Question of rights

The Telegraph claimed a small victory yesterday when the National Trust reversed a decision to sideline volunteers at a Norfolk house who did not want to wear the rainbow symbol of sexual equality. The issue was not the worth of the symbol itself, but the right of those who don’t want to wear it not to wear it.

Imposing a rainbow on the volunteers was insensitive, as was the Trust’s earlier decision to identify a deceased owner of the Hall as gay. Many small-c conservatives supported the partial decriminalisation of homosexual acts 50 years ago precisely because they believed a person’s private life was no business of the state. For millions of gay and lesbian people, the great joy of the past few decades is that they have increasingly been left alone. It has been a revolution in privacy.

Therefore, the Trust’s attempt to “out” historical figures or force volunteers to participate in the celebration of gay pride is contrary to the spirit of Britain’s legal reform. That’s what makes this particular story a small but important one. As gay rights become embedded into culture and law, so there will be those who dissent (often for religious reasons) or who are simply uninterested in a campaign that has nothing to do with them. From time to time, conflicts will arise between one group or another, and powerful liberals – particularly in the Tory party – should resist the temptation to impose change by fiat.

If they do try to change people’s minds about this issue by force, they may encounter a costly backlash. The National Trust intended to celebrate Britain’s gay heritage. Instead, it had an unseemly disagreement with its own members. There is a lesson there that is worth heeding.