Sign the Petition to Respect Freedom of Expression

 




Display: Sort:

Sign the Petition to Respect Freedom of Expression (#1)

We do respect freedom of expression which is why you get to post here.

We do not respect bigoted stupidy and the villification of our family members, friends, fellow countrymen and fellow man and so employ our "freedom of expression" to condemn it.

Freedom of Expression (#6)

We do respect freedom of expression which is why you get to post here.

Tugging forelock this end.

We do not respect bigoted stupidy and the villification of our family members, friends, fellow countrymen and fellow man and so employ our "freedom of expression" to condemn it. 

Glad to hear it, but most people no longer know the difference between robust discussion and what you call "bigoted stupidity".

They have been trained like Pavlovian dogs to respond to any criticism of homosexuals with savage, hateful retorts.

The Hon. Member was answering questions put to her and answered honestly - a view shared exactly by millions - perhaps the majority.

Would you rather she told lies?

She stood up for what she believes is right and I commend her for it.

Re: Freedom of Expression (#10)

I could just as easily say that millions of religious adherents who are told to hate homosexuality are being trained to respond to gay rights like pavlovian dogs.

But I don't.

Because you have no evidence, that the reason young people are more accepting of homosexuals because they are brainwashed.

You just hope they have been to back up your point.

The trends are reflected amongst every minority. This could be regarding ethnic minorities et al. The young are more sympathetic than the old to these minorities.

And it is true of every generation. The young are more liberal than the old.

It is amogst the young, where we see more gay people openly coming out, because they live in a more tolerant age with regards to homosexuality. That is why there is more tolerance towards homosexuality amongst the young. Amongst left-wingers, right-wingers, and even the religious. The vast majority of the young who are devout, that I know, have gay friends, and hate hatred of homosexuality, even thought they are hetrosexual themselves.

These are the facts. In a less tolerant society, where people are hidden, prejudice grows. Why? Suspicion and rumour. Ask any Catholic youngster in Northern Ireland what they think of a Protestant if they go to a non-mixed school, and vise versa, they'll tell you things about the "other side" which are simply not true. If something is hidden, it creates fear. When gay people are more willing to come out, most young people say "What's all the fuss about?"

This goes for every minority which is hidden. The slanders against the Irish and the Jews amongst Brits in the 19th century and further back; people who they had probably never met. They were lies. Racial segregation in South Africa, the US, and in more tribalist countries like the caste society of India: this helps create lies against the 'untouchables'.

This can even be noted with regards to the attitude of the rich about the poor. "Oh it's their own fault. They're lazy. They're scroungers. They spend all their money on booze and fags, and chavvy clothes."

When people don't kniw about something, that's when the lies are created. Gay bashers don't have gay friends (that they know of, and indeed, gay bashers are dispropotionately gay themselves. Just look at the Evangelist right in the US, the priesthood, or at the Taliban, and the country with the death penalty for gays, but frequent visits amongst ostensible gay bashers to male prostitutes: Iran), so that's why they can make up rediculous lies, like that gay people eat their own faeces.

The Overhauling of Straight America (#11)

Wow, you're prolific. Do you have a website? It must have a zillion pages.

The fact is that war has been waged on family life, Christianity, free speech, etc. for decades. 

Look at this part of the agenda from 20 years ago, entitled "The Overhauling of Straight America"

It is a blueprint for conditioning Americans to accept homosexuality as normal.

It starts with these words:

"The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To
desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion."

And explains how. Here are excerpts.

"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible. The principle behind this advice is
simple: almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters
and among your acquaintances."

"The way to benumb raw sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal
about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Open and frank talk makes the subject seem less
furtive, alien, and sinful, more above-board."

"The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome."

"the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the
tent -- and only later his unsightly derriere!"

"Where we talk is important. The visual media, film and television, are plainly the most powerful
image-makers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of
TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed. As far as desensitization is concerned, the medium is the message -- of normalcy.....But this
should be just the beginning of a major publicity blitz by gay America."

"Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science and Public Opinion (the shield and word of that accursed “secular humanism”). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work again here."

"Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers. In any campaign to win over the public, gays
must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined be reflex to assume the
role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly
nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seem as a public menace that justifies
resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our “gay pride”
publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image."

"Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims. Mr. and Mrs. Peterson must be given no
extra excuses to say “they are not like us.” To this end, the persons featured in the public campaign
should be decent and upright, appealing and admirable by straight standards, completely
unexceptionable in appearance -- in a word, they should be indistinguishable from the straights we
would like to reach."

"to offset the increasingly bad press that these times have brought to homosexual men and women, the
campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know -- this trick is so old it
creaks. Other minorities use it all the time in ads that announce proudly, “Did you know that this Great
Man (or Woman) was ________?” But the message is vital for all those straights who still picture gays
as “queer” people -- shadowy, lonesome, frail, drunken, suicidal, child-snatching misfits."

"long after other gay ads have become commonplace -- it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified."

"The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust
middle America. These images might include the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or
castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical
and deranged; menacing punks, thugs, and convicts speaking coolly about the “fags” they have killed or
would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed."

"Because most straightforward appeals are impossible, the National Gay Task Force has had to
cultivate quiet backroom liaisons with broadcast companies and newsrooms in order to make sure that
issues important to the gay community receive some coverage"

"If all went as planned, the somewhat desensitized public and the major networks themselves would be
readied for the next step of our program."

"The gay community should join forces wit other civil liberties groups of repeatable cast to promote
bland messages about America the Melting Pot"

"These images [of ranting homophobes] should be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists call the
“bracket technique.” For example, for a few seconds an unctuous beady-eyed Southern preacher is
seen, pounding the pulpit in rage about “those sick, abominable creatures.” While his tirade continues
over the soundtrack, the picture switches to pathetic photos of gays who look decent, harmless, and
likable; and then we cut back to the poisonous face of the preacher, and so forth. The contrast speaks
for itself. The effect is devastating."

-----------------------------------------

I have no hatred of those who engage in homosexual activities, but I do hate society being engineered by a small minority for their own aims.

What about YOU?

Re: The Overhauling of Straight America (#14)

I do write long posts. But that is a pretty cheap point. Well done for debating.

I have to write long posts when replying to yours. There's so much crap I have to debunk.

Re: The Overhauling of Straight America (#15)

Charming as ever....and the answer to my question is what?

You like being conditioned so that your whole being resonates with one particular group or not?

Re: The Overhauling of Straight America (#16)

I don't care. How do you know I'm being conditioned? How do you know?

I think you're not so charming yourself sunshine, with your preference for cheap points, when you can't think of a coherent counter argument.

Your basing your whole evidence for your beliefs on ONE document? Look at Richard Littlejohn. He has mentioned 69ers, lubricants, and talks of gay sex acts and homosexuality 83 times in 2003, and 104 times the next year. But he puts inverted commas around homophobia. And HE claims anyone who wants equal gay rights is obsessed with homosexuality?

The document seems to suggest to me, my whole point. That in a society that says that homosexuality is wrong, gay people won't come out, and people are suspicious of gay people. But, the document seems to break down the idea that they must be seperatists, and that they should seek to engage with Middle America, to prove that they are just like them. I don't think when a gay person buys a house that it is part of a collective agenda.

It says that if they can prove that homosexuals are just like you or I, they can break down boundaries. Look at say, the US. They only have abstinance orientated sex ed, and yet the young are more sympathetic to gay people. Why? Because they have grown up with seeing homosexuals as normal people, as gays of their generation are not afraid to come out. Good for them.

Replace straight, with 'White' or 'Protestant' etc., and you could get a very similar document for gay rights. The arguments about black people being completely different species was thrown into the rubbish where it belongs, when segregation was broken down, and white kids interacted with black kids.

This is the same with gays. Whatever the sex ed classes teach in the US, straight kids grew up with gay kids, and the arguments that you spread about infidelity, promiscuity etc., were similarly thrown out of the window.

Oh btw, why is it that people who are obsessive homophobes, or if we don't want to get too 'bigoted', obsessively condemn homosexuality, respond more to gay porn according to scientific surveys?

