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???

  • I am not saying that you or your partner are responsible for incivility or crime. Rather, I believe there is a law of unintended consequences at work.

    I am relieved that you do not see us as being responsible for incivility or crime. But you still see the fact that we can live a contented, peacable, life without having to spend our lives telling lies about who we are as a sign of a decaying and decadent society. That’s a profoundly depressing view of the world.

    I do not accept your view of unintended consequences; whatever your view of the social revolution of the 1960s, its adherents were primarily ordinary men and women simply taking advantage of unparalleled prosperity, almost universal freedom from serious want and disease and the Pill. While voluntary restraint is a necessary part of any civilised society, I do not see the chain of causation from, let’s say, people being able to read Lady Chatterley’s Lover to children stabbing their teachers in schools, as the Hitchenite paeleocons would have us believe. Nor was the pre-1960s world as idyllic as you would have us believe. The problem with debating the idyllic past world before The Revolution is that most of us weren’t born there, and most of us doing the debating are terribly middle-class. Spousal abuse, child abuse, alcoholism, drinking your wages by the time the pubs closed on Friday, vicious street fights, affairs, ‘nasty men’; it’s all there in the past three generations or so of my family story, and I would suspect among those of most people who grew up in working-class parts of Belfast.

    But if Hitchens is your cup of tea, you’re welcome to it. Reading the first chapter of The Abolition of Britain is a remarkable experience. Hitchens celebrates a world were things are basically naff; food is poor, beer is poor, people are poor, rigid social hierarchies mean the poor stay poor (not true actually; the left are sooo wrong about this) but are content in knowing their place, authority is unquestioned even when corrupt, and even if the system stinks people are happy because they trust in it. Ironically, ex-Trot Hitchens and the new left he detests work from the same fairy story of primitive poor people being kept in their place until liberated by the great New Left of the 1960s. Both ignore, for example, the massive social advances for the working-classes in the Midlands and Southern England in the 1930s and the radical social advancement of those lucky enough to be young, poor and clever in the 1950s. Shamefully, Hitchens celebrates ignorance, oligarchy, deference to unearned authority and even bad plumbing. Anyway I could go on all night about Hitchens, but suffice to say, I’ve read him, I think he talks nonsense, and he’s another one who blames all the ills of society on homosexuals (and, to be fair, Guardian readers, social workers, Americans and the Second World War).

    Yes those wonderful 1950s, when doctors could do a Harold Shipman on their patients, have the medical establishment close ranks to protect them, and get away with it thanks to all that wonderful deference to authority.

  • Harry Flashman

    “I think he talks nonsense, and he’s another one who blames all the ills of society on homosexuals (and, to be fair, Guardian readers, social workers, Americans and the Second World War).”

    No he doesn’t, he charts the deliberate use of homosexuality, divorce, recreational drug use, unmarried motherhood, mass immigration, the destruction of proper schools etc by cultural Marxists in order to destroy the broadly conservative and (despite the usual litany of social problems that actually still exist today) remarkably stable and crime free society that existed prior to the Cultural Revolution of the 1960’s.

    Hitchens has no problem with homosexuality per se, he has a problem with how Gramsci Marxists used it as a tool to destroy the society that he thinks was, all its many problems notwithstanding, a better society than today’s. Trust me if the Left ever decided that promoting homosexuality in some way impeded their Cultural Revolution (as may soon turn out to be the case as they embrace their new friends in Islam) the Comrades will drop the gays without a moment’s hesitation.

    Most of the material benefits of modern life came from the increased wealth caused by conservatives and would have occurred anyway, I am afraid that most of the dreadful aspects of modern life be it feral, barely educated, adolescents living in grey council estates producing illiterate offspring on the back of the welfare state to rising crime and a soulless society are the deliberate results of left wing social planners.

  • Sammy claims that he cannot see the chain of causation between Lady Chatterley and feral children. That’s the problem with liberals: they are so idealistic about the perfect world they wish to create that they forget that in trying to perfect their little corner of the world to suit themselves, they undermine something somewhere else. I don’t think the sexual revolution could have happened without a simultaneous collapse in the idea of authority, because both are linked by the idea that the most important thing is to be free to do what you like, without censure from others. The generation that grew up in the 1960s and after and who became exposed to that outlook through comprehensive schools and popular culture, have had or are having children. You can’t bring up a child to be a good citizen without an understanding of authority and since the parents were taught that to exercise authority or restraint or to submit to them was in some way to deny yourself, that has had huge implications for the rearing of children. As usual, the middle classes are protected from the worst effects, but it is different for those children from less privileged backgrounds.

    I don’t think Hitchens is at all nostalgic for a supposedly pre-60s golden age. No one can dispute the social problems of the time, or that moderate reforms, such as the decriminalisation of homosexuality (something supported by Hitchens), were appropriate. But the point is that so many of the social problems from the past listed by Sammy have been worsened by increased licentiousness, which is the real legacy of the 1960s. At least in the past, when there were street fights, drunkenness etc., there was a greater tendency for others to condemn that behaviour. Is that really the case now in modern Britain?

