FURY OVER GATELY COLUMN
A newspaper columnist in the UK has come under fire for an article, which has been described as homophobic, about the late openly gay Boyzone singer Stephen Gately.
The Daily Mail’s Jan Moir wrote in the article, about Gately’s recent death while on holiday in Majorca, that “healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again.
“And I think if we are going to be honest, we would have to admit that the circumstances surrounding his death are more than a little sleazy.”
This despite officials stating that Gateley’s death was as a result of natural causes most likely brought on by heart failure.
Moir also commented on speculation about why Gately and his husband Andrew Cowles had invited a Bulgarian student they had met at a nightclub to the couple’s holiday home on the morning of the singer’s death.
“Another real sadness about Gately’s death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships. Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael,” she wrote.
“Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately’s last night raise troubling questions about what happened.”
According to the Press Complaints Commission, the article has resulted in a record amount of complaints which caused its website to crash.
The Metropolitan Police in London has also confirmed that it has received a complaint from a member of the public about the column.
The furore has resulted in some Daily Mail advertisers, such as Marks & Spencer and Nestle, distancing themselves from the column and its content.
Meanwhile, Moir has said in a statement that “I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones”.
“When I wrote that ‘he would want to set an example to any impressionable young men who may want to emulate what they might see as his glamorous routine,’ I was referring to the drugs and the casual invitation extended to a stranger, not to the fact of his homosexuality.
“In writing that ‘it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships’ I was suggesting that civil partnerships – the introduction of which I am on the record in supporting – have proved just to be as problematic as marriages.”
Moir said that she believed that she was the target of “a heavily orchestrated internet campaign”.
…… I read her article and it was disgusting. I think sometimes these coloumnists – with their over inflated ego’s and not-so-humble opinions – forget that the people they are writing about have families. Stephen was a son to loving parents and her crude remarks make dealing with his passing even more difficult. No family should have to bear that. If it were Moir’s child – regardless of his or her sexuality – would she be pleased to read an article in a newspaper slamming her child or criticising how he lived his life? I doubt it. She is no doctor or pathologist so her version of Stephen’s death remains irrelevant. Before make such pathetic statements maybe next time she should back it up with some facts. That way she won’t look a total fool the next time.
And what I don’t get it is why didn’t she just say what she meant in the first place? Why write a coloumn that is open to ridicule or invites anger from readers? I think I know the answer to that one: publicity.
the real reasons. When you write: “why didn’t she just say what she meant in the first place?”, I couldn’t agree more.
However, when you say: “I think I know the answer to that one: publicity”, I think the real answer is that it is really homophobia. If and when she gets flak for that, then she turns to obfuscating.
Theoddone. Well I’m sorry to say, there is allot of truth in what she wrote!
…… There is? Care to enlighten the rest of us of your expertise or are you privvy to knowledge that the rest of the world isn’t?