Monday, 24 January 2011

The Daily Mail and the Homophobic Journalist

If you're gay and see this woman, please kiss the nearest
member of the same sex. It'd be funny...
Yes, I realise that I had a post accusing the Daily Mail of homophobia pretty recently, but it's not my fault that almost everyone who works there is a homophobic bigot...
Today columnist Melanie Phillips wrote a column claiming that it is now the 'gay agenda' that is prejudiced, and that it is just awful that homosexuality is going to be referenced (in very small and minor ways) in schools. Here is what she has to say on the matter in full, so apologies for the length:
Here’s a question shortly coming to an examination paper near you. What have mathematics, geography or science to do with homosexuality?
Nothing at all, you say? Zero marks for you, then.
For, mad as this may seem, schoolchildren are to be bombarded with homosexual references in maths, geography and science lessons as part of a Government-backed drive to promote the gay agenda.
In geography, for example, they will be told to consider why homosexuals move from the countryside to cities. In maths, they will be taught statistics through census findings about the number of homosexuals in the population.
In science, they will be directed to animal species such as emperor penguins and sea horses, where the male takes a lead role in raising its young.
Alas, this gay curriculum is no laughing matter. Absurd as it sounds, this is but the latest attempt to brainwash children with propaganda under the camouflage of ­education. It is an abuse of childhood. (How dare they try to eradicate ignorance towards homosexuals? What gives them the right to see a world without prejudice?)
And it’s all part of the ruthless campaign by the gay rights lobby to destroy the very ­concept of normal sexual behaviour. (It's phrases like that one that make homosexuals feel marginalised in the first place. Besides, homosexuality is normal. Up to 19% of mallards engage in male-male relationships.)
Not so long ago, an epic political battle raged over teaching children that ­homosexuality was normal. The fight over Section 28, as it became known, resulted in the repeal of the legal requirement on schools not to promote homosexuality. (And about time it was too. It was a demeaning law, that suggested that homophobia was okay. Afterall, if the government can do it, why can't anyone else?)
As the old joke has it, what was once impermissible first becomes tolerated and then becomes mandatory. 
And the other side of that particular coin, as we are now discovering, is that values which were once the moral basis for British society are now deemed to be beyond the pale.
What was once an attempt to end unpleasant attitudes towards a small sexual minority has now become a kind of bigotry in reverse. (Yup. I'm heterosexual and am bullied non-stop because I like women... God you're a vile person aren't you?)
Expressing what used to be the moral norm of Western civilisation is now not just socially impermissible, but even turns upstanding people into lawbreakers.
The bed and breakfast hoteliers Peter and Hazelmary Bull — who were recently sued for turning away two homosexuals who wished to share a bedroom — were but the latest religious believers to fall foul of the gay inquisition merely for upholding Christian values. (I covered this already, they broke the law. The fact that their beliefs forced them to do it isn't an excuse. If a neo-nazi kicked a black man to death because of his beliefs tell him that he is worthless, I think he'd still be locked up.)
Catholic adoption agencies were forced to shut down after they refused to place ­children with same-sex couples. Marriage registrars were forced to step down for refusing to officiate at civil unions. (Again, all of that was breaking the law. Religion isn't an excuse to do whatever you like.)
Christian street preacher Dale McAlpine was charged with making threatening, ­abusive or insulting remarks for saying homosexuality was a sin to passers-by in Workington, Cumbria. In the event, the case against him was dropped and he won a police apology and compensation. 
It seems that just about everything in Britain is now run according to the gay agenda.
For, in addition to the requirement for gay-friendly hotels, gay adoption and gay mathematics, now comes, apparently, gay drugs policy.
Last week, the Government announced the appointment of some new members to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, who included a GP by the name of  Hans-Christian Raabe.
Dr Raabe has long maintained a close interest in drug policy, on which he has robustly traditional views. He has spoken out in favour of abstinence-based approaches and criticised the flawed logic behind the claim that it is the illegality of drugs such as ­cannabis that is the problem. (No, the scientists and professionals in the field point out that prohibition doesn't work at keeping people safe. It makes things worse because it puts more power in the hands of organised crime etc. and increases the danger due to the sometimes toxic chemicals the drugs are cut with. That and the steadily increasing numbers of people using cannabis mean that prohibition isn't working)
Considering the unhappy fact that over recent years many on the Advisory Council have taken the ultra-liberal view that treating drug-users is the priority rather than reducing their numbers, Dr Raabe’s membership of the council was very welcome news. (Oh piss off. These are scientists. They know a fuck-load more about the subject than a thick, ignorant journo like you. Their attitudes are liberal because that makes sense.)
But as soon as his appointment was announced, Dr Raabe was targeted in an astonishing attack. (Not that astonishing. He does hold some pretty horrible views...)
