I see the Pope has made one of his less inspired appointments with Maria Gerhard Wagner about to become the new Bishop of Linz. It was he who told the world that Hurricane Catrina was a punishment from God because of all the homosexuals in New Orleans. With Linz being Hitler's birthplace, I am sure that Bishop Wagner will feel at home.Another person who will no doubt welcome the appointment is the Mail on Sunday's Peter Hitchens. Today, he's written one of the more bigoted articles I have read in many a month. Ostensibly it's an attack on Edinburgh City Council for taking two children away from their grandparents (I'm with him on that), but the first half is an outright attack on anyone who is gay. The headline reads WE SHOW TOLERANCE TO 'GAYS' AND GET TYRANNY IN RETURN. The inverted commas say it all. Here's what he writes, together with a short commentary from me in green italics ...
If I never again had to read or write a word about homosexuals, I would be very happy.
It's a free country. No one forces you to read or write anything you don't want to.
I really don’t want to know what other people do in their bedrooms.
Me neither. Yet you imagine that we all do.
But these days they really, really want us all to know.
Er no, I have no wish for anyone to know what I do in my bedroom, and in particular I have no wish to burden you, Mr Hitchens with the knowledge. You'd probably be very bored by it anyway.
And, more important, they insist that we approve.
Utter nonsense. It is immaterial to me, and I am sure everyone else on my side of the ballroom whether you approve or disprove.
No longer are we allowed to keep our thoughts to ourselves, while being polite and kind.
No one forces you to share your thoughts with us in your column.
We are forced to say that we think homosexuality is a good thing, that homosexual couples are equal in all ways to heterosexual married couples.
No you are not. And I, as a gay man, do not equate civil partnerships to heterosexual marriages. You imagine I do. Because you wish us to conform to your bigoted stereotype. You also imagine I equate gay adoption with straight adoption. I don't. I could explain why, but here's not the place.
Most emphatically, we are compelled to agree that homosexual couples are just as good at bringing up children as the children’s own grandparents. Better, in fact.
Oh give me a break. I know you are paid to be controversial, but would you care to point out anyone who has peddled a myth that gay parents are better than straight parents? You can't, but I suppose you thought it sounded good and fitted your agenda. I'm sure there are many gay parents who are indeed better parents than straight parents - but if they are, it's not because of their sexuality.
Many people who believe nothing of the kind now know that their careers in politics, the media, the Armed Services, the police or schools will be ruined if they ever let their true opinions show.
And just what are these true opinions? That we gayers are some sort of sub form of human life?
I am sure that many of them regularly lie about their views, to avoid such trouble.
How do you know? Have you lied, Peter? It is papers like yours which make people feel they are being threatened, when the truth is that it is only a few militants who behave in this way. 99% of gay people live perfectly normal lives and share the same values as anyone who isn't gay.
We cringe to the new Thought Police, like the subjects of some insane, sex-obsessed Stalinist state, compelled to wave our little rainbow flags as the ‘Gay Pride’ parade passes by.
Pathetic. If you don't wish to watch a Gay Pride parade, don't. I don't either. Not my thing. So I don't go, or watch. It's a free country.
And that’s another thing. We can’t even call homosexuals ‘homosexuals’ any more. This neutral word is not considered enthusiastic enough. We have to say ‘gay’. Which is exactly why I don’t, apart from in inverted commas.
But that's the thing. It is, as I say, a free country. You can call us what you like. You can call us 'poofs' or 'queers' for all I care, which I imagine is exactly what you do call us in private. The difference between us Peter, is that I will call you bonkers and bigoted in print, or to your face. Whereas you hide behind snide insinuations. Go on, tell us what you really think. You usually do. No need to be coy.
You think I exaggerate the power and fury of these forces? The totalitarian rage on this subject is quite astonishing. I have had several brushes with it, and been called rude names by its militants.
Diddums. No doubt you will classify me as a 'militant' because I have dared to disagree with you. I do not let my sexuality define me. It is part of who I am, but does not define who I am. I don't talk about it unless provoked by bilious articles like this. There's nothing totalitarian in me speaking out against you and your pre-historic views. We all know you would be far more comfortable living in another age and can't come to terms with the fact that we live in a society which gives equal rights to people like me. Tough. Deal with it.
Well, I can live with that. It’s my job. But what about a powerless pair of grandparents in Edinburgh, their grandchildren’s lives shipwrecked by the multiple horrors of our ‘liberated’ society?
Indeed. And you see, the rest of his piece is logical, well-argued and powerful. But he seems to think these kids were taken from their grandparents IN ORDER to give them to gay parents. That simply was not the case. If the little girl had a fear of men, as is reported, the last people she should have been placed with was two gay male parents. This whole story is about a social services department which appears to be out of control. It is not about gay rights or gay parenting. And yet by writing as he does in the first half of his article, Peter Hitchens makes it so.
UPDATE: A commenter reveals that I will be speaking on a panel with Peter Hitchens (and Ed Vaizey) at the Oxford Literary Festival on 5 April. I think you can safely say some sparks may fly. Book your tickets now.
103 comments:
Here's what he writes, together with a short commentary from me in green italics ...
Not pink, then? :o)
Brilliant!
Must be hard for Peter Hitchens, having a brother a million times more talented than him.
