Exclusive: CUCA Chair Accused Of Homophobia

The outgoing-Cambridge Conservative Association Chair has been accused of homophobia for comments made on his Facebook page.

The former chairman of the Cambridge University Conservative Association has been accused of homophobia by a rival following comments on Facebook.

Callum Wood, outgoing chairman of CUCA, was accused of homophobia by Richard Johnson, chair of the Cambridge University Labour Club, after Wood made a comment on his Facebook page implying homosexuality was “wrong”.

Wood has subsequently told The Tab that: “those with homosexual tendencies have a very burdensome cross to bear and they must be treated with compassion.”

The row began when a friend of Wood’s posted a link to the Facebook group “EDL LGBT Divison”, which Wood commented on, saying: “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

The former CUCA chairman appeared to be implying that both the far-right English Defence League and being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender were equally “wrong”.


The comment in question

CULC’s Chair, Richard Johnson, who is himself openly gay, said the comment was: “In very poor taste.

“Associating the LGBT community with a racist organisation is inexcusable. Whether or not Callum was joking is unclear, but what is clear is that it was offensive either way.”

Johnson also suggested that the comments indicated the Conservative’s lingering homophobia, saying: “Although David Cameron has tried to paint a rainbow over his party’s anti-gay past, there remains a deep-seated bigotry in today’s Conservative Party.”

During last year’s election campaign David Cameron struggled with questions during an interview with Gay Times, and even asked for the camera to switched off.

But CUSU’s LGBT rep Anthony Woodman was more willing to give Wood the benefit of the doubt, saying: “Whilst Mr Wood’s comment is disappointing, I would hesitate to shout homophobia. It could have been a joke that now looks rather bad.

“To draw a line under this, I would call upon Mr Wood to apologise for any confusion caused and indeed clarify that CUCA is not institutionally homophobic.”

But when confronted with the allegations by The Tab, Wood reacted furiously saying: “Bastards! Why don’t they just FUCK OFF?!?!?!

“Have these simpletons got NOTHING better to do than read through someone’s Facebook page trying to stir up a load of shit? Are they really so hypersensitive that they feel the need to censor a private individual’s profile? WHY do they even give a flying fuck?

In response to calls to apologise, Wood told The Tab: “I do not believe that I am guilty of any malfeasance and so decline to apologise.

“I am no longer an Officer of CUCA. I am therefore unable and unwilling to presume to speak on behalf of the Association. However, I am quite sure that CUCA is not insitutionally homophobic, given the inclinations of a sizeable proportion of its members.”

Wood, who is in his third year reading Medicine at Queens’, recently handed over the chairmanship of CUCA to Christopher George Poel.

When asked to clarify his personal position on homosexuality Wood told The Tab: “I don’t really have a position on gay rights/issues because I don’t particularly sign up to the notions of either “gay” or of “rights”.

“Forcing people to identify themselves as an “homosexual” (noun) is actually rather insulting to the dignity of human life. It’s much more a a case of “to do” rather than a “to be”.

“Obviously those with homosexual tendencies have a very burdensome cross to bear and they must be treated with compassion. However, I still believe that lustful and unchaste sexual behaviour (of any kind) is without moral justification. This clearly means that I disapprove of sodomy.”

Since Wood wrote the comment, three people have ‘liked’ it.

  • Aristotle

    It depends on a metaphysical structure of natures and essences and things – you need a non-physicalist (or non-materialist, non-atomist, whatever) ontology to prop it up, which I agree relies upon theism to some degree. It's hard to support the idea of an inherent "ought-ness" about the body without a source upon which to pin that "ought-ness". So you need God, in some form or another – which isn't entirely unreasonable