Anti-Discrimination, Oppression and Over-Legalism

Remove all ads!

I saw this in the MX, a local BS paper today (one to which I attribute no real strength of analysis, only something to read on the train - which is its express purpose):

It goes on about the comment, surrounding the Melbourne deputy mayor's idea to turn the city into the gay capital of Australia (title currently held by Sydney). Newman's incitement of anti-homosexual hatred was allegedly his comment about how this could be achieved:

Burns sees this as stereotyping gay men as dirty, perverted and violent, and has recently won a case against two Sydney radio talkback commentators about anti-homosexual comments made about a gay couple on a home improvement reality show. Asked about the case, Burns said:

When I read about this (having seen the actual broadcast last month), my response was mixed. Sure, Newman went overboard and made a stupid comment, but to face potential jail time for a comment like that seems absurd. This is not a thread about homosexuality - it's about the nature of a response to "offensive comments". I find a certain irony in a previously-oppressed section of the community now turning around and punishing any comment they feel is offensive by using the full force of legal mechanisms. That Burns seems so full of anger and vitriol is disturbing as well - my overwhelming reaction is that this guy has no concept of when to laugh something off and when to act on it. Somehow, to him, such an extreme response is always justified due to the past and existing prejudices in society. For a stupid, throwaway comment, a man faces a substantial fine or jail time.

Any thoughts, folks?

 

It is one thing to have someone accuse you of somethng and trying to get your convicted than to really be convicted and sentenced.

 

That hardly strikes me as a non-offensive neutral comment. As a matter of fact, I believe a lawsuit is due here.

The problem with gay activists is that they see anti-gay comments, which term is used by them equally for anti-gay-movement comments, as offensive, but they don't see their own prolonged rants on "bigots", "Christian bigots", "homophobes" etc as offensive. When I'm done with my law studies (two years still ahead) and obtaining practice rights, I intend to take cases against such comments pro bono.

 

Why is this man facing possible jail time? What law has be broken? It isn't slander because he wasn't directing this comment at a particular person. Unless that comment was made in specific regards to Burns, I don't see how he can possibly even get this to court.

For example, if someone said that all male Italian-American chemists are egg-headed nerds, I couldn't sue that person could I? Even if I found his comments offensive, I couldn't sue him just because I'm a male Italian-American chemist. Even if he went on to say, "I think we could start a cottage industry on getting these poeple's brains scanned to find out why so many of them wear pocket protectors," I still don't think I'd have a case.

 

This is almost the reverse of the other on-going thread about Alabama's oppressive attempts to censor the topic on homosexuality in their schools. Again, my feelings are exactly the same: Freedom of speech and expression are what Jefferson termed as "natural rights." We may not agree with what is being said, but every individual has the right to freedom of speech.

As in Alabama, this is an attempt by government to "coerce" (another Jeffersonian term) its citizens into conformity of opinion and thought on a particular issue.

 

This is the problem that we, who don't support gay rights face. We are considered to be oppressors if we don't tell them that there is nothing wrong with what they do. The problem is that we DO believe that there is something wrong with what they do. They would try to tell me that my attitude must be changed. That is an insult to the notion of freedom of speech. My hat is off to the Mr. Newman, and I think that Mr. Burns is a hypocrite for tryint to deny a fellow citizen his freedom of speech.

 

@ Aldeth: This isn't a civil suit - this is an anti-discrimination board complaint. It doesn't follow the standard jurisprudence or rules, since it is more akin to a tribunal than a court, although with greater power to impose sanctions. Also, Burns likened the use of the term "cottage" to an English slang word for a lavatory used by some to solicit sex.

@ Chandos: Sadly, it's not strictly the government censuring people. Tribunals in Australia tend to attract people who are passionate about that issue, and it is they who make rulings and decide. Laws and statutes aside, it is their interpretation of how the law should apply that is central here. I agree, though - it sounds every bit as unfair as the Alabama thread; proof that no-one has a monopoly on hypocrisy.

@ Gnarfflinger: Good point. The problem with many extremists (maybe I'm using the wrong word) is that they refuse to believe that anyone else could have a point if they do not concur. I happen to disagree with your perspective on homosexuality, but you've as much right to your views as I have to mine.