He's probably one of those guys who think all gay men must fancy him.
"We are forced to say that we think homosexuality is a good thing, that homosexual couples are equal in all ways to heterosexual married couples.
No you are not. And I, as a gay man, do not equate civil partnerships to heterosexual manages. You imagine I do."
Got to disagree with you there - are you really unaware that there are vocal groups that do insist that 'tolerance' isn't enough, that vocal acceptance is required?
And that to those groups, full ga marriage is still the desired aim?
Neil, you cannot use a word like that on here - even when it is directed at Mr H!
Darling Iain...
Never fear. I have a plan for little Hitchie. My young friends in Marrakech would love to spend an afternoon stretching his horizons. No more homophobia for him.
BTW, did I mention that I am going to be the next Prime Mister quite soon? If you look very closely, you might see the announcement on my lovely little blog.
Much love
Mandy
xx
For once I really am on the fence with this one: Hitchens makes some good points, Iain counters some of them most elegantly. I think I shall withdraw from this one & agree that Peter's brother is a more interesting cove altogether. God is not great.
"Many people who believe nothing of the kind now know that their careers in politics, the media, the Armed Services, the police or schools will be ruined if they ever let their true opinions show."
Must be tough for a bigot trying to hold down a job on the Daily Hitler
"And that’s another thing. We can’t even call homosexuals ‘homosexuals’ any more. This neutral word is not considered enthusiastic enough. We have to say ‘gay’. Which is exactly why I don’t, apart from in inverted commas.
But that's the thing. It is, as I say, a free country. You can call us what you like. "
He can, writing in his newspaper column. I can, writing on my blog.
But what about people in jobs with 'speech codes', where to use the wrong term invites a call into the HR departent, and a mandatory 'diversity' course?
It needen't even be pejorative - when 'coloured' was the favoured word, the change to the preferred 'black' caught out a few people!
If you allow people to control language, they will. To everyone's detriment!
"And that’s another thing. We can’t even call homosexuals ‘homosexuals’ any more. This neutral word is not considered enthusiastic enough. We have to say ‘gay’. Which is exactly why I don’t, apart from in inverted commas.
But that's the thing. It is, as I say, a free country. You can call us what you like. "
He can, writing in his newspaper column. I can, writing on my blog.
But what about people in jobs with 'speech codes', where to use the wrong term invites a call into the HR departent, and a mandatory 'diversity' course?
It needen't even be pejorative - when 'coloured' was the favoured word, the change to the preferred 'black' caught out a few people!
If you allow people to control language, they will. To everyone's detriment!
Iain Dale:
"No you are not. And I, as a gay man, do not equate civil partnerships to heterosexual manages. You imagine I do. Because you wish us to conform to your bigoted stereotype. You also imagine I equate gay adoption with straight adoption. I don't. I could explain why, but here's not the place."
Disagree entirelly Iain.
Marriage is essentially an agreement between two people to esentially bestow additional legal rights on each other. Civil Partnership is exactly the same. Any more to it than that is entirelly in people's heads. Therefore Civil Partnerships are identical to Heterosexual Marrages in every way.
Gay people adopting is also exactly the same as straight people adopting. Someone's sexuality and gender is irrelevant to their parenting skills. So whether it be two women adopting, or two men, or a heterosexual couple, it's exactly the same. The only way it would be different is if gay people were somehow different than heterosexual people, and you're not, not at all.
Peter Hitchens is a "see you next tuesday" of the highest order btw. Just shocked that anyone can write a diatribe like that these days really.
But was this the real Peter Hitchens? That is the question.
Reportedly there are far more people wishing to adopt than children available for adoption. If this is the case, then why choose singletons or homosexual or lesbian couples rather than heterosexual couples? For if the interests of the child comes first, then why experiment by choosing other than heterosexual couples as parents? How is this to be reconciled with “children need to have a father” and presumably a mother too?
Is it the case that to decline applications from singletons or homosexual or lesbian couples could be viewed as discriminatory and that this consideration trumps the interests of the child?
Hitler wasn't born at Linz, it was at Braunau am Inn.
Whatever you think of Peter Hitchens he has his point of view that many people agree with and therefore he shouldn't be ridiculed for it.
Spot, and indeed, on.
The Bishop of Linz deserves all the opprobrium that can be heaped on his muddled little head.
The bigotry is one thing, but to claim that God sent a flood to punish New Orleans for its sinfulness (inc homosexuality) is so radically contradictory to Genesis 9:8-17 - the part where he explicitly rules out repeating the use of a flood to punish the earth.
9:8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
9:9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
9:10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
9:12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
9:14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
9:17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.
Somewhat fittingly, the eternal reminder of this covenant between God and man is a rainbow, which has been appropriated by the gay rights movement.
Someone should let the scripturally-illiterate Bishop of Linz know.
Nicely taken apart Iain - Hitchens does gets himself awfully worked up without bothering with any inconvenient things like facts.
JuliaM@7.13pm: isn't a free society one where you have vocal goups which demand different things? Should such groups not exist? They obviously don't stop you or Hitchens or Iain writing or speaking.
I know it's shocking, but some people don't share your views and they're allowed to express contrary opinions.
