All the below e-mails were sent and received on Thrsday 25th April

Dear Mr Eaton,

In today's 'Spectator', Douglas Murray quotes you in a transcript of your recent interview with Sir Roger Scruton

He quotes you as saying:

‘On homosexuality you’ve been criticised by some for saying, for instance, homosexuality’s not normal. But that seems to be a statement of fact…’

I wished to check first of all that this is accurate and secondly that there is no context to it which would make it wrong for me to conclude that you believe homosexuality to be 'not normal', and such an assertion to be a 'statement of fact'.

Many thanks,

Peter Hitchens

*****

Dear Mr Hitchens,

The quote is accurate and the only context is that I was referencing a past remark by Mr Scruton.

By “statement of fact” I was making the arithmetical point that only a minority of the population identify as gay.

For further context on Mr Scruton’s views, here is a remark from a 2015 Spiked interview.

http://www.charlesdonovan.com/2015/12/11/roger-scrutons-mealy-mouthed-anti-gay-slurs/

“What I say in my book Sexual Desire: A Philosophical Investigation (1986), I still think. But it’s much more dangerous to say it now. My view then was that first of all – oh why not say it, you know, I’m old now – homosexuality is not one thing. Lesbianism is usually an attempt by a woman to find that committed love that she can’t get from men any more. Because men exploit women and move on. So it’s very often a reaction to that sort of disappointment. Whereas male homosexuality, because it’s not constrained by a woman’s need to fix a man down, is hugely promiscuous – the statistics are quite horrifying. And there’s also the obsession with the sexual organs rather than the relationship, this vector towards phallicism, the obsession with the young, all kinds of things like that, which mean that, as I see it, homosexual desire, especially between men, is not the same kind of thing as heterosexual desire, even though it’s not a perversion.”

Kind regards,

George Eaton

*******

Dear Mr Eaton,

Thank you for your reply. I am not sure that arithmetic has anything to say about *normality*, which is surely a judgement. It is only about prevalence, a neutral fact. Several things could be normal in a population, while some were more common than others. You're plainly very well-versed in the sensitivities of things. If it was legitimate of you to make the assumptions that you made about Sir Roger's remarks on a number of issues then please explain why, employing your techniques , it wouldn't be legitimate for me to write that *you*, a leading journalist of the Left, believe that homosexuality is not normal? Don’t , by the way, assume that I agree with Sir Roger about everything. Far from it. On the other hand, so what? *I* don't think people should be driven from public life for espousing opinions I don't like. But if there is to be policing of thought, then who shall police the Thought Police, in whose ranks you seem to have found a comfy berth? If not, don't you have a much larger apology to make than the one you have so far managed? I really am interested to see how you would respond to being treated as you have treated others. I shan't be doing the thing with the champagne, or calling for you to be hounded from your post, as I find that repellent. I can only point out what you have said and done, as truthfully as possible.

But by your own lights you should surely be calling for your own resignation, and alerting the world to your unacceptable opinion, now revealed. Or you should be regretting publicly that you did an unfair thing to an easy victim who has actually done some very brave things in his life, especially in taking succour and comfort to people living under intolerant tyrannies in Eastern Europe in a time of darkness. And if not, the whole thing looks a bit tawdry and,well, hypocritical.

One or the other. Not both.

I would be glad of a further response, if possible. I really do want to give you all the chances you didn't give to Sir Roger. But soon, please. I am approaching deadlines.

Sincerely,

Peter Hitchens