Defend the right to offend…
COMPLAINTS from politicians about offensive banners during parades are par for the course during the summer Here. But rarely do the complaints come from the DUP, and even more rarely are the marches gay pride parades. Nevertheless, East Belfast DUP councillor May Campbell wants to see a curb on the civil liberties of Gay Pride, as she has a problem with how one marcher exercised her right to free expression. The good councillor said “questions must be raised by those funding such events and the Parades Commission should be looking into the need for restrictions on any further parades.” I wonder if DUP Culture Minister Edwin Poots is listening, after all the trouble he went through to ensure the event was funded? Cllr Campbell went on: “Christians all over the province, and indeed, the world will be disgusted by this slur. If such provocative claims were made against Mohammad, Muslims would rightly be up in arms. It is about time those who regulate such public displays clamp down on those continually attacking Christianity and the Christian values of this country.” Perhaps – like a few of Saturday’s marchers - she should just turn the other cheek…
Harry
Sometimes freedom means you just have to be an adult and accept that the Gub’mint isn’t always there to sort out every problem.
Sometimes one person exercising a freedom has negative effects on the freedoms of others.
Mildred, exercising her freedom to be predjudiced against gay people, denies those people the freedom to rent a room for the night in the place of their choosing.
A restaurant owner exercising his right to be predjudiced against black people by barring them him from his restaurant denies black people the right to eat in the restaurant of their choosing.
Sometimes we have to decide which freedom is more important.
Sometimes we have to grow up and accept that we can’t simply do what we want without taking into consideration the other people with whom we share society.
Sometimes people need to be told that there are things that they are not allowed to do, and that if they persist in doing them, there will be negative consequences.
I would love to have the freedom to walk into the nearest Apple Store and walk out with a brand new MacBook Pro so I didn’t have to use my grotty 350MHz iMac any more, but I can’t. At least, not without risking imprisonment. To do so would be theft, and the ‘Gub’ment’ quite rightly tells me that I can’t do it, and will face the consequences if I do.
Of course, there’s as much evidence that Jesus was gay as that Jesus was straight, i.e. none.
There’s actually no evidence that the Jesus of Christianity even existed.
The B_____t’s Equaliser IV
“There was a time when gays pleaded with the Government to stop interfering in their lives, stop imposing their own majoritarian morality on the minority who might not necessarily share that morality, what went on in their own bedrooms was their own business. Now the reverse is true.”
A very good example there people.
The B______t’s Equaliser V
And Why Those Who Use It As Rhetorical Device Do Not Support Equality.
Let Me Demonstrate:
Dread of the Cull writes:
“if you’re willing to dish it out, you must, in turn, be willing to take it in return.â€
Really? OK Then – next time there is a violent attack or homophobic murder this logic infers that it would then be OK for a gay person to go and find someone to murder, because heterosexuals should accept the consequences.
Or since this exchange is about the right to ‘give offence’ then on the logic of the Culler it would also be OK to practice replies in kind in answer to the huge amount of homophobic hostility and hate we as people and as a minority community put up with every day – day in day out year in year out.
Is that OK then?
Of course it’s not!
Because it’s not about tit for tat or an equality of misery, it is about recognising that there are many different ways the oppressed are oppressed and are maintained in that oppression. Specious submission like some that those posted here are part of that.
OK here is the much needed reality check I spoke of earlier.
You *start* by saying ‘I’m for equal rights but…’
But …when getting down to the reasons, they more often than not turn out to about the ‘I’m for equal rights but…’ person wanting to say that how our demands, behaviours and existence is not in a form acceptable to them.
“Hey gays if you want liberation this is the way to do it. It’s simple – you just have to stop pissing people off *espically* us liberalsâ€
(Any liberals out there pissed off by this now? No doubt you will be telling me just how much soon enough. I suppose it depends on how much more pissed off you want – or need to be. Lets just see just how badly you need to be pissed off.)
But then even after it’s been made clear as it has here by me and others you still think that your intervention of Lordly, liberal and or both should be politically acceptable to those here . And *that’s were* you really do need a reality check.
Conversely, if you don’t think that we are able to accept your reasons for not supporting our way of expressing our selves as has been referred to then my friend you a very strange indeed rhetorically because you are prepared to attack equality in the name of ……equality.
And that’s the lore of b_____t’s equaliser – say you are for equality while you attack and broadcast lame critiques to those who are actually fighting for it. Now it’s back to the folk devil and back to you. Ready when you are.
John,
I wonder why, if Cllr Campbell and Cllr Dunn were so offended by the placard they witnessed whilst protesting against the parade they waited until the following Monday to speak with the press about this rather than have constructive engagement with either Belfast Pride officials or the PSNI?
Clearly they weren’t so outraged by the items message that they felt the need to have it removed there and then.
Clearly there was political capital to be made.
So there is no point in complaining about its presence after the parade if those who have been most vociferous about the offence which it caused them didn’t see fit to complain at the time.