But that's the thing. It is, as I say, a free country. You can call us what you like. You can call us 'poofs' or 'queers' for all I care
It's not about what you like Iain, it's about the law. I'm placing an Ad for new staff next week. Will you underwrite the legal costs if I put
"Poofs, spazzers and Negroes welcome to apply" in my ad?
No, you won't.
Free speech my arse
I would like to say Peter Hitchins is a #### but that would be unfair as #####s are useful.
"Whatever you think of Peter Hitchens he has his point of view that many people agree with and therefore he shouldn't be ridiculed for it."
A bizarre use of the word "therefore". How does that follow? If you can't ridicule a mindless bigot, who can you ridicule?
I think you take this too personally Iain. Yes, his writing smudges his target somewhat, but I think he meant to aim his barbs at those who push the gay agenda on behalf of gays, rather than gays themselves. If one reads the article with that in mind, he doesn't say a lot wrong.
Put the green pen down, and step away from the handbag. ;-)
Still a damn good fisking, mind (oo-err Matron)
"JuliaM@7.13pm: isn't a free society one where you have vocal goups which demand different things?"
Yup. We've progressed from that, though, to one where the most vocal gets the power to make their desires reality over the wishes of the other vocal minority groups, and thelong-suffering majority that couldn't care less, and wishes they'd all shut the hell up.
Guess which group I belong to..?
"I know it's shocking, but some people don't share your views and they're allowed to express contrary opinions."
No problem with them having their opinions. It's when they start writing 'speech codes' that my hackles rise...
"Reportedly there are far more people wishing to adopt than children available for adoption"
There are far more people wishing to adopt white female children less than six months old whose mother is simply too young and can't cope.
Ask them to adopt the six-year old son of an asylum seeker, or a pair of troubled five-year-old siblings who are the offspring of a heroin addict, and they often get a bit less keen.
John said
Someone's sexuality and gender is irrelevant to their parenting skills
So you'd be happy for paedophiles to adopt would you? After all, they didn't ask to be born that way, they can't help it, etc,. etc,.
think before you answer.....
Peter Hitchens needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Me thinks he doth protest too much.
Peter Hitchens > we are all brothers and sisters in this world - get over it and move on.
I was as outraged as the next person to hear Peter Hitchens' virulent attacks on 'homosexual people' in the Mail on Sunday today. (Hitchens refuses to use the word 'gay' . . .
"We can’t even call homosexuals ‘homosexuals’ any more. This neutral word is not considered enthusiastic enough. We have to say ‘gay’. Which is exactly why I don’t, apart from in inverted commas."
Anyway, I was conversely pleasantly surprised to read, on the same day, that Iceland, no less, has a brand new fully fledged Lesbian Prime Minister - Johanna Sigurdardottir .
According to NextLeft: "Sigurdardottir will be Iceland’s first female prime minister and the first openly gay or lesbian premier anywhere in the world (excepting a very brief caretaker premiership for a couple of hours in Norway apparently). That must be a historic moment worth marking, though Icelanders think of it as a "non-issue" and so would prefer us to do so without too much Obamaesque fuss."
So Hitchins, stick that in your homophobic pipe and sit on it! To be honest I'm sick of the wanton, bileous guff that comes your Barry-George-lookalike trap!
"think before you answer....."
Perhaps you should think before you ask.
@Old Holborn
"So you'd be happy for paedophiles to adopt would you? After all, they didn't ask to be born that way, they can't help it, etc,. etc,.
think before you answer....."
It would be nice if you had thought before asking the question.
I said, "Someone's sexuality and gender is irrelevant to their parenting skills". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that I was referring to the fact it was irrelevant whether someone is sexually attracted to men or women as far as their parenting skills go.
It's quite a leap from my obvious point to your question of whether i'd be happy for paedophiles to adopt to be honest.
Have you noticed that at the bottom of his article there are a couple of Google ads which might cause the Hitch to choke on his cornflakes:-
1. "Free Gay Dating in UK" - Meet Gay Singles From The UK.View Profiles 100% Free. Join Now!
2. "Gay White Weddings" - Icehotel Canada packagesNow available for samesex couples
Genius! The irony, the irony!!
As that other psychotically deranged right-winger Richard Littlejohn might say, you couldn't make it up!
jdc February 01, 2009 7:54 PM wrote ... There are far more people wishing to adopt white female children ... Ask them to adopt the ... the offspring of a heroin addict, and they often get a bit less keen. ...
So is it the case that heterosexual couples are offered the former, whereas singletons or homosexual or lesbian couples are only offered the latter?
Ok John, let's play.
Do you think it best that a child is raised by
1. A male and a female in a loving, stable relationship?
2. Whatever?
Number 1 is the only answer you can give. Or do you wish to promote "2nd best/whatever"?
Single mothers/fathers, gay couples, orphanages, council care, Brazilian feral gangs.
You pick what is best. Then tell us what is worst. A list please
Don't worry, by the way, you can't insult me. Iain has tried as have many others. They all fail.
I cannot be insulted unless I give my permission.
John February 01, 2009 7:26 PM wrote ... Someone's sexuality and gender is irrelevant to their parenting skills. So whether it be two women adopting, or two men, or a heterosexual couple, it's exactly the same. The only way it would be different is if gay people were somehow different than heterosexual people, and you're not, not at all. ...