Re: The Overhauling of Straight America (#18)

My jape about your prolific writing was meant to be good-humoured. Get a sense of humour!

The rest of your comment is just mashed potato as usual.

So you like being brainwashed. Fine. I don't and I still know right from wrong.

Re: The Overhauling of Straight America (#23)

I think your last comment says more about you than it does about me, as you did not address one point I made.

Saying my comment is mashed potato is just a statement and not an argument. Purely subjective, and I suspect ideosyncratic.

Debate me. If you're going to say my arguments are crap (me thinks thou doth protest to much), then please explain why. Point by point. Coherently. Not just with subjective reasoning.

Re: The Overhauling of Straight America (#27)

Sorry, but I don't have time at present and anyway - is there any point in debating with someone who doesn't care that he has been part of a mass mind-control programme.

No matter your opinion on homosexual behaviour, you should at least be mad about some of the tactics used by some elements in the 'gay' movement.

Re: Freedom of Expression (#24)

I think bigoted stupidity is pretty clean terminology for devisive actions and speech based in ignorance.

You didn't answer my comment in a previous post. I'll repeat it here:

If I was on a train and I saw some drunken Nazi Jerk telling a mixed race girl that she was a mongrel and he was frightening her. I'd stop him. Forcefully, if necessary (and he was pretty small!!).

Matter of fact - I once did.

He has the "right" to say whatever he likes to whomever he likes but that's not the issue. Anyone who sits by idly and watches a bully victimise somebody else makes it less likely that they themselves will be defended if they are ever aggressed.

It is immoral and wrong for one person to use their own stupidy to blatantly offend or upset another person for no other reason that the aggressor is bigoted, stupid and uninformed.

That's what this Robinson woman has done to gay people who are just trying to get on in an already pissy world. She's aggressive for no reason than she is stupid. It's her job to actually stand up for people rather than do certain constituents down.

It is more than proper to assert that she is wrong.

I also find it a little rich, Stewie, that all these religous types accuse the rest of us of being brainwashed when we are only looking out for one another and you've all got the anti-gay line from religous rules that you practice on a Sunday!

To borrow a phrase whether it's bigotry against other races or women or gay people: we're only trying to be "our brother's keepers". 
 

Re: Freedom of Expression (#25)

The only arguments that Fat (I abbreviated the whole name, and it sounds far more appropriate), has come up with, are ones that can be thrown back in his face. He says I'm being brainwashed. I could just as easily say religious adherents are brainwashed into being gay bashers, and likewise with "ex"-gays.


I'm wondering if Fat would do what you did in the case of the Neo-Nazi. Or if he wouldn't have even privately condemned it.

Re: Freedom of Expression (#26)

You're more patient with him than I am.

Well done for making the case.

;-)

Re: Freedom of Expression (#28)

It's a good acronym as I do need to lose a few pounds.

If you are 'throwing back in my face' a clear agenda of mass brainwashing, then fine, like I said already, that's up to you.

For some reason you all insist on making it a religious issue. There is far more to it than that.

Are you suggesting I'm a Neo-Nazi? 

Pathetic if you are. Shameful, actually.

Who of us is truly being their brother's keeper? (#29)

If I was on a train and I saw some drunken Nazi Jerk telling a mixed race girl that she was a mongrel and he was frightening her. I'd stop him. Forcefully, if necessary (and he was pretty small!!).

Matter of fact - I once did.

 

Well done. Naturally, I approve. It's the sort of thing that you're likely to get into trouble for these days under Labour's constant sucking up to the criminal element.

I can't see what it has to do with this argument though.

As I believe the Bible, I believe we are all descended from Noah and his family, so we are all related in one human race, therefore I'm not a racist.

I know you're trying to tease me. If someone was being beaten up for being a homosexual, I would also love to get stuck into the idiot that was doing that - and after he had been carted off to the police station/hospital, tell the homosexual person about the gospel and consequence of sin.

I think it is ME being judged here, not being the judge.

