The Dictionary of Homophobia (158 page)

At the libel trial, which opened on April 3, 1895, it quickly became apparent that the Marquess, the defendant, assumed the role of accuser: his lawyers had successfully gathered the testimonies of several young male prostitutes who revealed their sexual activities with Wilde. Despite Wilde’s various witticisms spoken during the trial, it ended with a dismissal of the charges against the Marquess. Worse, it launched the start of two other trials, on April 26 and May 22, in which Wilde was now the defendant, accused of “committing acts of gross indecency with other male persons.” Despite repeated pressure from friends who encouraged him to flee the country, Wilde refused to leave, choosing instead to face his accusers. During the first trial, when interrogated about his “crimes,” he responded with a moving speech on the nature of “the love that dares not speak its name,” resulting in a round of thunderous applause from those in attendance. The trial ended with the jury unable to reach a verdict, resulting in a second, and final, trial, presided over by Chief Justice Sir Alfred Wills, who declared, “This is the worst trial I have ever been given to judge.” The trial lasted three days; on May 25, 1895, Wilde, the “High Priest of Decadents,” according to the
National Observer
, was convicted of gross indecency and sentenced to two years of hard labor in prison. News of Wilde’s conviction was received with enthusiasm by both the public and the media, and he fell out of favor, both personally and professionally. As soon as his trials began, production of his plays was closed down, and an American tour of
A Woman of No Importance
was cancelled. Following Wilde’s conviction, many renowned British homosexuals fled to
France
, where homosexuality was not a crime, while back at home, the majority of Wilde’s friends quickly renounced him.

During his imprisonment, Wilde wrote one of his master works,
De Profundis,
a moving essay on spirituality and faith written as a letter to Lord Alfred Douglas, in which he confessed to his mistakes, but refuted any feelings of guilt. He was released from prison in 1897, a broken man. In self-imposed exile in France under the pseudonym of Sebastian Melmoth, and supported by some loyal friends who included Robert Ross, Wilde wrote the famous poem “The Ballad of Reading Gaol” in 1898. Wilde died in Paris two years later, in 1900, at the age of forty-six.

Oscar Wilde’s conviction and imprisonment is without a doubt one of the most famous examples of the manifestations of society-wide homophobia in Western culture. The scandal of the trials and their subsequent repercussions served to introduce certain new homophobic stereotypes: at a moment when, under the combined influence of
law
and
medicine
, new ideas and understandings of homosexuality were emerging, the figure of Oscar Wilde—fey and effeminate—became, in the public eye, a symbol of
vice
and
decadence
. The homosexual, as “corruptor of youth,” was perceived as a threat to the integrity of society, and as such, had to be unmasked. At the same time, in order to protect family morals and prevent all “imitation of the crime” (in the words of British Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, the Marquess of Salisbury), these “
perversions
” had to remain secret. In 1896, the Publication of Indecent Evidence bill was introduced in the British parliament, forbidding the publication of minutes from trials relating to homosexuality.

Paradoxically, Oscar Wilde’s trials also played a determining role in the identification of a separate homosexual culture. By revealing the existence of an already well-organized gay subculture, at least in the larger cities, and by initiating discussions about (male) homosexuality in the media, a number of homosexual men all of a sudden became conscious that they were part of a group. Oscar Wilde, gay martyr, became the ultimate homosexual reference: his name was even used as code (the hero of E. M. Forster’s 1914 novel,
Maurice
, defines himself as an “unnamable in the likes of Oscar Wilde”).
A contrario
, the reading of Wilde’s works, even years after his death, could be considered scandalous: twenty years after Wilde’s trials, future author Beverley Nichols, caught reading
The Picture of Dorian Gray
, was struck and insulted by his father, who spat on the book’s cover before tearing it to bits. Oscar Wilde’s disposition, the disgrace cast upon his name, and the infamy of his conviction and sentence were meant to be a warning to all young men on the dangers of homosexuality for many years to come.
—Florence Tamagne

Ellmann, Richard.
Oscar Wilde
. Paris: Gallimard, 1994. [Published in the US as
Oscar Wilde
. New York: Knopf, 1987.]

