How do these bigots get into high office so frequently? An Irish official in charge of the country's health care cheerfully made some outrageous accusations on the air.
Homosexuality is a mental illness, at least according to the head of Northern Ireland's health committee. Iris Robinson MP, who, with impeccable timing, put forth her views on a radio show while responding to the news that a local man had been badly beaten in a homophobic attack.
After apparently branding homosexuality as "disgusting, loathsome, nauseating, wicked and vile" she went on to recommend that "I have a very lovely psychiatrist who works with me in my offices and his Christian background is that he tries to help homosexuals - trying to turn away from what they are engaged in".
Weird. It's a common attitude among clueless twits, but how can anyone acquire even a modicum of education and still cling to such hateful ideas?
- Log in to post comments
PZ, you'll have really pissed Iris Robinson off by describing her as Irish - well done! She's a member of the Democratic Unionist Party, led by Ian Paisley until recently, and now by Peter Robinson, Iris's husband.
"but how can anyone acquire even a modicum of education and still cling to such hateful ideas?"
Magic Man done it?
She's obviously a closet, self-hating lesbian.
"An Irish official in charge of the country's health care" makes it sound like the Minister for Health & Children of the Irish Republic... we're talking about Northern Ireland here, which is a little different.
we're talking about Northern Ireland here, which is a little different.
Yup, the UK recognizes gay civil partnerships. The Republic of Ireland does not.
Please, distinguish between Ireland (Republic of) and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has its own administration, is part of the UK (though as the story demonstrates, is culturally very un-British), and is effectively the Appalachia of the island of Ireland.
Adding to Nick #1. The DUP are Northern Ireland's biggest party. For as long as I can remember, they have been the most bigotted fundamentalist bunch of clowns to ever ruin a country. This latest outburst comes as absolutely no surprise. The Reverend Ian Paisley, the founder of the party, started a movement against homosexuality that culminated in Belfast City Hall having a huge banner with the legend "Save Ulster from Sodomy".
The same clowns once banned a very clean pop group called ELO from appearing in Ballymena. ELO's most famous song is a jaunty little number called "Mr Blue Sky"; as innocent as it sounds. The DUP banned them because they would be a corrupting influence on the young. That's the sort of DUP shit I had to deal with when I was growing up! You may have asshats in the U.S., but nothing like these guys.
That's rich! Considering the (in closet), alleged, gay population (catholic) priesthood.
"...how can anyone acquire even a modicum of education and still cling to such hateful ideas?"
Because there's education, and then there's education. How does an MBA and thus knowing how to improve your company's bottom line extend your empathy based on a scientific understanding of what homosexuality is?
Her comments are both despicable and stupid, but for different reasons. Despicable, because any persecution is unacceptable, but stupid becuse she had the intellectual potential to overcome her dogma... and she blew it.
An Irish official...
Given that she is in Northern Ireland, which is a British territory or colony or something, shouldn't she be described as a British official? Ireland's got some pretty backwards laws and people, but this one's on Britain's doorstep, not Ireland's.
Brendan - I doubt the majority of those from Northern Ireland would describe themselves as "very un-British". In fact being British is their defining identity and reason they wish to remain within the UK.
Tom - As idiotic as the DUP may be, at least they did not sanction blowing up people as Sinn Fein did purely because of their nationality. See the warrington bomb attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrington_bomb_attacks) that killed a 12 and 3 year old because they were British. If that is not bigotry nothing is.
Wow, that was a virulent homophobic tirade. But thank goodness we have science and statistics on our side, so this is fun.
I propose for you the law of batshit virulent homophobia: if you spend so much time and thought and frothy spittle on bashing gays, you probably are one. Because, you know, no one else cares very much.
The statistical evidence I wish to present is the entire Republican Party of the US.
Conclusion: Ms. Iris doth protest too much, and should go off and find a girlfriend rather than boring the rest of us.
Ms. Robinson being a politician, what reason have we to believe she possesses a modicum of education?
Dianne - She should be described as Northern Irish. Northern Ireland is a full constituent nation/province within the United Kingdom, but is not part of Great Britain or a colony.
Help ? Lovely psychiatrist ?
Oh yeah, I know this kind of help, my best friend went through this kind of help 5 years ago. Oh, he rejected his homosexuality allright, also became a "born again". He was "cured".
He hasn't had any relationship, nor sex, heterosexual nor homosexual in 5 years, is permanantely depressed, under intense medication, and still rejects his homosexuality.
What a lovely form of help indeed...
These people are criminals !
It would be nice if these idiots would occasionally read the odd bit of science. It's readily available in easy-to-understand form too, such as in today's New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-l…
Doesn't sound like a mental illness to me.
To Jack #11. Let's not turn this into a discussion on the NI troubles or we'll need a new server to hold the comments! All I'll say is just because the IRA committed dreadful crimes (on that I agree), it doesn't excuse the bigotry and hatefulness of Paisley and his cronies. Paisley was best buddies with Bob Jones - that tells you a lot about the man.
She's on a mission from God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWgMaFGN3SQ
Actually she'd probably be in favor of having Leprechauns stoned for wizardry. As a few of the others have pointed out she's not Irish, she's British (fundamentalists from Northern Ireland also refuse to accept the theory of geography).
Northern Ireland is a full constituent nation/province within the United Kingdom
How is that different from being a colony?
I doubt the majority of those from Northern Ireland would describe themselves as "very un-British". In fact being British is their defining identity and reason they wish to remain within the UK. - Jack Donnelly
True - but the majority of British certainly would!
As Kimpatsu says, there's education and education. In NI, its mostly in the hands of the churches, and its segregation along sectarian lines contributes greatly to the continuing tensions there. However, Paisley's "Save Ulster from Sodomy" campaign got considerable Catholic support IIRC. Nonetheless, it failed in its aim to keep homosexual acts illegal in Northern Ireland after a 1981 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights.
The DUP has just added to its shameful record by helping the UK government to push through the House of Commons a law allowing people to be held for up to 42 days without charge - 36 Labour MPs voted against, along with the other opposition parties, but the DUP's 9 MPs gave the government a slim majority. It is, I regret to say, a popular move. Those of us who value our freedoms are left depending on the House of Lords to block it - which they can't do indefinitely.
That's an interesting statement she's making there. She could just as easily have stated, "I know a nice psychiatrist", then, "Incidentally, I know a self-deluded homophobic christian". I notice that she does not claim that her "very lovely" psychiatrist is running a psychiatric practice "helping" homosexuals, or that this "very lovely" psychiatrist is claiming any scientific basis for his "help".
Of course her statement could also be read as tacit admission of her own homosexuality: she doesn't state how she knows this "very lovely" psychiatrist who seems to be so concerned with the behaivour of homosexuals...
"but how can anyone acquire even a modicum of education and still cling to such hateful ideas?"
... cognitive dissonance comes to mind ... A feeling I often get when talking to true believers (not necessarily religious).
But then again, maybe I just don't want to acknowledge that I am eternally doomed! DOOMED, I SAY! Ha, Ha...
On top of what you've already said, I also have no idea how she could say these things in the wake of a homophobic hate crime.
I mean, even if you take something that genuinely IS a disorder, like - say - depressions, nobody would go on record saying that depressions are "disgusting, loathsome, nauseating, wicked and vile" right after someone's been assaulted for being depressive.
In fact, thinking about it, I'd say that nobody would go on record saying that, period - quite the opposite, I'd say that the fact that she made these comments betrays the fact that she doesn't actually think of homosexuality as an illness to begin with, since if she did, she'd be more compassionate.
As it stands, she's most likely just a hateful hatemonger who hates GLBT folks as a matter of course and tries to justify it by saying "homosexuality is a disorder" even though she doesn't believe so, just like racists try to justify their racism by coming up with claims about superior or inferior "races".
Coincidentally, this would also explain why an educated person appears to believe that homosexualiy is a disorder.
If we go into a history lesson of all the protestant vs Catholic violence in Irish history we will be here forever. The DUP represent Protestants, Sinn Fein Catholic (more or less) and the extremes of either are intractable. Needless to say, religion very much rules here in the Republic of Ireland, and in Northern Ireland (UK).
(FYI The Republic has only been an independent country since 1922/29, they are still making it up as they go)
Tom - I agree wholeheartedly. Just giving the other side and pointing out there are no good or bad guys here. Sorry mate.
Dianne - Northern Ireland has the same status as England, Scotland and Wales.
All four are members of the United Kingdom and so you cannot be a colony of yourself. Just as Texas is not the same as California and Texans are not Californians but neither is a colony of the rest. They are all Americans.
All four, including Northern Ireland, can leave the United Kingdom if they wish. As of today a majority in each nation wishes to remain within the UK.
She is both Irish and British, in the same way as someone from Cardiff is Welsh, and British. Where PZ went wrong with the phrasing was "in charge of the country's health care" where the 'country' was implaied to be the RoI. (So yeah, PZ, you should have said 'Northern Irish'.)
And BrendanH #6: this demonstrates absolutely nothing about Northern Irish culture as a whole, merely that Iris Robinson is a homophobic git. We have those on the mainland as well.
See, this is the kind of think which makes me wish there was a praty standing on a platform of pulling Great Britain out of the United Kingdom.
Jack and Nick: Thanks. I misunderstood the implication of "full constituent nation" which sounded to me like it was considered a separate country under the "protection" of the UK rather than being fully part of the UK (i.e. like Puerto Rico is to the US rather than like California is to the US). Also I thought "British" referred to a person who was a citizen of the UK so was confused by the references to N Ireland being "un-British". Does "British" really only refer to people who live in England?
Gee... Talk about living in the past!
Homosexuality was dropped from the DSM some 35 years ago. It's also well known that a person who has identified and reconciled his or her sexual orientation and sexual identity exhibit healthier psychological function than a person who has not.
What Iris Robinson advocates is harmful. How typical of "faith-based" approaches to mental or physical health! She should be removed from her position of authority. Immediately.
'Reparative' therapy: does it work?
I'd say that the fact that she made these comments betrays the fact that she doesn't actually think of homosexuality as an illness to begin with, since if she did, she'd be more compassionate.
Well, clearly she thinks it is a "disorder" in the same class as "psychotic mass murderer" is a mental disorder. Clearly, there are few who would be compassionate if a mass murderer was beaten to a pulp in the streets, yet still say that he is sick and needs psychiatric treatment.
