Goldsmiths University's LGBT+ SU Group Oppose... Erm... A Human Rights Campaigner #exmuslimbecause

Maryam Namazie is a well-known campaigner for human rights, who is best known for opposing Islamist attacks on Muslims and ex-Muslims alike. She can be quite forthright and, as a member of a Communist party, is hardly uncontroversial. However she doesn't threaten people and is always extremely clear that her problem is with radical Islamists not Muslims and she is clear that Muslims are usually the first and main victims of Islamism.

So when she came to speak to the atheist and humanist student group at Goldsmiths University it was to be expected that the group representing Muslim students would take some offence at her presence. They are hardly without blemish in regard of "controversial" speakers. They, after all, hosted Andreas Tzortzis earlier this year who has compared homosexuality with cannibalism.

Her talk did go ahead, despite the feminist society coming out in support of their Muslim colleagues, and she faced some rather childish protests. Take a look about 12 minutes in to this video (though I do recommend watching it all!)


Despite this fairly clear silliness, today the LGBT group at the university came out in support of... the people who tried their darnedest to silence Maryam Namazie and her message against radical Islam. See their Facebook message here. They appear to have finally stopped deleting comments and I think the fact that some comments are approaching 200 likes and their original statement remains on just 12 likes show how popular their decision has been.

I really cannot begin to describe how disappointing, if unsurprising, I find this. Namazie is standing in opposition to groups who are persecuting and murdering Muslims, ex-Muslims, other religious people, women and LGBT people. As the Islamic State throw gay men to their deaths from tall buildings, Maryam Namazie is trying to educate people on the dangers of their ideology.

And the LGBT group of a university didn't choose to support her, nor to remain silent over this but instead chose to support a group of disruptive young men who used intimidation to try and get their way.

Thankfully Namazie wasn't phased, I get the impression she is used to this, and finished her speech. Sadly without the support of those she fights to protect and, in fact, she finds those most at risk from Islamist violence actively opposing her message.

Truly disappointing stuff.

At Last People Are Waking Up To The Tactics Of The New Puritans

It is a shame anything involving Germaine Greer and her vile comments about transgender people seems to have helped bring some sanity back to the world of political commentary. As we have seen there has been a new puritan spirit rising across the nation as politicians try to ban/filter porn, suppress sex workers freedoms and ban some magazines. And it isn't just in those sort of initiatives one can see it... there's a creeping sense of conformity drifting back across various aspects of our lives. Just look at the adulation given to same-sex married couples and their kids on the gay news outlets for an example of this (having children isn't exactly pioneering, my other half has 4).

Anyway. After some students sought to ban Germaine Greer from giving a talk at a university because, well let's be frank, she's a really horrible person there finally seems to be a few more voices rising up to defend free speech (even if its hers). Ironically many of these voices are ones who didn't stand up against porn blocks or other infringements of our freedoms, but hey the number of Labourites standing up for marriage equality prior to 2010 could be counted on one hand. These things change gradually. Referring to the neo-progressives as a cult is pretty much on the nose except I don't really like the word cult. One person's cult, is another person's religion. Certainly neo-progressives, with their love of woo and hatred of the atheist movement, share much with the religious.

Howard Jacobson has also got the measure of the latest type of prude.

Our country is in a censorious mood. The more educated we are, the less we are prepared to tolerate views contrary to our own. Shake any institution of higher learning and a dozen boycotters will fall out of it. If the academic community gets its way, we will soon all be speaking with a single voice.

Others are also getting a sense of just how far things have already gone. In universities the students are cleansing their courses of anything that might offend.

Using tactics like trying to get someone fired to silence them (then getting upset that their own businesses might get hurt in the blowback), we are seeing the real "morality" these puritans are preaching.



But more are starting to stand against the shaming.


Nick Cohen says it all here.

Student Unions Opposing Atheist Freedom Of Expression

Students just aren't what they used to be. Maybe they never were the rebellious, course work shy, last minute crammers stereotypes portray. I remember my brief stint at university being fairly memorable, involving the removal of bras in record time (undefeated champion, I'll have you know) and a disturbing game known only as "Nervous". Good times, good times. 

Alas such fun seems completely beyond the comprehension of the stony faced union enforcers who rule at fresher's fairs. 

Last year the University of Reading's Atheist, Humanist and Secularist Society was kicked out of their fresher's fair for naming a pineapple Mohammed. It is hardly the most sophisticated way to start a conversation but I can see what they were aiming for. But they didn't just provoke a debate about blasphemy, they were basically accused of it (blasphemy is showing contempt for that which is held as holy which, by definition, upsets believers and the RAHSS was accused of upsetting people). The Reading University Student Union has now forced out the RAHSS by attempting to get them to agree to not upset anyone ever again ("Just shut up you blasphemers!"). 

