It was rather fitting that, in the week Brian Feeney labelled the Robinson-led DUP as the ‘Nasty Party,’ First Lady Iris lays out her views on turning around homosexuals. Iris had called for the portrayal of gay people to be banned from TV only a week earlier- when she also complained about not being able to use the term ‘coloureds.’ Ahh, for the good ol’ days Iris, eh???
Is the best way to overcome the legacy of conflict simply to forget about it? Author and journalist David Rieff spoke on this subject last week in a seminar at the Institute for International Integration Studies (IIIS) at Trinity College Dublin. Rieff has recently written a book titled, Against Remembrance (published in Ireland by Liffey [...] read our review »
Somehow I escaped reading this essential school text, with its story of racism in 1930s American South. Living in Northern Ireland, I draw parallels with sectarianism, with its similar bigotry and prejudice. To Kill a Mockingbird was part of a Unite Against Hate campaign event at Parliament Buildings in Northern Ireland, which I’ve written [...] read our review »
This reads as if a mad picaresque tale. Myers as first a reporter for RTÉ and then as a freelance journalist with no real experience, finds himself wandering into savagery as he hastens north as the Troubles explode. A soldier dies next to him; he witnesses an IRA ambush; he sees children shot to death [...] read our review »
One more quote, while I’m at it. The Stormont Health Committee, chaired by Iris Robinson, was given a briefing on the Health Department’s sexual health strategy on 24 April.
Link to report
The Chief Medical Officer told the Committee:
“In Northern Ireland, we have significant problems with harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation, and that is another important aspect of the sexual health promotion strategy. A survey carried out in 2003 indicated that a significantly higher percentage of gay men in Northern Ireland have experienced homophobic harassment and violence than in other parts of Britain and Ireland. Furthermore, research indicates that a relatively high proportion of lesbian and bisexual women have experienced discrimination at work and violent assaults.”
Clearly, Mrs R knows better than the chief medical officer and the Royal Society of Psychiatrists – the way to bring down NI’s disproportionately high level of homophobic harassment, violence and discrimination is to use the mass media to call them mentally ill, vile, shameful, etc etc.
I’d love to see the Health Committee pass a vote of no confidence in its Chair after this – DUP members aside, they’d have enough votes to do so. Unfortunately, my suspicion is that her views aren’t the sole preserve of the Democratic Unionist Party.
Tommy, regrettable as all of that is, if you allow the liberal left to use this issue to attack society in order to promote their own ulterior agenda, promoting a ‘them and us’ division (with ‘us’ being the ones proffering the permissive agenda and ‘them’ being the “bigots, fundamentalist Christians, bog-men, etc” who are in dire need of the liberal left’s paternalistic social engineering), then you are going to face a backlash from those who you are attacking, be it manifest in increased incidences of violence, hidden discrimination, or condemnation from the political establishment. You only have to read this thread to see that most of those ‘supporting’ homosexuals aren’t helping by using it as pretext to engage in blatant personal attacks on Irish Robinson and on Christians and on conservative societal values. Frankly, with friends like these… and all of that.
tommy bryans,
‘ A survey carried out in 2003 indicated that a significantly higher percentage of gay men in Northern Ireland have experienced homophobic harassment and violence than in other parts of Britain and Ireland.’
What a surprise
Excellent post . Just the facts 
Dave ,
Ah so it’s the ‘liberal left ‘ then yet again ?
All we need are conservative societal values and the world will be perfect once again as it always was . What a tosser
Yeah I also remember the seventies when no one had to lock their front doors, because they had fuck all to steal.
Catch yerself on ferfuxske.
‘paternalistic social engineering’
Dave white man speak with guru forked tongue
Dave:
homosexuals aren’t helping by using it as pretext to engage in blatant personal attacks on Irish Robinson and on Christians
Blah… Irish Robinson, how Freudian
Stick your conservative social values up her hole.
Liberal left….???
“if you allow the liberal left to use this issue to attack society”
And here was me thinking it was the radical right that boldly and blatantly claimed there was no such thing as society. I think what Dave really means to say is, attack actually existing inequalities. The two are not the same.