Innerbrat #26: this demonstrates absolutely nothing about Northern Irish culture as a whole
Sadly, yes it does. I grew up there, and lived in Belfast and north Antrim until my late 20s - and belive me, she is absolutely and utterly typical of the place. It is infested with evangelical and fundamentalist morons and thugs and frankly I'm very glad to be shot of it. It's a lovely place but it's largely inhabited by knuckle-dragging trolls.
She is of course, a "born again Christian" (from the BBC1 interview).
"I'm defending the word of God" , What a twot !
This is Britain (not the US) and I think they are going to manage to get her fired from her current position.
That would be very nice.
Dianne -
The misunderstanding is that thinking the UK or Britain is one nation, or more commonly England.
The UK is one nation-STATE but is made up of four nations itself that existed centuries before they came to gether to form Great Britain and then the United Kingdom. Namely, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
England is not Great Britain, it is merely one of the nations, although by far the biggest. It is better to think of the UK as a federation like the old Yugoslavia or the USSR, except I think much closer.
Great Britain = England + Scotland + Wales
The United Kingdom = Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Hence, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Hope this helps.
Technically, Great Britain is the island with most of England, Scotland and Wales on it ("Great" as in the biggest of the British archipelago). The name of the country is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", which is a bit cumbersome, but describes the fact that Northern Ireland isn't actually geographically part of Great Britain. Most people in the UK call themselves English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish, but when they need to describe their relationship to the state, they say "British" because "Great British and/or Northern Irish" is a bit long. Like citizens of the USA call themselves American, because United Statesian sounds silly.
Dianne: It is probably possible to argue the "British" should refer to Great Britain (i.e. England, Wales and Scotland) but usually it means "of the U.K." (even on legal forms and stuff).
I think people were using "Un-British" in the same way one might call pockets of constitution-hating theocrats in the States "Un-American". i.e. saying that DUPtards are opposed to British values of fair play and tolerance.
In doing this, they may have been flattering my homeland somewhat; there are plenty of bigotted scumbags through Britain.
A caveat to the above is that Ireland was a member of the United Kingdom but left. Controversially the vote went to the counties of Ireland rather than the nation as a whole and the counties that wanted to stay became Northern Ireland.
That is where the "troubles" comes from, or at least the modern troubles.
Dianne@29 "British" is a contested term - since NI is not part of the island of Great Britain, it's reasonable to say its inhabitants are not British (the "Great" by the way, despite what our stupider patriots think, refers solely to physical size, originally serving to distinguish Great Britain from Brittany, or "Little Britain"). However, there's no neat alternative term meaning a citizen of the UK (I sometimes call myself a Ukanian), and as Jack says, the majority of NI's inhabitants would probably describe themselves as British. Culturally I'm both British and English (although I live in Scotland), and until the last few decades, most Welsh, Scots and English would have happily described themselves as British. Even within England, many people confuse "English" and "British", although this is becoming less common. All three parts of Britain now have considerable numbers who reject the term. My guess is that the UK may not last much longer.
People like these acquiring an education are like gold plating an onion; it will look very pretty on the outside but the core will still rot and stink to high heaven.
Who said that education doesn't make people less stupid, only more educated?
That wasn't stupid...
Dianne said:
No, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are all separate countries (technically Wales is a Principality but the general idea is the same) within the UK and are, very definitely, NOT part of England, which is also a country within UK. People from all these Countries are called British.
The reference to NI as "un-British" refer to the fact that the politics and attitudes common there are considered (by other Brits) very different from the politics and attitudes found elsewhere in the UK.
Whether this is actually so any more is debatable, especially since the killings that marred NI politics mercifully petered out in the 90's (partly thanks to Bill Clinton) and Western Scotland has it's own share of similar sectarian problems.
She could just as easily have stated, "I know a nice psychiatrist",
It's called "dialect", love.
(I am not really from Lancashire)
"Leprechauns always looked suspiciously fey to me"
Perhaps it's because someone is always after his lucky charms...evidently, they're magically delicious!
It's a bit complicated by cultural concerns - Unionists in the North may say that they are British, not Irish - but generally British means from Britain, the island, all of which is in the UK but which is not all of the UK. See
here.
On the other hand, any part of the UK can be considered to be "un-British" if they differ significantly from what the speaker considers the essential spirit of Britishness, or just the majority attitude that he wants associated with the label. Saying that the people of state X are thoroughly un-American doesn't imply that state X is not part of the political entity that is the USA, for example.
we're talking about Northern Ireland here, which is a little different.
When I was young and still going to the excessively bigoted private High School my parents put me in, things like being of Irish, Scottish, English and/or German descent were very important to ass-clowns that made up the student body.
Open racism, whether from the KKK pamphlets I found in my locker, to the open derision of Mexicans (despite they made the agricultural community work and many of their fathers well-off enough to send their kids to private school), Jews, and other ethnic groups was the way of it. It used to make me sick.
One of the side-bigotry issues was the IRA and it's bombing campaign. There were very few people descended from the English (I was one, not that the idiots could figure it out despite my English surname that's actually a small town in England). There were, however, a lot of Irish & Scots-Irish in the group. So the sympathy was for the brave "freedom fighters."
Anyway, I couldn't stand the racism and the support of the terrorist campaign. So after a year of this I decided to tell everyone I was French when they played their stupid games. But that I also had Irish blood, of which I was not proud and if I could isolate the Irish part of me, I'd cut it off.
Even if it was my dick.
Reading this women's words, I have those thoughts. Again.
"This is Britain (not the US) and I think they are going to manage to get her fired from her current position."
What?
This is Northern Ireland we are talking about. She'd certainly be kicked out of office if this was the UK parliment but its not. She is actually honestly speaking the actual beliefs of a substantial percentage of the Northern Irish population.
If you want to get a good handle on the US fundamentalist problem then you cannot ignore the historical roots which lie in Northern Ireland. Bishop Ussher calculating the 6000 year old age of the earth to John Nelson Darby's discovery and promotion of the 'rapture'have not been the only influences to come from Ireland (in those days there was no 'Northern' Ireland).
...and is effectively the Appalachia of the island of Ireland.
I remember my youth in the hill-country of Tennessee. The anti-catholic riots, the walled cities, the constant military presence... oh wait, I don't remember that at all!
We did a fair job of leaving that stuff behind us. We kept the rest of the stupidity, but not that shit.
But that I also had Irish blood, of which I was not proud and if I could isolate the Irish part of me, I'd cut it off.
James Joyce would probably agree. I don't get the impression he was too fond of his home country.
Has nobody read the full story?
This was her response to a brutal attack by homophobic thugs.
What's even worse about it is that as a member of the government, in charge of health no less, she didn't criticise the thugs, but told the gay man he should seek to cure himself.
As though he brought the attack on himself, and deserved it, for being gay.
The incident has been reported to the police as a hate crime, which will cause some cognitive dissonance among American First Amendment purists who would also like to see her get her come uppance.
Hmf. Nice work turning a discussion on extreme homophobia (which last I checked most countries have some representatives of) into a full-fledged Irish-hating fest. Ireland is fine, it has some horrible people (like everywhere else) and some fantastic people (like everywhere else). Making blanket comments about the Irish or Ireland = not much better than your homophobic friend Iris you claim to be so superior to. Jeez.
Oscar Wilde was the greatest playwright of his age, the toast of London and friend to some of the wealthiest, best educated, most influential, most erudite and forward thinking scholars of the time, yet he was tried for homosexuality, thrown in prison for 8 years, exiled from London, and eventually committed suicide. How many of those friends do you think stood by him? Education cannot change a person's formative development or the basic assumptions of their society.
Are there ever homophobic incidents outside of religion? Seriously, I have never seen or heard of someone who was anti-gay, who did not get their homophobia from their religion. I imagine it's possible, but I've never encountered it. The usual argument in defense of religion, is that it is a tool for good or bad; there would be wars even without religion, etc. Can anyone enlighten me?
Cassie - Have you read the thread? :)
Iris Robinson would not see herself as Irish and does not hold an Irish passport.
I therefore fail to see this thread as an attack on Ireland.
Thank you, Cassie, that needed to be said.
Sigmund,
still, Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and she has to obey the laws.
"The Police Service of Northern Ireland will investigate whether the wife of the province's First Minister is guilty of a hate crime after she called homosexuality disgusting,loathsome, nauseating, wicked and vile."
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-7861.html
If she is found guilty, do you think she will keep her position as chair of the Northern Ireland Assembly's health committee ?
I don't think that the fact that this is happening in Northern Ireland changes anything from if it were happening in any other part of the UK.
There used to be a joke told about how when landing at Aldergrove, the airport for Belfast, the pilot would remind passengers to set their watches back 50 years. The said thing about the joke is how true it was (and still is) in some respects. Compared to the rest of the UK social attitudes in Northern Irelnd tend to be somewhat less enlightened.
Would anyone with an ounce of compassion describe schizophrenia as "disgusting, loathsome, nauseating, wicked and vile"? Absolutely not. She's not treating it as a mental illness. She's treating it as a sin. Her offer of "help" is a sham, but I'm sure that's already obvious to this crowd.
Blech.
Oh shit, this thread's going to go to hell in a handbasket :o)
For the people asking questions, I'd recommend the Wikipedia article on Northern Ireland politics. Sure, it has POV editors on both sides, but it'll get rid of some of the most egregious misconceptions and misunderstandings and clue people in to the political/sectarian loading of toponymy and other labels and terminology there. If you randomly pick someone in Northern Ireland, it's pot luck whether they label themselves British, Irish, or Northern Irish. In reality, nobody can do any better than respect each individual's self-identification. It's damn-near impossible to say anything about Northern Ireland other than "the Giant's Causeway is really interesting" without pissing somebody off.
I reckon that that Northern Ireland politics has something in common with quantum mechanics: if you think you understand Northern Ireland politics, you don't understand Northern Ireland politics!
negentropyeater - She will not be prosecuted. People in the UK still believe in Free Speech - regardless how offensive it is to most people.
Sounds like Catholic influence.
Enjoy.
Tim Fuller - You couldn't be more wrong if you said George Bush was influenced by his local mosque! :)
> That's rich! Considering the (in closet), alleged, gay population
> (catholic) priesthood.
# 8,
Iris is an Ulster unionist, those people are diehard presbyterians and have spend the last 400 years hating the catholic church, although inter-sectarian relations might have improved nowadays. Probably she considers all catholic priests gay at best, pedophiliac at worst.
> There were, however, a lot of Irish & Scots-Irish in the group.
> So the sympathy was for the brave "freedom fighters."