  • willowfield

    DIFFERENT DRUMMER

    “It’s protestants and unionists like these that DUP let down -because these members of our community believe that being gay is simply incidental to who they are and their values.”

    Well said.

  • DIFFERENT DRUMMER

    “It’s protestants and unionists like these that DUP let down -because these members of our community believe that being gay is simply incidental to who they are and their values.”

    Well said.

    Posted by willowfield

    Willowfield

    I realize we fell out of late, but I hope you do not mind me saying this, but well said to you to

    regards.

  • Different Drummer

    To The Willowfield & Mick Hall My Many Thanks

  • Yes, you’ve all done splendidly.

  • Different Drummer

    The Left Cultural Revolution Homosexuality & Social Decline II

    It was Gramsci Wot Done It: The Relationship Between the Left and The Promotion of Homosexuality

    Flashharry your recent postings indicates that you know very little about the relationship between the Left & Homosexuals and the gay movement:

    ‘Trust me if the Left ever decided that promoting homosexuality in some way impeded their Cultural Revolution (as may soon turn out to be the case as they embrace their new friends in Islam) the Comrades will drop the gays without a moment’s hesitation.’

    We can have an argument or a discussion about the issues but the above is low grade discourse – a bad wind up.

  • Different Drummer

    The Left Cultural Revolution Homosexuality & Social Decline III

    A Watchman Writes:

    “At least in the past, when there were street fights, drunkenness etc., there was a greater tendency for others to condemn that behaviour. Is that really the case now in modern Britain?”

    Well there is Left Theory and their is social practice…..

    I have had cause to remind Iris’s supporters here that the most important people she has betrayed are not the vast army of liberals or radicals or SFA supporters but her **own** supporters who happen to be gay.

    I think the policeman a constituent of Iris’s who I mentioned is a case in point. He saw his role as protecting the public from crime, bad behavior – only to be a victim of that same behavior himself in his own (faith) community. He would agree that such behavior is unacceptable . But to then link him culturally with those who attack him and his home because he wants to live with who he chooses – that is just absurd.

    On the other end of the matter the anti agreement unionist I mentioned has just been involved in stopping the closure of his local post office. He was recognised at the meeting by one of the pensioners “there is is cleanest man on our road’ . Why because he is very very militant – about keeping his area free and the province of litter. He is in fact an anti litter campaigner. I don’t think they are untypical of gay protestants’ approach to public life and work here.

    As I said I wish the majority of those who are gay in the province were raving liberals and radicals but I can assure they are not they are in the main conservative and socially responsible people who care just as much as any other person does that the streets they share with their fellow citizens are safe.

  • Different Drummer, have you actually read my posts or simply skimmed them? Let’s get away from gay sex for a minute. It would be absurd to say that Person A, because he e.g. uses drugs recreationally but lives an otherwise law-abiding life, is responsible for somone who burgles to fund a drugs habit. Rather, it is the aggregation of all such “lifestyle choices” that cumulatively shape a society where Persons B, C and D think they can intoxicate themselves without fear of moral censure or criminal intervention.

  • Different Drummer

    A Watchman Writes

    “… it is the aggregation of all such “lifestyle choices” that cumulatively shape a society where Persons B, C and D think they can intoxicate themselves without fear of moral censure or criminal intervention.”

    That makes no sense at all.

  • Different Drummer

    Back to sex again

    A Watchman writes

    “But the point is that so many of the social problems from the past listed by Sammy have been worsened by increased licentiousness”

    And what do you propose to do about that – given what I have said about the true nature of gay political and social identities here?

  • Well, Different Drummer, isn’t there such a thing as society? How else does society develop, if not by the cumulative effect of the actions and attitudes of all its members? What’s nonsensical about that?

    As to your second point, well, the answer to increased licentiousness is, surprisingly enough, less licentiousness, or, to put it another way, a reformation in social attitudes. It has happened before. Victorian England, for all its faults and hypocrisies, had a higher moral tone than Georgian England thanks to the evangelical revival of the early nineteenth century, in the after-glow of which we have lived until quite recently.

  • Different Drummer

    The Watchman wants:

    “less licentiousness”

    And how will that be enforced ?

    And by whom?

  • Different Drummer

    The Watch Man Observes

    “isn’t there such a thing as society[?]”

    There is – but I don’t think you have been complaining about it’s existence. But rather you have been complaining about the forces within it. One of them being modernity.

  • Rory

    “If you are a Marxist and believe in Communism then being a capitalist is a crime against the faith i.e sinful”.

    Not if you are co-author of The Communist Manifesto, as Engels was with Marx, Greenflag. Indeed Marx would have been pressed to survive at times without generous subventions from Engels provided from the profits that Engels made as a successful industrialist. Marxists do not assume capitalism to be “sinful” but rather a stage of human social production that will inevitably be superceded containing as it does the seeds of its own destruction.

    As to homosexual practice – surely the question is not whether or not it is “sinful” – but whether or not it is fun. Herself and I have just returned from a short break in Brighton, the “Gay Capital of Britain”, and I have to say that crude empirical observation during that time would suggest that everyone was having a whale of a time.