Meanwhile, in another rather unsophisticated move, the LSE atheist group decided to wear "Jesus and Mo" t-shirts to their fresher's fair this year. I find the Jesus and Mo cartoon strips pretty boring and don't really see the attraction. But different strokes for different folks and all that. Well it hasn't gone down too well. Even when they covered up the t-shirts with censored stickers today they appear to have been intimidated by student union officials and security whilst leaving the fair.  

Having your beliefs insulted isn't nice. We all accept that, and understand it. But having my relationship dismissed and insulted by other's beliefs is also not very nice. That is the world we live in, one where grown ups have to put up with some people not being nice. We can moan about it, shout about it, but silencing others just because you don't like what they say isn't a sign of a healthy free society. It is the sign of a disturbing authoritarian mindset that is creeping into a lot of "progressive" thought (again).

One Law For All's excellent document "Siding with the Oppressor" shows how the left are starting to move from preaching tolerance for all beliefs into actively siding with the more extreme wing of Islam over pretty much everyone else (including Muslims and ex-Muslims alike). 

Thankfully Maryam Namazie isn't going to let the LSE just ban free speech without at least a token fight, and will be attend a debate on the burqa there on the 15th of October in a Jesus and Mo t-shirt. I hope there will many people there to support her.  

When Did LGBT Folk Become The People We Hated?

Last month marked 36 years since Mary Whitehouse took Gay News to court for publishing a blasphemous poem. 29 years ago Gays The Word was raided for obscene materials. Right now attempts to filter the internet and ban "sexualised" images in public are likely to lead to more attempts to stifle free speech by LGBT people (see, for example, the way mobile phone companies block legitimate LGBT websites). 

We've been fighting for freedom for decades. I'm thankful, very thankful, to those who came before me that I came of age in a time when things have been less difficult (the only really homophobic incident I can think of is having stones thrown at me for holding hands with my then boyfriend). But even so the history of the struggle still influences the way I think. 

Unfortunately this history of oppression, for daring to say and do things of which mainstream society didn't approve, has singularly failed to stop some LGBT people becoming just as EVIL (and I do not use that word lightly, but use it I must) as Christians ever were (and are). 

We've had cases for the last ten years or so of preachers being harassed and arrested by police for doing things of which mainstream society does not approve. Be it speaking in public (Adrian Tippetts brilliantly defends the right of Tony Miano to be horrid in public here), leafleting (Stephen Green, shudder) or emailing (see the latest instance involving Alan Clifford here) it would seem religious nutters are getting a bit of a hard time. 

Anti-gay public speaking is offensive, to me at least. I remember one particular instance of a guy with a megaphone in Trafalgar Square that left me so angry and hurt that he could say such things in public. But I didn't do anything because I believe in live and let live (and the looks on the faces of the many other random people in Trafalgar Square showed me his message was not winning any hearts and minds, quite the opposite in fact). 

We have suffered police interference in our freedoms for many, many years. We should be standing side by side with anyone suffering similarly. But, as it would seem with the Alan Clifford issue, it is now LGBT people colluding with the silencing, shaming and persecution (for even though this is not quite at the levels of persecution faced by Christians elsewhere it is persecution nonetheless) of others. 

I remember when the LGBT group at a company I worked with was chastised by the company after a gay employee reported us for using the word "queer". When I attended the next meeting everyone was deeply apologetic towards this person (who had never, and did never, attend a single meeting of our group). I never attended another meeting, finding this cowardice in the face of idiocy to be too much to bear. When did we become the bad guys? When did we think that policing other people's thoughts and speech was in anyway acceptable? 

I understand the hurt these people cause. I really do. They deserve to be shunned by society and ignored by decent people everywhere. But we cannot silence them because we don't like what they say. The way to beat them is to defeat their arguments and win over more people to the side of sanity. 

I've spoken of the boot being on the other foot now. We've won so many battles that the power truly is in the hands of those on our side. But we must remember what the boot felt like from the receiving end and never use it. 

We have an opportunity to show just how superior we are to those who killed, persecuted and hurt LGBT people over the last few centuries. We can be the better people. We must be the better people. 

If that means I stand in support of Alan Clifford, anti-gay hatemonger that he is, then so be it. Freedom isn't just for those we agree with. It isn't just for us. It cannot be. Don't let us become the people we hated. 

Trolls and Suppressive Persons: We're All Scientologists Now

As Dear Constant Readers know, I've an unhealthy obsession with less mainstream religions. Scientology is one which, though not mainstream, a great many people have at least heard of. So some of you may well know what a Suppressive Person (SP) is. For those that don't, here's the Church of Scientology's view:

"the Suppressive Person seeks to upset, continuously undermine, spread bad news about and denigrate betterment activities and groups. Thus the Anti-Social Personality is also against what Scientology is about—helping people become more able and improving conditions in society. As anyone can think of many examples of a Suppressive Person, this concept is not limited to Scientology. However, when such a person is connected to Scientology, for the good of the Church and the individuals in it, such a person is officially labeled a Suppressive Person so that others will know not to associate with them." Source: Scientology page "What does Suppressive Person mean?" 