The usual non-entities – those referring to ‘liberal agendas’ and ‘left wing bias’, ‘Guardian readers’ – have packed out of the woodwork for an epic bout of backward blustering: droves of hopeless, useless nobodies…laughable.
Somneone else has pointed to this extraordinary victimhood of Christians in this province. This ‘faith’ is something that has wrecked nothing but damage on this province and the sooner it becomes scarce the better.
And with free speech I am telling you that your beliefs are pure superstition, credulous blabbing, and puerile vomit. Do it in your own home, and end forcing it on the rest of the world. My free speech. Begone.
Harry Flashman, the Londonderry Prod, with an accent that would cut could steel, thinks it is fine and dandy to say that Catholicism is an abomination.
I am a Catholic, and it is an abomination.
You’ve been watching us you proddy bastard, haven’t you?
Weird that no one has mentioned Stephen Nolan’s part in this debacle.
Here is a radio presenter who is himself gay, cynically sleep walking an ill educated bigot and renowned hate monger into making a controversial national headline grabbing statement which quite possibily will serve to incite further violence and open hatred against the already beleagered LGB & T community here.
Ethically and morally speaking surely Nolan is cupable to some degree here too?
then you are going to face a backlash from those who you are attacking, be it manifest in increased incidences of violence
According to you, gay people have always been accepted in society, it’s only since they started getting uppity that they’ve brought trouble to their own doorstep, and if they keep it up they’ll be the ones responsible for what they reap.
As P J O’Rourke said when discussing the US Savings and Loan bail out, “What the fuck? I mean, what the fucking fuck?”
As for Harry Flashman, no-one is suggesting that Iris doesn’t have the right to say what she said, so put that straw man back in your closet. Do her comments make her unfit for public office? In my view, they do. I also think Mark McGregor and Mick Hall’s Marxist economics makes them unfit for public office, that Greenflag’s views on repartition make him unfit for public office, Brian Crowe’s Burkean conservatism makes him unfit for public office, and indeed presumably the same way you think the Australian Labor Party is unfit for public office. That’s what this whole voting and democracy stuff is about, you know.
But Iris has crossed a line, in that after her comments, if someone jumped me walking to the bus tomorrow morning I would not trust her to support bringing the people who did it to justice. I just wouldn’t trust her to support the basic norms of civilised society when it came to gay people. That means my degree of disagreement with her is of a different quality to that of my disagreement with those other fine worthies on Slugger. I worry about her being in a senior position in terms of making health policy in this country, more than I would if Mark McGregor was chairman of the Finance Committee at Stormont, which given my own fairly robust economic liberalism is a hell of a statement!
As someone who takes a fairly absolutist line on freedom of speech, Iris is entitled to say what she wants about homosexuality. But in a free society, the rest of us are equally entitled to make consequent judgements on Iris Robinson. If I say she ought to resign from her post as Chairman of the Health Committee when she supports crackpot ‘medical treatment’ of legal behaviour isn’t because I am in the thrall of some vast lieft-liberal conspiracy, but because as a free individual in a free society, I have come to that judgement based on her own freely made comments.
I take it this is acceptable, or are only hard-core socons allowed to make hard judgements on other people’s politics?
Dear Aunty Iris,
I am a pensioner born in, but now exiled from, Nornirn. Sometimes of an evening when in my cups I have a fondness for playing recordings in the Country/Gospel style by an Ulster artist of international renown.
It is not long before those dulcet nasal twangs have the tears running from my eyes and my little Jack Russell starts howling in harmony.
Herself says that I am an “abominable old fart” suffering from “Old Sodomy”.
What has the Bible to say on this matter? Is it curable? And could she get away with such cutting remarks on The Nolan Show?
p.s. Is he related to his more famous sisters by any chance?
@Sammy Morse
“As for Harry Flashman, no-one is suggesting that Iris doesn’t have the right to say what she said, so put that straw man back in your closet.
Try to keep up Sammy, several posters have said she should be investigated by the police and punished as a criminal because of what she said. Do pay attention old son otherwise it just makes you look like an idiot.