As I said before, I was there it was my first. If I had have seen that sign I would have complained to a marshall. What would the marshall’s reaction have been?
*I would love to have the freedom to walk into the nearest Apple Store and walk out with a brand new MacBook Pro so I didn’t have to use my grotty 350MHz iMac any more, but I can’t.*
Uterly fatuous analogy, if you can’t see the fundamental difference between freedom of association and theft there’s little I can do to enlighten you.
Actually the person carrying the banner isn’t dressed up, most times when I’ve seen him around before he’s been dressed like that. And fair play to him.
RÃona,
Next time you see him perhaps you could ask him what he meant by the placard. So many here (and elsewhere) are speculating about it, it might be useful to have the skinny.
Harry
Uterly fatuous analogy, if you can’t see the fundamental difference between freedom of association and theft there’s little I can do to enlighten you.
We may be misunderstanding each other. Are you saying Mildred’s hypothetical refusal to allow a gay couple to rent a room in her boarding house is a matter of freedom of association?
Next time you see him perhaps you could ask him what he meant by the placard. So many here (and elsewhere) are speculating about it, it might be useful to have the skinny.
Probably one of the most sensible things said on this thread so far. If the placard holder is a Christian then there may be rather more thought behind it than some seem to think.
*Are you saying Mildred’s hypothetical refusal to allow a gay couple to rent a room in her boarding house is a matter of freedom of association?*
That’s precisely what I am saying, if freedom of association means anything then surely it means the right to not associate with people with whom you happen to disapprove. Mildred is a private individual, she is not an arm of government. As I said before in the same way that I condemn government persecution of gay clubs where adult homosexuals gather so also do I disapprove of government persecution of guest house owners who choose not to trade with people they don’t like.
Let me quote again what I said
“Like freedom of expression, the freedom of association is not just for the things and people we agree with and approve of.”
You might, like me, disapprove of Mildred’s narrow-mindedness, but my solution would be to boycott her business and have no trade with her, your solution is to have her arrested.
I’m a libertarian, you’re a statist.
Harry – would your logic apply if Mildred was a white Protestant refused to rent rooms to blacks and Roman Catholics?
Would you support her right to have a “no Catholics” or “no blacks” sign up in her front door?
Mildred is entitled to her right to be a bigoted person. Personally I’d rather she was upfront with her beliefs so I know where I stand. I’d be worse on both parties if society forced her to accept clients she didn’t want as the guest wouldn’t feel welcome and Mildred would be resentful. No one wins.
*Harry – would your logic apply if Mildred was a white Protestant refused to rent rooms to blacks and Roman Catholics?
Would you support her right to have a “no Catholics†or “no blacks†sign up in her front door?*
Jesus, Willowfield, you’re the third person to ask me exactly the same question!
Let me try again, I believe that if someone is not in receipt of government funds then whom he or she chooses to do business with is entirely their own affair. If they choose to avoid trading with blacks or Catholics or whites or Serbians or ginger headed people or Zarathustrians or cheesemongers or premiership footballers or ugly people or whatever that’s up to them and the rest of us can make our own minds up about whether that is the sort of business we would want to interact with.
In my opinion people should not be forced on pain of loss of livelihood or prison to engage in commerce with people they don’t like. It’s not rocket science, in the same way people should not be coerced to have a conversation with people they don’t like or share the same room as people they don’t like or have a meal with people they don’t like or go to church with people they don’t like, I don’t see why they should be forced to do business with people they don’t like.
If you don’t like Mildred’s business methods then the solution is entirely in your own hands “DON’T DO BUSINESS WITH HER!” (Sorry for shouting but some people seem to have a massive difficulty grasping my really rather simple point).
As for the “No Blacks No Irish” signs, they’re a myth, they never existed, and don’t bother posting the rather obvious fake up that someone else once posted here.
Harsh as it is I actually agree here with Harry. I am a bisexual man. If I was on holiday with my SO and I saw a sign in a B&B saying that a certain group wasn’t wanted thats the right of the business owner. Just as it’s my right not to give them my business and for others who disagree with such archaic practices not to use the B&B.
I’ve spent some time thinking about this since the whole Paisley Jr fiasco emerged. Frankly I’d rather people are up front about their prejudice that way others can see them for what they are and treat them accordingly, in Paisley JRs case not voting for him in the hypothetical Mildreds case not giving her any business and asking my friends and family not to use her business.
Yes their opinion is shitty and narrow minded but it’s their opinion. Forcing a person to go against their beliefs is worse in my opinion as it does strike me as close to facism.
Meanwhile, the thread about the real issue – the potential or otherwise for the world economy to collapse taking the NI property bubble with it – gets a grand total of, er, 3 posts…
Any chance we could spend our time dealing with the issues which actually count, rather than going out of our way to get offended?
Time to open our eyes to what matters for once.
..given that this is a debate about freedom of speech, etc, I wonder if anyone has a view on a blogger expressing views on their website and then appearing on a medium (which they detest)with a rather different view of the world?
Love All Ulster and All Ulster people up the Shankhill then?