# 45,
Scotch-Irish protestants - as opposed to catholic Irish - backing the IRA? That sounds like the black chapter of the KKK to me (At least when it comes to the 20th century. Some presbyterian intellectuals experimented with protestant/catholic cooperation against the English in the late 18th/early 20th century. But the only practical outcome was the Irish flag: Green for the catholics, orange for the protestants, white for peace).
Matt Penfold said:
Unfortunately regarding homosexuality it's only a matter of degree. It took a long and nasty campaign to get rid of the Homophobic Section 28 legislation in Scotland (legislation that forbade schoolteachers "promoting" (ie discussing at all) homosexuality in schools) post-devolution. Although they might have been more polite about it in public I find it hard to believe that those trying to keep the legislation on the books hold attitudes towards homosexuality that differ greatly from those of Iris Robinson.
Bendy Wendy might not be my favourite politician at the moment (to put it mildly) but she at least had the guts to stand up to that bunch of homophobic bigots.
negentropyeater,
I think you're absolutely right. I would be astonished if she still has a job by close of business tomorrow. I think the only question is whether she'll be allowed the 'dignity' of resigning (no doubt she'll argue her statements were taken out of context).
Thus spake Tim Fuller:
LOL. Priceless! She'd love that! AFAIR, the Robinsons are Pentecostal.
I'm in no way defending Iris Robinson (I would be the last I really dislike the woman) but she did not actually say that homosexuality was "disgusting, loathsome, nauseating, wicked and vile", she said it was "an abomination" to which the host then rhymed off all the words describing the word abomination, she didn't at any point use the words disgusting, loathsome, nauseating, wicked and vile to describe gay people. She is also not in charge of health, she is chairperson of the health committee which scrutinizes, the work of the actually health minister Michael McGimpsey.
Education has nothing to do with this. The disagreement is over values, not matters of fact. If you think something is wicked and vile, changing your mind isn't as simple as going to school and learning that, according to the latest scientific evidence, it isn't actually wicked or vile after all.
The question of whether or not something is a mental illness is similarly values-laden. Whether or not something is an organic mental condition is a matter of fact, but classifying it as an "illness" depends on the judgment that it is in some way harmful or dysfunctional.
Jack Donnelly,
it doesn't matter what the "UK believes", it matters, what is the law.
READ !
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/hate-crime/
I find it "disgusting, loathsome, nauseating, wicked and vile" that she might have authority over so much as a breakfast burrito!
Lilly de Lure;
It was the same with the anti-discrimination in the provision of services bill. The catholic church - and other organisations, although the church was most voiciferous - screamed blue murder when told that they would have to open adoptions up to gay couples. The fact that their protest was even considered - much less took up press column inches - spoke volumes about how the government really considers gay rights.
Just like sexism, homophobia is alive an kicking throughout the UK. Just because a few laws have been passed banning discrimination, doesn't mean that the underlying intollerence isn't there. To all practical intents, the views expressed by Iris Robinson are not all that far departed from the English MP, Ruth Kelly.
Claudia said:
Consider that seconded - hopefully negentropyeater is right and she won't for much longer!
Can I also add that Mrs. Robinson is also a Member of The British Parliament. In fact in the recent debate in the House of Commons on Stem Cell research she spent 3 minutes quoting from the Bible.
negentropyeater - I'm afraid you have misunderstood belief with incident.
She will not be prosecuted for saying what she believes. There is still such a thing as freedom of speech.
She has not said that others must injure or hurt homosexuals. She will not be prosecuted - nor should she.
She may however lose her position as head of the committee.
It's very unlikely that she will be sacked, she is the wife of the First Minister of Northern Ireland. Its expected that the DUP will reshuffle the positions of their Chairpersons very soon so expect her to become the new chairperson for Education very soon as the former chairperson for education has just been made Environment minister.
Ah - so I suppose that vicious beatings are also here recipe for curing bipolars, schizos, depressives and miscallaneous other 'crazies'?
Oh ... they already did that? Nevermind then ...
Sorry, PZ. Education's got next to nuttin' to do with bigotry. The name Watson immediately comes to mind. And there are so many others.
Bigotry seems a hardcore, down-in-the-muck-of-the-brain's-wiring kind of a thing. Some of it's amenable to reason and experience, but not all. I know some very well-educated anti-Muslims, homophobes, racists, and so on.
It is appallingly sad to think there is nothing about education that ensures an open mind towards others who are different. But I think it's probably true.
the Giant's Causeway is really interesting
Well, now you've gone too far. "Interesting" I could've taken, but "really interesting"? In your Irish dreams! Ever heard of the Everglades, the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone National Park? I thought you were a reasonable person, but J's right - you're a rabid anti-American bigot. Kiss my ass, Caulfield. ;)
By the way -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Heritage_Site#Lists_of_World_Heritag…
(And boy am I glad now that I didn't make a comment to the effect that Robinson was probably drunk whe she said it. Instead, later I'll take out the shot glass my great-great-...-grandfather brought over with him during the Potato Famine, and toast to gay-rights defenders everywhere.)
C McCormack said:
I also notice she was amoung the DUP MPs who's votes allowed Gordon Brown to extend the time prisoners may be held without trial to 42 days.
Evidently her education didn't help her understand the Principles of the Magna Carta any better than it did basic human rights.
@McCormick # 75: ...The First minister of NI married that thing?
SC, I feel an SNL reference coming on :o)
Dear Sir/Madam,
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, ...
I said:
I meant held without charge not trial - sorry about that!
Lilly de Lure,
that deal was all about money, it was a matter of I'll scratch your back and you'll scratch mine. Its been the way of parties in NI for years wait until a Prime Minister is in a position where he needs the votes of the smaller Irish parties and then hand them a wish list.
@Michelle #80
In Northern Ireland politics, (especially on the unionist side) everyone's married to everyone. It's like the political party version of FLDS.
So if she "believes" she should stir up hate against a certain group of people, in this case homosexuals, then that's protected by freedom of speech.
If it were so clear that she's not guilty of a hate crime, why would the police be investigating ?
The PSNI have to investigate any complaint of hate crime they get. There was a similar case with one of her fellow DUP colleagues, Iain Paisley Jr. (who is also the son of the then First Minister the Rev. Iain Paisley) he said that homosexuality was disgusting or something to that effect. Nothing happened to him. (As a side note he eventually lost his job due to some dodgy dealings regarding house deeds and planning permission.)
Lilly de Lure: Urgh, Why did you have to remind me that a Labour government (a Labour government) is relying on the DUP and Anne Widecombe to fuck up ancient liberties.
After jumping the shark Labour went careering threouhght the fucking looking glass.
PZ! Now see what you've started. Peace in NI in the last few years; now it's all flared up again. :-)
Emmet #59 wins the thread with
negentropyeater - Where did she tell any other person to harm or injure anyone else? She gave her own beliefs - and as disgusting as it is - she has broken no laws. The day we prosecute others for what they believe rather they do is the day Fascism wins.
In fact the web-page you gave from the Home Office concerning hate crime (Racial and Religious Hatred Act) seems only to applt to England and Wales anyway.
As for why the Police is investigating well it is quite simple. If others complain then the Police investigate. That goes for everyone. Whether they take it forward is another matter - and they will not.
To all those who are claiming that education has nothing to do with bigotry, what planet are you people on ?
Do you really want to be claiming that acceptance of minority groups is not in anyway related to exposure to members of those groups ? Do you really think that more and more people knowing someone in their family, or at work who is gay does not reduce homophobia ? Do you also think that educating religious groups separately , as happens in Northern Ireland to overwhelming extent, does not contribute to towards the hatred and distrust the Catholics have of the Protestant, and Protestants have of the Catholics ? If so, you need to explain away the data that shows that attitudes do change when children are educated in mixed schools.
I cannot remember who it was, but I read an article by someone who was a Jew and who went to Northern Ireland to work. When he was asked his religion and said he was Jewish the next question nearly always was: A Catholic or a Protestant Jew ?
Jack Donnelly #11:
Or remember the (UK) Birmingham pub bombings of 1974 committed by the IRA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_pub_bombings
I was a few hundred yards away when they went off. I was at a symphony concert - I've often wondered why they didn't use a concert hall as a target?
Then in 1996 they destroyed 6 floors of my company's office space in Manchester. None of my colleagues were killed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Arndale
Lily,
With regards homophobic bigotry in the rest of the UK, I am pretty sure it does still exist. However I am also pretty sure that had an MP from any of the main three parties, or the Welsh or Scottish Nats, come out and said such a thing they would pretty quickly have been disowned by their party, and most likely being facing problems in being selected to stand for their seat come the next election.
Jack,
is calling homosexuality "disgusting,loathsome, nauseating, wicked and vile", a hate crime ?
This is the law (which applies to the entire UK) :
"Hate crime is any criminal offence committed against a person or property that is motivated by an offender's hatred of someone because of their:
-...
-sexual orientation"
"Hate crime can take many forms including:
-verbal abuse or insults"
"Our definition of a hate crime:
Any incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hate."
"The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced tougher sentences for offences motivated by hatred of the victim's sexual orientation (this must now be taken into account by the sentencing court as an aggravating factor, in addition to race or religious hate motivation)."
@Matt Penfold #90
Having come through a catholic education in N. Ireland I can agree with you some what but there are lots of other factors you have to take into such as political and socio-economic reasons. If you have a country that is thriving economically and all sections of a community are benefiting financially you will see sectarianism drop significantly, irrespective of what you are taught in your Religious Education class. If one community has a higher level of unemployment, then you'll see sectarianism boil to the surface.
I'm also sure that the question whether the Jewish guy was a catholic jew or a protestant jew was a joke. When people find out I dont hold any religion they ask me am a catholic atheist or protestant atheist. I guess it's one way to find out where your sympathy lies.
negentropyeater - No it is NOT a hate crime. Regardless of what one person thinks or says, as long as they do not ask other people to hurt others they break no law.
What you are looking for is THOUGHT crime. Thankfully we are not there yet.
For those wanting a bit more history of the British Isles, UK, etc:
Pre-1542: England conquered Ireland in the 12th Century. England annexed Wales in 1284 (Statute of Rhuddlan). Scotland was independent.
1542: England and Wales formally united in the Acts of Union of 1536 and 1542.
1707: Scotland, England & Wales formally united in the Act of Union of 1707, under central government covering all of Great Britain.
1801: Great Britain and Ireland formally united under central government in the 1800 Act of Union.
