Dominic Grieve, Attorney General of England and Wales and Magdalen alumni, has caused controversy after saying that “being a practising homosexual” is “thought to be a little bit weird by large numbers of people.’

Dominic Grieve, Attorney General 
of England and Wales and Magdalen alumni, has caused controversy 
after saying that “being a practising 
homosexual” is “thought to be a little bit weird by large numbers of 
people.”
The Union’s most famous annual 
debate, ‘This House Has No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government’, 
was attended by key members of 
the Government and Opposition – 
including Grieve and Chris Bryant 
MP, Shadow Minister for Borders & 
Immigration. Bryant’s speech discussed the peculiarity of the term 
‘practising’ homosexual, in jest adding that “it implied one can get better over time”. 
He continued, “I think being a 
practising homosexual is a bit like 
being a practising member of the 
Church of England. It’s one of those 
things which you have to explain. 
It’s thought to be a little bit weird by 
large numbers of people.”
Bryant, saying he was insulted by 
the comment, asked Grieve to clarify. 
Grieve argued that it was taken out 
of context and was eventually asked 
to “stop digging” by Bryant. 
As pointed out by Chris Bryant in 
the debate, Mr Grieve’s voting record shows opposition to equal gay 
rights. Whilst he has voted for the 
Civil Partnerships Bill in the House 
of Lords, he has formed part of the 
minority against all other Bills for 
equal rights. He voted against the 
Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) 
Regulations 2007, creating criminal 
offences for discrimination on the 
grounds of sexual orientation; the 
Adoptions and Children Bill 2002, allowing homosexual couples to adopt 
children and the Sexual Offences 
(Amendment) Bill 1999, reducing the 
age homosexual acts were permitted 
from 18 to 16.
In response to the debate, he retrospectively clarified his comments, 
“My remarks about the use of the expressions “practising homosexual” 
and “practising Christian” were illustrative of the prejudices of others and not of my own views and 
was made in response to a question 
Chris Bryant had himself raised as 
to why the first of these expressions 
was used. Chris Bryant initially gave 
the impression that he was offended 
by this remark. This is why I intervened again to tell him he 
had no grounds for being 
offended and he indicated 
that he accepted this.”
He added, “It is always 
possible in what was a 
fast moving and good 
humoured debate to express oneself less well than 
one would wish. If I was 
misunderstood by anyone 
because I expressed myself 
poorly then I am very sorry 
for it.”
Noah Evans Harding, a Committee Member of the Union, 
came to Grieve’s defence, 
saying, “I thoroughly enjoyed his speech. Union debates are intense, especially 
political ones 
such as the 
‘No Conf i d e n c e ’ 
d e b a t e . 
Things get 
said in the 
heat of the moment. I do not believe 
that any of his words were malicious. 
Anyone who was there could tell you 
that. His attempts to explain himself immediately afterwards showed 
genuine sorrow about what he said.” 
However, there has been considerable criticism from the 
student community 
particularly from 
equal rights activists. Simone 
Webb, President 
of the LGBTQ 
Society, commented, “I 
c o n d e m n 
what was said. 
It sounds attention seeking 
and he should not 
have said what he 
did”. 
Exeter JCR Equalities Officer said, 
“In the strongly pro LGBTQ Exeter JCR 
such comments would go down very 
badly. If Dominic Grieve wasn’t being 
homophobic, some union members 
certainly found him insensitive. I 
can see Dominic Grieve could have 
intended to draw attention to such 
language without condoning it. For 
someone so experienced in public 
speaking, many people at the debate 
do not feel he made the point clearly 
at all.”
He added, “The Union is nothing if 
not committed to free speech, so I’m 
sure members made their thoughts 
on Dominic Grieve very clear at the 
time. The Union might put some 
thought into its reputation though.” 
A second year lawyer opined, “As 
a distinguished QC and the Attorney 
General, the main legal advisor to the 
Government, I find it worrying that 
he seemingly did not think twice 
about what he said. His position in 
the legal world and mere consideration of who he is representing would alone necessitate 
greater thought in su

”The Union’s most famous annual debate, ‘This House Has No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government’, was attended by key members of the Government and Opposition – including Grieve and Chris Bryant MP, Shadow Minister for Borders & Immigration.

Bryant’s speech discussed the peculiarity of the term ‘practising’ homosexual, in jest adding that “it implied one can get better over time”. Grieve interjected, “I think being a practising homosexual is a bit like being a practising member of the Church of England. It’s one of those things which you have to explain. It’s thought to be a little bit weird by large numbers of people.”

MT20 Shoryu Advert
HEC Paris MT20 Advert

Bryant asked Grieve to clarify as he claimed to be insulted by the comment. Grieve argued that ithe quote was taken out of context and was eventually asked to “stop digging” by Bryant.

In response to the debate, he retrospectively clarified his comments, “My remarks about the use of the expressions “practising homosexual” and “practising Christian” were illustrative of the prejudices of others and not of my own views and was made in response to a question Chris Bryant had himself raised as to why the first of these expressions was used. Chris Bryant initially gave the impression that he was offended by this remark.’

‘This is why I intervened again to tell him he had no grounds for being offended and he indicated that he accepted this.”He added, “It is always possible in what was a fast moving and good humoured debate to express oneself less well than one would wish. If I was misunderstood by anyone because I expressed myself poorly then I am very sorry for it.”

Noah Evans Harding, a Committee Member of the Union, came to Grieve’s defence, saying, “I thoroughly enjoyed his speech. Union debates are intense, especially political ones such as the ‘No Confidence’ debate . Things get said in the heat of the moment. I do not believe that any of his words were malicious. Anyone who was there could tell you that. His attempts to explain himself immediately afterwards showed genuine sorrow about what he said.” However, there has been considerable criticism from the student community particularly from equal rights activists.

As mentioned by Chris Bryant in the debate, Mr Grieve’s voting record shows opposition to equal gay rights. Whilst he has voted for the Civil Partnerships Bill in the House of Lords, he has formed part of the minority against all other Bills for equal rights. He voted against the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, creating criminal offences for discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation; the Adoptions and Children Bill 2002, allowing homosexual couples to adopt children and the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill 1999, reducing the age homosexual acts were permitted from 18 to 16.

Simone Webb, President of the LGBTQ Society, commented, “I condemn what was said. It sounds attention seeking and he should not have said what he did”. Exeter’s JCR Equalities Officer said, “In the strongly pro LGBTQ Exeter JCR such comments would go down very badly. If Dominic Grieve wasn’t being homophobic, some union members certainly found him insensitive. I can see Dominic Grieve could have intended to draw attention to such language without condoning it. For someone so experienced in public speaking, many people at the debate do not feel he made the point clearly at all.”

He added, “The Union is nothing if not committed to free speech, so I’m sure members made their thoughts on Dominic Grieve very clear at the time. The Union might put some thought into its reputation though.”

A second year lawyer opined, “As a distinguished QC and the Attorney General, the main legal advisor to the Government, I find it worrying that he seemingly did not think twice about what he said. His position in the legal world and mere consideration of who he is representing would alone necessitate greater thought in such a public forum.’