Tory Christman, an SP but still a wonderful person, has a video of her experiences of getting an "SP Declare".

Basically Scientology use SP Declares to silence opposition, to keep people from interacting with SPs so that they won't hear what they are saying. They do it both to harm the SP and "protect" those still within the Church from hearing any views opposing the Church's own.

Pretty much everyone agrees that this policy is harmful, destructive and authoritarian. What does this have to do with internet trolls?

Wikipedia describes trolls as follows: 

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. 

While this sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling also used to describe intentionally provocative actions and harassment outside of an online context. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."

Sound familiar? The current campaign against abuse on Twitter brings up some reasonable concerns about those who threaten other users. But it is also beginning to take on the appearance of a witch hunt where those who disagree with some of the aims of the campaign (like a report abuse button when using the block button or a phone call to the police might be more appropriate depending on the issue) are themselves receiving abuse from supporters! And what are those who disagree called? Trolls.

Quiet Riot Girl has had to deal with this sort of a thing for a long time. The use of the word troll has gone from the descriptive to a way of shaming someone into silence. Instead of perhaps listening to what the other person has to say, or feeling the need to be the better person and rise above non-threatening abuse by ignoring it, people attack. Over the last few days I've been left to wonder if anyone on Twitter has ever heard the phrase "Two wrongs don't make a right".

If you feel you are "the better person", then I implore you to start acting like one. Rather than abusing positions of relative cultural power to insult the less intelligent, the nasty or the rebel, why not ignore or, heaven forbid, engage them and try to show them the error of their ways?! Because otherwise we'll end up building the same sort of horrendously offensive social apparatus as operated by Scientology which is detrimental to free speech, open debate and basic human decency.

As Tory says in her video: "the top two worst cults in the world are the Moonies and Scientology. Why? Because they cut you off from thinking, they stop you from looking. Right away, early on, you can't be talking to these Suppressive People because they're evil, they're horrible, they're bad".

We can do better than that. 

UK Sleepwalking Into Censorship? More Like Running Into It At Full Pelt

We do not live in a free country. We all know that. Our libel laws are ridiculous. Our freedom of speech is curtailed should we be "offensive". We live under the gaze of corporate and Government officials. Even some websites are blocked. But we can at least try to hold on to some of the freedom we do have; we aren't Saudi Arabia or China after all.

But won't somebody think of the children? Every debate seems to revolve around those special transient state human beings under the age of 16. Marriage equality was bad because "children need a mother and a father" (we all saw what happened to Lot's daughters after their Mum died after all). And an open internet is bad because children might see things they shouldn't. And when we say "see things they shouldn't" we don't necessarily mean "what their parents or their future informed selves wouldn't want them to look at" but rather we mean "what the Government and ISPs have decided they shouldn't look at".

And we aren't talking about just porn here. Much has been said about how David Cameron's anti-porn filters will not work (and that the case that porn is harmful is still not firmly made). But more needs to be said about how these are not just porn filters. These opt-out filters will almost certainly default filter things from websites about suicide and self-harm through to "extremist material". Who will decide what constitutes extremist material? I find a book that discusses incest, murder, genocide, praises family breakdowns and proscribes execution for the smallest of crimes very distasteful and extremist. But are ISPs really going to block the Bible? Will Scientology websites be blocked? Or Greenpeace? Will the Rapture Ready forums be off limits? Or Queerty? Where will the line be draw and will it be fixed or ever changing?

Isn't it optional though? Yes of course it is. For people like me it'll be optional. Sure we'll then appear on some list at an ISP somewhere and the police will occasionally check whether a "person of interest" has his/her filters on or off as a way of deciding whether to investigate further (because it'll be a sign they are up to no good of course!). But it is optional. Will it be optional for women with controlling husbands? Or for men with overbearing wives? Will it be optional for kids in a religious household? Will it be optional in web cafes? Will it be optional in houseshares or when you are renting a room which comes with wi-fi? "Oh could you remove the filters for me?" will be regarded as "I wish to do something very naughty online". Who is going to ask it in anything other than the most open relationships and friendships? The Governments continued conflation of child abuse pictures, simulated rape imagery and porn does nothing but shame those who just want the Government to leave our internet alone and hardly promotes an honest conversation in the home.

I said 3 years ago when this was first proposed that porn was the litmus test of freedom. Sadly I didn't have the foresight to see that the Government wouldn't be satisfied with just porn. This isn't even a slippery slope argument... these extra options will go live with the porn filters.