Males and females are different, for example males are more aggressive, more likely to abuse the children of others and they have a more variable IQ than females. What evidence is there that such differences do not affect the child in a significant way?
Is it the case that the sexuality or gender of the child is irrelevant to their interaction with the parent(s)?. So whether it be two women adopting, or two men, or a heterosexual couple, it's exactly the same relationship with the child?
"I have no wish for anyone to know what I do in my bedroom,"
But isn't that where you do most of your blogging? :)
Agree with pretty much everything that has been written - accept Old Holborn, that hole you're in is just getting deeper.
Chas said it best:
"Must be hard for Peter Hitchens, having a brother a million times more talented than him."
Hitchens is off in tutu land
The story, for the sake of clever people who read your blog, is about the problems of pluralism and relativism.
Low-level council officials now take it upon themselves to make arbitrary calls based upon their own prejudices, and because we are in a predominantly liberal-nihilist phase of the cultural cycle, this is the result.
It's not about Gays. It's about the dangerous propensity of government to believe in what is right for us, when in fact, they don't have a fucking clue.
Iain, when I read PH, I think not of you, and other people I have known, but of Peter Tatchell, who is what I consider to be the unacceptable face of PR, on this or any other subject.
If PH were to accuse PT of shoving his sexuality in our faces, then I would agree with him.
I equally dislike the medallion-wearing, hairy-chested hetero who shoves his hormones at me, rather than just being a person.
There is more to existence than sexuality, dammit.
Alan Douglas
There seems to be very little difference between OH and Hitchens in outlook.
Most of us gays live quiet humdrum law abiding lives and keep our heads down because of people like Hitchens and OH.We are gay so we must be paedos too conveniently forgetting most paedos are het family members.
When will you people that go on about gay activists realise those that go on about gay issues are also leftwing and are activists anyway and will be ranting about other leftwing topics too.Most of us are sick of them too so stop tarring us all with the same brush.
Well done Old Holborn I say!
dmc
You misunderstand
I am not interested in what you do in bed.
That, apparently is not good enough. I HAVE to ask, by law, when I hire staff, what they do in bed.
Gays did that. Not me
To make sure I am not discriminating against them. Even though I had no idea or wish to know what they do in bed. It's not my business, but again, they are not happy with that. It MUST be my business. I actually have to report my employment statistics of what my staff do in bed to the Gummint. I kid you not. So gays can see if I am hiring enough gays. If I am not, I can be fined.
I'm not homophobic. I couldn't give a shit. Just leave me alone. Leave all of us alone. At best, 10% of the population is gay. There are more diabetics than gays, yet they don't scream DIABETES at me all day long.
Leave us alone.
Whatever you say, Old Holborn's logic is faultless.
Old Holborn says > "There are more diabetics than gays, yet they don't scream DIABETES at me all day long. "
This kind of language rolls off the tongue so easily for a person who has obviously never had to struggle before in his life with prejudice and injustice. If we want to live in a fair, just and equal society then 'screaming' is sometimes a necessity.
Hopefully, the next generation, the young people, whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change will make these types of conversations a thing of the past.
OH,so you are blaming all of us for a few loud mouthed shites and their trendy het cronies.Most of us don't want that either,we just want to be left alone to get on with our lives,but you all seem to think we are all militant.
It wasn't great growing up a poof in essex in the 60s but it din't turn me militant.Admittedly we did need a few laws,ie stop it being illegal,but blame the nutters that made those laws for over doing it,and most of those were straight.
Canvas, you are being repulsive, as if gays are the only shat on minority. You do the cause harm by your mincing martyrdom.
Disabled people were paraded and laughed at once upon a time, in Bedlam, not long before Oscar Wilde was put to hard labour in Reading Gaol
(WV equist)
"At best, 10% of the population is gay. There are more diabetics than gays, yet they don't scream DIABETES at me all day long. "
Give them time. Once they've realised the squeeky wheel gets the grease, they will...
"Admittedly we did need a few laws,ie stop it being illegal,but blame the nutters that made those laws for over doing it,and most of those were straight."
Indeed. Now, you can be offended on someone else's behalf. And you don't even have to ask that person their opinion...
"This kind of language rolls off the tongue so easily for a person who has obviously never had to struggle before in his life with prejudice and injustice."
You know nothing of my life. Please do not presume to do so
"If we want to live in a fair, just and equal society then 'screaming' is sometimes a necessity. "
If you are equal to rapists, bigots, drug barons, misogynists, who am I to argue?
We are not equal. We are born equal and the rest is life. I am not equal to a pimp who imports 14 year old girl slaves from Albania. Are you?
You're not? Really? So equality is selective all of a sudden is it?
I am not equal to Ghandi or Mandela. Are you? Really?
Grow up. We are not all the same.
Only Socialists believe we are all the same. When they are not stuffing their equals into gas chambers or down Siberian salt mines that is.
So, can we expect sparks to fly in the marquee on Sunday April 5 at 4pm at the Oxford Lit Fest when you take to the stage with Hitchens and Vaisey to dicuss the "Big Conservative Idea"?
Why does the new Bishop have a girl's name? Something we should know?
I think there are many issues swirling around in the murky waters of this adoption case.
The grandparents are clearly the products of their time, with their suspicions about same sex parenting. Not their fault, really. We've all got prejudices and ingrained concepts and it usually takes personal experience to overcome these.
