So the National Trust is jumping on the rainbow bandwagon. And as a consequence it is facing a backlash.
The National Trust was facing a membership crisis over its policy to “out” a country squire and make volunteers at a Norfolk mansion wear the gay pride rainbow symbol.
The charity has been accused of being excessively politically correct over a high-profile campaign to mark 50 years since the decriminalisation of homosexuality.
Apparently, staff who choose not to wear the rainbow neck badges are not allowed to greet the public.
It later emerged that volunteers at the Jacobean mansion had been told if they refused to wear the gay pride rainbow symbol they would not be allowed to meet and greet visitors to the estate.
That in itself is pretty disgraceful. Added to that, the man they are currently publicly outing chose during his lifetime to keep his sexuality discreet.
The National Trust’s Prejudice and Pride programme became embroiled in controversy when it “outed” Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer, a country squire who bequeathed Felbrigg Hall, his ancestral home near Cromer, to the Trust upon his death in 1969.
Godchildren of the poet and historian demanded to know why the organisation had decided to make a film narrated by Stephen Fry which revealed that this “intensely private” man was gay.
Presumably because being gay must now be celebrated. Even if someone who was homosexual did not wish to celebrate during their lifetime. Sexuality is a private matter and this man’s privacy – even after his death – should be sacrosanct. The public display is crass and the forcing of people to wear the rainbow badge even if they would prefer not to is downright nasty bullying. Painting the proposals as a choice is weasel wording – yeah, they have a choice providing the step down from their roles. They cannot choose to continue as they are and not wear the badges, so, not really a choice.
It was appalling how homosexuals were treated prior to decriminalisation. So, sure, a moment to acknowledge the suffering the law caused is no bad thing, but can we stop with the constant bombardment of sexuality that is in reality a minority matter – and a private one.
Tolerance is right and proper but for many, homosexuality is not something they wish to celebrate, so using coercion to do so and outing someone – even the dead – is beyond the pale. Let the dead lie in peace and the living act according to conscience, FFS.
I’m glad that some of the volunteers are refusing and that there’s talk of subscriptions being cancelled over this nonsense. NT is going way beyond its remit in promoting the agenda of a particular group. I’m sick to death of the LGBT mob and its insistence that it’s not only accepted but celebrated. NT deserves to have no volunteers at all after bullying them to publicly endorse a sentiment which they may not hold privately and it’s thoroughly cheap to dragoon a deceased donor into a tacky little marketing campaign.
I stopped my NT subscription years ago when it introduced a rule that dogs couldn’t run free at any of its properties.
“…not only accepted but celebrated.” For years we were told that what happens between consenting adults in the bedroom was private. Now we’re dragged into the bedroom and expected to applaud.
Quite
Well put. I don’t give a sod how other consenting adults act in private as long as it’s legal and doesn’t involve minors or animals – and stays private. I cannot understand why I should even be aware of, let alone be expected to celebrate, someone else’s proclivities. Why can’t I be left alone to just not give a damn?
This is yet another example of the stupidity and totalitarian and condescending attitude of Dame Helen Ghosh, the head of the NT who is shortly leaving. What is extraordinary is that she has royally fucked up every post she has held, but is still moved to yet another lucrative post regardless – she is due to become Master of Balliol – a college once noted for its intellectual rigour. Sometimes I suspect a conspiracy despite myself.