As a Lib Dem I'm very, very ashamed that these proposals have come from a Government containing members of the party. And I'm equally saddened to see so many social conservatives who've spent the last year moaning about their freedom of speech suddenly so enthusiastic about censorship. Well when I say "saddened" I mean "unsurprised and slightly amused". They are predictable buggers.

Another Test For Freedom: Protesting Funerals

Having introduced an unpopular tax, been hanged in effigy and seen an unprecedented series of protests during their time in office, some were still taken aback when plans were announced for protests at the recently deceased leader's funeral. Thinking Margaret Thatcher? Wrong.

Massachusetts Lt. Governor Andrew Oliver died in March 1774 just a few months after the tumultuous events of the Boston Tea Party (and a few years after his official, if not personal, support of the Stamp Act which helped lead up to it). Samuel Adams, who would go on to become one the USA's Founding Fathers, was taken aback at plans to honour Oliver at his funeral and at Oliver's funeral a contingent of the Sons of Liberty (including Sam Adams) turned up and cheered as Oliver's body was lowered into the ground.

Many years later the country Samuel Adams fought for so earnestly has faced a new wave of uncomfortable and disturbing funeral protests from a small but vocal group. The Westboro Baptist Church has become infamous for its protests since the 1990s. They came to international attention, especially among LGBT people, in 1998 when they protested at the murdered Matthew Shepard's funeral. And they didn't just stop there, finding even greater notoriety (something the WBC appear to thrive upon) in protesting the funerals of soldiers of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

So abhorrent a concept as protesting someone's funeral has been rightly condemned almost universally. This group that protests at the funerals of everyone from gay men to "true American heroes" is one that managed to breakdown the barriers between the Culture War opposing camps and allowed those camps to join together in shared disgust. And this widespread feeling was not slow in being acted upon by local, state and national authorities.

In a test for the right to free speech these authorities have for years tried to restrict and, occasionally, even ban the WBC from protesting at or near funerals. Just this week Florida has expanded its restrictions. But ultimately the courts have upheld the right of the Phelps family and their followers to freely protest even when that protest may be extremely distressing.

I've very mixed emotions over the concept of protesting at funerals. Just thinking about someone doing so makes me upset and angry. I cannot begin to imagine how hurtful and distressing these protests must be for the families of those who have died. And yet, when the Phelps were banned from visiting the United Kingdom, I wrote in their defence. Like many other things, such as porn for example, you may not like what you see or hear but the Westboro Baptist Church have a right to protest just as anyone else does.

Which brings us to next weeks funeral for Margaret Thatcher. Rumours of protests are floating about, and have been long expected. I'm no fan of Margaret Thatcher. She is often held up as a strong defender of freedom yet her Government never really lived up to what I'd expect freedom to mean. But even so I don't think she deserves the reputation she has been given nor does anyone deserve to have their funeral protested. Be they a young murdered man or an elderly former Prime Minister, a funeral is a time for someone's passing to be mourned. So talk of protests saddens me greatly.

But... the police, media and supporters of Thatcher must understand there must be a right to a peaceful protest, no matter how abhorrent it might be. No matter how disgusting, creepy and downright inhuman those who protest a funeral might be, they must have rights too. I hope that right is respected on Wednesday, although I hope ultimately those planning such crass acts see sense beforehand.

Remember protesters you share a tactic with the Westboro Baptist Church. Stay classy.

Whether I Get To Marry Appears To Be Dependent On Employment Contracts, Oh The Romance!

Facebook has a lot to answer for. But so does the Trafford Housing Trust. An idiot posted on his Facebook aghast that the Government would dare force equal marriage upon churches (the plans aren't even about religious organisations!). An even bigger idiot decided that this person deciding to express his personal opinion on his personal social media page in his personal time constituted a reason to demote the original idiot.

I used to work at a housing trust. I know they can be dumb. They once told off the LGBT group (of which I was a member) for the use of the word "queer". So it is good to see sanity prevailing and the idiot won his case against THT.

THT should be ashamed of themselves. Their policies are an insult to free speech and have succeeded in bringing the marriage equality movement into disrepute through association with such an abuse of power. But the case does now strengthen freedom of speech and belief. It flies in the face of the accusations from the anti-equality crowd that courts will send them all to a gulag for daring to speak their mind.

Speaking of which.... the Coalition against for Marriage has declared their fear that teachers may well be sacked for refusing to "promote" equal marriage. This amuses me for several reasons.