The council are pursuing a barking mad ideologically driven campaign that puts the child last. Some box will have been ticked that states the grandparents are too old. When the grandparents kicked off on the gay issue, another box was probably ticked (even if only mentally by the case officer)which states "homophobe" This was almost certainly a red rag to a bull - can't do what the grandparents wish, we're the council after all, the child effectively belongs to us, and don't want to be accused of homophobia, and let's teach them a lesson. There may even be a target for same-sex adoptions, even if only an informal target to wave around at expensive conferences. In any case, once you get on the wrong end of a bureaucracy, not much you can do unless the papers pick up on it (as in this case).
I know a few childless gay couples - they would make wonderful caring parents and already look after nephews etc. I'm sure - for those who want to adopt - all they want is a fair chance to prove themselves, and this sort of case hinders this issue.
Old Holborn says> "as if gays are the only shat on minority. You do the cause harm by your mincing martyrdom."
The cause? Humanity is the cause.
“My own experience and development deepen everyday my conviction that our moral progress may be measured by the degree in which we sympathize with individual suffering and individual joy.” TS Eliot
Crime - I didn't realise I was on the panel with Hitchens and Vaizey. I think you can be sure that we will have some fun.
I do believe that much of the aggression towards gays has actually been nurtured by some of the people supporting their cause, i.e. the nutty politically correct mob that are endemic in UK society nowadays. I have to say that in particular, the female of the species has been the prime mover. They've had the "Golly" removed from Robertson's Jam and God knows what else changed to suit their ever increasing range of targets and it needs to be pulled up sharply. Most people I know have nothing against gays, but it is the constant mischievous background activity which is creating the problems. We don't have that nonsense so much over here in Austria.
As for the new Bishop of Linz! I am a practising Catholic and like many others here, are dismayed and angered by many of the Pope's decisions recently, which are way out of step with most Catholic thinking. Personally, I rather believe he doesn't spend much time thinking...and if he does???
OH
"leave us alone"
We were saying that for hundreds of years but you lot didn't give a monkeys,in fact the opposite,now the shoes on the other foot and your not happy...
and I still think they have gone too far with legislation and quotas,it should be on merit alone.
Old Holborn says>
sorry, wrinkled weasel says>
But does it really matter - you both speak the same language.
---------------------
* "you are equal to rapists, bigots, drug barons, misogynists, who am I to argue?"
> The keys words are 'fair' and 'just'.
------------------
* I am not equal to a pimp who imports 14 year old girl slaves from Albania.
You are equal but perhaps you made better decisions in your life.
“Democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions - it only guarantees equality of opportunity.”
------------
*> "We are not all the same"
Exactly my point. Accept this fact and you'll sleep better at night.
Yes vienna,it is the meddlers in the background causing the trouble.They have to control.
Ive actually found a source of golly mugs locally in the uk and bought some.I used to live with jamaicans and they bought me a shirt with gollywogs on,they thought it was a great laugh.
I think Hitchen's problem is he was rejected in K & C for Portillo.
Why on earth Hitchens 8 year sulk endears him to the right of centre i do not know - I have suffered equivalent setbacks but I do battle for the Tories as they are the only agents of change.
Hitchen's suffers from Sour Grapes - Time to change the Menu: Labour have lied, failed the country and distorted the economy with socialism. These are areas Hitchen's dispises - what does he suggest confrontation: If you want change you have to do it through a position of Power. Think about that Peter as I know you will read this! Don't ask about my defeat within the Tories but you can recover and become a lattor day Norman Tebbit! I will be lucky to get membership! Get off your Knees Peter and go for Labour - they are the ones peddling failure!
Well fisked Iain. He's just a skid-mark.
Mail on Sunday - well no change there then.
wv crybooth?!
Canvas
Enjoy your equality with Ian Huntley, Myra Hindley, Mugabe and Hitler.
Me? I'm better than that. They are not my equals. They are very, very inferior to me.
For a start, they are all killers. Or are you saying.....?
Canvas, and seriously, if only you knew.
Language is the key.
This, if you could only understand, is about the way in which people like you have unconsciously, but willingly hijacked the language of social discourse, believing that it will protect you from criticism and prejudice.
Well, have I got news for you. We wont let you. It's not yours, it belongs to everybody. So words like "Gay" are available for me to use as I wish, even in the sense it had before homosexuals commandeered it.
martin day @ 9.30pm is spot on.
Since then he has hated everything the tories have done or said or not done or not said.
A little man with a very big chip on his little shoulder.
Perhaps the MOS will give him a free transfer....to West Ham, Ian?
Watching David Attenborough do his stuff on Darwin.
Let's have some fun
Homosexuals are hard coded NOT to reproduce.
Why are they allowed to raise adopted children then?
"So gays can see if I am hiring enough gays. If I am not, I can be fined."
Mad, quite mad.
So how many gays do you believe you are required to hire to avoid a fine?
I think I can guess which newspaper you read.
Jimmy
Employment Equality (sexual orientation) Regulations 2003 (see statistics)
In December 2003 the Employment Equality (sexual orientation) Regulations came into force. These are a direct incorporation into UK law of the requirements of the European Equal Treatment Framework.
