BLACKMAIL, HOMOPHOBIA & LORD BROWNE

BP chief was not criminal, anti-gay or hypocritical

Mail on Sunday colludes with ‘blackmailer'?

Sordid and amoral journalism, with no public interest justification

London - 2 May 2007

“The Mail on Sunday 's readiness to expose Lord Browne's homosexuality and to publish uncorroborated ‘kiss and tell' revelations from his ex-partner, Jeff Chevalier, was ethically wrong,” said human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell .

Mr Tatchell was commenting on the outing of the BP Chief Executive.

“The newspaper colluded with an apparently bitter, greedy former boyfriend who demanded money from Lord Browne, and who implicitly threatened him if he did not pay up,” said Mr Tatchell.

“Mr Chevalier's actions come close to blackmail and the Mail on Sunday 's actions come close to collusion with blackmail. It is sordid, amoral journalism of the worst kind.

“The police should investigate whether Mr Chevalier committed the crime of blackmail. If there is evidence that he was demanding money and making threats, he should be prosecuted.

“There is no public interest justification for this intrusion into Lord Browne's private life. He was not guilty of hypocrisy and, at the time when the Mail on Sunday originally sought to expose him, he had not committed any crime.

“Outing is only defensible when a person is guilty of hypocrisy or criminal acts. Otherwise, a person's private life should remain private.

“Lord Browne was wrong to lie, but the Mail on Sunday was also wrong to plan to out him and to publish intimate details about his personal relationship with Mr Chevalier.

“Even if the Mail on Sunday felt it was justified to publish unproven allegations concerning Lord Browne's alleged misuse of BP resources, there was no need to mention his homosexuality. His sexual orientation is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not he used company money, staff and computers to assist his former partner – charges that BP say they have investigated and found to be baseless.

“This story began with an unjustified invasion of privacy by the Mail on Sunday . It was willing to out one of the world's leading businessmen. The newspaper's actions were not motivated by legitimate public interest concerns.

“Chevalier and the Mail on Sunday set out to expose Lord Browne's homosexuality.

“While Lord Browne wanted to keep his private life private, Chevalier and the Mail on Sunday did not.

“I can see no demonstrable public interest grounds for the Mail on Sunday – or any other media – outing Lord Browne. He wasn't being hypocritical or homophobic.

“If he was denouncing gay people or advocating anti-gay laws - or if he had authorised the victimisation of BPs' gay employees - that would be a justifiable reason to expose his sexuality and double standards. I would have outed him myself.

“But I am not aware that Lord Browne was homophobic. He may have shown moral weakness by not coming out, but hiding in the closet – however lamentable - is not of the same ethical order as endorsing homophobic prejudice and discrimination.

“The lessons from the fall of Lord Browne are: don't lie or cover-up, and be honest and open about your sexuality,” said Mr Tatchell.