As for TAF, I’m not sure why you need to link the calling Catholicism an an “abomination” to a Catholic being beaten up. Anyone who did so would be regarded as an offensive buffoon, most people would shun such a person, if they stood for election their comments would be held up to very critical examination.
But it would not be a criminal offence.
I hope this makes things clear for all those people who have difficulty in understanding the fairly simple concept of freedom of expression.
You don’t like Iris Robinson’s views of homosexuality? Don’t vote for her.
Not too complicated for all your pro-censorship types now is it?
Don’t vote for her. Fair enough. But can they still criticise her without annoying champions of truth, freedom, justice and the American way like yourself?
“But can they still criticise her without annoying champions of truth, freedom, justice and the American way like yourself?”
Of course they bloody well can, you seem to have great difficulty in comprehending the fact that it is I who am in favour of free speech, it is Iris Robinson’s opponents who are trying to censor opinions they don’t approve of, not me.
Jesus, why are some people so slow to grasp really rather simple principles?
It’s like remedial class in basic political concepts in SO’T sometimes.
Again, who is trying to censor her?
How many people on this thread have expressed a desire to have her prevented from offering her opinions?
As said before, it’s a straw man argument because there’s no other way of defending her viewpoints.
With some freedoms comes responsibility, free speech carries with it the idea that one can be questioned and held accountable for the things they say.
Having come to this thread after 216 entries, I’ve not bothered to wade through them all since they are pretty repetitive. So I will make just a few comments:
1. This topic exposes a fault line within many societies. At its heart is the belief that anyone can do anything they like without moral censure, whether from a higher authority or from other people. Peter Hitchens summed it up on his blog very recently. His socially conservative viewpoint will be anathema to many but he has summed up the battleground perfectly:
“Because the heart of the ‘liberation’ imposed on this country by the post-war ‘enlightenment’ is that we are all free now, to do exactly as we wish, when and where we wish to do it … The main ‘liberation’ they care about, the one that Paris 1968, and the student revolution, and the American campus revolt were all about, is the freedom to do exactly as you like. It is of course dressed up as altruistic, and expressed as the view that other people may do exactly as they like … But that’s just a sop. The real purpose is to free me.”
That “liberated” mindset clashes with that of people like Mrs Robinson who practise moral censure because they believe that, to do otherwise, would be a breach of their Christian duty to confront sin in the unique ways open to them as a public representative.
2. Those who oppose Mrs Robinson should do so on the basis of refuting her arguments and her mindset. She has offended many but her words cannot pass any test for incitement of hatred. She is entitled to her opinion and it’s disturbing to see the lurking authoritarianism, visible in some comments, that would like to criminalise her for holding social attitudes that they find outdated.
3. All that said, Mrs Robinson was pretty inept in what she said. She got into a terrible quicksand when she talked about “turning” gay people with psychiatric help. I am dubious about claims that anyone’s sexual orientation can be “turned” in such a way. I think Ulster Christians who take a Biblical perspective in sexual matters often damage themselves. Rather than saying she was against homosexuality, Mrs Robinson could have said the same thing in a different way. She could have said that she beleived that sexual activity should only be practised by a man and a woman in marriage, that other sexual activity whether heterosexual or homosexual is wrong, and that unmarried people of whatever sexual orientation should be supported in their efforts to live a Christian life in accordance with this. I agree with Mrs Robinson that homosexuality is wrong, but Ulster Christians often express that sentiment in ways that open them to unnecessary charges of ignorance and bigotry.
4. I wouldn’t go to any stake for the right to use words like “coloured”. I find Ulster society, even Christian society, riddled with racism. In fact I lost a friendship because I objected to someone’s casual use of the word “n*g-n*g”, people who attend Mrs Robinson’s church, as it happens.
5. I think the Catholic side is secularising faster than the Protestant one. Once there would have been plenty of Catholic voices who would have agreed with Mrs Robinson. Both nationalist parties are thoroughly progressive on gay rights: Sinn Fein, of course, is New Left, the SDLP is social democrat. (Abortion is an exception.) Unionism, much influenced by evangelicalism, seems more socially conservative.