The regulations outlaw discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, thus they apply whether you are gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual. The protection extends to situations not only of discrimination based on your sexual orientation, but also to discrimination based on perceptions of your sexual orientation and to discrimination based on your association with other individuals of a particular sexual orientation, for example having gay friends or family members.
The regulations cover all parts of the employment cycle
Recruitment
Selection
Training
Development
Promotion
Redundancy
Release
References
And they apply to all employers, regardless of size. All workers are covered, as are a variety of special categories such as office holders, barristers etc. Protection is not an acquired right and applies from day one of employment and is in force during recruitment and selection.
Direct discrimination - suffering a detriment directly because of your sexual orientation i.e. not being employed or promoted because of your sexual orientation.
Indirect discrimination - Suffering a detriment indirectly due to the application of a “provision, criterion or practice that disproportionately disadvantages people of one sexual orientation over another” AND where that “provision, criterion or practice cannot be justified”. Examples may be the indiscriminate use of mandatory HIV testing for an administrative position. If a positive result would bar the candidate from employment it could be argued that this is indirectly discriminatory against gay men as they are disproportionately affected by HIV within the population. This would also satisfy the second condition as there is and there is no justification for the use of mandatory HIV testing in administrative roles.
Victimisation - suffering a detriment for bringing a complaint of sexual orientation discrimination or assisting someone in bringing a complaint of sexual orientation discrimination.
Harassment - a form of direct discrimination. Harassment is defined by the Tribunal system as behaviour which has the effect or purpose of violating someone’s dignity, and/or has the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment
Mad? Yup. I'm waiting for a quota of BDSM fans or diabetics to be cast on my HR department
JUST LEAVE US ALONE
So, you admit that there are no quotas.
Are you saying you would actively discriminate against a gay applicant? A black applicant?
I have just visited your blog and you have something on the right hand side which says "No dogs, No Irish". Presumably you would feel comfortable in adding "No Gays" to that.
You disgust me.
Old Holborn is not speaking from a rational place. He is speaking from a place of frustration and self-hatred and projecting his self-hatred on to a group of people.
See you - Wouldn't want to be you!
nite nite xx
Jimmy
Tell you what.
I'm looking to hire three new staff next week.
I'm paying them £54,000 a year.
All I need is an ability to speak another European language, be happy to work 7 hours a day, accept 25 days holiday a year and sit on the phone all day, in a nice, funky warm office. I'm a great boss, full of fun, so expect nonsense all day and lots of laughs, whilst I roar at my blogging.
Who should I hire?
1. Gays who want to sue me because I don't offer Ladyboy massages, fresh flowers every day and rainbow interior design or..
2. Polish girls
Ahh once again Peter Hitchens proves why earnest, self-labled 'Christians' of the Daily Mail sort can only peddle hate of the 'other'. For him, this week, its gays, next week it will be dope smokers or liberals or socialists or people not quite as right wing as him (of which there are many!). And since its the Mail, you can smell the feculant stench of manufactured outrage...
So keep fighting twats like this, keep insisting on gay people's rights to be considered as human as the rest of us (for what that's worth!) and never ever let the views of fairy-story motivated bigots tell you what you can or can't do!
Iain Dale said
"You disgust me."
Good.
Now tell me why
I just did. But you were too thick to understand.
"I'm looking to hire three new staff next week."
Of course you are you sad sad man.
Peter Hitchens shows why the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday are such a waste of paper. As a Conservative, both papers disgust me.
Gentlemen!
Behave yourselves
I'm looking for someone to help me develop my blog. I don't need a dog, therefore "no dogs or irish" is funny.
black, gay, disabled, all are welcome to apply
Sorry, let me rephrase that
"Negroes, poofs and spazzers" welcome to apply .
On your instructions, I have altered my blog
PS. Is it really true you only get 4,700 readers a day?
REALLY?
Holborn - wait a sec, I'm a libertarian conservative married heterosexual male but I am a 'spazzer'. I work 3 times as hard as other people so rather that a triumverate of Polish girls, can I take your money? Or, if I can give the missus the slip, the polish chicks?
No, what disgusts me, Iain, is people who shamelessly exploit legislation designed to protect minorities for purposes of revenge and pecuniary advantage:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-10495.html
I think invective bloggers are at their least effective when the linguistic disembowelling begins. Personally I don't see the difference between OH,DK,Guido and quite a few others who ritually throw insults around. Nobody complains about the stuff they call Polly Toynbee, or Gordon Brown. They are human too and just as deserving of dignity.
Are you disgusted with them too?
Iain Dale: "we live in a society which gives equal rights".
This is humbug coming from you. Not so long ago you attacked me on your blog, for getting equal rights to the vote for all convicted prisoners, including the two you mentioned, Ian Huntley and Rose West.
Actio popularis, Latin for Civic action, is a Roman Law principle not found in English law based on Common law, and was used to sink the government's case like a torpedo hitting Rule Britania beneath the waterline.
Actio popularis is designed to protect minority groups from any form of discrimination, by society generally and/or the state.
The government lawyers stated that the British public would be offended if the government were not allowed to continue this kind of discrimination against convicted prisoners with so basic a human right. The European Court was not impressed by this argument. Personally, I do not believe that the general public support the government on this one. Even if the Sun and Daily Mail does.
