Tesco’s Queer Decision

Just when you thought it was safe to come out – ha! Come out! Get it? (yes, this is the level of wit you’re dealing with here and I’m afraid I’ve probably just scared a fair few people away) – from behind the sofa, it seems that The Daily Mail have been at it again. Yes, I know I probably should read that wankstain of a ‘newspaper’, but an article was brought to my attention today.

On my birthday, of all days. I really don’t want to answer the question: ‘What did you spend your birthday doing, David?’

Anyway, it seems Tesco has decided that it no longer wants people with cancer to recover and would much rather see people loving each other in the bum and drinking from the furry cup. Their ‘article’, Outrage as Tesco backs gay festival… but drops support for cancer charity event, isn’t so much a piece of journalism, more a series of flaws held together by punctuation.

Starting with that there headline. The opening word, ‘Outrage’, is one we’ll come back to as we go, but just trust me for now that it’s out of place and I’ll explain why shortly. The flaw in the headline, though, is actually that The Mail seems to believe that Tesco can only support one event and has, therefore, chosen the gays over those in need of cancer treatment. It’s not an either or decision.

It’s a business decision: Tesco has decided that it will no longer back Race For Life. Tesco has also decided that it will back London’s Pride event. Two entirely unconnected turn of events that The Mail seems desperate to smash together in some hideous car crash of a piece of ‘journalism’.

The biggest reason for me thinking that these two business decisions are completely unconnected is that Tesco’s ending of their Race For Life partnership happened in September, while the announcement of their London Pride sponsorship happened three weeks ago. Seems a bit of an elaborate ploy if there was a connection.

So, on to the first paragraph:

Tesco has triggered outrage by ending its support for the Cancer Research ‘Race for Life’ while deciding to sponsor Britain’s largest gay festival.

Has it? Has it really? Why has it triggered outrage, Daily Mail? As we’re already noted, the two decisions came weeks apart from each other. And who exactly is outraged? The public? Because if they are, this is the first I’ve heard of it and I’ve not exactly been disconnected from the news for the last three weeks.

I daresay you probably mean ‘we think our readers will be outraged by these two totally unconnected events if they had been connected, so we’re going to connect them for you right here’. Though I suppose that’s not quite as snappy.

Some religious commentators and groups have condemned the decision and are calling for a boycott of the supermarket chain.

Ah! There we are. Religious commentators and groups. It’s them who are outraged by these two unrelated incidents. In fact, you’d think it’d be the cancer sufferers and their families who’d have been most outraged, but it seems it’s not. Forgive my cynicism, but this is beginning to feel like it’s not the non-sponsorship of Race For Life that the Mail is upset at. More the fact that the gays are getting a bit of cash to help their push for equality.

But then it gets better. Underneath that part of the story comes a picture. It isn’t any old picture, mind you, it’s one that is of your average homosexual male and one that isn’t at all likely to get the blood pumping in those people who are sick of (spit!) political correctness gone mad. Captioned ‘Courting the pink pound: Tesco have announced they will be sponsoring the Pride London gay festival this year‘, the picture appears as follows:

Well done, Daily Mail. You can almost imagine their readers picking up their papers and slamming them down onto the table in front of some unfortunate passerby and pointing at any one of them men, shouting: “This is what Tesco are funding! They’re not going to help people with cancer, but they’re going to help people who want to get naked in our streets! This country…!”

It goes on:

The chain’s main contribution was support for the annual fundraising Race for Life, the UK’s largest women-only charity event, which has raised more than £400million for the fight against cancer since it began in 1994.

In its ten-year sponsorship of Race For Life, Tesco has helped to raise over £400m for the cancer charity. Over £400m. That’s an average of about £40m per year. Or £109,000 a day.

So, how much is the big company going to be splashing out on this lavish street party where people will be getting naked and having sex IN YOUR FACE? The answer’s buried right at the bottom of the article:

A [Tesco] spokesman said the decision to drop its support ‘is not connected to our £30,000 sponsorship for Pride, which is one of hundreds of community and charitable events that we will be supporting next year’.

Hmm? £30,000? Is that it? A drop in the ocean when it comes to the money that Tesco (a) earns and (b) raised for cancer charities in the last ten years. If you’ve been outraged by that, then you have some issues that probably need to be dealt with.

And, yes, I’ve not forgotten about that outrage. Because it’s at this point in the article where we find what source the Mail has found that hasn’t been at all pleased with Tesco’s unrelated business moves. It is, of course, The Catholic Herald. In fact, it’s more or less a direct lift from their column:

Francis Phillips, a commentator at The Catholic Herald, condemned the shift, saying: ‘Tesco is a supermarket.

‘Its remit has been to sell good-quality food and other items at very reasonable prices, and in this it has been hugely successful.

‘Why has it now aligned itself with an aggressive political organisation such as Pride London?

‘Why has it given up its sponsorship of Cancer Research? Or at least…why hasn’t it taken up with another mainstream charity such as the British Legion or Age UK?

‘There are thousands of ex-servicemen and wounded soldiers needing help in this country, and millions of elderly people in danger of neglect.

‘They are a fundamental part of the fabric of our society – the kind of fabric that Tesco should be reflecting.’