It is patronising doublespeak from a councillor, MLA, MP and the first woman of the Province: who as a member of the Christian family thinks she knows the mind of God in deciding what is right and moral for us all. As for what I said above it is clear this person is prejudiced against homosexuals but no crime has been committed and like Paisley before her not only can it be proven beyond reasonable doubt but it is public policy to turn a blind eye to such bigots.
Posted by ZoonPol on Jun 07, 2008 @ 06:14 PM
Let’s focus on her ability to do her job properly given than she has 3 jobs …..
See Harry the thing is in your rush to be morally outraged at some of the sillier things said against Iris, you were prescribing behaviour while condemning others for doing the same thing. I hope that’s not too simple for you to understand. Free speech except where it involves saying silly things about Iris. Then, shut up.
Garibaldy, do you always talk in meaningless gibberish?
TAF you are now the second poster here who, despite the evidence to the contrary that some people actually [b]do[/b] want to censor Iris Robinson, has said that I am setting up a straw man, like the last poster that makes you an idiot.
Iris Robinson is being investigated by the PSNI for the crime of possessing an illegal opinion.
Thought Police
Now frankly as a defender of the right to free expression I consider the idea that a democratically elected politician can be prosecuted by the police for answering a question about her opinions honestly a fuck sight more offensive than some middle aged woman’s view of men having sex with each other.
Iris Robinson’s opinions on gay sex are hers and she is entitled to them without having to check with the police first whether she is allowed to express them.
If you doubt the slippery slope down which we are sliding have a look at Canada where so called Human Rights Tribunals, in fact star chambers staffed by political activists, are currently censoring and punishing citizens for having unacceptable opinions.
That’s Stalinism pure and simple
Free Speech outlawed in Canada
“[i]A Christian pastor has been given a lifetime ban against uttering anything “disparaging” about gays. Not against anything “hateful”, let alone something legally defined as “hate speech”. Just anything negative.
So a pastor cannot give a sermon.
But he must give a false sermon; he is positively ordered to renounce his deeply held religious beliefs, and apologize to his tormentor for having those views.
And then that pastor is ordered to declare to his entire city that he has renounced his religious views, even though he has not.[/i]”
When did gays get such hallowed status that they may not face ‘disparaging’ comments?
Are any other groups entitled to such protection?
Say a small community of people who suffer ridicule and insults regularly and frequently are subject to physical attack and arson on their premises?
Why do gays get special rights that Orangemen don’t?
Equal rights for all I say, no specially privileged classes or you might just find your illiberal censorship coming back to bite you on the ass ten years down the line when political situations change.
I’m afraid this is a straw man. Very few of Iris’ critics want her silenced. We just wish someone is such a position didn’t parade their ignorance in such an irresponsible way.
I never liked this legislation that can criminalise someone for speaking. Interesting, I wonder how Iris voted when this was being tabled in Parliament a few years ago. I’d guess she was in favour of silencing the Muslims it was designed to silence.
There’s few things more distasteful than politicians showing off their ignorance to gain favour with the ignorant. It’s the sort of thing you’d expect from Pol Pot.
The problem is Harry – she may be entitled to her views, archaic and redneck as they may be, but she’s not entitled to bring them into her office with her. She’s the Chair of the Health Committeee at Stormont – does she really believe that homosexuality is a curable disease? If so, that view and the level of ignorance it illustrates hardly qualifies her for that position.
You made the analogy here with Orangemen – they are entitled to their views, they are definitely entitled to a life free of arson attacks but their views are subject to the same freedom of expression that they themselves enjoy and which you champion.
I myself think they are an historical anachronism but recognise that they have a pre-eminent place among the Unionist community.
Flash Harry on Free Speech:
Of course they bloody well can, you seem to have great difficulty in comprehending the fact that it is I who am in favour of free speech, it is Iris Robinson’s opponents who are trying to censor opinions they don’t approve of, not me.