It is right to be "our brother's keeper," I'm glad you agree. To me that is to warn against sin, but to most people posting here it is to encourage them to carry on in their sins.

Who of us is truly being their brother's keeper?

Who of us is being their brother's keeper? (#30)

To me that is to warn against sin, but to most people posting here it is to encourage them to carry on in their sins.

That's only if you mistakenly believe that being gay is a sin - that it is an immoral choice. It is not.

It has been proven again and again that it is innate. For gay people, the "sin" you refer to is simply "being".

I'm not at all "conditioned" and I resent the accusation but can clearly see where it comes from.

The conditioning you're rubbing up against is that a lot of us here have a sense of what's fair. Undermining gay peoples' right to simply be - is unfair to us.

That's our problem with you and people like you.

You may very well be a lovely man with many decent tendancies and people who care about him etc but you're damn wrong about this and are adding to the already high pile of crap people are forced to deal with.

Re: Who of us is being their brother's keeper? (#31)

>>>That's only if you mistakenly believe that being gay is a sin - that it is an immoral choice. It is not.<<<

On what basis are you insisting it is not an immoral choice?

>>>It has been proven again and again that it is innate. For gay people, the "sin" you refer to is simply "being".<<<

Actually, that is not true. Peter Tatchell wrote last month that it's not that simple.

>>>I'm not at all "conditioned" and I resent the accusation but can clearly see where it comes from.<<<

Are you saying that "The Overhauling of Straight America" has not been carried out or it has but it doesn't matter? Surely you must agree that mass conditioning has been going on - how else could such a change of opinion have been achieved in such a short period of time?

>>>The conditioning you're rubbing up against is that a lot of us here have a sense of what's fair. Undermining gay peoples' right to simply be - is unfair to us.<<<

It's not about being, it's about doing. Most societies through history have tabooed same-sex activity for the benefit of the tribe (for various reasons) - it had nothing to do with discrimination for the sake of it.

Life tends to seem unfair to people who live the wrong way (see my next answer).

>>>You may very well be a lovely man with many decent tendancies and people who care about him etc but you're damn wrong about this and are adding to the already high pile of crap people are forced to deal with.<<< 

Whether or not I'm lovely is for others to decide, but being lovely is not as important as doing right.

I'm not saying it's easy to struggle with sexual temptations. I struggled with alcohol temptation for a decade. I believe I am genetically predisposed to being an alcoholic, but the Almighty's grace enabled me to come clean. Should I have told myself that my genes have made me alcoholic, therefore I must not resist temptation? Of course not!

A) Temptation is everywhere

B) This life is a testing period after which judgment is made. The world couldn't work otherwise.

C) We have a spiritual aspect whereby we can resist temptation: our spiritual side is a vital part of our being which is under attack from all angles. 

Re: (#2)

You're really winding me up now.

On your petition, you've signed your name adveritising your website against your name.

a) A petition, no matter how ridiculous, is not there to shamelessly plug your own side interest.

b) The website you list is www.thelabourparty.org.uk, and to the naked eye, it associates our party and membership with your views.

No respect for others' views (#5)

You're really winding me up now.

Diddums. Freedom of expression is either for all or nobody.

On your petition, you've signed your name adveritising your website against your name.

I made a mistake actually. My website is thelabourparty.org

Thanks for allowing me to correct it here.

A petition, no matter how ridiculous, is not there to shamelessly plug your own side interest

And neither is it there to be abused by Labour supporters as seems to be the case.

No wonder you allowed the leadership to lie to you about the EU referendum if that's how much respect you have for polls.

Re: No respect for others' views (#7)

An EU treaty that extended democratic powers back to governments through devolution, and yet provided new roles which were needed in a union of 27 countries. Les get one thing straight. The only reason UKIP and other eurosceptics opposed a treaty, which by the way allowed for the first time a mechanism to withdraw from the EU, was because it legitamised the EU. They couldn't bear that.

So UKIP acted as if the Irish referendum had a 100% turnout where 100% voted against it. They said there had been a genuine debate. Actually, it was a pretty crappy campaign. It didn't force Ireland to change abortion laws, or any of their other ideosyncrasies. But that's what the Eurosceptics wanted to tell Ireland, because they knew it was the only way they could win.