1921: Most of Ireland became independent, leaving the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Post-1997: Some powers have been devolved to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
@negentropyeater #93
Iris Robinson never used those words she said it was "an abomination"(she was quoting from the Bible) and the radio host described what an abomination was using the words vile, disgusting etc.
Intelligence and education has little to do with it.
Much of exclusionary behavior of this sort happens on a far more primitive level. It's truly irrational.
I mean really: If homosexuality is a treatable disease, why describe it as "disgusting, loathsome, nauseating, wicked and vile"? Are cancer patients vile for taking large amounts of morphine? Is a man nursing a broken leg lazy for not walking?
Her opinion is borne of the same instinct that caused Og to drive out the hunchbacked child from the tribe. "Different is bad."
I was going to say that you're late to the party with this one, but at least you actually heard about it - here in the Republic of Ireland it seems to have escaped everyone's attention.
Then again, a lot of people here do treat Northern Ireland like some sort of reality-phased Twilight Zone...
C McCormick,
Of course there are many factors involved in people having bigoted attitudes. The point of my post was to make it clear that despite what some where claiming (Hylobates Lar in particular), education does come into it. It may not be the largest factor but it is important because it is one area where the state can directly address bigoted attitudes a child may be being exposed to at home.
C McCormick,
You are correct she did not actually use those words. However it seems she did not correct the presenter when he used those words to describe her views. Is it therefore unfair to assume that she does view homosexuality in those terms ?
@vitaminbook #99
I'm sorry to rain on your parade but the Republic of Ireland is just as conservative as NI on social issues, many people in the republic would probably also refer to homosexuality as "an abomination" and you share many of the same policies as the north when it comes to abortion and contraception.
@Matt Penfold #101
When the radio host began using these words she was no longer talking to him, the phone conversation had finished at this point.
Well abortion is illegal in both the Republic and Northern Ireland. Those who are opposed to it in both countries like to think that means no woman has an abortion. What in fact happens is that women travel to Britain to have a termination.
C McCormick,
why does the article say,
"Speaking on Stephen Nolan's live radio programme last week, the Strangford MLA and MP described homosexuality as "disgusting, nauseous, shamefully wicked and vile", adding: "It's an abomination."
Can you please prove that she didn't use these words, when on another article on finds,
""The Police Service of Northern Ireland will investigate whether the wife of the province's First Minister is guilty of a hate crime after she called homosexuality disgusting,loathsome, nauseating, wicked and vile."
What are all these people who feel they need to defend this moron ?
She hates gays and it's obvious, if she's not guilty of a hate crime, then I don't know what is a hate crime. I'm gay and this women makes my life much riskier.
C McCormick,
OK, so it may be unfair to criticise her for using those terms. However what she did say was bad enough and in a civilised society would result in her being sacked. The presenter would have been better to describe her as being vile and disgusting. There could be no complaints about lack of accuracy had he done that.
@negentropyeater #105
It says she "described" homosexuality as vile, disgusting etc, it didn't say she said. As I said it was Stephen Nolan who used the words vile, disgusting etc.
negentropyeater
"What are all these people who feel they need to defend this moron ?"
Who has defended her views? There is a difference between defending free speech and the views it takes.
"She hates gays and it's obvious, if she's not guilty of a hate crime, then I don't know what is a hate crime."
This is quite a scary viewpoint. It is not illegal or a criminal offence - nor should it be - to hate anyone. It is not illegal to hate gays. You cannot start making criminals of those whose personal view you do not like. That is true fascism in a state.
However, it IS illegal to hurt and discriminate or ask others to hurt and discriminate. And quite rightly so.
Are you honestly saying that anyone who is discovered to hate another grouping - even if they would never act upon that hatred in any way - should be made criminals?
Matt Penfold said:
Fair point, they do have to be more polite that Iris Robinson was, however they do also pander to some pretty nasty homophobic types and attitudes - Ruth Kelly and the great Homosexual Adoption Debate is one example, the SNP's relationship with Brian Souter is another.
The words might have become more polite (which is great) but the underlying bigotry remains underneath the "concern" for "moral values".
Oh you will not find me defending Ruth Kelly. I cannot stand the woman.
With regards the recent adoption debate, it is worth keeping in mind that the policy of the Government was that no special provisions should be made for religious groups, and that no such provisions were made other than getting a couple of years grace before having to comply with the law. There are some, indeed maybe many, MPs who are like Ruth Kelly and pay only lip service when they talk of inclusion. However there are a good number who genuinely think that it is wrong to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation and will oppose attempts to provide religious groups with exceptions from equal opportunity legislation.
Just like to make a correction Iris Robinson was still on the phone when the radio host said that in a thesaurus abomination means, vile, disgusting, nauseous etc. But she never directly used those words. Think I might have said previously that she had hung up at that point.
Jack,
but was she, or not, using words with the intention to stir up hatrid against homosexuals ?
She's not just anyone, she's a very public individual. She's doing much more than just hating homosexuals and not acting upon it in any way. Give me a break. How many homosexuals need to commit suicide or be in a severe depression or be victim of hate crimes because of her so that you understand ?
negentropyeater
How would you deal with the situation? What would constitute a hate crime, would calling Iris Robinson a crazy christian be a hate crime? It's a matter of where you would draw the line.
She has not said that others must injure or hurt homosexuals.
Maybe not directly, but if you know anything about so-called "reparative therapy" you'd know that's exactly what she's calling for--harm against gay people.
Kseniya,
The DSM only refers to American psyhology. China finally delisted as mental illness about 2 or 3 years ago. I'm not sure of the psych associations and timing, etc. in Europe.
negentropyeater -
Don't try and play the victim card here. You don't have a monopoly on compassion for downtrodden gays any more than I have for downtrodden straights.
I'll ask you again - should it be a criminal offence (even if you do not act on it in ANY way) to hate homosexuals?
One thing I have not seen mentioned that is her claim to have "have a very lovely psychiatrist" working in her offices who "tries to help homosexuals - trying to turn away from what they are engaged in".
Assuming she is telling the truth about having a psychiatrist working in her offices and that he is involved in trying to "cure" homosexuals (and I think that is a big assumption, she could well be lying) then I think the relevant authority should investigate to ensure that his working in a professional and ethical manner.
MAJeff,
From what I can recall when I studied some psychology the system used in the UK is the "International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems " (ICD) which with regards mental illness is very similar to the US DSM. Homosexuality is not categorised as an illness in the ICD.
Matt
The Royal Society of Psychiatrist released a statement saying that someone could be cured of homosexuality was bull shit. The psychiatrist in question responded by saying that he "cured" homosexuals using Christianity and not Psychiatry, he then went on to ramble off some studies that "proved" that homosexuality could cured.
Does anyone think that maybe PZ may change the title of the post as Mrs. Robinson wouldn't really consider her self to be Irish. Just as a point of accuracy.
C McCormick,
Sounds to me like this psychiatrist needs to be investigated with a view to bringing charges of professional misconduct. At the very least he should be banned from working with people with issues regarding their sexuality. He does not get a free pass by saying he treats them as a Christian, not a psychiatrist.
With regards the title of the post, possibly it could be changed. Mind you many people in the UK do not properly understand the relationship between the constituent nations, and the difference between Britain, the UK and the British Isles. It seems a little unfair to expect Americans to know. Although I draw the line at "The Queen of England". That is simply not forgiveable!
I think I'll wait until lawyers from the Leprechaun League contact me to demand I change the title. You are aware the title is made in jest, right? I've never been there, but I really don't think Ireland (or NI) is inhabited by tiny little men dressed in green, with shamrocks in their hats, and shillelaghs that they use to defend their pot of gold.
More informed residents of the isle should tell me if that is the case.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have been engaged on behalf of the Leprechaun League of All-Ireland and wish to complain ......
Don't worry about changing the title PZ. We Europeans are used to you Canadians getting the countries overe here mixed up (well at least thats what my fellow Swiss, here in Stockholm, tell me).
PZ,
I think there are some concerned, not at the Leprechaun gag, but the fact the official is not Irish.
From a distance all nationalities seem the same, yet to those up close the chasm is wide.
Although as a Canadian, you weren't expected to know that! :)
"Fey"? Does this guy look "fey" to you?
yeah, me too, a little.
Well, how about this...never mind.
Yup...fey.
No comment (but not exactly "fey")
Uh...yikes!
WTF?
Ah, here we go: Not fey.
The doctor in question is Dr.Paul Miller, since he's not offering any clinical help and he isn't doing it in a hospital or private practice I dont think he can be charged with misconduct, he works in a NHS hospital about 30 minutes away from where I live and he works with Alzheimer's patients. His theory of changing sexual orientation is based on the work by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse. Mark Yarhouse of course is a prof. at Regent University who's chancellor is... Pat Robertson and we all know what Pat thinks of gay people.
I agree I should have been more clear on the national distinctions, and that I was unaware of the official's nationality. Point taken.
I'm still confused about the concern about the title, though. Is there a nation of leprechauns whose honor is at stake? Or is it that leprechauns are excluded from Northern Ireland (I imagine some bastard Brit soldiers gunning them down as they try to cross the border), making the joke entirely inappropriate and offensive to an oppressed population of Wee Folk?
"I imagine some bastard Brit soldiers gunning them down as they try to cross the border"
No they would be the ones making sure some bastard didn't blow them up as they went to the store. ;)
I thought you all would be aware of the Leprechaun Act 0f 1925. Leprechauns are not allowed within 15 miles of the border between the north and south. They are however allowed to cross the border however if they are escorted by a pink fairy and a white unicorn with a green mane.
I would like to apologize on behalf of the United States for the appaling ignorance of UK and Irish history and affairs show in some of the comments here. Given the immense amount of press coverage the NI troubles received in the US, and the even huger press coverage of the Good Friday accords, this ignorance is very surprising to me.
Of course the differences in bigotry between Northern Ireland and the Republic are pretty great.
In Northern Ireland the majority of the population is Protestant, and there is a significant degree of homophobia, misogynism and intolerance others who are different.
In the republic the majority are Catholic, a nd there is a significant degree of homophobia, misogynism and intolerance others who are different.
I can see how easy it would be confuse the two.
The title does imply that the subject is Irish. While she probably considers herself British rather than Irish first and foremost, she is from northern Ireland (in very recent modern times known politically as Northern Ireland).
There is not robust evidence that the leprechauns all moved south of the border when the island of Ireland was partitioned. Unless proof to the contrary is offered, there is just as likely to be a sizable population of the wee folk north of the border.