 

Here's a link to a news item about the French "anti-homophobia law" project:

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=57053

It also seems that gay organisations wanted to be able to participate in trials of individual persons accused of "homophobic" "crimes" in some capacity.

You know, you use the word "fag", they sue you, and you face a dozen of gay movement lawyers accompanying the random plaintiff.

A couple more:

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/printout/0,13155,901041101-733764,00.html

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=10719

http://www.ifex.org/es/content/view/full/59660/

http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/59660/

[ December 10, 2004, 00:19: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Of course, before we all start crying in our milk for oppressed heterosexuals, lets just remember:

1) all of the taunting straight males get in high schools around the world from beefy homosexual jocks: "f***in' hetero, I'm gonna kick your a**";
2) the fear that heterosexual couples have of displaying affection in public, as angry homosexual bigots might be disgusted and beat the s*** out of them;
3) the fact that heterosexual males aren't allowed to openly serve in our gay armed forces; and
4) the fact that heterosexual couples prevented from marrying by the same homosexuals that complain that "heterosexuals are sexual deviants that can never commit to one partner."

Granted, the gay rights movement might be a bit strident at times, and might be a little unwise sometimes about freedom of speech issues, but let's have a little perspective here, shall we?

 

Actually, I don't advocate hating homosexuals, but I don't condone what they do. I believe that homosexuality is a choice, not a normal thing. As a result, I don't think they should have the right to marry, and should never have been given the right to adopt. I also don't think they should have the right to deny me the right to speak freely.

 

Even if everyone was free to choose homo- or heterosexuality, I wouldn't see how this alone stands in the way of homo-marriages or adoptions. It's like saying that since driving a car is a choice, cars are evil and should be banned. So, what's the issue with homosexuality anyway? There's love, there's affection, there are close relationships between persons who are being true to each other. What else do you need?

Oh, and there's great sex as well. Full House!

Now I'm just waiting for Foradasthar to chime in...

 

But there isn't religeous doctorines that preach that cars are evil. There are religeous doctorines that state that Homosexuality is a great sin. There are a number of people that not only believe in God, but try to follow His doctorines that are offended by the whole Gay rights schmozzle. Do they have less freedom to speak than the gay community?

 

So everything you have against homosexuality is not reason but religious doctrine. Well, how about dragging those doctrines into the light then?

 

Instead, you can go to prison and receive a criminal record banning you from employment in certain sectors for criticising homosexuality. There's a Lutheran pastor in Sweden who is currently serving a month term for saying that homosexuality was cancer on the flesh of the land or some such.

Taunts you also get and you get called a homophobe, a Catholic Trollock, a Bible thumper, a bigot... whatever.

As for armed forces, armed forces aren't the place for having crushes, flirting and hitting on people. You don't need any sexual overtones in most of military units.

And there are more reasons for refusal to extend marriage to include same gender couples (marriage per se doesn't include same gender couples and needs to be extended to do so), than simply the fact homosexuals tend to switch partners more often. Deviants? Yes. Majority vote of a group of psychiatrists threatened and intimidated into submission by rampant groups of violent gay rights activists (I'm sure I described the process in the last homosexuality flame war, I mean thread), can't change the fact that homosexualism is not on the same level as heterosexuality and is not an equal alternative.

@Darkthrone: One thing escapes you: adoption is for the good of the child, not for the comfort of the adoptive parents. A normal family consists of a mother, father and children. Mother, by definition, is female. Father, by definition, is male. I don't want little kiddies to have two mummies or two daddies just because a couple of people place their own comfort above the needs of the society and its youngest generation.

[ December 12, 2004, 15:37: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Maybe, but are you beaten up for that?

Do you really think gay men cannot constrain themselves?
And what about women in the army?

Er... where did you get this from?

 

So that's why my mother seems to have a beard...

 

Oh dear, I got lost in editing. Corrected now. Thanks a bunch for pointing out.

Myself not. Have heard of men who have been. Have heard gay men bragging, too.

People in the army are removed from their families for prolonged periods of time. It's not like a normal job. Any kind of sexual tension is unwelcome, not just the most manifest forms. If you constrain yourself, it means you need to constrain yourself. This means tension. And this kind of tension is harmful for the army.

