Gay Rights Not Kray Rights
Socialist Organiser1982 1982-09-02Read it in the scan (PDF), scan page 7 →
Read from the scan by machine and not corrected: expect misread words, and now and then a caption or a line from a neighbouring story. For anything you quote, read the scan.
Scan page 7
Ray Atwell's letter (SO 97) states that 'the Krays were part of an oppressed minority (they were gay) - in that sense it is an obligation on all revolutionaries to unconditionally defend them' But what should we defend about them?
Ray says we don't defend their acts of violence as a method of solving nonpolitical disputes, even though this violence was in part a response to the oppressive straight society they lived in. I would agree - but this seems to contradiet Ray's 'unconditional detence.
Do we argue for the state to be more lenient in punishing them? Presumably Ray thinks we should. As far as 1 am concerned, it is no job of the workers to defend those, gay or not, who carry out acts of violence like the Krays did.
by Les We du defend gay people We defend their right to be gay; to organise as gay people and to publicly assert their sexuality without fear of intimidation or legal attacks.
But we don't therefore defend any actions of gay people.
The logic of Ray's letter seems to be that we would defend Martin Webster in all the current faction fights within the fascist movement, because I'm sure we can trace a lot of Webster's actions to the fact that he is a gay male in straight male society. But of course we don't argue for special treatment for Webster.
Neither should we argue for special treatment for the Krays.
Will Adams, Tower Hamlets.