And it's not like the citizens of the Republic of Ireland are immune from religious bigotry.
Re #121,
I wouldn't think the leprechaun bit bothers anyone, but identifying Robinson as "Irish" in a somewhat insensitive faux pas: she almost certainly would not self-identify that way, and the Irish, including myself, are happy to respect her choice. The "Irish official in charge of the country's health care" strongly suggests Mary Harney (Minister for Health of the Republic of Ireland). Whatever else I might say about Harney, I wouldn't suggest that she's a homophobic bigot.
Of course to add the the confusion over the UK and the Republic of Ireland, there is the issue of sporting teams.
When it comes to football, England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic all compete as separate teams.
When it comes to rugby union, England, Wales and Scotland all compete as separate teams, but both Northern Ireland and the Republic compete as Ireland. When it comes to rugby league Englans, Wales and Scotland compete as Great Britain, and as far as I know the game is not played in any part of Ireland.
When it comes to cricket the English team represents the UK, but players from the Republic would also qualify to play for England. However Wales, Scotland and the Republic also have their own teams.
A good number of the world's governing bodies for sports are confused by it all as well. FIFA, who are in charge of football hate the fact that one country gets to have four teams, and the fact that those four nations plus the Republic (who's best footballers nearly all play in England or Scotland) all tend to vote the same way.
In all serious some thing really has to be done about NI when you have the majority party in the Northern Ireland Parliament with 50% of its members are Free Presbyterian even though this denomination makes up only 1% of the NI population.
Richard FCD said...
"And it's not like the citizens of the Republic of Ireland are immune from religious bigotry."
Could you give us some examples please, I'm honestly interested to hear about this. I grew up in the republic with both catholic protestant and even jewish friends and never experienced any bigotry. Stupid supernatural beliefs and deference to the catholic churche's wishes by the politicians, yes, but not bigotry in the Northern Irish sense (or more specifically in the evangelical christian sense)and certainly no more than you see in any other european country.
Obviously I seem to have missed some important points that you can hopefully elaborate upon.
Matt Penfold -
You have talked sense in all your posts, but since 1992 the England Cricket team no longer represents Scotland.
As it should be! :)
@#127
"I imagine some bastard Brit soldiers gunning them down as they try to cross the border"
Now you're getting offensive.
Out of 3591 deaths tied to the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland between 1969 and 1998, 318 people were killed by the British Army. Of those 168 were classified as civilian (data from INCORE http://www.incore.ulst.ac.uk/). That's 168 civilians too many, but less than 5% of the total.
To characterize the violence in Northern Ireland as being primarily perpetrated by the British Army is wrong, and offensive to this Irishman who grew up in the Republic of Ireland and lived there during the period of the worst violence.
Sigmund,
One only needs to look at the Republic's laws on abortion to know that Catholic bigotry is still pretty strong there. Although to be fair the law changed and it is now legal to provide women with details on abortion services in the UK. Prior to a couple of years ago it was illegal to even advise a women of her options.
Sigmund
What about the fact that the Irish Constitution gave the Catholic Church position within the state.
Sigmund,
No religious bigotry? The Irish Republic actually has a special place for the Catholic Church in the constitution.
All social issues are resolved democratically of course, but as someone who lived through these debates witnessed first hand, they were fought "with a ballot box in one hand and a Carmalite in the other".
Note: to those who are not students of Irish history, this is a play on the Irish Republican strategy of pursuing their goals "with a ballot box in one hand, and an Armalite in the other. The Armalite being a popular rifle used by the Irish terrorists.
There was a case, of an underage girl in the Republic of Ireland who was prevented from traveling to Britain to have an abortion because she was in the custody of the Department of Health. Think it went to court and the girl was allowed to travel.
If anyone is still interested, the converstation can be found - for the time being at least - here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/nolan/phonecallarchive/
A couple of things to note:
It is true that it is the host of the programme that explains what "abomination" means, and it was not Mrs Robinson that said it. However; as can be heard in the audio file, Mrs Robinson absolutely agrees with the definition. "As a christian", of course.
You may need a barf bag to listen. Unfortunately, my RealPlayer - and internet connection - is playing up at the moment, so I haven't been able to hear much beyond that point.
Sigmund,
According to the BBC presenter Graham Norton, it was harder to be a Protestant in Ireland than gay.
In my own experience visiting Dublin twice, with my Glaswegian accent, I have been asked on numerous occasions "what religion are you"?
Those in the know will guess why.
MAJeff: Re: The local nature of the DSM. Yup I know, but I assumed that the UK equivalent and the DSM were in a reasonable degree of sync. I thought it was a pretty safe assumption, but I admit that I didn't know for sure. (Yes, I realize this lack of rigor makes me both a liar and moron, but anyway.)
If, however, the assumption wasn't safe, then we could accuse the the entire UK of "living in the past." Heh.
I'm rather pleased with (proud of?) the APA's decision to drop homosexuality from the DSM so long ago. It was done for the correct reaons, and was ahead of the curve, socially. (I think.)
I guess we have different definitions of the term bigotry. In my mind its associated with prejudice - looking down on or harshly treating someone on the basis of their ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. That sort of thing was pretty rare when I was growing up. I lived half my life in England and found the bigotry there, both religious and race based, to be far worse than anything I experienced in the republic of Ireland. As for the catholic church and their role in the republic, yes its pretty awful, particularly regarding the issue of womens rights but things are slowly progressing there. Anyone that knows me will realize that I'm about the last person to stick up for the catholic church in Ireland, I actually detest them, but I do draw a distinction between the church advocating their own rules (which, lets face it, they should be allowed to do in a democracy), which they most certainly did and still try to do, and the condemnation of other groups as inferior - which has not been my experience in Ireland.
Jack, #115
The fact that you keep defending her and repeating that "she doesn't act on her hate in ANY way", is quite telling, I wonder if you haven't yourself... ;
What is so difficult for you to understand that she's not just hating homosexuals "and not acting upon it in ANY way", she's making very hateful comments, as the commissioner of health, on public radio, that are being heard by many people, and can be very damaging to the health of gays, and she's stiring up hate against gays and she should be punished for it.
Replace the word homosexuals with Jews, and let's see if it sounds more ok to you if she would have said it :
Jews are "disgusting, loathsome, nauseating, wicked and vile". Now does that sound any better ?
I don't have to "try and play the victim", as if there won't be any victims of the hate spewed by this woman, oh it's all fantasy.
What she said WILL cause despair and hurt the lives of many gay people, whether you like it or not, and all of this because of her fucking prejudices against gay people. AND THAT IS A HATE CRIME. Exactly according to the definition of the law.
So, to answer your question, No, it's not a criminal offense to hate gays and not act upon it in any way. But that's not what she's been doing.
Sven, you forgot this guy.
I dont want to be defending this woman, but she has to some degree been misquoted. When she says that homosexuality is abomination she is referring to the act of homosexuality. She did say to "hate the sin, but not the sinner."
To take your example of being Jewish, I think some acts of the jewish religion are abomination, for example I believe infant circumcision is a "vile" act, is that hate speech I would not like to think so.
Reply to Matt Heath@27
"See, this is the kind of think which makes me wish there was a praty standing on a platform..."
I always thought it was spelled "pratie".
Bigotry of all sorts is the true abomination- hopefully the improved economic conditions and move toward greater integration of Europe will force the dead-enders out of positions of power and influence, and humanism can come to the fore.
Out of 3591 deaths tied to the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland between 1969 and 1998, 318 people were killed by the British Army
The waters are, however, somewhat muddied by the British Army's close involvement with Loyalist - pro-British - terrorism. For decades, for example, the Ulster Defence Regiment, a regiment of the British Army originally operating solely in NI, was perfectly happy to have members of the UDA, a Loyalist terrorist group, in its ranks. Army intelligence documents, most notably the infamous photo montages of 'suspects', were regularly supplied to Loyalist terrorist groups. Things become murkier still when one starts to look into the role of British intelligence in the Troubles; more than once, they seem to have acted to scupper potential ceasefires by active terrorist organisations for reasons to do with mainland party politics.
And to be picky, the dating of the start of the Troubles to 1969 is debatable, since the current incarnation of the Loyalist UVF were murdering people as early as 1966.
negentropyeater
You said:
"The fact that you keep defending her and repeating that "she doesn't act on her hate in ANY way", is quite telling"
You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to manipulate what I said.
Firstly, it is a lie to say I defended HER, implying that I agree with her. I have on record saying her point of view was "disgusting".
She called homosexuality an "abomination" and as idiotic as this is I do not think a civilised and free society should make criminals of those who have "bad thoughts" about gays, straights, English, Scots, Irish, Muslims, Christians or Jews.
However, I defend everyone's right to offend and say what they like as long as they do not hurt or ask to hurt others. This is freedom of speech. If I called you a "gay kook" is this hate speech?
Secondly, regarding the law - you show me the specific law she is breaking?
I must applaud at least one person on here who caught what upset me about this article the most. #49. Some others of you did too but I think this was the first.
Even imagine for one second that there actually IS something wrong with being gay *just imagine im not saying there is!*
This.... persons..... comments were put into the media after an attack by a gay on a homosexual man. After such an awful incident her comments were directed towards the private sex life of the individual. For a politician CLEARLY her priorities are WAY out of whack. As a christian she probably saw the actions of the gang as a modern day stoning of the sinner and probably even privately applauds the act.
This is NOT the kind of politician a society needs and thats even BEFORE you consider her awful bigoted position on homosexuals. I think the most telling line in this article was "I have a very lovely psychiatrist who works with me in my offices". Yes Iris, we can see why you would be attending a psychiatrist and long may it continue!
I have sent a strongly, calmly, politely worded letter expressing my outrage via mail and email to her partys Head Quaters. I would advise, emplore and beseech everyone here to do the same. Its one thing to talk about it here, its another to let these people know that one of their members has appalled not just the north of ireland but people all over the world.
What really isnt important is PZs slight bending of the borders so he could get in a rather funny jibe about leprauchans. Dont jump on every joke as if its a complete misunderstanding of the issues, it just damages what the real issue is here!
negentropyeater:
Which is a point raised by the gay-rights campaigner that also appeared on the radio. Where gays are stigmatised and loathed by societies, they commit self-harm, and suicide. Where any group is stigmatised and loathed by the society they live in - even the families they live in - they will be more likely to commit self-harm and suicide. Hate talk does not exist in a vacuum, and is not a victimless crime.