Jullian, Philippe.
Oscar Wilde
. Paris: Christian de Bartillat, 2000.

Merle, Robert.
Oscar Wilde ou la destinée de l’homosexuel
. Paris: Gallimard, 1985.

Sinfeld, Alan.
The Wilde Century: Effeminacy, Oscar Wilde and the Queer Moment
. London: Cassel, 1994.

Vallet, Odon.
L’Affaire Oscar Wilde
. Paris: Gallimard, “Folio,” 1997.

—Decadence; England; Ireland; Literature; Police; Radclyffe Hall, Marguerite; Scandal; Vice.

WORK.
See
Workplace

WORKPLACE

In 1914, German sexologist Magnus
Hirschfeld
revealed that, of the 10,000 cases of homosexuality that he had surveyed, 75% had contemplated
suicide
, and of that 25% had attempted it, due to the specific pressure under which they were forced to exist. The most common cause of suicide among homosexuals at the time was the fear of legal persecution and its consequences; in particular, the loss of employment.

Today, the difficulties encountered by gays and lesbians in the workplace appear in two distinct forms: individual
discrimination
on the one hand, and the relationship between professional activities (such as law) and gay or lesbian couples on the other. At the basis of individual discrimination is the hypothesis which states that being active in the workforce contributes to the well-being of society; therefore, work has a positive connotation. From this, the potential for two discriminatory, homophobic positions clearly emerges: the refusal to recognize this contribution, and the denial of the right to contribute in the first place.

The refusal to recognize the contribution is the refusal to consider that gays and lesbians, or people associated with homosexuality, can contribute to the well-being of society. Thus, for example, philosophers of the Enlightenment such as Diderot or Voltaire generally contested the morality of the Ancien Régime and, notably, of the homosexuality they believed ran rampant among members of the church. To reinforce their political design, and their criticism of those in power, they associated the practice of sodomy in closed religious groups with the political
sterility
of these same groups. They explained that such groups did not serve the interest of society, but rather their own: a group whose alleged sexual practices caused it to close in upon itself was necessarily corrupt, because the rule of society was the exchange between groups. The philosophers condemned homosexual relations as a “caste” behavior which had nothing to do with them; it was a means to condemn political sterility by associating it with sexual sterility. The goal of these arguments was the political elimination of the targeted group and, at the same time, helped to perpetuate the stigmatization of homosexual practices.

For its part, the denial of the right to contribute consists of refusing to allow homosexuals to participate in the collective dynamic of the workplace. This attitude is notably illustrated in the 1993 film
Philadelphia
, in which the protagonist, whose homosexuality is revealed when he is afflicted with
AIDS
, is rejected by his employer and excluded from the virile fraternity of his coworkers.

In opposition to this old and strongly ingrained discriminatory logic, a dynamic of anti-discriminatory provisions has been asserted over the past few decades, especially in the wake of European companies working in collaboration with gay and lesbian
associations
. A recommendation by the 1981 Parliamentary Assembly of the European Council aimed to eliminate the discrimination faced by gays and lesbians, given that they should “enjoy the right to sexual self-determination.” The assembly recommended, notably, that homosexuals benefit from equal treatment in the areas of employment, salary, and job security. As for the European Union, in 1994 the European Parliament adopted a report that asked member states to end their respective discriminatory policies and practices founded on sexual orientation (known as the Roth Report). A few years later, Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty (an amendment of the 1992 treaty of the European Union), signed in 1997, and which took effect in 1999, stipulated that “Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty and within the limits of the powers conferred by it upon the Community, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat discrimination occurred based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.” The European Commission also produced provisions on discrimination on December 12, 1999, in advance to the development of a directive regarding employment which addressed discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. More recently, the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, adopted on December 7, 2000, expressly stipulated that any and all discrimination based on sexual orientation (chapter 3, Article 21) was forbidden. These various texts had the positive effect of inscribing the question of sexual orientation and equal rights in the social and legal order, even if their application was in reality more difficult given their non-compulsory character and the hesitance of certain countries.

