Kolesnikov-Jessop: In the United Kingdom, attitudes toward homosexuality have changed fairly rapidly recently. In 2000, the British government lifted the ban on lesbian and gay men in the armed forces. In 2001, it lowered the age of consent to 16. And in 2005, it allowed the first civil partnerships to take place. But in many countries around the world, homosexuality is still outlawed. How can similar social changes happen? McKellen: The change happened very quickly in the U.K. once the government was able to say there had been a change in the public mood. Tony Blair’s New Labour did not campaign for new legislation. Indeed they defended the status quo until they were told by the European Court of Human Rights to admit gays into the military and to equalize age of consent. Europe was of great help to us. The sky didn’t fall in, the die-hards began to look like extremists and the government was emboldened. With the approval of the mainstream press, they felt able to introduce not marriage but the next best thing: civil partnership that the state recognizes. So looking back on his legacy, what Blair can be most proud of is the advancement of gay rights.
How do you further change public opinion? In the U.K. there is still work to be done, particularly in schools, stopping the homophobic bullies in the playground and introducing unbiased discussion on gay issues in the classroom. In countries that need reform, the bigots have to be countered by measured arguments and reliable research so that government can respond to reason and not prejudice. Public figures’ coming out and declaring their homosexuality certainly helps the move to change.
What worked in the U.K.? In any human-rights campaign, everybody must do what they can. I was criticized by some gays as being too soft on the government when I made a private meeting in a very public way with John Major, Blair’s predecessor as prime minister. Major was sending signals to his supporters at a time where most gay people, including myself, had stayed very quiet. Some people argued that the best thing was to go to the streets and frighten the horses, disrupt the state opening of Parliament, or interrupt the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Sunday sermon. That’s not my style: I already have enough theater in my life!
But do you think people should be upfront and protest, or take the quiet way? Both are valid and work well in parallel—think of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King. In Singapore, Malcolm X type of activity would be extremely difficult because the government can be very harsh on lawbreakers. I wouldn’t presume to tell what people should do.
Some argue that some societies, like Singapore ’ s, are too conservative for such changes. There is nothing special about their situation. We heard it all before: “Gays should respect the views of those who condemn them.” “Government is powerless to move until society is ready for change.” “The law here that outlaws love between two grown men was left behind by the British.” I would have thought any self-respecting ex-colony would want to get rid of the colonizer’s laws. When I went to lobby Nelson Mandela while the postapartheid constitution was being drafted, I asked him to endorse making it illegal to discriminate on grounds of sexuality. I’d been warned that he might giggle if I mentioned homosexuality. But he got the point immediately and just said, “Yes, of course.” Perhaps a winning slogan might be: “What’s good enough for Mandela is good enough for us all.”
Do you think pragmatism will change the world? Perhaps. When I went to talk recently to Lehman Brothers in London at a meeting of their LGBT members, the managing director declared that every member of his staff, of whatever sexuality, needs to feel the support of company as a whole. Singapore’s current laws would discourage gay foreigners from working there. Maybe big business can help change laws by explaining the problem.