Murdoch only opposes the EU, because they threaten his monopoly. So the Sun kept telling the public that we would lose our UN veto, and control of our foreign and defence policy. This sounds extraordinarily close to the tactics the Irish eurosceptics employed.

Re: No respect for others' views (#9)

What proportion of the UK population wants out the EU altogether?

I don't suppose the Express poll is representative where 94.7% want out last time I looked.

 

Re: Sign the Petition (#3)

I would, but this is not about freedom of expression. This is about your views on gay rights. You assume the majority agree with you. Any proof?

Criticising someone is not against freedom of expression. On the contrary, it is the very hallmark of it, for it sums up the point of a debate.


I am against the racial and religious hatred act, have defended the Danish cartoon writers, and Salman Rushdie, as well as defending the democratic rights of all people across the world. But I reserve the right to criticise Iris Robinson, while allowing for her to express her rights.


This apparently means that a 'gay agenda' is being 'forced' upon people. Hmmmm...........

Re: Sign the Petition (#4)

'express her opinions'

Re: Sign the Petition (#8)

 

I would, but this is not about freedom of expression. This is about your views on gay rights. You assume the majority agree with you. Any proof?
 
I put up the link to the poll to balance NorthernMonkey's poll.
 
Is that not fair??
 
I don't have up-to-date estimates on support for homosexuality vs support for morality. Let me know if you find some; it would be interesting.
 
Criticising someone is not against freedom of expression. On the contrary, it is the very hallmark of it, for it sums up the point of a debate.

I am against the racial and religious hatred act, have defended the Danish cartoon writers, and Salman Rushdie, as well as defending the democratic rights of all people across the world. But I reserve the right to criticise Iris Robinson, while allowing for her to express her rights.
 
Well, good. It is your right to criticise Mrs Robinson or me or anyone else. What you don't have the right to do and what many are doing, is demand that Mrs Robinson is made to apologise and retract the statements based on her beliefs.

 

Re: Best ignored (#12)

I think people should take a look at this guy's anti-Labour site http://www.thelabourparty.org/index.htm that he has set up. (A side issue is that the fact that our Labour Party has not bought up such a name reveals a certain ineptitude).

He appears to me to have no interest in genuine debate in the sense of a real exchange of views and I think he is best ignored on this site.

Best listened to (#13)

Mmm, very radical!

If you read the home page, you'll see why I started it.

You should also be annoyed at being lied to and betrayed and taken effective measures to remedy the situation.

I was a Labour voter for many years, but now must sadly expose the lies - they've gone too far.

Don't blame the Party for not registering the name - it belonged to someone else up to last year and they let it lapse.

Anyway, I reckoned the time for debate was over at Labour's end, as they have repeatedly shown their disdain for the views of the people.

 

Re: Best listened to (#17)

I'm certainly glad we show disdain for yours.

In case you were wondering, your views aren't welcome in the Labour party.

I don't care whether you call that fascist, dictatorial, whatever. Just kindly piss off and go and join the BNP.

Re: Sign the Petition (#19)

Are we now going to have a discussion about tory trolls again?

Re: Sign the Petition (#20)

Where are they? Let me at 'em.

Re: Sign the Petition (#21)

I'd rather have the Tory trolls than the current infiltration.

Re: Sign the Petition (#22)

Perhaps because Tories are rather similar to Labour nowadays, especially with CMD at the helm.

I offer a new way of thinking. No more the false paradigm of right vs left, but right vs wrong.

I think Tory trolls are loathsome, vile, disgusting, unnatural and they make me nauseous.

Only the heterosexual ones obviously, for legal reasons.

Seriously though - see how society is being manipulated to be splintered; balkanised?

Divide and rule is what all the mainstream parties offer because that's what the real bosses - with global corporate and banking interests - demand.

For this reason, Labour/Tory/LibDem can never again claim to put the people first.

This is why I get upset. Nothing personal against you N.Monkey or anyone else here.