1) their position implies a school shouldn't sack (or at least discipline) a member of staff who refuses to do their job.
2) it flies in the face of the previous policy of anti-equality activists that was disgusted that the previous Government would force them not to sack LGBT people (and force them to consider hiring that person if they were the best candidate for the job).
3) it is not like they haven't previously tried to sack LGBT teachers in this country or actually sacked them in other countries

Personally I think it would be a rather authoritarian and unnecessary step for a school to sack someone for this reason. I think it is healthy that kids get different view points. But I also think schools have a right to sack teachers and staff that don't toe the line on what they teach children. I'm not saying a Catholic school should be allowed to sack a gay teacher, nor that a secular school should be able to sack a Catholic teacher. But if that teacher doesn't follow the lesson plans and school curriculum then they aren't doing their job and should be disciplined in the appropriate way.

If a teacher "promoted" equal marriage in a private Catholic school should that school be allowed to sack them? That is the question one should ask anyone who spreads this sort of fear. I'd be interested to hear their answers.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

The Right To Discriminate: Is Nick Griffin On To Something?

Until the world develops a better social media meteorological prediction tool, we are left at the mercy of the occasional Twitterstorm. This week's storm brewed after Nick Griffin made some foolish comments about organising some sort of "justice" mob to accost the winners of the long running Bed and Breakfast dispute.

I've discussed this dispute, whereby a same-sex couple were denied a double-bed in a Bed and Breakfast by the Christian owner, before but I feel it has become necessary to re-evaluate where I stand 2 years on.

The USA has been in the grip of so-called "culture wars" for a long time and it has only ramped up over the last decade. What has happened there, religious schools sacking secularists or University's sacking someone over their stance on equal marriage, is now happening here. We must find a solution, and soon, before the culture wars cause permanent damage to our society.

The debacle is just one example from this week of discrimination. An 11 year old "atheist" (i.e. just someone who doesn't wish to swear a duty to God, nor the Queen but nobody is perfect) has had his request to join the Scouts denied. Turns out you can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and be a member but no belief is just not allowed. Meanwhile the housing association manager demoted because he said he disagreed with churches holding same-sex marriages on Facebook has taken the housing association to court. No one has yet pointed out his stupidity in getting upset about something that is, alas, not on the agenda. Oh well, still seems a tad harsh.

As these three cases suggest this is not a one-sided issue. Attempts by anti-marriage equality activists to paint Christianity as some persecuted characteristic ring hollow when they do already (i.e. in the case of the Scouts) exactly what they accuse secularists of wanting to do. But this equally applies to the secularist side too!

We live in a country where hotels still describe themselves as for gay men only (just without the "No Straights Allowed" signs), where bars deny heterosexuals entry (and I have been on the receiving end of that because I, and my police officer date for the evening, "looked" straight) and where people offering out flatshares dictate what gender, sexuality or race (!) they would like prospective flatmates to be. Is that right or wrong?

In the last couple of years I've discussed this issues with others. Many have defended the idea that gay hotels and bars should be allowed to discriminate so that they are "safe places" but also said B&B owners don't have the right to discriminate over who stays there! And in a similar vein you will see Christians getting severely annoyed at cases such as the housing manager being demoted but fighting tooth and nail to ensure Christian schools can deny employment to LGBT people. I cannot bear this hypocrisy any longer. Either we must live in a country where no one has the right to discriminate at all (an unlikely situation given our species seemingly innate desire to hate each other) or where people do have the right to discriminate (a deeply troubling and dispiriting prospect I accept).

So it is time to decide: will liberals accept that gay bars can't discriminate against heterosexuals or will Christians accept they can be demoted, fired and mocked for their beliefs if they conflict with their employers? If not then perhaps they need to reexamine their positions.

Although I think we can all agree that "Girls get in free" nights at bars and clubs are tragic. Agreed?

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Trolling Along

troll: One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument 

This is a bit of ramble but hey ho...

Don't feed the trolls. Those of us who have been online for a fairly long time cannot have failed to have encountered that oft chanted mantra on a forum or, dare I out my age, newsgroup. It has served us well for all these years.

Trolls, like dirty old men and fangirls, are an internet hazard. They've been a part of the internet ever since it entered it's "modern era" in the late 90s, and they are unlikely to go away. And part of me has become fond of them as part of the fabric of the internet along with other sub-groups such as the furries or the Youtubers.

Sadly there appears to be somewhat of a troll related moral panic occurring in this country and it is just growing worse and worse.

Who is and who isn't a troll has never really be clearly defined but, in forums at least, you knew one when you saw one. However now the word troll is used to refer to allsorts of people, interacting in allsorts of ways. Say something someone, especially a celebrity or "respected" individual, doesn't agree with, and you're a troll. Here's a classic example:

@davidallengreen @fleetstreetfox Good? So racism & threatening behaviour can be excused because free speech is bigger?

— James (@JamesReckons) August 1, 2012

@jamesreckons @fleetstreetfox Oh dear, are you still trolling.

— David Allen Green (@DavidAllenGreen) August 1, 2012

It's becoming a way to silence debate, stiffle criticism and belittle and insult those who you disagree with.