With regard to individual nations in Europe, a certain number of them had already instituted anti-discriminatory policies or legislation to protect gays and lesbians in the workplace. For example, in France, the penal code stipulates that it is illegal to discriminate based on “morals” in respect to employment. In Sweden, a national mediator exists who is charged with resolving conflicts between employers and employees. Nonetheless, anti-discrimination provisions, where they exist and are applied, often come up against the burden of proof and the insidious character of the offence, so much so that few gays and lesbians attempt to file a complaint.

Apart from individual cases of discrimination, it is significant that the right to work also appears to be a privileged area where social differences between homosexual and heterosexual couples are highlighted. It should be noted that in the European transportation sector, specifically rail and air, employees and their unions lobbied employers, governments, and other authorities to modify their policies and definitions of spouses and couples with regard to same-sex benefits.

As for European authorities, there is a disparity between their progressive stance on dealing with individual cases of discrimination against gay and lesbian employees and their stagnant attitude toward same-sex rights in the workplace, such as benefits. On February 17, 1998, in a case involving a lesbian employee suing a British railway company for refusing to provide same-sex benefits, the European Court of Justice ruled against the employee, stating that different countries had different views on same-sex relationships and that it was up to individual governments to enforce rules. Beset once again, community jurisdictions and, more particularly, county courts adopted the same position in a January 28, 1999 judgment in a case where the plaintiff was in a registered partnership recognized by Swedish law. In both instances, the courts ruled that community law did not operate hand in hand between same-sex couples and cohabitation, in the first case, or marriage in the second. While judicial bodies of the European Union generally maintained an unfavorable stance on the issue, there were, however, some favorable ones which aimed to recognize the same-sex rights of employees of these same authorities. For example, the Roth Report of 1994 regarding the equal treatment of gays and lesbians had an immediate impact on the employees of the European Parliament.

In
France
, the legal definitions of spouse and couple, in general terms and in their relation to the country’s labor law, have remained limited to the heteronormal standard. It was in 1989 that, for the first time, the French Court of Cassation (the court of last resort) made a pronouncement on the issue of gay cohabitation (i.e. common-law marriage) in two cases; in both, the court refused to recognize this arrangement and, by consequence, that it was subject to legal benefits. The first case involved an Air France flight attendant who had been refused a free ticket for his partner, even though the employee agreement stipulates that such tickets be granted to employees and “their legally married spouses or common-law partners.” The second case involved a woman on social assistance and her partner, who had requested recognition under a 1978 law that “a person cohabitating, as though married, with the socially assisted individual” was entitled to legal benefits.

Legislation in some other European countries regarding same-sex partnerships has also had broad effects on labor laws (e.g., the 1989 Danish law on “registered partnerships,” the 1993 Norwegian law on “registered partnerships for homosexual couples,” the 1994 Swedish law on “registered partnerships,” the 1996 Icelandic law on “legalized common-law marriages,” and the 1998 Dutch law on “registered partnerships”), while in other countries, legislation has had more limited effects, without consequence for the professional sector (e.g., the 1998 Belgian law on “legal cohabitation”). However, in 2003 Belgium became the second country to legalize same-sex marriage and laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation in areas like employment and housing came into effect.

At the same time, outside of Europe, the 90s was marked by a significant evolution in the rights of couples, specifically the partners of employees. In Israel in 1994, the supreme court ruled against El Al Airlines for refusing to give an employee’s same-sex partner a free ticket that was offered to the spouses of married employees during religious holidays. Since 1995, the Knesset has extended the definition of “spouse” to same-sex partners regarding social insurance, as well as the military. In Canada in 1999, the government adopted a plan in which same-sex partners of public and military employees became entitled to a survivor’s pension. In the same year, Quebec’s National Assembly extended to the same rights as heterosexual common-law couples to gay couples in the areas of income tax, automobile insurance, social assistance, retirement and survivor’s pension. On the other side of the continent, in San Francisco, the city issued domestic partner certificates to same-sex couples where at least one partner was a civic employee, though this certificate’s value was only symbolic.