Jesus, why are some people so slow to grasp really rather simple principles?
eh
I recall you were not very happy about last years gay pride when someone carried a banner say ‘Jesus is a Fag’.
You were not supporting that persons right to free expression were you?
“The problem is Harry – she may be entitled to her views, archaic and redneck as they may be, but she’s not entitled to bring them into her office with her.”
On what grounds is she presently not entitled to say something as an elected representative that she could otherwise say if she was a private person?
The last time I looked, freedom of expression was in the ECHR. Probably a surprise to the Sluggerite neo-Stalinists.
Flashharry on free expression II
When did gays get such hallowed status that they may not face ‘disparaging’ comments?
Are any other groups entitled to such protection?
Protection – there was none for us during the beatings bullyings and DUP inspired homophobia
Protection I wish it had been as awfully effective as you think it is then more ‘abominations’ and gay men would still be alive,
DUP Homophobia has lead to at least two deaths last year.
Do you care about have you been ‘keeping up’ with that?
With apologies to the unknown author (laziness) of the “Boston Toast”
“And this is good old Belfast –
The home of the Taig and the Prod
Where the Paisleys talk only to Robinsons
And the Robinsons talk only to god”
The Lord works in mysterious ways?
Thanks to Iris’ demented rant the LGB & T community is buzzing with activity and empowerment around this issue. Emails are flying all over the show, people are researching and presenting bios on all concerned, the forums are alive with almost hysterical calls for meetings and activism from Unison (SEE NEWS) to Rainbow for protests and pickets.
The LGB&T;groups in Northern Ireland often suspicious of, fractured and outright hostile to each other are of One Voice on this issue with each grouping or player in the community seemingly seeking to be the most outraged and clever over what in my opinion is essentially a small minded fool spouting small minded foolery who ought be summarily ignored with contempt.
Shame the LGB&T;community can’t apply the same energy and unity of purpose to lobbying the executive as a whole for much needed services and resources for this often beleaguered community.
Is not this a prime opportunity to maturely and with dignity raise the profile of such a campaign and extract some degree of recognition and concessions instead of infantile, self absorbed, often victim centric personal attacks on Iris and her ‘christian’ beliefs.
It is worth noting too while we are on the subject that very often these very same LGB&T;groupings, managers and players when offered help and support from the community as a whole can and have been as heterophobic and as offensive as Iris here in their response to anyone other than themselves supporting themselves.
In my view such immaturity, disguised hypocrisy and affected indigence and low self esteem undercoated with self loathing and internalised homophobia is surely equally as repulsive as Mrs Robinson’s latest pronouncements.
What an amusing sight it is then when two equally phobic minorities clash so publicly in trying to outRAGE the other!
Personally I proscribe counselling, anger management and a large dollop of self help for ALL concerned…
B Mused
Watchman
On what grounds is she presently not entitled to say something as an elected representative that she could otherwise say if she was a private person?
She has duties as an elected representative that may fall under the remit of equality legislation. Aside form that she is once, twice, three times a public servant and has undoubtedly made it more difficult for constituents to seek her help under any of those hats. Moreover being in a position of authority she is setting a terrible example in a society where violence towards homosexuals is not uncommon, much less unknown.She can say what she likes but she has to take the consequences.
My employment contract covers harassment. If I came into work and came off the views of Mrs Robinson to a gay member of staff I’m pretty sure a compliant by them could land me in serious hot water, so I’d guess it’s the accepted norm.
[i]“Yeah I also remember the seventies when no one had to lock their front doors, because they had fuck all to steal.” – TAF[/i]
True, but the liberal left didn’t create the businesses that created the wealth: that was the conservative business class.
All the liberal left did was engineer a fragmented social culture wherein crimes of every variety have skyrocketed because the shared social values that held the society together have been systematically undermined. Don’t take the credit for the increase of wealth, kid, when all you deserve the credit for it the increase in social fragmentation and the resultant disintegration of moral values.
