Friday, June 06, 2008
Iris looking to ‘turn around’ gays
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???
Chris Donnelly @ 07:51 PM
Iris Robinson accused of ‘hate crime’
http://www.irishnews.com/appnews/540/5860/2008/6/7/589664_347703631897IrisRobin.html
Seems under the police state Iris is in trouble.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 04:38 PMSammy,
“you can come and give me a hand sometime if you feel so strongly about it”
I’m right behind you. Though, i do find it amusing that the Beeb would have you on and not mention the love that dare not speak its name - APNI ;0)
Being serious, I’d love to see Anna Lo challenge Robinson on what she sees at acceptable terms to use about ethnic groups in Stormont.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 04:50 PMWas looking at the Home Office Web and their definition is, “Any incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hate.” I am sure the first minister is loving this!
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 04:51 PMMoochin Photoman,
“Wilde Rover......which *ahem* camp are you in then?”
I’m in the camp that says the electorate will decide the outcome in the end, and if they are unhappy with the situation then they will take the appropriate steps.
What’s all the fuss about? Throw them out or let the party know they will be thrown out and get some replacements. Unionists should sh1te or get off the pot on this issue or they surrender the moral high ground to republicans.
I don’t really relate to the whole fundie thing, but I’m not going to tell them what to think.
Although I do think the conversion thing is hilarious. Doesn’t the CC run camps to convert gay men? They want to stop these guys from being gay and they group them together in a secluded mountain retreat. That doesn’t sound like conversion, that sounds like the start of a porno.Steve,
““People of Color” is a phrase being increasingly used in the US. In this country, describing someone as “coloured” is still considering rude.
I guess, simply not knowing that, suggests ignorance, or knowing it and using the phrase suggests that you don’t care if you sound rude or not.”
Well hey, some people might find the expression bog wog offensive, but speaking as a Mexican can I say that this is one culchie who tries not to go out of his muck savaging way to be offended or cave into the PC norms others might want to impose upon me.
Garibaldy,
“The question is, when will a politician come out and ask why they can’t say things like taigs and huns, which we know a lot of them do in private.”
Is that huns: all prods, huns: ze Germans, or huns: fan of Rangers FC?
Words are fun.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 04:55 PMThe hate crime thing is ridiculous. Her comments may be offensive, but hardly criminal.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 04:55 PMI have just listened to the programme. Iris urges us to love the homosexual but to abominate “what they do”. I must say that I find this a bit difficult. I never really warmed to the Eurovision Song Contest myself but I do think it’s a bit much to expect me to abominate the viewing habits of those who do watch it. Next thing you know I’d have to abominate cricketers as well… though come to think of it that’s not as daft as it seems… bloody stupid game!
It all brought back fond memories of the furore following the Wolfenden Report in the 60’s when one Tory pundit was said to have blustered, “Homosexuality - it leaves a bad taste in my mouth!”
I am still pondering “the cure” proposition. I often used to meet our local drag queen, Gerry, furtively knocking on the side door of the pub before 10am desperate for “the Cure”. Is this what Iris meant?
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 04:55 PMInteresting situtation. Personally I’m kinda glad she made the comments. The more the DUP MLA’s do this kind of thing the more people will see them in their true light as the right-wing christian facists they are. You think Paul Berry was the only one in the DUP closet?
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 05:10 PMIt 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 on Jun 07, 2008 @ 05:14 PMGaribaldy,
“The hate crime thing is ridiculous. Her comments may be offensive, but hardly criminal.”
They will have to change that phrase from careful what you wish for to careful what you think.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 05:17 PMI meant can’t not can in the thired line: amaxing how the omission of one word or letter can screw up a point.
I am sure Pounder that the love that dare not speak its name is rife.Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 05:18 PMIf she goes down so must Paisely Jnr for his comments if you forgive the pun.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 05:19 PMI don’t understand her position at all. I understand the scriptural basis for homophobia but iirc Leviticus prescribes death for homosexuals. What, therefore, is the basis for her condemnation of this young man’s attackers?
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 05:30 PMGaribaldy: The NAACP is an old organisation, and its name reflects the language of its time. Besides I get the impression that coloureds is somewhat different than coloured people. In the same way that darkies is extremely different than dark-skinned people.
It seems to depend on whether you use a word as an adjective, or a noun. If you use it as a noun (a ‘Prod’, a ‘Black’), then it is as though you have said all that needs to be said about a person. If you use it as an adjective (a ‘Prod journalist’, a ‘Black astronaut’), you are giving the person you are talking about the dignity of being more than one dimensional.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 05:48 PMIris is a great character. It’s not too long ago that she complained about Irish language posters on an Ulsterbus. It turned out they were actually in French....
The Robinsons don’t appear to be a very well travelled family.....apart from the all expenses paid trips to Westminster....