C McCormick:
As with all analogies, this one is flawed. It is based on the false assumption that all Jewish people are orthodox jews. Anti-semitism has nothing whatsoever to do with Judaism, and everything to do with the simple fact that the people the anti-semites hate are of Jewish decent. It has nothing whatsoever to do with child circumcision, and nothing whatsoever to do with - for example - kosher meat.
The "hate the sin, love the sinner" line peddled by the church is simply a smoke-screen. Certainly whenever I heard that view from my friendly neighbourhood anglican priest, it was always accompanied by a diatribe about how they should be "cured" and made heterosexual. Just like this woman. The problem is that homosexuality is not a disease to be treated, any more than jewish parentage is a disease to be punished. Sorry, "hate the sin, love the sinner", is one of the most despicable phrases used by christianity in their defence of their bigotry.
IrishMauddib
I think your email may fall on deaf ears. The sort of comments that Iris Robinson has made, I suspect would get her more votes as her comments may actually get catholics to vote for her. Her party was founded by a Fundamentalist preacher who's church demonstrates the gay parade in Belfast every year, the Rev Iain Paisley has on numerous occasions described homosexuality as a sin/abomination.
PZ: "I've never been there, but I really don't think Ireland (or NI) is inhabited by tiny little men dressed in green, with shamrocks in their hats, and shillelaghs that they use to defend their pot of gold."
You're such a skeptic. Just beliiiieeeeeeeve...
Jack,
you still defend her. you don't agree with her, but you defend her : "she did not commit a hate crime, because she's just hating, nothing else". That's basically what you are saying, she believes what she says, so how could she be punished, she's not hurting anybody is she ? Is she ?
PZ: "Weird. It's a common attitude among clueless twits, but how can anyone acquire even a modicum of education and still cling to such hateful ideas?"
Julian: "Education cannot change a person's formative development or the basic assumptions of their society."
Well guys, I know it is hard to believe, but sometimes there is a distinction between 'book learning' and what you gain through experience. People tend to fear the unknown, and some of us 'clueless twits' simply take a long time to understand how little we know. In my case, it was well past grad school. I came from Wisconsin, where the signs read "SLOW CHILDREN" - and they mean it.
While I am ashamed of some of the beliefs that I have held since childhood, I am proud to know that eventually we can all learn. As someone who was raised in a misogynistic, racist, god-fearing, homophobic household, I am here to tell you that without the free exchange of ideas I would never have changed.
Thank you both for keeping these discussions civil and respectful, but also blunt and factual. There is a lot that simply needs to be said in this country.
Armchair Dissident
Perhaps your understanding of the analogy is flawed. My point is that you can dislike what a group of people practice but because you say it is distasteful does not make it hate speech.
IrishMauddib at #153:
As a christian she probably saw the actions of the gang as a modern day stoning of the sinner and probably even privately applauds the act.
When the crowd were about to stone an adulterous woman, Jesus said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
Sad, really, that some professed Christian fundamentalists, who (in theory) derive their doctrine from sola scriptura (the Bible alone), seem to be so unfamiliar with the actual teachings of Jesus. I don't think Jesus would have encouraged his followers to attack homosexuals.
@#151
Joe,
I wouldn't disagree with your points. The British committed many, many disgraceful acts over the period.
My point to PZ though was that characterizing the violence in Northern Ireland as "bastard Brits shooting innocents" isn't a helpful or fair one, even if made entirely in jest.
False. The clause in question was removed in 1972 by the 5th Amendment.
That's the 2nd time that's been suggested as "evidence" for bigotry in the Republic. Even if it were true, it's a blatant non sequitur: Sweden didn't officially disestablish the Church of Sweden until 2000, but one could hardly infer that it makes Sweden a bastion of Lutheran bigotry; I see nobody suggesting that the UK, which still has an established Church, is a land of Anglican bigots.
C McCormick @#142,
Actually, there have been a couple of such cases. The "X Case" is the most famous, but you're probably referring to the case of "Miss D", where some nut in the health authority tried to prevent a 17 y/o in their care, pregnant with an anencephalic foetus, from traveling to England for an abortion. Cruel asshole whoever he was. She won in the High Court.
Miss D was the case I was referring to.
The "hate the sin, love the sinner" line peddled by the church is simply a smoke-screen.
Cha-ching. In practice, it's a distinction without a difference. In either case, it translates into, "Make life worse for gay people."
I don't think Jesus would have encouraged his followers to attack homosexuals.
So, what? It's not as though they even had an idea of what gay people were in those days (completely different organization of sexuality, and completely different--and usually fucked up--ways of comprehending reproduction and sexuality). Why should what people of that era thought, about sexuality--particularly knowing how wrong so many of their ideas were--matter in the least?
@ Jack Donnelly
All four are members of the United Kingdom and so you cannot be a colony of yourself. Just as Texas is not the same as California and Texans are not Californians but neither is a colony of the rest. They are all Americans.
If the original thirteen were still attached to Mother England then yes, they're colonies (just where do you think Paisley's tribe materialised out of into land that wasn't theirs pre-1600's?). And NI has never been a 'nation', but described in the near-century of its existence as a '
province.
@InnerBrat
We have those on the mainland as well.
Which 'mainland' is that then? Europe? Map-reading (to say nothing of history) doesn't seem to be a subject which has received the attention it should in the British school system.
@Nick Gotts
Most Catholics want to join Ireland
I rest my case.
Do you think Iris Robinsons comments will get Ireland taken off the Westbro Baptist Church's "God Hates..." list?
http://www.godhatesireland.com/
@Jack Donnelly
No they would be the ones making sure some bastard didn't blow them up as they went to the store. ;)
Yes, because God knows that British were just neutral, there to keep the peace, move along, nothing to see etc.
While we're reciting atrocities to back up our favourite bigoties, let's not forget Bloody Sunday (either one!), the Dublin & Monaghan bombings, Shoot-to-kill etc. Just in the interests of, y'know, balance
So, Iris Robinson joins Larry Craig in the "They're Naughty,Naught Boys" line. I'm sure Iris watches lesbians holding hands and wistfully wishes she could spank them for being naughty, naughty girls. And any Monty Python fan can tell you what happens after the spankings.
EWI
MOST Catholics want to join Ireland. That is true - so what?
As for "Paisley's Tribe", what do you mean by that? Do I detect some less than rational racial profiling? Are you against the movement of peoples?
Are you suggesting people who have been born into a land are not of that land?
negentropyeater - that is exactly what I am saying.
Jack Donnelly the SNP here in Scotland will point you towards polls showing a majority of Scots in favour of Scottish independence. Of course there are other polls that show something different and of course it all depends on how you ask the question. But I wouldn't be too sure of your statement with nationalist administrations in power in both Cardiff and Edinburgh.
I suspect the the skin of this onion is best understood like this: you ask the question one way and I will answer, yes I am in favour of indepedence. But ask another way and I will say I am not in favour. The answer to this condundrum is the difference between being in favour in principle and not being persuaded by the current crop of populist chancers offering to lead us that way. Offer us a credible proposition though, or elect a Tory govt WE didn't vote for and just watch those poll numbers...
No, I think it was pretty much spot-on.
Then your analogy is still flawed. Not all Jewish people engage in infant circumcision. Not all homosexuals engage in homosexual sex.
But it is flawed further still. A Jewish person is not biologically pre-disposed to circumcise children. A homosexual person is biologically pre-disposed to be attracted to people of the same sex. In exactly the same way that a heterosexual person is turned on by a member of the opposite sex, so too is the homosexual person to a member of the same sex.
Furthermore, the act of Jewish circumcision of children is not consensual: the child is far too young to agree to the act of circumcision, and is not capable of understanding what is happening or why. Your analogy fails there too.
No one is arguing to permit non-consensual homosexual acts, only consensual acts between adults. Last year, as a consensual adult, knowing both the potential benefits and consequences, I had a circumcision for medical reasons. (No, I'm not telling why!). Was that act disgusting? It's not the circumcision in Jewish religious culture that's abhorred, it's the fact that it's a medical procedure being performed on people unable to consent to it.
Armchair Dissident
If you dig deep enough you can find flaws in everything. I thought by mentioning "infant circumcision" and "Jews" that you would be intelligent enough to understand that I was referring to those Jews that do practice infant circumcision purely to please their imaginary friend in the sky. Obviously if you are being circumcised for medical reasons its a different story. In the same way a heterosexual man getting a prostate exam is no less a heterosexual man after. (Oh look another flawed analogy)
EWI@166 Yes, I should have said "join the Republic of Ireland", but in British discourse the Republic is, colloquially, "Ireland". If I say "I'm going to Ireland", I would be understood to mean the Republic; if I was going to Belfast I would say "to Northern Ireland"; if I wanted to refer to the geological entity I would say "the island of Ireland". You know, like if I said "I'm going to America" I would generally be understood to mean "to the USA", not to Canada, Brazil, etc. Similarly, in the context of British-Irish relations, "the mainland" refers to the island of Great Britain. The expression for the western end of the large landmass to the east of Britain is "the Continent"; as in the legendary newspaper headline: "Fog in the Channel - Continent cut off."
Jack,
but you don't answer my question ! Is she not hurting anybody, and is this not done based on prejudice ? Is her hate speech of no consequence ?
( from the link provided by Armchair Dissident, I listened to both segments of the Nolan show, "Iris Robinson defends her views on gays", "Iris Robinson on a 'treatment' for gays", she says a lot, and it's not benign !)
That's what matters in determining if she has committed a criminal offense or not.
You seem to be of the opinion that what she said, in her quality as health commissioner, on public radio, has no consequence, that it did not, or will not hurt anybody in a significant manner.
But why ?
negentropyeater -
There is a difference between offending and physically hurting. You are allowed to offend.
I think her calling gays an "abomination" is insulting and offensive but not CRIMINAL. Nor should it be. You should be allowed in a free society to call ANY individual or grouping an abomination.
It is ONLY because of that we are free, because there is always someone who hates what you do or are.
What if the majority decide anyone who believes in evolution is a blasphemer because it offends them? To some evolution is hatred of God, and for them there can be no greater hate speech. Should anything that offends anyone be stopped?
It is not criminal for anyone to say you hate anyone else. I don't understand how you cannot see that to stop idiots like Robinson saying what they like would only lead to anyone who offends the minority being made silent.
So what if saying being "proud to be gay" hurts the feelings of others? Should they stop you?