Posted by Jo on Aug 10, 2007 @ 10:13 AM
This was not my post. Can I ask that the ban on my other IP address is lifted as it seems apparent that someone posts in my name in atempts to discredit mer?
Harry
Thank you for clarifying.
I would agree with you that Mildred, as an individual, is perfectly free to associate, or refuse to associate, with anyone she chooses.
The problem is, she is not an individual – she is the owner of a business, The Shangri-La Guest House. I think that is a fundamental distiction that must be made.
Individuals are perectly free to be as predjudiced as they choose. regarding the people with whom they associate.
Businesses are not, and nor should they be, for a business which actually acts on those predjudices can negatively impact the freedoms of individuals. In this case the gay couple are not free to stay in the guest house of their choosing,
Harry, Pounder
The problem with what you are saying is that you think such people are always a minority.
ie A small number of small minded horrid people will say and behave unpleasantly to minorities. However the minorities will be big about it, shake the dust of their feet and walk away. Meanwhile the rest of the populace will see what awful people for what they are, shun them and banish them effectively from social and comemrcial life.
Good wins and evil is beaten.
However in the real world once the ignorant realise there is no bounds to what they can do then they will be given free licence and of course many others will join them.
Soon the minorities will feel totally perseciuted, afraid and alone.
Harry will continue to consider this as free choice of course but you Pounder – as a minority – are you not likley to say “someone should make a law against this ?”
You have way far too much confidence in human nature to think that the brutes wont come to the fore and that the good will do anything other than just keep their heads down as it doesnt effect them.
We have been here before throughout history and that is why civilised society has laws to stop discrimination and protect minorites.
“once the ignorant realise there is no bounds to what they can do then they will be given free licence and of course many others will join them.”
Quite, which is why we have A Tangled Web.
Harry
Jesus, Willowfield, you’re the third person to ask me exactly the same question!
Apologies: I didn’t read the entire thread.
Let me try again, I believe that if someone is not in receipt of government funds then whom he or she chooses to do business with is entirely their own affair. … In my opinion people should not be forced on pain of loss of livelihood or prison to engage in commerce with people they don’t like.
Does your philosophy extend to employment?
Do you support the right of an employer to refuse to employ, say, blacks, gays, Jews or Protestants?
DD: “Really? OK Then – next time there is a violent attack or homophobic murder this logic infers that it would then be OK for a gay person to go and find someone to murder, because heterosexuals should accept the consequences.”
I did not say it was permissible, nor did I say it was appropriate, I said that there should be an expectation that the behavior presented would be responded to. Is that not what the Stonewall riots in NYC amounted to — returning abuse back upon the abusive police of that time and place?
The riots were not appropriate, but were an answer in kind.
Its unsubtle difference, one that obviously escaped you. It is a fool who thinks they can act the boor or thug with impunity.
Every action begets its own consequences. You take a swing at someone, you should expect them to swing back. If you insult someone, they will generally respond in kind. At no point did I say it was ok, DD. I just said it happens and should be expected.
No one just lies there are takes it forever.
SdB: “Are you saying Mildred’s hypothetical refusal to allow a gay couple to rent a room in her boarding house is a matter of freedom of association? ”
The right to choose whom you associate implicitly provides the right *NOT* to associate with others, would it not?
SdB: “The problem is, she is not an individual – she is the owner of a business, The Shangri-La Guest House. I think that is a fundamental distiction that must be made. ”
The legalistic jargon would be to call it a “public accomodation.” If Mildred holds herself out as providing a service to the public, then, as the logic goes, she should serve the public and, as such, not discriminate against Sammy and Mr. Sammy.
Now, as for her “not being a branch of government,” I regret to inform Harry that at this late date, what with business licenses, health inspections and the general bureaucracy of a business at the utter mercy of the state, Mildred is, to be blunt, pretty much at the state’s mercy.
JEB: “The problem with what you are saying is that you think such people are always a minority. ”
So… by your logic, if enough people agree with a given proposition or course of action, that makes it appropriate?
Dread
“So… by your logic, if enough people agree with a given proposition or course of action, that makes it appropriate?”
I really dont know what point you are making but I think you are at a tangent to anything I was saying
The points I made earlier in this thread with regard to the ways in which people can discriminate legally in employment also apply to Mildred and her guest house. If she operates the business by private invitation only she can discriminate to her hearts content without exception. The law however says she cannot adverise open public applications and then reject applicants on grounds which are prohibited. Governments have a duty to balance appropriate protections for a civil society and respect for private space. The argument is all about where that line should be drawn.
JEB: “I really dont know what point you are making but I think you are at a tangent to anything I was saying ”
No… you said, and I quote: “The problem with what you are saying is that you think such people are always a minority. ”
Now, I ask again, by your logic, if enough people agree with a given proposition or course of action, that makes it appropriate?
Likewise, is it your belief that the minority should always be forced to conform to the will of the majority?
OK, this thread is way too long, so please continue the debate here, thanks.