Saturday, July 29, 2006
Good week to be gay…
THE Government intends to close a loophole that still allows some discrimination against gay people, and plans more funding for gay support groups. Meanwhile, a new survery suggests we’re becoming more accepting of the gay community in Northern Ireland. Something to celebrate at the Gay Pride Parade next Saturday?
Belfast Gonzo @ 03:28 PM
about time to, although in general i found gays s to be accepted in belfast, much more than other cities.. Belfast has the third most vibant gay scene in the uk outside of bristol and brighton..
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 04:05 PMMore good news. The number of attacks on gays in Derry has fallen in recent months. Let us hope this is a permanent change.
Number of attacks on Gays falls in Derry
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 04:46 PMNot so sure about that expat.
Of the gay people I knew from Belfast not one of them felt comfortable enough to stay there, with most heading for London and anonymity, where there sexuality was not subject to knowing nods, twitching curtains, and whispers on doorsteps.
The fact that the gay “accusation” is still used to batter Casement about the head shows clearly how homosexuality is seen as “bad”, “dirty” and even “treacherous” in the north.Not to mention Carson and Wilde.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 04:55 PMA benefit of direct rule that devolution would not have brought?
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 04:56 PMcircles “The fact that the gay “accusation” is still used to batter Casement about the head shows clearly how homosexuality is seen as “bad”, “dirty” and even “treacherous” in the north.”
No, what is being used to judge Casement is HIS OWN admission of sex with underage boys and picking up rent boys. In an era where homosexuality was illegal, this kind of behaviour was not only morally reprehensible but showed perchant for reckless behaviour, self gratification and bad judgement, something which also end his life.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 04:59 PM“HIS OWN admission” - would that be the “diaries” Keith? Oh they must be real eh, cos the government would never forge anything would they? Especially not when dealing with a “traitor”.
Or do you have another source for this “confession”?And would I be right in assuming that you personally do not find homosexuality per se to be “morally reprehensible” nor evidence of a “penchant for reckless behaviour, self gratification and bad judgement”.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 05:04 PMKeith,
Haven’t really engaged the censorship part of the brain today.
Perhaps Casement indulged in such practices - and the scientific tests done on the diaries around 2001 prove as far as I can see that they are real - because he was a victim of prejudice in that homosexuality was illegal. Usage of prostitutes was much more common in Victorian times than it is today. So my opinion on Casemont is that he was clearly a product of his times. He wasn’t the only Victorian senior civil servant to be a secret homosexual. None of which should be held against him. Although the underage thing should.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 05:19 PM“...sex with underage boys”
Whether he was gay or not is irrelevant, Casement like Pearce was a paedophile. They both stand condemned on this regardless of what age they lived in. Unless, that is, Circles has no problem with that.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 05:31 PMA good start but does an Action Plan to deal with issues affecting our LGBT community really need to take 3 years to implement? And in the event of devolution being restored would any parties veto action on these issues?
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 05:31 PMcircles ; The Black Diaries were scientifically proven to be real a number of years ago.
Garribaldy; even if you wish to excuse prositution as forgivasble because of the era (would you also say the same about slavery a century earlier?) it does not excuse sex with underage boys.
Furthermore to engage in such activities while in the high profile career which Casement had, showed such a lack a judgement as to cast a shadow over the man’s character.
As a matter of interest, I said the same thing abour Labour’s Emmett Stagg under similar circumstances, back in the 1990s. Employing male positutes and having sex in a public place may not be sackable offences, but the clear lack of good judgement demonstrated by such activity should have been enough for Stagg to be sacked.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 05:42 PMKeith,
Questionable judgment certainly, although much more difficult to have a proper homosexual relationship in those days due to discrimination, so more understandable that gay men in public life sought to hide their sexuality. A different case by the 1990s, or indeed for Mark Oaten and his ilk. Casement et al had no option but to hide. I did condemn the underage thing.
Prostitution is to be condemned. But the point I was making was that society looked at prostitution differently than we do, so it was less of an indiscretion than it is today.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 06:04 PM.circles.
Maybe your comments have a point.yet the connection between homosexuality and peadophilia yet again show a gross misunderstanding of the situation.
one of the biggest problems seems to be , from the above comments is that people still see gay s as child abusers.. would such a discussion about casements sexuality and lack of ‘moral fibre’ be going on if he had abused girls and young woman… i think not..incidentaly i had many gay frinds in belfast and found them to be happy and secure, probably more so than most in northern ireland.. though i will admit i cannot speak for other towns..
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 06:06 PM“Garribaldy; even if you wish to excuse prositution as forgivasble because of the era (would you also say the same about slavery a century earlier?”
