digitaltoast

In February 2009, a row broke out after Carol Thatcher, a part time presenter on BBC’s One Show, referred in an off-air conversation to a tennis player’s hair being “like a Golliwog“. She was sacked. OK, so one could argue she was naive to think that freedom of expression or lampoon might exist these days.

However, more recently, charity worker David Booker was suspended after answering a question in a tea-room chat about his views on homosexuality.

He told her he was opposed to same-sex marriages and to homosexual clergy

I tweeted that I thought this suspension was alarming, and a reply came from Robin Eccles.

Disagree, homophobia is hateful.

Whoah there! Merriam Webster defines homophobia as irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

Who said anything about discriminating against? He was OPPOSED to it – but he’s in no position to do anything about it.

In uk you are not allowed (even if it was your opinion) to say that any minority should be discriminated against

I take it then that you’ll be offering a robust defense of the various UK Islamic hate preachers who call for the stoning of homosexuals? Of course, that’s being a bit flippant, but I was quite disturbed by that line I am not allowed to say…. There are some who will already be accusing me of double standards – I campaigned for the freedom of Geert Wilders to speak in the House of Lords, but against allowing Ibrahim Moussawi, who described Jews as ‘a lesion on the forehead of history’, into the UK.

If you can’t see the difference between illegally barring an elected MP of another European member state who has been convicted of nothing, anywhere, and barring a man with links to a terror organization, then there’s no point even reading further. Same goes for homophobia vs free thought.

At this point, I should state that this deals only with Robin’s view on the David Booker case. This isn’t an attack on Robin, I’m not saying his viewpoint is unique. I don’t know his views on other things, but I’m going to expand on this point to link to other points. I would also like to state I am not “anti-gay” at all. You do what you like in your private life. The only things that bother me are people like Peter Tatchell and Stonewall. However, I also draw a strong and distinct line between believing in the right to allow others to follow their sexual orientation, and the kind of downright stupid, irresponsible and dangerous campaign to allow sexually active gay men to give blood. Does that make me homophobic? (See below for more on that).

It’s no secret I’m an atheist – I think most religion (as opposed to rational faith) is a bit nuts. However, within reason I support people’s right to have independent thought and opionion.

It is my right to be able to say something which may cause you OFFence, and it is your right to provide a DEfence.

Otherwise, you’re dangerously close to arguing the case for political correctness, which is stupid as an ideaology, and dangerous when put into practice. (more on this).

If you REALLY want my opinion on gay clergy (and Robin did), I think it’s wrong. If only because of the gross hypocrisy of preaching a book at people, which you then pick and choose the bits YOU want to live by. So there – get the thought police onto me and take me to court!

There’s a world of difference between observation (comic or otherwise) and homophobia.

Was Chris Moyles “homophobic” for saying someone “sounded gay”? I think Moyles is a complete knob, but not homophobic.

When I did IT support, one of the telesales people I supported used to come into the office with painted nails and mince around in pedal pusher trousers camping it up on dress down Fridays. Does the fact that I once remarked to another colleague “mmm, nice nails!” indicate homophobia? Of course not! Homophobia would be if I refused to provide that person with support, or spread rumours or in some way impeded that person’s working or personal life.

We’re also in danger or wandering into the realms of linguafascism. Example from http://www.digitaltoast.co.uk/feeling-niggardly

On January 15, 1999, David Howard, a white aide to Anthony A. Williams, the black mayor of Washington, D.C., United States, used the word in reference to a budget. This apparently upset one of his black colleagues (identified by Howard as Marshall Brown), who incorrectly interpreted it as a racial slur and lodged a complaint. As a result, on January 25 Howard tendered his resignation, and Williams accepted it.

University of Wisconsin, Madison. At a February meeting of the Faculty Senate, Amelia Rideau, a junior English major and vice chairwoman of the Black Student Union, told the group how a professor teaching Chaucer had used the word niggardly. Rideau later said she was unaware of the related Washington, D.C., controversy which came to light just the week before. She said the professor continued to use the word even after she told him that she was offended. “I was in tears, shaking,” she told the faculty. “It’s not up to the rest of the class to decide whether my feelings are valid.”

Check that last line again:
“It’s not up to the rest of the class to decide whether my feelings are valid“. Of course, in this case, the two examples clearly involved people with mental problems, or just incredibly stupid, but let me make one thing very, very clear – just because you CHOOSE to take something as offensive, does not mean it is offensive or phobic.

Once again, I am not accusing Robin of being a “liberal fascist”, but it does appear to me that some so-called liberals are actually the most illiberal and intolerant of people.
As it happens, I’m reading a book called Liberal Fascism right now; I’ll be sure to report back with a review when I’m done.

More on the campaign to allow actively gay men to give blood and my opposition to it

This is copied from an argument I had on a student forum – the indented section is the other person.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11990694&postcount=76

Terrence Higgins Trust is the UK’s largest HIV and sexual health charity, providing services to over 50,000 people every year, a significant proportion of whom are gay and bisexual men.
THT supports calls for the National Blood Service to review their policy on who in the UK is allowed to give blood and who is not. However, we will wait for the results of any such review before deciding what changes, if any, should be implemented. We believe that the current policy of the National Blood Service is justifiable and was based on the best available evidence when it was drawn up. Unless a subsequent review finds that risks to the blood service have changed the current policy is sensible and pragmatic.
Our first priority, and the priority of the Blood Service, is to prevent blood containing HIV from being passed to patients who receive transfusions or blood products. THT has a proud history of campaigning for LGBT rights and against homophobia and will continue to do so, but we believe that this is first and foremost a public health issue, rather than one of homophobic discrimination.

From 2006 http://www.africanveil.org/HIVAIDS011.htm

20 Nov 2006- One in ten gay men in London is now infected with HIV

http://www.avert.org/ukaidsnews.htm

“Levels of ignorance about HIV are at an all-time high among the age group most likely to catch a sexually transmitted infection,” Elizabeth McKay, Project Executive at BBC Learning explained. “Young people told us they needed practical information about HIV that they could share with mates. GI Jonny is fun, always prepared for action, and fully armed with the facts about HIV.”

HIV diagnoses have been rising steadily over the last 10 years in Britain, following a significant decline in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which many have attributed to the hard-hitting “Don’t Die Of Ignorance” campaign. It is estimated that 70,000 people are now living with HIV in the UK, with up to a third unaware that they have the virus. The risk of becoming infected with HIV is therefore greater than it has ever been, and THT estimate that at the current rate of increase, over 400,000 people in the UK could have HIV by 2032.

Comments welcome.