Take another example of this, not exactly troll related, but hidden among some obvious examples of nasty messages on Youtube, displayed in this catchy tune, one just doesn't quite seem right.



The message that most upset Steve Furst? "ur NOT funny and never will be". That might not be the politest message in the world but that is pretty clearly a reasonable opinion someone might have. No one is funny to everyone. Some people may not find Steve Furst funny (to be honest I've no idea who is but I'm sure he's a lovely and hilarious person even if this particular nitpick of his suggests an overly large ego). That isn't hate. It's not trolling. It's just an opinion!

And so we come to the Tom Daley fiasco. I can't stand rudeness, and what was said to Tom Daley was uncalled for, disgusting, thoughtless and unreasonable. The threats of death were, as you can imagine, without defense. And yet we reach the problem. Tom Daley retweeted the original nasty tweet and instantly Reece Messer came under attack from Daley fangirls and fanboys. He was, in turn, subject to the same sort of abuse he gave to Daley. Yet he was arrested, and those who abused him were not! And he'd done this sort of thing before but not until Tom Daley was involved did the authorities care. The police CANNOT police the internet. It is a complete impossibility.

In the days of forums, forum hosts banned persistent and unwanted "trolls". In the days of Twitter users get banned for abusing corporations but don't seem to have to worry if they abuse others (unless they are famous). If one has an open resource such as Twitter, which is so immense that it is near impossible to moderate, there must either be an acceptance of total freedom or it might as well close down. It's really that simple.

And the reeks of double standards on a whole different level as pointed out by fleetstreetfox.

I've become increasingly unhappy with how anti-discrimination and anti-social behaviour laws are being used to undermine free speech, free expression and to suppress debate from those deemed unworthy of having an opinion. If you can't handle seeing people for who they really are (from the epic and the kind-hearted to the mundane and the mean-spirited) writ large across your screen then perhaps you need to log off. Because the internet shows up our species for its best, it must show up it's worst as well. That is in its very nature.



If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

UKIP's David Coburn, Marriage Equality And That Silly Article

David Coburn, a UKIP candidate for the London Assembly, wrote an article in Pink News "defending" UKIP's anti-marriage equality stance. It amused me greatly, so I thought I'd break it down for you all.

"The same-sex marriage debate is not an old-fashioned left-right political issue. It’s about freedom. The definition of parties as right or left is increasingly out of date. Parties these days are more accurately described as authoritarian or libertarian." 

 I'd agree that the same-sex marriage debate is about freedom. And I agree there's a scale upon which you can judge a party's libertarian or authoritarian leanings.

 "If you are looking for an authoritarian party you need look no further than the Liberal Democrats or Labour and to a slightly lesser extent, but not much, the Tories." 

This is a totally simplistic take on the concept of authoritarianism. There's a scale, and it's different for different issues. No one, except maybe my beloved Dr. Paul, can be 100% libertarian. Human beings, and their organisations, don't work that way.

 "The Tories over the last few years have raced to catch up with Labour’s authoritarian politically correct agenda. Under Cameron, they fully adopted it and in some ways exceeded it in an unprincipled race to grab votes. In the same way, unprincipled Cameron in opposition matched Brown’s catastrophic squandering of taxpayers’ money pound for pound until the markets and Banks collapsed and he suddenly had to change tack."

SIREN! If only someone could write one right wing article where "political correctness" was not mentioned. I struggle to continue reading articles after that old-chestnut rears it's ugly head. Political correctness in about 80% of cases it's applied to actually equals good manners. Now if you don't like being forced into good manners, that's a different thing but call it what it is!


 "The authoritarian Lib-Lab-Con parties want to regulate everything you do and even what you think through their chosen instruments of ‘elf ‘n safety, Security mate!, political correctness and Equality Fascism."

'“Don’t smoke that… Don’t drink… Eat your five portions of greens… You can’t say that… You can’t think that… Do what we say but not what we do… Smile for the security cameras… ”'

BLUE ALERT! Somebody change the light bulbs, not only is health and safety mentioned but it's unironically chavved up as 'elf 'n safety. I agree regulations are over the top, but seriously if health and safety regulations are your concern in a country where people still get locked up without charge then you're not paying attention.  

"The Lib-Lab-Cons have created a grotesque, maximum security, Kafkaesque society where everything including speech and thought are regulated in the name of security and equality. You can stab old ladies or promising teenagers and do three months, but woe betide if you transgress the language and thought police. The country is sick and tired of being told what to do and think."

I'm interested in where this is going... I suspect we're about to see a lot of hypocrisy on the "being told what to do" part any moment now. Again, I sort of agree that some of the laws in this country regarding things such as hate speech are destroying our liberty and I've said so plenty of times before on this blog.

"UKIP is a profoundly libertarian party dedicated to small government, low taxes, live and let live, free speech and thought and above all toleration of the rights and differences of others." 