For he is also a leading member of the Manchester-based Maranatha Community, which is dedicated to re-establishing Christian values in society and which campaigns against gay rights. (Yup the same Christian values that led to burnings of heathens and witches, the ostracizing of anyone not white or christian or who was homosexual)
It was the BBC’s Home Editor Mark ­Easton who led the charge. On his BBC News blog, he announced that Dr Raabe’s views on homosexuality were causing such fury among (anonymous) members of the Advisory Council that at least one member was threatening to step down. (Good on them)
Well may you rub your eyes at that. Just what have his views on homosexuality got to do with illegal drugs? Well, according to Easton, more than one member of the council is gay or lesbian. (So his views are quite important to his role on the council, aren't they?)
How extraordinary. Just imagine if the boot were on the other foot and Dr Raabe had refused to serve on the drugs council because some of its members were gay. He would be out on his ear within the hour. (Yes, but it's not really the same though is it? The gay members have never gone around saying that straight people shouldn't be allowed to get married or should be kept to the fringes of society, have they?)
How reprehensible of the BBC to lend itself to such a partisan attack (So your partisan attack is fine then, is it?). Unsurprisingly, Easton’s remarks provoked more advocates of drug liberalisation to join in the blood-sport of baiting Dr Raabe.
Yesterday’s Observer listed among his crimes certain briefing documents he had produced for MPs identifying the benefits of marriage in fighting drug addiction. (Which is complete and utter rot. It is a logical fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation.)
He had written, for example, that marriage is associated with greater happiness, less depression, less alcohol abuse and less smoking. But what’s the problem with that? It ­happens to be true. (The raw data is true, but the reading of it is flawed. It could be that people who are happier, drink less and don't smoke are more likely to get married. It is impossible to tell which caused which)
The Observer reported that drugs charities and experts expressed surprise that someone of such ‘stringent opinions’ could be appointed to the Advisory Council.
Clearly, ‘stringent opinions’ in favour of drug liberalisation are considered entirely appropriate in such circles; but anyone who goes against the politically-correct grain on homosexuality or who has robust Christian views must be considered a bigot and thus have no place in public life. (The difference is, that the existing members have opinions born from their studies into drug abuse and its effects. Not dictated by a religion. And Christian views are bigoted when taken to these extremes. I know many people of the Christian faith, they are mostly people who would be as disgusted by this man's views as I am. The vocal minority are only succeeding in making their religion seem even more pointless than it already does.)
In fact, anyone truly concerned to end the scourge of drug abuse should be delighted that at last there is a strong voice for common sense and morality on the Advisory Council. (It's not common sense it is ignorance.)
Penalising religious people for speaking and acting in accordance with their beliefs is neither liberal nor tolerant. It is behaviour more commonly associated with totalitarian dictatorships. (So you would be okay if I were to claim that God told me that all women should be subservient to men, then?)
It must be said that many gay people are themselves uneasy or even appalled by this increasingly oppressive use of their cause. Privately, many will say that all they ever want is to live free from discrimination and not to provoke discrimination against others. (But they'll be appalled by your bigoted views also, I suspect)
After the case of Christian street preacher Dale McAlpine, the gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell spoke out in support of the rights of people to express their views against homosexuality — although, by contrast, he also endorsed the lawsuit against B&B owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull on the grounds that the equality laws should apply to all. (So not so much of u-turn as you tried to imply then is it?)
Of course, for people such as the Bulls, George Orwell’s famous observation that some are more equal than others is all too painfully true (THEY BROKE THE FUCKING LAW! YOU STUPID CUNT!). Indeed, the obsession with equality has now reached ludicrous, as well as oppressive, proportions. (Actually, equality isn't really oppressive. It's more liberating...)
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has paid £100,000 for a report into how efforts to boost Britain’s coastal fish stocks would affect minority communities including the Chinese, homosexuals and Welsh speakers. (I'm sure they have their reasons)
And the Department for Transport issued a study looking at harassment and discrimination on ships and hovercraft against a range of groups, including transsexuals. (Yes, 'including transexuals' not just transexuals. So not 'just' transexuals. It could also be looking at discrimination against bigoted, middle class journalists for all we know)
Many different groups are involved in promoting this crazy, upside-down world of the equality agenda (Yes. Upside down because homosexuals should be at the bottom. Of they're allowed to live at all...). But the seemingly all- powerful gay rights lobby carries all before it. If it isn’t careful, it risks turning gay people from being the victims of prejudice into Britain’s new McCarthyites. (I think that's pretty much impossible to be honest. But kudos for the scare-mongering...)
How on Earth this rag is still bought by people I have no idea. But it's very depressing...