I like the start. Stick with the basics and you can’t go far wrong. Tesco is indeed a supermarket and its remit is indeed to sell goods at reasonable prices. However, why the assumption that they can’t get involved with politics? Should they not endorse green living, as they do with their (admittedly very annoying) Less Co2 (don’t you see – it LOOKS like ‘Tesco’!) adverts and their green clubcard points?

Their work in raising awareness and money for Race For Life for the last ten years has been nothing short of admirable. As is their decision to endorse an event that is looking to promote equality between one section of society and another. Once again, just because Tesco is sponsoring a gay event doesn’t mean they’re not going to help anybody else or any other cause.

David Skinner of the Anglican Mainstream organisation, which supports traditional marriage and family life, has written to complain to Mr Higginson and Tesco chief executive Philip Clarke.

That’s nice of him. The phrase ‘supports traditional marriage and family life’ might as well be re-written to say ‘doesn’t like the idea of two people of the same sex getting it on’. And we know that gays in monogamous relationships don’t exist, while heterosexuals never split up or get divorced once married.

He wrote: ‘For Tesco to sponsor a tiny homosexual minority – according to the Office for National Statistics, that amounts to little more than 1 per cent of the population – will be showing the utmost contempt for a large proportion of British society that still adheres, more or less, to the morality and values of the Ten Commandments.’

Well, where to start?

It might come as a surprise to Mr Skinner, but most people don’t live their lives by the values of what’s written in some book. Don’t get me wrong here, The Bible and other holy texts have some great moral messages in parts, but they also have some fucking stupid ones too.

So, most of the public aren’t gay. Well done on that one. Most of the pubic don’t have cancer. Why were Tesco sponsoring an event to help them for so long? Yeah, that’s right – because it’s not about the number of fucking people involved. It’s about helping a good cause.

And, being honest now, I’m not a even fan of gay pride. It’s not my thing. But I understand the reason it exists and I wouldn’t begrudge anybody else enjoying the event. It represents a push towards equality and a celebration of sexuality in all of its forms, and Tesco is helping towards that, just as they helped the search for cancer cures in the last ten years.

The morality and values of the Ten Commandments bit is complete tosh, too. How many people would be able to list off all ten of the buggers without having to look any up? And just because your book says that marriage is between a man and a woman doesn’t mean that that’s the end of it. There’s a large majority of people who don’t live their lives by what your book says and shouldn’t be forced to, either, much in the same way as there’s a large majority of people who aren’t gay and aren’t forced to sleep with the same gender.

Both Mrs Phillips and Mr Skinner are calling on consumers to boycott Tesco.

‘Let’s send Tesco a message: stick to groceries and stop dabbling in dubious fringe political movements,’ said Mrs Phillips.

Fine. Don’t go into Tesco. See what they care. If everybody connected with the groups that have been opposing the store’s move decided to boycott the chain, I’m willing to bet the dent in their profits would be negligible. At best.

Most likely, unaffected. That’s where my money is.

Catholic campaign website Protect the Pope said Tesco’s decision was ‘a sign of how out of touch they have become from ordinary families’.

Read: ‘straight people’.

For the record, I’ve not met many straight people that have an issue with gays. Each to their own and all that. Though, I’d say Tesco’s decision was actually a sign of how in touch they are.

Cancer Research UK, which gave no sign of disappointment about losing Tesco’s support, is looking for a new partner for the Race for Life.

Emma Gilbert, who organises the event, said the partnership ‘came to a natural end’ for both parties.

But she added: ‘Tesco employees have taken part in events across the UK, raising over £7million for our life-saving research, and we hope they will continue to take part in the events.’

Tesco said it was in talks with the charity to support its work in other ways and would encourage staff to continue taking part in the Race for Life.

So, Tesco aren’t bastards after all. Its employees take part and they’re looking to support Cancer Research UK in other ways. See, Daily Mail – Tesco can choose to help both cancer charities and the push for social equalities.

Again, the cynic in me wonders if the Mail has simply decided to stir up a bit of anti-gay feeling when they saw this opportunity. And it’s somewhat worked, given the state of the comments underneath the article. Here’s my favourite, and not only because of the username of the person who left it:

Why does sexual preference even have to be celebrated in public? It should be a private matter between two consenting adults, not an excuse for a massively expensive public party, and /or a platform to bully people into political and moral acceptance even if they be a minority. Homosexual or straight it should be kept private and in the bedroom and certainly not sponsored. In these times of austerity our British citizens should seek to ensure we keep our dignity and pride, not with a massive public booze up and rave, where drag queens parade naked through the streets, but by helping those who have served to keep our democracy and those who through illness need the financial help our succesful [sic] profit making businesses can provide. We should focus on helping those in need, our veterans and those cancer patients, irrespective of their sexual preferences who need it because their lives are at risk.

- Free Britain from the unelected EU dictators in Brussels

Obviously, having been through all the points raised earlier in this blog post, I don’t need to go over them again. Other than just to point out that Tesco aren’t sponsoring people to have sex, drag queens generally don’t go naked in the streets and the times of austerity have the thin end of arse all to do with Tesco’s decision.

So there you have it. Tesco refuses to help people with cancer, but loves the gays.

Except that’s not true.

I just can’t wait to hear what Melanie Phillips and Richard Littlejohn think about all this.

~ by David Mooney on November 13, 2011.