I suspect this article is about to prove this wrong.


"UKIP thoroughly supports equal rights for same sex civil partnerships and equal treatment financially as married couples. As a matter of fact we support the same allowances for gay partners with children as married couples with children." 

 Aww... that's nice.

 "Our problem is with the word “marriage”." 

 Has Julie Bindel joined UKIP??

 "If the government does legislate in this way UKIP believes that any criticism of same sex marriage which may be expressed by someone on the basis of their faith could be classified as a “hate crime”. That would be a grotesque assault on peoples’ freedom of conscience. As we all know these things tend to be the thin end of the wedge once the government’s ludicrous overpaid /over-pensioned thought police get on the job."

What a load of garbage. A slippery slope argument based on nothing more than belief! UKIP haven't even waited for the consultation to begin before going all swivverly-eyed whilst MAKING THINGS UP.

Absolutely we should be vigilant about protecting the rights of the religious and the not-very-nice folks to dislike and criticise marriage equality all they want. But that's not a reason to not support marriage equality, it's a reason to ensure it's done properly!

"I have always fought for equal treatment and I believe civil partnerships have achieved that. However I think it does the gay community no good whatever to cross the street and pick a fight with people of faith." 

 Does UKIP know this consultation is about civil marriage, and that any talk of religious marriage equality is done because currently the Government refuses to recognise same-sex marriages carried out by religious organisations? Talk about being told what to do. Religious marriage equality isn't just about equality. It's about religious freedom! Not all people of faith believe the same thing, and UKIP lie to themselves if they believe differently. Hardly an individualistic view of the subject. There are plenty of libertarian arguments against the institution of Government sponsored marriage, and I wholeheartedly agree with them. Hell, they are my ultimate goal! Sadly UKIP haven't advanced ANY SORT of a libertarian argument here.

"We have for so long been persecuted ourselves that it seems like performing an unnecessary victory roll over a defeated enemy to demand that our perfectly satisfactory arrangements should be called “marriage”. 


This shows a lack of toleration towards others who look on marriage as a holy sacrament between man and woman." 

Tolerance is not a libertarian concept. One does not tolerate another's freedom. It's something that is theirs regardless of if you like it or not. I do not tolerate another's belief in a diety, that belief is their inate right as a human being.

"Cameron is using the gay community to make himself look hip with the voters without thinking through the ramifications."

 Yeah, we can see how well that's going down.


"By the way, 20 per cent of UKIP’s list candidates in the London Assembly Elections are openly gay. Commentators on PinkNews.co.uk have asked if I was a “real” gay. I await my invitation to come up for a cup of coffee!" 

 Oh you're gay. Being gay does not excuse such a poor (authoritarian!) argument.

 If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

My Feelings On Anti-Discrimination Laws: I Was Wrong

I'm embarked on a project of reflection on my specific political and moral beliefs and how they fit with  my liberal and libertarian beliefs in general

Going to be unpopular this one.

My position on anti-discrimination laws has been inconsistent over the last few years. In 2007 I was against them in principle, although looked forward with glee to the unhappiness they'd cause religious fundamentalists, whereas in 2010 I was of the opinion that one person's rights did trump another's in the Chris Grayling Bed and Breakfast controversy.

Well I'll put my hands up and apologise to all who debated with me over the Chris Grayling issue. I was wrong. I admit that I felt uncomfortable with my decision but I let my heart rule over my head. The Government should not be involved in dictating who stays in a guesthouse. That choice remains with the owners themselves.

It's not a position that sits well with me. Someone who bans someone else from their home, business or group based simply on who they are, rather than their character, is not someone I have much time for. They are, at the very least, impolite and poorly mannered. But the Government should not be in the business of punishing people for being nasty, unwelcoming people. Allowing our Government this power concedes that they are able to interfere in the private lives and business of British citizens. That is a dangerous precedent.

It's stories like this which really trouble me. It is simply unacceptable that people should be abused in public like this but if he wasn't inciting violence how can one have this busker arrested simply for being a knob? I do not mean to downplay the awful hurt that can be caused by words. Even the occasional whispered comment or snigger behind your back can leave me upset. Are we to have every idiot locked up? You know what I think would've been a more effective reaction? The same one as happened with the John Snow pub; group action. The busker is licensed to be in Trafalgar Square so must be there fairly regularly. A little news story here and there and viola he's surrounded by people on their own PA systems calling him out for his idiocy. He'd soon learn his lesson and the value of free speech is upheld. Calling in the authority of the state to punish this nutter is yet another dangerous precedent.

What about at work? Well if you don't work for a company who issue you with a contract stating they will protect you from harassment or want to work for a company who wouldn't want to hire you because of who you are then really I have to wonder about your choices. As I've said before; we all need to stop hiding (and allowing prejudiced idiots to hide) behind stupid laws that dictate how private agreements can and should be made. We need to stand together, win hearts and minds and call out those who discriminate and make sure their customers know how flipping nasty they are.

