A
ccording to Godwin’s law, the longer an
online discussion continues, the greater
the likelihood that someone will men-
tion the Nazis. Former Archbishop of Canter-
bury Lord Carey extended this rule to the fringe
of the Tory conference last week, where he com-
pared the name-calling aimed at those who
oppose same-sex marriage to the situation of
the Jews in Nazi Germany, a case of Reductio ad
Hitlerum which caused all reasonable people
to groan and hit their heads against the nearest
solid object.
Carey spoke alongside a collection of anti-
marriage equality campaigners including Da-
vid Burrowes MP and Ann Widdecombe, who
argued that the restrictions on freedoms that
would come from same-sex marriage were
“the hallmark of a totalitarian states down
the ages.” But Carey, Widdecombe et al. need a
strong dose of logic, because their arguments
are entirely ridiculous.
‘Calling someone out
on their views does not
mean we’ll all be
goose-stepping within
the year’
First, the comparison is frankly offensive:
the plight of Germany’s Jews, persecuted and
killed for their racial status, is in no way the
same as (almost) being called a bigot by Clegg
and co., and it’s an especially unsuitable com-
parison considering the number of homosexu-
als who died alongside the Jews.
Secondly, being “called names” was certainly
part of that Nazi persecution, but calling some-
one out on their views does not mean that we
will soon slide down that slippery slope and
find ourselves goose-stepping within the year.
Widdecombe worries that people are “no long-
er free to speak their minds.” Nobody is stop-
ping anybody from doing this, but freedom of
speech also means that we can condemn those
who we believe are wrong.
Then Widdecombe brought up the civil-part-
nerships-are-as-good-as-marriages argument,
which misses the point. If Carey is going to
make a Nazi comparison, I’ll make a civil rights
one: the back of the bus may have got African-
Americans to the same stops, but it enforced
the status of second-class citizen. Widdecombe
went on to say, “you’re taking it away from het-
erosexuals but you’re not giving anything to
the gays”, the logic of which boggles the mind.
If the first is true, how can the latter be? What
can straight couples possibly lose if more peo-
ple can get married? She also claims that gay
people don’t want to get married, which is pa-
tently untrue and reminiscent of anti-suffrage
campaigners 100 years ago – ‘but most women
don’t even want the vote!’
Really, the crux of it all is in Carey’s state-
ment that “same sex relationships are not the
same as heterosexual relationships and should
not be put on the same level.” This is what they
should be judged upon, and it does not make
you a fascist to suggest that they might be a lit-
tle bit bigoted.
According to Godwin’s law, the longer an online discussion continues, the greater the likelihood that someone will mention the Nazis. Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey extended this rule to the fringe of the Tory conference last week, where he compared the name-calling aimed at those who oppose same-sex marriage to the situation of the Jews in Nazi Germany, a case of Reductio ad Hitlerum which caused all reasonable people to groan and hit their heads against the nearest solid object.
Carey spoke alongside a collection of anti-marriage equality campaigners including David Burrowes MP and Ann Widdecombe, who argued that the restrictions on freedoms that would come from same-sex marriage were “the hallmark of a totalitarian states down the ages.” But Carey, Widdecombe et al. need a strong dose of logic, because their arguments are entirely ridiculous.
First, the comparison is frankly offensive: the plight of Germany’s Jews, persecuted and killed for their racial status, is in no way the same as (almost) being called a bigot by Clegg and co., and it’s an especially unsuitable comparison considering the number of homosexuals who died alongside the Jews.
Secondly, being “called names” was certainly part of that Nazi persecution, but calling some-one out on their views does not mean that we will soon slide down that slippery slope and find ourselves goose-stepping within the year. Widdecombe worries that people are “no longer free to speak their minds.” Nobody is stopping anybody from doing this, but freedom of speech also means that we can condemn those who we believe are wrong.
Then Widdecombe brought up the civil-partnerships-are-as-good-as-marriages argument, which misses the point. If Carey is going to make a Nazi comparison, I’ll make a civil rights one: the back of the bus may have got African-Americans to the same stops, but it enforced the status of second-class citizen. Widdecombe went on to say, “you’re taking it away from heterosexuals but you’re not giving anything to the gays”, the logic of which boggles the mind. If the first is true, how can the latter be? What can straight couples possibly lose if more people can get married? She also claims that gay people don’t want to get married, which is patently untrue and reminiscent of anti-suffrage campaigners 100 years ago – ‘but most women don’t even want the vote!’
Really, the crux of it all is in Carey’s statement that “same sex relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships and should not be put on the same level.” This is what they should be judged upon, and it does not make you a fascist to suggest that they might be a little bit bigoted.