[i]“And here was me thinking it was the radical right that boldly and blatantly claimed there was no such thing as society. I think what Dave really means to say is, attack actually existing inequalities. The two are not the same.” – Garibaldy[/i]
There is more to conservatism than the gnomic sayings of Margaret Thatcher. The agenda of the liberal left requires that all moral codes that conflict with it be eradicated. Most of those moral codes are what holds society together. In the case at hand, it is Christianity (whose moral code engineered Western society). In other cases, it is moral codes that stipulate that people who do not work should not receive any benefit from those who do provide for their own needs. The engineering here is left as opposed to liberal left, and a recent example of it was the attempt to create “rights” (such as social housing, ect) within the proposed NI Bill of Rights that are properly the function of elected government and its policy, and more properly, as conservative doctrine would have it, the responsibility of individuals rather than the state. This would remove the moral dynamic whereby society frowns on those who are too lazy to provide for their own needs, thereby encouraging the greater number to engage in the positive action of providing for their own needs rather than face the disapproval of the society.
These moral codes may seem inconsequential to you but they are fundamental to the whole social enterprise. A more transparent example would be a moral code that disapproves of teenage pregnancy, particularly citing the example that left agenda of providing priority social housing for them has promoted the practice that it was designed to alleviate. The liberal left declared that society should not disapprove of the practice (merely pay for it) or those who engage in it, and the result is that they grossly compounded the problem. It’s there, much more so than before the liberal left was successful in its engineering, but it’s now no longer ‘acceptable’ for the society to see the problem as a problem.
[b]Continued[/b]
[i]“According to you, gay people have always been accepted in society, it’s only since they started getting uppity that they’ve brought trouble to their own doorstep, and if they keep it up they’ll be the ones responsible for what they reap.” – Sammy Morse[/i]
Welcome to the real world. You can engineer anti-discrimination laws, and we all support that. But you can’t engineer how people think. This is what the liberal left and their Politically Correct paternalistic social engineering can’t grasp. If you attack a social group, then that social group will defend itself. In this case, the liberal left (and its a loose federation of the brainwashed), are taking a scattergun to Christians (who form the overwhelming majority of society), to the DUP (who are the largest Unionist party) and, basically, branding anyone with a dissenting viewpoint as a bigot, a tosser, or whatever puerile name-calling your like. That’s a lot of people who are going to be defensive when attacked, isnt it?
The reality is that you will meet these people on the streets (being, rather obviously, the vast majority of NI’s citizens) and they will then see you are a group that is hostile to them. It’s a case of going about the issue the right way, not the obviously wrong way. I didn’t say homosexuals did this: I said they liberal left is doing it because they are using the issue to serve their own hidden agenda – using it as an example of why we need more of their Politically Correct paternalistic social engineering.
The liberal left will tell you that homosexuality is normal, when it is patently abnormal. They will tell you that the majority is actually gay, when, again, this is patently untrue. This engineering is very sinister because it operates at the fundamental level of thought control: it is blatant brainwashing. How long do you think something built on a foundation of lies will last? As long as censorship can keep truth at bay? As long as you can scream bigot and tosser at others in any effort to censor dissenting viewpoints?
Instead of this sinister engineering, it is better to promote a positive social image for your community. It is better to be tactful than confrontational. Every minority social group – of which homosexuals are just one of many – must engage in good PR with the rest of society rather than attempt to systematically undermine that society. This is what I meant by being “gay conservatives” – changing the system from within instead of trying to overthrow it by the sinister means that are the speciality of the liberal left.
[i]“DUP Homophobia has lead to at least two deaths last year.” – Different Drummer[/i]
There is a difference between expressing an opinion and issuing a directive to others to engage in murder. Manchester United fans don’t much like Manchester City fans, and some have even killed the other, but that isn’t a reason to censor criticism of either team.
[The liberal left] will tell you that the majority is actually gay, when, again, this is patently untrue.
That’s just a flat-out filthy lie, though, isn’t it, Dave?
Colm O’Gorman built his own Fortune on his homosexual affair with the late Fr Sean Fortune and he lives with a little boy and a little girl he is not related to; David Norris owes his success to his alleged homosexuality and plagiaring Joyce. The SA were mostly homosexuals and Hitler was most likely Roehm’s bit*c. Just look at the Fuhrer’s mannerisms and the list of victims on the Night of the Long Knives.