You may recall that the LibDems plotted and overthrew their leader, Charles Kennedy, for daring to defend the human right of Ian Huntley to have the vote. They claimed it was because he drank too much. But, they already knew that fact. They feared the truth would lose them voters. So much for the LibDems and their defending minorities against discrimination!
I would have thought you, with your feelings towards discrimination against gays, would have come out against the blatant discrimination of the minority group of convicted prisoners. And not fallen for the line taken by the Sun and Daily Mail?
Remember the peace in our time? Remember Charlie Falconer stating categorically on BBC World at One “I can make it absolutely clear that in relation to convicted prisoners, the result of this is not that every convicted prisoner is in the future going to get the right to vote…We need to look and see whether there are any categories that should be given the right to vote”.
I know for a fact he had not had a chance to read the judgment before claiming he knew what it said. Juliet Lyon, Director of the Prison Reform Trust, sat next to him in the studio as he scanned the faxed judgment.
When Falconer was at University he studied English law. When I studied law European law was just developing and I took this on board as well. Falconer may have been the Lord Chancellor, still his "ignorance of the law is no excuse" in relation to the principle of Actio popularis. It was because of this that the ECtHR did not bother to rule on my Article 14 no discrimination point.
If the Tories continue to support discrimination, will you continue to support the Tories? Or are you one of these who say, as long as they don't discriminate against me I am not bothered if they discriminate against others?
I just wish homosexuals would just get on with their lives in private like the rest of us do. and I do not believe in gay adoption.
Is green ink really the way to go here ? (OK I guess its ironic.)
Personally I though Hitchens was onto something with that article. The key issue is whether there is to be tolerance of differencing opinions and morals, and if not why not.
Wasn't Hitler born in Branau am Inn?
Iain the propblem here is that honmosexuals have addditional rights under the law as applied to adoption . Everyone else is in the hands of the mad PC word of the agencies.
I have no idea wh at the average gay couiple looks like or if they are liekly to providfe a good home but I am sure that the child`s own relatives must be the first choice
Trivial comment (as ever), I haven't checked this, but I thought he was born in Braunau am Inn.
>>Homosexuals are hard coded NOT to reproduce...
Why are they allowed to raise adopted children then?<<
Since, if you accept Darwin, their very existence would appear to demonstrate that they are of utility to the species.
And your interpretation of employment law is equally perverse, OH.
***But what about people in jobs with 'speech codes', where to use the wrong term invites a call into the HR departent, and a mandatory 'diversity' course?***
JuliaM, exactly what job would discipline an employee for calling a fellow employee or a customer "homosexual" instead of "gay"?
What's truly insidious about La Hitch's piece is that what his brand of Daily Mail nutter really objects to about PC newspeak is not that it prevents you from calling a homosexual co-worker/customer a homosexual but rather that it prevents you from calling a homosexual coworker/customer a fucking faggot.
***Whatever you think of Peter Hitchens he has his point of view that many people agree with and therefore he shouldn't be ridiculed for it.***
That's always a fun fill-in-the-blank sentence, JPT.
Whatever you think of ........ he has his point of view that many people agree with and therefore he shouldn't be ridiculed for it.
Who else's name could fill in the blank? Bin Laden, Nick Griffin, Lionel Blair...
***I just wish homosexuals would just get on with their lives in private like the rest of us do.***
Exactly my thoughts about heterosexuals at work when they insist on passing round photos of their children or asking me to sign someone's wedding card.
Peter Hitchens was railing against political correctness, not you.
Petty bureaucrats abuse the discrimination laws to enhance their own power and as a weapon against anyone who challenges them, as you can see from the adoption case in question.
I'm glad there is someone like PH to attack this PC nonsense.
"JuliaM, exactly what job would discipline an employee for calling a fellow employee or a customer "homosexual" instead of "gay"?"
*shrug* Don't take my word for it. There's plenty out there on the chilling effect of speech codes, for example:
http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2008/07/second-childhoo.html
http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2007/04/prejudice_revis.html
Control the language, control people..
Go for it Old Holborn!
The Homo's don't like the fact that a large proportion of Normal people just don't like, or feel comfortable about them.
If only they would pipe down and show some discretion,instead of wearing their abberation like a cloak of honour.
And your sort will not change our opinions of you, no matter how much you stamp your feet and scream,and scream and scream!
Live with it!
Nigel February 02, 2009 9:33 AM wrote ... if you accept Darwin, their [homosexuals/lesbians] very existence would appear to demonstrate that they are of utility to the species. ...
For homosexuals at least, it appears to be a by-product. Very approximately, females of above average fertility have homosexual sons at a greater rate but have an average number of heterosexual sons, so that homosexuality is neutral with respect to long term reproductive success. For a related blog entry see http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/11/homosexuality-linked-to-fertility.html.
>>it appears to be a by-product...<<
That's a rather large assumption (though it's not impossible), given the prevalence of homosexuality across species - why is it not possible to evolve superfertility without such a "costly" side effect ?
You seem to be confusing correlation with causation.
While he's pondering all that, perhaps Zeddy would like to tell us why the police (supposedly scrupulously neutral) should be flying a gay pride flag from their HQ...?
iain, you're an Englishman. Stop flouncing around taking offence all over the place. It doesn't suit you.