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 05:52 PMMick Hall: <i>Can you not see that placing people in the hands of a psychiatrist because they are gay is an abomination, not least because of the historical connotations involved here. Pink stars and all that.<i>
That was a particularly inept Godwin, Mick. After all, it’s usually the Communist tyrannies that lock up their dissidents in Psychiatric hospitals, and send their recalcitrant proles off to re-education camps. That’s because they are the ‘nurture’ team. The Nazis (the ‘nature’ team) took a more direct route to their shared end point - mass murder.
The fact that Iris is advocating voluntary psychiatric treatment instead of imprisonment or castration puts her on the moderate wing of your team.
Where she *is* utterly wrong is that she regards homosexuality as a problem to be solved. That, with her political position, makes her dangerous.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 06:02 PMIt is true, of course, that many of the well known figures who speak out most loudly in condemnation of homosexuality are secretly homosexual themselves, to their great embarrassment when they are sometimes eventually outed.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 06:03 PMJoecanuck
Didn’t this happen in the states. Was it Ted Haggard? Caught in flagrante, but he has now been miraculously “cured”. I stand to be corrected.
That’s if the moderators don’t deem this post offensive and delete it without valid reason.Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 06:12 PMhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard
BTW if the moderator would care to email me the reason post 15, page 2 was deleted, I will make sure I know the boundaries. Thanks
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 06:15 PM“In this country, describing someone as “colored” is still considering rude.”
In some ways it is like dealing with babies who have just gained a certain amount of consciousness and ask what to them are intelligent questions, whilst the grown ups look on paternally. By the way you dark age DUPers, in your world is it ok to physically assault your children. after all is there not something about doing so in your book.
Still I digress, black and white are not colors, so as people do not call white people colored, as white is not a color, what reason would people have for calling black people colored? That people even mention such tosh proves they are either racists, extremely ignorant or they have health problems poor dears.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 06:21 PMTAF, estimates put the percentage of the population who are homosexual and lesbian as low as 1% and as high as 10%. Abnormality means “not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard.” Ergo, since heterosexuality is the norm (being the practice of between 90% and 99% of the population), homosexuality is, by definition, abnormal behaviour.
I did not express disapproval of the behaviour. Indeed, I stated that homosexuals should not suffer disadvantage due to their disposition. The point I made - and that passed you by - is that humans recoil from the abnormal. That is why you would recoil if you observed a woman with a large cancerous growth on the side of her head. Your reaction would not be predicated on a value system that seeks to discriminate against people with disfiguring cancer or other deformities: it is primordial. It is also why you admire a face where the symmetry is perfectly aligned: the appreciation is innate.
So, what this means is that applying the Politically Correct method of attempting to socially engineer a system wherein all are absolute equals by the dismal expedient of promoting censorship of dissenting viewpoints by branding those who express them as ‘bigots’ etc is doomed to failure, since human nature cannot be engineered - and part of that human nature is to recoil from that which is abnormal. Strangely, homosexuals are quick to point out that their own disposition cannot be ‘reformed’ but seem to believe that other aspects of human nature can be reformed. It can’t. Homosexuality will always be an abnormality and heterosexuals will always react to it as such. That’s just the reality of it. And homosexuals would be better served by not using their disposition as the basis for a social sub-culture that seeks to challenge social norms. When you behave like a camp twat, dressing in latex and leather like the Village People on a pink Mardi Gras float, then you shouldn’t be too surprised if society recoils in disgust at your degenerate behaviour.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 06:39 PMSo Dave what about cultures, say ancient Rome or Greece, where homosexuality has been much more acceptable than it is now? We can’t simply talk of human nature as some unchanging entity, because it simply isn’t. Nothing primordial about current reactions to homosexuality. Attitudes to it are cultural constructs.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 06:52 PMThe point I made - and that passed you by - is that humans recoil from the abnormal.
Indeed we do. The majority of us recoil from the deviant views of certain members of the DUP and extremist fundamentalist religions. Their behaviour and views disgust the majority. Though no one is arguing the need reeducated because the majority don’t have such fascistic views as the minority group they differ with.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 06:53 PMDave,
For a gay person, their attraction to the same sex is normal for them.I see pink news reports a police complaint
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 06:55 PMDave.
OK, I take your point but ask you to consider the use of terminology, abnormal is not the same as not the average.
If I say someone’s behaviour is abnormal it’s hard for that not to be interpreted as making a value judgement upon that person, whereas if I say their behaviour is not the average, there’s no value judgement as such.
As for the fact that we’re not all the same, I totally agree, I don’t want everyone to be the same, I just want their rights to live without fear to be the same.Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 07:02 PMI don’t take seriously those who are “tolerant” of homosexuality unless they are also complete social libertarians and support, for example, adult consensual incest, non cruel bestiality, and are also open minded about paedophilia, sympathetic to Jonathan King etc. If they are not approaching the subject from a reasoned position of libertarianism then they are just the same as “homophobes” but have a slightly different sense of what is sexually acceptable. They are just brainwashed by the BBC and it’s Guardian reading employees rather than being brainwashed by a church. Same difference.
One of the best articulated cases against social libertarianism I have read is here,
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.htmlPosted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 07:05 PM