If their ancestors stole that land, then one could make that argument. We Americans tend to shy away from that argument because our entire country is stolen property. Still, the fact remains that Ireland was only ever "part of the UK" because a British army invaded and British settlers followed. I imagine most Irish would disagree with the notion that Ireland was ever part of the UK. Ruled by the UK, yes. Part of, no.
I haven't seen anything that leads me to think she has committed a crime but she is clearly not fit to be a public representative. Then again Northern Irish politics have never been about representing all of the people, merely the majority in any particular constituency (and to hell with the rest).
Anywhere Fred Phelps hates can't be all bad!
Nick Gotts @#174, Don't apologise too much: technically, the official name of the country (in English) is simply "Ireland" and the official description is "the Republic of Ireland", so you're not wrong to refer to it using either term.
People, go over to the second most excellent blog on the planet, Mr William Crawley's Will and Testament: http://bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni
Will hosts the "Sunday Sequence" radio show on BBC Radio Ulster, and plays with these issues. He regularly has kooks and nutters on the show, which is available as a weekly podcast.
Go and give the blog some pharyngula love!
Fred Phelps hates Ireland?
I thought he just runs a religiously inspired anti-smoking group.
NDT,
There was no UK before the union with Ireland so if your argument is correct you should say "ruled by Great Britain."
And Britain didn't even exist when the Protestant settlers went over so I don't know how the British Army could have invaded.
On your other point, I don't think it is rational to talk about people whose family have lived in the same place for hundreds of years as being anything else but home.
Unless you want to start Balkan style relocation making religion and myth more important than present reality.
Sigmund,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps
Jack,
If you want to be really inflammatory and piss people off, remind them that Henry II was declared Overlord of Ireland by the Pope (~1165 IIRC) before he invaded in 1172.
Jack@182,
There was no UK before the union with Ireland so if your argument is correct you should say "ruled by Great Britain."
And Britain didn't even exist when the Protestant settlers went over so I don't know how the British Army could have invaded.
I was going to make those points, but you can argue ndt is right, even though the invasion preceded the existence of the UK, and indeed of the Kingdom of Great Britain. After all, the army (or rather, armies) came from Britain, so they were British in that sense, and the UK would never have come into existence without them - though it probably would have without the planting of a settler population in the north, which was done to strengthen British and Protestant rule, but was not essential to it.
Emmet, I know who Fred Phelps is, in fact I really like his God hates Sweden site (OK, I admit that its mainly for the picture of Princess Madeline in the "Sweden is a land of sodomy, bestiality, and incest" page.)
Emmet Caulfield@183
Indeed - and it's also noteworthy that Henry probably didn't speak a word of English - indeed, he was one of the accursed spawn (well, great-grand-spawn) of William the Bastard, who robbed us of our Saxon liberties ;-).
Fixed by: ndt
Sigmund, I removed two words from your post and it's still a true statement.
Sigmund, Yep, I've also seen that site.
I was born in one European country he hates and live in the other, a double-whammy of Phelps "love" :)
Nick Gotts
You are right - but I find that views on Ireland are so simplistic. By defining old problems with institutions that didn't even exist at the time, you carry over hatreds to them.
Surely, no-one in Ireland and GB is responsible today for what stupid old dead men did then?
As if any modern western nation is anything like there namesakes even 100 years ago, never mind 400.
BTW, even before the Good Friday accords I never would have advocated forcible removal of Loyalists from NI. I even would have advocated that they be allowed to keep UK citizenship while remaining legal permanent residents of the Republic of Ireland in the event of reunification. As it happened, the peace process seems to be working out fairly well, so while I would still like to see a free united Ireland someday, if the people of Ireland are happy with the current situation then more power to them.
Unfortunately the peace process has had one downside. It has given power to local politicians. The majority of which were elected not because they had good ideas on policy but simply because of their religion. At least when Northern Ireland was under direct rule from Westminister the powers that be had some clue how to govern.
Jack Donnelly@189 Surely, no-one in Ireland and GB is responsible today for what stupid old dead men did then?
No, and I agree with you about the complexities, but I think we all (human beings) have responsibility to be aware of the past crimes of our co-nationals, and of the extent to which we still benefit from them at the expense of those the crimes were committed against, or their descendants. In the case of Ireland, unlike India, Africa etc., the latter responsibility has largely been superceded for the British, since Ireland now has greater GDP per capita than the UK - but there will still be a significant number of Irish people who suffered in the independence struggle, let alone those northern Irish republicans and Irish residents of Britain who suffered injustice at British hands during the recent troubles.
Jack,
did I use the verb "to offend". Read my posts.
I've repeated many times she is significantly hurting people, if you want it clearer, her hate speech, not just the abomination part, the whole speech, will cause mental and physical harm to the gay community.
You're replying to me with "one is allowed to offend".
She's basically saying ;
"I, in my capacity of health commissioner, I think gays are an abomination, are disgusting, etc..., and I recommend that they undergo psychiatric treatment to cure their disease."
So, this of course will not be listened to by many parents, who will send their child for psychiatric treatment, and cause irreparable mental harm ?
This will not be listened to by some idiots who will at night find some poor gay kid and beat him to death because they were quite convinced by this woman that gay is really a disgusting, vile, horrible thing ?
This is not just "offensive", this is hate speech, and especially damning in her capacity as health commissioner on a major programme on public radio.
This is why it is a criminal offense.
Robinson has made lots of interesting speeches in parliament too:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?pid=11194&pop=1
negentropyeater
As i've said before she's not saying that gay people are abomination she is saying that the act of homosexuality was an abomination in biblical context.
C McCormick,
what do you mean in a biblical context, did you listen to the interview ?
Here's an extract...
Nolan : You're telling young gay people that what they do makes you feel nauseous...
Robinson : Yes !
Nolan : Physical discust...
Robinson : Yes !
etc...
SO, gays make her feel "in a biblical context", nauseous, physical discust, etc...
What are you talking about ?
C McCormick:
"negentropyeater
As i've said before she's not saying that gay people are abomination she is saying that the act of homosexuality was an abomination in biblical context."
I have to tell you, you are completely wrong here... You are almost certainly correct that this will be her defence to the hate speech charges, but this is not what "she is saying" in any important respect.
It is even entirely possible that this is what she *meant* to say. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt where possible, and I'd like to think she isn't attempting to validate the bigotry of the people who committed the gay-bashing by making statements like these in connection to it.
But what "she is saying" in the most important respect is the effect her words will have. And the effect her words will have is that those with bigotry, with the inclination to commit crimes like the one she was discussing, will feel validated by a moral authority.
What she is saying is that it is okay to bash gays. Because she was asked about gay bashing, and she did not respond by saying that the bashing was vile, but rather by saying that the gays were vile.
If you, as a decent person, believe she has not said that, then this is "Dog Whistle Politics" - like when Pauline Hanson said some incredibly racist things, and our PM, John Howard, did not respond by condemning racism, but by reminding everyone that Ms Hanson had the right to free speech. To those of us who weren't racist bigots, this sounded reasonable - free speech is good. But to those who *are* racist bigots, he was saying that racism was going to be protected for as long as he was in power...
In this case, the politician, Ms Robinson, is making a not-quite-below-the-radar statement that people who bash gays are going to be protected from official condemnation (although not from the law - I'm glad she doesn't have the power to protect them from the law) while she is in charge.
Negentropyeater has quoted the law of the land, which states that hate speech does indeed cover what Ms Robinson said. (Post # 93, for those who haven't been following the conversation). It is true that this level of speech would not be criminal in the US, and I doubt it would be prosecutable even here in Australia, but in the UK, it would appear that negentropyeater is in the right - she has committed a crime - not just a moral one, which deserves condemnation, but a legal one, which has specified punishments.
[For the record, I'm in a bit of a quandary, here... I agree with negentropyeater that it is a crime, and that her speech has indeed caused definite harm. But I also agree with C McCormick that in a free society there shouldn't be such a thing as a law which persecutes speech when it is not an incitement to violence...
This speech has caused definite harm - and I believe it encouraged violence. But I don't think there would be any way of proving that it was her intent to encourage violence, and I do not know if the actuality of her encouraging violence by making such statements in her position of authority should be enough of itself to make it a crime...
It would certainly be good to have a society where the response to such a speech would be that she could never be elected again... but that's just a pipe dream...]
P.S. Sorry for the long post!
Nick,
The Council of Europe's European Convention on Human Rights, ratified by the UK, might have something to say about this. If English courts don't strike it down, the European Court of Human Rights could.
It has become obligatory to point out that the Council of Europe and its Court of Human Rights are independent of the European Union. Many people get that wrong.
Mc Cormick,
all along this thread, you misrepresented the facts,
starting with your post #67
#97
#107
#111
#149
until your post #195
People can be judge, the interview is easy to find :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/nolan/phonecallarchive/
"Iris Robinson on a 'treatment' for gays"
You completely missed the essential point, this was an interview, Nolan was asking her a question and she was replying with a nice big YES !
So she didn't just keep quiet when he was enumerating the words, she was saying YES at each one of them, and very emphatically.
So, she didn't say the words herself, but she agreed with them very very clearly.
Also, you forgot to mention that she did agree with the statement that homosexuality made her feel that way, nauseous, etc... and then referred to it as an abomination as the word of God.
Here's the critical passage (the rest of the interview isn't any better in my opinion, in terms of hate speech):
Nolan : So you're telling young gay people this morning that what they do as homosexuality MAKES YOU FEEL nauseous...
Robinson : Yes !
Nolan : Physical discust...
Robinson : Yes !
etc ...
Robinson : but Yes, this is what abomination means, it is a very strong word, and it is obviously something that the Lord feels very very strongly about in the scriptures which are the inspired words of God.
Negentropyeater,
Smells like Sally Kern to me, so basically if this was in the States -were screwed.
As a gay woman I can totally understand where you are coming from; this woman is speaking from a position of authority in a capacity that, given the political climate, any reasonable person could assume she speaks for the majority of her community. As such, her words are designed to lead people to the conclusions that A) Homosexuality (and those engaged in it) are vile and unwelcome in our community and B) those who engage in this behavior (Homosexuals) are mentally ill and of course everyone knows that can't be good.
Is that hate speech? Yes! Is it protected speech? Unfortunately -at least it would be here in the US.
The GLBT community here in the States takes this kind of crap everyday from the pulpit to the playground, but I agree, when it comes from the podiums of elected officials who are sworn to represent the needs and voices of their constituents, this kind of rhetoric insights the worst kind of betrayal. Outside, homosexuals, no one would dare speak of another minority so despairingly and with such reckless disregard for their safety or livelihood and survive the public outcry for silence and justice. And I don't believe for a second that people like this do not comprehend the direct and indirect consequences of their zealous words and empty "hate the sin, not the sinner" slogans.