  1. I enjoy the fact that this compulsory bombardment of children with homosexual brainwashing is actually a non-compulsory suggestion for what teachers might do for Gay Pride month. So really, it is reasonable to assume that statistics relating to gay people might be mentioned once or twice... Which hardly seems a bombardment.

    Also... What the hell was the bit about animals about? Children could be taught about animals species in which the males raise the children? I like how she has such fixed gender views that she sees the concept of stay at home fathering as gay, and thus wrong... No-one tell her male seahorses give birth, penguins often kidnap the young of others, or that all animals display homosexual tendencies...

    Lastly - so what if homophobia used to the way of life. Sexism and racism were the norm until the 60s as well. So really, she's supporting the values of a time where her being a journalist would be frowned upon, and black people got beaten up for looking different. Yea. Those were the days...

    More lastly, given the anti-Islamic tone of other articles by the same author, would Ms. Phillips be so supportive of a Muslim taking to the streets and "speaking and acting in accordance with [his] beliefs", if she disagreed with him?

    And, lastly for a third time, what's a "Gay Agenda"? Do gay people all share one agenda, is there a monthly newsletter sent out? Like any good form of bigotry, replace gay with something else... Seems to be only one more step before we accuse Gays of controlling the banks and the media...

  2. I was unaware of the background to the column, so thanks for that! Yes. I believe she is suggesting that only gay men should take an active role in parenting... And I was going to mention something akin to your 2nd 'lastly' in my post. But I forgot. So thanks also for bringing that up for me.

    I'd also like to add that, in a way, gay people are doing the world a favour by not procreating and adding to the problem of overpopulation...

  3. I saw that on one of the more sane DM comments on the piece, not sure if that's the exact background to it. Regardless, the suggestions are pretty minor.

    Reflecting on it, I imagine the animals thing is simply to show alternatives to the nuclear family. I suppose Ms. Phillips is angry because schools will be teaching the idea that animals don't get married, settle down and have kids like good Christians. I think it's time people learned that animals aren't the same as people in many ways...

  4. I have now looked her up on wikipedia and enjoy just how many people she hates. She seems have been born in the wrong country. She'd feel really at home in the Tea Party...

    I also enjoy how she's Jewish and seems to be rather sensitive to perceived anti-semitism (for example, people disagreeing with Israel. Even Jews who don't like it are anti-semitic apparently...). So basically, being prejudiced towards a minority is a-okay unless it's her minority...

  5. The magazine isn't homophobic. The comment's on the articles are.

  6. The comments left on the Mail's website are, most definitely, homophobic and just generally horrible in almost every way. But the Daily Mail pays Melanie Phillips and Richard Littlejohn, both of whom are pretty homophobic. So if the paper isn't homophobic, why does it hire these people? They are, at the very least, publishing views they don't agree with to make a quick buck without regard for the damage such articles can do


Related Posts with Thumbnails