It looks like Ireland is a land of saints, scholars and homosexual enablers. No wonder it is doomed. Hopefully, Iris will join us in The Rapture.
It is disappointing that none of the “mainstream” churches or mainstream Christians appears to have challenged Iris Robinson about her remarks. Surely, as a Christian, Iris should be at pains to avoid self-righteousness and, like Jesus, should side with the marginalised in society: not condemn them? Isn’t this the true Christian message?
This brings me on to a wider point about the disproportionate influence that fundamentalist Protestants appear to have in the public realm in Northern Ireland. Fundamentalist Protestants are quite a small minority in Northern Ireland: there are more Roman Catholics, more “mainstream” Protestants, and more agnostics/atheists/non-practising-religious people. Yet the fundoes apparently dominate the largest political party in NI and give the impression to outsiders that Protestantism in Northern Ireland is largely fundamentalist. It is not.
A wider point still is that Iris Robinson and other unionists with similar views need to learn fast that they are damaging unionism by making these utterances which associate unionism with intolerance and American-style right-wing political views. Believe it or not, a large and increasing proportion (a majority?) of people in NI have broadly liberal attitudes on things like homosexuality, premarital sex, alcohol, gambling, racy TV programmes, etc. These people are put off unionism by its association with narrow self-righteous views on “moral” issues. Unionism only has a narrow majority – and will soon no longer be able to afford to rely on the social conservatives.
Discussion is hereby ended – Godwin’s Law.
When the First Minister says he condemns all attacks on minorities, does he mean just physical attacks or does he include verbal ones in this too?
I’d also take issue with his inferred assertion that homosexuality is a “way of life”.
It is not.
And I’d suggest that I’m more qualified to judge this than he is.
Not very impressive, Kensei, I asked a specific question. Can you tell me which items of equality legislation apply to Mrs Robinson as a public representative that would not apply to her as a private citizen that prohibit her from expressing a personal opinion? As to her expression of her views making it difficult for her constituents to access her, I suspect that many unionists would not go near a Shinner for help. That’s politics.
Everyone now has an anti-harassment clause in their employment contracts. I wouldn’t bring up Mrs Robinson’s comments to a gay colleague unless asked for my opinion. For me, it’s a question of politeness and important to ensure that people aren’t abused in the workplace on any grounds. But a public representative is entitled to speak out on matters of public debate, subject to the normal rules about inciting hatred and violence which is always construed very tightly.
There’s nothing in equality legislation to stop Iris’s rants.
Colm O’Gorman only got 3% of the vote in Wexford. Homosexuals are not representative of anyone, themselves excepted. Iris will romp home next time round and standing up to the enablers will help her.
Whilst there is no doubt that many Potestants are homosexuals (and Provos are too so maybe thye can get down and dirty together, most ordinary decent people want them firmly closeted on health, social and moral grounds. The O’Gorman vote bears this out.
Actually Dave, social housing is provided according to need. That was one of the major points of NICRA.
As for the idea that the moral code of western society is due to Christianity. This is not the case, otherwise we wouldn’t see the separation of church and state in places like America or France. While Christianity certainly has had a large place to play in the shaping of western mores, we also need to look at other factors. Like classical tradition, Renaissance humanism, the Enlightenment and such like, which have played a huge role in the articulation of modern moral codes, and in many senses a greater one, and a great deal of which owe precisely nothing to Christianity, other than to oppose it. But stick to the simplified generalisations if it makes you feel better.
As for social rights like housing and subsistence. Not only are they included in the UN Declaration, they were accepted by Christianity as among its adherents’ prime duties. Hence almsgiving, poor laws, etc long before the liberal left – which here appears to me just about anything – came into existence.
firmly closeted on health …grounds.
Totally agree. They should in fact be locked up before the infect us straight ones.
Equality legislation is hokum – Majority rules, OK.