The aspect that I think is relevant is that, why does the Bible Belt in the USA, get Hurricanes, Tornado's, Floods, Lightning storms and on and on every Year, whilst Sin City Las Vegas gets wonderful weather all year round.
I mean What is god trying to say???
The Vatican is 200 years out of date and completely out of touch with reality. Thank God for Queen Elizabeth the First !!!!!!
Nigel February 02, 2009 11:31 AM ... You seem to be confusing correlation with causation. ...
The following article is illuminating and easy to read:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617204459.htm
... Male Homosexuality Can Be Explained Through A Specific Model Of Darwinian Evolution, Study Shows.
The actual paper can be downloaded at http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002282
Abstract: ... Several lines of evidence indicate the existence of genetic factors influencing male homosexuality and bisexuality. In spite of its relatively low frequency, the stable permanence in all human populations of this apparently detrimental trait constitutes a puzzling ‘Darwinian paradox’. Furthermore, several studies have pointed out relevant asymmetries in the distribution of both male homosexuality and of female fecundity in the parental lines of homosexual vs. heterosexual males. ... We perform a systematic mathematical analysis of the propagation and equilibrium of the putative genetic factors for male homosexuality in the population, based on the selection equation for one or two diallelic loci and Bayesian statistics for pedigree investigation. We show that only the two-locus genetic model with at least one locus on the X chromosome, and in which gene expression is sexually antagonistic (increasing female fitness but decreasing male fitness), accounts for all known empirical data. ...
I would hazard a guess that the authors are not confusing correlation with causation.
A brilliant article Iain, truly superb.
I have engaged with the debate on Hitchens blog regarding this article and I have made my thoughts clear.
Whether he responds to The Demetriou on this matter remains to be seen, though he is usually fairly good at replying to points albeit in his customary bumptious and aggressive manner.
Glad you have the guts to say it how it is and to point out some home truths. Many don't have the guts. I won't go into reasons as to why this may be here.
All the best
John Demetriou from www.boatangdemetriou.com
JPT said... “Whatever you think of Peter Hitchens he has his point of view that many people agree with and therefore he shouldn't be ridiculed for it.”
Non sequitur alert.
I've disliked Peter Hitchens for many years now, and read his articles more times than I care to remember.
He's an ugly opinionated bigot!
I can reveal Iain Dale has completely misunderstood Peter Hitchens arguments or has deliberately twisted them.
I don't need to elaborate because Peter Hitchens has just posted several long explanations of his opinions on this issue, in response to a torrent of criticism of the article, over on his blog.
Iain Dale ought to try reading Peter Hitchens explanations before indulging in hysterical over-reactions.
Peter Hitchens has already clearly and cogently explained his views in several lengthly and brilliantly-argued responses to contributors beneath his new blog entry "Homosexuality and Homeschooling".
No, Peter Hitchens is not "bigoted", or "bonkers" and does not call gay people abusive names, nor does he despise them, or agree that natural disasters are a punishment for homosexuality.
He clearly and intelligently explains the positions he expressed in this article in several lengthy posts beneath one of his latest pieces.
But Iian Dale did not even wait to read Peter's explanations before launching a frenzied, wholly unjustified personal attack on Peter.
If only Iain Dale could be bothered to actually read what Peter Hitchens logical arguments on this issue are, before attacking him based on a complete misunderstanding of his MOS article, then Iain's blog entry would have been more sensible.
I can tell from the sycophantic, content-free, nauseating, cheerleading tone of AutisticExpert's post that he is in fact the one and only "Wesley Crosland" (the bloke who posts vacuous boring comments on Hitchens' site day in day out).
How do you know Iain hasn't checked Hitchens's rebuff of criticism? maybe he did but didn't buy it.
Get a grip man, and get your own opinions.
In response to John Demetriou.
I am not Wesley Crosland (whoever he may be) and would be happy to prove it, in any way you suggest.And I have never contributed to Peter Hitchens blog, having only just discovered it.
But he explained his non-bigoted views perfectly cogently in several lenghty pieces on his newer blog entries. Iain Dale has completely twisted Peter's views.
And the terms "vacuous" and "content-free" better apply to yur own contribution, which showed a complete lack of critical thinking, analysis, or basic understanding of the argument.
Peter Hitchens, as he has explained in depth, was simply arguing that we now live in a world where opinions are discriminated against by the law, and sexuality (which ought to be a private matter) has become a public political tool for major cultural change, and that the homosexual political movement moved from a fair campaign for tolerance, and the right to a private life, to a campaign for complete equality with the traditional married two-parent family and an effort to transform the entire moral culture and change people's attitudes towards the traditional family.
As embodied by the social workers threat that if the children's grandparents did not declare themselves in favour of gay adoption (a contentious political stance) by verbally agreeing without objection, to the adoption of their own grandchildren by a gay couple, then they would never see their children again!
We should accept that many horses are already out of the barn, but we need to slowly shut the door of the barn where those horses are made.
As a black man can I claim an equal right to have a white child? As a lesbian couple can we expect a right to a child, while you pay? As a heterosexual should I agree when they teach that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality in terms of the ideal unit for raising children?.Go on demonize me and my view its easier than showing it to be wrong (say its wrong instead of showing how it is) All you atheists if there is no right or wrong why argue with me?
Post a Comment