it both ways.

Yes 'when you voluntarily enter public life there are some constraints' the public have a right to expect certain standards from their elected representatives. They have the right to expect that they will not break the law, the right to expect that they will not do or say one thing in public and another in private, they have the right to expect that they will not do anything that stops them fulfilling the job to which they were elected. But what they do not have the right to is determine how a politician lives their private life. By private, I don't mean hidden and unseen - I mean that part of their life that is not accountable, whether it be that they go to church on Sunday, have a secret taste for barn dancing or they get dates on the internet.

If we want to have politicians who are vaguely recognisable as members of the human race then we are going to have to stop attacking them for being...well....frankly...human. That is particularly true of those who so presumptuously claim to be in the vanguard of liberal thinking. For me the role of Liberals is not to criticise people for exercising their freedoms it is to defend them.