No one doubts that the New World Order’s moral take (oxymoron there) has been tinged by humanism and the Roman and Greek savages. Interesting that the LGBT pressure group are lobbying and cackling away. How many Ts are there anyway? If Colm O’Gorman, David Norrris and that Provo pr–k are anything to go by, they are a waste of space. best kept in the closet. Like all cults, they want more customers, more people to be diverse and different just like them.
Also, have Unison nothing better to do than cater for these people? What percentage of Unison’s members are sodomites and how many are pre or post of trannies/TVs/TGs? Is the right of these people to flaunt their sex more important than the needs of Polish Roman Catholics who are being exploited by Ryanair, whose shareholders no doubt include LGBTs?
I think it’s worth mentioning again:
Iris Robinson believes that homosexuality is a treatable pyschiatric condition.
She should have had the nous to not mention something like this – that she would have known to have provoked some controversey.
Her ignorance of the success rate of treating homosexuality is embarassing.
Watchman
Not very impressive, Kensei, I asked a specific question. Can you tell me which items of equality legislation apply to Mrs Robinson as a public representative that would not apply to her as a private citizen that prohibit her from expressing a personal opinion?
I don’t have a specific answer, so made an educated guess. I could well be and am probably wrong. If there was a problem, I’d guess that it could leave her open if a gay person applied for a job and failed to get it. But in any case, context. An employer can have whatever bigoted view he likes, but if he stated them during a interview he could land himself in big trouble. The law remains the same, but the context differs. Similarly, it differs for public officials, and what is expected from them differs from a private individual.
As to her expression of her views making it difficult for her constituents to access her, I suspect that many unionists would not go near a Shinner for help. That’s politics.
That really isn’t good enough.
But a public representative is entitled to speak out on matters of public debate,
The debate is over. The bigots lost.
Harry Flashman
I don’t support gagging Iris; I take a farily fundamentalist view on freedom of speech as you really ought to know by now. Iris is entitled to say whatever she wants short of inciting criminal behaviour; however, I’m entitled to make the judgement from what she says that she’s unfit for public office. And I have.
Willowfield
Best post from you in a long time.
“And here was me thinking it was the radical right that boldly and blatantly claimed there was no such thing as society.”
garibaldy,
Ouch!
Iris, one of the most devout christians you could hope to meet.
Of course we don’t see her practicing what she preaches. Storing up riches on earth and all that shit …….
I’ve been reading up on this bitch since Friday. Her recent lifestyle magazine article on her and Peter made me sick. She gushes about the opulence of the curtains in the hall, Peters 60″ Plasma in his study. How many children would that have helped in the third world.
I’m sorry she’s an uneducated opportunistic bitch who’s in politics for the money. Should we go into her office expenses? I wish someone would.
No I’m sorry Iris, if you’re gonna follow the bible do it to the letter. Don’t pick and choose what you fancy. And please don’t subject us to your foreplay with Peter on the TV. That kiss made my toes curl.
And her kissing him in Public
The issue for me is that the DUP will not publish a party policy on gay rights, gay equality or homosexuality. It’s rare that you will even hear them utter any of these words! Yet, individually, they queue up to express their personal views – Iris, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Arthur Templeton, Maurice Mills…. This is political cowardice – the ballot box in one hand and a fundamentalist bible on the other. They know that they would face real enquiry if they published their views – so they don’t. They hide behind ‘personal, private’ views. This is an abuse of the public position they were elected to. Their elected position is a platform for their manifesto and not their own private beliefs.
TAF you are now the second poster here who, despite the evidence to the contrary that some people actually do want to censor Iris Robinson, has said that I am setting up a straw man, like the last poster that makes you an idiot.
Sorry Harry, but just as you carefully switched the questioned I asked you mast time, and answered a question of your own choosing, you’re now carefully distorting what it is I have said.
Again as someone else pointed out, you’re a champion of free speech, for all those who agree with you.
Blah, blah, blah, what a bunch of hoey over a pathetic little matter such as homosexuals who by choice are what they are.
Get over it and start worrying about the starving children all over the world instead worrying about men putting their dicks into each others bumholes!
I think it’s more about men putting their fists and feet into other men’s faces that is the crux of the problem.