As one of the knuckle-dragging trogs who inhabits this place, Noerthern Ireland, I would like to apologise to the rest iof humanity for Iris's comments, and for Iris generally.
She doesn't speak for me, even though I was dragged up as a protestant here.
She's a very naughty girl
amk@198 - Thanks, you're quite right. It's a relief not to be wholly dependent on the House of Lords!
negentropyeater
She called gay life "an abomination". You said this was a hate crime. Now, I think Christianity is "an abomination" and is based on a mass delusion that a good psychiatrist could possibly cure.
If you think one is a hate crime then so is my view on Christianity. They are the same.
See where your thinking leads. Do you think the above is a hate crime? Yes or no?
PS.
negentropyeater
So according to you I've been misrepresenting the facts, the one thing I have said through out the post is that she never said the words vile, disgusting etc, but used the words abomination, this is a fact. It was Stephen Nolan, the host who when describing what an abomination was, used the words vile, disgusting... I think her comments were insensitive and I condemn them but do I think she has the freedom to express her views, yes.
Jack,
It is not her belief alone ie
(homosexuality is an abomination and makes me feel nauseous, physical discust,... and homosexuals should undergo psychiatric treatment) that makes it a hate crime.
It is the potential danger that she creates by promoting her belief, as the commissionner of health, on public radio.
Now if you believe exactly the same things about Christians, or let's say, Jews, or Blacks, or Women, or whoever, ie :
(Christianity is an abomination and makes me feel nauseous, physical discust,... and Christians should undergo psychiatric treatment)
and now you just say it on this blog, how dangerous is it ?
If you do the same thing with a megaphone out in the street, how dangerous is it ?
If you do the same thing on national radio, and use your position as commissioner for health to make your belief even more prejudiceable, how dangerous is it ?
Do you understand ? A hate crime like this one needs to be evaluated with the following criterias :
- is it particularly hateful, motivated solely by prejudice, etc...
- what are the consequences of her act, potential dangers, damages, harm, that the said speech creates
McCormick,
Correct, and by repeating this, you left many commenters here (including myself until I listened to the interview) under the impression that she didn't mean any of these words. By reading your comments, I was under the impression, that she just said abomination, and Nolan described what it was. Which was not at all what happened.
Nolan : So you're telling young gay people this morning that what they do as homosexuality MAKES YOU FEEL nauseous...
Robinson : Yes !
Nolan : Physical discust...
Robinson : Yes !
etc ...
Robinson : but Yes, this is what abomination means, it is a very strong word, and it is obviously something that the Lord feels very very strongly about in the scriptures which are the inspired words of God.
negentropyeater
You cleverly avoided my question - afraid the answer shows your argument to be oppressive? I'll ask again.
If she said, "Christianity is an abomination and it is repulsive. I have a good psychiatrist that could cure Christians" would that too be a hate crime?
Regardless whether she loses her job, would her saying the above be a criminal offence? Yes or No?
Jack,
Of course it would be a hate crime. But how consequential would it be ? How would Christians react to it, would it put their lives in danger ? Would it have consequences ? Would some people hear what she said and go and beat up some Christians or would some parents force their Christian child to search psychiatric help ?
If Christians were a minority in the population, like if she was the minister of health of Indonesia, it would be much more dangerous than in the current situation, wouldn't it ?
What is SO difficult to understand ?
Jack,
so, imagine we are in 2050, there are only a minority of Christians left in Northern Ireland, and she, the health commissioner, who is an Atheist, goes on the radio, and says :
"Christianity is an abomination and it is repulsive. I have a good psychiatrist that could cure Christians"
That would be a fucking big hate crime, wouldn't it ?
Now here, we are in 2008, there are only a minority of homosexuals in Northern Ireland, and she, the health commissioner, who is a "born again Christian", goes on the radio, and says :
"Homosexuality is an abomination and it is repulsive. I have a good psychiatrist that could cure homosexuals"
Well, the two hate crimes are roughly equivallent.
Another example, maybe more telling ?
We are in 1930, in Germany, there are only a minority of Jews in the population in Germany, and she, the health minister, who is a Christian, goes on the radio, and says :
"Jewishness is an abomination and it is repulsive. I have a good psychiatrist that could cure Jews"
How many more examples do you need to understand, how we, homosexuals, feel about this ?
You want another example ?
We are in 2013, Mike Huckabee has been elected president of the USA, his health secretary, a born-again Christian goes on TV, and says :
"Atheism is an abomination and it is repulsive. I have a good psychiatrist that could cure Atheists"
Most Americans believe that freedom of expression should have no limit whatsover, like they believe in God. They have never thought about the issue for more than a second, and keep parroting "I believe people should be free to express their views", without ever having thought about the consequences of what they are saying.
Even worse, they seem all sooo convinced that punishing politicians who indulge in hate speech, which obviously means putting a very specific limit to freedom of expression, degenerates into facism, when it is exactly the contrary.
When are you people going to start trying to think critically about these matters and stop parroting the same old tired easy ready made sentences ?
McCormick,
What do you think I, as a homosexual, care if you just "condemn" her hateful comments, if on another hand you think she shouldn't be punished for indulging in such evidently hateful speech, because "she should have the freedom to express her views" ?
Do you think in the 30s Jews cared very much about those who just "condemned" Nazi politicians for their hateful comments, but thought they should have "the freedom to express their hateful and incredibly dangerous views" and let them doing so ?
MissAgentGirl,
at least, she gets it :
In most countries in the European Union, hate speech is a criminal offense, especially when it is a politician indulging into it in front of a very large audience.
If Americans can't understand how, in the current context of a severe economic depression, the extreme tensions between the different minorities and majorities, homosexuals, anti-homosexuals, pro-choice, pro-life, super-rich, very poor, blacks, racists, non believers, Christian fundamentalists,... can very easily, with the addition of hate speech by some crazy politicians and opinion leaders, rapidly degenerate, I just can't help it...
negentropyeater
Well my friend, I see you cannot be swayed from your attack on freedom of speech.
Remember, freedom of speech sometimes leaves us with extremists who say things the majority don't like.
According to your Conservatism anything said negatively about any minority is hate speech. Notice that you allow the exact same speech against the majority. Hmmm.
In any case this is a moot discussion. Iris Robinson's comments were not a hate crime. How can this be proved? Easily, she will not be charged.
There is still such a thing as a free society. Thank Goodness.
Punishing hatespeech still allows extremists to say things the majority don't like.
If you don't understand the difference between "hatespeech" and "saying things the majority don't like", get a brain.
Same remark about "saying things negatively" and "hatespeech".
I don't know which society you live in, but in most countries in the European Union, Hatespeech is a criminal offense. If you do not understand why, and what hatespeech covers, read about it, study it, and then scome back and discuss it.
Meanwhile, keep this kind of platitudes for yourself.
Suppose a band of roving thugs goes about beating up the mentally ill, then. Is Iris Robinson's response merely to call for the victims to get psychiatric counseling?
@Jack Donnelly
MOST Catholics want to join Ireland. That is true - so what?
All Irish Catholics are already 'in' Ireland. What they're (most) looking for is re-unification of the country into one state at some point.
As for "Paisley's Tribe", what do you mean by that? Do I detect some less than rational racial profiling? Are you against the movement of peoples?
Your "movement of peoples" involved ethnic cleansing by the English state.
Are you suggesting people who have been born into a land are not of that land?
Would you suggest that Afrikaaners (a pertinent example) are merely Africans?
There was no UK before the union with Ireland so if your argument is correct you should say "ruled by Great Britain."
And Britain didn't even exist when the Protestant settlers went over so I don't know how the British Army could have invaded.
Nevertheless, one may refer to the early Colonials as 'Americans' and be correct.
On your other point, I don't think it is rational to talk about people whose family have lived in the same place for hundreds of years as being anything else but home.
Se my comment of Afrikaaners above, to which I will add that the experience here in the Republic (as in other vacated British colonies) is that for all the talk of 'home', post-independence there has still been a marked migration back to Blighty from all of these locations.
Unless you want to start Balkan style relocation making religion and myth more important than present reality.
(What myths, pray?)
You are right - but I find that views on Ireland are so simplistic. By defining old problems with institutions that didn't even exist at the time, you carry over hatreds to them.
And yet institutions such as the British Crown, the Papacy and even the Act of Union are surprisingly still at the heart of our problems (the Americans here might mention a two-hundred year old document to boot)
Surely, no-one in Ireland and GB is responsible today for what stupid old dead men did then?
As if any modern western nation is anything like there namesakes even 100 years ago, never mind 400.
It's almost as if you were today to find the British Army fighting in Afghanistan, say.
All Irish Catholics are already 'in' Ireland. - EWI
That's funny - I could have sworn I'd met quite a few living and working in Britain. Must have been hallucinating I suppose.
@Emmet Caulfield
If you want to be really inflammatory and piss people off, remind them that Henry II was declared Overlord of Ireland by the Pope (~1165 IIRC) before he invaded in 1172.
Yes - by the only English Pope! (Nicholas Breakspear). And that's without getting into the compexity of there being after two competing Churches (the so-called "Celtic Church" and Rome) whose respective influences rose and fell along with the tide of war in the next few centuries.
That's funny - I could have sworn I'd met quite a few living and working in Britain. Must have been hallucinating I suppose.
That's so... droll.
@Nick Gotts
Similarly, in the context of British-Irish relations, "the mainland" refers to the island of Great Britain.
Really? I'm amazed that I don't hear the term used here in the Republic, then.
Indeed - and it's also noteworthy that Henry probably didn't speak a word of English - indeed, he was one of the accursed spawn (well, great-grand-spawn) of William the Bastard, who robbed us of our Saxon liberties ;-).
Exactly so. And just when do you Brits plan to get rid of those Germans (the "Windsors" of the House of Wettin)? ;)
Right, that's me out of this thread and onto catching up with some Battlestar...
Religion is a mental illness. I have a lovely lion who works with me and his atheist background is that it tries to help christians.
EWI@220 *Sigh* I was, quite explicitly, talking about British discourse @174. Is that a chip I see on your shoulder?
EWI,
Anyone, regardless of being Protestant or Catholic, who was born anywhere in Ireland, North, South, East or West is in their own land.
Only a bigot would disagree. Isn't that true EWI? :)