Pardon me for intruding, but since the record is being set straight (bad pun) on Casement, let’s do the same on slavery.
Slavery only ended in these islands with the closure of the last of the Magdalene Laundries, way back in—1996.
Is this another record for Ireland? Funny how one seldom hears about that when people like Mary Robinson are bleating on about third-world slavery.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 07:06 PMShouldn’t we bear in mind that King William of Orange swung both ways? Didn’t he have male favourites whose talents seem to have been more than political?
Perhaps an Orange Banner should be at the head of Saturday’s Gay Pride March?
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 07:35 PM“Shouldn’t we bear in mind that King William of Orange swung both ways? Didn’t he have male favourites whose talents seem to have been more than political”
No this is not true. Not that it really matters, but historians have said that there is not a single shread of evidence to suggest that William III indulged in homosexuel acts. This was nothing more than propaganda by the small minds of his detractors. Of course it still exists in the small minds of today´s republicans.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 09:46 PMNo one is linking paedophilia with homosexuality quite the opposite in fact. That Casement and Pearce abused male children is not the issue, that it was children of whatever gender is.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 09:50 PMcensorship, will never silence God.
Shame on you.[God, you’re not - edited moderator]
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 10:08 PMI reiterate,
the very fact that we jumped from a discussion on what should have been on the treatment of gays in northern ireland society to “was Casement a child abuser” in exactly 3 postings shows thathe connection is still prevelant in NI .We should not have been discussing Casement at ..and get back to the topic at hand and stop point scoring with “who had the biggest queen”
Posted by on Jul 30, 2006 @ 02:29 AMCould someone please tell me what form this discrimination takes or has taken in Northern Ireland? How exactly is it possible to discriminate against or even know a person’s “sexuality” through job recruitment forms, housing allocation, or (free) health care?
Please tell me, without reference to televisual hype or hyperbole, I really do what to actually hear an argument on here for once…
And what of these statistics? Presumably, they weren’t taken up the Shankill, outside St peter’s, or, to play an agent provocateur, the Islamic Centre/Mosque in Wellington Park?
Answers Answers!
Posted by on Jul 30, 2006 @ 08:07 AM“Not to mention Carson and Wilde”
What has Carson got to do with it? He was defending Queensbury against a charge of libel. Wilde was a fool to bring the charge. Carson was offerned the job of prosecuting Wilde after the libel case but turned it down. It think that there is still a perception in people’s minds that Carson was the procesuction. Not so.
Whatever Queensbury may be quilty of, libel wasn’t part of it.
These days Wilde would most likely be out and the libel thing would not be relevant and of course neither would the subsequent trial, with him as the defendant this time.
Posted by on Jul 30, 2006 @ 09:54 AMJames “Presumably, they weren’t taken up the Shankill...”
Is this some N.I. euphamism of whuich I’m unaware?
Posted by on Jul 30, 2006 @ 10:24 AMDoctoe Who, most objective historians do agree that William III was bisexual and liked boys.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/learning/william/marriage2.shtml
For instance.
We also have the promotion of gentlemen of his bedchamber to high office.
Why is it small minded to say so? Is there something a little suspicious about all this denial?
Just because something may be used by detractors or as propaganda does not mean it isn’t true. Casaement’s “Black Diaries” are a case in point. Oscar Wilde is another, he sued after his sexuality was used by his detractors to mock him. However he lost and is now a gay icon.
Posted by on Jul 30, 2006 @ 12:02 PMIf he was homosexual or he liked boys does not alter what Dr Who said. Homosexual inclination and activity are two different things.
Posted by on Jul 30, 2006 @ 12:34 PMReally Bertie, how many people never act on their sexual inclinations? And how would anyone know what their inclinations were if they didn’t?
Do you reckon that rich and powerful men who are away from home for years on end make up a very high percentage of the sexually self denying?
How about rich and powerful widowers?
Posted by on Jul 30, 2006 @ 02:05 PMConcerned patient
I don’t know how many people never act on their sexual inclination and neither do you. I particularly don’t know how many people in William’s time did.
I think we get a lot of our view of the sexuality of his wife and of his siter-inlaw from their letters, which reading with 21st centuary eyes seem pretty convincing. However in an age when people, were rather flowery in their language, this may account for it. (If we were starting letter writing ettiquette from scratch now, how many hetrosexual men would start with “Dear John”. Even if they were so inclined I have no knowledge of them acting on it.
I never got much of an impression of William as beeing greatly sexually driven.
So how much we can tell about the sexuality of historical figures without some evidence as to activity, I am unsure.
Regardless my comment still stands, inclination and activity are not necessarily the same thing. Self disgust could be an inhibitor.
Posted by on Jul 30, 2006 @ 02:48 PM