Check the stats somewhere. The disproportion varies per survey, but the difference is huge. But it's probably connected with opposition to the traditional view of marriage, and contempt for permanent commitment, which is characteristic of the liberation movements. Doesn't have to have any inherent ties vith homosexuality per se, if you ask me.

 

As always, we can't find agreement here.

No, this didn't escape me. What did escape me is that you know something about what is good for children and what is not. To be honest, it is still escaping me. Do you have any qualification other than being catholic for knowing what's for the children's best? Being a student of the law makes you expert on psychology and sociology as well? Broad...

And "Check the stats somewhere." is one of the best arguments I ever saw. "Go and look where you can base my views on stats, 'cause I sure can't." Nice.

However, your last sentence made sense. Are you growing weak? Fight back, man!

 

Nah, I just don't feel like googling and spending hours looking for stats to illustrate something which is pretty obvious. About three quarters of gay men surveyed prior to the outbreak of the AIDS epidemy claimed to have had more than 100 sexual partners. And those who stopped at 100 weren't really a big share. One quarter (within the three) exceeded 1000. Even lesbians claimed to have sex with males and have had around 50 male partners in lifetime.

It's also no mystery that gay sex often comes with stimulators, such as all kinds of toys, from penile adornments to BDSM tools.

I could go on and on about the unhealthiness of gay sex as well. Let's just consider anal sex. You can contract anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human immunodeficiency virus, human papilloma virus, isospora belli, microsporidia gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B & C, syphilis25 and probably a couple of other niceties as well. Clearly, that can't be how nature intends people to have sex. Add hemorrhoids, anal fissures and anorectal trauma and you're set. Let alone all the foreign bodies. I think we wouldn't really like to talk about oral-anal contacts, now, would we?

Also, from what I know, it doesn't take more than to be gay, to get a gay partner for sex. No fancy romancing "rituals" like for heteros, just coupling up because both are gay in the ocean of heterosexuality and need sex.

As for family, since the very beginning of the human race, it was man and woman and their offspring. Now, what's wrong with that? And what's so inherently good in the artificial gay model as to promote it to an equal status with the traditional family?

Well, how about a link? A University of Chicago survey. Here.

[ December 12, 2004, 17:07: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

@Gnarfflinger: if you go back to the source texts, "religious doctrines" aren't quite as clear on homosexuality as you assume. There are a couple harsh condemnations of homosexuality in the Old Testament, granted, but there are also equally harsh condemnations of eating shellfish, disobeying your parents, etc etc etc, as well as justifications of slavery, pillaging the cities of non-believers and putting everyone to the sword, etc etc etc. So the question here would be, why selectively highlight some verses as proof that the eternal God hates homosexuality, but then explain away all the other verses as having been written for another time?

The same could be said for the books attributed to Paul. In addition, the New Testament isn't really that positive on heterosexual sex as well; for both Jesus in the Gospels and Paul, the highest calling would be to leave all family ties behind to spread the word of God; in other words: to be celibate. Marriage and family life were only suggested for those who couldn't keep their sexual passions in check.

However, the gospels are far more clear about virtues like tolerance, forgiveness, and love. And if you want to talk about things the gospels condemn, look at all of the space given to condeming the pursuit of material gain and worldly power. Who among us would give away his cloak (or SUV) to someone in need who asked for it? And does driving an SUV qualify one as "meek?" How is it that Christianity (especially evangelical Christianity in the US) has been so successful in explaining away the uncomfortable anti-materialism in the New Testament (and so justifying the pursuit of wealth among its members)? Could it be that it's simply far easier to mobilize people against a distrusted minority, than to point out the sins that people commit every day? (The speck/log in the eye parable comes to mind...)

As for homosexuality in the armed forces: 1) As for sexual tension, women are in armies these days for crying out loud! As evidence, we just had one "Lynddie England" conceive a child out of wedlock publicly in view of Iraqi POWs! (And as far as I can tell, homosexuality had nothing to do with this...) 2) There's a long tradition of homosexuality in armies, from the ancient Greeks and Romans, to more recent British nautical traditions, characterized by "rum, sodomy, and the lash," or, less punitively, by "beer, bum, and beef."