Again none of this sits well with me. I want to protect the vulnerable and to frustrate the efforts of anyone who is prejudiced. But if I am to be consistent with my belief in freedom from Government control (which has hurt so many in centuries past) then I cannot support anti-discrimination laws which are, in effect, allowing Government to police people's morality. If I don't want the Government policing my morality, I must stand up and stop them policing others.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Supporting Free Speech Hurts, That's Sort Of The Point

When I was growing up it was illegal (or at least everyone thought it was) for my school to teach me about homosexual relationships, illegal for me to join the Armed Forces, there was no possibility of partnership rights (and still no legal ability to get married), even when I turned 16 it was illegal for me to have sex! I can only thank those involved in the fight (individuals, political parties, and charities) who helped secure the freedoms I and many other gay men and women enjoy today.

This is why I am very keen to fight for others freedoms. Be it the struggle for marriage equality, transgender rights, or even the rights of religious bigots, I will be there. I have always taken Niemoller's famous quote (or perhaps misquote) to heart:

First, they came for the Jews. But I was not a Jew, so I did not speak up.

Then they came for the communists.

But I was not a communist, so I did not speak up.

Then they came for the trade unionists.

But I was not a trade unionist, so I did not speak up.

And when they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out for me.

This is why I've always seen it as deeply important to stand up for people's freedoms to speak and do as they please. If I'm not prepared to stand up for others liberty, I do not deserve my own.

The case of Paul Shaw (warning this link goes to Christian Voice's website. Please wear applicable safety equipment) is yet another example of an over reaction by those who don't care for free speech and by the police who should know better.

What he said was pretty odious and obnoxious:

I believe for example that homosexual and lesbian acts are immoral and that the law should reflect that; by making them unlawful as they once were; and so acting as a deterrent to such behaviour.

The concept of homophobia is nonsense and a play on words; it is not and has never been a phobia! A phobia is an un-natural fear; whereas a rejection of perverse behaviour; is a righteous godly fear; that fears to do wrong because it knows that there are consequences and punishment otherwise! This is the most pronounced example of a nation that has lost its way ..

I doubt he has any redeeming virtues and suspect he is a poor excuse for a decent human being. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to voice his weird, batshit crazy opinions. Why on Earth did anyone think to themselves "I need to report this to the police"? It wouldn't even cross my mind. I read far harsher stuff every single day online on a great many different issues. I've never even considered contacting the police about it. Instead I write up my own responses to them. That is how things should be done in a society which holds individual freedom up as something to aspire to.

No wonder the fight for LGBT liberation is so lacklustre at the moment. Has our community decided that instead of fighting prejudice and bigotry in the press, in the streets and in peoples homes they will simply use the police as proxies to silence and make martyrs of our opponents?

We need to find our fighting spirit again to hold people like Paul Shaw to account, not hide behind stupid laws and hope the bad people will just shut up. It's not going to happen. We need to win hearts and minds, and we need to stand up for Paul Shaw's right to be an offensive git. If we don't, how can we take the moral high ground? What defence will we have if the shoe ever gets back on the other foot?

We need to be better people than these religious fundamentalists. Becoming the new fundamentalists is not the way to do it.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Standing Up For Homophobes

Anti-gay preacher arrested for 'homophobic' election leaflets. That's the headline of a story today on Pink News. His crime? To write an election leaflet that was insulting.

According to the Colchester Daily Gazette, it condemned gays and lesbians and said they should be jailed.

Mr Shaw was arrested on June 11th on suspicion of inciting hatred, specifically homophobia. He was released on bail without charge until the middle of next month.

"Inciting hatred"? A bit like this:

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

This is the teaching of Judaism and Christianity. And really this Paul Shaw is actually seeking less than what his religion would require. Are we to start locking people up merely for what they believe, and attempting to encourage others to believe?

If he was inciting VIOLENCE then I'd support him being locked up. Inciting violence is always wrong, whatever the case. But he wasn't. He was inciting hatred. Hatred is, in my opinion, morally wrong and something we should work against. But we cannot legislate against it. If we did, our prisons would soon be full.

Freedom of speech must be paramount, the right to speak freely where not inciting violence is one that should be cherished. Even if some stupid idiots use it to speak from some dark place within themselves, or from a religious text such as the Bible. We must defeat them with the power and quality of our arguments, not make them martyrs by silencing them for holding incredibly backward views.

I'd argue people such as Westboro Baptist Church do us a favour by being so ridiculously hateful that it renders their arguments invalid. Let the homophobes be hoisted by their own petards.

It's the insidious homophobia demonstrated in things such as this video from the Catholic Church we must really fight against.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist